Science: For Young Earth Creationists

tomoe723
If Evolution doesn't claim or expound on this yet, then does it implicitly assume this for its mechanics to hold true?

Ghost147
Nope! it wouldn't be very good science if we made assumptions like that. As I showed before, however, it doesn't necessarily matter how life began, in order for evolution to exist.

However, it would require that whenever life did begin (or at least to our earliest fossil records), it was extremely primitive, as all of our earliest fossil records show such primitive life.

edit on 3/2/14 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

I was under the impression that for evolution to take place, especially the branching out to different species, one has to assume that they all originated somewhere common--maybe the mother/father of all living things? the precursor to all life? Isn't that an implicit assumption for evolution's mechanics to hold true?

tomoe723

tomoe723
If Evolution doesn't claim or expound on this yet, then does it implicitly assume this for its mechanics to hold true?

Ghost147
Nope! it wouldn't be very good science if we made assumptions like that. As I showed before, however, it doesn't necessarily matter how life began, in order for evolution to exist.

However, it would require that whenever life did begin (or at least to our earliest fossil records), it was extremely primitive, as all of our earliest fossil records show such primitive life.

edit on 3/2/14 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

I was under the impression that for evolution to take place, especially the branching out to different species, one has to assume that they all originated somewhere common--maybe the mother/father of all living things? the precursor to all life? Isn't that an implicit assumption for evolution's mechanics to hold true?

Not entirely. For all we know, there could have been many different initial beginnings of life, perhaps even all at the same time. The 'beginning' that lead to what we see today simply was the one that survived. However, this all still involves Abiogenesis, directly. It doesn't necessarily matter how many primitive organic materials formed, or even how. Evolution is only in effect, and only describes, what happens once life is already in existence. That is the most important difference.

They do directly occur immediately after the other, which is where the confusion tends to come in play. A very understandable misconception.

Ghost147
Not entirely. For all we know, there could have been many different initial beginnings of life, perhaps even all at the same time. The 'beginning' that lead to what we see today simply was the one that survived. However, this all still involves Abiogenesis, directly. It doesn't necessarily matter how many primitive organic materials formed, or even how. Evolution is only in effect, and only describes, what happens once life is already in existence. That is the most important difference.

They do directly occur immediately after the other, which is where the confusion tends to come in play. A very understandable misconception.

Then how is this different to the ideas that the Genesis story provide? Essentially, God created every creature probably all at the same time, and after the great deluge, only a handful survived. I don't take the bible literally, but the ideas are essentially still there.

tomoe723

Ghost147
Not entirely. For all we know, there could have been many different initial beginnings of life, perhaps even all at the same time. The 'beginning' that lead to what we see today simply was the one that survived. However, this all still involves Abiogenesis, directly. It doesn't necessarily matter how many primitive organic materials formed, or even how. Evolution is only in effect, and only describes, what happens once life is already in existence. That is the most important difference.

They do directly occur immediately after the other, which is where the confusion tends to come in play. A very understandable misconception.

Then how is this different to the ideas that the Genesis story provide? Essentially, God created every creature probably all at the same time, and after the great deluge, only a handful survived. I don't take the bible literally, but the ideas are essentially still there.

It isn't! Not even a little bit different! Genesis is a perfectly valid argument for Abiogenesis. We simply do not know enough information to be able to validate any hypothesis, yet. The Theory of Evolution (And Evolution itself) has nothing to do with how life began. It only describes why variations occur with reproduction.

reply to post by Ghost147


You know, for what its worth, I've come to accept evolution as a valid theory of how populations of species behave over generations. The theory that deals more on genetics is a very solid one. I've seen it being practiced, tried and tested in livestock and crops, I don't see how it can be any different for human beings. The only thing that left me stumbling was the abiogenesis part. Current medical/bio-genetic studies still rely on the model organisms for experimentation and assume that if certain cures for a disease or cancer works for mice, it should also work for humans. But come the human testing, it ultimately fails. This part led me to question deeply about evolution as a whole, and wondered if the premise was wrong. If the premise was found to be a mistake, will it be a domino effect tumbling down the rest of evolutionary mechanics? Or does evolution behave like a modular system where each aspect can stand on its own independent of the others' substance, only taking into consideration the end output like how a true modular system works.

reply to post by tomoe723

Does Evolution claim that all living things came from one tiny organism which evolved over hundreds of millennia and separated into different varying creatures?

If Evolution doesn't claim or expound on this yet, then does it implicitly assume this for its mechanics to hold true?

Yes, common descent is implicit in the evidence for modern evolutionary synthesis.

reply to post by tomoe723

Then how is this different to the ideas that the Genesis story provide? Essentially, God created every creature probably all at the same time, and after the great deluge, only a handful survived. I don't take the bible literally, but the ideas are essentially still there.

Modern evolutionary synthesis includes a vast amount of evidence for common descent and the existence of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) -- the most recent organism from which all life on Earth descended. One could argue that a deity simply created that organism, but all of the evidence suggests that there was a LUCA and that not that all creatures became present on Earth at the same time and some happened to perish in a global flood.*

The phylogenetic diagrams for those two cases would look very different. The diagram for the case made by modern evolutionary synthesis would look like the one on this page -- tracing common ancestors back to the LUCA. The diagram for the case made by Biblical literalists would resemble a forest of phylogenetic trees, with each tree representing a "kind" and diversity only occurring within that tree, basically turning creationism into a subset of evolution -- God created the "kinds", and they have evolved from there. The latter case ignores genetic evidence, morphological evidence, geographic distribution, and observations about natural and artificial selection which strongly suggest that there was a LUCA.

* Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence of a global flood.

iterationzero
reply to post by tomoe723

 

Then how is this different to the ideas that the Genesis story provide? Essentially, God created every creature probably all at the same time, and after the great deluge, only a handful survived. I don't take the bible literally, but the ideas are essentially still there.

Modern evolutionary synthesis includes a vast amount of evidence for common descent and the existence of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) -- the most recent organism from which all life on Earth descended. One could argue that a deity simply created that organism, but all of the evidence suggests that there was a LUCA and that not that all creatures became present on Earth at the same time and some happened to perish in a global flood.*

The phylogenetic diagrams for those two cases would look very different. The diagram for the case made by modern evolutionary synthesis would look like the one on this page -- tracing common ancestors back to the LUCA. The diagram for the case made by Biblical literalists would resemble a forest of phylogenetic trees, with each tree representing a "kind" and diversity only occurring within that tree, basically turning creationism into a subset of evolution -- God created the "kinds", and they have evolved from there. The latter case ignores genetic evidence, morphological evidence, geographic distribution, and observations about natural and artificial selection which strongly suggest that there was a LUCA.

* Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence of a global flood.

I'm sorry but I don't buy into phylogenetic diagrams. The way these diagrams are constructed is all based on theory, the mathematical construction may be sound but it's still based on the assumption that there are correlations to patterns within the genetic codes. The diagrams are pretty though, makes for a good drawing about the tree (or circle) of life, but it's just a poster hanging on the wall for me. (expensive fancy poster if I may add )

tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147

 

...The only thing that left me stumbling was the abiogenesis part. Current medical/bio-genetic studies still rely on the model organisms for experimentation and assume that if certain cures for a disease or cancer works for mice, it should also work for humans. But come the human testing, it ultimately fails.

I'm afraid that statement isn't very accurate. Mice are used in experiments and research for many reasons. They are inexpensive, breed quickly, have short life spans, are relatively docile, adapt to new environments quickly, are small and inexpensive to keep, and - most importantly - have a similar genetic code to humans. Of course, this is not an identical match; however, this does make their use for experimentation extremely valuable. Another interesting fact is that many laboratories are using genetically altered mice that have inserted genes that would effect a human being, that previously weren't in mice at all. The mice used for research are also purebred to have almost identical DNA from other members within that breed, which allows for more controlled experiments.

Mice and rats are used for 95% of all animal-based research because of all these qualities. If the outcome of these tests "ultimately fail" - as you've stated - wouldn't we want to fix that kind of issue? 95% of all the multiple billions of dollars being put into tests that never seem to show any positive verifications?

We use mice for many reasons, the biggest reason is because it is in fact very accurate.

Of course, if you could verify your claim, I would be happy to see the statistics!

tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147

 

This part led me to question deeply about evolution as a whole, and wondered if the premise was wrong. If the premise was found to be a mistake, will it be a domino effect tumbling down the rest of evolutionary mechanics? Or does evolution behave like a modular system where each aspect can stand on its own independent of the others' substance, only taking into consideration the end output like how a true modular system works.

Evolution exists as a natural phenomenon; our explanation of evolution (The Theory Of Evolution) is what would be effected if discordance was discovered. However, this particular theory is one of (if not the most) tested of all scientific theories, and also the most verified.

If your main concern was with your mice experimentation example, I hope I was able to clear that up for you in the first part of this post.

tomoe723
I'm sorry but I don't buy into phylogenetic diagrams. The way these diagrams are constructed is all based on theory, the mathematical construction may be sound but it's still based on the assumption that there are correlations to patterns within the genetic codes.

There actually isn't any mathematics involved in Taxonomic Classification. Also, if it is a "Scientific Theory", then the word theory isn't what you're implying. A Scientific Theory is backed up by facts through observation; not to exclude the continuous confirmation of those explanations within those observations.

Theory, in general, is quite different. Where a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, would describe that form of "Theory"; the one you implied.

An honest misconception.

The Phylogenetic diagrams are quite sound, I assure you. You must remember, also, that they are separate time scales. You could make a phylogenetic diagram based on animals that are currently alive, and their direct genetic backgrounds (parents, grandparents, great grandparents). In fact, your own personal family tree would be a Phylogenetic Diagram.

The only difference is that these ones implement a larger time-scale. It surely isn't a proposed explanation without experimentation. There is much more than simply looking at looking at bones or DNA that leads to this extended form of Taxonomy.

Ghost147
First off, I don't. Secondly, there is no such thing as an "atheist doctrine" or a "humanist Manifesto". Lastly when did I ever suggest even a remote relation to what you just said in any of my previous posts?

The atheist doctrine:

SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

Link: americanhumanist.org...

Like I said, atheists wouldn't be praising evolution for "discrediting" any notions of the supernatural if the theory wasn't an attempt to explain life as an accident or random process. Humanism is the natural product of the theory of evolution.

Ghost147
Actually, most people who accept the Theory of Evolution are also religious people. The existence of Evolution does not disprove a god or anything supernatural. However, it does go against very specific religious ideologies, such as anything that would believe in a young Earth.

Who is to say that a god or anything supernatural wasn't influencing Evolution the entire time? It could very well be possible, despite being speculative.

So, as you can see, that is not my position.

The reason why theistic evolutionists as they are called reject the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record is because it belittles what they think is the vast amount of evidence that supports evolution and their version of natural selection and age of the universe and the earth. They are compromising their belief in sound Biblical doctrine because of the beliefs of man, it has nothing to do with its validity. Evolution with its billion year spectacle of random variation, struggle for existence, suffering, death and extinction, is a complete contradiction of the plain teachings of the Bible and the nature of God himself. Its the most inefficient way to populate a planet with life, and the God of the Bible has nothing to do with it. Even some evolutionists have stated evolution's total incompatibility with the Bible. The theory of evolution states that by struggle, suffering and death, came man. The Bible however, states that by man came death, so the two are complete contradictions.

Ghost147
Considering Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence, any test you are referring to in that manner, doesn't actually apply to what evolution really is. So, a test like that failing, would have nothing to do with the functions we see in evolution.

The entire idea that all life descended from a common ancestor, a view that continues to be taught in schools, is based on assumptions about abiogenesis in the first place. Abiogenesis tells us that that all life on Earth arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals into a self-replicating protocell. It is from this single spontaneously-formed protocell that all organisms on Earth descended from and are henceforth related to each other. This is a clear attempt to explain how life came about without any involvement of anything supernatural. The belief that life can come from non-life is the general idea we see in every major pagan religion on the planet.

Evolution according to one of the most well known in the field:

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” - Kerkut, G.A

Ghost147
The big bang theory has nothing to do with how the universe was triggered into existence, and doesn't actually disallow a god being the trigger for it. By the way.

Also, what the heck does that have to do with anything anyway? The topic is not on the creation of the universe, or the creation of Life. The topic is solely based on the naturally occuring phenomena of Evolution, which Only pertains to the process of variation through reproduction when life already exists. That is it.

Why do you continue to go back to these topics after it has already been explained multiple times that it has no actual relation? (this is an actual question that I would like you to answer, I'm extremely confused on the matter)

The reason is simple, because its evolution applied to the universe. The general consensus is that the cosmos suddenly evolved out of nothing, first as a particle of space, which proceeds rapidly through an inflationary stage, then through a hot "big bang", followed by universal expansion. From this explosion came the evolution of a all particles of matter and then the chemical elements, hydrogen being the first. The stars and galaxies somehow evolved from the expanding hydrogen by some unknown evolutionary process into clusters. The elements may evolve into planetary systems allowing for complex molecules evolving on some planets into living cells. This is the fairy-tale that's been given to us by the general theory of evolution, even though earth is the only planet with any signs of life. The entire theory is a completely contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics which states that nature tends to head in the direction of disorder, making the big bang impossible. I could care less if God could have been responsible for such an event. I have no reason to entertain such notions if the "theory" has no scientific validity to it in the first place.

Ghost147You have never seen this, and will never see this, because Evolution never claims this. Speciation doesn't mean "turn one thing into a completely different thing". It is a slow process that eventually leads into further and further distancing between the original ancestor and its branching, evolving, latter species.

This is the entire point, there is no "evolution" in speciation. The very term evolution by definition would mean that the species becomes something better or more than what it is, or one creature magically transforming into another. Speciation, by the evolutionist camp, uses speciation as "evidence" of this phenomenon.

Speciation conference brings good news for creationists

Ghost147
I'm afraid that statement isn't very accurate. Mice are used in experiments and research for many reasons. They are inexpensive, breed quickly, have short life spans, are relatively docile, adapt to new environments quickly, are small and inexpensive to keep, and - most importantly - have a similar genetic code to humans. Of course, this is not an identical match; however, this does make their use for experimentation extremely valuable. Another interesting fact is that many laboratories are using genetically altered mice that have inserted genes that would effect a human being, that previously weren't in mice at all. The mice used for research are also purebred to have almost identical DNA from other members within that breed, which allows for more controlled experiments.

Mice and rats are used for 95% of all animal-based research because of all these qualities. If the outcome of these tests "ultimately fail" - as you've stated - wouldn't we want to fix that kind of issue? 95% of all the multiple billions of dollars being put into tests that never seem to show any positive verifications?

We use mice for many reasons, the biggest reason is because it is in fact very accurate.

Of course, if you could verify your claim, I would be happy to see the statistics!

I am aware of why mice are used for experiments and research. From an "ethical standpoint", it is also safer to experiment on animals before conducting actual human testing. I'd like to get to a specific point if I hadn't made it clear before, in experiments for finding cure for cancer or certain terminal diseases, mice is often used as a model organism. From what I've read, cures have already been devised and proven to be effective within the mice population, but when applied to humans, it ultimately fails. From what I've heard, some in the scientific community proposes to change the model organism and move on to maybe cows or pigs because they have an even closer more identical DNA make up than mice do to humans.

Of course, the human genome was only recently completely decoded, so I guess it's too early to give up from these failures.

Ghost147
There actually isn't any mathematics involved in Taxonomic Classification. Also, if it is a "Scientific Theory", then the word theory isn't what you're implying. A Scientific Theory is backed up by facts through observation; not to exclude the continuous confirmation of those explanations within those observations.

Theory, in general, is quite different. Where a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, would describe that form of "Theory"; the one you implied.

An honest misconception.

The Phylogenetic diagrams are quite sound, I assure you. You must remember, also, that they are separate time scales. You could make a phylogenetic diagram based on animals that are currently alive, and their direct genetic backgrounds (parents, grandparents, great grandparents). In fact, your own personal family tree would be a Phylogenetic Diagram.

The only difference is that these ones implement a larger time-scale. It surely isn't a proposed explanation without experimentation. There is much more than simply looking at looking at bones or DNA that leads to this extended form of Taxonomy.

edit on 4/2/14 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

Maybe I didn't explain my points clearly. For a phylogenetic diagram of my family, I'm sure it is as valid as it could be granting I still have DNA samples of my ancestors and my ancestors' ancestors to account for the computations when constructing the phylogenetic tree. But when you show a phylogenetic tree that infers a common ancestry between a mice and a human (or even a fly), I just don't buy that. There is no valid records or observations that my ancestor was once part-mice part-human or much less part-fly. The construction of a phylogenetic tree assumes that patterns in genetic codes have ancestral correlations without any real evidence. It is only for the sake of computation. The algorithms used are logical enough but they still rely on theory (or assumptions) - not the Scientific Theory kind.

First of all I just wanted to say thank you to the OP. I've enjoyed a lot of the information you've shared in your thread, and I've especially enjoyed the way you have shared it. It's refreshing to see someone approach such a controversial subject rationally and without any mud slinging, while treating those who disagree with you with civility.

Secondly, I hope I'm not derailing the thread too much here, but I was wondering if the young earth creationists in this thread could explain to me why they feel that evolution (or even a world that is billions of years old) is so incompatible with their faith? I consider myself a Christian, and I don't see any reason why current scientific models can't coincide with my faith. To me, it seems like claiming anything to be an impossibility in that regard is limiting what God can do. The way I see things, the 2 big questions are this:

1) How did life itself start (as the OP pointed out, this is not a question the theory of evolution can answer, as it deals with what happened after)

2) How did the universe come into being

Being a Christian, I have my own beliefs about these 2 questions and believe that both events were either guided or caused directly by the will of God.

So to the young earth creationists (and with all due respect): Why do you feel so strongly that current scientific theory's (specifically evolution, geology, and cosmological evolution) are incompatible with your faith? In the end does it boil down to interpreting the 6 days of creation as literally meaning 6 earth days?

Evolution has three driving forces behind it: Natural, selective, and sexual selection.
Natural selection, a herd of buffalo are running from a pride of lion, the slowest gets caught, his weak genetics are gone from the initial population, thus the entire population becomes stronger, that dead buffalo has no chance of mating ever again or passing off his weak genetics of perhaps short stubby legs, or a heart defect which made him slow in the first place.

selective, the EASIEST form of evolution to comprehend, wolves being domesticated into dogs, orchids being bred by bees.
The fight or flight term comes into effect in this one the most, the more daring and bold wolf who cozies up to a human population will most likely survive, be fed, bed taken care of. The wolf that is scared of humans and runs away at the sound of a rock falling will not be domesticated.
Wolves have been domesticated so much, and selectively bred into dogs that 99.9% of all dogs CANNOT breed with a wolf ever again.

And finally sexual selection, certain attributes of a male or female are more appealing to the opposite, for example, peacocks, the larger the male feathers the more likely he will get the lady. Or silver back gorillas, the male who is most dominant and in control of his territory wins the ladies.

People who deny evolution to not be true, need to really pick up a book on evolutionary biology and educate themselves. It's all around us, and it happens all the time, constantly changing. And whether or not a god set it on it's path to what we see today, it still happens.

reply to post by Ghost147


Do you read?

A)

Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith. Faith that scientific method has been applied appropriately and correctly, and faith in the teachings and findings of others.

My definition with regards to the domain of this conversation was stated in the second line. I never said science was religiously faithful,

Actually, you did. When you state that "Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith." it implies that you are saying that Science is a religion because it requires religious faith. If all it takes is non-religious faith to make a religion, then everything would be considered religious. Of course, we all know that this is not the case. It takes religious faith to make something religious (among other things). Clearly, with this new quote above, you do not believe this. In which case, it would mean that science is, in fact, not religious.

Actually where?.... it IMPLIES?? you are implying not me. I suggest you look for a definition of the word i used 'form' as in 'a form of religion' as stated. The rest of your paragraph is waffle. P.S. there is no new quote it is still the original quote and a rebuttal to your assertions.

B)

Looks to me you will have to be (3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.) and (1. Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal. 5. Consistent with truth or actuality) In order to follow the scientific method? Im not disagreeing with what u say, just how far do we need to waffle?

No, that is not how things work. I could say the same thing about breathing. I have to be devoted to consciously open my lungs and take in oxygen. I have to be devoted to the cause and idea that I need to do this action in order to live, and adhere firmly to that action. This does not make the action of breathing a religion. Once again, what you are presenting is a form of misunderstanding. You do indeed need to follow the rules in order for a hypothesis to be considered valid. Just as you need to keep under the speed limit to be considered driving legally. These actions both require to be followed if you are to respectfully conduct a scientific experiment, or to drive legally. This "devotion" is not a religious one. Nor is the "Duty". Nor is adhering firmly to those instated rules. Once again, you're misinterpreting the definitions.

How do things work then Einstein?
Ever heard of following process or procedure in order to demonstrate repeatability? Here i will restate it without the religious connotations of the definitions which seem to aggravate you.... (point refer to prev post defns)
Looks to me you will have to be (3. Extremely scrupulous) and (1. Adhering firmly as to a cause, or idea 5. Consistent with truth or actuality) In order to follow the scientific method? QA/QC anyone?
Rest of your paragraph is more waffle not worth replying to.
At least i am providing definitions from those available online (for expediencies sake) in order to highlight the ambiguities. Maybe you are not comprehending the definitions?

C)

Yes and I more or less state that in the following paragraph concluding with: Of course I take faith in other peoples work because it seems to fit with my own meagre observations.

I understand that you do so out of non-religious faith. I was simply explaining how you yourself could conduct those experiments yourself, there for making it faithless entirely.

You seem to miss the whole point of my original statement.
Or i put my FAITH in the science that preceded me and move forward.
Just to be sure you read correctly... NOTICE NOTHING SAID ABOUT RELIGIOUS FAITH.

reply to post by Ghost147


D)

So no, I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than anyone else here. It has become evident that I am more knowledgeable about this particular subject. Thus a fact that I know more about this subject. Not a fact that I am more intelligent.

If you were to look at my previous posts, it has already been verified. I have clearly demonstrated a strong grasp of the information pertaining to Evolution, the Theory of Evolution, and the Scientific Method. You can verify this further for yourself, by examining the content within my posts and searching for the information from any scientific book or source that has also been proven as reputable.

?? Thus a fact that I know more about this subject. If you were to look at my previous posts, it has already been verified.??

Your opinion does not provide evidence of fact. There are a lot of people here on the site you have no background knowledge of. Your verification is nothing more than arrogance. Just because you post tirades of similar ilk frequently does not constitute verification. Do you suppose those who give up 'discussions' with you have been vanquished because of your irrefutable logic and reasoning? I say more likely bored.
If i held up the bible to you (if i had one) and stated that 'god exists because the book is my verification of fact', I ask how different in mindset is that to your quote above?
You certainly do have a FIRM GRASP. I suppose it is something going for you at 24.
'I posted it so it must be true' hahaha....

Anyway, you have already agreed with my original statement, which is the point I was making. You just couldn't help but elucidate us all to your apparent knowledgeably.

I have faith that when I turn my door handle, the door will open. In this sense, nearly everything requires an implication of faith.

P.S.
I have to question whether you are some kind of bot, your predictable replies seem to take the form of the old ELIZA program i played with on the old DEC-10's at Uni, and even the ABUSE program for my old atari800... keyword response and seemingly correlated statements.... someones thesis maybe... but its all been done before.
To coin another famous fictitious AI : Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose (to me) anymore. Goodbye.

I apologize for my absence, i recently got a new job that requires me to be away from home for two weeks at a time. In will do my best to respond to your comments, however, I am trying to spend as much time with my fiancé as possible when I'm home.

Thanks for understanding