A question for those who disagree with Evolution.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The theory of Evolution basically says living things change over time; do you guys have a problem with that? Do you have a problem believing farmers occasionally find their pesticides ineffective because the pests have evolved in a way that renders their pesticides ineffective and that is an example of evolution? Or when the doctor sticks a stick down your throat to do a throat culture, they are looking to see how the bacteria and germs have evolved? Or an attempt to cure malaria was rendered ineffective because the mosquitoes evolved in a way that rendered their attempts ineffective? Do they have a problem believing insects, animals, and pests evolve; or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans?


If it is the latter, that might be akin to me making a claim that a big guy is holding the entire earth on his shoulders and if he drops it gravity will cause the earth to drop to the bottom of the universe and you disagree with this claim and proclaim gravity as false and evil.

Do you really have a problem with the theory of evolution or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans; throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you will?

Ken
 

TheWorriedOne

Newbie
Dec 7, 2011
244
1
✟7,871.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Evolution exists to a degree I believe it's called micro evolution. Evolution exists in the sense that things evolve to better survive. Giraffes have long necks to reach food.

The problem Christians have with evolution is when you say it's the origin of life. Scientists say the earliest living organisms were prokaryotes which are cells without cell organs. How can you start out with a simple cell, a prokaryote and then end up with a Human that has complex cells millions of years later? Why do monkeys still exist if we came from them. That seems to be a justifiable reason to believe in God.
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The theory of Evolution basically says living things change over time; do you guys have a problem with that? Do you have a problem believing farmers occasionally find their pesticides ineffective because the pests have evolved in a way that renders their pesticides ineffective and that is an example of evolution? Or when the doctor sticks a stick down your throat to do a throat culture, they are looking to see how the bacteria and germs have evolved? Or an attempt to cure malaria was rendered ineffective because the mosquitoes evolved in a way that rendered their attempts ineffective? Do they have a problem believing insects, animals, and pests evolve; or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans?

For most of these things, the "evolved" form that appears would not have just popped in suddenly. It existed before hand, but the living conditions became more favorable for them than the others. Our spraying pesticides didn't cause the pests to become immune, but the immune were able to survive and multiply easier. This is natural selection, a small part of evolution which few Christians will try to argue with you about.

If it is the latter, that might be akin to me making a claim that a big guy is holding the entire earth on his shoulders and if he drops it gravity will cause the earth to drop to the bottom of the universe and you disagree with this claim and proclaim gravity as false and evil.

Do you really have a problem with the theory of evolution or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans; throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you will?

Ken

I'm actually neutral on the subject. Unlike others I do not believe that the Bible has much to say about evolution. I do believe that evolution exists, I'm just not convinced that scientists have any idea what they're talking about when they say we evolved from chimps, or that all creatures have a single common ancestor. The best evidence they've got is a few pieces of an ape skeleton that has a slightly more rotated ankle than normal chimps.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The theory of Evolution basically says living things change over time; do you guys have a problem with that? Do you have a problem believing farmers occasionally find their pesticides ineffective because the pests have evolved in a way that renders their pesticides ineffective and that is an example of evolution? Or when the doctor sticks a stick down your throat to do a throat culture, they are looking to see how the bacteria and germs have evolved? Or an attempt to cure malaria was rendered ineffective because the mosquitoes evolved in a way that rendered their attempts ineffective? Do they have a problem believing insects, animals, and pests evolve; or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans?


If it is the latter, that might be akin to me making a claim that a big guy is holding the entire earth on his shoulders and if he drops it gravity will cause the earth to drop to the bottom of the universe and you disagree with this claim and proclaim gravity as false and evil.

Do you really have a problem with the theory of evolution or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans; throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you will?

Ken

Your not describing evolution, you are describing an immunity in each and every case. it's like say someone who has had chicken pox has evolved from that virus, or anyone who has had an immune shot has 'evolved' from whatever they were inoculated with.

A new species is defined as one that can't produce offspring with its original species.
For instance, there's a thousand dog breeds, and millions of combinations of breeds. They're all dogs. But they don't reproduce with cats, so cats and dogs are different species.
Sounds simple, right?
The problem is that science doesn't have evidence of any transitional body types in the fossil record. That is, from the time of the Cambrian explosion, there are very many well-defined body types -- cats, for instance -- but there are no transitional body types before or after the Cambrian explosion.
So where did the cat's body type come from? Or the snake's? The dog's? Horse's? The fossil record doesn't show the development of something that split off from another species to become a cat -- or anything else. And it doesn't show a change into another body type since the Cambrian explosion.
Get this: According to the fossil record, thousands of types of animals suddenly (in geologic terms) appeared on the scene, and there's no record of where they came from, and there's no record of them changing into something else from that point forward.
Evolution's got a lot of holes in it, doesn't it?
The answer to your question is that no one knows. If science could prove that one animal evolved into another species, at any time, ever, then the Theory of evolution would be the Fact of evolution.
It's still a theory. (And one that lacks thorough support.)

How long does it usually take to speciate or evolve to another species? - Yahoo! Answers

Which makes it more faith based than said theorist would have you believe.
;)
 
Upvote 0
P

Publius

Guest
The theory of Evolution basically says living things change over time; do you guys have a problem with that? Do you have a problem believing farmers occasionally find their pesticides ineffective because the pests have evolved in a way that renders their pesticides ineffective and that is an example of evolution? Or when the doctor sticks a stick down your throat to do a throat culture, they are looking to see how the bacteria and germs have evolved? Or an attempt to cure malaria was rendered ineffective because the mosquitoes evolved in a way that rendered their attempts ineffective? Do they have a problem believing insects, animals, and pests evolve; or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans?

If it is the latter, that might be akin to me making a claim that a big guy is holding the entire earth on his shoulders and if he drops it gravity will cause the earth to drop to the bottom of the universe and you disagree with this claim and proclaim gravity as false and evil.

Do you really have a problem with the theory of evolution or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans; throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you will?

Ken

You say "evolution" as if everything in your post is the same, but it isn't. You've combined macro-evolution, micro-evolution, and adaptation.

Now this is the part where you tell me that I don't know anything about evolution.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDave

At your service....
Jun 19, 2012
2,854
150
Northern Florida
✟11,541.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The theory of Evolution basically says living things change over time; do you guys have a problem with that? Do you have a problem believing farmers occasionally find their pesticides ineffective because the pests have evolved in a way that renders their pesticides ineffective and that is an example of evolution? Or when the doctor sticks a stick down your throat to do a throat culture, they are looking to see how the bacteria and germs have evolved? Or an attempt to cure malaria was rendered ineffective because the mosquitoes evolved in a way that rendered their attempts ineffective? Do they have a problem believing insects, animals, and pests evolve; or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans?


If it is the latter, that might be akin to me making a claim that a big guy is holding the entire earth on his shoulders and if he drops it gravity will cause the earth to drop to the bottom of the universe and you disagree with this claim and proclaim gravity as false and evil.

Do you really have a problem with the theory of evolution or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans; throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you will?

Ken

The unproven THEORY of evolution pertains to a specific evolution...that being, MACRO evolution which carry the terms of 'Chemical Evolution' , 'Darwinnian Evolution' , ' One celled Pond Protozoa to Human Beings' , and others. Then there is a different Evolution , called MICRO evolution .

MICRO evolution is scientifically supported and observable , and is very small changes ONLY WITHIN a certain kind or family . In other words, that how we got the many varietys of horses, dogs, cats, etc.... These small changes allow for adaptation and speciation .

MACRO evolution which is unproven and non observable, is a JUMP FROM one kind to a totally different kind ; like an Ape turning into a Human or a Whale turning into a Cow over a long period of time and accidents called mutations. But before this unproven theory can have any credibility at all, it is imperative to have another unproven THEORY be real and that is called Abiogenesis or , the spontaneous arrival of first life from dead chemicals -- this theory says that billions of years ago there was a huge atmospheric pond of non living chemicals which somehow 'burped' a complete living cell into existence (often referred to as a one celled pond protozoa) which had all the necessary structures including a vast amount of enzymes (over 2,000) in exactly the right formation and sequence combined with many other necessary things for this cell to exist . It has been calculated by two world famous British ATHEIST Scientists that the probability of this process of Abiogenesis being factual is a 1 in 10^40,000 th likelihood. That is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it ...a number which exceeds our comprehension since the estimated number of Atoms in our Universe is roughly 10^80 th power.

WHen an average person reads any book on the structure of the DNA molecule and sees how super complex it is with Scientists saying its equivalent is to the infrastructure of a major USA city.... it is THE most ludicrous thing ever to think it occured accidentally via Abiogenesis. This kind of thinking comes from psuedo science and not real Science . Yet it is the only alternative left to what IS the most obvious of all things : A personal theistic Creator/Designer for our personal intelligent Universe (which includes US) .

The theory of MACRO evolution fails not only on the above basis, but also because the fossil evidence should show many billions of transitional forms of sea life which it doesnt in the least and instead we find sea life fully formed and (once) fully functioning by their structures. Macro Ev. also violates the established law of thermodynamics which everything is subjected to in our closed Universe, as well as the established Law of Biology that life has ONLY been seen arriving from life itself. As if that werent enough.... our personality traits (which are NON material) are said to have derived from organic material like dirt, rocks, etc... also purely by accident and without a shred of purpose just like everything else ! Fairy Tales consist of our personality traits of logic, reason, rationalizing, abstract thinking, consciousness , love, etc....coming from non intelligent/non thinking/ Materials and raw chemicals --- however., they can ONLY come from a personal Source with the same makeup .

There are other reasons why MACRO Evolution is fallacious which only adds to the gross impossibility of it ever happening and one of the best simplified books ive come across on this issue, is the great book called 'CREATION' by Dr. Jeffries >>> http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Rema...1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Creation+by+Grant+Jeffries for $.01 used copy ( which not only dispenses with the myth of Macro EV. but conclusively shows examples of scientific evidences for a personal willful Theistic Creator we refer to as God in whom we are all fashioned in his image ...and who is worthy of our total honor, praise, and worship being Mans ultimate purpose in being alive. And, its free for the taking IF our human pride will allow.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your not describing evolution, you are describing an immunity in each and every case. it's like say someone who has had chicken pox has evolved from that virus, or anyone who has had an immune shot has 'evolved' from whatever they were inoculated with.
There might have been a bit of a misunderstanding here. In the examples I gave; the throat culture, the human isn’t evolving, it is the bacteria in the throat that is evolving. In the case of the farmer using insecticide, each individual insect isn’t evolving it is just those who are immune to the spray are able to live and reproduce offspring who are also immune to the spray; while those who aren’t will die off and soon you have nothing but insects who are immune to the spray left. That is the example of evolution I was talking about.

A new species is defined as one that can't produce offspring with its original species.
For instance, there's a thousand dog breeds, and millions of combinations of breeds. They're all dogs. But they don't reproduce with cats, so cats and dogs are different species.
Sounds simple, right?
The problem is that science doesn't have evidence of any transitional body types in the fossil record. That is, from the time of the Cambrian explosion, there are very many well-defined body types -- cats, for instance -- but there are no transitional body types before or after the Cambrian explosion.
So where did the cat's body type come from? Or the snake's? The dog's? Horse's? The fossil record doesn't show the development of something that split off from another species to become a cat -- or anything else. And it doesn't show a change into another body type since the Cambrian explosion.
Get this: According to the fossil record, thousands of types of animals suddenly (in geologic terms) appeared on the scene, and there's no record of where they came from, and there's no record of them changing into something else from that point forward.
Evolution's got a lot of holes in it, doesn't it?
The answer to your question is that no one knows. If science could prove that one animal evolved into another species, at any time, ever, then the Theory of evolution would be the Fact of evolution.
It's still a theory. (And one that lacks thorough support.)

How long does it usually take to speciate or evolve to another species? - Yahoo! Answers

Which makes it more faith based than said theorist would have you believe.
;)
So if I understand you correctly, you are okay with Micro evolution; it is just Macro evolution that you have a problem with; is that correct?

Ken
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You say "evolution" as if everything in your post is the same, but it isn't. You've combined macro-evolution, micro-evolution, and adaptation.
The examples of evolution I gave were of micro evolution
Now this is the part where you tell me that I don't know anything about evolution.
if you knew nothing about evolution; you probably wouldn't know the difference between micro and macro....right???

K
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The unproven THEORY of evolution pertains to a specific evolution...that being, MACRO evolution which carry the terms of 'Chemical Evolution' , 'Darwinnian Evolution' , ' One celled Pond Protozoa to Human Beings' , and others. Then there is a different Evolution , called MICRO evolution .

MICRO evolution is scientifically supported and observable , and is very small changes ONLY WITHIN a certain kind or family . In other words, that how we got the many varietys of horses, dogs, cats, etc.... These small changes allow for adaptation and speciation .

MACRO evolution which is unproven and non observable, is a JUMP FROM one kind to a totally different kind ; like an Ape turning into a Human or a Whale turning into a Cow over a long period of time and accidents called mutations. But before this unproven theory can have any credibility at all, it is imperative to have another unproven THEORY be real and that is called Abiogenesis or , the spontaneous arrival of first life from dead chemicals -- this theory says that billions of years ago there was a huge atmospheric pond of non living chemicals which somehow 'burped' a complete living cell into existence (often referred to as a one celled pond protozoa) which had all the necessary structures including a vast amount of enzymes (over 2,000) in exactly the right formation and sequence combined with many other necessary things for this cell to exist . It has been calculated by two world famous British ATHEIST Scientists that the probability of this process of Abiogenesis being factual is a 1 in 10^40,000 th likelihood. That is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it ...a number which exceeds our comprehension since the estimated number of Atoms in our Universe is roughly 10^80 th power.

WHen an average person reads any book on the structure of the DNA molecule and sees how super complex it is with Scientists saying its equivalent is to the infrastructure of a major USA city.... it is THE most ludicrous thing ever to think it occured accidentally via Abiogenesis. This kind of thinking comes from psuedo science and not real Science . Yet it is the only alternative left to what IS the most obvious of all things : A personal theistic Creator/Designer for our personal intelligent Universe (which includes US) .

The theory of MACRO evolution fails not only on the above basis, but also because the fossil evidence should show many billions of transitional forms of sea life which it doesnt in the least and instead we find sea life fully formed and (once) fully functioning by their structures. Macro Ev. also violates the established law of thermodynamics which everything is subjected to in our closed Universe, as well as the established Law of Biology that life has ONLY been seen arriving from life itself. As if that werent enough.... our personality traits (which are NON material) are said to have derived from organic material like dirt, rocks, etc... also purely by accident and without a shred of purpose just like everything else ! Fairy Tales consist of our personality traits of logic, reason, rationalizing, abstract thinking, consciousness , love, etc....coming from non intelligent/non thinking/ Materials and raw chemicals --- however., they can ONLY come from a personal Source with the same makeup .

There are other reasons why MACRO Evolution is fallacious which only adds to the gross impossibility of it ever happening and one of the best simplified books ive come across on this issue, is the great book called 'CREATION' by Dr. Jeffries >>> http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Rema...1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Creation+by+Grant+Jeffries for $.01 used copy ( which not only dispenses with the myth of Macro EV. but conclusively shows examples of scientific evidences for a personal willful Theistic Creator we refer to as God in whom we are all fashioned in his image ...and who is worthy of our total honor, praise, and worship being Mans ultimate purpose in being alive. And, its free for the taking IF our human pride will allow.

Regards.

So it is only Macro evolution that you have a problem with?

K
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There might have been a bit of a misunderstanding here. In the examples I gave; the throat culture, the human isn’t evolving, it is the bacteria in the throat that is evolving. In the case of the farmer using insecticide, each individual insect isn’t evolving it is just those who are immune to the spray are able to live and reproduce offspring who are also immune to the spray; while those who aren’t will die off and soon you have nothing but insects who are immune to the spray left. That is the example of evolution I was talking about.


So if I understand you correctly, you are okay with Micro evolution; it is just Macro evolution that you have a problem with; is that correct?

Ken
Actually I do not have any issue with another man's faith. So long as it is properly labled.
 
Upvote 0

Moses Brother

Newbie
Aug 3, 2012
4
0
✟7,614.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There might have been a bit of a misunderstanding here. In the examples I gave; the throat culture, the human isn’t evolving, it is the bacteria in the throat that is evolving. In the case of the farmer using insecticide, each individual insect isn’t evolving it is just those who are immune to the spray are able to live and reproduce offspring who are also immune to the spray; while those who aren’t will die off and soon you have nothing but insects who are immune to the spray left. That is the example of evolution I was talking about.


So if I understand you correctly, you are okay with Micro evolution; it is just Macro evolution that you have a problem with; is that correct?

Ken

Hi Ken,

The insect that survives the spray is not in the process of evolving and does not evolve anything. The surviving insects then produce offspring that the spray will not kill. But not all their descendants will survive the spray, many will die.

This is not evolution, but adaption.

A person gets his legs blown off in Iraq and is confined to a wheel chair. He has to adapt to his souroundings and learn how to do things differently. He is then fitted with artificial limbs that have the springs in the feet part of the prothesis. He wants to compete in a race but is told he is not allowed to compete as he has a great advantage over a normal human being. He can take longer strides and therefore can run a lot faster.

My question to you is has that man evolved or has he adapted to overcome his problems?

If you want to talk about evolution would you please give your definition of evolution.

There can be no discorse without understanding what is being talked about.

God Bless,
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The theory of evolution is that these adaptations will eventually accumulate to create something entirely different. Just for clarification.

I believe that it exists and will drive our evolutionary changes into the future. What I have a problem with is when scientists try to draw a map of the past. How are we supposed to falsify the belief that dolphins evolved from cattle? We can't go back in time to see if scientists were right or not.

Whatever the case, I believe that God is in charge. Even in situations which appear to be random, He's in charge. So whether God created us with a single-celled organism or from the dust of the earth, our creation was still just as intentional.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hi Ken,

The insect that survives the spray is not in the process of evolving and does not evolve anything. The surviving insects then produce offspring that the spray will not kill. But not all their descendants will survive the spray, many will die.

This is not evolution, but adaption.

A person gets his legs blown off in Iraq and is confined to a wheel chair. He has to adapt to his souroundings and learn how to do things differently. He is then fitted with artificial limbs that have the springs in the feet part of the prothesis. He wants to compete in a race but is told he is not allowed to compete as he has a great advantage over a normal human being. He can take longer strides and therefore can run a lot faster.

My question to you is has that man evolved or has he adapted to overcome his problems?
That man has adapted to overcome his problems. For it to be evolution he would have to be born with a genetic mutation of prostatic legs, that allows him to survive the blast, and everyone with normal legs in Iraq dies by blast but he lives and passes his prostatic leg mutation to his children and everyone with normal legs die in Iraq and the only ones who live are the ones with the same mutation as he and his kids have that allow them to survive the blast and eventually the only people in Iraq are the ones with prostatic legs. That would be an example of evolution.
If you want to talk about evolution would you please give your definition of evolution.
Evolution is defined as “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such process as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift”.
There can be no discorse without understanding what is being talked about.

God Bless,
The above definition works for me

K
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The theory of Evolution basically says living things change over time; do you guys have a problem with that? Do you have a problem believing farmers occasionally find their pesticides ineffective because the pests have evolved in a way that renders their pesticides ineffective and that is an example of evolution? Or when the doctor sticks a stick down your throat to do a throat culture, they are looking to see how the bacteria and germs have evolved? Or an attempt to cure malaria was rendered ineffective because the mosquitoes evolved in a way that rendered their attempts ineffective? Do they have a problem believing insects, animals, and pests evolve; or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans?


If it is the latter, that might be akin to me making a claim that a big guy is holding the entire earth on his shoulders and if he drops it gravity will cause the earth to drop to the bottom of the universe and you disagree with this claim and proclaim gravity as false and evil.

Do you really have a problem with the theory of evolution or do you only have a problem when it is applied to humans; throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you will?

Ken

I have a problem with a theory that breaks down at the first piece of goo with a DNA strand, because DNA, by its construction, cannot evolve. Then you have Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings on record as guessing panspermia (aliens planted life here) is the real source of life on the planet, because DNA in irreducibly complex.

And then the theory is passed on as some sort of fact and those who choose not to believe it are maligned. Yea, I have a problem with that on every level.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I have a problem with a theory that breaks down at the first piece of goo with a DNA strand, because DNA, by its construction, cannot evolve. Then you have Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings on record as guessing panspermia (aliens planted life here) is the real source of life on the planet, because DNA in irreducibly complex.

And then the theory is passed on as some sort of fact and those who choose not to believe it are maligned. Yea, I have a problem with that on every level.
What about the theory of Evolution; do you have a problem with that?

Ken
 
Upvote 0

TheWorriedOne

Newbie
Dec 7, 2011
244
1
✟7,871.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I would have to say micro evolution is existent but not macro evolution. Micro evolution has been observed. I personally wouldn't say macro evolution is real because in Genesis God creates things and doesn't evolve them. God created Man on the fifth day I believe so animals wouldn't have time to evolve into Humans.

What are your personal beliefs Ken?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I would have to say micro evolution is existent but not macro evolution. Micro evolution has been observed. I personally wouldn't say macro evolution is real because in Genesis God creates things and doesn't evolve them. God created Man on the fifth day I believe so animals wouldn't have time to evolve into Humans.

What are your personal beliefs Ken?
I believe the Micro and Macro evolution. For me it's sorta like math; I may not know all of it, but what little bit I do know makes sense to me.

Ken
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.