Jump to content


The Descent Of Man


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:15 AM

Humans are animals.

I'm sure that purely by that statement, i've gotten a few hairs to bristle in disgust. After all, how could we be animals? However, this is more than likely because few creationists understand what an animal really is. Welcome to the land of Phylogeny and Taxonomy.

Proving that we are, by definition, animals is actually quite simple. Anything fitting into the classification of "animal" is a heterotrophic, multi-cellular eukaryote. This is a classification that is extremely broad, and quite simply means that an animal is a single creature made up of multiple cells, and it's cellular structure consists of a membrane, as opposed to a cell wall, and digests food in an internal chamber. Humans fit quite easily into this classification, and thus: humans are animals, and the same holds true for bugs, birds, fish, and lions.

Descending into more specific levels of phylogeny, we find that we fit into the phylum Chordata and Vertebrata Chordates are classified as having a dorsal nerve cord and a post-anal tail, the genes for which still remain in humans, and in some cases, those genes have been activated before birth, and human babies have been born with tails. For Vertebrata, it specifies that we must have a backbone. Humans have spines, and are therefore vertebrates.

We are also Tetrapods, just like every mammal (get to that later) reptile, and amphibians. (Tetrapod means having four legs/leg like appendages) Even snakes have been shown to be tetrapods, as fossilized snakes have been found with leg vestiges. What this class does is eliminate fish, insects, and the like.

Moving forward, Humans are mammals. Mammals are vertebrate animals that possess mammary glands, sweat glands, hair, inner ear bones, and a neocortex. Humans possess all of these characteristics, and are therefore mammals.

Getting closer to us: We fit into the Order of primates. This means we have a shoulder joint allowing a wide range of motion in all directions, five digits on the legs and arms, with opposable thumbs, nails on the fingers and toes, two mammary glands, (typically) one child per pregnancy, three kinds of teeth, colour vision, long gestational and developmental period for young, and other traits, all of which fit the description of a human.

Continuing downward, we get into Homninidea. Quite simply these are Great Apes. extant genus include Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Humans, and Orangutans.

One of the final steps is the Genus Homo to which we belong. Today, we are the only living creatures in the genus Homo, much in the same way that there are only two species in the closely-related genus of Pan, these being the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. (and we were classified this by a Christian scientist named Linnaeus). The extinct creatures in our genus (in order of approximately when they died off) are the H. Habilis, H. Erectus, H. Rudolfensis, H. Georgicus, H. ergaster, H. Antecessor, H. Cepranensis, H. Heidelburgensus, H. Neanderthalensis, H. Rhodesiensis, H. Sapiens Idaltu, H. floriensis, and the only extant species, Homo Sapiens.

The lowest level of taxonomy is the Specie. This is a a single and very specific type of creature, and is best defined as the population in which an animal can pro-create. Humans can only precreate with other humans, chimps with other chimps, so on and so forth. This is the only level where we are totally unique, but in a way we are not, because every creature that has ever lived is bound by these same rules. We (as you probably know) are Homo Sapiens, which means we are one of the animals under the fairly specific genus Homo.

But, despite these facts, some people somehow see us as being totally separate from the animal kingdom. Sure.

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:05 AM

Do you suppose that we could use animal behavior as an acceptable template for choosing how we behave morally?

Would you say it is wrong to make any distinction between human complex biological machines and the other complex biological machines that we normally call animals apart from humans?

#3 Guest_RoaringAtheist_*

Guest_RoaringAtheist_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:12 AM

Do you suppose that we could use animal behavior as an acceptable template for choosing how we behave morally?

Would you say it is wrong to make any distinction between human complex biological machines and the other complex biological machines that we normally call animals apart from humans?

View Post


No, animal behaviour is not necessarily good to emulate. Chimps imitating the behaviour of Gorillas would not get very far either, though. In general, social species such as the Bonobo (to some extent the chimp, though they are more violent) and the like do show some notable similarity in morality.

And of course we make distinction between human beings and other animals. I don't see why you would think being an animal degrades what we judge best in humanity? :D

I mean, it's like if a plant would develop intelligence (would be a neat feat) it would then say 'I am not a plant' but would it really have lost the characteristics of a plant?

Even if we were specially created, God clearly made us with the same basic characteristics that all animals have, so I don't really see how that sort of thing would demean us. Isn't the general idea among religions that we are -spiritually- rather than physically unique?

#4 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:14 AM

Do you suppose that we could use animal behavior as an acceptable template for choosing how we behave morally?

Would you say it is wrong to make any distinction between human complex biological machines and the other complex biological machines that we normally call animals apart from humans?

View Post


Phylogeny and Taxonomy have no say in wether or not people act morally. In fact, even if every social ill in society WAS caused by your hypothesis, this would not falsify the taxonomical record in the slightest, and it would not change the facts, however difficult they may be to face. This is not a moral question, but one of science.

your second part: I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I think i get it: We, along with every other species, are distinct from the others on one level or another. What I'm saying is, we are placental mammals in the Genus Homo, which is derived from homioidae.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:42 AM

Phylogeny and Taxonomy have no say in wether or not people act morally. In fact, even if every social ill in society WAS caused by your hypothesis, this would not falsify the taxonomical record in the slightest, and it would not change the facts, however difficult they may be to face. This is not a moral question, but one of science.

View Post

Well, that wasn't my question was it? So your answer, was no answer at all.

your second part: I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I think i get it:  We, along with every other species, are distinct from the others on one level or another. What I'm saying is, we are placental mammals in the Genus Homo, which is derived from homioidae.

View Post

You're OP is trying to chastise those of us that see a difference between humans and the animals. A difference that has been recognized as long as history has been recorded. My question was quite simple so I'll repeat it almost word for word:

Would you say it is wrong (... or how about unscientific) to make any distinction between human complex biological machines and the other complex biological machines that we normally call animals?

#6 Guest_RoaringAtheist_*

Guest_RoaringAtheist_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:53 AM

Adam, you see to be using another definition of animal, so you may want to supply that one. According to the phylogenetic definition we are animals.

I don't think there's a significant distinction between animals in general and homo sapiens in particular, unless you artificially decide that 'big brain' is the defining factor for being non-animal.

Which leads me back to asking your definition of animal, Adam. :P

#7 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:58 AM

Well, that wasn't my question was it? So your answer, was no answer at all.
You're OP is trying to chastise those of us that see a difference between humans and the animals. A difference that has been recognized as long as history has been recorded. My question was quite simple so I'll repeat it almost word for word:

Would you say it is wrong (... or how about unscientific) to make any distinction between human complex biological machines and the other complex biological machines that we normally call animals?

View Post


Actually, it was.

Do you suppose that we could use animal behavior as an acceptable template for choosing how we behave morally?


It is not a question of morals, this isn't the point of my post. My answer is no, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic, as I am not saying that we should behave as animals, I am saying that it is clear that we are animals by definition. What is this taxonomical difference between humans and other animals

And yes, it is wrong to say that the "human complex biological machine" is different than the "other complex biological machines" beyond anything other than the specieal level.

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 12:08 PM

...as I am not saying that we should behave as animals...

View Post

Why not? Aren't you wanting to make the case that we are just animals and now you're saying we shouldn't act like animals? How do you erase the line between humans and animals, out of one side of your mouth, and than say we shouldn't act like animals, out of the other side of your mouth?

And yes, it is wrong to say that the "human complex biological machine" is different than the "other complex biological machines" beyond anything other than the special level.

View Post

What is this special level and what's special about it?

#9 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 12:17 PM

Why not? Aren't you wanting to make the case that we are just animals and now you're saying we shouldn't act like animals? How do you erase the line between humans and animals, out of one side of your mouth, and than say we shouldn't act like animals, out of the other side of your mouth?
What is this special level and what's special about it?

View Post



I said it once and i'll say it again - Take the moral questions to a board on ethics. However, notice that even in a piranha killing frenzy, they do not attack each other. This is because we are social creatures, and it is not in our best interest to kill one another, as we can reap benifits from the other members of our species.

And once again I state: Even if this was the cause of every evil, and every social ill, it would not make it any less true.

and I meant the specieal level, as in the level of taxonomy that individual species are on.

#10 Guest_RoaringAtheist_*

Guest_RoaringAtheist_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 12:18 PM

Why not? Aren't you wanting to make the case that we are just animals and now you're saying we shouldn't act like animals? How do you erase the line between humans and animals, out of one side of your mouth, and than say we shouldn't act like animals, out of the other side of your mouth?


Are you implying that because we are animals, we should behave in their example? Not only is it silly, but it's decidedly bad logic. Animals don't behave the same - you have carnivores, herbivores, countless different lifestyles, including highly social ones that lack violence entirely in favour of familial bonds (Bonobo's score high in this regard)

Even then, we are our own species. I don't see why being a species would require us to behave like another one? We've evolved here, to this type of behaviour and thinking. It would be silly to suggest that just because our ancestors behaved differently, we should ape them. (pun intended.)

It's like saying that because almost your entire family is full of racists, you should become a racist too, to fit in.


Secondly : the special would be the personal exception that you place upon humans to set them apart from other animals; such as deciding brain size is a defining factor, or our use of technology, or perhaps as some do, our ability to conceive of a god concept. This however would by no means be an actual difference in objective reality, but a subjective one that is essentially a bias towards one's own kin because of a personal conviction that they are 'totally different'.

-seems I also misunderstood what Ang was saying, but I think my little rant here does actually apply as it shows my position, so i'll leave it in.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 12:30 PM

There are plenty of people who commit rape and murder all over this planet on a daily basis. Wouldn't that constitute as normal human behavior?

#12 Guest_RoaringAtheist_*

Guest_RoaringAtheist_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 12:37 PM

Rape and Murder are not the rule, but the exception. Every species has great variation, and in that sense we are no different. For example, dogs can be anything from docile to aggressive and all the way to murderous, but we don't generally grab an extreme to describe the entire dog species.

I would also point out that I believe things like murder have an evolved mechanism for stopping people from doing it. There's obvious benefits to not having an extreme character in a social environment, so I think you could speak of some objective morals, even if they have not been handed down from high. I think it's a good reason why many societies (though not all) have involved these kinds of things despite lack of contact.

For rape, similar systems are in place, though I think I would be less confident in saying that it's evolved : I think it's mostly a cultural thing, as raping was not through of as particularly bad in past centuries, despite the adversity to senseless murder being there.

In general, I don't see how our origins should dictate our actions, or how our own species acted a hundred years to be guidance for today. We have the brains to figure out our own ideal system, regardless of what may be better for reproduction and survival. It is something we share with very few other species, so I think your implication that we should throw it away is balderdash.

My two pennies.

#13 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 03:15 PM

Why not? Aren't you wanting to make the case that we are just animals and now you're saying we shouldn't act like animals? How do you erase the line between humans and animals, out of one side of your mouth, and than say we shouldn't act like animals, out of the other side of your mouth?
What is this special level and what's special about it?

View Post


Well how do animals behave Adam??? Different animals behave differently.

Generally in a pride of lions only the females will hunt and they use teamwork to bring down their prey. On the other hand, a pack of wolves will all get involved in a hunt and their attacks usually consist of them attacking their prey en mass. Now despite what you may want to think, these are behaviors. So using animals as a catch-all term is really disingenuous.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 05:20 PM

Well how do animals behave Adam???  Different animals behave differently.

Generally in a pride of lions only the females will hunt and they use teamwork to bring down their prey.  On the other hand, a pack of wolves will all get involved in a hunt and their attacks usually consist of them attacking their prey en mass.  Now despite what you may want to think, these are behaviors.  So using animals as a catch-all term is really disingenuous.

View Post

Our newbie Angehellik9 is the one trying to use animal as a catch all and also hoping to make us look ignorant because we don't bow to evolutionists who want to erase the distinction between Human beings and every other biological organism.

Tharock, when a human group decides that the eradication of another group is okay and can get away with it, is this wrong or is this just normal human behavior... you know like a pride of lions. Lying, steeling and cheating is normal too. Should it be accepted as such?

#15 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 06:15 PM

Tharock, when a human group decides that the eradication of another group is okay and can get away with it, is this wrong or is this just normal human behavior... you know like a pride of lions. Lying, steeling and cheating is normal too. Should it be accepted as such?

View Post


Explain to me what you're saying with this.

#16 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 June 2009 - 07:13 PM

Humans are animals.

I'm sure that purely by that statement, i've gotten a few hairs to bristle in disgust. After all, how could we be animals? However, this is more than likely because few creationists understand what an animal really is. Welcome to the land of Phylogeny and Taxonomy.

View Post

More like "welcome to the land of slander instead of substance". I don't know of any creationist who isn't aware that humans have a physical, biological body, and that evolutionists would like us to think of ourselves as animals.

We also know that it's possible to define 'animal' in a way that includes mankind. But if doing this is somehow mandatory, it's news. How many languages in this world define the terms this way? What harm is done by refusing to comply? No ambiguity is introduced - just the opposite. Language is more precise, and communication is subject to less confusion when 'man' is distinct from 'animal'.

"You're an animal!" presently has meaning in English. This exclamation loses its meaning under the proposed alteration to the language. We need to see some tall benefits before going along with it.

#17 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:23 PM

More like "welcome to the land of slander instead of substance". I don't know of any creationist who isn't aware that humans have a physical, biological body, and that evolutionists would like us to think of ourselves as animals.

We also know that it's possible to define 'animal' in a way that includes mankind. But if doing this is somehow mandatory, it's news. How many languages in this world define the terms this way? What harm is done by refusing to comply? No ambiguity is introduced - just the opposite. Language is more precise, and communication is subject to less confusion when 'man' is distinct from 'animal'.

"You're an animal!" presently has meaning in English. This exclamation loses its meaning under the proposed alteration to the language. We need to see some tall benefits before going along with it.

View Post


These definitions, indeed the definition that has humans belonging with apes predates the theory of evolution, and was actually first put forward by a Christian Creationist and Scientist, Carl Linnaeus, who is (obviously) the creator of Linnean taxonomy.

My intent is not to slander you, instead it is to present you with the facts of what different creatures really are, and where we fit into the grand scheme of things using taxonomy and phylogeny. However, most creationists believe that we are somehow separate, and removed from the animal kingdom, when it is fairly clear that we are not.

"How many languages define the terms this way?" The answer would be all of them. Hell, Linnaeus's Systema Naturae was first written in his native Swedish. Modern scientific knowledge is collective.

What harm is done by refusing to comply? Nothing, except preferring to believe what is most comfortable for you rather than what is true.

I'm not proposing to alter our language, as context needs to be taken into account. In a purely scientific context, yes, we are animals. Would I refer to us as animals in a typical conversation? Probably not.

On a more general note: why has nobody addressed the actual proofs that my post shows, and instead focused on things I made no comment upon to begin with?

#18 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:38 PM

Our newbie Angehellik9 is the one trying to use animal as a catch all and also hoping to make us look ignorant because we don't bow to evolutionists who want to erase the distinction between Human beings and every other biological organism.

Tharock, when a human group decides that the eradication of another group is okay and can get away with it, is this wrong or is this just normal human behavior... you know like a pride of lions. Lying, steeling and cheating is normal too. Should it be accepted as such?

View Post


There is no distinction beyond the level of species that makes us separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. If there is, please present it! I'm surprised that you haven't already, since you allude towards there being one. And need I once again remind you that this system was put into place by a Christian Creationist, and was implemented before Darwin was even born?

Please, show me an example of a species eradicating one another. Chances are you won't, because such a species wouldn't propagate too successfully. Humans are only capable of this after systematic programming, training, and desensitization to such affronts to nature.

On a slightly more humourous note, How can you prove that Lions lie to each other? And what exactly do they steal?

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:16 PM

These definitions, indeed the definition that has humans belonging with apes predates the theory of evolution, and was actually first put forward by a Christian Creationist and Scientist, Carl Linnaeus, who is (obviously) the creator of Linnean taxonomy.

Haven't studied the man. Don't know when or how he obtained authority to define terms or dictate how they'll be used.

My intent is not to slander you, instead it is to present you with the facts of what different creatures really are, and where we fit into the grand scheme of things using taxonomy and phylogeny. However, most creationists believe that we are somehow separate, and removed from the animal kingdom, when it is fairly clear that we are not.

If you don't intend to slander, don't. If somehow, someone managed to make it through K - 12 indoctrination without figuring out that evolutionism demotes man to the status of animal, I doubt you'll remedy that with a few posts on the forum. We pretty much all know this, and claiming we don't says more about you than us.

"How many languages define the terms this way?" The answer would be all of them. Hell, Linnaeus's Systema Naturae was first written in his native Swedish. Modern scientific knowledge is collective.

So if I obtain the authority, and redefine 'fire' in English, everyone else in the world has to accept my new definition in all the other languages also. :) Gotcha.

What harm is done by refusing to comply? Nothing, except preferring to believe what is most comfortable for you rather than what is true.

I can say the same of you. Don't think we'll get too far but here goes: You prefer to believe man is an animal because you prefer what is most comfortable for you rather than what is true.

Done.

I'm not proposing to alter our language, as context needs to be taken into account. In a purely scientific context, yes, we are animals. Would I refer to us as animals in a typical conversation? Probably not.

On a more general note: why has nobody addressed the actual proofs that my post shows, and instead focused on things I made no comment upon to begin with?

View Post

I saw no proof. I did see falsehood. Rejecting your stupid religion does not automatically make people ignorant. That kind of belief is just part of your "comfort package" of silly things you tell yourself over and over, hoping somehow they'll become true.

As far as "proof" goes, just how does one prove the definition of a word needs to be altered? Why not keep the old word, and invent a new one to cover the new meaning? It's a far superior strategy if one desires to communicate clearly and efficiently.

The real issue, if you ever get around to it, is whether or not man has a spirit and/or a soul which distinguishes him from animals. There is no dispute about the chemical composition of our biological bodies, and you know it. In order to call the claim that man is distinct "incorrect", you need to demonstrate that it actually is incorrect. You'll never get beyond the assertion stage.

Also, is there some link or something we're supposed to be discussing. The title of the thread is a mystery.

#20 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 20 June 2009 - 01:19 AM

Anghellik9,Jun 20 2009, 06:38 PM]
There is no distinction beyond the level of species that makes us separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. If there is, please present it! I'm surprised that you haven't already, since you allude towards there being one. And need I once again remind you that this system was put into place by a Christian Creationist, and was implemented before Darwin was even born?


I've mentioned this already in another thread, but I believe it is worthy of repeating.

Closely enough related species can successfully interbreed and produce offspring, even if the offspring is sterile! Lions/tigers, donkeys/horses, etc. If we are merely another "animal" species and closely enough related to certain ones (primates) - has such human/animal interbreeding been proven possible? If this is morally offensive to you, I understand. But as you believe we are merely animals, perhaps it won't pose such an issue.

Any studies on how it could occur and how they reached this conclusion based on biology? If there is no distinction beyond level of species and as apes are our closest relatives, there should be some evidence to this biologic probability.

I don't believe that we are the same as animals.

Our brain is unique that it is the largest in comparison to body size. It has two hemispheres. And within these are compartments that control thought, speech/language, imagination, memory etc. Our brains alone clearly separate us from the animals.

Human brain and animal brain - analogeous? NO

Each human being maybe endowed with certain gifts that differ from the other. E.g. a rocket scienitst, brain surgeon, a singer, an artist. You won't find an animal capable of performing tasks such as these that a human can by indepth study and such specific talents. You won't find animals debating on a forum. I can guarantee you that they are not in zoos debating about evolution. If they are, I hope they group together in protest as to why, if they are so closely related to us, that they are behind bars for entertainment/study/preservation purposes and the only time we're behind bars is for criminal activity.

World Science (be careful putting human brain cells in animals)

It appears scientists are fully aware of the differences between animals and human beings. Not just morally, but physically! What the repurcussions might be. If we were so apparently closely related, I cannot see the problem?

You can check out more about the unique human brain in more depth if you wish.

Our spine is designed for upright posture and support for standing, walking, running. Though most other animals can stand on two legs for periods of time, the ability to do so is not easily maintained, as their spine is designed differently from ours. Primates are designed differently enough from us to differentiate them from human beings.

Not only do we have opposable thumbs, and the ability to grip strongly, but our hands are designed for even intricate and delicate tasks of writing, surgery, sewing, etc.

You might also look up what a human being has that gives us advanced speech.

On a slightly more humourous note, How can you prove that Lions lie to each other? And what exactly do they steal?


Hehe, not sure if they lie, but they certainly steal prey from eachother and other animals :) Goes on all the time. Male lions are commonly known to kill lion cubs that are not direct descendents from themselves. I suppose in a sense it's about pride (excuse the pun) and blood line! But as we know, there are not the same moral responsibility or implications as there are for human beings.

Evidentally there is good in all creation and there is the unfortunate effects of a fallen world/mankind, to which the animals are also the victim of. Animals, unlike us, are not guilty of committing "evil" for its own sake, nor should they be held accountable in the same manner as human beings. To discipline and correct an animal for bad behaviour is right, but to consider them as morally/legally accountable is not only cruel, but idiotic as I'm sure you are aware. Clearly human beings differ from animals for more reasons than mere "biology".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users