Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution Of The Lung

Recommended Posts

That is why we have peer-reviewed scientific articles.

 

Good point; creationist technical journals have peer-reviewed scientific articles as well, yet this is still some form of consensus, which isn't really scientific anyways. I would say what determines something to be scientific or not is its content, and not the amount of people agreeing on it, unless if your worldview asserts that everything is subjective, then it wouldn't really matter anyways.

 

Giovanni,

 

He just did. 

 

They can't because that would require ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE!

 

I think you missed the point. Please re-read his response in full:

 

 

Don't you think its a bit off that they claim it was evolution, yet cannot demonstrate the mechanisms of such?

 
IF you don't know the process then how can they know that evolution really was the cause?

 

It's obvious that the question was rather built on a logical conclusion. You claim X, yet you don't have evidence for X nor can you provide an explanation for X. Then, on what basis are you supporting X? He isn't saying prove that evolution was really the cause, but he is asking, how do you know that it was the cause when you don't have an explanation/evidence to support your position (i.e since you are the one making the claim)? In other words, how do you justify your position?

 

Anyways, let's go back on topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo12345, you aren't fooling anyone. You started this thread in order to bait "evolutionists". It backfired on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo12345, you aren't fooling anyone. You started this thread in order to bait "evolutionists". It backfired on you. 

 

Um no... it backfired on you because you keep dodging my post #15... Pretty silly of you to try and talk tough when you're running from my post...

 

 

 

gilbo12345, on 06 Sept 2015 - 01:48 AM, said:snapback.png

I was going to say something, but just read what I say below... And I mean read it...

 

 

 

:cry:

 

..... I am not asking you to verify anything I am asking for the mechanisms of how it the evolution of the lungs were achieved... I then add in the provision that the evidence you provide should be tested and verified by the scientific method...

 

This isn't asking you to verify anything, its asking you to provide verified evidence, not assumptions or opinions... Since assumptions or opinions are not evidence within science... (REAL science)...

Seriously, please read it...

 

 

So you're going to claim that there is lots of information then refuse to provide it... Then demand that I support your claim myself... Perhaps you only do this because there isn't that much information to be had...

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you can't read minds... You need to stop thinking you can. People might think you're crazy...

 

 

 

Or you can, to support your claim that there is lots of information out there...

 

 

 

I asked for evidence verified by the scientific method, not your assertions...

 

 

 

Welly well well... This is a candid admission indeed.

 

Thanks for finally admitting that you have no evidence of the mechanisms pertaining to the evolution of the lung.

 

So does this mean all your bluster of claiming there was lots of evidence for the mechanisms was a lie? Does this also mean that your claims that I should look it up were a deflection tactic?

 

I'm not expecting you to reply to these questions, just something to think about ;)

 

 

Now that you admit that you don't know the process or mechanisms involved in the alleged "evolution" of the lung... One wonders how do you know it evolved?

 

 

 

 

I think you missed the point. Please re-read his response in full:

 

 

It's obvious that the question was rather built on a logical conclusion. You claim X, yet you don't have evidence for X nor can you provide an explanation for X. Then, on what basis are you supporting X? He isn't saying prove that evolution was really the cause, but he is asking, how do you know that it was the cause when you don't have an explanation/evidence to support your position (i.e since you are the one making the claim)? In other words, how do you justify your position?

 

Thanks Giovanni, that was my point. However troll gjones, (aka Dave) doesn't want to understand because he knows there is a point to be made...

 

 

 

Anyways, let's go back on topic.

 

Yes lets :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record...
 

know
/
verb
verb: know; 3rd person present: knows; past tense: knew; gerund or present participle: knowing; past participle: known
1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
 
 
SO yeah not absolute...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo12345, you aren't fooling anyone. You started this thread in order to bait "evolutionists". It backfired on you. 

 

Find one of us who agree with you on that, gjones. I say that gjones is only here to throw stones.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point; creationist technical journals have peer-reviewed scientific articles as well, yet this is still some form of consensus, which isn't really scientific anyways. I would say what determines something to be scientific or not is its content, and not the amount of people agreeing on it, unless if your worldview asserts that everything is subjective, then it wouldn't really matter anyways.

 

A consensus on itself is indeed not scientific. however a consensus can determine if  something is scientific or not.

Like they did with aether. In the 19th century aether was more or less accepted, and was later proven false.

 

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).

If their conclusions are prove false i have no doubt that sincere scientist will alter their conclusions (like they did with aether).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus on itself is indeed not scientific. however a consensus can determine if  something is scientific or not.

Like they did with aether. In the 19th century aether was more or less accepted, and was later proven false.

 

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).

If their conclusions are prove false i have no doubt that sincere scientist will alter their conclusions (like they did with aether).

 

They might alter it.... After a few hundred years.... Any historian of science will tell you that scientists are slow to accept new changes to their favoured paradigms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus on itself is indeed not scientific. however a consensus can determine if  something is scientific or not.

Like they did with aether. In the 19th century aether was more or less accepted, and was later proven false.

 

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).

If their conclusions are prove false i have no doubt that sincere scientist will alter their conclusions (like they did with aether).

 

 

Consensus:

 

Crichton, M., Aliens Cause Global Warming, Transcript of a Caltech Lecture, 2009
 
“… the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other...you’re being had.â€
 
Classic Case....Ignac Semmelweis (Hungarian Physician):
 
Discovered that the washing of hands by Physicians in a chlorine solution before examining pregnant mothers would basically eliminate the incidence of  'childbed fever' ( which was causing 10-35% mortality rate).  In his own clinic, the mortality rate dropped from 18% to ZERO!
 
"Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community."
 
Semmelweis was dismissed from his clinic and spent the remaining years of his life trying to convince European doctors of the practice.  After 20 years, he ended up in a Mental Hospital (Beaten by Guards)...where he died 2 weeks later.
He was ultimately vindicated by the work of Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister and is NOW known as the Father of Antiseptic Procedures.
 
So go ahead and follow the "Consensus"...what bad can happen?
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might alter it.... After a few hundred years.... Any historian of science will tell you that scientists are slow to accept new changes to their favoured paradigms...

poisoning the well

and wrong generalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poisoning the well

and wrong generalisation.

 

How? I am merely stating what has happened throughout history... Its a fact!... (Yes gjones this is an absolute claim.... wooooooo!@oew3#r309#gda)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus on itself is indeed not scientific. however a consensus can determine if  something is scientific or not.

Like they did with aether. In the 19th century aether was more or less accepted, and was later proven false.

 

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).

If their conclusions are prove false i have no doubt that sincere scientist will alter their conclusions (like they did with aether).

 

So... you trust the "experts" to tell you that the lungs evolved despite their total inability to provide

any plausible evidence, mechanism or tangible support for said evolution.

 

Uhhh yeah... (ahem) because that makes "perfect sense".       PLEASE--->  :snapoutofit:

 

Max  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 gilbo12345 wrote:

They can't because that would require ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE!

 

Anyone else have something to add?

 

 

Yes, Is there Absolute TRUTH ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo12345, you aren't fooling anyone. You started this thread in order to bait "evolutionists". It backfired on you. 

 

 

:think:  Have you read through this thread?

 

It's Tantamount to the Patriots claiming the Chicago Bears Game-Plan "Backfired" in Super Bowl XX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... you trust the "experts" to tell you that the lungs evolved despite their total inability to provide

any plausible evidence, mechanism or tangible support for said evolution.

 

Uhhh yeah... (ahem) because that makes "perfect sense".       PLEASE--->  :snapoutofit:

 

Max  :)

 

It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

 

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact

that natural processes have a destructive effect.

 

The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

 

If you want me to believe they arose purely as a result of naturally occurring processes

then the burden of proof is on those who made that claim.

 

I prefer to except that living organisms were created complete and ready to go from the beginning

since that is what is indicated when one factors in the laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics, and etc.

 

Best wishes.

 

Max ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact

that natural processes have a destructive effect.

 

natural processes don't always have destructive effects. Can you support that claim?

 

The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

 

How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"?

No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together".

 

I prefer to except that living organisms were created complete and ready to go from the beginning

since that is what is indicated when one factors in the laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics, and etc.

 

Thats your entitlement.

 

Best wishes.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact

that natural processes have a destructive effect.

 

natural processes don't always have destructive effects. Can you support that claim?

 

The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

 

How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"?

No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together".

 

 

 

 

I prefer to except that living organisms were created complete and ready to go from the beginning

since that is what is indicated when one factors in the laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics, and etc.

 

Thats your entitlement.

 

Best wishes.

 

Max ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 natural processes don't always have destructive effects. Can you support that claim?

 

 

Since you are the one who believes lungs developed by a process of evolution then...

Read Again:

If you want me to believe they arose purely as a result of naturally occurring processes

then the burden of proof is on those who made that claim.

 

 

 

 

I prefer to except that living organisms were created complete and ready to go from the beginning

since that is what is indicated when one factors in the laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics

 

 

How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"?

No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together".

 

Please explain what that has to do with lung development (evolution) or is this your pathetic attempt at a red herring?

 

 

 Regards

 

Max ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

natural processes don't always have destructive effects. Can you support that claim?

 

Since you are the one who believes lungs developed by a process of evolution then...

Read Again:

If you want me to believe they arose purely as a result of naturally occurring processes

then the burden of proof is on those who made that claim.

 

I did not make that claim DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

 

I claimed : It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

 

YOU replied that with :

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect.

 

THAT is YOUR claim, not mine. I have never   wrote a word here about effects from natural processes. You have, thus, you have to support that claim.

 

so again, please provide your support for your claim that "the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect"

 

 

The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

 

How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"?

No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together".

 

Please explain what that has to do with lung development (evolution) or is this your pathetic attempt at a red herring?

 

again. you claimed: The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

which i just provided an example where that claim is totally not true. and YOUR argument is false.

 

 Regards

 

 

Please learn the rules of a debate if you want to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please learn the rules of a debate if you want to debate.

 

Go back and read post 31 wherein you stated

 

"That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)."

 

 

How is that "putting words in your mouth"???

 

Please learn the rules of a debate if you want to debate.

 

Practice what you preach kiddo.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"?

No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together".

 

Please explain what that has to do with lung development (evolution) or is this your pathetic attempt at a red herring?

 

again. you claimed: The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

which i just provided an example where that claim is totally not true. and YOUR argument is false.

 

 

Water is not a lung (you do know what the difference is I hope).

A lung is a structure of Specified Complexity which is a pretty far cry from the structure of water.

 

Therefore I ask again

 

 

Please explain what that has to do with lung development (evolution).

 

 

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back and read post 31 wherein you stated

 

"That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)."

 

 

How is that "putting words in your mouth"???

 

 

Please learn the rules of a debate if you want to debate.

 

Practice what you preach kiddo.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

 

debate 101:

 

I give an argument, which I provide support for.That is my burden of proof.

You give a counterargument which you provide support for. That is your burden of proof (not mine)

 

example#1

my argument:

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)

my support :

It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

 

your conterargument:

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect.

your support :

?????????????????????

 

 

example#2

Your argument:

The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together.

your support:

???????????????????

 

my counterargument:

Things do not always fall apart, but can fall together

my support:

How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"?

No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together".

 

 

 

 

if you cant even grasp this basic rule of a debate, I am just wasting my time with you and won't reply further.

 

ps: please fill in the "???????????????"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

debate 101:

 

I give an argument, which I provide support for.That is my burden of proof.

You give a counterargument which you provide support for. That is your burden of proof (not mine)

 

my argument:

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)

my support :

It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

 

 

your conterargument:

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect.

your support :

?????????????????????

 

 

if you cant even grasp this basic rule of a debate, I am just wasting my time with you and won't reply further.

 

 

Your "support" ("That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).") amounts to

nothing more than a statement of blind faith in what others tell you.

 

If you wish to believe in your own statement then ask those "experts":

1. Where is the evidence to back up that statement?

2. What mechanism enabled the evolution of the lung to happen contrary to (2LOT) natural processes?

3. What process kept the organism alive while this evolving took place?

 

My support rests on naturally occurring processes (reality) such as;

 

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

3. The Laws of Information.

 

Sorry you find this so frustrating.

When it comes to evolution there is nothing to debate.

Fact is, evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on scientifically.

 

I'm simply trying to understand why you (or anyone else) would chose to believe

in something such as the evolution of the lung when natural laws

demonstrate such to be physically impossible.

 

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, i see you did not fill in the "???????????????'s" in post #46. my arguments given in post #46 thus still stands.

 

Your "support" ("That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).") amounts to

nothing more than a statement of blind faith in what others tell you.

 

My "faith" as you call it, is backed up by thousands of scientists, and a special friend. Your "faith" is backed up by a few authors of your scripture who are blatantly contradicting eachother.

 

If you wish to believe in your own statement then ask those "experts"

You cannot to tell me how I should believe. just like I can't tell you how to believe.

 

My support rests on naturally occurring processes (reality) such as;

 

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life.

How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity.

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

3. The Laws of Information.

I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

 

Sorry you find this so frustrating.

When it comes to evolution there is nothing to debate.

Fact is, evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on scientifically.

that is not a fact, but just your opinion.

 

I'm simply trying to understand why you (or anyone else) would chose to believe

in something such as the evolution of the lung when natural laws

demonstrate such to be physically impossible.

why is it physically impossible?

 

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your "support" ("That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved).") amounts to

nothing more than a statement of blind faith in what others tell you.

 

My "faith" as you call it, is backed up by thousands of scientists.

 

Then by all means please find  some scientifically tenable support and post it for the rest of us.

 

Your "faith" is backed up by a few authors of your scripture who are blatantly contradicting eachother.

 

My faith is not relevant to the discussion, the topic is evolution of the lung. Stop trying to divert off topic.

 

 

If you wish to believe in your own statement then ask those "experts"

You cannot to tell me how I should believe. just like I can't tell you how to believe.

 

I'm simply asking you to provide support for your "That is why I trust the experts on how lungs in this case have evolved." statement.

 

 

My support rests on naturally occurring processes (reality) such as;

 

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life.

How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity.

 

Failure to provide a scientifically tenable explanation for the origin of life is your 1st problem.

 

 

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

 

Failure to explain how a lung can increase in Specified Complexity contrary to the 2LOT is your 2nd problem.

 

 

3. The Laws of Information.

I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

 

Failure to explain the origin of the information required to increase or reorganize the lungs Specified Complexity from

"simple" to "complex" is your 3rd problem.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact is, evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on scientifically.

that is not a fact, but just your opinion.

 

Then please post some scientifically tenable evidence to demonstrate I'm wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

I'm simply trying to understand why you (or anyone else) would chose to believe

in something such as the evolution of the lung when natural laws

demonstrate such to be physically impossible.

why is it physically impossible?

 

SEE ABOVE.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you said: Then by all means please find  some scientifically tenable support and post it for the rest of us.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/422058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract Several times throughout their radiation fish have evolved either lungs or swim bladders as gasâ€holding structures. Lungs and swim bladders have different ontogenetic origins and can be used either for buoyancy or as an accessory respiratory organ. Therefore, the presence of airâ€filled bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes is an example of convergent evolution. We propose that air breathing could not occur without the presence of a surfactant system and suggest that this system may have originated in epithelial cells lining the pharynx. Here we present new data on the surfactant system in swim bladders of three teleost fish (the airâ€breathing pirarucu Arapaima gigas and tarpon Megalops cyprinoides and the nonâ€airâ€breathing New Zealand snapper Pagrus auratus). We determined the presence of surfactant using biochemical, biophysical, and morphological analyses and determined homology using immunohistochemical analysis of the surfactant proteins (SPs). We relate the presence and structure of the surfactant system to those previously described in the swim bladders of another teleost, the goldfish, and those of the airâ€breathing organs of the other members of the Osteichthyes, the more primitive airâ€breathing Actinopterygii and the Sarcopterygii. Snapper and tarpon swim bladders are lined with squamous and cuboidal epithelial cells, respectively, containing membraneâ€bound lamellar bodies. Phosphatidylcholine dominates the phospholipid (PL) profile of lavage material from all fish analyzed to date. The presence of the characteristic surfactant lipids in pirarucu and tarpon, lamellar bodies in tarpon and snapper, SPâ€B in tarpon and pirarucu lavage, and SPs (A, B, and D) in swim bladder tissue of the tarpon provide strong evidence that the surfactant system of teleosts is homologous with that of other fish and of tetrapods. This study is the first demonstration of the presence of SPâ€D in the airâ€breathing organs of nonmammalian species and SPâ€B in actinopterygian fishes. The extremely high cholesterol/disaturated PL and cholesterol/PL ratios of surfactant extracted from tarpon and pirarucu bladders and the poor surface activity of tarpon surfactant are characteristics of the surfactant system in other fishes. Despite the paraphyletic phylogeny of the Osteichthyes, their surfactant is uniform in composition and may represent the vertebrate protosurfactant

 

 
you said: I'm simply asking you to provide support for your "That is why I trust the experts on how lungs in this case have evolved." statement.
 
 

 

debate 102:

 

Let's update the arguments made:

 

my argument:

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)

my support :

1)It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

2)as an example of some scientifically tenable support see above article.

 

your conterargument #1:

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect.

your support :

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

3. The Laws of Information.

 

in detail:


1. The Law of Biogenesis.
The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life.
How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity.
you said: Failure to provide a scientifically tenable explanation for the origin of life is your 1st problem.

the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forumtopic.
 
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.
I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.
you said: Failure to explain how a lung can increase in Specified Complexity contrary to the 2LOT is your 2nd problem.

Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the law of thermodynamics in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU.
 
3. The Laws of Information.
I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.
you said: Failure to explain the origin of the information required to increase or reorganize the lungs Specified Complexity from
"simple" to "complex" is your 3rd problem.
Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the laws of informatica in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU.
 

note:

You still did not provide support for the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect. Above details does not explain that.

 

 

Your counterargument #2:

the evolution of the lung when natural laws demonstrate such to be physically impossible.

your support:

??????????????????????????

 

 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your argument:

Fact is, evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on scientifically.

your support:

????????????????????????

 

My counterargument:
that is not a fact.

My support:

That is an opinion
 
you said: Then please post some scientifically tenable evidence to demonstrate I'm wrong.

I don't have to demonstrate you are wrong. You have to demonstrate you are right: the '??????????????????????'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms