Paul B.

In Cincinnati we refer to that as: "Brute Force Cybernetics - where a need is created and then it's filled." In otherwords, if you take a detective on a murder case and he decides so and so is guilty then he proceeds to look for things that will make that person guilty, he will most likely succeed. Again, if you have a theory and look for things to fit into it, it's most likely that you will find things that will. All good detectives know that this theory is flawed.

So then you believe in smart design that evolves to God's specifications?

I don't think he likes me...... Phillip, this is not school (I can and shall definitely break your rules #1 and #2 - I may or may not break with "YOUR RULE #3")! Paul's "Science 101": rules are made to be broken! My edumacated S (scientific) WAG theory is that if you take life back far enough, you have only two choices: creation (with smart design) or evolution. Since I am not God nor am I a scientist working on proving evolution or creationism, I can not state my own scientific facts. I must use what I read in books, learn in school, hear on radio/television, etc. In my opinion, creation is more complicated than evolution. While evolutionists have scientific facts, it is not a continously flowing river, but it is still used as FULL/TOTAL evidence even with partial and incomplete data. When is partial data total proof? In this case, neither evolution nor creationism will be fully proven by science - at least not in my lifetime. Man and science tries to tell you we know everything and we will know even more. God tells man that we can't understand everything, there are too many things beyond our graps and scientists will be wrong many times (this prediction has proven to be true) - Evidence for creationism. Can I believe everything I read or hear? There have been many hoaxes in the name of creationism and science (it's a fact). Is there enough scientific proof for me that human beings evolved from a single cell? Not to my satisfaction. Can science explain to me how male and female forms evolved simultaneously without dying out/becoming extinct? Not to my satisfaction. - God explains He created man and made woman from man - so I continue to believe the creationism theory. When evolutionists continue to use outdated and inaccurate evidence such as the "Horse Series of Fossils": a collection of unrelated fossils which was put together to look like a series, (even though there is no relationship between them) and is still use in many schoolbooks it is hard to ignore it. (to quote Dr. Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, where this was displayed: "It is lamentable that this is still shown in textbooks by people who know of it's speculative nature." Should incorrect information or hoaxes be aloud to flourish in feeding the theory of evolution? I say NAY! I have to point out the inaccuracy regardless of who tries to make rules which state you can't argue "failings or gaps in evolutionary theory"... "Disproof is not proof" - Maybe, maybe NOT! However untruths still needs to be addressed. Too many missing ingredients or incorrect ingredients can and will change/ruin a recipe! Lets mention other hoaxes and incorrect assumptions by evolutionists: (Again, I WILL quote others) Neanderthal Man: Now accepted as a genuine human. Cro-Magnon Man: Now accepted as a genuine human. Piltdown Man: Was proven to be a deliberate hoax. Java Man: Has been proven to be a deliberate hoax. Nebraska Man: Proven to be an over-optimistic mistake. Peking Man: The bones have been lost. Zinjanthropus: Studies show this was only a primitive ape. Lucy: Strongly suspected of having been fully ape. The last discovery made in Africa and I believe it pre-dates Lucy I believe they first mis-dated it by xx million years and I don't recall exactly what I read about how it fits into evolution but according to science it's big break and continues to add to the evolution theory. Is it not curious? and how is it explained that a lot of the remains of these and other findings are located in different regions of the world. The last findings were in Africa. Where was Nebraska man found? and Peking Man? Do we think that along with evolution these pre-man/animal things also migrated thousands of miles. (most people don't like to walk to the corner, much less thousands of miles - OK i'll grant the Miami indians went from Ohio, to Florida over 1000 miles, but they already had fire, weapons and tools.) Even if it was one continent at one time, it would have been a long distance from Africa to Nebraska. Did they migrate from south to north (warm weather to cold weather)? Was the climate in reverse? Cold in the south and warm in the north? Did they have to migrate such a distance due to lack of food? Why are we not finding packs of these animals/people? Did they die rather than continue to evolve? If one died in one place, why did another evolve somewhere else and die somewhere else? Again if you consider migration and its dangers, where each finding occurred in time line, the lack of Nabraska and Peking Man and groups, it is much easier (for me) to believe in creation/smart design than evolution. Similarities in design such as bone structures of legs, bird's wings show common ancestry as claimed by evolutionists (you can read about the science behind this, I will not quote anyone on it, although I can). We creationists can also claim this as proof of a superior designer. Same evolution/scientific based assumptions should be closely examined when talking about "Vestigial Organs". Was it not argued at one time that over 100 organs which were once useful have no longer uses since we outgrew their need through evolution? Lets name at least two of these organs: the appendix and the tonsils. The theory with these two along with many others have now been scientifically reversed - we now know what their intended functions were/are. Less than 15% of the 100 plus organs once thought to have been only useful in the evolutionary process still remain on that unknown list. There is no longer a "Vestigial Organs" category, although they still show up an schoolbooks. Do these organs now tend to point more toward creationism/smart design? I think so! How many mistakes are aloud by science and still follow the path of the EVOLUTION THEORY? The mistakes continue on and on, yet they still insist there is no creator or smart design. The Bible provides very few details about original creation. However if you read (Isaah 9:7 and 60:22), it talks about the ever increasing Kingdom of God. Can that be considered proof of creation? The ever-continuous formation of planets and expansion of the universe implies that scientists and the word of God were talking about the "Big Bang Theory". Can the universe be created from nothing? Very unlikely! Can the whole universe have evolved from a single cell? Again, very unlikely. Back to my SWAG: if it didn't evolve, it must have been created. In my previous post, the subject of DNA consistently directs circumstantial evidence toward creationism. It's details and complexity point more toward creationism than to evolution. It is less leaps and bounds in theory to believe in creationism/smart design than it is evolution when talking of DNA (IN MY OPINION). Takes too much time to think on my own - rather use material by others!

Two excellent posts from Kevin and Scott! Here is something I ran accross I thought to be interesting: Evolution: A Disproven Hypothesis by: David S. MacMillan III I know that the title is just a little bit strong. But it should be! Macroevolution is being taught in our schools as fact, when it really has very little scientific basis. In Charles Darwin's day, the mainstream scientific belief regarding the origin of life was a caricature of Genesis: God supposedly created all wildlife just as we see it today. Of course, nowhere in the Bible is such an idea stated. God created many distinct kinds, and these kinds reproduced and exhibited natural variation. For example, we got all the dogs we see today from one distinct dog-kind similar to a wolf. But dogs always bred dogs. When Darwin signed on to The Beagle as the ship's naturalist, he sailed to the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific. In this island setting, the wildlife was very specialized and very open to observation. Darwin's grandfather had already publicized the idea that the Genesis account was totally false, and that all life on this planet was descended from the same primitive creature (universal common descent). This young naturalist noted that there were many different kinds of birds on a particular island. One type of bird he was especially interested in were the finches. It is interesting to note that he didn't learn that these birds were finches until after he arrived back in civilization. These finches were many and variegated. Some had big beaks, some had small beaks, some had medium beaks, some had long beaks, and some had short beaks . . . you get the point. Darwin theorized that all these finches came from the same basic kind of finch, but natural variation during reproduction changed them slightly. The offspring that had the best chance to live then were given a better chance of passing on their genes; these genes were thereby 'selected'. He called this process "Natural Selection". Natural Selection is a perfectly viable process. Through this mechanism, we get dark skin and light skin, poodles and pyrenees, etc. all through natural genetic variation from a few distinct kinds thousands of years ago. However, Darwin began to extrapolate on the data. Extrapolation, or extending of data, is fine if you have a lot of information and just a little that you don't know. But all Darwin knew was that over time, finches' beaks became more specialized. Perhaps, he decided, this same kind of change happens over millions of years, turning bugs into men. When Darwin returned to civilization, he wrote The Origin of Species. This book detailed his new hypothesis; all the animals we see today descended from a common ancestor through extra-extended natural selection. He also wrote The Descent of Man, where he explained his theories on how man evolved from monkeys. However, the budding idea of evolution would soon be dealt a stunning blow. At the time, simple cells were thought to be just that: simple. Research soon indicated that all life was dependent upon DNA, the four-letter amino acid language that dictated everything about an organism. Research showed something else also. The variation Darwin saw in the finches was only the highlighting of certain parts of the genetic DNA code. This was microevolution within a species, but Darwin's hypothesis required macroevolution: drastic changes to the DNA code itself rather than the masking of unnecessary parts. Until now, atheists had a handy way of denying God: "It all happened through evolution!" But now, evolution was heading downhill. Clinging to their ideology like religionists, the atheistic crowd tried to find some way to make the evidence fit their ideas. Mutations! That's right, mutations! Scientists knew that random mistakes occasionally changed the DNA in the genome. They called these mistakes mutations. Perhaps, the atheists theorized, lucky mutations were the cause of genetic change and macroevolution! Any bad mutations would be filtered out by natural selection, and the lucky mutations they needed would be passed on to the next generation to be built upon by more mutations. Of course, all this is speculation. We haven't ever seen a mutation that not only made its owner more likely to survive but also added to the genome and would eventually lead to a more advanced species. This is the current theory held by the majority of scientists worldwide. But could mutations ever do the trick? The Descent of Man. Our DNA is a little less than 98% the same as the DNA of chimpanzees. Of course, this doesn't mean we are closely related to chimps or anything. We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but we aren't banana from the waist up or from the waist down. That 2% of DNA holds an enormous amount of information that dictates many different characteristics. Most of these characteristics are critical to the life of the organism; for example our blood pressure is different from chimpanzees so all the pressure-sensitive cells must be changed to cope with the different conditions. DNA is composed of four amino acid letters: A, C, G, and T. These letters are combined in pairs to create the language; the base pairs AT, CG, GC, and TA. For only 100 DNA base pairs, there are 10 to the 60th possible combinations: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations!!! This is only 100 base pairs. The smallest pieces of DNA that can define a physical function are genes, the smallest of which composed of 1,000 base pairs. The number of combinations for such a thing would be unimaginable! But let's consider 100 base pairs. Any imperfect combination would either kill the mutating organism or would be automatically filtered out by the individual cell's copying mechanism. So, in order to define 1/10th of a gene, we have 1 in 10 to the 60th chances. Mathematics experts tell us that the threshold of impossibility is 1 in 10 to the 50th, meaning that 10 to the 60th is 10,000,000,000 times more than impossible! Evolutionists, of course, always have a way to defend their ideology. They propose that nature can cope with these overwhelming odds because it has extremely large periods of time. But even if we have 10 to the 60th chances, it isn't as if this guarantees victory. Each chance the mutating organism has is just 1 in 10 to the 60th! This puts evolution right back where it started. Science tells us that these odds are astronomically greater than what the human mind is able to grasp. Scientific ideas progress from speculation to hypothesis to theory and finally to fact. In order to be called a theory, the idea must have substantial, tangible evidence that backs it up; in the case of evolution intermediate forms would be required. Darwinian Evolution is nothing but a disproven hypothesis.

I agree that they ask a lot of questions and it's stated as scientific, but a lot of times they don't ask the appropriate question to obtain accurate results. In this instance, how you pose the question can make a difference. (I went thru this often as a design and project manager during my engineering career. The customer would ask a question from one of the designers or engineers and they would get one answer, since I was more aware of the background information on the subject, I went back and ask the same question but with more detail or more specifics and we would get different results.) In this case for example: If they ask me if I believe in God and Evolution they would get one answer. If they asked me if I believe in God and Evolution of man from a single cell to human form they would get a totally different result. If they asked me if I believed in God and Evolution of man from ape to human they may possible get a third result. (yes, no, maybe, not sure, etc.) My other and main point was that this is a world subject not a subject specific to any town or country. Assuming the poll was accurate, if you did one in China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil or South Africa, the results would be different from the US and different from each other. For example, in communist countries there are a lot more people who were / are atheists due to the fact that the government did not allow churches to exist or to flourish and at the same time heavily pushed (starting with the youngest in 1st garde or earlier) the theory of Evolution. I grew up in a communist country and I've seen it with my own eyes. In some countries if you spoke of religion the following day you may have dissappeared to be seen 5-10 years later or never. In dictator's eyes, religion is a threat, God is seen as a threat, therefore creationism is a threat. There are many groups of people out there with different beliefs (atheist, agnostics, deists/free thinkers, infidels and unbelievers, etc.) that if not asked the question a specific way, may provide an answer they would not have given if the question was phrased differently.

As a side note: The Gollop Poll does not represent a world survey; the US does not represent the way the entire world thinks. Majority of Gallop polls quiry much less than 10% of the population and project the rest. In reality the percentage is normally very low (at times much less than 1% of the population) for the US. The polls are hardly considered scientific based on how the questions are asked, and the fact that they can be rather squewed in any direction (intended or not).

Phillip, Why must you take things so personnally when nothing was directed at you personally. In this post I have made no judgement of individuals other than I agree or don't agree with their beliefs in context of discussion. SORRY I OFFENDED YOU! "...painting us to be immoral, Godless heathens." You've put words into my mouth - I neither stated nor meant such things of people I don't know. If you have feelings of guilt, please don't blame them on me. In fact, I believe you can believe in God and still be immoral and a heathen of sorts. You can also believe in the "sun god" or "scientology" - neither offends me. The Gallop Poll - in context, has more meaning than out of context, but your point is taken - My statement should have been better qualified (other than MOST - poorly chosen). Why do you think so many people believe in creationism and evolution at the same time? Is it maybe because in the name if science it was decided to teach (in public schools) kids evolution of man before they have had gathered ALL scientific evidence. How many of those (do you think) that were surveyed and said they believe in God actually go to church or have read the bible from cover to cover? How many do you think understand how large the gaps are in proving human evolution from a single cell to human form. How many, do you think, have thought about and understand the dilemma between evolution and creationism? (You don't have to answer all questions - as most are rhetorical and food for thought.) My point in regards to scientific thinking was again taken out of context - I believe in science and just because science makes mistakes I don't discredit all science. However, in the case of evolutionism - science has taken a very large leap in stating it as fact when they also say there are a lot of gaps and even they admit top not knowing for sure. What other scientific field makes such large leaps and bounds without having better and more complete information? I think a lot of us know the answer to that one? I yield to your knowledge in current physics, however at least one of the subjects in discussion has not been entered into any school books, YET. The other is a fact of news (regardless of your acknowledgement). Neither had to do with the "Energy Vacuum" - but the speed of light. Regarding doctors: I keep on eye on things they do because they still don't know as much about medicine as they profess and because they call the profession practicing. I've had three incidents where relatives were injured by the medical field; one passed, and two avoided fatality due to the fact that someone (a non-medical person) was watching over them and helped avoid tragedy. Science is only as good as the person that holds it in their hands! "Again, false dichotomy. How about God created and set into motion a system to create humans? Or God could care less about humans, but created a universe for his own amusement and humans resulted? Did it ever occur to you that God created the earth specifically for worms and roaches and we were placed here as nothing more than food for them? And that our intelligence was given to us only to enhance our ability to kill each other, thus ensuring a continuing food supply? There are a hundred different reasons why the belief in God and the belief in evolution are not diametrically opposed. It is only when you assume that man is the center of Gods world that it becomes a problem." Appearantly you believe in "A god", but not the same one I believe in. The one I believe in created humans (hence creationism) in his image, He said (not for worm food or his own amusement - besides, I doubt He would be amused at some of the things we do). You ask proof of creationism - Just look around. Isn't there enough proof for you? Appearently not! You're looking for a lot of scientific facts which on the other hand you disprove with evolution (A sieve in itself, based on incomplete theories and incomplete bits and pieces of so called evidence, yet it's labelled as scientific proof. Science was intended to be accurate, with proveable theories). If you can believe all this was by accident - because evolution to the point of where we are today would have to be called an accident - since any alterations (chemical, climate, migratory, etc.) during the time line would have created different results (gills, three eyes, three arms, etc., - anything other than what we have today). Which in my eyes makes evolution an accident and makes evolution and creationism very much opposing.

How would someone believing in evolution explain which evolved first: A male or a female, or by accident both a male and female evolved (simultaniously). If a male evolved first, how did it recreate? Or are we now to assume that humans were a-sexual before evolving into male and female sexes? "Most" evolutionists do not believe in God, and most believe in a single life. "Most" people question something about the bible and our reason for being here on earth. I do not think everything in the bible is stated literally. The old testament had a lot of health and living related guidelines in it - where not to go to the bathroom, what foods to eat, the necessity for cleanliness - and a lot more. I don't believe that God stood by to watch man evolve from a single cell. The same as I do not believe that there is a 100% chance that man would have evolved from a single cell based on survival of the fittest and a series of accidents. Humans grow stronger, taller, live longer - but I don't call that evolution. What I call evolution is if we grew a third and a fourth arm - I sure could use one or two more most of the time. They do have a way of measuring the speed of light and my original statement stands - I believe I posted on the subject here when the landmark event hit the news. My other statement is also true about scientists being able to "see" smaller particles because of technology breakthroughs. I believe also that the statement: "Matter can not be created or destroyed" is meant as: "In nature, matter..." Whether man can destroy matter or not is still a question since we can only see objects that are soooo small - what if the particles are even smaller, as we have discovered?

I make no assumptions about you and your religion - I'm only discussing the creationism vs. evolution (from single cell theory). I might use such adjectives as "silly", "fanciful", and "myth" or "legend". But I won't since I have more respect for both you and your opinions. I believe you made a statement that implied: You can't believe the bible because man wrote it and that's how myths are generated. I would think highly unlikely that any statisticians that would reply; 100%. Probabilities are normally stated in ratios - in this case one to the 10 power with - I think (70) 8-1/2" x 11" pages of zeros following. An honest statistician would have to. Because it happened. Whether or not those molecules came to together by divine providence, evolution, or random occurrence, the probability that it happened is 100% Somehow things got twisted: The original statement was not that it happened or not but what are the odds of it happening in nature by accident or by evolution. The statement then reads: odds are very much against it (70) pages of zeros following one to the 10th power. I guess the question is why aren't there any RH molecules in the formation that creates human life, since the odds of that happening would be much greater? I not sure where you got that the odds of a RH molecule exceed that of a LH molecule. Certainly not anything that I have said. You have to read the original statement and put it into perspective: Within that formation, why are they all LH molecules vs. some LH and some RH. Are not a mix of RH and LH more likely to happen by accident or evolution then all the same. Making the all LH circumstantial proof for smart design. It's which you would rather be: an optimist or a pessimist? Our soul moves on after death; or We live one life - when it's over, it's over. Your presumption is totally and completely flawed. You assume that one cannot believe in evolution and God simultaneously. That is not the case. I can, and I do. You can believe in anything you want, but how do you justify: God created human beings and then gave humans animals (for our pleasure, food, etc.) vs. believing that humans evolved from a single cell and from apes. These two beliefs definitely oppose each other - they do not exist side by side. Ask: Where did the universe come from? Did it start as one atom? and How did it evolve from nothing or from one atom to a universe? Science IS an evolution based on human knowledge / and a lot of assumptions: Recently they found that they did not destroy sub-atomic particles but that they were so small that they could not be detected until recent scientific technology was available. Didn't they (scientists) also recently discover that light travels faster in a vacuum? A theory which they rejected for many moons. They now have the ability to measure. So science is not always correct, even in small matter, much less in backing evolution over creationism. ...Besides, who's theory was it that matter could not be created or destroyed - if scientists state that it's is no longer true how can I believe them. What will be the scientific theory in 20 years? OK, so you can say God made adjustments when Jesus was here. That adjustment was for our sake and not God's. If God did not create humans and we evolved, then is God fibbing? Is God taking credit for accidental evolution of a single cell into human form that can think and reason? Is God also taking the same credit for animals and all living things being God's creation vs. evolving? Why are there so many different things that evolved from a single cell into DIFFERENT things at the same time when one nop longer needed to evolve since it survived? With the evolution theory does this not propose a dilemma? I'll take God over man/science anyday!

I think you can make choices by deductive reasoning which then turns into true belief. (A child can believe in God and Santa until they have enough intellect to support or dispell their beliefs.) Not all believers come to God based on blind faith - for some it takes a loss of a friend or family member; for some it comes about from reading the bible; for some it comes from deciding between creationism vs. evolution. Etc., etc., etc.. I also believe in evolution. However, I do not believe humans, animals and all living things evolved from a single. There are too many holes in human evolution (from single cell to todays form) - Darwin even admitted that it was only a theory and there are way too much missing facts to be accepted scientifically. But it is still thought in school as science next to all other facts that science presents and later changes to a different fact. How is it that we can accept that science can make mistakes but still it is presented as fact in schools? For many years and even in some museums, the had/have a body of one dinosaur with the head of a different one (because they found it next to each other, they ASSUMED it - AND after many years, some museums have still not changed their displays). What of the food pyramid - was it not turned upside down just recently? Why are things written in the Bible considered "myths" while books written as science considered "facts" when both were written by man. So why can you believe one and not the other? Were events in the Bible not proven by science? Science and other religions have acknowledged the existence of Jesus. In case of human evolution: Did we come from apes or monkeys and did we come from a single cell? Which evolved first: A male or a female, or by accident both a male and female evolved (simultaniously). If a male evolved first, how did it recreate? Or are we now to assume that humans were a-sexual before evolving into male and female sexes? One for the road: (As someone else also stated) Why have we not had other things evolve from apes - similar to humans but with leather skins, or furr like sheep or hoofs instead of toes? Could these not have evolved or survived as we did?

When I first started in engineering, we had drafting tables we sat/stood behind and when you had to draw on the top of onion skin/paper/mylar, you had to stand, reach and bend over the table. 12 of us were in one large room and the room boss sat in the front. When he left the room, most often people would talk. When he stayed away long enough, the conversation had exhausted itself and he would find us all working. At those times, when he walked into the room from behind and find us hard at work, he would say: Ahhh, that's what I like to see - a..holes and elbows! My response was always quick - "I'm an elbow!" (Joke!!!) Well, in this situation, I believe I was created by intelligent design, those that prefer to think they were created by accident are welcome to continue to think as such. I can't make people drink water, but I will try to lead them to it!

Fact #3: Lets address the unlikely probability that a living cell would by random process be formed. (Put your hat on and get out your calculators because we are going for a ride.) All life consists of only left-handed protein molecule chains. The smallest living thing that could duplicates itself would require 239 of these protein molecules. What are the chances that the first protein molecule would form all their amino acids into left handed chains? (The minimum number of amino acids in a protein is 410.) But then, even if this occurred in one protein, it would have to be repeated again 238 times in the other protein molecules. #3 - What is the probability that a single group of chemicals would arrange themselves into a particular arrangement in a single try? nearly zero. The probability that trillions of groups, recombinding trillions of times, over billions of years could combine as indicated? 100%. And if it formed something else totally different (a RH molecule) that supported life, would those "people" be fascinated at the probability that they were formed? Yes. I guess the question is why aren't there any RH molecules in the formation that creates human life, since the odds of that happening would be much greater? I would think highly unlikely that any statisticians that would reply; 100%. Probabilities are normally stated in ratios - in this case one to the 10 power with - I think (70) 8-1/2" x 11" pages of zeros following. Of course you can take any one item and say it could happen. (Could my car start by itself?) The point in the overall picture is not that one thing could happen, but that the odds are highly against so many different things coming to similar but different ends. People and animal life being one example. It's which you would rather be: an optimist or a pessimist? Our soul moves on after death; or We live one life - when it's over, it's over. Why is it so much easier for people to believe that we accidentally evolved from a single cell? Why is it so hard to believe that people talk to GOD and GOD talks back? When I ask GOD for something and it happens is it easier to believe it happened by coincidence. If it happens many times is it still easier to believe in coincidence? When I ask for pain that I had in both my shoulder and elbow for months to stop and it diappears overnight, should I believe in coincidence? In the court of man's law even a few coincidences are considered circumstential evidence which can convict. I hate to say this, ...but if you want to over simplify it: Which has a potential for greater loss - believing or NOT believing (in GOD)?

"Fact #2: A builder might expose brick, sand, nail, paint, wires, wood and other building materials to heat and energy of the sun and to the refreshing rains, but these objects would never by themselves unite and form a house! (Do you believe it could happen?) #2 - With an infiinite number of builders, an infinite number of piles, and an infinte amount of time? Yes. Given one builder, one pile, and one lifetime? No." Fact #2 does not have builder in the equasion - it only says: a bunch of engine parts will never assemble themselves into an engine no matter how much time passes.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

If I remember correctly - it also states in the bible that many scientists will be proven wrong in their theories. (Some of the misses are listed already - many more to come.) I also think science confirms the bible and creationism. How easy is it to buy that we came about from a single cell by accident. Accidentally there were male and female humans formed (or even monkeys/apes) and all with two arms/hands, two legs, two eyes (not a cyclop, 3 arm/3-legged, 2-headed species in the bunch). How our bodies work - from genes to blood; from the heart to the lungs and stomach; procreation - it's all "sooo" perfect by accident. By accident all different animals were formed from a single cell - so many different but so many the same or similar - by accident (that's a lot of accidents with similar results). What about vegetation, trees, etc. - all by accident. The perfect atmosphere for humans and animals to live under - all by accident. I look around every day and think after seeing all the marvels of life - How can people belive all this was a series of accidents? For those that are searching? Continue, don't give up - it will come together. ...and don't hold IT against organized religion as they are all comprised of humans who are fallible. As an after-thought: Science says that matter can't be created or destroyed - just re-arranged. I believe our souls can't be destroyed, just re-arranged. Most humans tend to think of death being a bad thing (forget the brainwashed, suicidal terrorist with 72 virgins on their minds) where in fact death is a part of life and we move on to better things and more experiences - part of our growth comes from our time on earth. A church full of people dying may heve been their reward (it's all about perspectives). Our life on earth is short compared to eternity. Life on earth is an experience - God is also experiencing life through our experiences. I too have had many results from my conversations with GOD - some are simple as a hug or easing my mind about a worry so I can go to sleep, where others were more complicated. Talk to GOD and be specific, don't be afraid to ask questions or ask for specific things on specific time frames. What can you lose? ...but more important - What can you gain?

We use V-Seal extensively. Sold as a 20 year penetrating sealer that does not change the appearance of pavers or concrete. It's contractor friendly because you can apply same trip as when cleaning is performed. The surface can be damp (does not need to dry 24 hrs.). On summer days its 15-20 minutes after you've cleaned it can be applied. By the time you roll up the hoses and put everything away, fill the sprayer w/the sealer, you are ready to apply. I price from $0.29 to $0.41 in Southern Ohio for cleaning (hypochlorite and water) and sealing - pricing depends on total square footage and what the market will bear. We have contractor pricing on V-Seal saves about $20+ per 5 gallons, we're tax exempt so we don't pay sales tax on materials but sales tax is collected from the customer (saves another 6.5% today).

How long before we can start on the work if the contract is signed today, is usually part of the conversation (be it in person or over the phone). Normally the customer is told that there is about a 2 week wait. If they have a priority need, we try to accomodate and sometimes impose additional fees but not all times (there are times when the customer offers extra money). I figure if they are in that much of a hurry, they don't have time to get 2 or 3 quotes anyway so priority work calls for priority rates. I normally allow some float in the weekly schedule - this allows me to back customers into an earlier start date rather than sliding them out (brings customer much happiness). It can also serve as buffer when the weather turns against us. As for contracts: No work starts without a signed contract. It can be mailed back to us in 1 day; it can be faxed; it can be signed when we arrive; it can be left - signed - in the door for us to pick up prior to start of work. Our policy is "Contract not signed, work does not start." A contract is not only for our protection but for the customer's - it spells out the specifics of the job - what gets done and what does not. It spells out when payment is expected (and what are penalties for late payments) and what warranty comes with the service. It provides the understanding between the 2 parties involved in the transaction of service for payment. In most states even though you have a signed contract, the work can be cancelled within a period of so many days. I don't put up a fight if a customer wants to cancel - I try to understand the reason and work from there. The only time I go after money is if I special order something specific for the job - there again, it's normally spelled out in the contract - so there should be no misunderstandings (famous last words) - but at least it is written and the customer can't deny that they were not told (double negative). I don't know how many times a customer describes a surface such as a pool's apron or deck's size and asks for a price. In 10 out of 10 cases the railing, fascia boards or other areas are not included in their square footage numbers or they know not how to read a tape measure. A couple of months back a lady gave me the size of her pool apron as being 7 feet wide around a 20' by 30' pool. She had the pool size nailed, but the apron varied from 12' to 20' in width. The square foot cost didn't change but the overall price almost was over double. I give general estimates over the phone (price per sq ft - range), and minimum - started with $100 minimum back several years ago (I think) and we're up to $175 on some while $250 and $500 on other services.

Dan, With all due respect - you can have your own, but you can't disagree with my experiences! It is what it is - I don't make the stuff up.

Does anyone have experience with sealing Cool Crete or Kool Deck? Will using a penetrating sealer on it defeat its heat dissipating characteristics? Are there other negative affects? I have a couple calls into the mfgs. but they're slow returning calls and the weekend is upon us. Thanks for all help on this one!

I don't believe Multicoat provides the same characteristics as Cool Crete or Kool Deck. The Cool Crete surface I am dealing with is not failing. I was just wondering if it should be sealed to give it longer life? Does it already contain a sealer? If it is sealed with a penetrating sealer such as V-Seal 101, will it no longer function as intended - a cool concrete like surface (a surface that does not get hot from the sun). I believe a film type sealer would alter Cool Crete's ability to stay cool.

Mike, I hope you've since invested in another ball valve and a spare. They pay for themselves in no time. A couple of tips for the ball valve use: - Use stainless disconnects with it - they last longer. - After shutting off the valve, press the gun trigger on wand or surface cleaner to take pressure off the disconnect (makes it easier to disengage).

A watchout is the difference in concrete psi strength between commercial (at 4000psi) and residential (at about 2000psi). High pressure can remove the cream (top) of the concrete, exposing more aggregate (damaging the surface). I increased the angle to 45 degrees and had to reduce the nozzle orifice to produce under 1000psi in order to keep from causing damage. It seemed as though every residential driveway/walkway was different (some would hold up under 1500 psi water pressure, while others would not). For residential we also throw down some pool shock diluted with water to help in cleaning algea, mold and mildew as well as to brighten the concrete. You can also brighten with oxalic acid but it will not kill mold, mildew or algea. Best wishes on your new venture!

Lot of people in this country seem to be confused about some basic issues of immigration. 1) An immigrant does not have to be a citizen to live and work in America. However, they need to be here legally - otherwise it is like having a burglar in your home vs. an invited guest. It is also not very difficult to be invited if you ask properly. However, (again) there are government sets limits as to how many people from each country/nation will be invited to live and work in this country based on our country's economics. The reason those numbers do not change (increase) is because of the illegals that are here contribute to it being distorted. 2) There is a waiting period to become a citizen once in immigrant is invited legally to come to this country. Criterias have to be met which are very basic - do not break laws, learn English, learn American history, take test and pass. Another critera is that you show you can support yourself by either being married to someone that can support you ar have a legal job. 3) We, the people are the government - if you don't like a politician, vote them out of office. Call your congressman; organize; create petitions and obtain signatures to show what you want changed and the forces behind you. I immigrated to this country and had to follow the legal procedures. I can't say I am thrilled about illegals, as in the long run they negatively impact our and their own financial situations. I don't want to live like they do when they come here illegally - they live 4-6 or more in a 1 bedroom apartment because they are not paid enough to live even at poverty levels. Their illegal actions are lowering the standards of living and employment in this country for everyone. I can't blame them from trying but I will not condone their illegal actions.

When you regulate pressure with the unloader, you are also changing your water flow rate. You should use different sized nozzles to increase or decrease your pressure without changing your flow rate (GPM). A #12 nozzle running on a new 3700psi 4gpm unit should yield about 500 psi with the unloader fully opened. You will also have a pressure drop of about 100psi for every 100 ft of 3/8" diameter high pressure hose. A #12 - 25 degree nozzle will provide the same pressure as a #12 - 40 degree nozzle. In otherwords, there should be no pressure change, only the coverage area changes. Cedar is a very soft wood and will furr easier than most other types of wood. Allowing wood to gray will destroy the adhesion of wood fibers (which is one of the cause/effects seen in furring). Chemicals such as bleach/pool shock, sodium hydroxide, percarb left on too long will also cause excessive furring. In otherwords, aged wood will be furred and this will have to be removed without causing additional furring by too high pressure, too strong chemicals or too long of a dwell time. In this case it is possible that not enough pressure was used to remove the dead fibers. There is usually a fine line between removing loose fibers and causing furring. This is more of the art portion rather than the science portion of the job. Experimenting with changing pressures (nozzle sizes), chemical mixes (dilution ratios) and dwell times will tell you how you need to deal with different types of wood in your region of the world.

$25-$30 per 1000 standard is common for the southern Ohio area. With standard size brick, we figure 7 per square foot or 142 sq ft per 1000. One watchout on commercial is they frequently use oversize bricks, in which case your sq ft would increase. Yes, per 1000 is the common language used by builders, and we don't mind if the broken/unused bricks are included in the price, though we never clean them.