VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Quotemining do you no good.
The ToE describes how physical reality operates (as so all scientific theories). No more, no less.
Upvote
0
Why evolution isn't scientific
- Thread starter xianghua
- Start date
- Status
Quotemining do you no good.
The ToE describes how physical reality operates (as so all scientific theories). No more, no less.
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Hello optimus
What convinced you?
Understanding science. Not denying physical reality.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you. When a trait of some creature evolves, the environment which imposes selection pressure on the trait includes the other traits of the creature, not just the environment external to the creature.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 12,288
- 6,458
- 29
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Look at this and read why.
Not that you'll care since you'll still keep claiming it disproves evolution, even though you have been shown to be wrong hundreds of times...
Upvote
0
what? what is the function of a part of the eye for instance if the eye doesnt work without it? selection pressure will not help you here.
Upvote
0
so you just send me to a link? i can do it too you know:
https://evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts_1/
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 12,288
- 6,458
- 29
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Or maybe you could actually read the information on the link, you know, instead of sending me a link to something that you haven't read and are just posting in an attempt to pretend that you are smart.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Let's try a simple, hypothetical example. Note that this is an hypothetical example, like your self-reproducing wooden robot penguin cars, so don't be asking for evidence just yet; there is evidence, but right now you don't know enough about evolution to know what it is evidence for.
Imagine a species, a population of small, antelope-like animals. Imagine that this population wanders into an area where most of its food is found on trees and tall bushes.
Now, the length of the legs of these creatures exhibit random (bell curve) distribution of variation in length. You can easily see why the survival of those variants with longer legs would be favored--they get to more of the leaves they eat for food. The same kind of randomly distributed variation occurs in the length of the neck. Those individuals with longer necks also get more food. Thus, the possibilities for any individual are: longer legs + longer neck; longer legs + shorter neck; shorter legs + longer neck and shorter legs + shorter neck. Evolution predicts that you will wind up with a creature with longer legs and a longer neck--not a creature with very long legs and a short neck or one with a very long neck and short legs (neither of which would have much survivability potential). In fact what you find in nature is the giraffe, with neck and leg length in proportion to each other to produce a functional system for reaching high food. That is because leg length and neck length evolve together, with longer leg length exerting selection pressure for longer neck length and longer neck length exerting selection pressure for longer leg length.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
Are you trying to derail the conversation? I'm not talking about VirOptimus' claim that "The ToE just is." (You could have provided a link so I could see it in context, y'know.)
I am talking about Xianghua's claim in post 1084 that mammals were created totally independently.
In the conversation between my and Xianghua since that post, I don't see VirOptimus being involved at all.
And in any case, you asking me to answer a question is NOT you providing support for your position. Are you capable of producing actual evidence? If so, produce it. If not, admit you have nothing.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
You do know that people with eye problems can still have enough vision for them to survive, yes? There are animals which have barely enough vision for them to be able to tell light from shadow, and yet that is sufficient to give them a reproductive advantage.
Biology is NOT, as you seem to think, an all-or-nothing affair.
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hello kylie
No my dear.
Check out Post 942. You said to xing "Now get to it. Provide a valid scientific argument for your position." I had a reply from @VirOptimus which wasnt what a called a valid scientific argument ie "the ToE just is". When we consider your reply to xing what do you think about optimus' reply?
Why do you disagree here with @xianghua. Hey xing, love your work... keep it up.
i want optimus and myself to join in.
Haha nice. Im going to use that one.
Just making sure you are aware of your own conclusion.
The burning bush is the location at which Moses was appointed by Yahweh (God) to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan.
Im not too familiar with a verse that has angels floating down from heaven, do you mean 'Jacob's ladder'?
Im only familiar with 2 verse that has a voice from the sky
1. and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
2. Paul being confronted with Jesus on the way to Damascus.
Joshua prayed that God help the Israelites in their battle by stopping thesun: “Then Joshua spoke to the Lord on the day when the Lord delivered the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel: 'Sun, stand still [dom] upon Gibeon; and you, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.'”
These signs that you would accept are usually reserved for important events or a special plan that God has and some - interestingly - have foundations in prayer.
The Jews prayed for freedom and got moses. The voice in the sky at Jesus baptism - prayer for a saviour. Joshua praying for victory over his enemies.
Paul was a strict jew who wanted to obey God and dedicated himself to God. Jacob was in a relationship with God. Jacob heard the voice of God, who repeated many of the blessings upon him, coming from the top of the ladder.
Im curious, why would you expect such occurances to happen to you? How would you recognize God if He came to you?
How do you recognize me?
Your standard of evidence seems to be based on "When He comes to me, then He will have my complete attention". Why shouldnt be you who comes to God? Why is it 'weak' for you to seek Him out?
Please be patient. As far as im concerned we havent gotten very far yet and we have way more to go - maybe a years worth
Im glad as well, im sure we would be good friends in real life.
Nah, still the same tone.
When kylie wants to prove a scientific experiment it is necessary for kylie to perform whatever actions are necessary to prove the experiment. How often in the scientific method does one get a result by not engaging?
Whats wrong with that? Why should you not seek? Do you get answers by being idle?
Yet you are willing to pay the airfare to come to me?
I love it when you do these hypotheticals and was hoping for one. Yah!!! You gave me one! How about this. I come to you and shake the dragon by its shoulders. What you think?
Hey im willing to play the ball where it lands.
I disagree. God and a pet dragon are not the same basic arguement. I want you to accept Jesus because your salvation depends on it. Why do you want me to believe you have a pet dragon?
So could you please describe what these proofs are? Why do you consider them weak?
Kylie - "You are asking me to accept subjective experience as objective fact." Why or how is this concept influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts?
How would you verify a religious experiencenas truth? What methods would you implore?
What do you believe it is meant by 'to open ones heart? Do you know what personal incredulity is?
This statement is using a category error as an example. Why is "opening your heart" a category error to begin a relationship?
Im applying it to starting a relationship with someone. I think there may be a miscommunication, opening your heart is the first stage of a relationship with God. It is a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching God. Once you have faith then you get the proof. One proof is the Gift of the Holy Spirit one receives when 100% faith is accomplished. Ask me?
Im using your conclusion (.eg to seek out the individual and shake him by the shoulders) and now applying it to me. The conclusion is one or the other will have to seek out and shake the others shoulders - airfares included
Anyways you missed a question What motivation would you have to do so? Having faith is the first step to seeking, you would not do so if you doubted? What do you think about the above statement?
I think you said it best to me recently. "Are you capable of producing actual evidence? If so, produce it. If not, admit you have nothing." So i will need more than the reply you gave me. Kylie - "Of course not. It's a rubbish way. And it doesn't stop being rubbish if you try to use it to determine the existence of God rather than me." Icon - "Lets consider the nature of God. Why is it a rubbish way?" No, I am not putting words into your mouth. You have literally been making the argument that proof of God can be found by just letting yourself be convinced of it.
Hehe another hypothetical. I love these. We have 2 competing figures as saviour Jesus and a dragon. Now i need to confirm something first. Who is this dragon? Is he Satan or - for this demonstration - something else you are aware of?
Are you capable of producing actual evidence? If so, produce it. If not, admit you have nothing. Your reply to me works well.
Could you produce an example from biology with a reference for testing and validation which is undeniable?
Kylie - "I'd say that the second definition, "a thing used to help perform a job" works well. Sure, it's not a physical thing, but it's an idea that helps us work with information we have gathered about the real world." A thing that performs a job. A tool does not operate on its own it needs someone to wield it. But most important. Evolution is an idea? What do you mean here by idea?
The thought or suggestion that evolution is a possible course of action helps biologists understand bacteria responds. I would love it if you could provide me with an example and reference?
Why couldnt God be the One Who wields the tool?
Icon - Now would i go to him if i knew he was an unfit dentist? If i did not know his reputation or experience his service, then how would it not be trust based on no evidence? Why is this irrelevant?
He reached that conclusion by probing my mouth and seeking out the problem himself. He proved it by engaging my tooth. Notice how one or the other had to get the right information and seek the other out? If i doubted the doctors expertise, no amount of scientific understanding would reassure me he was capable.
So what point would you like to make about mouth fairies? Science is real mouth fairies are not? Since you brought it up.
Where did i say that?
Actually we are having a discussion where i posed a challenge to you to see how you would react. Iam seeing how you apply logic to the statement i made. Cheers - wow - the conversation is getting more interesting. Cant wait for your reply
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
Actually, his reply in that post was: "The ToE is incredibly well-supported science that describes physical reality."
And this is true.
When Vir said that the ToE just is, that was post 943. And he didn't mean that the ToE is just real, he meant that it just exists, without some higher purpose. It does not exist as a part of some plan invented by a higher power, it is not the result of some intelligent agency. It simply exists as an inevitable result of reproduction with inheritance and variation.
In the post that Vir was quotiong, it was clear that he was answering your question: "Do you believe there is purpose or reason for evolution?" And the answer he gave is perfectly compatible with that.
Because the claim is completely unsupported and does not fit with what we know about reality.
Still not seeing any evidence for your position.
Just making sure you are aware of your own conclusion.
What are you talking about? You wanted to know how one person can prove they exist to another person. I gave you an example, and you thought that another example was required. However, I was trying to make the point that if God REALLY wanted to prove to me that he exists, then he could do so easily, since even I am capable of proving to someone else that I exist.
But that's just a story and we have no evidence that it is anything more than a story, do we?
Luke 2:13-15 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
13 Suddenly many other angels came down from heaven and joined in praising God. They said:
14 “Praise God in heaven!
Peace on earth to everyone
who pleases God.”
15 After the angels had left and gone back to heaven, the shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see what the Lord has told us about.”
Revelation 18:114 “Praise God in heaven!
Peace on earth to everyone
who pleases God.”
15 After the angels had left and gone back to heaven, the shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see what the Lord has told us about.”
After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory.
Revelation 20:1
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
Luke 22:43
Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him.
Matthew 24:31
"And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Daniel 6:22
"My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths and they have not harmed me, inasmuch as I was found innocent before Him; and also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime."
So?
Are you saying that saving my soul is not sufficient for God?
I'm sure the Almighty could think of something.
You could say, "I have booked a ticket on flight 123 arriving at Sydney at 11:30 am on January 20th. I will be wearing a red top, blue jeans white shoes and yellow socks, and wearing glasses with a gold frame. I will call out, "Kylie, are you here? It is I, The Iconoclast, here to visit you as I promised in our discussions on Christian Forums! Accompany me to a public library where I can get access to the internet, and I shall log into my account on Christian Forums and post so that you can see it is indeed me!"
And then if a person matching that description arrived at that time, said that thing and then logged into your account and posted, I would accept that as more than enough proof that the person is you.
No, I am saying that if someone really is God, then confirming their identity should be something they can actually accomplish. I mean, I just described how you could confirm your identity to me, Why would you be able to confirm to me your identity, but God can't confirm his?
Because I don't believe he exists! I don't go around chasing figments of my imagination.
When did I say that I consider it a weakness? I was saying that requiring me to lower my standards of what counts as valid evidence is pretty weak.
Please be patient. As far as im concerned we havent gotten very far yet and we have way more to go - maybe a years worth
Please don't take that long. So far you haven't provided a single shred of a valid argument to support the existence of God, I'd appreciate it if you actually got the the valid evidence.
No, you are definitely changing your tune.
If A wants to convince B that A is real, then A must take action to provide the evidence for A's existence to B.
When I was A and you were B, you required me to provide the evidence.
And so if God is A and I am B, then God must provide the evidence. If God can't do it (and I showed how easy it was, certainly within the capabilities of God), then I'm gonna conclude that God isn't real.
Prove a scientific experiment?
Do you even know how science works? Scientific experiments are not proved, they are done to gather information about the real world. There is a big difference between a science experiment and the aspect of reality that the experiment is studying.
What does this even mean? Engaging what?
You are not asking me to seek the truth. You are asking me to just believe in God anyway, even if there is no evidence. You saying, "But I really know God is real" is not sufficient proof.
If it was really that important to me that you believe in me, and if I had the ability to do anything, then sure, why not?
Oh, the dragon is intangible. It's there, but if you try to touch it, your hands just go straight through it. There's no solid surface.
But it's really there!
If you don't believe that my pet dragon is real, he will get angry and eat you and you will suffer horribly. You seem like a nice person and I wouldn't want that to happen to you. So please believe in my pet dragon, okay?
People having "faith" that something is real.
People have had faith that all sorts of things are real, and they've reached conclusions that disagree completely with the conclusions you've reached through faith.
Because they lead to very different conclusions. If they were a valid way of finding out anything real, then everyone who uses the faith method would reach the same (or at least very similar) conclusions. Yet they don't.
Are you really incapable of understanding how telling me that opening my heart will give me proof is asking me to accept a subjective opinion as objective fact?
If lots of people had the same experience in a controlled manner and reached the same conclusions. Like if everyone who read the Bible invariably found it utterly convincing and had the same viewpoints about what it was talking about. But that doesn't happen. Lots of people read the Bible and are not convinced. Those that do believe the Bible is real can have very different positions about what it says.
Yet, the same doesn't really happen with a book about mathematics. People do not argue about what the plus sign REALLY means.
Irrelevant. The question is, first, what methods would God imploy, and second, why hasn't he employed them?
You're the one claiming that it's a valid way of finding objective truth. Why don't you tell me what it means?
(And while you're at it, why don't you tell me why opening one's heart is never used to determine scientific truths?)
To be continued in another post, because it's too long as a single post...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
My previous post continued...
If an argument can be repeatedly put to the test and not fail that test, then I will not be incredulous.
Why don't you explain why it's a category error? Tell me why opening your heart is an acceptable way to get proof of God, but not for anything else?
I never opened my heart to conclude that my husband was real before I met him. I had testable evidence that he existed, we had some classes together in high school.
So you are telling me that I just have to DECIDE to believe, and then I'll accept flawed arguments as proof because it's telling me what I want to hear.
That's a terrible way to find the truth, as I've already explained.
What kind of argument is this? God exists because he is motivated to want me to believe in him, even though he does nothing to actually show himself to me?
I believe that some objective truth exists, and I also believe that this truth will be able to be tested in an objective manner. If it isn't objective, then it's just individual opinion. And thus not truth.
I fail to see why my response is inadequate. Your arguments to convince me that God is real have literally been: "Just let yourself believe in it, and then you will have the proof you need." This is nothing more than the idea that people will believe ANYTHING if they WANT to believe it, and they'll grab onto anything that seems like it is evidence for their preconceived ideas.
No, he's the dragon in my backyard.
Why yes, you are quite right. I should be able to provide evidence of evolution if evolution is correct.
Here you go.
Welcome to Evolution 101!
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
whale evolution
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
BTW, I don't want you to try and refute those in this thread. I presented them to fulfill the request for evidence you made. If you wish to discuss anything from those links, please start a new thread for the specific discussion and send me the link, I will be happy to discuss it. Just not in this thread.
I'm asking how the idea of a catalyst applies to the concept of an idea.
If a person gets a bacterial infection, they can go to the doctor to get an antibiotic. By taking pills each day for a period of time (a week or so, usually), teh infection is killed off faster than the body's own immune system can do it. This happens because the pills contain antibiotics, drugs that are deadly to the bacteria.
However, since the bacteria isn't a single individual, but a population of many individual bacteria, there are going to be some small differences between the individuals. One possible change is that some of the bacteria are going to be able to survive longer than others when exposed to the antibiotic.
If a person takes the pills for only a few days and does not complete the full course of antibiotics (the antibiotics will kill some of the bacteria and lead to the person feeling better), then some of these bacteria can survive. But it is the most resistant ones that have survived, since all the bacteria that were more vulnerable to the antibiotic's effect have already been killed.
Once the person stops taking the antibiotics, the surviving bacteria will start reproducing. But these bacteria that are reproducing are the ones that could withstand the antibiotics for longer. There was a selective pressure (the antibiotics) that killed some (the weak bacteria) but left others (the strong bacteria) alive. The new bacteria that are produced when these surviving bacteria start having babies are also going to be able to tolerate higher doses of the antibiotic. So it becomes more and more difficult to treat bacterial infections with antibiotics.
This is a very serious problem in medicine today, and many doctors and scientists are worried that it won't be long before our antibiotics are almost useless. And it happens because of natural selection - the underlying mechanism of evolution. The bacteria are evolving a resistance to antibiotics.
The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis: Part 1: Causes and Threats
He could be. However, that would require him to actually exist, and that has not been demonstrated.
Because he reached that conclusion by examining evidence in the real world. If your dentist made a diagnosis by sitting and opening his heart to the problem and didn't actually examine you at all, would you be so confident in his abilities?
I'm gonna stop you right there. It's not an equal thing here. The one who wanted a result - YOU - went to the dentist. The one who actually wants the result is the one who has to take action. The dentist does not go walking the streets, examining people's mouths at random hoping to find someone who needs to be treated. That would be a waste of his time.
Likewise, if God wants a result - me believing in him - then it's up to him to take action to get that result.
Exactly - you want your dentist to use evidence and information that can be objectively tested. Likewise, I want information about God that can be objectively tested. And your claim I can get such information by simply opening my heart does not appear to meet this criteria, since lots of people have used this exact technique and reached conclusions you disagree with.
My point is that all the arguments you have made for the existence of God can also be applied to the existence of mouth fairies (as well as the dragon in my backyard). Since they do not count as valid arguments for mouth fairies or dragons, they can't count as evidence for God either.
In post 1064 when you said, "it is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion."
Argument from authority is not a fallacy if the person is actually an authority in the field they are speaking about. If I have to go to court to get out of a parking ticket, it is fallacious for me to use what my plumber told me about the law, since he has had no law training and he is not an authority on the law.
When it comes to the subject of evolution, an evolutionary biologist should certainly be counted as an authority, don't you agree?
If an argument can be repeatedly put to the test and not fail that test, then I will not be incredulous.
Why don't you explain why it's a category error? Tell me why opening your heart is an acceptable way to get proof of God, but not for anything else?
I never opened my heart to conclude that my husband was real before I met him. I had testable evidence that he existed, we had some classes together in high school.
So you are telling me that I just have to DECIDE to believe, and then I'll accept flawed arguments as proof because it's telling me what I want to hear.
That's a terrible way to find the truth, as I've already explained.
What kind of argument is this? God exists because he is motivated to want me to believe in him, even though he does nothing to actually show himself to me?
I believe that some objective truth exists, and I also believe that this truth will be able to be tested in an objective manner. If it isn't objective, then it's just individual opinion. And thus not truth.
I fail to see why my response is inadequate. Your arguments to convince me that God is real have literally been: "Just let yourself believe in it, and then you will have the proof you need." This is nothing more than the idea that people will believe ANYTHING if they WANT to believe it, and they'll grab onto anything that seems like it is evidence for their preconceived ideas.
No, he's the dragon in my backyard.
Are you capable of producing actual evidence? If so, produce it. If not, admit you have nothing. Your reply to me works well.
Why yes, you are quite right. I should be able to provide evidence of evolution if evolution is correct.
Here you go.
Welcome to Evolution 101!
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
whale evolution
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
BTW, I don't want you to try and refute those in this thread. I presented them to fulfill the request for evidence you made. If you wish to discuss anything from those links, please start a new thread for the specific discussion and send me the link, I will be happy to discuss it. Just not in this thread.
I'm asking how the idea of a catalyst applies to the concept of an idea.
If a person gets a bacterial infection, they can go to the doctor to get an antibiotic. By taking pills each day for a period of time (a week or so, usually), teh infection is killed off faster than the body's own immune system can do it. This happens because the pills contain antibiotics, drugs that are deadly to the bacteria.
However, since the bacteria isn't a single individual, but a population of many individual bacteria, there are going to be some small differences between the individuals. One possible change is that some of the bacteria are going to be able to survive longer than others when exposed to the antibiotic.
If a person takes the pills for only a few days and does not complete the full course of antibiotics (the antibiotics will kill some of the bacteria and lead to the person feeling better), then some of these bacteria can survive. But it is the most resistant ones that have survived, since all the bacteria that were more vulnerable to the antibiotic's effect have already been killed.
Once the person stops taking the antibiotics, the surviving bacteria will start reproducing. But these bacteria that are reproducing are the ones that could withstand the antibiotics for longer. There was a selective pressure (the antibiotics) that killed some (the weak bacteria) but left others (the strong bacteria) alive. The new bacteria that are produced when these surviving bacteria start having babies are also going to be able to tolerate higher doses of the antibiotic. So it becomes more and more difficult to treat bacterial infections with antibiotics.
This is a very serious problem in medicine today, and many doctors and scientists are worried that it won't be long before our antibiotics are almost useless. And it happens because of natural selection - the underlying mechanism of evolution. The bacteria are evolving a resistance to antibiotics.
The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis: Part 1: Causes and Threats
He could be. However, that would require him to actually exist, and that has not been demonstrated.
Because he reached that conclusion by examining evidence in the real world. If your dentist made a diagnosis by sitting and opening his heart to the problem and didn't actually examine you at all, would you be so confident in his abilities?
I'm gonna stop you right there. It's not an equal thing here. The one who wanted a result - YOU - went to the dentist. The one who actually wants the result is the one who has to take action. The dentist does not go walking the streets, examining people's mouths at random hoping to find someone who needs to be treated. That would be a waste of his time.
Likewise, if God wants a result - me believing in him - then it's up to him to take action to get that result.
Exactly - you want your dentist to use evidence and information that can be objectively tested. Likewise, I want information about God that can be objectively tested. And your claim I can get such information by simply opening my heart does not appear to meet this criteria, since lots of people have used this exact technique and reached conclusions you disagree with.
My point is that all the arguments you have made for the existence of God can also be applied to the existence of mouth fairies (as well as the dragon in my backyard). Since they do not count as valid arguments for mouth fairies or dragons, they can't count as evidence for God either.
In post 1064 when you said, "it is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion."
Argument from authority is not a fallacy if the person is actually an authority in the field they are speaking about. If I have to go to court to get out of a parking ticket, it is fallacious for me to use what my plumber told me about the law, since he has had no law training and he is not an authority on the law.
When it comes to the subject of evolution, an evolutionary biologist should certainly be counted as an authority, don't you agree?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
