World Wide Flood Of Noah

[katherine the great]

And still not a single piece of scientific evidence to prove the story which was recorded in the NT. Do you believe in Christ only because you perceive His story as easy to understand and because "there are so many outside sources that support the details of the story"?

I don't need scientific evidence to support my belief in Christ as Savior. His physical existence is supported by scientific evidence (as I explained) and there is no scientific evidence that disproves His spiritual mission or even His resurrection. I see loads of scientific evidence that I feel disproves the global flood. Things need to make sense to my mind as well as my spirit for me to believe in them. I've never had a problem believing in Jesus as a man or as the Savior of mankind. In fact, I feel quite passionately about His existence. I don't feel the same way about a global flood or a literal interpretation of Noah's ark.

[shalamabobbi]

Shambboi, the idea of only 'local' hidden variables is a theory in and of itself... not proven, just assumed. In fact, the exceptions to the rule we call... 'the laws of physics'... those are non-local, if you know what I mean. And they can be hidden too. That's why we are reverse-engineering them to find the universal theory =P.

Einstein fought over this argument and lost. "God does not play dice with the universe."

It's almost a hundred years old now.

[TAO]

Einstein fought over this argument and lost. "God does not play dice with the universe."

It's almost a hundred years old now.

I'd disagree with the current position then.

"God does not play dice with the universe" is actually the precise reason why non-local hiddens exist... because if non-local hiddens don't exist, then radioactive particles have 'true randomness'... which is... 'playing dice with the universe'.

And the thing about 'true randomness' is that it isn't caused by anything. Which means that the theory of conservation of energy would be destroyed. My other problem with this is that it would destroy the universe when it first formed, or at least it seems that way to me.

So Einstein is right, imo =).

Edited August 26, 2011 by TAO

[jo1952]

I don't need scientific evidence to support my belief in Christ as Savior. His physical existence is supported by scientific evidence (as I explained) and there is no scientific evidence that disproves His spiritual mission or even His resurrection. I see loads of scientific evidence that I feel disproves the global flood. Things need to make sense to my mind as well as my spirit for me to believe in them. I've never had a problem believing in Jesus as a man or as the Savior of mankind. In fact, I feel quite passionately about His existence. I don't feel the same way about a global flood or a literal interpretation of Noah's ark.

Hi Katherine! (btw way I am really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. So thank you very much!}

Then, is it safe to say that you also do not believe that God made a covenant with Noah and his sons and the earth, as taught by Moses?

What about the end times prophesy of John, do you believe that it will take place as a precurser and part of Jesus' second coming? Will the earth be destroyed with fire? Will it be localized? How do you see His Second Coming taking place based on what scripture has taught us?

Regards,

jo

[shalamabobbi]

I'd disagree with the current position then.

"God does not play dice with the universe" is actually the precise reason why non-local hiddens exist... because if non-local hiddens don't exist, then radioactive particles have 'true randomness'... which is... 'playing dice with the universe'.

And the thing about 'true randomness' is that it isn't caused by anything. Which means that the theory of conservation of energy would be destroyed. My other problem with this is that it would destroy the universe when it first formed, or at least it seems that way to me.

So Einstein is right, imo =).

Well, if you think you have a tack on it I'm sure there's a nobel prize in it for you. But QM is one of the most experimentally verified theories in existence. Good luck..

[katherine the great]

Hi Katherine! (btw way I am really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. So thank you very much!}

Then, is it safe to say that you also do not believe that God made a covenant with Noah and his sons and the earth, as taught by Moses?

What about the end times prophesy of John, do you believe that it will take place as a precurser and part of Jesus' second coming? Will the earth be destroyed with fire? Will it be localized? How do you see His Second Coming taking place based on what scripture has taught us?

Regards,

jo

I don't really ponder those questions frequently. I'm not particularly concerned with Noah, I try to interpret apocalyptic literature in the spirit of the times it was written, and I believe the Savior's second coming will happen when and how it will happen. I trust Him when He says it will happen at a time unknown to us and leave the rest to Him.

[jo1952]

I don't really ponder those questions frequently. I'm not particularly concerned with Noah, I try to interpret apocalyptic literature in the spirit of the times it was written, and I believe the Savior's second coming will happen when and how it will happen. I trust Him when He says it will happen at a time unknown to us and leave the rest to Him.

Fair enough Katherine. And again, thank you for responding to my questions. BTW, I also feel quite passionately about by beloved Savior, Jesus Christ.

God bless, and best regards,

jo

Edited August 26, 2011 by jo1952

[keith_brian]

How about addressing the comments and sources I pointed to in post #234?

I don't need to. I have the entire weight of academia behind me.

Why don't you address some of the articles -- any of the articles -- in any evolutionary biology journal? Once you are done debunking the 10,000+ articles appearing in those journals that support evolution, then we can talk.

Until then, I have better things to do than play "whack-a-mole" with the latest creationist theory made by some idiot with a computer and too much free time.

I think the problem stems from the peer review process. I doubt seriously that anyone on the review boards is going to allow something to be approved which might endanger their own livelihood - you know, the loss of funding, the possibility of being laid off when funds disappear, needing to find other work, changing their careers, etc. Another fear held intrinsically in this type of organization is one of the danger of becoming laughed at by your peers for taking a stance against what has now been accepted as truth. In fact ostracization is quite the motivator to discourage people. When they have a secure job, it is not likely they are going to question the establishment that puts bread on their table and supports their family. Those who have spoken up in the past have been silenced by losing their positions - you will not be able to easily locate the articles which then disgraced them in the scientific community simply because they never were approved.

Some people have so much faith in the peer review process that they don't even question it. Again, I would point to the global warming fiasco as a good example of all of the above problems with the current peer review board.

BTW, I do not adhere to a show of hands method to determine what I will or will not believe to be true. I suppose I take the road less traveled.

Regards,

jo

Yes, yes, it's a global conspiracy on the part of the scientists. Airplanes don't actually fly -- they're conducted through the air by angels and science just covers that fact up.

The reason why people believe in science, and the peer review process with it, is because it produces results.

I also get a kick out of discussing evolution with science deniers over an internet forum anyway. The methods used to construct the internet and to prove evolution by natural selection -- they're all stem from the same source, the same scientific method. It's not as if science wears one hat when building computers and suddenly changes to a totally different way of doing things when it comes to the origin of life.

Jo, do you believe that your computer works because of angels or because scientist understand things like P-N junctions, binary logic, transistor theory, finite state Turing machines, semi-conductor band gap theory, the Maxwell equations, heap versus stack memory, and a thousand other scientific concepts associated with the internal workings of a computer that you have probably never heard of? There are layers and layers of complexity to how things like this work, just as there are layers and layers of complexity behind why scientists say that we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. I don't know how else to try and convey this to you.

You are not smart enough to disprove the entire field of evolutionary biology. You aren't. You're just not. I just don't know what else to say. Can we both accept that and move on please?

[jo1952]

I don't need to. I have the entire weight of academia behind me.

Why don't you address some of the articles -- any of the articles -- in any evolutionary biology journal? Once you are done debunking the 10,000+ articles appearing in those journals that support evolution, then we can talk.

Until then, I have better things to do than play "whack-a-mole" with the latest creationist theory made by some idiot with a computer and too much free time.

Yes, yes, it's a global conspiracy on the part of the scientists. Airplanes don't actually fly -- they're conducted through the air by angels and science just covers that fact up.

The reason why people believe in science, and the peer review process with it, is because it produces results.

I also get a kick out of discussing evolution with science deniers over an internet forum anyway. The methods used to construct the internet and to prove evolution by natural selection -- they're all stem from the same source, the same scientific method. It's not as if science wears one hat when building computers and suddenly changes to a totally different way of doing things when it comes to the origin of life.

Jo, do you believe that your computer works because of angels or because scientist understand things like P-N junctions, binary logic, transistor theory, finite state Turing machines, semi-conductor band gap theory, the Maxwell equations, heap versus stack memory, and a thousand other scientific concepts associated with the internal workings of a computer that you have probably never heard of? There are layers and layers of complexity to how things like this work, just as there are layers and layers of complexity behind why scientists say that we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. I don't know how else to try and convey this to you.

You are not smart enough to disprove the entire field of evolutionary biology. You aren't. You're just not. I just don't know what else to say. Can we both accept that and move on please?

Wow, are you prideful or what?? You are exactly what Paul warned us against. And talk about judgmental. Are you a Christian? I'm sorry but you have given me pause to enjoy a good hardy laugh at your expense. Great apologetic skills, by the way....NOT!

BTW, the amount of education one possesses does NOT equate to their level of intelligence. It just doesn't.

The fact that you refuse to even address studies and articles done by scientists who disagree with you, tells me many things about you. And none of them lend you any credibility to your non-argument and false conclusion that you have the unproven weight of academia behind you. That is simply not true. Hint: the articles I presented from the actual world of science are proof of that. Also, I would point out that you have simply ignored my claim that I HAVE studied many articles and have done some edjumational larnin on the subject which lead me to believe your conclusions are in error. Ad hom attacks do not make your choices the correct ones nor do they have the ability to prove your choices are reflective of the truth.

Puleeeease...can't you do any better than this?

Regards,

jo

Edited August 26, 2011 by jo1952

[Franktalk]

I suspected that stochastic electrodynamics was a hidden variable theory and I was right.

Turns out it has been tested and it has failed:

Here is the reference for the abstract:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/67/1/012047

Google "Experimental tests of hidden variable theories from dBB to stochastic electrodynamics" and you should get the above reference followed by a PDF download of the paper.

Other references for the masochistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

http://www.setterfield.org/Quantum_Mechanics.html#doubleslit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Thank you for the work to find these papers. I read through the first link and since I am not an expert in the field I can't comment on the conclusions of the article. But in a general sense I read many articles that profess one thing or another. Then others will duplicate the work and check out the conclusions. As you are well aware just about all theories go through close inspection and changes over time. I do not think that SED is killed by this article. In my mind it is still a very valid approach to explaining the world of particle physics. If anything SED is growing as a theory. Sure it will evolve over time as theories do. I am supplying you a link to another article in the same publication published in 2011. It states that SED should be used to overturn QM because SED reproduces the results of QM but in a more simplistic manner. The writer holds to a wave (field) only view which I hold to as well. I think that both articles overstate their case. I wait for years to see where the dust settles. I do think that Setterfield is an honest man. In his objections page he states that no data has been found to overturn the SED theory. I trust him to do a way better job of evaluating the current state of the theory than I could.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/306/1/012021/pdf/1742-6596_306_1_012021.pdf

On topics like this I do not read links from wiki. I find them biased and old.

[Franktalk]

When I look at scripture I see a message of salvation wrapped in a story of man. Different events have occurred over time which demonstrate many of the pitfalls that man can experience. There are also stories about God and how God is beyond man and can do things with spiritual powers. God has also placed prophecy in scripture so we can separate out His message from messages from man. Why He has chosen this method of communication I don't know. There is something about the flesh and faith that is critical for us to progress on our path. I have embraced the scriptures and take them quite literally. Some do and some do not.

The story about the flood is a story about the plan that God has for man. Events occurred which interfered with God's plan and man was focused away from God. As has happened many times in scripture God intervenes and sets things back the way they should be. In case of the flood God used the flood to provide a picture or type for future events. This was done many times in scripture so it should not be a surprise at all. Now some people read the message and treat the events as a vehicle that may or may not have happened. This is dangerous because God makes comments about these events we should take very seriously. If we arm wave away the events we also arm wave away the comments of God or make them false. I will not do this and I think no one should.

The posts I have made so far have been an attempt to give my view of what is going on in the flood event. I have also spent a lot of time going over this story and how it stacks up against man's knowledge. I have tried to show that scripture is clear that we should be very careful with what we think we know. We should place scripture first and man's knowledge down the list. But there are many who hold man's knowledge as truth and will change scripture to accommodate the ideas of man.

My view of the flood is not that important. What is important is that I focus on God and the rest of scripture to determine my view of the flood. I do not bring in a third party as some have done. I think that scripture is clear that we are to have a relationship with God and I can't see that happening if we place someone between us and God. Imagine you ask God a question but you ask the go between to ask God for you. Then after being filtered by that third person you may or may not even get a message. But many think they can have that personal relationship with God and also embrace the world. It does not work that way. God will respect your free will. He will leave you alone to wallow in the world.

[Hestia]

Wow, are you prideful or what?? You are exactly what Paul warned us against. And talk about judgmental. Are you a Christian?

These kind of remarks are uncalled for and won't be tolerated again.

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

I'm just as Christian as you are, and have no problem with science. Just as I have no problem with God.

[jo1952]

jo1952:

I'm just as Christian as you are, and have no problem with science. Just as I have no problem with God.

Hi Sometimesaint:

Your response does not address the covenant which Moses claims God made with Noah, his sons, and with the earth. Do you believe this covenant was made? Or do you think Moses was making this up?

Regards,

jo

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

I believe God made A covenent with Noah. But that covenant as understood by man has undergone major changes over the last 5+ thousand years.

Article of Faith. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.

[keith_brian]

Wow, are you prideful or what?? You are exactly what Paul warned us against. And talk about judgmental. Are you a Christian? I'm sorry but you have given me pause to enjoy a good hardy laugh at your expense. Great apologetic skills, by the way....NOT!

BTW, the amount of education one possesses does NOT equate to their level of intelligence. It just doesn't.

The fact that you refuse to even address studies and articles done by scientists who disagree with you, tells me many things about you. And none of them lend you any credibility to your non-argument and false conclusion that you have the unproven weight of academia behind you. That is simply not true. Hint: the articles I presented from the actual world of science are proof of that. Also, I would point out that you have simply ignored my claim that I HAVE studied many articles and have done some edjumational larnin on the subject which lead me to believe your conclusions are in error. Ad hom attacks do not make your choices the correct ones nor do they have the ability to prove your choices are reflective of the truth.

Puleeeease...can't you do any better than this?

Regards,

jo

I don't have to address the articles, as I said before. I have the weight of science supporting me. This includes 10,000+ or perhaps even 100,000+ articles in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

To me, it's a bit like trying to find out who painted the Mona Lisa. Suppose I try to find this out IRL. So, I start by going around to experts in the field, talking to them, reading what they have written on the subject, checking historical texts, etc. Also, suppose that I would find that the vast and overwhelming scientific consensus on this point is that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci. Further, lets suppose that, after finding this out, I found a couple loons that were willing to say that the vast scientific consensus on the subject was wrong. The Mona Lisa was not painted by Leonardo da Vinci, they said, but by a guy named Fred who lives in Michigan. Am I really obligated to address their claims and the evidence that they bring up in support of this theory? Or, can I just ignore the fringe theory on this topic, go with the consensus, and let the burden of proof lie with the people making the fringe claim?

This is exactly what I am doing with evolution: I am letting the burden of proof rest with the people making the fringe claim.

[Rob Osborn]

Wow, is this thread stillll going onnnn...?

Evolution and flood topics always get the most posts, hum, I wonder why?

According to scripture, the flood was global indeed. Those who try to discount or bend that fact around often do so because they are firm in their beliefs in the teachings and crutches of worldly teachings and popular opinions. The belief that there was never a global flood is a teaching of the large and spacious building. LDS doctrine and LDS scripture affirm the reality of the global flood. There is no discounting that fact.

[jo1952]

These kind of remarks are uncalled for and won't be tolerated again.

Sorry - I did get carried away when I felt attacked.

As a side note, is it okay to ask someone for their religious affiliation? I can't find anything about that in the guidelines.

Thanks,

jo

[jo1952]

I don't have to address the articles, as I said before. I have the weight of science supporting me. This includes 10,000+ or perhaps even 100,000+ articles in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

To me, it's a bit like trying to find out who painted the Mona Lisa. Suppose I try to find this out IRL. So, I start by going around to experts in the field, talking to them, reading what they have written on the subject, checking historical texts, etc. Also, suppose that I would find that the vast and overwhelming scientific consensus on this point is that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci. Further, lets suppose that, after finding this out, I found a couple loons that were willing to say that the vast scientific consensus on the subject was wrong. The Mona Lisa was not painted by Leonardo da Vinci, they said, but by a guy named Fred who lives in Michigan. Am I really obligated to address their claims and the evidence that they bring up in support of this theory? Or, can I just ignore the fringe theory on this topic, go with the consensus, and let the burden of proof lie with the people making the fringe claim?

This is exactly what I am doing with evolution: I am letting the burden of proof rest with the people making the fringe claim.

If you are letting the burden of proof rest with the people making the fringe claim, then wouldn't it behoove you to look at the proof they are providing? It appears that you are not allowing them to provide anything since you have already decided you are not going to bother reading about their studies and refuse to provide any specific reasons why you believe their findings fail. IOW, claiming they have the burden of proof, and then refusing to deal with the proof they are providing, makes no sense. Your argument is in conflict with itself.

Regards,

jo

[Rivers]

Wow, is this thread stillll going onnnn...?

Evolution and flood topics always get the most posts, hum, I wonder why?

According to scripture, the flood was global indeed. Those who try to discount or bend that fact around often do so because they are firm in their beliefs in the teachings and crutches of worldly teachings and popular opinions. The belief that there was never a global flood is a teaching of the large and spacious building. LDS doctrine and LDS scripture affirm the reality of the global flood. There is no discounting that fact.

These types of threads receive so many posts because we live in an age of immense scientific advancement. The pursuit of all truth from all available sources is important to many people. There seems to be contradictions between science and the scriptures and everybody wants to get to the bottom of it, We want to know all the facts.

[jo1952]

jo1952:

I believe God made A covenent with Noah. But that covenant as understood by man has undergone major changes over the last 5+ thousand years.

Article of Faith. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.

Can you provide any information on what you believe those major changes are? Stating our Article of Faith does not actually provide the details of those changes. It appears you are using the Article of Faith to avoid addressing the actual issue. IOW, since God is not the one who changed His covenant, can you explain how man's interpretation of it has changed? My purpose for asking this is to understand what your beliefs look like. Once I understand them, even if I still don't agree with them, at least I will understand where you are coming from.

Perhaps it would be helpful, likewise, if you understood better where I am coming from. I have already shared some of the reasons not only spiritually speaking (i.e., that the earth has been completely submerged in a physical water baptism), in addition to various articles from the scientific communicty which support a worldwide flood. Also, the flood was not caused by only rain. The Bible describes that the fountains of the sea rose up and increased the amount of water that was flooding the earth from below as well as from above. What I have seen in my physical researching is evidence of land masses suddenly heaving upward and clashing in vertical formations. IOW, the water did not just effect the land in a horizontal manner by the volume of rain falling. Also, there is very much evidence of fish and equatic fossils all over the earth, from the lowest of valleys, to the highest of mountains. This provides evidence for a theory that even the mountains themselves were indeed under water at some point all over the earth. There is also the evidence of mammoths and other animals who were still standing in an upright position who were still in the process of eating plants when something catasrophic killed them were they stood. Additionally, there is evidence tha at that time that life expectancy of life on earth started to decrease - which suggests that there was a change in atmospheric pressure which has other effects of on life, such as a major change in climate, the sizes of ceatures, etc, and more.

Regards,

jo

[keith_brian]

If you are letting the burden of proof rest with the people making the fringe claim, then wouldn't it behoove you to look at the proof they are providing? It appears that you are not allowing them to provide anything since you have already decided you are not going to bother reading about their studies and refuse to provide any specific reasons why you believe their findings fail. IOW, claiming they have the burden of proof, and then refusing to deal with the proof they are providing, makes no sense. Your argument is in conflict with itself.

Regards,

jo

They are claiming that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, for one reason or another.

Again, the case of the people claiming that Fred from Michigan painted the Mona Lisa -- how much time do I have to spend reading their claims before I can dismiss them as invalid? Do I have to make some sort of detailed study of the exact reasons WHY they claim Fred made this painting, or am I allowed to give it a cursory examination, notice there is nothing new there, and then dismiss it without much further discussion?

As I said before, I have better things to do than spend time trying to reason through every looney argument on the internet. If they really have something new, have them publish a paper about it in a scientific journal.

[TAO]

Well, if you think you have a tack on it I'm sure there's a nobel prize in it for you. But QM is one of the most experimentally verified theories in existence. Good luck..

Quantum Mechanics can work with non-local hidden variables in replacement of randomness though (which could be done by matter outside of the universe effecting the fabric of the universe).

Which is kinda why there is no real way to prove which one it is, non-local hidden variables, or true randomness =P.

[jo1952]

They are claiming that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, for one reason or another.

Similarly, anti-LDS claim we simply cannot be receiving any witness from the Holy Ghost which teaches us that the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Christ. When pressed, they have no real answer to give us other than we are wrong. As long as they cling to that belief, they will allow no other possibility. When this type of answer comes from someone in the scientific community, it is my opinion that this attitude is tantamount to abandoning their own scientific theory which is the foundation upon which science is formed.

Again, the case of the people claiming that Fred from Michigan painted the Mona Lisa -- how much time do I have to spend reading their claims before I can dismiss them as invalid? Do I have to make some sort of detailed study of the exact reasons WHY they claim Fred made this painting, or am I allowed to give it a cursory examination, notice there is nothing new there, and then dismiss it without much further discussion?

As I said before, I have better things to do than spend time trying to reason through every looney argument on the internet. If they really have something new, have them publish a paper about it in a scientific journal.

How am I to know if this is nothing new to you if you won't give me any comments on them other than you refuse to read them based on the argument you HAVE given which is simply that they disagree with your belief?

IOW, you are now recanting your previous statement that the burden of proof belongs to those who disagree with you. It appears what you are really saying is that you are so convinved that evolution is correct, you simply will ignore any other possibility.

This is circular reasoning. What about the physical evidence which everyone can see with their own eyes without needing to read about it in any peer approved published article? This would include the examples I gave to Thesometimesaint:

Perhaps it would be helpful, likewise, if you understood better where I am coming from. I have already shared some of the reasons not only spiritually speaking (i.e., that the earth has been completely submerged in a physical water baptism), in addition to various articles from the scientific community which support a worldwide flood. Also, the flood was not caused by only rain. The Bible describes that the fountains of the sea rose up and increased the amount of water that was flooding the earth from below as well as from above. What I have seen in my physical researching is evidence of land masses suddenly heaving upward and clashing in vertical formations. IOW, the water did not just effect the land in a horizontal manner by the volume of rain falling. Also, there is very much evidence of fish and equatic fossils all over the earth, from the lowest of valleys, to the highest of mountains. This provides evidence for a theory that even the mountains themselves were indeed under water at some point all over the earth. There is also the evidence of mammoths and other animals who were still standing in an upright position who were still in the process of eating plants when something catasrophic killed them were they stood. Additionally, there is evidence that at that time the life expectancy of life on earth started to decrease - which suggests that there was a change in atmospheric pressure which has other effects on the entire earth, such as a major change in climate, the (deminishing) sizes of creatures, etc, and more.

What say you to these very visible evidences? Btw, one does not even need to be a scientist to see these things.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 26, 2011 by jo1952

[shalamabobbi]

It states that SED should be used to overturn QM because SED reproduces the results of QM but in a more simplistic manner.

Actually it is less simplistic in the sense that it is trying to push the cause and effect paradigm from classical mechanics onto the non-classical world of the quantum.

This is what Einstein hoped to prove as well. It's a matter of history now. The article has to do with experiments derived to prove one way or the other whether there are hidden variables involved, or in other words whether there is any cause and effect behavior behind quantum behavior. There is not, as weird as that may seem to the human mind.

What is meant by non-local is action at a distance that occurs faster than light. For example two photons traveling in opposite directions whose quantum states are co-mingled so that measuring one causes or determines the state of the other instantly. Not so much a mystery from the frame of the photon, since at the speed of light they experience no duration in time and never really separate, the universe having become flattened along their direction of travel.

Current understanding is that matter is a field and forces are disturbances in that field.

I would not hold out hope for Setterfield here. Reality has a way of being what it is regardless of purity of intentions/sincerity/honesty of the investigator and this horse has been beaten to death now for decades..

The wiki references were simply to help clarify terms and definitions.