Science Disproves Evolution

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 17)

Showing posts 321 - 340 of685
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#329
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

What about the Ewoks?
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.
We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”
Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.
Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.
Seeing things from God’s infinite perspective is probably as hard for us as it is for a dog or cat to understand what is on this printed page. If God is infinite and we are His finite creations, our limited understanding and perspective should not surprise us.
How else do we know that time began? The Bible is the most widely read book of all time. Within it, the most read page is probably the first page of Genesis. The first three words on that page
“In the beginning ...”
are probably the best-known group of three words of all time—the single, most widely proclaimed idea. By reading the fourth word, one sees that God was there at the beginning.
Another key insight comes from John 1:1.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Again, there was a beginning; we are also told Who was there when time began. Verses 1:2, 3, and 14 clarify these profound events even more.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ... ]

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#331
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.
We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”
Google Quantum Mechanics.

This is an area of physics which is literally brand-new-- if your source is less than 10 years old? It's already out of date.

But Quantum Mechanics has more experimental proof than about any other theory of science-- more that gravity for example.

And?

Quantum Mechanics is not causal-- it operates on probability, NOT on cause-effect.

At the quantum level, there IS NO cause-effect. None.

The present Universe? Is NOT cause-effect based-- it's based on Quantum Mechanics.

So as you already pointed out?

You are ... WRONG.

There is no Prime Mover-- there is no need.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#332
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

People with 'mild' forms of autism are more likely to be atheists, according to a controversial new study - and more likely to shun organised religion in general.

The study, which looked at posts on autism forums, focused on people with high-functioning autism such as Asperger's.

The study, from University of Boston, speculates that common autistic spectrum behaviours such as 'a preference for logical beliefs' and a distrust of metaphor and figures of speech, could be responsible.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#333
May 9, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
People with 'mild' forms of autism are more likely to be atheists, according to a controversial new study - and more likely to shun organised religion in general.
The study, which looked at posts on autism forums, focused on people with high-functioning autism such as Asperger's.
The study, from University of Boston, speculates that common autistic spectrum behaviours such as 'a preference for logical beliefs' and a distrust of metaphor and figures of speech, could be responsible.
What's your point?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#334
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>What's your point?
He's an idiot. Point proven.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#335
May 10, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
What about the Ewoks?
<quoted text>
Chewbacca is a wookiee. But he lives on Endor. This doesn't make sense!
Thinking

Staines, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#336
May 10, 2013
 
Allegedly Lucas originally envisaged a battle between Wookiees and the Empire to conclude Return of the Jedi but created the dimunitive Ewoks when it became obvious that Chewbacca was as technically savvy as the humanoids... Lucas should contribute to the bible as he is a great back filler of history.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Chewbacca is a wookiee. But he lives on Endor. This doesn't make sense!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#337
May 10, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an idiot. Point proven.(shrug)
Correct.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#338
May 10, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
Allegedly Lucas originally envisaged a battle between Wookiees and the Empire to conclude Return of the Jedi but created the dimunitive Ewoks when it became obvious that Chewbacca was as technically savvy as the humanoids... Lucas should contribute to the bible as he is a great back filler of history.
<quoted text>
'
Yeah... lots of last-minute concession to the Toy industry there...

... nobody wants to play with stuffed toys of Wookees (although they like pretending to be them on Halloween).

But a stuffed Ewok?

... yeah... money rolls in ...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#339
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Embryology 1

Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish.(Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a.“This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock,“Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson,“Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic reca pitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.[See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#340
May 16, 2013
 
A stuffed Ewok has more integrity than Pahu.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
'
Yeah... lots of last-minute concession to the Toy industry there...
... nobody wants to play with stuffed toys of Wookees (although they like pretending to be them on Halloween).
But a stuffed Ewok?
... yeah... money rolls in ...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#341
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pahu wrote:
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.

Dude: And your premise was demonstrated erroneous many many pages ago - reality isn't real because an invisible magic Jew wizard did it all differently cuz the Bible is true cuz teh Bible sez so.

Pahu wrote:
Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes.

Dude: "... except your God." Your position requires something to be uncaused, violating your own premise that everything "must" have a cause. So you allow yourself a special exemption which you will not allow for us, for the sake of an entity you have zero evidence that it exists. Because you are a big huge massive dishonest hypocrite.

Pahu: As explained, every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect; He is the original cause of everything and everyone.

Pahu wrote:
From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

Dude: A man who is still a non-scientist fundie liar for Jesus who has no clue what he's talking about. Since you have presented the linky to his site on BS apologetics already, the only reason to do so again would be to remind us that we haven't addressed your case. Since we have long ago (while you've ignored all rebuttals) then you are simply engaged in spamming.

Pahu: Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Jul...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#342
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

NightSerf wrote:
Really! Walt Brown the originator of the ludicrous hyrdroplate :theory." the man who uses a degree in mechanical engineering as a credential to contend with PhD research scientists in biology, geology, and astrophysics. That Walt Brown.
Surely you're joking.
Pahu: Not at all. Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the scientists he quotes, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#343
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is astonishing.
If all life only comes from life and God created life, then God must be alive and therefore must have been created by something alive.
If you propose an exception, then you must likewise accept an exception.
At that point Ocham's Razor steps in and slice off the magic Jewish Wizard
Pahu: As explained, every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect; He is the original cause of everything and everyone.
Thinking

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#344
May 16, 2013
 
Straw man.
Pahu wrote:
Pahu wrote:
In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.
Dude: And your premise was demonstrated erroneous many many pages ago - reality isn't real because an invisible magic Jew wizard did it all differently cuz the Bible is true cuz teh Bible sez so.
Pahu wrote:
Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes.
Dude: "... except your God." Your position requires something to be uncaused, violating your own premise that everything "must" have a cause. So you allow yourself a special exemption which you will not allow for us, for the sake of an entity you have zero evidence that it exists. Because you are a big huge massive dishonest hypocrite.
Pahu: As explained, every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect; He is the original cause of everything and everyone.
Pahu wrote:
From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
Dude: A man who is still a non-scientist fundie liar for Jesus who has no clue what he's talking about. Since you have presented the linky to his site on BS apologetics already, the only reason to do so again would be to remind us that we haven't addressed your case. Since we have long ago (while you've ignored all rebuttals) then you are simply engaged in spamming.
Pahu: Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Jul...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#345
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pahu wrote:
Pahu: Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering
Which is why I'd hire him to design a bridge, but NOT hire him to play in a rock band.

Skill and education in one field does not indicate skill nor education is an unrelated field.

I would not hire Darwin to build a bridge. I'm not going to take Walt Brown's word on biology.
Thinking

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#346
May 16, 2013
 
Which god? There are so many.

www.godchecker.com
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Pahu: As explained, every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect; He is the original cause of everything and everyone.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#347
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Google Quantum Mechanics.
This is an area of physics which is literally brand-new-- if your source is less than 10 years old? It's already out of date.
But Quantum Mechanics has more experimental proof than about any other theory of science-- more that gravity for example.
And?
Quantum Mechanics is not causal-- it operates on probability, NOT on cause-effect.
At the quantum level, there IS NO cause-effect. None.
The present Universe? Is NOT cause-effect based-- it's based on Quantum Mechanics.
So as you already pointed out?
You are ... WRONG.
There is no Prime Mover-- there is no need.
Pahu: Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“…spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition…Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation…Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.”

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#348
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

[continued]
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Google Quantum Mechanics.
This is an area of physics which is literally brand-new-- if your source is less than 10 years old? It's already out of date.
But Quantum Mechanics has more experimental proof than about any other theory of science-- more that gravity for example.
And?
Quantum Mechanics is not causal-- it operates on probability, NOT on cause-effect.
At the quantum level, there IS NO cause-effect. None.
The present Universe? Is NOT cause-effect based-- it's based on Quantum Mechanics.
So as you already pointed out?
You are ... WRONG.
There is no Prime Mover-- there is no need.
Pahu: IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.ht...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#349
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Thinking wrote:
Which god? There are so many.
www.godchecker.com
<quoted text>
The one and only true, living, creator God who reveals Himself in the Holy Bible. But is the Bible accurate? Consider:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry...
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.ht...
http://www.campuslight.org/wvu/EvidencesCFait... http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/h...

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science...

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.100prophecies.org/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-proph...
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 321 - 340 of685
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••