“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

At Galapagos: Disproving Darwin

MysteriousIsandsAt the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s  “On the Origin of Species,” a group of Christian scientists gone into the belly of the beast…to demonstrate the fallacies and weaknesses of Darwin’s ideas.

As WorldNetDaily puts it,

Just in time for the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” a team of Christian scientists has traveled back in time to the birthplace of evolution to “prove Darwin wrong.”

The scientists have embarked on a journey to the Galapagos Islands, the same island chain Darwin visited during the voyage of the HMS Beagle in 1835. Many scholars today agree that the animals and plants Darwin saw on those islands contributed greatly to his becoming an evolutionist.

The Mysterious Islands” takes a look at the place where Darwin saw a laboratory of evolution and finds a very different conclusion.

For too long Christianity has been on the run from Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution.  For too long Christianity has fled in fear of a phantom idea that can’t support it’s own weight.

Now, the Christian worldview has walked into the lion’s den, has invaded hostile territory, has walked into the temple of the false god and challenged it.

This team of filmmakers has gone to what was essentially the birthplace of the theory of evolution…to prove it’s weakness.

Every person has a worldview, a set of foundational beliefs that guide and influence their perception of the world around them.  This fundamental set of assumptions tends to make other assumptions that are in harmony with it seem more plausible, while assumptions that are not in harmony seem less plausible.

Thus it is that two geologists or biologists can look at the same physical evidence and reach two very different assumptive conclusions–and since neither the creationist nor the evolutionist was around when fossils were deposited, both are making assumptions about the origin of that fossil and how it was deposited.

WorldNetDaily recounts a statement by Doug Phillips, executive producer of the film, which illustrates this point by someone who was on the trip with Darwin:

Phillips notes, Capt. FitzRoy had served as a naturalist on his ship alongside Darwin, collecting more animals than Darwin had and properly labeling them.

“FitzRoy saw the same things but he came to vastly different conclusions,” he said.

“The Mysterious Islands” revisits an 1860 debate between Darwin disciple Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, the son of William Wilberforce, the man who led the fight to abolish slavery in Great Britain. The two fiercely debated Darwin’s book.

“In the middle of the debate, Robert FitzRoy stood up, carried a Bible over his head and said, ‘You must believe in God before man,’” Phillips explained. “He said, ‘I saw what Darwin saw. I was there where Darwin went, and I reached completely different conclusions.’”

If two people can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions, we must then examine the fundamental assumptions of both to see which best fits the evidence, and to determine which set of assumptions is most logically consistent.

I believed in the theory of evolution until a little more than ten years ago. In what I perceived to be the absence of any weaknesses to the theory, and in what I perceived to be any alternative explanations, it seemed to be a reasonable assumption to explain the fossil record which often contains organisms very different than what we see today.

What I didn’t realize until 10 years ago was that there are many problems with the theory of evolution.  I also didn’t realize that key assumptions of materialist and naturalist theory are inconsistent with one another, resulting in an illogical theory.  I also didn’t realize that there were alternative explanations for the fossil record and many other things we see in nature–alternative explanations that are not logically inconsistent and which better fit the evidence.

When I became aware of these things and stopped to weigh and evaluate them, I stopped believing in evolution and came to believe in creation science.

If you have questions or doubts about the theory of evolution, about whether the Biblical account of creation holds any water, consider making a trip to the Creation Museum.

My family and I went there a few weeks ago, and were amazed at the presentation.   This $27-million, 70,000 square foot facility did not shy away from the theory of evolution in its presentation of the evidence.  On the contrary, in countless areas throughout the museum the theory of evolution was placed side-by-side with the Genesis account of creation to be contrasted.

It will be interesting to watch this film and see different conclusions about the Galapagos Islands that we didn’t hear about from Darwin.

Trailer 2

Trailer 1


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


32 Responses to “At Galapagos: Disproving Darwin”

  1. I found it interesting that these scientist's stated mission was to ' demonstrate the fallicies and weaknesses of Darwin's' ideas and to 'prove him wrong'. Most scientists would state it more like ' We are going to go and do the research ourselves and see what conclusions we independantly come up with'.That is what is called an open and objective scientific mind. Darwin didn't go on his journey to 'prove' anything, but was hired by the captain to chronicle the biologic and geologic aspects of the journey. In fact, Darvin was a religious man when he first embarked on these voyages, of which the Galapagos was a part of his second voyage.

    He did not start out 'looking' for evolution( there was no such concept), but slowly came to that conclusion after years of surveying and then years of reflecting and changing his mind because of the.the evidence. He did not start out with a preconceived idea and again believed in a creator.If anything, his preconceived idea was that 'God did it' and he was devoutly religious.His loss of faith struggle lasted years.

    I hope these scientists also devote the years of surveying that Darwin did( around 4 years of actual on land reserach )so that they can conduct a thorough and honest research project.Darwin also went to many other continents and islands, so I hope the Christian researchers get to survey them as well. I would think at least a solid year or two of surveying, observing and cataloguing all the species would be needed to make a truthful and scientific claim.Research like this is painstaking and time consuming and I will look forward to the volumes of evidence they produce over the next several years. That's how long it will take.Can't be done in weeks or a few months

  2. Science has nothing to do the creation of this earth and the universe surrounding it.God is our creator and there is no way, i dont care whether its done in the name of science or in the name of Henery Ford that anyone can prove different.One day God will step out on a cloud and say Son go get my Children and then the whole world,even the scientist will know the truth.

  3. Unfortunately what you've written shows you cannot have studied Darwin too deeply. The concept of evolution did indeed exist, and had been put forth by Darwin's father. And while he wrote “God” into his book to make his ideas easier to swallow, his hostility to Christianity is well in evidence in his more private writings.

    Plus, many people fail to understand that natural selection, speciation and genetic variability fit quite nicely into creation science — better than they fit into evolutionism, in fact. Where Darwin and others completely exit the scientific method, and enter philosophically driven speculation, is when they claim that life had to have originated without a Creator — an idea that nothing ever actually observed in science lends any real support to. There is “evolution” that simply means “variation,” and there is “evolution” that means brand new features being created gradually by a series of genetic mistakes. The latter is pure fiction, and the fact that so many scientists accept it is a reason to be suspicious of anything pointedly called “science.”

  4. “Science” is simply the study of what God has created. Don't let the abuse of the term turn you off to what it's really supposed to be.

  5. Are you sure Darwin wasn't out to prove anything? Are you sure he didn't already have assumptions of an ancient earth–mixed with mistaken assumptions about what the Bible teaches–, with a mind to explain that through interpretations of biology which supported his presupposition?

    And what about evolutionists who make it their mission to find proof of evolution? They are somehow “objective”?

    I beg to differ that it has to take these scientists the same amount of time to cover this ground as it did Darwin. After all, they have vehicles which help them cover geography much faster, along with tools to look vastly farther and deeper far more quickly than Darwin could ever have hoped to so many years ago.

    This, in addition to a 150-year accumulation of information not available to Darwin.

    Their conclusion: well, the synopsis of the film reveals that, doesn't it? Darwin made shaky assumptions that were based on shaky presuppositions.

    So then we're back to the question of which theory and which set of assumptions best fit the evidence and which are logically consistent within themselves.

  6. Darwin can hardly be said to have been purely objective or “devoutly religious” at the time of sailing on the Beagle. By that time he had come under the influence of such men as Lamarck (inheritance of acquired characteristics), Lyell (uniformitarianism) and Alfred Russel Wallace (who proposed “natural selection” years before Darwin). All of these men had proposed theories that contributed substantially to Darwin's own theory specified in “Origin of the Species.” Even before that Darwin was surely aware of the writings of his own grandfather, Erasmus, who advanced theories that were virtually identical to those his grandson would later make famous (without a mention of his grandfather's work!).

    Darwin most certainly had an agenda when he embarked on these voyages and looked for every evidence that supported his preconceived beliefs. I agree that pure science should look only for truth without framing the search in opinion and speculation, but I seriously doubt that that is possible as long as humans are involved. I can forgive scientists their prejudices as long as they strive to maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, for which I give Old Charles some credit. In his seminal book he laid out the specific findings that would invalidate his theory — like lack of transitional forms, anomalies in the fossil record and showing that natural selection cannot account for increased complexity (all of which have come to pass). Now, if only modern Darwinists would listen to their founder…

  7. I guess no ones knows the exact frame of mind Charles Darwin was in when he left on his voyages.He did come from a family of 'doubters', but also was a great admirer and believer at one time in William Paleys Natural Theology that advocated a designer created the natural world. Darwin also said that this world couldn't have happened by mere chance. He did reject Christianity, however.

    My point is that whether his views on natural selection are right or wrong,he compiled volumes and reams of information over years to support his idea of natural selection. Massive amounts of minute cataloguing, drawings and descriptions over years. Lets assume you are right and these Christian scientists can do the research much quicker, where is all their research that disputes Darwin . They claim to be scientists who have traveled to the Galapagos to scientifically prove Darwin wrong.Where is that scientific research that backs up their claim. That is what I want to know. Darwin put his research out there for us to accept or reject. Where is theirs ?

    The trailers show them touring the islands and even claiming out loud what magnificient creatures God created. That is a fine thing to say, but as scientists they must reveal all their massive and extensive scientific findings that dispute Darwin, because that is what they said they were going to achieve. That is prove Darwin wrong through science. They need to reveal all the science and extensive research they engaged in that supports their claim. Will take much more than a 90 minute DVD to do that.

  8. dr theo As I stated above this isn't so much about Darwin, but the pretext that these scientists are going to scientifically dispute him.Do you think they actually engaged in such extensive scientific research and don't you agree that such research would take an enormous amount of time, as all true research does ?I know of no vaild research that takes a few weeks or months

  9. Darwin spent just five weeks, in the Galopagos Islands, and yet a worldwide, 150-year house of cards has been built on his research.

    As I said earlier, imagine what these modern scientists can do in as much time (or less) with vastly more powerful equipment at their disposal, as well as 150 years of additional accumulated knowledge (e.g. Darwin hadn't the foggiest clue of the phenomenal complexity of a single cell).

  10. If you want to see the scientific research that backs up their claims, a good place to start would be to watch the film.

    Not to insult their work, but that hurdle is not extremely difficult, since Darwin's claims have not been proved by science.

  11. “My point is that whether his views on natural selection are right or wrong” — Darwin did not originate the idea of natural selection. At any rate, you're still disregarding the fact that natural selection most certainly does *not* equal evolution, but fits perfectly within a creation science framework. Darwin actually observed some correct things; the point is that those things absolutely do not line up with the idea of a Creator-less world, even though it's claimed that they do.

    (P.S.: I meant to say Darwin's *grandfather*, as Dr. Theo does, not “father.”)

  12. You don't accept Darwins work and I do.But that is not what is at issue here. These Christian scientists claim to have gone to the Galapagos and have proved that speciation doesn't occur. They too are welcome to their views, but 'proof' is a strong word. So I ask you and dr theo ” What kind of scientific research can be done to PROVE that speciation doesn't happen” At a minimum,these men are being disingenuous when they say they have scientific PROOF that speciation doesn't occur. .

    They can honestly say that the evidence they have accumulated leads them to believe speciation doesn't happen, but to ascertain it is proof is false. I can only say that the evidence leads me to believe that speciation does occur. They merely should be honest and restate and recant.

    Like you have said many times before, the only way they can 'prove' what they say is to have been there the whole time and observed what happened. Right ? These Christian men are as guilty and scientifically dishonest as the evolutionists are in claiming to have 'proof', because none of them were there when it all happened. I am just asking them to adhere to their Christian values and be honest.

  13. Well, seeing as now it has yet to be proved that one organism can give rise to another (no transitional forms have ever been discovered in the fossil record, none have been observed in nature transitioning from one type of animal to another, and it has never been replicated in laboratory conditions, it seems to me that their job of proving Darwin wrong is quite easy.

    Darwin made a claim that has STILL not been proved, and all the evidence accumulated since then has only made his claims more unlikely.

    In going to the Galapagos Islands, it seems they have, by observation that things on this island are as we see them in the rest of the world (i.e. organisms are not evolving into new types of animals) has nailed the final nail into the coffin of Darwin's unsubstantiated theory.

    In the interest of the pursuit of truth, you and I should both watch this film to watch this final nail being hammered in.

  14. Again I think you have missed the basic issue. The issue is speciation. . What these men are claiming is that they have their 'own proof' that that speciation doesn't occur. If they find fault with Darwin or others methodology is their perogative. I can find things I disagree with, but that doesn't make mine ideas correct.I must still have positive evidence to support my ideas.

    You and the Creation Museum use the example of two men looking at the same fossil and coming up with different conclusions, so both must be considered. That isn't what these men are saying. Thay are saying that they are standing on their own research-their own 'positive' findings, which proves speciation doesn't occur. How can they say that if they weren't there the entire time to observe it ?

  15. Darwin and his disciples are the ones claiming something has happened (i.e. that one type of organism has morphed into another type of animal) in contradiction to scientific evidence. These guys are essentially stating what we already know: there's no evidence of Darwin's contentions.

    If you're going to make a claim that is contrary to observable science, the burden of proof is on you. Darwin and his disciples have made such a claim, and 150 years later we still hear the crickets chirping as we wait for evidence.

  16. Think you have your concepts and timeline out of order. In 1800, there was such a thing as Natural Theology which was a RELIGIOUS BELIEF that all things we see in nature are created as is by God. It's religion. Creation science, which says science in and of itself (and just religion) can also prove that a creator did it all, wasn't even conceived of. Then came the likes of Russell, Darwin etc who gave a scientific explanation of… say …speciation. No religion and just science. Then issues like the geologic column were brought forth. Creation science then began as a way to scientifically, and not religiously, argue against the Darwins and the geologic column etc.

    The naturalists began using science first in order to make their claims and the field of creation science came after to combat it.

    Creation science, as a science, then since it is responding to the natural science claim of speciation does indeed have to come up with evidence that speciation didn't occur. What you are saying is that observable 'science' was present prior to Darwin , so it is Darwin that must provide proof. but that 'observable science' you are referring to was religion- not creation science, which came much later and after the naturalists began making their claims.That makes it incumbent on them to come up with their own scientific data and proof

  17. I haven't seen the film Dr. R., so I can't answer your questions specifically, but I do contend that science does not necessarily need to repeat the original observations in order to come to a different conclusion. As far as I know, Darwin's observations were basically sound. The issue is interpretation of that data, and with all that we know today that was unknown in Darwin's time we should not be surprised that new interpretations are now surfacing.

    An example are Darwin's ground finches, arguably the single most important aspect of Darwin's observations on the Galapagos islands. He named about 18 species based upon beak size and primary diets. We now know that most of what were thought to be different species are in fact the same species that can adapt rapidly to changing environmental conditions. Creationists have no contention with adaptation and see it as another example of God's marvelous design in nature, but adaptation within a species or genus is a long, long way from evolution as Darwin and neo-Darwinists envision it.

  18. Actually that's not the case at all. You are mistaking the modern creation science movement (when some scientists finally realized in the 1970s or so that we'd been foolish for retreating from the claims of evolutionists) for the beginning of the worldview.

    The worldview that God was the author of the universe and the science that governs it had been around for thousands of years, and was the functional presupposition of many if not most scientists before and even around the time of Lamark, Lyell and Darwin.

    This worldview fit the available evidence at least as well if not considerably better than the materialist/naturalist model. It was not until many in the scientific community began to get full of their own “wisdom” and felt the need to “grow beyond” all those confining “superstitions” associated with the Christian worldview that we began to see the rise of an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

    Unfortunately the Christian community–including scientists and theologians–allowed the materialists/naturalists to bluff and intimidate them into silence. Peer pressure is a powerful thing, you know, and the scientific community is no more immune to it than the average man on the street. Adherents to the Christian worldview–including science–allowed themselves to be cowed and painted as “out of step” with “progressive” views of science.

    And thus it has been for approximately 150 years.

    But in that time, those claims made by this alternative interpretation of the evidence are not a bit closer to being proved than they were the day “Origin of Species” was printed. In fact, the overwhelming absence of supporting data in all that time actually tends to in effect disprove those contentions by the absence of supporting evidence.

    And as we have continued to learn more and more about the incredible complexity of biological systems (without even getting into the complexities of physics for which materialism has no logically consistent answers), the viability of Darwin's theories grows more anemic every year.

    It'll be interesting to see what's in this film. But even without having seen it, it's easy to understand how simply going to the Galapagos Islands, examining the same evidence as Darwin, and illustrating that his theory regarding them is NOT conclusive evidence is more than enough to undermine his contentions.

    Let's get together on this again after we've both had a chance to see the film.

  19. Cant argue with that. Would be like saying my dog is prettier than yours. All depends on who is doing the looking

  20. I think you confused the issue again. ” The worldview that God was the author of the universe and the science that governs has been around for thousands of years” That worldview has been indeed been around, but you flip flopped it because the creation scientists are saying that through science first they can make make the claim that there must be a creator. Two different concepts.It is the later concept, that science can prove a creator, that responded to the naturalists and is called creation science. It is a new concept that starts with 'scientific priniciples', then works to 'there must be a creator'. The one you spoke of says there is a supernatural and then all natural laws come from it.Completely different concepts that Creationists frequently get cloudy about. Creation science isn't a 'world view' but attempts to use science to show proof of a creator. so no matter what, they have to back that up with data, since it is they who chose that scientific method in the first place .I will pateintly wait for all this data

    No matter Hope you and dr theo have a most Happy Thanksgiving

  21. Why don't we both make a point to watch this film and get back together then. :-)

    You have a great Thanksgiving, too!

  22. You don't accept Darwins work and I do.But that is not what is at issue here. These Christian scientists claim to have gone to the Galapagos and have proved that speciation doesn't occur. They too are welcome to their views, but 'proof' is a strong word. So I ask you and dr theo ” What kind of scientific research can be done to PROVE that speciation doesn't happen” At a minimum,these men are being disingenuous when they say they have scientific PROOF that speciation doesn't occur. .

    They can honestly say that the evidence they have accumulated leads them to believe speciation doesn't happen, but to ascertain it is proof is false. I can only say that the evidence leads me to believe that speciation does occur. They merely should be honest and restate and recant.

    Like you have said many times before, the only way they can 'prove' what they say is to have been there the whole time and observed what happened. Right ? These Christian men are as guilty and scientifically dishonest as the evolutionists are in claiming to have 'proof', because none of them were there when it all happened. I am just asking them to adhere to their Christian values and be honest.

  23. Well, seeing as now it has yet to be proved that one organism can give rise to another (no transitional forms have ever been discovered in the fossil record, none have been observed in nature transitioning from one type of animal to another, and it has never been replicated in laboratory conditions, it seems to me that their job of proving Darwin wrong is quite easy.

    Darwin made a claim that has STILL not been proved, and all the evidence accumulated since then has only made his claims more unlikely.

    In going to the Galapagos Islands, it seems they have, by observation that things on this island are as we see them in the rest of the world (i.e. organisms are not evolving into new types of animals) has nailed the final nail into the coffin of Darwin's unsubstantiated theory.

    In the interest of the pursuit of truth, you and I should both watch this film to watch this final nail being hammered in.

  24. Again I think you have missed the basic issue. The issue is speciation. . What these men are claiming is that they have their 'own proof' that that speciation doesn't occur. If they find fault with Darwin or others methodology is their perogative. I can find things I disagree with, but that doesn't make mine ideas correct.I must still have positive evidence to support my ideas.

    You and the Creation Museum use the example of two men looking at the same fossil and coming up with different conclusions, so both must be considered. That isn't what these men are saying. Thay are saying that they are standing on their own research-their own 'positive' findings, which proves speciation doesn't occur. How can they say that if they weren't there the entire time to observe it ?

  25. Darwin and his disciples are the ones claiming something has happened (i.e. that one type of organism has morphed into another type of animal) in contradiction to scientific evidence. These guys are essentially stating what we already know: there's no evidence of Darwin's contentions.

    If you're going to make a claim that is contrary to observable science, the burden of proof is on you. Darwin and his disciples have made such a claim, and 150 years later we still hear the crickets chirping as we wait for evidence.

  26. Think you have your concepts and timeline out of order. In 1800, there was such a thing as Natural Theology which was a RELIGIOUS BELIEF that all things we see in nature are created as is by God. It's religion. Creation science, which says science in and of itself (and just religion) can also prove that a creator did it all, wasn't even conceived of. Then came the likes of Russell, Darwin etc who gave a scientific explanation of… say …speciation. No religion and just science. Then issues like the geologic column were brought forth. Creation science then began as a way to scientifically, and not religiously, argue against the Darwins and the geologic column etc.

    The naturalists began using science first in order to make their claims and the field of creation science came after to combat it.

    Creation science, as a science, then since it is responding to the natural science claim of speciation does indeed have to come up with evidence that speciation didn't occur. What you are saying is that observable 'science' was present prior to Darwin , so it is Darwin that must provide proof. but that 'observable science' you are referring to was religion- not creation science, which came much later and after the naturalists began making their claims.That makes it incumbent on them to come up with their own scientific data and proof

  27. I haven't seen the film Dr. R., so I can't answer your questions specifically, but I do contend that science does not necessarily need to repeat the original observations in order to come to a different conclusion. As far as I know, Darwin's observations were basically sound. The issue is interpretation of that data, and with all that we know today that was unknown in Darwin's time we should not be surprised that new interpretations are now surfacing.

    An example are Darwin's ground finches, arguably the single most important aspect of Darwin's observations on the Galapagos islands. He named about 18 species based upon beak size and primary diets. We now know that most of what were thought to be different species are in fact the same species that can adapt rapidly to changing environmental conditions. Creationists have no contention with adaptation and see it as another example of God's marvelous design in nature, but adaptation within a species or genus is a long, long way from evolution as Darwin and neo-Darwinists envision it.

  28. Actually that's not the case at all. You are mistaking the modern creation science movement (when some scientists finally realized in the 1970s or so that we'd been foolish for retreating from the claims of evolutionists) for the beginning of the worldview.

    The worldview that God was the author of the universe and the science that governs it had been around for thousands of years, and was the functional presupposition of many if not most scientists before and even around the time of Lamark, Lyell and Darwin.

    This worldview fit the available evidence at least as well if not considerably better than the materialist/naturalist model. It was not until many in the scientific community began to get full of their own “wisdom” and felt the need to “grow beyond” all those confining “superstitions” associated with the Christian worldview that we began to see the rise of an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

    Unfortunately the Christian community–including scientists and theologians–allowed the materialists/naturalists to bluff and intimidate them into silence. Peer pressure is a powerful thing, you know, and the scientific community is no more immune to it than the average man on the street. Adherents to the Christian worldview–including science–allowed themselves to be cowed and painted as “out of step” with “progressive” views of science.

    And thus it has been for approximately 150 years.

    But in that time, those claims made by this alternative interpretation of the evidence are not a bit closer to being proved than they were the day “Origin of Species” was printed. In fact, the overwhelming absence of supporting data in all that time actually tends to in effect disprove those contentions by the absence of supporting evidence.

    And as we have continued to learn more and more about the incredible complexity of biological systems (without even getting into the complexities of physics for which materialism has no logically consistent answers), the viability of Darwin's theories grows more anemic every year.

    It'll be interesting to see what's in this film. But even without having seen it, it's easy to understand how simply going to the Galapagos Islands, examining the same evidence as Darwin, and illustrating that his theory regarding them is NOT conclusive evidence is more than enough to undermine his contentions.

    Let's get together on this again after we've both had a chance to see the film.

  29. Cant argue with that. Would be like saying my dog is prettier than yours. All depends on who is doing the looking

  30. I think you confused the issue again. ” The worldview that God was the author of the universe and the science that governs has been around for thousands of years” That worldview has been indeed been around, but you flip flopped it because the creation scientists are saying that through science first they can make make the claim that there must be a creator. Two different concepts.It is the later concept, that science can prove a creator, that responded to the naturalists and is called creation science. It is a new concept that starts with 'scientific priniciples', then works to 'there must be a creator'. The one you spoke of says there is a supernatural and then all natural laws come from it.Completely different concepts that Creationists frequently get cloudy about. Creation science isn't a 'world view' but attempts to use science to show proof of a creator. so no matter what, they have to back that up with data, since it is they who chose that scientific method in the first place .I will pateintly wait for all this data

    No matter Hope you and dr theo have a most Happy Thanksgiving

  31. Why don't we both make a point to watch this film and get back together then. :-)

    You have a great Thanksgiving, too!