Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 4,719)

Showing posts 94,361 - 94,380 of106,037
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99704
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you just contradicted your earlier statement that humans are the only animals that do not pass down such instincts...
bwahh bwahh bwaaaahhhhhh....
I wasn't using the definition of 'instinct' as you were incorrectly using it.
I never said 'all' infants had an instinct to hold their breath and swim. You insinuated that, not I. I said "So though it's 'instinct' for some it's not instinct for all."
Try reaqding what was written before you make a fool of yourself, just saying...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99705
Sep 16, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Joshua has pretty much been debunked too.
:-)
I have no doubt.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99706
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the creation story in the first few paragraphs is false. it did not happen that way. imagine a perfect god that cannot get his own creation story correct...hmmmmm.
the flood of Noah's Ark fable did not happen. imagine tht perfect god lying about that...hmmm...
the bible proves the god of the abrahamic cult to be false. just another made up character from one of thousands of religious cults.
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99707
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I can show that the first two books have been debunked.
Your faith is rather weak if you have to believe in a fairy tale to believe in God.
What I believe or don't believe isn't the issue. You're statement is the issue. You stated "But the first two books of the Bible...have been shown to be false." Don't inject a word like debunked. Stick with your statement. You said the first two books of the Bible have been shown to be false, meaning there is no truth in them. No truth of geography, personal names, places or events. That their all lies and none have ever been shown to have existed.
Please present your evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99708
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What I believe or don't believe isn't the issue. You're statement is the issue. You stated "But the first two books of the Bible...have been shown to be false." Don't inject a word like debunked. Stick with your statement. You said the first two books of the Bible have been shown to be false, meaning there is no truth in them. No truth of geography, personal names, places or events. That their all lies and none have ever been shown to have existed.
Please present your evidence.
When you debunk something you don't have to show that all aspects are false. Just the main tenets. There was no flood. There was no Garden of Eden, there was no Exodus. Tell me what you want debunked and I can list some of the evidence debunking it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99709
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.
so the infallible god couldn't get humans to write his story down correctly about the creation? good, you just showed no divine inspiration in the writing of the bible, so it is just the work of man, thus the god is a creation of man.

fun facts about water, but there was no global flood in the time of humans on this planet. proven fact.

your god is a proven myth. just like all the other cults.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99710
Sep 16, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.
Your cult information sources are lying to you my friend.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99712
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
And if a book of the Bible is false, then all the information inside that book is false.
No, it could be entirely false, or parts of it could be false.

Even the second case shows its not the inerrant word of God. Its a mythical / historical chronicle of the Israelites.

Just like the Iliad and The Odyssey are mythical / historical records of the early Greeks.

Now, in the latter we see Greeks mingling with their Gods, and we also see them attacking Troy. We found Troy in 1880ish - a historical reality and sacked at about the right time too....does that mean that Achilles was REALLY the half human son of Thetis the River Goddess?

Its no surprise to find some historical aspects of the Bible are true. But others have been found wanting in the facts department.

And as we would expect, its the earliest parts that are the most mythical.

If you really believe in God, I suggest that His universe as revealed by our observation and logic is far harder to fake than a few old fables from an obscure source. Even the light from many stars took thousands of times longer than the allowed "6000 years" to reach us. Did God fake that or did early cultures get the timing wrong????
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99713
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

+++++
Obama OKs Chemical Weapons Aid to Syria
By Devin Dwyer

Sep 16, 2013 5:23pm
WASHINGTON — President Obama has formally authorized American shipments to Syria of non-lethal equipment and supplies specifically aimed at countering the threat of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons as the world waits for them to be neutralized.
In a signed order, Obama today waived prohibitions of such shipments by the Arms Export Control Act, determining that the assistance is “essential to the national security interests of the United States.”
The materials — including chemical weapons-related personal protective gear and medical supplies — will be sent to “vetted” members of the Syrian opposition, international aid groups inside Syria, and any other organizations working to “prevent the preparation, use, or proliferation of Syria’s chemical weapons,” an administration official said.
Among the groups expected to receive the aid is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the group expected to lead any monitoring and enforcement effort under the deal to transfer stockpiles under international control.
An administration official said the authorization has been in the works since before the massive Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack. This aid is separate from the lethal and other assistance the U.S. has been shipping to Syria.
+=========

Related to the above report, Chemical weapons at Syria pose no threat to the security of the people of the planet, as they are not like nuclear reactor leaks or explosion.
Chemical weapons by large have not been known being exercised in the region, except US weaponry and drones which killed too many innocent people already.
Assad says he did not use chemical weapons,as they give lies, for which whoever used sarin gas if any , it was not Assad then.
US weapons and aggression prove to be serious threats to world safety, whereby US weapons have been proven exercised over the degree being too much.
Muslim rebels pose as serious threat to the security of Syria and Middle East and global cultures by using too much violence, where US supports the rebels and threats.
The Russian-US proposal in attempt to check into Syria to dismantle chemical weapons is impossible, and is a violation of sovereignty of Syria, of which it imposes serous threats to the stability of Syria and the ME region, as in this situation Putin is trying to do favor for Muslim rebels--for doing their further unwanted violences when chemical weapons of Syria were to be looked into.
Obama is more than a sinner as a radical fundamentalist BEING THE Failure in everything he does--in Libya where embassy and such alike buildings were bombed recently by terror rebels, in the constant chaos and volatile turbulence in Egypt time after time upon letting go of Mubarack, and in the doing the extremism to Syria now.
Obama is the robotic molded enactment of Bush, by doing abuse of civil rights and freedom privacy of supporters, by carrying the Patriot Act and flying 800 drones in snooping and spying Of the US public, more than Bush did.
The drama of appalling silliness is the expertise of Obama going after Bush's hopeless done-deal drama horror again in the same old thing in pursuit of recycling Bush's terrified drama of looking for the destroying chemical weapons (yet Bush found nothing but devised the fake chemical weapons drama in Iraq), in Syria right now.
One never knows if it is true or not that they really have chemical weapons In Syria.
Yet, they only keep playing the uncertainty drama of chemical weapons cycle again and again.
As Obama might have done too many drones, that is nothing unusual to strike and bomb as he says to find out nothing instead as if something is there in Syria. However, Syria and Iran are ready to battle US strike, to make US drama terror of itself.
NO wonder the Russians say US is full of exceptionalism by doing its terrified drama emptiness all the time.
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99714
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Syria is somewhat like Vietnam, as Muslim rebels want war only (they don't want to participate in a peace plan of talks and negotiations to see if they can have their say), but not peace, that a war has to be fought out to determine the outcome.
There are two sides, as Syria might label REBELS AS OUTLAWS AND COMBATANTS.

Rebels are mostly Muslims from everywhere, from Chechen, ME and North Africa, grouped with inside mostly Muslims in Syria for violences in this battle.

Chemical weapons issue is a side-track of Obama by pointing to the unproven 8/21 incident with no clear and concrete proof to call strike of Syria.

It is wrong that Obama thinks that is another Libya or Egypt to support rebels. Putin is also wrong to call a peace plan because rebels are also from Chechen, and they just want war all the way.

They have to make certain that rebels can first agree to talks first as pre-requite and fundamental requirements from US and Russia, otherwise, it is useless to call Syria not to fight rebels or not.

As Syria already signed the chemical weapons treaty, it is not possible for US to say about Syria, since they would not use sarin gas.

But, if US wants to strike and use ground troops to find out, Syria might not have any, or already destroyed them, or had already shipped away, US will end up finding nothing. So, the question if Syria really has any chemical weapons will never be known, like Iraq.

The choice is between Syria and rebels.
But, Obama is doing his empty drama horror by calling on chemical weapons terror.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99715
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses? Did you kniow that there is more water in the crust of the earth than there is water on the earth's surface? Did you know if water in the crust of the earth was forced up by volcanic action onto the surface of the earth the tallest mountain would be submerged in water? Research that science 101 as I'm sure you're in disbelief. Then go and read the first several chapters of Genesis. It doesn't prove the Bible stories true, but one wonders how that writer guessed correctly what we would learn over 2000 years later through modern science.
Whoa! That's a whole lot of claims here, bud. Got any references to back these up or are we simply to take your word for it?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99716
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not false by proof or provable by evidence. It's just an ancient religious theory of how the earth came to be. Did you know that the writer of Genesis in the first several chapters gives a description of the world in physical state we now call Pangea? That only after several chapters does the writer began to refer to the earth as having 'islands' of land masses?
Did YOU know that Pangaea was NOT the "original continent" but that the continents have been coming together and splitting apart cyclically for the last few billion years? On that scale Pangaea is recent, only forming about 300 million years ago and then gradually splitting apart. And the continents will do the same again, in a grand cycle, for the next few billion years too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_c...

There were islands before Pangaea and there will be islands during and after the next supercontinent.

Having said that, its just amazing what you creationists try to spin out of a few random lines in an old myth. I could just as easily weave some order from the Norse myths. 600 million years ago the earth was in a deep freeze and that accords with their origin accounts. Thundering Thor, Lars and Snorri were right!

Time to sharpen my sword and get set for a bit o' rape n' pillage!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99717
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa! That's a whole lot of claims here, bud. Got any references to back these up or are we simply to take your word for it?
What kind of references are you expecting from the author of:

"Science want's us to believe that in hundreds of trillions of years matter finally got it right so that life could evolve to become what it is on a single solitary planet." ?

All else considered, I'm impressed that they were able to spell "to" correctly.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99718
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of references are you expecting from the author of:
"Science want's us to believe that in hundreds of trillions of years matter finally got it right so that life could evolve to become what it is on a single solitary planet." ?
All else considered, I'm impressed that they were able to spell "to" correctly.
In all honesty, I don't expect any references. Although it wouldn't surprise me if we get pointed to some off-the-wall fundie sites.
spOko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99719
Sep 17, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitively we can say the universe created us,
And it will also destroy us!
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> to be it's eyes and ears to see and hear with our senses, and with knowledge to create ways to see and hear beyond our senses. The intelligent designer is US, and if the universe is to be populated by the living biosphere, it entirely rests on the shoulders of humanity to do so. There is no indication there is any other thing that can ever do so. So understanding the burden on our shoulders is but the real cross humanity has to bear, and if there is a god, it is of OUR making. Otherwise extinction and forgotten are all the dreams of creation and a living universe.
No small task for the best creation of the biosphere , but a task none the less and a goal for the living apex predator this universe has ever known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
pgardner31

Arlington, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99720
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs.'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible

1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.
3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.
4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.
This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
5. For example: "Behold the Lamb of God". Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here.'The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb'. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations <usually traditional> of either secular or scriptural <or both> evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don't you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?
Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.
Life, like electricity, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.
6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.
To my dear brothers and sisters: When did 'Creationism, et. al.' become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?
To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be 'wise and prudent' for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the 'ark' symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99721
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When you debunk something you don't have to show that all aspects are false. Just the main tenets. There was no flood. There was no Garden of Eden, there was no Exodus. Tell me what you want debunked and I can list some of the evidence debunking it.
lol...what's wrong? You made a statement. I challenged your statement. Now you're avoiding showing proof for what YOU CLAIMED and now ask for me to ask you specific questions? lol...really humorous dude.
You stated... "But the first two books of the Bible...have been shown to be false." You stated the first two books were false. You didn't state 'some' of the first two books of the Bible are false. You need to make your mind up of what you mean.
But I'll bite. Prove there was never a garden of Eden so as described in Genesis. Prove there was never an exodus of Israelites from Egypt. Got a clue to save you some time. You can't prove neither happened/existed. Their stories. And if their is no evidence for a story, it is neither true or false. It just remains a story.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article...

From an interesting article on the web of the pros and cons of Bible archaeology... "It's a truism in archaeology that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
In 1979 Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay found two tiny silver scrolls inside a Jerusalem tomb. They were dated to around 600 B.C., shortly before the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the Israelites' exile in Babylon. When scientists carefully unrolled the scrolls at the Israel Museum, they found a benediction from the Book of Numbers etched into their surface. The discovery made it clear that parts of the Old Testament were being copied long before some skeptics had believed they were even written.

In 1986 archaeologists revealed that several lumps of figured clay called bullae, bought from Arab dealers in 1975, had once been used to mark documents. Nahman Avigad of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem identified the impressions stamped into one piece of clay as coming from the seal of Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the doomsday proclamations of the prophet Jeremiah. Another bore the seal of Yerahme'el, son of King Jehoiakim's son, who the Book of Jeremiah says was sent on an unsuccessful mission to arrest both prophet and scribe--again confirming the existence of biblical characters.

In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C., celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. "Israel is laid waste," it reads, suggesting that the Israelites were a distinct population more than 3,000 years ago, and not just because the Bible tells us so.

In 1993 Avraham Biran of Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion and Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University announced they had found an inscription bearing the phrases "House of David" and "King of Israel." The writing--dated to the 9th century B.C., only a century after David's reign--described a victory by a neighboring King over the Israelites. Some minimalists tried to argue that the inscription might have been misread, but most experts believe Biran and Naveh got it right. The skeptics' claim that King David never existed is now hard to defend.

Last year the French scholar Andre Lemaire reported a related "House of David" discovery in Biblical Archaeology Review. His subject was the Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone), the most extensive inscription ever recovered from ancient Palestine. Found in 1868 at the ruins of biblical Dibon and later fractured, the basalt stone wound up in the Louvre, where Lemaire spent seven years studying it. His conclusion: the phrase "House of David" appears there as well.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99722
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so the infallible god couldn't get humans to write his story down correctly about the creation? good, you just showed no divine inspiration in the writing of the bible, so it is just the work of man, thus the god is a creation of man.
fun facts about water, but there was no global flood in the time of humans on this planet. proven fact.
your god is a proven myth. just like all the other cults.
If you have children you know what it's like to have power on end over them to command them and tell them what to do and how to do it. Do they always listen? Do they always do as you say? If they're old enough to write something and you tell them what to say is it always written as you said it or does what you said get changed, added to and taken away from?
Point being, if their is a creator and that creator did give us 'free will', that free will defines why things the creator said never remained in their correct context. Humans can't even keep in correct context what another human has stated. How the heck do you expect humans to keep what a creator stated correct? Really funny!

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99723
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Your cult information sources are lying to you my friend.
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99725
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?
Does your 'modern science' include the creation of the universe in six twenty-four hour days 6000 years ago?

Does your 'modern science' ignore the VAST amount of evidence that shows conclusively that a world-wide flood 4500+/- years ago is impossible?

Does your 'modern science' explain how a grown man can live survive 3 days in the 'belly of a great fish'?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 94,361 - 94,380 of106,037
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••