Comments
2,501 - 2,520 of 3,167 Comments Last updated Jun 1, 2014
Levi

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2603
Oct 15, 2013
 
EvilutionBuster wrote:
Levi, you would be wise to not believe the garbage sites these atheists send you to.......They are all biased in favor of evolution and actually prove nothing.......For every site that promotes atheism and evolution, there are others that refute it....Chromosome 2 has not been proven to be the means by which any chimp ever turned into man.......In fact,no creature has ever evolved into another......
1...Similar DNA is not proof of common ancestry....
2...Scientists only BELIEVE that certain mutations are neutral or good....The fact is, mutations are invariably harmful and not conducive to any improvements......
3...Having the same number of chromosomes is certainly NOT proof of common ancestry......There are creatures that have the same number and are totally different......A cat is very different from a pig, for example but they have the same number of chromosome pairs.......
4....Having more chromosomes than some other creature is not evidence of higher intelligence....Crayfish have a much higher number than humans do.......
5...When mutations occur, they cause diseases such as Down's syndrome.....It is not possible for a bunch of random mutations over periods of millions of years to account for the incredible function and health of all the amazing species on the Earth.....If mutations were the key to evolution, then all creatures we know would have died long ago from the negative mutations.......
6...Variances within a species is not evolution either......The offspring of creatures and mankind has contained some variety all along.......Your son may have a longer nose than you do, but neither he nor your great great great great great great great great great grandchildren will ever be anything other than human beings.......
7...You can continue to listen to the explanations from the atheists on this thread and believe a pack of lies, or you can use a little common sense and see that evolution is nothing but an unprovable theory.....It is NOT a fact.
Well I am not sure if they are atheists. I don't see a problem with believing in evolution and God, it depends on whether you're someone who believes in literal truth of the Bible or symbolic truth. I believe in symbolic truth.

In any case, debate is always healthy if it's not abusive and if people are at least somewhat open minded. I think that anyone who shuts off their mind and insists that evolution is definitely wrong, or equally anyone that insists that evolution is definitely the whole picture is not advancing in knowledge of either God or Science.

I believe that evolution is 'guided', which is why what you say is impossible ("for a bunch of random mutations over periods of millions of years to account for the incredible function and health of all the amazing species on the Earth") is actually very possible in my eyes.

Evolutionists may not believe in this 'guide' and claim that survival of the fittest will do all the work, and it will do a lot of the work, but I think that there is more to it (my opinion - not claiming as fact).
EvilutionBuster

Hodgenville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2604
Oct 15, 2013
 
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I agree with your professor and you, biology, chemistry, physics are man made divisions. It's the search for truth that counts and rules over all, and that applies to religion and science. All part of the same thing in our quest to learn.
I'm surprised to find though, that many scientists will be happy to apply scientific method in most things, but not when it comes to God.
Levi, there were and ARE great scientists who believe in God......Here is a list of some of the very greatest, also including Dr. Francis Collins in an interview......
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefait...

Also, here is an amazing site to read.......
Debunking Evolution: problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Thanks!
Levi

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2605
Oct 15, 2013
 
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Levi, there were and ARE great scientists who believe in God......Here is a list of some of the very greatest, also including Dr. Francis Collins in an interview......
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefait...
Also, here is an amazing site to read.......
Debunking Evolution: problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Thanks!
All theories have errors in the beginning. They get improved and developed. Because one thing is wrong, does not mean you throw the entire thing away. You work on it, correct it. You seem to want to dismiss the whole thing, because of some errors or inconsistencies, despite there being lots of good evidence. If this is what you're doing, then you're no different to someone who dismisses religion because there are a few historical errors or inconsistencies in the Bible.
EvilutionBuster

Hodgenville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2606
Oct 15, 2013
 
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
All theories have errors in the beginning. They get improved and developed. Because one thing is wrong, does not mean you throw the entire thing away. You work on it, correct it. You seem to want to dismiss the whole thing, because of some errors or inconsistencies, despite there being lots of good evidence. If this is what you're doing, then you're no different to someone who dismisses religion because there are a few historical errors or inconsistencies in the Bible.
Well, if you think that the ridiculous fairy tales of how evolution did it are credible, then I suppose you will just have to believe whatever you see.......For me, there is absolutely no question as to the truth......There is no good evidence for evolution.....Furthermore, I have studied the Bible all my life and find no real inconsistencies or historical errors.....Sometimes there may have been a misprinted word occasionally in some Bibles......And the Bible is definitely right in keeping with good science and totally refutes evolution.
Levi

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2607
Oct 15, 2013
 
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you think that the ridiculous fairy tales of how evolution did it are credible, then I suppose you will just have to believe whatever you see.......For me, there is absolutely no question as to the truth......There is no good evidence for evolution.....Furthermore, I have studied the Bible all my life and find no real inconsistencies or historical errors.....Sometimes there may have been a misprinted word occasionally in some Bibles......And the Bible is definitely right in keeping with good science and totally refutes evolution.
In terms of inconsistencies, any comparison of the 4 gospels will show that they occasionally give different accounts of important events. Some of these are stunningly different, some are just minor but I can't see how anyone could not have noticed any inconsistencies at all. The only conclusion I can make is that you haven't read the Bible properly.

I suggest you read Matthew Mark Luke and John, and while you're reading, assemble the facts as they are stated, and notice which ones are different in which account.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2608
Oct 15, 2013
 
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
Substantiate what with empirical evidence? That you stated that it doesn't matter how a supernatural being created? It's right there in the other post, silly person. Are you high or something?
<quoted text>
Nope. I stated the obvious? Are you really having difficulty reading or what? You are good at projection, though.
<quoted text>
And now more over-generalized and misconceived notions, plus an empty assertion for good measure. Wow. Not at all impressive.
Were you just bragging about "debating scientists"? LOL!! You are obviously full of it. You haven't shown anything other than an ability to make weak assertions and name-dropped aspects of evolutionary sciences. Not at all living up to the 'great debater' you've tried to portray yourself as. LOL!!! But, keep going, I'm definitely having a laugh.
I have no more a scientific mandate to prove how spontaneous creation occurs than all researchers combined can demonstrate how life can 'poof' into a complex factory of reproduction from dead elements and a few proteins. LOL!

I may remind you so far you have presented no scientific articles of any sort, let alone empirical research. I have for the claims I have made so far. That is where the laughter is, and the laugh is on YOU...LOL!

Do not ridicule me because I can assure you, I bite back.

Are you any more informed about comparative genomiics and the huge claims of 98% human/chimp similarity? After all, this is at the base of TOE and its assumptions.

Here is some empirical evidence published in Nature, that speaks to the veracity and credibility of comparative genomics.

My claim will be comparative genomics is based on huge assumptions rather than factual data. This research below was modelled by bootstrpping to the chimp genome, rather than the human genome.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...

This below was written by the evolutionary proffessor John Hawks that speaks to the research above in terms you may hopefully understand. You should try reading it.

"Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees

Holy crap!

Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.

So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, "comparable to the difference ... in chicken and human"."

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanze...

The link below is a creationist take on the research above...

http://www.icr.org/article/4624/

Now let's tie up. Your accusation was that I have no empirical research.

Above I have posted said 'empirical data' and offered you a credible evolutonary researchers take on it to support my claim.

Now you demonstrate to creos how scientifically robust comparative genomics is by refuting me with empirical research. GO!

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2609
Oct 15, 2013
 
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you think that the ridiculous fairy tales of how evolution did it are credible, then I suppose you will just have to believe whatever you see.......For me, there is absolutely no question as to the truth......There is no good evidence for evolution.....Furthermore, I have studied the Bible all my life and find no real inconsistencies or historical errors.....Sometimes there may have been a misprinted word occasionally in some Bibles......And the Bible is definitely right in keeping with good science and totally refutes evolution.
You may be interested in this. This is to do with cosmology and big bang rather than TOE, but interesting none the less...

“Mathematicians’ Alternate Model of the Universe Explains Away the Need For Dark Energy”

Mathematicians Blake Temple and Joel Smoller developed a new theory: Earth sits near the center of an expanding wave that began after the Big Bang.

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/NewsExpW...

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-s...
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2610
Oct 15, 2013
 
Levi wrote:
I'm surprised to find though, that many scientists will be happy to apply scientific method in most things, but not when it comes to God.
Science studies natural process. Therefore, the 'supernatural' is outside of this by the very definition. This is why 'faith' is a necessary for all religions. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Its a matter of logical construct and lack of evidence that divides religion from science, I would argue, rather than an unwillingness by professional scientists. There are scientists the world over that would study concepts involving supernatural claims, but historically there has simply been no empirical evidence to be found. Only claims that so far have not produced anything to apply to the scientific method.

Are you familiar with the 'Amazing' Randi's million dollar challenge?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challe...

On the surface Randi's challenge may sound goofy or even antagonizing, but he is committed to funding research and providing an incentive that would bridge a gap between science and supernatural, if a link actually were to be found to exist. The money exists in an escrow account beyond even Randi's reach, and anyone that meets the standards set can collect it.

The realm of any supernatural existence remains beyond detection (if there is such a thing) and therefore remains, by definition, supernatural and beyond the scope of the scientific method's capabilities.

I would implore you to share any ideas you may have in regards bridging this gap. It would certainly end many hundreds of years of continued strife within humanity to have an up or down answer to these issues.

There are groups who have studied claimed religious phenomenon, but no conclusive results have emerged. The study of the efficacy of prayer is one route that is often tried.
Here is a study you may be interested in:

Abstract of the peer-reviewed study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/16569567

and a write up in Sciencedaily that gives a good synopsis:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...

This study cost millions and included 1800 post-op heart surgery patients. I'll let you read the results for yourself. Is this what you mean by applying the scientific method to god?
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2611
Oct 15, 2013
 
Here's a working link (hopefully) to the peer-reviewed journal article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

Same link but I think I didn't have a space in between my words and the link.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2612
Oct 15, 2013
 
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I am not sure if they are atheists. I don't see a problem with believing in evolution and God, it depends on whether you're someone who believes in literal truth of the Bible or symbolic truth. I believe in symbolic truth.
In any case, debate is always healthy if it's not abusive and if people are at least somewhat open minded. I think that anyone who shuts off their mind and insists that evolution is definitely wrong, or equally anyone that insists that evolution is definitely the whole picture is not advancing in knowledge of either God or Science.
I believe that evolution is 'guided', which is why what you say is impossible ("for a bunch of random mutations over periods of millions of years to account for the incredible function and health of all the amazing species on the Earth") is actually very possible in my eyes.
Evolutionists may not believe in this 'guide' and claim that survival of the fittest will do all the work, and it will do a lot of the work, but I think that there is more to it (my opinion - not claiming as fact).
If ever TOE comes up with some credible and robust scientific evidence one must believe in 'guided evolution' of some sort to be a Christian. Apes had been created, then God must have thought to create a creature in His image. That then must have been 'guided' in some way.

I find it confusing for Christians to go along with ALL evolutionary claims anyway.

I can see that being made of dust can also reflect mankind being made of the elements of the earth and not refuting any method of creating. God may have chosen not to offer that information.

However, that being said, Eve was made from Adams bone. To me that reflects a rudimentary reference to DNA. With Adam, if there had of been some connection to animal ribs as opposed to Adam being directly created from dirt, I'd be more likely to defend TOE in a debate.
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2613
Oct 15, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
Do not ridicule me because I can assure you, I bite back.
So, bite already. So far all you do is bark. I ridicule the ridiculous and if you think the shoe fits...
My claim will be comparative genomics is based on huge assumptions rather than factual data. This research below was modelled by bootstrpping to the chimp genome, rather than the human genome.
Ok. How does this show evolution to be or to not be the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth as we know it? I really don't think you even understand what it is you're trying to show.

We asked for your **best** argument for evolution *not* being the best description that science currently has to describe biological diversity. You just keep trying to critique aspects of particular scientific disciplines while boasting about you amazing debate abilities. LOL!! Its just silly and ridiculous.

You're just throwing together a patchwork of scientific articles and pretending that a critique of a scientific technique is the same as a challenge to the ToE. Sorry, its not.

Btw, you are really terrible at pretending to be a great debater. Let me give you a tip, don't boast about how great you are if you can't back it up (or even step up to the metaphorical podium in the case of whatever it is you're trying to do here).

We're just people talking about stuff. Can all your pompousness and join the conversation if you like. Stop with the empty threats and foolishness. No one is impressed.

Since you want to talk about genes, though, Ken Miller's work was brought up. What do you think?

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2614
Oct 15, 2013
 
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
So, bite already. So far all you do is bark. I ridicule the ridiculous and if you think the shoe fits...
<quoted text>
Ok. How does this show evolution to be or to not be the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth as we know it? I really don't think you even understand what it is you're trying to show.
We asked for your **best** argument for evolution *not* being the best description that science currently has to describe biological diversity. You just keep trying to critique aspects of particular scientific disciplines while boasting about you amazing debate abilities. LOL!! Its just silly and ridiculous.
You're just throwing together a patchwork of scientific articles and pretending that a critique of a scientific technique is the same as a challenge to the ToE. Sorry, its not.
Btw, you are really terrible at pretending to be a great debater. Let me give you a tip, don't boast about how great you are if you can't back it up (or even step up to the metaphorical podium in the case of whatever it is you're trying to do here).
We're just people talking about stuff. Can all your pompousness and join the conversation if you like. Stop with the empty threats and foolishness. No one is impressed.
Since you want to talk about genes, though, Ken Miller's work was brought up. What do you think?
Hey on smart one, TOE is based on the some of its parts. I can refute them all as being nonsense, you choose. What's your best arguement and what are the terms of ascribing a 'winner'.

Guess what you won't go there because all you can do is fluff your feathers, ignore point by point refuting scentific testimony and ask never ending questions and generalizations.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2615
Oct 15, 2013
 
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
We asked for your **best** argument for evolution *not* being the best description that science currently has to describe biological diversity. You just keep trying to critique aspects of particular scientific disciplines while boasting about you amazing debate abilities. LOL!! Its just silly and ridiculous.
You're just throwing together a patchwork of scientific articles and pretending that a critique of a scientific technique is the same as a challenge to the ToE. Sorry, its not.
You are wrong.

For a Christian or even any believer of God, the best argument against TOE as it stands today is that God must at least have 'guided' the evolution of ape to man. There goes TOE and one must look for SOME creationist model of some sort.

Are you a Christian?.
Levi

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2616
Oct 15, 2013
 
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
...
This study cost millions and included 1800 post-op heart surgery patients. I'll let you read the results for yourself. Is this what you mean by applying the scientific method to god?
I thought Randi had withdrawn that challenge in recent years.

Supernatural is just another man made division. It seems to be a divisor with the convenient addition that all things shown to be true are suddenly shifted into natural and all the science adjusted even though they were supernatural before and the science said they were impossible. Bit like medicine and alternative medicine.

So I don't really like this division but I guess we have to use it. Communication at faster than the speed of light would have been thought supernatural years ago, the double slit experiment, going back further, flight would be supernatural, healing would be and so on. What of the list of supernatural things will become normal in the next 100 or 200 years?

You asked how we might learn about things that are supernatural. Well we'll have to do something a little bit different. And the difference is in that we need to see that some things are individual and specific to the person.

An example to demonstrate this point, is that we read weekly about this food being good for you, that drink being bad for you, that exercise good for your heart, another exercise bad for your knees and so on. The point is that none of this constitutes an unarguable truth. It really does depend on the person. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Everything is relative, not just moving bodies that Einstein wrote about.

If you want to find out what's good for you, the food research might give you some decent suggestions of what works for the majority, but in the end you'll have to experiment yourself and find what's good for you. You can't take it on faith. A medicine might cure you, but kill me. So truth is ultimately relative, and you must experience it yourself and search for it yourself.

As an example of supernatural that I have experienced. I can experience emotions of others if they're strong. For example if someone is very angry, I can feel a weird dark stifling energy around me. If they're full of love, it's light and warm. Now these can be experienced, by you just as much as by me. I'm not special. But they can't easily be shown how some scientist might wish them to be shown. The truth doesn't need to show itself how you wish, it's just truth. Now in 50 years it may turn out that there's some research and that humans give off anger pheromones, and love pheromones and that the human can detect the difference and we react differently to them, even from some distance. So then it will be considered natural, despite you thinking what I've said is supernatural. Or it may be that there is a difference in vibration around the person which can be felt. Some form of energy is felt.

You can experience this for yourself and verify it. Then you will have a truth that doesn't fit in with current science, and you might be surprised or even disturbed. The question is whether you're willing to try to experience that. Most scientists are not interested in this sort of individual truth. Which is why a lot of them don't get it. But it's this personal experience that I mean as applying the scientific method to God. It's not unscientific because it involves individual experience, nd you must find proof, not just accept what's written in a book or what someone says. Proof it to yourself. And there are other examples of supernatural things that can be experienced. But trying to make it conform to what you want in a lab is like trying to get the double slit experiment to resolve itself in a non-quantum way by repeated testing in a lab. That's in vain. You have to approach it in a different way.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2617
Oct 15, 2013
 
Blind Faithiness wrote:
Here's a working link (hopefully) to the peer-reviewed journal article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567
Same link but I think I didn't have a space in between my words and the link.
Well that's just lovely and I can quote many more that speak to prayer having benefits and its detractors as I can those that challenge every major aspect of TOE eg dino to bird link, apart from 'IT ALL MUST HAVE EVOLVED'. Prayer does not relate to my post or TOE at all.

As I said if you believe in God then you cannot believe in TOE in its current status quo. You cannot believe that mankinds creation was not at least guided by a higher power, refuting all claims that mankind at least, was not the result of a SUPER natural hand, against ALL evolutionary reasoning offered.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2618
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect....you get an F on this paper.......
True science can only call fact that which is proven......
It is a fact that gravity exists....good science
It is a fact that the sound barrier has been broken..good science
It is a fact that photosynthesis works in plants...good science
It is a fact that rain, sleet,and snow all fall from the sky...good science
Evolution is NOT a fact....NOT SCIENCE, PERIOD.
Sorry, but a theory in science is consider fact, science 101. Basic.
Epic fail on your part.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2619
Oct 15, 2013
 
EvilutionBuster wrote:
A 2012 poll showed that only 15 per cent of Americans believe in evolution.....That means that 85 percent do not.......How can someone start a thread with the question of "Does Everyone"....??
85 per cent is an overwhelming and correct majority.......While it is true that much of the world has been deceived by this myth of evolution, a thread such as this has no basis for its foolish title.....Other countries should follow the example of the US and be logical enough to believe the truth, not the BIG LIE.......Lucy just fell off a cliff.......She did not have time to develop wings before smashing to her death......HA HA.......
Not sure where that poll came from , I heard 46% didn't support the Theory of Evolution. But it does not matter, because science is not a democracy, it is true whether you believe it or not.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2620
Oct 15, 2013
 
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I am not sure if they are atheists. I don't see a problem with believing in evolution and God, it depends on whether you're someone who believes in literal truth of the Bible or symbolic truth. I believe in symbolic truth.
In any case, debate is always healthy if it's not abusive and if people are at least somewhat open minded. I think that anyone who shuts off their mind and insists that evolution is definitely wrong, or equally anyone that insists that evolution is definitely the whole picture is not advancing in knowledge of either God or Science.
I believe that evolution is 'guided', which is why what you say is impossible ("for a bunch of random mutations over periods of millions of years to account for the incredible function and health of all the amazing species on the Earth") is actually very possible in my eyes.
Evolutionists may not believe in this 'guide' and claim that survival of the fittest will do all the work, and it will do a lot of the work, but I think that there is more to it (my opinion - not claiming as fact).
Well, I'm here to say I am an atheist because there has never been any evidence showing any kind of a god created anything.

So there are atheists.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2621
Oct 15, 2013
 
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Levi, there were and ARE great scientists who believe in God......Here is a list of some of the very greatest, also including Dr. Francis Collins in an interview......
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefait...
Also, here is an amazing site to read.......
Debunking Evolution: problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Thanks!
Yes and Collins supports the Theory of Evolution as well.
Levi

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2622
Oct 15, 2013
 
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'm here to say I am an atheist because there has never been any evidence showing any kind of a god created anything.
So there are atheists.
There are definitely atheists, I was just saying I don't know if those talking about evolution (olasonn and Blind Faithiness here) are atheists. They may be. It makes no difference to me, they can still be intelligent insightful individuals. Just as you can be.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

21 Users are viewing the Seventh-day Adventist Forum right now

Search the Seventh-day Adventist Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The Investigative Judgment - Why it is necessary (Sep '12) 1 hr Professional Troll 386
The FIRST time a Sabbath was made Known (Jan '14) 1 hr Professional Troll 1,832
The False Doctrine of 'Once Saved, Always Saved'. 1 hr Professional Troll 782
Is Gramme's Neighbor Saved .......Birdman? (Nov '13) 1 hr Shadrach 85
Ten Commandments were not given to Adam and Eve (Jul '13) 2 hr DANNO 2,408
Sabbath keeping fellowships 2 hr Roy Page 2
Be Dead to the Law. 3 hr Prophet of Seven Spirits 2
Was Mrs.White Right or Wrong? 5 hr Eyeswideopenq 108
•••
•••