|
|
|
|
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/20/2005 7:29:29 PM | Religion is imperfect. proof:
as science develops, religion looses ground, and has to change to accomidate scientific findings.
is there any reason to believe this trend will stop?
"A common argument used by theists to support their belief in God, is that life is so complicated that it could have only been made by God. Often this is accompanied with the assertion that there is a "vital force" that separates inanimate objects from living things, and that God is the source of this "vital force". This philosophy, called "vitalism", has now been totally discredited. The following research report in the highly respected peer-reviewed journal Science details the de novo creation of a complete functional virus from synthetic chemicals.
Some people will probably say that a virus is not a living thing, but that all depends on how you define life. Clearly a simple virus is not as complex as a mammal, but it does have much more properties associated with living things than properties associated with inanimate objects. For example viruses reproduce, evolve, contain genetic information, and have a life cycle. These are characteristics in common with a pet dog, not a pet rock.
Even today, the study of chemistry is divided into "organic" and "inorganic" chemistry. This is a throwback to an era when it was believed that only living things could create the carbon bonds that define the difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. This has been discredited in 1828, when Wöhler synthesized urea. The year 2002 marks another milestone in science, with man's first creation of a virus, a living thing, from nonliving material.
"
to read the rest, visit:
www
.evilbile.
com
/Synthetic_Life.
htm | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/20/2005 9:13:39 PM | | Could you tell us who this Journal you mention is highly respected by? Other than yourself of course. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/20/2005 9:35:33 PM | There is no scientific journal (which means peer review and independent confirmation and replication of findings) that supports Creationalist theories of any sort.
Any peer reviewed scientific journal that does offer support to said theory I would love to see...
oh, and sorry, RDtoo...I wasn't calling you out on this or even reading through niceguyblue's post...I just saw your reaction. He's kinda effusive at the best of times, and so thought I'd just cut to the rhetorical chase, as they say... | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 3/21/2005 12:40:01 PM | A few humble thoughts...
1) Science does have to restrict itself to observation and testing. For obvious reasons the origin of the universe cannot be 'tested' or repeated and then verified. There have been some very awesome and amazing observations and theories drawn up about the origin of the universe and I stand amazed at the intelligence of the people who have formulated them. However, since science itself defines a law as that which can be proven, verified and repeated then the origin of the universe does not fall into the category of a 'Law.' A theory is better than a hypothesis since a theory has gained some acceptance but if a theory could be PROVED, it would be a law.
2) Christians postulate the idea of a God that is omnipotent. Given that point, let me ask a fun and interesting question. Can you disprove the creation of the world by an omnipotent God exactly as it is just five minutes ago? The answer is, of course, no you cannot. A God who is all powerful could have simply created an 'old' earth. Furthermore, a God who is all powerful could have, in fact, created the entire universe within six days. Such a statement is only logical.
Now, I stated earlier that an omnipotent God is a given and some people disagree. Fair enough. Please be clear in the arguments though. If this God does in fact exist then of course the Bible can be true, the earth can be young and people could go to hell. The discussion, at least as it appears to my not-quite-so-capable mind, seems to center on the existence of an omnipotent God.
Note that the existence of this God and science may be perfectly compatible. If, as in the example above, God made the earth to look, feel and seem billions of years old then we should expect that scientists would find the earth to be billions of years old. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 4:28:53 PM | Woodrow, evolution has not been proven. I say this as a former believer in evolution, until I actually started to study it. The more I read the less likly it is the actual mechansim by which life originated. Darwin himself said that "If a ireducibly complex system is discovered, one that can not be less complex and exist, then it would reduce this theroy to ashes. Darwin did not have a electron microscope and a understanding of the inner workings of a single cell.
The problem with evolution is that scientist are lock into this theroy and make too many assumption based upon the theory. Instead of examining the evidence as they find it they try to make it fit the evolution model. The ceolacanth is one such example of where they made many assumptions based upon the fossil and evolution theory, ie larger brains, lungs, etc... When an actuall fish was found alive it showed just how much of their work was guessing.
This would be equalivent to a detective upon arriving at a crime scene deciding who was guilty and then trying to make all the evidence fit the conclusion.
There may be a better scientific explanation to life on this planet. But until Scientist get out of the evolutionist mode, they will not be able to develope another theory.
I read on science daily. com a scientist that said that 75% of the world does not beleive in evoluion despite the mounting evidence. I don't know if the percentages would really be 75%, but it is the incongruities of the theroy that makes sckeptics of so many.
I do not come at this from a religious point of view. My opinion has been reshaped by not taking what I have been reading at face value, but by pondering what I have read and thinking if it makes sense.
For a fish, with a different circulartory, respiratory, and digistive system than a land animal to gradually evolve over millions of years to a land creature just dosn't make sense. While it was still in the oceans these attributes would hardly make it a creature most likly to survive.
Rapid mutations also does not make sense as they very seldom survie in nature, and these mutations are rarley postitive in nature.
Science may find the actual mechansim of life, but not until they let the evidence stand for itself and not trying to force the evidence into the evolution model.
On aside, if evolution is the actual mechansim of our existance, then what race of man is the least evolved? This was a very racist theroy when it was first postulated. Used by white europeans to support their moral claim of superiority.
Again, I do not come from this as a religious issue, but as a "does the theory meet the proof" issue. In my mind it does not.
I have other examples where it does not, but I want to keep this post short. Too late for that I guess. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 4:45:44 PM | | Nice guy blue, if you are open to some opposing view, I would recommend a book by Lee Strobel called a Case for a Creator. You may find it interesting. It is a quick read and you may come across some info you had not previously heard. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 4:49:01 PM | Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because they have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 5:15:06 PM | I'm sorry Late, but most scientist have left theory off of the discussion and in many schools it is taught as fact.
Facts are not unprovable, they are by their nature, facts.
Theories are theories until they meet the proof. Evolution has never met the proof.
It is suductively simple and makes so much sense until you try to make it work. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 5:29:32 PM | Are any of you familar with the Cambrian Explosion?
Basically, in the Cambrian age, there was a explosion of life where just about every known phyla of animal life came on to the scene about 540 million years ago.
What if, and excuse me I am enjoying my evening livations of adult beverages, but what if there was a plura begining of life. That the foundation of nearly all creatures where in the cambrian age and through natural selection these developed into more advance life forms through natural selection.
This would negate the need of transitional forms from sea to land, from land back to sea and from land to air.
Too many adult bevarages huh? | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 5:43:41 PM | (sigh)
Theories are theories until they meet the proof. Evolution has never met the proof.
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Therein lies the rub, if you eschew the equivocation of the non-science vernacular, you may understand where your error in reasoning lies in regards to your statement.
Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies. In common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
You are using the word to mean:
An unproven conjecture.
"I have a theory about who broke into the school last night, but it’s just a theory."
When you trot out the latter in place of the former, in the context of debate; this is known as a strawman fallacy.
..no sale. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 6:12:22 PM | Double sigh!
Theories still have to meet the PROOF!
Otherwise they are nothing more than a S.W.A.G. (Scientific Wild Ass Guess!)
I am well aware how these things work. There is an obeversation, then a hypothesis as to how this may have happened, this hypothesis or thory is tested to be proven. Evolution has never gone past theory, although it is often tought as fact! | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 6:30:44 PM | Late, I can tell by your writing that you are an intellectual person.
Let us get away from the word theory.
Please also understand that I do not look at this as a religous argument, like it says in Luke 1:37 "With God anything is posible" So I can make evolution fit my religious view. So to me this isn't a Creation vrs Evolution argument.
I am just saying that I can not make the Theory of Evolution make sense with my current level of knowledge. I used to believe in it and if it makes sense to me again I will beleive in it again.
Do you concur with Darwin that if a ireduicible complex system is found that could not exist in a less complex form that would void his theory?
How would you resolve the which came first, DNA or the Cell. Can a cell form without DNA to put it to proper order? Can DNA exist outside of the Cell. This would be the very first place to examine evolution. If it doesn't work in the micro world it would never work in the macro world.
forgive spelling, in me cups! | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 6:48:34 PM | | well can you prove god exists? if you cant then he doesnt.? evolution is a lot closer to truth or fact than "god" believing in god, the bible etc is blind faith and blind faith is far far away removed from anything even resembling a theory.... thanks but i will stick to some kind of evolution. there is more signs of evolving than faith in a god. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 6:53:12 PM | I am well aware how these things work.
Let us get away from the word theory.
No, there's still a big ugly equivocation in the way.
Hmmmm?
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
Do you concur with Darwin that if a ireduicible complex system is found that could not exist in a less complex form that would void his theory?
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
Lee Strobel's "scientists", .......please!
How would you resolve the which came first, DNA or the Cell. Can a cell form without DNA to put it to proper order? Can DNA exist outside of the Cell. This would be the very first place to examine evolution. If it doesn't work in the micro world it would never work in the macro world.
Actually, it works plenty fine.....
http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/ | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 8:04:33 PM | No, it is still an unproven theory that cannot even work at the micro level. Just saying "Somehow it evolved!" is in noway more convinving that just saying "Well God did it!" Accusing people of being narrow minded or bigioted is in no way a convincing agrument either. Once there was a theroy that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. In their time they were held as general convention.
General convention that is currently the best understanding of science does not make it true, and resistance to conflicting theories is usually very strong.
Unfortunately too much of the supposed evidence is made from assumptions from fossils. As was the case with the celocanth which was supposed to be the transitional form from the sea to the land. It was suppose to have a larger brain, and a partial respiatory system that would allow it to breath air for a short time.
This was general convention,....untill one was found alive. These assumptions made from the fossil records were very wrong.
The archaeopteryx was suppose to be the transitional form from reptile to birds. Until older, fully form birds were found.
It seems every six months or so some scientist is making a discovery that will "rewrite the evoluton tree." The problem is that too many assumptions are made from the evidence at hand.
The theroy of evolution is supposed to work from the simple less develope form to the more complex form. Yet you would not comment on if a fully form complex form that can not be reduce and exist is found that this would disprove evolution.
DNA orders the cell formation. A cell cannot form and funtion without it! Where does the DNA come from? DNA cannot exist outside of the cell, where did it come from? Also, a cell cannot be less complex than what it is and exist,...so where is your evolution there?
I do not pretend to know the answers, but I do find it to be equally narrow minded of the "Evolution is the only answer" crowd as the fundamenat creationist crowd.
To me they are just opposite sides of the same coin.
My main complaint with evolution is that there are large gaps between stages that merit a review. Life in sea in not compatible with life on the land and slowly developing respitory, circulartoy, and digistive systems to make the transitions to land do not make sense in the survial of the fites mode. Nor does the transition of land to air, which has its own dramatic and significant requirements.
I am willing to be convinced. I am not wedded for or against a postion, I can be swayed by evidence that meets critcal thinking. Or in my case, as close to critical thinking as I can come.
How does a creature slowly develope from the sea to the land and still be competive while developing?
Of course,...all this discussion dosen't describe how life actually began. And PLEASE don't give me that crap about the Miller expirment. It created organic tissue, (with the wrong atmosphere!), but not living tissue! | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 8:12:09 PM | No, it is still an unproven theory that cannot even work at the micro level.
Do you have a peer review cite for this?
Or, just guys like Strobel? | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/1/2006 8:21:43 PM |
Life in sea in not compatible with life on the land and slowly developing respitory, circulartoy, and digistive systems to make the transitions to land do not make sense in the survial of the fites mode. Nor does the transition of land to air, which has its own dramatic and significant requirements.
Ever heard of a tadpole? | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/3/2006 10:25:58 AM | Creationism is a lot like playing the lottery.
It's very tempting to think that there just must be some logical, rational, systematic, intelligent design behind the numbers coming up the way they do.
We can't stand the notion, that it's all a matter of pure dumb luck. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/6/2006 11:17:43 AM |
No, it is still an unproven theory
Actualy right from the very start, Evolution was not a theory but a fact. The title of darwins work was "The theory of Evolution by natural selection." Evolution was the FACTUAL problem encountered, natural selection was the THEORY ussed to explain how it worked!
Just saying "Somehow it evolved!" is in noway more convinving that just saying "Well God did it!"
Oddly enought, its only Creationists that say "Somehow", no one who studies Evolution ever says that.
DNA cannot exist outside of the cell, where did it come from?
WRONG. DNA exists outside of the cell everywhere. The oceons contain massive amounts of short chain DNA moleculles that are not contained within a cell. DNA is a comon orgnic chemical and can be extracted from the cell at home ussing just salt and washing-up liquid. It is a very stable and stronge molecule that can survive in space and can form anywhere the chemical conditions are met, not just within a cell.
It is only within a cell that DNA is able to repeated and sucefully self-replicate, that is what makes Cellular DNA so special, nothing more than that.
Also, a cell cannot be less complex than what it is and exist,...so where is your evolution there?
WRONG. Look at a virus. Then repeate that statement.
Life in sea in not compatible with life on the land and slowly developing respitory, circulartoy, and digistive systems to make the transitions to land do not make sense in the survial of the fites mode.
Realy? Because salt water crocodiles seem to manage fine. So do lung fish, and cat fish and many other types fish for that mater. I fish on rare ocasions, and have found that Lemon Sole, a flat fish, can still be alive hours after you remove it from the sea, even though this fish would never normaly have to breath air at all.
The Walking catfish can survive on land indefinately, so long as its gills remain moist, it also has no problem moving around on lonad looking for new waterholes.
How does a creature slowly develope from the sea to the land and still be competive while developing?
That depends on what the competitive presures are.
Say for example, you are fish, competing with the presure of other fish eating your eggs. If you can lay your eggs in areas that other fish can't get them, then more will survive. There is a type of african minnow that leaps from the water and lays its eggs on the underside of overhanging leaves. If for example, it gets hardfer and harder to find enougth leaves, then some fish would start to use anything that was overhanging, others would start ussing the banks as a nesting spot. Over time this could easily devlop into fish migrating onland for short periods of time to lay eggs in safety.
This is just one kind of evolutionary presure, there are hundreds of others that could led to the same result. With Evolution, if thier is a nich, it will eventualy be exploited.
Of course,...all this discussion dosen't describe how life actually began. And PLEASE don't give me that crap about the Miller expirment. It created organic tissue, (with the wrong atmosphere!), but not living tissue!
Evolution dose not talk of the Origin of life, only the way it changes over time.
For more on the origin of life, you nead to look up Abiogenesis. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 6/6/2006 4:17:46 PM |
Also, a cell cannot be less complex than what it is and exist,...so where is your evolution there? WRONG. Look at a virus. Then repeate that statement.
When you're finished with the virus, look at the prion.
When you're finished with the prion?
There are still more simpler proteins to be found. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 9/30/2006 1:15:18 AM | Creation is based solely on the writings of one man. Moses!
That's fine untill the archelogists start probing the tombs of Egypt. In all of the records the word "Israelite" is only mentioned once and the name Moses is never mentioned at all. A very unlikely occurrence considering that he spent his early years as an Egyptain prince.
In fact most of the Torah (old testament) was written by exiled Israelis by the rivers of Babylon over a thousand years after Exodus. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 2/21/2007 4:02:35 PM | | Charles Darwin said himself in "The Origin of Species"..."to say the the human eye with all of its various compenents working together to perform the task that it does...to say is a product of natural selection is absurdity in the highest degree" | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 2/21/2007 5:17:31 PM | Charles Darwin said himself in "The Origin of Species"..."to say the the human eye with all of its various compenents working together to perform the task that it does...to say is a product of natural selection is absurdity in the highest degree"
Darwin didn't have access to the data that now exists, this is the one facet of science that has no parallel in theology - self-correction.
The evolution of the eye is covered by genetic drift and natural selection both. The whole fallacy of "irreducible complexity" raised by theological proponants has also been debunked by scientists.
The most illustrative research has been via digital modelling via "Avida". Download it and give it a whirl if you have a powerful enough computer, runs great on Macs. | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 2/21/2007 5:41:55 PM |
Charles Darwin said himself in "The Origin of Species"..."to say the the human eye with all of its various compenents working together to perform the task that it does...to say is a product of natural selection is absurdity in the highest degree"
Quoted so out of context as to constitute outright deceit (not you personally 71, but the person who started the misquote originally). Taken in context, one will notice that a very important word is written by Darwin: "except". It would be funny, though, if a scientist spent so much time putting an exhaustive paper together, only to say at the end, "Psych!! I've just been playin' with ya'll!"
In my mind, the biggest problem with evolution is that it actually requires some real, honest and open-minded research to even begin to understand it. Heck, I was taught it in school with a young impressionable mind, and I didn't buy it back then... | |
|
| creation VS Darwin's theory
Posted: 4/29/2007 12:46:26 PM | This is an interesting discussion. I personally believe nothing on blind faith. I find it interesting that even with in the realms of creation science, they acknowledge that it takes light to travel about a hundred light years to cross the diameter of our galaxy.
I’m not saying we were or weren’t created; anything is possible. However, I don’t see how “the heavens and the earth” were created in a mere six days; not even the “six thousand year day”. The numbers just don't add up.
I'm only factoring in the size of our galaxy and the distance it take light to travel
Not the rest of the universe or how long it took earth to develop life.
my 2 cents
Add to it....rip it apart....do as you will. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
