Possible Bible Church in Deer Park

Posted in the Baytown Forum

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of102
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 12

Deer Park, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Jan 19, 2013
 
Hezekiah wrote:
Theists start with the proposition that God created the world, and then proceed to justify this assertion. Sometimes this causes them to say things like maybe the laws of physics have changed.
Evolution is a theory that is extremely well grounded in evidence. The evidence consists most famously of the fossil record. Fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time. And it's much more than dinosaur bones. Clues exist even at the cellular level.
Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. There is an extraordinary amount of this kind of evidence.
You can't understand the history of life on Earth unless you appreciate the true breadth of time and space. Evolution requires this expanse of time. It's kind of a shame that people who believe the earth is 4000 years old don't realize the awesomeness of the universe.
Natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution works. You can see this in agricultural breeding or the way viruses adapt. Over vast expanses of time evolution works miracles.
This is what I mean by the overwhelming evidence of evolution. And if you can produce verifiable evidence that contradicts any aspect of the theory, scientists will work diligently to change the theory to incorporate new evidence.
You go to the fossil record as prrof, again I say the fossil records starting point has not been verified. The fossil record is based on the C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth. That is an arbitrary number. Where do you get the age of the earth how do you prove how old hte earth is?

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jan 19, 2013
 
sjbible wrote:
You go to the fossil record as prrof, again I say the fossil records starting point has not been verified. The fossil record is based on the C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth. That is an arbitrary number. Where do you get the age of the earth how do you prove how old hte earth is?
SHEEEESH! You continue to do nothing but try to show your insipid ignorance. Why don't you get a real education and then try to provide some kind of substantiation to your argument?

I could sit here and tell you to go read a book or direct you to a myriad of scientific web pages, but I doubt that you would spend the time and effort. After all, it might make sense and cause doubt... oh my, that would send you straight to hell! Yeah, there's a good one... HELL. That place below the earth's surface, with fires burning your soul for eternity. As I stated before, isn't it strange how so many mythical & pagan concepts were drafted into other particular religions... including Christianity?

Your continuous diatribe regarding carbon dating is just a silly. We have come a long way since that formula was first introduced and there is much more knowledge and methods that have given us similar results. By the same token, even your concept of the carbon dating technique is also wrong, as it is not based on the "half-life of the earth." It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

So, do you also think the scientist are wrong at basing the age of the universe at over 13-billion years? How about its current expansion rate that also contributes to much of the scientific data that is expanding at a significant rate, as we learn more and more about our tiny little piece of space, of which you are not much more than a particle?

I suppose that as more comes to light, the religious zealots ignore those, as well. Others will try to incorporate it into their religion to explain it away and keep control over the masses.

Go do your homework in real history and come back when you can actually discuss something with facts versus hypothetical theology.

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Jan 19, 2013
 
OH MY! I have had to agree with most everything HeZeTurd has stated in this thread!

If only he was half as smart on the other topics... now THAT would be bizarre!

Since: Dec 12

Deer Park, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jan 19, 2013
 
DPTX wrote:
<quoted text>SHEEEESH! You continue to do nothing but try to show your insipid ignorance. Why don't you get a real education and then try to provide some kind of substantiation to your argument?
I could sit here and tell you to go read a book or direct you to a myriad of scientific web pages, but I doubt that you would spend the time and effort. After all, it might make sense and cause doubt... oh my, that would send you straight to hell! Yeah, there's a good one... HELL. That place below the earth's surface, with fires burning your soul for eternity. As I stated before, isn't it strange how so many mythical & pagan concepts were drafted into other particular religions... including Christianity?
Your continuous diatribe regarding carbon dating is just a silly. We have come a long way since that formula was first introduced and there is much more knowledge and methods that have given us similar results. By the same token, even your concept of the carbon dating technique is also wrong, as it is not based on the "half-life of the earth." It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.
So, do you also think the scientist are wrong at basing the age of the universe at over 13-billion years? How about its current expansion rate that also contributes to much of the scientific data that is expanding at a significant rate, as we learn more and more about our tiny little piece of space, of which you are not much more than a particle?
I suppose that as more comes to light, the religious zealots ignore those, as well. Others will try to incorporate it into their religion to explain it away and keep control over the masses.
Go do your homework in real history and come back when you can actually discuss something with facts versus hypothetical theology.
You mean the part about how the moon is moving away from the Earth as part of the expanding universe. If you study that and apply that rate to the 6.5 million years of an expanding universe the earth and moon would have been touching back then. Many one of two things either the rate was different or the earth isn't quite as old as scientist believe. That is non-creation scientist. By the way the rate of sedimatation needs to be explained for the age of the earth being 6.5 million. At the current sedimatation rate that we have today the oceans would be full and non-existant. Now if you take the flood of Noah's day and apply scientific concepts to it you might just see how things shifted and formed around the fossils.

“I don't believe in mathematics”

Since: Aug 08

De Leon, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Jan 20, 2013
 
DPTX wrote:
<quoted text>SHEEEESH! You continue to do nothing but try to show your insipid ignorance. Why don't you get a real education and then try to provide some kind of substantiation to your argument?
He's wrong in most of his views about scientific knowledge, but he is polite and respectfully disagrees. How does he warrant your ridiculous bully-boy charade?

You should expound more on your knowledge of the expansion of the universe. That should be entertaining.

“Ok, maybe I know a little bit.”

Since: Sep 12

But I don't know that.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Jan 20, 2013
 
DPTX wrote:
<quoted text>SHEEEESH! You continue to do nothing but try to show your insipid ignorance. Why don't you get a real education and then try to provide some kind of substantiation to your argument?
I could sit here and tell you to go read a book or direct you to a myriad of scientific web pages, but I doubt that you would spend the time and effort. After all, it might make sense and cause doubt... oh my, that would send you straight to hell! Yeah, there's a good one... HELL. That place below the earth's surface, with fires burning your soul for eternity. As I stated before, isn't it strange how so many mythical & pagan concepts were drafted into other particular religions... including Christianity?
Your continuous diatribe regarding carbon dating is just a silly. We have come a long way since that formula was first introduced and there is much more knowledge and methods that have given us similar results. By the same token, even your concept of the carbon dating technique is also wrong, as it is not based on the "half-life of the earth." It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.
So, do you also think the scientist are wrong at basing the age of the universe at over 13-billion years? How about its current expansion rate that also contributes to much of the scientific data that is expanding at a significant rate, as we learn more and more about our tiny little piece of space, of which you are not much more than a particle?
I suppose that as more comes to light, the religious zealots ignore those, as well. Others will try to incorporate it into their religion to explain it away and keep control over the masses.
Go do your homework in real history and come back when you can actually discuss something with facts versus hypothetical theology.
Both are theories, and neither can be absolutely proven. Your acceptance as fact the theories based on the the research of others makes that theory no more valid than his theology or that of those that choose to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. A theory doesn't become fact because you believe or because all the scientific data obtained to date supports it any more than creation becomes true because x number of people believe it on faith alone. You have chosen to place your faith in the research of others without any personal knowledge gained independently. Scientific data will certainly change in the future, and much of what is believed to be known will be seen by future generation as humorously ignorant much as we view spontaneous generation of maggots from a carcass to be humorously ignorant. What is science today will be quackery tomorrow.
Your continuous self-righteous air of self-perceived superiority is unwarranted since you conducted none of the research and have formed no universally-accepted theory to explain anything. Your acceptance of someone else's experience and research is no different than someone else's belief based on the accepted literature and personal testimonies of faith within their religion.

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Jan 20, 2013
 
Hezekiah wrote:
He's wrong in most of his views about scientific knowledge, but he is polite and respectfully disagrees. How does he warrant your ridiculous bully-boy charade?
You should expound more on your knowledge of the expansion of the universe. That should be entertaining.
Because he's as ignorant in his perceived distortions of fact, yet attempts to make others think he knows what he's talking about... just as you usually do in most other subjects. So far, you've been pretty accurate on this topic and I'll give you credit on that one... don't let it go to your head.

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Jan 20, 2013
 
Me I Know Notheeng wrote:
<quoted text>
Both are theories, and neither can be absolutely proven. Your acceptance as fact the theories based on the the research of others makes that theory no more valid than his theology or that of those that choose to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. A theory doesn't become fact because you believe or because all the scientific data obtained to date supports it any more than creation becomes true because x number of people believe it on faith alone. You have chosen to place your faith in the research of others without any personal knowledge gained independently. Scientific data will certainly change in the future, and much of what is believed to be known will be seen by future generation as humorously ignorant much as we view spontaneous generation of maggots from a carcass to be humorously ignorant. What is science today will be quackery tomorrow.
Your continuous self-righteous air of self-perceived superiority is unwarranted since you conducted none of the research and have formed no universally-accepted theory to explain anything. Your acceptance of someone else's experience and research is no different than someone else's belief based on the accepted literature and personal testimonies of faith within their religion.
So you know nothing... but you think you know enough to attempt some sort of babble about what's a theory and what's fact, then try to play silly games alluding to my incompetence because I may not have not done my own research????

There is nothing self-righteous, nor have I provided any airs of superiority, you silly nit. If that's all that you get from my statements, then it may only be your own inadequate feelings in how you perceive yourself.

If you have something to disprove the scientific data, then feel free to share.

However, the current data certainly puts the Earth well over the 10,000 years that Christians attempt to claim.

Now, if you wish to trade references, you start... and I'll reciprocate. Soon, you might be able to change your ID to MeIknowsomething.

Since: Dec 12

Deer Park, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Jan 20, 2013
 
DPTX wrote:
<quoted text>Because he's as ignorant in his perceived distortions of fact, yet attempts to make others think he knows what he's talking about... just as you usually do in most other subjects. So far, you've been pretty accurate on this topic and I'll give you credit on that one... don't let it go to your head.
If you take the calculations for the rate of exapnsion for the universe that you speak of and extrapulate them backwards where does that place the move in prosimity to the earth at each million year point. Prior to reaching the 6.5 billion years you would have a moon that is touching the earth. Of course one has to work the math out on that for themselves. If you take the current rate of sedimentation and extrapulate the 6.5 million year earth you find no oceans they would be full of sediment no rivers would exist due to being full of sedimant. I don't believe current science has come up with a reason why there is sedimentary rock on top of Mt Everest. However, if you take the flood of Noah into account of which even the American Indians had stories of a great father who went through a great flood, one can explain the sedimantary rock on Mt. Everest. The flood of Naoh according to the Genesis account says not only did waters from coem from above but also from beneath the earth. What would cause that to happen? If the great waters came from under the eeath what would that do to the differnt mantles of the Earth that scientist use today to try and prove the earths age? Those mantles very easily could have been formed from the waters from beneath seperateing and allowing waters to flood the earth and then settling back into current position. Since you or I were not there it is all based on a belief system, mine for what the Bible states your from scientific theory which again you provide no proof. I continue to state I cannot prove the Biblical account anymore than the evolutionist can prove theirs, we simply weren't there and must have faith in what we believe. Any view you have is based on faith and that has been my point all along. Neither has indisputable proof. At least you haven't produced any to this point.

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Jan 20, 2013
 
sjbible wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the part about how the moon is moving away from the Earth as part of the expanding universe. If you study that and apply that rate to the 6.5 million years of an expanding universe the earth and moon would have been touching back then. Many one of two things either the rate was different or the earth isn't quite as old as scientist believe. That is non-creation scientist. By the way the rate of sedimatation needs to be explained for the age of the earth being 6.5 million. At the current sedimatation rate that we have today the oceans would be full and non-existant. Now if you take the flood of Noah's day and apply scientific concepts to it you might just see how things shifted and formed around the fossils.
It's not likely that this forum would allow for the depth of response required to answer your assumptions. If I try to simplify it, I'm certain that it would do little more than offer you another chance to claim a loophole in another effort to claim that the concept does not make sense.

By your account, if science is correct, then the moon would have touched earth. In one respect, it may have a token amount of validity, from the beginning of the Big Bang theory from which the current universe is expanding. On the other hand, one can also learn a lot from the experiments with the super colliders. Fifty years ago, the atom was thought to be the smallest particle. Of course, we have learn so much more in the last fifty years, although it's undeniable that we still have much more to learn.

Everything within our universe is made up of equal and opposite forces. Everything also occurs in cycles. As the universe is currently expanding, those forces will also eventually start the cycle of contraction. Yes, at that time, the moon will probably touch Earth, as the cycle will eventually start again from the opposite force.

Now, you question whether the universe is actually expanding. Even Einstein admitted that his biggest blunder was assuming the universe was stagnant, upon Hubble's own discoveries. Science is a wonderful tool and today's technology has only confirmed so many theories, while providing new theories to explore. Yes, we have a long way to go, but you can't argue with many of the facts that have been tested, and tested again... only to ensure we are on the right track, while dispelling others which only provided new evidence to support the current scientific findings and lead us to new depths of knowledge.

I can only recommend that you step outside the confines of the religious doctrines that attempt to discredit the advances of science and learn more about those studies and the astounding data that has taught us more than we could have imagined to be possible.

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Jan 20, 2013
 
sjbible wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take the calculations for the rate of exapnsion for the universe that you speak of and extrapulate them backwards where does that place the move in prosimity to the earth at each million year point. Prior to reaching the 6.5 billion years you would have a moon that is touching the earth. Of course one has to work the math out on that for themselves. If you take the current rate of sedimentation and extrapulate the 6.5 million year earth you find no oceans they would be full of sediment no rivers would exist due to being full of sedimant. I don't believe current science has come up with a reason why there is sedimentary rock on top of Mt Everest. However, if you take the flood of Noah into account of which even the American Indians had stories of a great father who went through a great flood, one can explain the sedimantary rock on Mt. Everest. The flood of Naoh according to the Genesis account says not only did waters from coem from above but also from beneath the earth. What would cause that to happen? If the great waters came from under the eeath what would that do to the differnt mantles of the Earth that scientist use today to try and prove the earths age? Those mantles very easily could have been formed from the waters from beneath seperateing and allowing waters to flood the earth and then settling back into current position. Since you or I were not there it is all based on a belief system, mine for what the Bible states your from scientific theory which again you provide no proof. I continue to state I cannot prove the Biblical account anymore than the evolutionist can prove theirs, we simply weren't there and must have faith in what we believe. Any view you have is based on faith and that has been my point all along. Neither has indisputable proof. At least you haven't produced any to this point.
As you're stuck on your moon concept... Who told you or why do you assume that the expansion is linear? For that matter, I would say that it's apparently you aren't aware of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize recipients and their contribution, which indicates the Universe is actually expanding at a faster rate. Therefore, that indicates it is/was not a linear progression.

To take it a step further, you assume that the moon was always orbiting the Earth. You might also assume that the Earth was always in the same form as we know it, today. Neither are necessarily true. Again, look outside the little world that is taught in the doctrines and dig deeper to learn about the amazing universe we live in and the viable alternatives to your way of thought.

“Ok, maybe I know a little bit.”

Since: Sep 12

But I don't know that.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Jan 20, 2013
 
DPTX wrote:
<quoted text>So you know nothing... but you think you know enough to attempt some sort of babble about what's a theory and what's fact, then try to play silly games alluding to my incompetence because I may not have not done my own research????
There is nothing self-righteous, nor have I provided any airs of superiority, you silly nit. If that's all that you get from my statements, then it may only be your own inadequate feelings in how you perceive yourself.
If you have something to disprove the scientific data, then feel free to share.
However, the current data certainly puts the Earth well over the 10,000 years that Christians attempt to claim.
Now, if you wish to trade references, you start... and I'll reciprocate. Soon, you might be able to change your ID to MeIknowsomething.
I know, it is hard for you to read something that logically explains why you are wrong. You will get used to it. Until then I expect you to be a little grouchy. No problem. I can wait it out.

“Candor for the few”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Jan 20, 2013
 
Me I Know Notheeng wrote:
I know, it is hard for you to read something that logically explains why you are wrong. You will get used to it. Until then I expect you to be a little grouchy. No problem. I can wait it out.
More of your typical crap, eh?
So, prove me wrong.
Show something that gives a hint of logic.

You haven't been able to do so yet, so amaze us with your vast knowledge. We're all waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

Or maybe you'll just waddle around and throw out some more BS that you think sounds good (to you).

“Ok, maybe I know a little bit.”

Since: Sep 12

But I don't know that.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Jan 20, 2013
 
DPTX wrote:
<quoted text>More of your typical crap, eh?
So, prove me wrong.
Show something that gives a hint of logic.
You haven't been able to do so yet, so amaze us with your vast knowledge. We're all waiting... and waiting... and waiting...
Or maybe you'll just waddle around and throw out some more BS that you think sounds good (to you).
I have nothing to prove. You are the one throwing around theories you accepted as fact despite a logical explanation of why that doesn't make you any different than those that accept the testimony of that have gone before them in their faith. It is a simple statement that I made up by myself. My own original thought. Maybe you will have one some day. You can dream, anyway.

“I don't believe in mathematics”

Since: Aug 08

De Leon, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sjbible wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe current science has come up with a reason why there is sedimentary rock on top of Mt Everest. However, if you take the flood of Noah into account of which even the American Indians had stories of a great father who went through a great flood, one can explain the sedimantary rock on Mt. Everest.
Continental drift and plate tectonics theory explains why sedimentary rock can be found on top of mountains. It also explains earthquake zones and volcanic activity.

Scientific theories are formed from observation and evidence. They are useful because they can explain a broad range of phenomena. A theory allows you to make predictions and test hypotheses.

You are starting with bible stories and groping for evidence that supports them. Anything that contradicts your story is simply ignored or rejected. That process does not lead to knowledge or enlightenment.

“I don't believe in mathematics”

Since: Aug 08

De Leon, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The current theory of the origin of the moon is that a giant impact in the early formation of the earth ejected the material that eventually condensed and coalesced into the moon. There is evidence that supports this theory. Furthermore, the moon samples we have collected are consistent with materials that are found on earth. There aren't any anomalies that have been discovered.

Cosmological theories are in their infancy. It's less than a century that Hubble discovered that most of the stars you see in the sky are actually entire galaxies.

With improved technology we discovered the universe is expanding. And in recent years it has been determined that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Theories of the origin and fate of the universe have been constantly evolving.

Physicists are puzzled that there isn't nearly enough matter to gravitationally maintain the structure of space. This "dark matter" has been postulated to be composed of particles too small to be detected. But there is no evidence for this. A more recent theory is that all of this requisite matter exists in a dimension of existence that we don't have access to. These ideas are supported by evidence and mathematical models and the genius of logic and human imagination.

And these theories are just in their beginning stages. There is reason to believe that we're on the right track, and it's obvious that there's a long way to go.

And it takes a lot of effort just to get a glimpse of understanding these theories and what evidence gives them credence. But tell me these ideas are not more awesomely interesting than the anthropological musings of herding societies of thousands of yeas ago.

Since: Dec 12

Green Bay, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Hezekiah wrote:
<quoted text>
Continental drift and plate tectonics theory explains why sedimentary rock can be found on top of mountains. It also explains earthquake zones and volcanic activity.
Scientific theories are formed from observation and evidence. They are useful because they can explain a broad range of phenomena. A theory allows you to make predictions and test hypotheses.
You are starting with bible stories and groping for evidence that supports them. Anything that contradicts your story is simply ignored or rejected. That process does not lead to knowledge or enlightenment.
The point I am trying to make is that all are theories that are accepted in thier own circles. None can be proven as true. Evolution doesn't have irrefutable proof anymore than Theistic evolution or the Biblical account. It comes down to what one believes to be true, the thing is if it takes faith in a theory or faith in a teaching then it is a religious belief of that person.
The continental drifts could have easily formed from a world wide flood as seen in the bible, it cannot be proven as true or false anymore than the evolutionary teaching of it taking millions of years and basing the age of the earth on that theory.

“I don't believe in mathematics”

Since: Aug 08

De Leon, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Jan 21, 2013
 
“William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle.

"But, my dear lady", Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?"

"Ah", she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle."

"Oh, I see", said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?"

"It's no use, Professor", said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way!”

“I don't believe in mathematics”

Since: Aug 08

De Leon, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Theories are created through the scientific method. You observe and experiment and collect evidence. A theory is improved and modified as more evidence is gathered.

It aims to explain phenomena as broadly as possible. Its validity is measured by its ability to make verifiable predictions. A theory is the most comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. It's not unproven speculation.

So to say that a scientific theory is equivalent to a religious belief is nonsense.

“Ok, maybe I know a little bit.”

Since: Sep 12

But I don't know that.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hezekiah wrote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Theories are created through the scientific method. You observe and experiment and collect evidence. A theory is improved and modified as more evidence is gathered.
It aims to explain phenomena as broadly as possible. Its validity is measured by its ability to make verifiable predictions. A theory is the most comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. It's not unproven speculation.
So to say that a scientific theory is equivalent to a religious belief is nonsense.
Unless you read all the methodology, etc. Of every theory that you state as fact you are putting your faith in the people who did the research. People of most faiths also believe in the verifiable, sometimes first-hand, personally verifiable experiences of other people of faith. Why is placing your faith in researchers and publishers any more valuable? Ten thousand scientists can reach the same conclusion and all be wrong. Five people can arrive at a different conclusion and all be right. Religion and science are just faith in two different things. Neither can be proven with absolute certainty.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of102
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••

Baytown News Video

•••
•••

Baytown Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Baytown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Baytown News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baytown
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••