Jump to content


Photo

Intelligence Vs. Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 June 2016 - 07:30 PM

Evolution VS. Intelligence
 

In another post some evolutionists  defended evolution like they believed intelligence could overide  evo. I Googled whether evo continues and the Google anwer came back  stating that some scientist believe  that evo has sped up.

 

My question then? Can evo be outwitted to end violence (the game of survival of the fittet as in murder--natural selection)? Why or why not? Which force do you find more poweful evo or intelligence?  Can intelligence thwart Evolution? Why or why not?



#2 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 June 2016 - 01:03 AM

I'd very much like to see where an "evolutionist" said such a thing.

 

Why do you keep on straw-manning natural selection? It has been explained to you over and over again.

Natural selection does not impose killing of any kind. Natural selection is (as you put it yourself) after-the-fact selection.

 

Intelligence can be used to "steer" this natural selection. But things like genetic drift will still happen.



#3 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:30 AM

I'd very much like to see where an "evolutionist" said such a thing.
 
Why do you keep on straw-manning natural selection? It has been explained to you over and over again.
Natural selection does not impose killing of any kind. Natural selection is (as you put it yourself) after-the-fact selection.
 
Intelligence can be used to "steer" this natural selection. But things like genetic drift will still happen.

 
It has been recently explained here:

I don't know where that foolish idea of yours come from, but nowhere in the evolutionist literature says we have to kill fellow humans. That's nonsense. 
We don't see in the wild -- rabbits killing other rabbits -- it is simply a falsehood of yours.
On the contrary, in the wild we see that social animals thrive better: a lot of animals like bees, ants, wolves, wasps, dolphins, whales, elephants, bizons,  live in colonies, packs, herds, nests, etc.
Mutual cooperation leads mutual survival. So those individuals and species that are better in cooperation survive better.

But I want to ad a little:
I don't know where that foolish idea of yours come from, but nowhere in the evolutionist literature says we have to kill fellow humans. That's nonsense.
We don't see in the wild -- rabbits killing other rabbits -- it is simply a falsehood of yours.
On the contrary, in the wild we see that social animals thrive better: a lot of animals like bees, ants, wolves, wasps, dolphins, whales, elephants, bizons, live in colonies, packs, herds, nests, etc.
Mutual cooperation leads mutual survival. So those individuals and species that are better in cooperation survive better.

Survival of the fittest means just that: fitter.
A tree which root go deeper, and can reach to deeper water bearing layers has more chance of surviving than a tree with shallom roots. It doesn't kill the other tree, it has simply more chance to survive (and to have offspring).

A rabbit that can detect a predator (like a fox) quicker than others, will start to run earlier than the others and have more chance to outrun the fox. It doesn't kill his fellow rbbits, it's just better adapted at surviving, and hence get more offspring.



#4 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:38 AM

 
It has been recently explained here:

As far as I can see, that doesn't state that 

"some evolutionists  defended evolution like they believed intelligence could overide  evo."

 

Or do you mean someone (you in this case) told Mike Summers for the xillionth time that he is straw-manning natural selection?



#5 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:03 AM

As far as I can see, that doesn't state that 

"some evolutionists  defended evolution like they believed intelligence could overide  evo."

 

Or do you mean someone (you in this case) told Mike Summers for the xillionth time that he is straw-manning natural selection?

That he is straw-manning natural selection.



#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:21 AM

That he is straw-manning natural selection.

Ah, it seemed as if I made a mistake in my post, but I misread yours. My apologies.



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:37 AM

Fjuri said:
 

I'd very much like to see where an "evolutionist" said such a thing.

Until fairly recently evolution was only thought to act in the world of living things. Now, of course, it has been extended to the non-living such as stellar evolution.

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether
God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or not is controled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to the other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist in is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists, relgikous fanatics and terrorists.

If I know how much of a control freak I am dealing with it helps me plot my therapy course. If I asked someone that is not my client what their view on God is, I may be considering what my chance of bulding a friendhip with them is? Someone open about their belief or the possibility of other beings external in relatinship to themselves will probably have no issues accepting that I exist. Someone who believes that the existence of beings eternal to themselve is iffy will likely have issues with seeing others as equals.

So where do agnostics stand in all of this? Slightly below the atheists contingency. Think about it. If we suggest someone does not exist external to us nd then name the being we doubt does not exist as agnotics and alleged athists do it lets me know I may be dealing with a DC (difficult customer). Such a person is somewhat of a contol freak. I would be at a disadvantage in trying to build a frikendship with such a person.

The average person meets 2500 people in their lifetime. We have 7 billion people on the planet now and upwards of one hundred billion people have existed. 2500 is not a very large percentage of people to know. To claim that we know among those hundred 107 billion people who can or can not exist is extremely arrogant! In my opinion it is difficult to justify such a position. If God fairs so poorly, where will I be in their in their hirearchy? If I don't meet their specification I to will be just an expendable metabolic unit. Worse, they can kill me.

 

Why do you keep on straw-manning natural selection? It has been explained to you over and over again.

It i not straw man to me.
Because I claim not to be the determiner of who can or can't exist, I want to also undertand the nature of reality external to myelf.

Natural selection allegedly acts exclusive of us or intelligence. Therefore, presumably it overrides intelligence. Since the claim is there is no free moral agency, what is left but natural selection--overiding everything we do. Your explanation of it doesn't matter. As it suposdly acts independently of intelligence--right?

 

Natural selection does not impose killing of any kind. Natural selection is (as you put it yourself) after-the-fact selection.

while you as an intelligent being imply it does not impose killing, I would say killing is what often goes on and therefore "is" natural selection its effect. According to the theory, every thing that happens is natural and an effect of natural selection. You keep wanting to put human values on natural selection. According to Darwin evo is a mindless process that has no human values.

I/intelligence can be used to "steer" this natural selection. But things like genetic drift will still happen.

You and the others that say they believe in evolution often claim it operates within the rules you write for it.



#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:55 AM

Until fairly recently evolution was only thought to act in the world of living things. Now, of course, it has been extended to the non-living such as stellar evolution.

Isn't it great that as time progresses, we learn things?

 

I would ask Driewerf and any other atheist or angostic not to respond to the rest of this post, until a creationist steps in and confirms whether or not Mike Summers is correct in his further assessment.

 

Until fairly recently evolution was only thought to act in the world of living things. Now, of course, it has been extended to the non-living such as stellar evolution.

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether
God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or not is controled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to the other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist in is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists, relgikous fanatics and terrorists.

If I know how much of a control freak I am dealing with it helps me plot my therapy course. If I asked someone that is not my client what their view on God is, I may be considering what my chance of bulding a friendhip with them is? Someone open about their belief or the possibility of other beings external in relatinship to themselves will probably have no issues accepting that I exist. Someone who believes that the existence of beings eternal to themselve is iffy will likely have issues with seeing others as equals.

So where do agnostics stand in all of this? Slightly below the atheists contingency. Think about it. If we suggest someone does not exist external to us nd then name the being we doubt does not exist as agnotics and alleged athists do it lets me know I may be dealing with a DC (difficult customer). Such a person is somewhat of a contol freak. I would be at a disadvantage in trying to build a frikendship with such a person.

The average person meets 2500 people in their lifetime. We have 7 billion people on the planet now and upwards of one hundred billion people have existed. 2500 is not a very large percentage of people to know. To claim that we know among those hundred 107 billion people who can or can not exist is extremely arrogant! In my opinion it is difficult to justify such a position. If God fairs so poorly, where will I be in their in their hirearchy? If I don't meet their specification I to will be just an expendable metabolic unit. Worse, they can kill me.
 

It i not straw man to me.
Because I claim not to be the determiner of who can or can't exist, I want to also undertand the nature of reality external to myelf.

Natural selection allegedly acts exclusive of us or intelligence. Therefore, presumably it overrides intelligence. Since the claim is there is no free moral agency, what is left but natural selection--overiding everything we do. Your explanation of it doesn't matter. As it suposdly acts independently of intelligence--right?
 

while you as an intelligent being imply it does not impose killing, I would say killing is what often goes on and therefore "is" natural selection its effect. According to the theory, every thing that happens is natural and an effect of natural selection. You keep wanting to put human values on natural selection. According to Darwin evo is a mindless process that has no human values.

You and the others that say they believe in evolution often claim it operates within the rules you write for it.

 


#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 June 2016 - 09:03 AM

Hi everyone,


Furi: I would ask Driewerf and any other atheist or angostic not to respond to the rest of this post, until a creationist steps in and confirms whether or not Mike Summers is correct in his further assessment.

 


See what I mean by alleged atheists being control freaks? Fjuri has ordered you not to repond to my post unless you agree to his requests!

Isn't it great that as time progresses, we learn things?

Even if they are wrong?! LOL

 



#10 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 June 2016 - 09:45 AM

Fjuri said:

I would ask Driewerf and any other atheist or angostic not to respond to the rest of this post, until a creationist steps in and confirms whether or not Mike Summers is correct in his further assessment.

As an inndependant free moral agen I do not need the approval of other free moral agents to draw concluions nor do they need my approval to do the same! So, bros go ahead an commment if you wish as I will not interpret you responding as dermined by Fjuri's evo negtive control freak requests!

 

I am now an expendable metabolic unit in Furi's eyes and Fjrui as an agent of evolution is acting accordingly. Will others respond to the mnighty powers vested in Fjuri by evolution? Either way it will attest to the mmighty powers of evo. Damed if I do! Damned if I don't! Will I be selected for or not? I am shiverring in my boots (oops I mispoke I don't wear boots as I have no legs! lol) waithing for slow poke evo's natural selection to act!

If one of my brothers makes a comment Fjuri may think he is more fit. Here's my second guess; If an alleged atheist responds they might think they are fighting against evo. They could not want to contraadict the great and powerful wonderful evo. What will happpen? The suspense is killing me!

 



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 June 2016 - 11:08 AM

 

 

Mike: I am now an expendable metabolic unit in Furi's eyes and Fjrui as an agent of evolution is acting accordingly. Will others respond to the mnighty powers vested in Fjuri by evolution? Either way it will attest to the mmighty powers of evo. Damed if I do! Damned if I don't! Will I be selected for or not? I am shiverring in my boots (oops I mispoke I don't wear boots as I have no legs! lol) waithing for slow poke evo's natural selection to act!

 

Mike I laughed out loud when I read this paragraph, this is an absolutely brilliant piece of opportunistic humour/spin. I say that as a neutral comment as I am not getting involved in this debate, but I have to say, it was worth getting out of bed today just to read this. I have highlighted some of my favourite/most amusing parts.

 

:D

 

Brilliant. 

 

(the best humour I have read although Fjuri's joke about the KT event, also was pretty brilliant, when I said God can kill many birds with one stone, and Fjuri referred to the dinos being wiped out by a meteor). :D


  • Mike Summers likes this

#12 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 June 2016 - 12:01 PM

If one of my brothers makes a comment Fjuri may think he is more fit.

After I re-read this I realised it contains an unclear antecedant in the sentence. "He" can be taken to refer to my brother or Fjuri. I intended that the reference would be Fjuri--not my brothers!

HaHaHa. Fjuri made a great pun! If you follow that Dino evolved into burds! lol But then burds evolvedd from non existant Dino... Oh well, I think too much! LOL :)



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 June 2016 - 01:20 PM

LoL. Yeah the dino-pun was a good one, operating on the old dino-bird scenario, Mike, as my picture illustrates this, "fact" for us; ;)

 

Attached File  trex.jpg   4.94KB   0 downloads

 

or I suppose if we found a human in the dino-layers, this following "fact"ual scenario might occur:

 

 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 June 2016 - 03:19 PM

Driewef said:

On the contrary, in the wild we see that social animals thrive better: a lot of animals like bees, ants, wolves, wasps, dolphins, whales, elephants, bizons, live in colonies, packs, herds, nests, etc.
Mutual cooperation leads mutual survival. So those individuals and species that are better in cooperation survive better.

But I want to ad a little:
I don't know where that foolish idea of yours come from, but nowhere in the evolutionist literature says we have to kill fellow humans. That's nonsense.
We don't see in the wild -- rabbits killing other rabbits -- it is simply a falsehood of yours.
On the contrary, in the wild we see that social animals thrive better: a lot of animals like bees, ants, wolves, wasps, dolphins, whales, elephants, bizons, live in colonies, packs, herds, nests, etc.
Mutual cooperation leads mutual survival. So those individuals and species that are better in cooperation survive better.

Survival of the fittest means just that: fitter.
A tree which root go deeper, and can reach to deeper water bearing layers has more chance of surviving than a tree with shallom roots. It doesn't kill the other tree, it has simply more chance to survive (and to have offspring).

A rabbit that can detect a predator (like a fox) quicker than others, will start to run earlier than the others and have more chance to outrun the fox. It doesn't kill his fellow rbbits, it's just better adapted at surviving, and hence get more offspring.

Despite all your rhetoric humans are a major species on planet earth. We observe competition amongst humans. Therefore your is yet another rule that you have written for evolution that it does not follow! I prefer to stay in reality. That consists of what actuaally happens!

Evolutionary scientists say that evolution continues unabated on planet earth. Some of them argue it has actually sped up. Therfore, the unfit are being culled from the gene pool by agents of evo. Witness the death of so many unfit.

I see what evo scientists mean when they say evo has speeded up!.
Recently in Orlanndol Florida, America had it's largest mass killing. One of evo's agents decided to eliminate 49 people from the gene pool! That's evo in action. It's evo's reality and not your fiction or the imaginary rules you write for evo. Apparently, resistance to evo is futile! Who knows who will be the next "unfit" victim of natural selection!



#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:51 PM

I would ask Driewerf and any other atheist or angostic not to respond to the rest of this post, until a creationist steps in and confirms whether or not Mike Summers is correct in his further assessment. (Emphasis Pi's)

See what I mean by alleged atheists being control freaks? Fjuri has ordered you not to repond to my post unless you agree to his requests! (Emphasis also Pi's)

Mike, I really like you, but you have some really strange ways with words.....

 

I'm sorry but I simply don't read anyone ASKING something as being an "order."  It looks much more like a request to me. 

 

Now, one thing I observed in the military was that the private-first-class makes it a point to exert his "authority" over a plain private by saying: "... and that's an ORDER."  On the other hand, the four star general will say: "Will you please ....." and that is understood to be an order.

 

The way I see it, in this forum the administrators and mods are the officers.... the rest of us are privates.  None of us can "order" the others to do anything.



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:37 PM

I see what evo scientists mean when they say evo has speeded up!.
Recently in Orlanndol Florida, America had it's largest mass killing. One of evo's agents decided to eliminate 49 people from the gene pool! That's evo in action. It's evo's reality and not your fiction or the imaginary rules you write for evo. Apparently, resistance to evo is futile! Who knows who will be the next "unfit" victim of natural selection!

Sorry, Mike.... that is not "evo in action."

 

Evolution is not based on destruction of the weak.  As Mile W points out, the real "survival of the fittest" is actually differential reproduction.  Those who have the most surviving offspring that leave offspring are the ones who are more likely to have their genes continue.

 

The most "fit" isn't necessarily the biggest and strongest.  In a drought, which is more likely to survive and leave offspring ..... the elephant that needs to eat 60 pounds of grass and drink 30 gallons of water a day with a 2 year gestation period.... or the mouse that can live a week on a teaspoon of grain and an equivalent amount of water while reproducing in only 20 days?

 

Which male is more likely to have offspring .... the one that attracts many females or the one that attracts none?  (Hint:  Females don't always find the strongest male the most attractive.)

 

You sometimes say that evolution will select against you.  Sorry, Mike .... despite all your health problems, the fact that you are here says you have been selected "for."  At your indicated age (61) your reproductive years are most likely done.  If you have any children, then you have again been selected "for."  With grandchildren, that string of successful selections continues ......

 

For some reason, you want to blame evolution for all the evils of the world.  There are a number of things wrong with that. 

 

First:  Even if it were true it would have nothing to do with whether or not the theory is valid.  Therefore, our creationist logicians should have long ago called that one for what it is .... a poisoning the well fallacy.

 

Second:  The first sin.... which is where evil entered the world .... wasn't due to "survival of the fittest."  It was so "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" (Gen 3:5).  The cause of the sin was jealousy or envy, not "survival of the fittest."

 

Third:  The first crime .... which was after evil entered the world .... also was the result of jealousy or envy regarding who was the "favorite" (for lack of a better term) of God.

 

Of course, this has been explained before and probably will need to be explained again ......


  • StormanNorman, driewerf and mike the wiz like this

#17 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:56 PM

Recently in Orlanndol Florida, America had it's largest mass killing. One of evo's agents decided to eliminate 49 people from the gene pool! That's evo in action.

 

I was unclear as to what it meant in the other thread to, but what do you mean by "evo in action"?



#18 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2016 - 02:05 AM

Goku,
I can hardly believe you are so intelligennnt and don't understand evo. You guys don't believe God create us therefore you guys are suppoed to believe evo did it and is still doing it! Right. Therefore, everything that goes down on earth fullfills evo mandates Evo's claim is survival of the fittest. No one can be more unfit than someone that is dead. If one is deadd they are unnfit. They are out of the gene pool.

 
Google Definition
Biology Natural Selection
the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution
.

 

Don't you agree with this definition, Goku? (extinct= dead)/



#19 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 20 June 2016 - 02:39 AM

Mike Summers, who is more fit of these 2:

A: The 80 year old woman who never had children, and never helped anyone with raising their children

B: The 20 year old man who died in an accident, leaving a pregnant girlfriend and 1 year old baby behind

(all else being equal)



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 June 2016 - 02:45 AM

 

 

Piasan: First:  Even if it were true it would have nothing to do with whether or not the theory is valid.  Therefore, our creationist logicians should have long ago called that one for what it is .... a poisoning the well fallacy.

 

I understand what you mean. I (think) I may have mentioned it somewhere else, but E=MC2 is not false because of the atom bomb, so I agree with your point.

 

I myself don't try and assess everything Mike says from the logic-angle for my own reasons. I think first and foremost he bases his arguments on his own deep thoughts that stem from psychology, and all of the things he has taught himself. So many times I will perhaps say, "Mike but this might be logically wrong" only to find that he meant something different to what I thought he meant.

 

But you made a good post. (and i'm not just saying that because you approved of something I said, in fact the mouse and elephant example was something I had not thought of before. Just as Mike thinks his way you think your way and this isn't a matter of one way being wrong and one way being right, IMHO.)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users