Evolution?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you prove macroevolution occurs?

Whats sad is you think that evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive.

[z0sa]

Whats sad is you think that evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive.

I really don't think that.

I think scientists have, without them even knowing it on some conspiracy scale or anything, extended their assumptions far beyond reasonable means. Which leads me to my next point -

I completely agree that microevolution, or adaptation, occurs.

But

From what I've read and gathered, there's actually little evidence for macroevolution other than those very assumptions or should I call it presumptions, about the extent of microevolution.

Just because consecutive generations are capable of making small adaptations thanks to miniscule changes in their DNA does not mean, in effect, that such a system operates on a grander scale.

When one studies the way mutations occur and how often they are very harmful, it becomes nearly impossible imagining the actual progression with this method. It is, in fact, very much a leap of faith accepting macro evolutionary theory as currently constructed, and certainly it is an issue being debated around the globe whether any of our local ST residents accept that or not.

Finally (for this thread), while I have "chosen" a side, my opinion actually could be swayed if more than mere presumptions were the basis for much of evolution's factual data.

[admiralsnackbar]

Have you really chosen a side if you can't say what would be a better alternative to the present formulation of the theory of evolution?

[z0sa]

Have you really chosen a side if you can't say what would be a better alternative to the present formulation of the theory of evolution?

That's the thing: I really haven't chosen a side.

Because I speak out against some practices and ideas regarding evolution, one assumes I must be out to debunk the entire thing.

I'm not. I'm here asking questions a lot of people apparently don't want to ask, or answer. Phenomanul put it my own thoughts very well last page or two concerning what he calls the "GOD question."

Scientists of the now generally have an almost infallible method of separating fact from fiction, truth from fantasy.

EXCEPT when highly subjective evidence (and methods) are put under the microscope, at which point, conflict occurs. What we are seeing is this conflict.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's the thing: I really haven't chosen a side.

Because I speak out against some practices and ideas regarding evolution, one assumes I must be out to debunk the entire thing.

I'm not. I'm here asking questions a lot of people apparently don't want to ask, or answer. Phenomanul put it my own thoughts very well last page or two concerning what he calls the "GOD question."

Scientists of the now generally have an almost infallible method of separating fact from fiction, truth from fantasy.

EXCEPT when highly subjective evidence (and methods) are put under the microscope, at which point, conflict occurs. What we are seeing is this conflict.

Science doesn't pretend to be infallible: if you have issues, odds are scientists are working to figure out whether their theory still holds water or not. Agreeing with Phenomanul as I understand him doesn't lead to progress, it only supports the notion that "since we don't know everything now, we must be wrong." It's a dead end. Newtonian physics were wrong, but they led to a more fruitful theorization of physics. As I've said before, science is a process, not an end.

Nobody is claiming they know everything as much as they are supporting a theory that makes more sense than anything else out there. So again, I ask: do your misgivings about the theory of evolution preclude its plausibility? And if so, what theory do you offer to explain things more conclusively?

[Phenomanul]

Science doesn't pretend to be infallible: if you have issues, odds are scientists are working to figure out whether their theory still holds water or not. Agreeing with Phenomanul as I understand him doesn't lead to progress, it only supports the notion that "since we don't know everything now, we must be wrong." It's a dead end. Newtonian physics were wrong, but they led to a more fruitful theorization of physics. As I've said before, science is a process, not an end.

Nobody is claiming they know everything as much as they are supporting a theory that makes more sense than anything else out there. So again, I ask: do your misgivings about the theory of evolution preclude its plausibility? And if so, what theory do you offer to explain things more conclusively?

That's a misplaced attack.

Scientific progress is not attained from dwelling on the past. We can continue to study our genomes in search for genectic switches to disease, etc... We can continue to search for ways in which we could slow down our biological aging. Very little progress can come from trying to "connect the dots" between us and some extinct ancestor; or worse, an ameobic ancestor...

[Phenomanul]

Ok… where to start (had a full day at work)...

I'm not either.

Nice try.

You certainly act like it [being offended at the fact that the scientific community at large cannot be questioned]. I don’t believe in macro-evolution due to lack of hard data. I state and explain my objections, due to that pretty significant issue... and you pretend like I’ve insulted your family (all your spiteful discourse since doesn’t help substantiate your claim at feeling offended for being called a disbeliever... If you truly believed in GOD you wouldn’t be as predisposed to call people stupid and asses every time you get the chance... but that’s another topic)...

......Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”.....
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz0frTHNcIm

One... Mary is a believer. She believes in the Judeo-Christian GOD, believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ but she also happens to reconcile her beliefs with evolution... she is certainly en led to that opinion (ummm... her profession kind of depends on it...). Many Christians feel pressured to take this position... but hey, Doctorate or not... everyone makes a choice; ultimately her belief in Jesus remains unwavering... as is her disbelief in abiogenesis (come to think of it... I’ve noticed that for all of your demands that “I provide you with an alternate framework”... you’ve yet to state your own position on abiogenesis and how that is reconciled with your ‘alleged’ belief in GOD. Furthermore, how is that belief, by your standards, congruent with science???).

That said... she is a Paleontologist, and so are the other members from her team. She basically stated the same bewildering amazement that many others make when first confronted with the realization that biological material could actually endure millions of years without full degradation. And she faced this very question several years before the rex hip-bone discovery (after her work with the porphyrin structures of dinosaur heme). Thomas Holtz’s comment, however, is rather presumptuous in that he criticizes detractors for assuming ‘basic stuff about nature,’ concerning matters of biological decay. But he can’t explain it away anymore than the next scientist. And duh! o? Of course there would be other such specimens, and there will be many more (I believe I alluded that much… first finds from 1991 or 1992 IIRC)... the whole point of contention is that many (including myself) don’t believe that these creatures could have lived as long ago as the ‘establishment’ says they did. Operative word being that the subject ‘creatures’ is PLURAL. Every such find will continue to affirm the obvious.

You won’t hear an objective Doctorate in chemistry, or a biomolecular engineer, a biogeneticist state what Holtz said with that same conviction. Why? Because the physical chemistry that governs biological decomposition is far more sound than what Holtz is making it out to be...

There are a myriad of processes which breakdown organic compounds... and each of the byproducts from the incipient degradation step keep the process going... such is the law of entropy at work... Holtz’s statements, and lamentably Schweitzer’s take on the situation, arise from denial of those very processes.

Again, one of the reasons why all organisms maintain a surplus production of proteins and stabilization enzymes during their lifetimes coupled with the constant replication of genetic material is precisely to overcome these degenerative processes... to help overcome the relatively short lifespan of proteins and genes. Yet many are willing to put all that aside because it questions the very framework of their scientific worldview? Not surprising. It’s also not surprising that you would jump on that boat. What I still keep hearing from you and the ‘scientific community at large’ is “that the theories of decay are changing...” how convenient. Unfortunately, the 'laws' of thermodynamics are pretty sound. And you can google that all you want.

I doubt you have done any hands on research of this magnitude.

Which is why I have conversed at length with Dr. Schweitzer? Why I have had conversations with Richard Dawkins? Physicists such as Dr. Alan Guth and even Stephen Hawking himself… Ummm... ok… whatever you say.

I’m 1,000 times more qualified to speak about this subject than you and most of the other posters on this forum. I work in these fields. I’m constantly flooded by all such articles when they are published. But this is not about me. It’s about recognizing that the framework for evolution is built on a pillar of assumptions. About recognizing that the hard data required to support the theory of evolution outright simply doesn’t exist.

Rather than admit that this is true, you have constantly sidetracked the discussion by attempting to discredit, mock, and disrespect me as a person. But doing this won't change the fact that macro-evolution can’t be quantifiably proven. Just because the theory is a plausible guess doesn’t make it valid, or certifiable truth.

What I get is that you are an idiot.

Well then, that would make you an amoeba by comparison...
Look, the more you continue to attack me as a person, the more you will continue to belittle yourself. (now... copy my prosaic structure in another spiteful comeback).

I know you are a liar. I have proof.

Proof??? Yeah... ok…
You have ‘proof’ of me stating that you continue to view the world through ‘godless goggles’...

How does this prove that I know nothing about the subject matter at hand? (in my work field no less???) More wishful thinking on your part to try and associate the two. Topic derailment on your part, actually.

As an aside: your spitefulness serves as more than enough proof that you are not living a GOD-centered life. I’ve yet to see you give Him credit for anything. Your disingenuous indignation at being accused of seeing the world through a set of ‘godless’ lens embodies more of that derailment.

Apparently you really don't know much about the current studies regarding the 70 million year old dinosaur tissue. You are lying that you have an understanding of it.

Ha! I knew about it before the original article was published. And seeing how one of my doctorate degrees was obtained in Molecular Genetics I can tell you outright that any biological molecule will lose the battle to entropy given 70 million years of time... actually it was generally accepted that this would happen in less than 50,000 years even under sub-zero conditions... of course there’s probably a slew of atheist scientists out there desperately trying to explain away this blatant incongruence to the established framework. As I stated earlier, I’m sure that they’ll convince you no matter what they choose to say.

The basic evolutionary construct has a huge hole... more of a systemic flaw. NONE of the assumptions being used to "connect the dots", those linking taxonomic families to others, have any measurable, or quantifiable data to support them. Just observational guesses. Comparisons of similar structures from one set of bones to another, and the such... They can't even claim for certain that a particular set of bones (the organism they belonged to, rather) ever managed to procreate... How would anyone know? Like I said, evolution hinges their faith on a heap of such guesses... and those in your camp keep yelling that proof for evolution is 'hard science'.

All the measurable data for evolutionary experiments comes from "micro-evolutionary" processes which actually don't reveal anything more than mere adaptation. The incorporation of new genetic material has only been attained from the gentle 'directional prodding' of those conducting the experiments (such as the methods used by those working with the citrate tolerant E.coli.). None of the 'peer' reviews would dare raise that flag on such a monumental experiment however... Why would they? Even then, that team can't prove that the code-segment which brought about the tolerance wasn't a recombination of code already present in the E.coli genome. HUGE. In other words they can't even prove that the mutative processes which drive evolutionary speciation were responsible for the change. Furthermore, since bacteria are asexual organisms conclusions from those experiments cannot be transitively applied to suggest that the same mechanism was at work for sexual organisms. Don't get me wrong... they are still very good experiments; but they don't prove macro-evolution.

you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.

I will continue to stand by what I said.

As of yet, no one can substantiate the theory without having to rely on assumptions. NO ONE.

so you'll continue to laugh at what the scientific community considers as fact while coming forth with no valid theory of your own.
What I believe is that you are too scared to give us your theory on origins.

First of all... I’m laughing at the fact that you keep demanding something out of me. As if I owed you anything. I certainly don’t.

Secondly, (for the umpteenth time) I don’t need to present an alternate theory to point out why the current theory is systemically flawed. Simply address why the use of so many assumptions is accepted for evolution and origins-related theories but not for any other fields? Or why people feel compelled to defend that premise as being ‘hard-science’?

Very little in science can shown as being a full-proof fact.

Hmmm... obviously mankind knows very little about the universe. Nevertheless, there is a wealth of science that is based on quantifiable, measurable, testable and repeatable data. Unfortunately, Evolution doesn’t fall in that category.

This will be my last response to this thread (to you anyway).

Feel free to pout, gloat or whatever... to claim pathetic victories by posting the activity bar below (as if that means anything). Be your snarky self. Just know this, no matter how hard you come at me, you still can’t substantiate the theory of evolution without having to rely on assumptions. Fact of the matter is that Evolution is not the 'hard science' you continue to claim it is... it simply doesn't meet the criteria. PERIOD.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's a misplaced attack.

Scientific progress is not attained from dwelling on the past. We can continue to study our genomes in search for genectic switches to disease, etc... We can continue to search for ways in which we could slow down our biological aging. Very little progress can come from trying to "connect the dots" between us and some extinct ancestor; or worse, an ameobic ancestor...

Scientific progress is not attained by dwelling on the past? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

How about you stop pussy-footing and tell everybody what your amazing amendment to extant evolutionary theory is. My guess is it has to do with pandas.

[admiralsnackbar]

Also, LOL at bringing up Stephen Hawking. I met Dan Hedaya once... can I include him in the discussion to buttress my club-footed ego?

[Blake]

That's a misplaced attack.

Scientific progress is not attained from dwelling on the past. We can continue to study our genomes in search for genectic switches to disease, etc... We can continue to search for ways in which we could slow down our biological aging. Very little progress can come from trying to "connect the dots" between us and some extinct ancestor; or worse, an ameobic ancestor...

I would post a response as to how ridiculous this statement is, but based on your previous posts, you would just dismiss it and the source as well so there is no point.

[Phenomanul]

Also, LOL at bringing up Stephen Hawking. I met Dan Hedaya once... can I include him in the discussion to buttress my club-footed ego?

Are you trying to make this about me as well?

All you've managed to say at this point is that science isn't perfect. But then you turn around and try to 'force' me to the accept the 'science' behind one of the most controversial theories around on the premise that they're working to get it right. Well, if that were really the case, they wouldn't use assumptions as the backbone for their arguments.

And at your added insistence that I also provide an alternate theory. What I believe is a personal matter that involves elements of faith - but I'm fine with that.

BTW, when I first met Stephen Hawking he was more or less an atheist... now he considers himself an agnostic, and wholeheartedly rejects the athiest framework. Sounds remarkably similar to another groundbreaking change of heart that occured last century: when Albert Einstein admittedly became a Deist.

If I used him (and now Albert) as reference points is to show that even the brightest men around came to the realization that a higher power exists simply by looking at the majesty of Creation. They never fully shutout that possibility like others on this board have unfortunately done.

[admiralsnackbar]

I've already stated numerous times in this thread alone that I don't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive... but I still have no idea why you bring up two physicists in a conversation about biology.

[admiralsnackbar]

As to your conviction that you're being personally attacked for your dissent, I'll tell you what: it's precisely because you tear down at a theory without putting anything of any practical value in it's place. You can be coy about revealing your beliefs all you want, but at the end of the day your very special private feelings about faith have no predictive power, and -- for better or for worse -- the theory of evolution does. That you want to confuse science qua tool with science qua dogma is your own affair.

[Blake]

Ok… where to start (had a full day at work)...


You certainly act like it [being offended at the fact that the scientific community at large cannot be questioned]. I don’t believe in macro-evolution due to lack of hard data. I state and explain my objections, due to that pretty significant issue... and you pretend like I’ve insulted your family (all your spiteful discourse since doesn’t help substantiate your claim at feeling offended for being called a disbeliever... If you truly believed in GOD you wouldn’t be as predisposed to call people stupid and asses every time you get the chance... but that’s another topic)...

What does a belief in God have to do with calling people stupid and asses?

I don't pretend like you insulted my family. What you did was say that I look at this through my "godless goggles" with no basis for saying that.

I don't find it offensive, I find it hilarious. What it tells me is that you really do base your conclusions on terrible assumptions.

One... Mary is a believer. She believes in the Judeo-Christian GOD, believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ but she also happens to reconcile her beliefs with evolution... she is certainly en led to that opinion (ummm... her profession kind of depends on it...). Many Christians feel pressured to take this position... but hey, Doctorate or not... everyone makes a choice; ultimately her belief in Jesus remains unwavering... as is her disbelief in abiogenesis (come to think of it... I’ve noticed that for all of your demands that “I provide you with an alternate framework”... you’ve yet to state your own position on abiogenesis and how that is reconciled with your ‘alleged’ belief in GOD. Furthermore, how is that belief, by your standards, congruent with science???).

What makes you a better source of scientific information than Mary?

My position on abiogenesis is "I don't really know." It's not congruent or incongruent with science because I don't know any scientists working on any abiogenestic theories.

I also have not made any statements in this thread as to whether I believe in God or not and if I did, what that definition of God might be. More terrible assumptions on your part.

That said... she is a Paleontologist, and so are the other members from her team. She basically stated the same bewildering amazement that many others make when first confronted with the realization that biological material could actually endure millions of years without full degradation. And she faced this very question several years before the rex hip-bone discovery (after her work with the porphyrin structures of dinosaur heme). Thomas Holtz’s comment, however, is rather presumptuous in that he criticizes detractors for assuming ‘basic stuff about nature,’ concerning matters of biological decay. But he can’t explain it away anymore than the next scientist. And duh! o? Of course there would be other such specimens, and there will be many more (I believe I alluded that much… first finds from 1991 or 1992 IIRC)... the whole point of contention is that many (including myself) don’t believe that these creatures could have lived as long ago as the ‘establishment’ says they did. Operative word being that the subject ‘creatures’ is PLURAL. Every such find will continue to affirm the obvious.

He can't explain because nobody can explain it of yet. Duh!

There are 3 possibilities. It's either just slime from bacteria, it's really millions of years old tissue, or dinosaurs are really just thousands of years old.

Of the 3, based on dating methods that have been consistent across the board of all different departments of science, I'm using my own thinking skills and disregarding possibilty #3.

You won’t hear an objective Doctorate in chemistry, or a biomolecular engineer, a biogeneticist state what Holtz said with that same conviction. Why? Because the physical chemistry that governs biological decomposition is far more sound than what Holtz is making it out to be...

There are a myriad of processes which breakdown organic compounds... and each of the byproducts from the incipient degradation step keep the process going... such is the law of entropy at work... Holtz’s statements, and lamentably Schweitzer’s take on the situation, arise from denial of those very processes.

I'm sure real biomolecular engineers or biogeneticists aren't as close minded about the possibility of millions of years old tissue as you.

Anomolies that seem to break known rules of science occur all the time. Even someone like me that reads scientific news on a leisurely basis knows this. Strange that someone like you that tries to come off as being the smartest kid in the room doesn't know this as well.

Unfortunately, the 'laws' of thermodynamics are pretty sound. And you can google that all you want.

ok.

One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...cs-broken.html

that was easy.

Which is why I have conversed at length with Dr. Schweitzer? Why I have had conversations with Richard Dawkins? Physicists such as Dr. Alan Guth and even Stephen Hawking himself… Ummm... ok… whatever you say.

So they beat you down so often that you are reduced to conversing at length with a random poster like me on an NBA team's message board?

This doesn't really say much about you.

I’m 1,000 times more qualified to speak about this subject than you and most of the other posters on this forum. I work in these fields. I’m constantly flooded by all such articles when they are published. But this is not about me. It’s about recognizing that the framework for evolution is built on a pillar of assumptions. About recognizing that the hard data required to support the theory of evolution outright simply doesn’t exist.

What exactly are your qualifications and specifically, what work have you done? Please show your work.

Rather than admit that this is true, you have constantly sidetracked the discussion by attempting to discredit, mock, and disrespect me as a person.

Who the are you? You have no credit or respect to begin with any more than anyone else in this thread. There's nothing about you to credit or discredit.

But doing this won't change the fact that macro-evolution can’t be quantifiably proven. Just because the theory is a plausible guess doesn’t make it valid, or certifiable truth.

I agree, it doesn't make it a certfiable truth. I have already stated as much.

However, you rambling on about yourself and who you have talked to and how I look through godless goggles does not mean the theory of evolution should be dismissed.

You are basically telling everyone the theory is a sham just because you say it is.

Well then, that would make you an amoeba by comparison...
Look, the more you continue to attack me as a person, the more you will continue to belittle yourself. (now... copy my prosaic structure in another spiteful comeback).

You are misplacing my asking you for references and sources as an attack on you personally.

You simply saying that you are a source that deserves respect and credit does not mean that you do. You are belittling yourself.

Proof??? Yeah... ok…
You have ‘proof’ of me stating that you continue to view the world through ‘godless goggles’...

And I don't view the world through godless goggles. That is a faulty assumption on your part and is a lie. You are a liar.

How does this prove that I know nothing about the subject matter at hand? (in my work field no less???) More wishful thinking on your part to try and associate the two. Topic derailment on your part, actually.

You bragging about how you have talked to a bunch of people is the actual topic derailment on your part.

You also bragging about it means that the burden of proof is on you to validate such claims. So far I, nor anyone else, has seen anything from you that completely invalidates the theory of evolution.

As an aside: your spitefulness serves as more than enough proof that you are not living a GOD-centered life. I’ve yet to see you give Him credit for anything. Your disingenuous indignation at being accused of seeing the world through a set of ‘godless’ lens embodies more of that derailment.

I am not spiteful, and even if that were the case, it is not proof of how I live my life.

More faulty assumptions leading to more lies on your part.

Ha! I knew about it before the original article was published. And seeing how one of my doctorate degrees was obtained in Molecular Genetics I can tell you outright that any biological molecule will lose the battle to entropy given 70 million years of time... actually it was generally accepted that this would happen in less than 50,000 years even under sub-zero conditions... of course there’s probably a slew of atheist scientists out there desperately trying to explain away this blatant incongruence to the established framework. As I stated earlier, I’m sure that they’ll convince you no matter what they choose to say.

Ha! Please post some of your work in molecular genetics.

I will continue to stand by what I said.

As of yet, no one can substantiate the theory without having to rely on assumptions. NO ONE.

So you being a molecualr geneticist, have you ever visually seen an electron?

First of all... I’m laughing at the fact that you keep demanding something out of me. As if I owed you anything. I certainly don’t.

You don't owe me anything unless you are trying to convince that macro evolution is not at all a plausible theory.

Secondly, (for the umpteenth time) I don’t need to present an alternate theory to point out why the current theory is systemically flawed. Simply address why the use of so many assumptions is accepted for evolution and origins-related theories but not for any other fields? Or why people feel compelled to defend that premise as being ‘hard-science’?

Since you feel compelled to keep referring to my goggles as 'godless', I am curious as to what your opinion is on how we arrived here.

This is just a message board, not a debate hall.

Feel free to pout, gloat or whatever... to claim pathetic victories by posting the activity bar below (as if that means anything). Be your snarky self. Just know this, no matter how hard you come at me, you still can’t substantiate the theory of evolution without having to rely on assumptions. Fact of the matter is that Evolution is not the 'hard science' you continue to claim it is... it simply doesn't meet the criteria. PERIOD.[/B][/SIZE]

Great. I'm not sure why you are entirely dismissing the theory though.

Since you are, how do you think we arrived here?

[mavs>spurs2]

I like how Blake evolved from a lurker into an obnoxious, evolution posting BEAST

[Blake]

Are you trying to make this about me as well?

BTW, when I first met Stephen Hawking he was more or less an atheist... now he considers himself an agnostic, and wholeheartedly rejects the athiest framework. Sounds remarkably similar to another groundbreaking change of heart that occured last century: when Albert Einstein admittedly became a Deist.

If I used him (and now Albert) as reference points is to show that even the brightest men around came to the realization that a higher power exists simply by looking at the majesty of Creation. They never fully shutout that possibility like others on this board have unfortunately done.

You are very clearly trying to make this about you.

[Blake]

I like how Blake evolved from a lurker into an obnoxious, evolution posting BEAST

I've never been a lurker.

I like how you claim to be a near-genius.

[mavs>spurs2]

Rawr!

[z0sa]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

[admiralsnackbar]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

That's not my experience

[Blake]

Rawr!

That was pretty unintelligible. I don't think you are a near genius.

[Blake]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

I don't recall you asking for my opinion.

[Phenomanul]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

It's easier this way....

This message is hidden because Blake is on your ignore list.

I went ahead and put him on my list after last night's post.

Ahh... the bliss of not having to read his childish insults. Predictably he will gloat about it. But at this point I don't care.

[z0sa]

I don't recall you asking for my opinion.

Me either.

Like I said, when it comes to stating your own opinion or position on an issue, your mouth shuts real quick.

[z0sa]

Ahh... the bliss of not having to read his childish insults.

It's worth not ignoring him for me. Not much is funnier than when he argues strawmen for 5 pages because he can't understand your argument or simply doesn't read your posts. All the while not putting forth anything tangible on his own behalf.