Jump to content


Photo

All Your Questions Answered


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

#61 NeuroMan

NeuroMan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Saratoga Springs, NY

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:58 PM

Then evolution doesn’t exist. Everything that has been caused to exist has origins. Thus reducing the definition to null.

View Post

I do not know what happened to my previous post here but...
The modern theory of evolution was designed to describe certain natural phenomena amongst living beings. Like other theories on natural occurrences, it doesn't have an "origin" because it is based on natural laws that have, essentially, always existed.
You can look at an empty sector of space and say that gravity does not exist there. However, that does not mean that the modern theories of gravity do not apply there. Put a large body of matter there and gravity will be observed, but the natural laws (physics) were always there to begin with.
That's why your question seems a bit odd. I think that the aforementioned answer, "when life began," is the best answer, if there is one.

#62 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:38 PM

Then evolution doesn’t exist. Everything that has been caused to exist has origins. Thus reducing the definition to null.

View Post


I suppose you could say that evolution is a result of the big bang, just like every other natural property. The weak nuclear force existed before there were heavy atomic nuclei for it to operate on, and evolution existed before there were self replicating systems such as life for it to operate on. Evolution really isnt a force or natural law like gravity is, though. It's more a property of logic. You'd expect 1+1 to equal 2 in any universe, even one with different physical properties, and you'd expect a self replicating system to better adapt to its surroundings over time for the same reason. That doesnt mean that such a self replicating system could arise in any universe, of course.

#63 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 05:54 PM

I do not know what happened to my previous post here but...

View Post

What post are you talking about, and what are you insinuating? I was responding to your post #56 and it is right where you left it.

The modern theory of evolution was designed to describe certain natural phenomena amongst living beings. 

View Post

The evolutionary scientists attempt to promulgate the model of evolution as something more then what it actually is.

Like other theories on natural occurrences, it doesn't have an "origin" because it is based on natural laws that have, essentially, always existed.

View Post

First – if evolution (notice, I ma not referring to the model or theory of evolution, but “evolution” itself) exists, it MUST have origins. If it does not have origins, it does not exist.
Second – You are “presupposing” that “natural” laws are infinite. It is speculation, and therefore a faith statement. We know, from all the evidences extant, that the universe had a beginning, therefore, since you made the statement, I require you to provide evidence of the infinitude of the natural laws.

You can look at an empty sector of space and say that gravity does not exist there.

View Post

And, since you have not been there, you cannot prove either way. You can only presuppose and opine either way.


However, that does not mean that the modern theories of gravity do not apply there.

View Post

Nor does it mean that they do apply, since you have not been there to complete any inductive experimentation, therefore you cannot prove either way.




Put a large body of matter there and gravity will be observed, but the natural laws (physics) were always there to begin with.

View Post

Again, since you have not been there to conduct ANY experimentation, you have absolutely no idea what the affects will be there. At best, you can merely speculate.

That's why your question seems a bit odd. 

View Post

It only seems odd if you don’t apply logic, rationale and scientific evidences. Now, can you provide examples of anything that exists, that doesn’t have a beginning (origins)?


I think that the aforementioned answer, "when life began," is the best answer, if there is one.

View Post


Oh, there’s an answer. But the bigger question is, why are you running from the “origins of evolution” question. Also, if you attempt to get away with the "when life began," answer, I can extend that out to “then, since we know life as we know it is not infinite, then where did it come from?”

Life exists, and had a beginning; therefore life’s origins ARE a part of life! If evolution exists, then evolution had a beginning; therefore evolution origins ARE a part of evolution!

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:10 PM

I suppose you could say that evolution is a result of the big bang, just like every other natural property.

View Post

First – if evolutions origins are the big bang, what are the origins of the big bang? But the bigger question here is, since “from nothing, nothing comes”, and life only comes from life, where did life come from?

Second – Where did the “Natural Properties” come from?


The weak nuclear force existed before there were heavy atomic nuclei for it to operate on, and evolution existed before there were self replicating systems such as life for it to operate on.

View Post


The above is mere speculation since you weren’t around to validate your hypothesis.


Evolution really isnt a force or natural law like gravity is, though.

View Post

No, the laws of logic can be proven, experimented with and results observed. Evolution, on the other hand is speculatory at best.

It's more a property of logic.

View Post

Again, no… You have absolutely no support or validation for that statement.

You'd expect 1+1 to equal 2 in any universe, even one with different physical properties, and you'd expect a self replicating system to better adapt to its surroundings over time for the same reason.

View Post

Actually, that is incorrect as well. We know of only one universe via the evidence extant. So to postulate anything else is, again, mere speculation. Also, we can validate the fact that 1+1=2, but we have no such validation for the model of evolution. Further, adaptation is a fact, but goo-to-fish-to-man is not.

That doesnt mean that such a self replicating system could arise in any universe, of course.

View Post

No, because we know of only one universe, therefore your postulate is, again, a mere faith statement of speculation.

#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:14 PM

Again, if you go back to post# 2 in this OP, I specifically asked for "Empirical" evidence, not faith statements and speculation.

#66 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:29 PM

Again, if you go back to post# 2 in this OP, I specifically asked for "Empirical" evidence, not faith statements and speculation.

View Post


That's like asking for empirical evidence on the source of 1+1 equaling 2. We can show that 1+1 does equal 2, just like we can show that evolution happens. If you want to ask why 1+1=2, though, the best I can say is that it just does. That's the way the universe works. You can say God made it that way, if you want. Really, we're in agreement over evolution existing in the definition I'm talking about. A self replicating system capable of changing over time will always better adapt to its surroundings. That's all evolution really means. We just disagree over the amount that the particular system of life on Earth is capable of adapting.

#67 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:49 PM

I do not know what happened to my previous post here but...

View Post

Neither do I. I am still waiting for answers or responses. I shall just twiddle my thumbs a while, shall I?

#68 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:37 PM

OH dear I only have time for the first sentence "how did the mimicking behavior get into the DNA and passed down to offspring"

Answer ..... it didnt and no evolutionist would argue that it did.

The ability to mimic behaviour comes from having a central nervous system of sufficient complexity. That is encoded in DNA and has evolved over time. Learned behaviour is just that, learned behaviour

View Post


Actually it did. If what you say is true, then insects resembling leaves wouldn't exist... but they do. These are obviously not learned behaviours, but genetic traits.

You may need to read up a bit more on Biology.

#69 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:49 PM

That's like asking for empirical evidence on the source of 1+1 equaling 2. We can show that 1+1 does equal 2, just like we can show that evolution happens. If you want to ask why 1+1=2, though, the best I can say is that it just does. That's the way the universe works. You can say God made it that way, if you want. Really, we're in agreement over evolution existing in the definition I'm talking about. A self replicating system capable of changing over time will always better adapt to its surroundings. That's all evolution really means. We just disagree over the amount that the particular system of life on Earth is capable of adapting.

View Post

:lol:

So you'd advocate that its ok for a "SCIENTIFIC theory" to have no SCIENTIFIC (empirical) evidence..

Cos that makes tons of sense :lol:

What is the SCIENTIFIC method, what does it NEED.... Observations, experiments... empirical evidence!... (and no, the observations that are taken "after the fact" are not empirical)

#70 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:54 PM

That's like asking for empirical evidence on the source of 1+1 equaling 2. We can show that 1+1 does equal 2, just like we can show that evolution happens. If you want to ask why 1+1=2, though, the best I can say is that it just does. That's the way the universe works. You can say God made it that way, if you want. Really, we're in agreement over evolution existing in the definition I'm talking about. A self replicating system capable of changing over time will always better adapt to its surroundings. That's all evolution really means. We just disagree over the amount that the particular system of life on Earth is capable of adapting.

View Post


1+1 =2, because if you have 1 stone, and then another stone... you have 2 stones.

Really, your argument that Evolution had no origins is not logical by any stretch of the imagination station.

#71 NeuroMan

NeuroMan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Saratoga Springs, NY

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:19 PM

Ron, you are utterly hilarious. You obviously do not understand the process of putting together things that we do know to extrapolate and predict future events. Do you understand our legal system? There does not have to be an eye-witness to prove someone guilty of a crime. In the same way, if we understand nature enough (and yes we do have "inductive" experiments that show how the effects of the absence of matter), we DO NOT have to be everywhere to understand/predict what is/will be occurring there. If you aren't going to take these discussions seriously and act like a mature adult, what is the point of having this discussion with you?
Also, I stated "natural laws that have, ESSENTIALLY, always existed." The "essentially" was specifically placed there so that people who fly off the handle (like you) can see that I do mean the there is a beginning (perhaps Big Bang), but speaking about time before that is illogical (if you knew anything about complex physics, you'd understand).
After reading your response, I realized how biased your thinking is. You say that something must have an origin or else it doesn't exist. Those are practically your exact words. You also, essentially, state that you have to observe something directly to be able to believe/know it exists. What is amazing is that you have no problem applying these outrageous claims to the modern theory of evolution, but as for "god" and "creation" that is off limits. You always accuse "evolutionist" of beating around the bush. Well, I'd like to see you get yourself out of this one. Enjoy!

#72 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 17 September 2010 - 10:34 PM

Ron, you are utterly hilarious.  You obviously do not understand the process of putting together things that we do know to extrapolate and predict future events.  Do you understand our legal system?  There does not have to be an eye-witness to prove someone guilty of a crime.  In the same way, if we understand nature enough (and yes we do have "inductive" experiments that show how the effects of the absence of matter), we DO NOT have to be everywhere to understand/predict what is/will be occurring there.  If you aren't going to take these discussions seriously and act like a mature adult, what is the point of having this discussion with you?
Also, I stated "natural laws that have, ESSENTIALLY, always existed."  The "essentially" was specifically placed there so that people who fly off the handle (like you) can see that I do mean the there is a beginning (perhaps Big Bang), but speaking about time before that is illogical (if you knew anything about complex physics, you'd understand).
After reading your response, I realized how biased your thinking is.  You say that something must have an origin or else it doesn't exist.  Those are practically your exact words.  You also, essentially, state that you have to observe something directly to be able to believe/know it exists.  What is amazing is that you have no problem applying these outrageous claims to the modern theory of evolution, but as for "god" and "creation" that is off limits.  You always accuse "evolutionist" of beating around the bush.  Well, I'd like to see you get yourself out of this one.  Enjoy!

View Post


I'm not answering for Ron, as he is more than capable of doing that for himself.

Unfortunately, it seems to ALWAYS escape the minds of evolutionists, atheists, that while Creationists have NO PROBLEM expressing FAITH to their belief, evo's and atheists continue to have a problem admitting theirs. It's not that God and Creation is off limits it's that it's beyond YOUR limits to accept. Therefore if evolution is "true" than you need to show the goods based within the limits of the scientific method that you and many claim "clearly" shows the "truth" of evolution (macro). Also if you notice, it is NECESSARY to "EXTRAPOLATE" to make evolution seem more plausible because there is NO evidence to support the theory (macro) within the limits of the scientific method.

All there is, whether you realize it or not, is extrapolation, speculation and imagination. However if there is indeed evidence to show to the contrary then Ron's questions were quite serious and an answer to them is expected.

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:22 AM

I'm not answering for Ron, as he is more than capable of doing that for himself.

View Post


Thanks Seth.

Unfortunately, it seems to ALWAYS escape the minds of evolutionists, atheists, that while Creationists have NO PROBLEM expressing FAITH to their belief, evo's and atheists continue to have a problem admitting theirs.

View Post

And that is exactly one of the main problems, at the very heart of the issue. Faith is not the lack of evidence; that is what’s known as “Blind Faith”! Blind faith is belief without true understanding, perception, evidence, or discrimination (or credulity).

Faith, on the other hand, is confidence in belief (or in the truth), value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Again, it all is dependant upon context. But faith is based on evidences AND probabilities. Faith isn’t “2+2=4”, faith is “well, if it works here, I’ll work in other parts of the universe”. So, faith is evidence based, and relies on trust to “fill in the gaps” if you will. Faith is a belief or trust that some one can or cannot prove their assertions whilst using only some empirical evidence.

I’ll leave the rest of you post alone, as you have done a very good job in explaining you points. AND I already cover the same in this thread.

#74 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 18 September 2010 - 08:52 AM

1+1 =2, because if you have 1 stone, and then another stone... you have 2 stones.

View Post


Sorry I can't help but ask this when does 1+1=10? :lol:

#75 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 September 2010 - 10:06 AM

AFJ--
I guess Truth thought we were a bunch of Bible thumping hicks. You think he'll be back?

I wanted to find out how octopuses evolved to mimic coral. Orchids female bees, and some insects plants (i.e. leaves, flowers)--like katydids, matises, and walking sticks.

But maybe Truth will be back and let us know these mysteries of evolution. We really don't understand the power of selection--he will surely help us. wink.gif


(Kaliko, you told yourself you wouldn't get involved with this thread...)

The reason that octopi and the insects mentioned mimic their surroundings is the same reason I do it. Camouflage.
That's probably not the answer you're looking for, because it's obvious. The question (i'm assuming, and feel free to correct me) is how.

View Post



Octopus "morphs" to look EXACTLY like coral. AMAZING!


Hi Kaliko,
As you mentioned, I did not ask "why." Why is obvious. I asked "how." Your responses are three things that evolution is not supposed to be. Your camouflage is NO. 1--designed by intelligence-- NO. 2--goal oriented-- --And NO. 3--it it is fabricated with intention. SO, your answer is either disqualified on those grounds, OR, you are attributing design, goal orientation, and evidence of intention in nature.

ALSO, An octopus is not camouflaged per se. It can shape it's body to look EXACTLY like coral. THe chances of random mutation even presenting selection an opportunity for this morphing ability and the instinct to associate it with coral is null. Remember, there are no "morphing schools" in the ocean--so it has to know this by hereditary knowledge--just like migration.

This is a clear cut case of natural selection at work. Their ancestors attempted to mimic their surroundings as well, and the more camouflaged you are, the less likely you are to be found.

Posted Image

Posted Image
(I added these both to illustrate the point, and because that ghillie is just too cool)
They're both camouflaged, but one is clearly better hidden for his environment than the others.

View Post


No one argues conferred advantage, but that does not attribute how selection worked for the instinct especially. You said "Their ancestors attempted to mimic their surroundings as well...." Science has disproved the inheritance of acquired traits--this would include all learned behavior. Instinct is attributed by scientists to genes. You have two groups of genes which have to be encoded--maybe three. Color changing, morphing muscles and unacquired knowledge.

The problem is you are left with random mutation, which science has not proved as a viable mechanism for macro evolution. We're not talking about micro evolution such as changes in molecular enzymes, small changes in proteins, natural genetic variation, or even speciation. We're talking system redesign, or a system addition which would require a group of genes, or groups of genes. Random mutation is not going to do that before hitting a selective dead end.


Also, plant life has undergone relatively few drastic changes compared to the modern bugs/octopi, and therefore haven't changed as much as the animals due to having fewer selective pressures on them.

View Post


I mentioned orchids. One of them looks so much like a wasp the males try to mate with them. I have seen others that look like different insects.

LiveScience--"Bug Has s@x With Orchid"
"A number of orchids mimic female insects to entice visits from males looking for love."

Also, off the top of my head--the venus flytrap (????). It is encoded with a timer.

Posted Image
"When an insect or spider crawling along the leaves contacts a hair, the trap closes if a different hair is contacted within twenty seconds of the first strike." Wikipedia--Venus Fly Trap

A lack of understanding on creationists part is not the problem. It is the oversimplifying by evolutionists of the actual necessary mechanisms to their students that fool people. It comes down to not understanding the design principles that are quite apparent in the genetic material, and the utter foolishness of random mutation.

Truth is a troll, by the way. But he did start a nice "Challenge Evolution" thread (lol).

#76 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 September 2010 - 01:22 PM

Sorry I can't help but ask this when does 1+1=10? :D

View Post

(groan)... I knew that would happen eventually :lol:








:lol:

#77 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 18 September 2010 - 02:22 PM

:D

So you'd advocate that its ok for a "SCIENTIFIC theory" to have no SCIENTIFIC (empirical) evidence..

Cos that makes tons of sense  :lol:

What is the SCIENTIFIC method, what does it NEED.... Observations, experiments... empirical evidence!... (and no, the observations that are taken "after the fact" are not empirical)

View Post


:lol: I could've sworn I'd responded to this post already. Dunno, I must be getting confused with all the similar posts. Anyway, as I said, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of evolution, just like it's easy to prove that 1+1=2. Asking why it's that way is kind of meaningless, though. It's just a property of the universe. I wont bother getting into the evidence, since there are plenty of other threads about that.

And by the way, you do know that all of the Gospels were written second or third hand well after Jesus's death, right? And who exactly witnessed God creating the Earth to write that stuff down?

#78 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 September 2010 - 02:46 PM

And by the way, you do know that all of the Gospels were written second or third hand well after Jesus's death, right? And who exactly witnessed God creating the Earth to write that stuff down?

View Post


This is a deviation from the thread. So I will make one statement in defense and that's it.

Incorrect. Matthew and John were of the 12 apostles whom Christ hand picked. They walked with him for 3 1/2 years and witnessed his death and resurrection. Mark was a disciple of Peter, worked under the Apostle Paul, and was Barnabas' (who also worked with Paul) nephew. He would have seen Christ. Luke was the only one who was "second hand," if you want to call it that. He wrote Luke, but also wrote Acts, and was eyewitness of the many miracles (in the Name of Jesus) that happened in Paul's ministry--who was the pillar of the early Gentile churches.

A witness of numerous miracles in Jesus Name, Luke would hardly be counted as a "second hand" witness. He sets his gospel in gentile (i.e. Roman Empire) history.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1,2

#79 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:05 PM

Sorry I can't help but ask this when does 1+1=10? :lol:

View Post


Hmm... I have no idea, the mystery may never be solved!!! :lol:

#80 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:24 PM

:lol: I could've sworn I'd responded to this post already.
Dunno, I must be getting confused with all the similar posts.

View Post

Actually, you haven’t responded to, nor answered the questions in that post.

Anyway, as I said, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of evolution, just like it's easy to prove that 1+1=2.

View Post

Again, saying its so, doesn’t make it so. A good starting point would be:
First - provide evidence for your assertions. Example; if you are going to assert that “evolution” is as factual as the Laws of Mathematics, you are required to provide the empirical evidence for that assertion.
Second – The is absolutely NO evidence on this forum, or anywhere else that backs up your assertion.

Asking why it's that way is kind of meaningless, though. It's just a property of the universe. I wont bother getting into the evidence, since there are plenty of other threads about that.

View Post

Asking why isn’t meaningless, unless you want to run from it, and Gilbo didn’t ask why. Therefore you are attempting to run from his actual question with the “why” red herring.

And by the way, you do know that all of the Gospels were written second or third hand well after Jesus's death, right? And who exactly witnessed God creating the Earth to write that stuff down?

View Post

First – that had absolutely nothing to do with the OP, the conversation, or Gilbos post. Therefore, it is nothing more then another “red herring” intended to divert from the OP, conversation and Gilbo’s post, and it is a non sequitur (and therefore an equivocation).
Secondly – it is an historically incorrect statement.
The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew (First hand eye witness).
The Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John (First hand eye witness).
The Gospel of Mark was dictated by the Apostle Peter (First hand eye witness) to John-Mark (who may have been a First hand eye witness).
The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke interviewing (or writing down the testimonies) of first hand eye witnesses.

So basically, you're just equivocating, trolling, wasting time and spreading misinformation here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users