Evolution and atheism

lucaspa · Sep 19, 2003

Several times recently we have seen posters think that evolution is atheism. Thus, they are puzzled by theistic evolutionists, thinking that it is impossible to be a theistic evolutionist.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM. The actual relationship of evolution and atheism is more complicated:

The old top-down philosophy of the 18th and early 19th century had deity on top. Deity made intelligence, which made Design, below Design was Order and below Order was Chaos. In 1802 Paley wrote his famous Natural History: Significantly the subtitle was or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. In this Paley gave the Argument from Design as proof of the existence of deity. That is, you can't have the design in biological organisms without a Designer. At the time, this argument for the designs in organisms was unanswerable. David Hume, as staunch an atheist as ever lived, had conceded this 20 years earlier in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume was able to logically demolish all the other logical "proofs" for the existence of deity, but he had to cave in the face of the Argument from Design. Basically, Hume has to admit that his atheism is a faith.Now along comes Darwin and Wallace and they discover an unintelligent process -- natural selection -- that gives the design in biological organisms. Suddenly the Argument from Design as "proof" of deity disappears. So, for the first time, atheists can pretend that their faith isn't a faith.Dawkins makes his famous statement "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg 6. http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/evolution_relig_signif/alexander_01.htm

Without natural selection, atheists have no good answer to the Argument from Design. Now, does evolution falsify a Creator? Of course not. Darwin realized this. Even Phillip Johnson realizes this: "The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a creator who works through natural selection." Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance, pg. 73 The continued insistence by creationists that "natural selection can't account for ...." is an attempt to restore the old Argument from Design and take away the intellectual prop for atheism. But that isn't necessary, because atheism remains a faith even with natural selection in place.

Jase · Sep 20, 2003

evolution may not be atheistic, but human evolution and a 5 billion year old Earth is incompatible with Christianity.

fragmentsofdreams · Sep 20, 2003

Jase said:
evolution may not be atheistic, but human evolution and a 5 billion year old Earth is incompatible with Christianity.

Despite what you may think, it is compatible. It is only incompatible with the doctrines of some Christian sects.

Ark Guy · Sep 21, 2003

Evolution is atheism....sometimes we run into christians who have been duped into believing these Satanic Godless views

wblastyn · Sep 21, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Evolution is atheism....sometimes we run into christians who have been duped into believing these Satanic Godless views

LOL who are you? It's obvious by now that you are an evolutionist pretending to be a YEC.

Northern Christian · Sep 21, 2003

Evolution isn't atheism? That's news to me, because the theory of evolution doesn't need a god for anything. It's about as secular as it can be.

wblastyn · Sep 21, 2003

Northern Christian said:
Evolution isn't atheism? That's news to me, because the theory of evolution doesn't need a god for anything. It's about as secular as it can be.

We don't know if evolution needs God to work or not, science does not know. Science can only look at the material components of the universe but not the supernatural.

Northern Christian · Sep 21, 2003

Atheists like to ask theistic evolutionists why they are theistic evolutionists instead of just evolutionists, so evolutionists are atheists, while theistic evolutionists are theistic evolutionists.

NeilUnreal · Sep 21, 2003

The theory of evolution is exactly as atheistic as the theory of gravity, and neither more so nor less.

-Neil

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 22, 2003

Northern Christian said:
Evolution isn't atheism? That's news to me, because the theory of evolution doesn't need a god for anything. It's about as secular as it can be.

Road sweeping isn't atheism? That's news to me, because the practice of road sweeping doesn't need a god for anything. It's about as secular as it can be.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 22, 2003

Northern Christian said:
Atheists like to ask theistic evolutionists why they are theistic evolutionists instead of just evolutionists, so evolutionists are atheists, while theistic evolutionists are theistic evolutionists.

Actually, there's no difference between "theistic evolution" and "evolution". I'm not too keen on the term to be honest, because it implies a different kind of evolution, which it is not. All science is "theistic" to the theist, because it is the study of the Theos' creation.

Incidently, I've never been asked by an atheist why I'm a theistic evolution, rather than just an evolutionist. I've been asked why I believe in God, but most atheists, like most Christians, know full well that evolution and the existence of God are two unrelated issues.

lucaspa · Sep 22, 2003

Jase said:
evolution may not be atheistic, but human evolution and a 5 billion year old Earth is incompatible with Christianity.

The majority of Christians disagree with you. See the denominational statements at this site.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp

In the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial opposing the teaching of Creation Science, all 26 plaintiffs who wanted evolution taught were Jews or Christians. 23 of them were ministers or rabbis. MacLean himself was Reverend MacLean of the Presbyterian Church.

Also go to www.asa.org

lucaspa · Sep 22, 2003

Northern Christian said:
Evolution isn't atheism? That's news to me, because the theory of evolution doesn't need a god for anything. It's about as secular as it can be.

How do you know it doesn't need God? Again, from Origin of the Species:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Are you saying Butler is wrong? If you are, then you are way off the Biblical path.

lucaspa · Sep 22, 2003

Northern Christian said:
Atheists like to ask theistic evolutionists why they are theistic evolutionists instead of just evolutionists, so evolutionists are atheists, while theistic evolutionists are theistic evolutionists.

You negated your conclusion in your statement. "Atheists like to ask ..." "so evolutionists are atheists". Sorry, but atheists do the asking, not "evolutionists".

There are evolutionists who are atheists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are theists.

The answer is that theistic evolutionists have evidence from outside science that God exists and created. Atheists have a different belief.

Why are you letting atheists set the agenda and terms for you?

Truth_Endures · Sep 24, 2003

Hello all! The Lord's blessings to all!

lucaspa

I am very confused with how you approach this issue. Obviously, you are not a literalist but The Bible does clearly state that God, The Lord, made the world in 7 days. Why am I honouring the Sabbath Day if this is inaccurate? I refuse to believe that The Lord would instruct us so very clearly in the fourth commandment if He did not accomplish His miracle of creating life.

'Evolution' - the unfounded claptrap that it is - proves absolutely nothing. Let the Word of God instruct you. He has taught you that He created in 7 days. With the endless evidence for the inaccuracy of C-14 dating that has been proven over and over again, I fail to see why you place such importance in the bones of creatures clearly killed by the Flood.

troodon · Sep 24, 2003

Truth_Endures said:
With the endless evidence for the inaccuracy of C-14 dating that has been proven over and over again

So much talk so little evidence

I fail to see why you place such importance in the bones of creatures clearly killed by the Flood.

Oh, that must have been a typo. You meant "clearly not killed by the Flood", right?

BTW, the not is a link to one of our forum's many unanswered Flood Falsifications.

Incidentally, we would like to thank Adam West for performing the voice for that last "Flood Falsifications". He's been a real trooper while working on this post and the whole gang would like to give him a round of applause.

:applause: :applause:

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that as nonsensical as your problems with evolution? My bad.

PS: From the red "Flood Falsifications" downward, my post is a joke. Please don't take it in a bad way.

Truth_Endures · Sep 24, 2003

evolution-facts.org/c06b.htm

Should give you a start.

Placing your trust in anything but the Lord is wrought with folly. Seeking to explain by science or any means of man is seeking to second guess the Word of the Lord. Do you not follow the Ten Commandments? Do you not obey the Fourth? Do not let the whims of man interrupt up with the Almighty Grace The Lord, our God tries to enevlope us with. He wishes only to be loved and believed. Why must you insist on questioning Him?

bevets · Sep 24, 2003

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

Ive written a long web page on this, unfortunately I can not link to my page...

troodon · Sep 24, 2003

Truth_Endures said:
evolution-facts.org/c06b.htm

Yay! I love it when people send me on wild goose chases to entire web pages. But I'll play your game; you rogue.

From the website:

MOST TEST RESULTS ARE TOSSED OUT

Before we begin our study of radiocarbon dating, here is a quotation to think about:

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as acceptable by investigators."*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

Ouch; sounds damning. Except that these dates are thrown out due to contamination!

From: http://www.californiaprehistory.com/radiodb3.html in regards to the very pages this site quotes.

A discussion of the sources and effects of error or contamination in the dating of radiocarbon samples.

An example of such contamination can be seen in the same site.

I recently reviewed a draft CRM report that dismissed the significance of a major historic Chumash village, despite the recovery of many glass beads, on the basis that the seemingly "old" 14C dates suggested that the historic midden must have been graded away. On closer examination, I found that the marine shell dates on which the site chronology was based had been adjusted for isotopic fractionation (12C/13C) but not for the compensating value of the Reservoir Effect (see Taylor 1986). When properly corrected and calibrated, the dates were consistent with ethnographic and artifactual evidence for historic site occupation.

The other quote regarding the dismissal of radiocarbon dating I cannot find outside sources to warrent dismissal; so I will take the site's word for it that they are not quoting out of context (perhaps foolhearty on my part )

1) Atmospheric carbon: For the past several million years, the air around us had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.

Carbon dating is not accurate to millions of years and you should be shocked and appalled that they are feeding you lies like this. But you won't because you are a hypocrite The truth hurts. Anyway, we can calibrate the ratio of C-12 to C-14 by checking, among other things, ice cores and lake varves. These keep carbon dating very accurate up to its limit (50,000 years in some instances).

(2) Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has not changed in size.

If you will go to this site: http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=oceanic&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&url=-hhAcCkje3MJ:www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/10radiometric.html

you will see that oceanic carbon amounts are not an issue because they can be calibrated using the methods I listed above. Also, if this were true (that it affected dates) we would not be able to date anything older than 50 years. I will show this to not be the case later on.

(3) Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.

This "assumption" is delt with by calibrating using ice cores and lake varves. Look here: http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=ice+cores&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&url=MtPoXpYYNEIJ:asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
for a discription as to how the calibration works. I will point to this website whenever one of these "assumptions" again points to us assuming the old atmospheric ratio.

(4) Balance of rates: Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.

The formation rate can be calibrated using the methods I have already mentioned. Go here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html for more information. As to decay rates, the only assumption that we have is that the laws of physics haven't changed. The decay rates for some isotopes have been known for over 100 years (that's 1.7% of the earth's history according to YEC). And, we can very accuratly date objects at least to 2,000 years ago (Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls matches up perfectly with the dates written on the text : Source). So now we know that the decay rates have been the same for 1/3 of earth's history. What mechanism in that first 2/3s would change it one might wonder. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

(5) Decay rates: The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.

Funny how they post the same "assumption" twice. Look above for my responce.

(6)No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14

This is a legitimate concern when dealing with Carbon dating (they got one right!) and this is the reason why so many dates are thrown out. But, I find it absurd to think that every single date that goes over the year 4,003 BC was contaminated.

(7) No seepage: No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.

This is just a form of contamination. One wonders why they felt they needed "13" assumptions.....

8) Amount of carbon 14 at death: The fraction of carbon 14, which the living thing possessed at death, is known today.

Has to do with atmospheric ratio. See here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html for an explanation about calibrating these ratios.

(9)Carbon 14 half-life: The half-life of carbon 14 has been accurately determined.

Yep, all those times the half-life was measured and the same date was given, it was wrong. If the half-life was wrong then we wouldn't be able to date anything with it and yet I showed above that we very accuratly dated the Dead Sea Scrolls with the method.

(10) Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to Carbon 14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.

Organisms get their nitrogen from proteins or the soil. It does not come from the atmosphere.

(11) Instrumentation and analysis: The instrumentation is precise, working properly, and analytic methods are always carefully done.

Again, we could not date anything if this were true.

(12) Uniform results: The technique always yields the same results on the same sample, or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.

This is not an assumption; it is a possible conclusion from the evidence.

(13) Earths magnetic field: Earths magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today.

This again goes back to the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere. Look here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html for an explanation about how we know what the ratio was like back then.

As mentioned earlier, every living thing is full of carbon compounds, and includes some carbon 14. But, after death, additional radioactive carbon may have drifted into the sample. Few researchers take the exhaustive time needed to try and figure out which carbon is which. Frankly, in most instances, it would be impossible to be certain how much of this secondary or intrusive carbon had entered the sample from elsewhere.

There are very few ways in which the sample can be contaminated in this manner. Also, one wonders what would make the sample only be contaminated with radioactive carbon. Something to dwell on, no? Oh, also, being contaminated with radioactive carbon would make the date appear younger, not older.

Then there is the problem of variations within each of the samples. Part of the sample tests one way, and part tests another way Part of the sample tests one way, and part tests another way</B></U>. So many factors affect this that the experts are finding it seemingly impossible to arrive at accurate dates.

A baseless claim! How unexpected. Without references to situations where this happened I cannot address the issue.

Rainfall, lakes, oceans, and below-ground moisture will cause a loss of Carbon 14, and thus ruin its radiation clock.

This I don't know enough about to comment on. Perhaps if they were thorough and explained why these things caused an exchange between the dead organisms C-14 and the water's C-12 (don't know where the water's getting carbon) I could comment.

CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBONIn addition, it is not known what carbonic and atmospheric conditions were like in ancient times. We know it was different, but do not know to what degree. Evidence is surfacing that changes have occurred which would invalidate ancient dates determined by carbon-14 analysis

For an in depth explanation about how we know what atmospheric carbon was like see here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

(5) SUNSPOT EFFECT ON C-14 PRODUCTIONSunspot production radically affects radiocarbon production in the atmosphere.

See my responce immediatly above.

6) RADIOCARBON DATE SURVEYA major survey of 15,000 dates obtained by carbon 14 dating revealed that, in spite of its errors, radiocarbon dating continually yields dates that are millions and even billions of years younger than those obtained by other radiodating techniques (uranium, thorium, potassium, etc.).

Yet again this website is lying to you. I certainly hope you have the integrity to denounce it once you have read my post. Carbon dating and uranium/throium/potassium dating do not overlap in their capabilities. Carbon dating is accurate to, at most, 50,000 years and when used for things over that date yield a date of about 30,000 years (I bet you 10 dollars that the majority of these 15,000 dates are within 40,000 and 20,000 years) where as the other methods mentioned only work on much older items. In fact, carbon dating cannot date the same rock that uranium, thorium, and potassium-argon can because the carbon method dates the organic material whereas these other methods date the rock it is incased in. Jeeze, are they trying to dupe you or what? Good thing you are an honest person and will admit you yourself, and us, that they are trying to deceive you.

(7) CHANGE IN NEUTRINO RADIATIONA change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere in earlier times would also affect radiocarbon levels. But we have no way of measuring past neutrino radiation levels

Again I shall point you here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html for the reason why we do not have to worry about what whether or not the atmospheric ratio was the same as it is now (it wasn't btw).

COSMIC RAYSThe amount of cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial.

A partial change in cosmic radiation amounts would also greatly affect C-14 dating. But a change in cosmic radiation from outer space would not be necessary, only a change in the amount of water or warmthor bothin our atmosphere.

Sooooo repetitive...... see here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

9) MAGNETIC FIELDScientists now know

Click to expand...

that there has been a fairly rapid weakening of earths magnetic field. (This was discussed in chapter 4, Age of the Earth.) It is cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere that changes Carbon 12 into Carbon 14. The three go together: earths magnetic field, cosmic rays, and Carbon 14. Thus the strength of earths magnetic field has a major effect on the amount of carbon 14 that is made.

I addressed this exact point earlier.

troodon · Sep 24, 2003

10) MOISTURE CONDITIONSAtmospheric changes in moisture content in the past would also significantly affect C-14 amountsAtmospheric changes in moisture content in the past would also significantly affect C-14 amounts</U>. Changes in ground moisture, even temporary ones, would have an even greater impact. How much moisture came into contact with a given sample at various times in past ages? Could water have trickled alongside or through the sample at some earlier time? What about storage problems in more recent times or after the sample was collected? Prior to testing, was the sample placed in a location damper than where it was found? All these factors can decidedly affect the internal clockwork of radiocarbon samples.

Yet again they make an assertion without explaining why it interferes with an organism's "internal clockwork".

(11) IF WARMER AND MORE WATER VAPORIf the earth was either warmer at an earlier time or had more water in the atmosphere (both of which we believe happened before and during the Flood), then the C-14 clocks would register long ages of time prior to about 2000 B.C.

See here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html for explainations regarding the calibration techniques we use to know that we are using the correct ratio.

(12) DRAMATIC CHANGES AFTER FLOODFor some time after the Flood there were changes in the atmosphere (a loss of water from the vapor canopy), changes in climate (due to worldwide warmth changing to cooler conditions), and changes due to volcanism and glaciation.

Because of these dramatic worldwide alterations, plants, animals, and people living in the early centuries after the Flood would have received much less carbon 14 than they would receive today. This would make those earlier life-forms and civilizations appear to be much more ancientby radiocarbon dating methods than they actually were.

lol, someone should tell these guys that a global flood has been falsified.

(13) RECENT DATES ARE MOST ACCURATEIt is rather well-known that carbon-14 dates, going back about 2600 years, tend to be the most accurate. But, prior to about 600 B.C., the dates given by radiocarbon analysis begin lengthening out excessively.

Click to expand...

If you will read this website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html you will see that carbon dating correlates with very ancient dendrochronology quite nicely.

14) EVEN MODERN SPECIMENS ARE INACCURATEBut it is a surprising fact that even specimens from recent centuries show serious problems. Consider a few examples. They reveal that radiocarbon dating cannot be relied on as accurate evidence for anything:

Click to expand...

Yay! I hope they give examples.

Freshly killed seals have been dated at 1300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4600 years (*W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210).

Click to expand...

Don't you grow tired of them lying to you Truth_Endures? Not only are they seal killers P ) but they are trying to deceive you once again. Do you wonder why they use seals as their example here? It is so they can deceive you. Heterotrophic organisms get their C-14 from their prey (animal or plant). On land this works because plants get their C-14 from the atmosphere and pass it down through the food chain. But this doesn't happen in the sea as the organisms on the bottom of the food chain (photosynthetic plankton mainly) are not in contact with the atmosphere. So when these seals get their C-14 (from fish which get it from smaller fish which eventually get it from the plankton) it is not of the same ratio as the atmosphere. And yet you continue to believe the liars....

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago (*B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by *K.V. Thimann, 1958).

Click to expand...

This one I cannot explain. I suppose that the fact that Carbon dating had only been discovered a few years prior and the fact that the wood was freshly cut might be the reason. Also, I would wager that the part of the tree dated matters. I admit to being stumped on this one

Various living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2300 years ago (*M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634).

Click to expand...

As I said before the website is trying to deceive you by dating marine animals. They would not, could not, and should not have the same ratio as is found in the atmosphere.

(15) CARBON INVENTORYDue to drastic changes at the time of that immense catastrophe, the Flood, there is reason to believe that dramatic changes were occurring at that time in the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. In addition, massive amounts of carbon were buried then. Immense worldwide forests became fossils or coal, and millions of animals became fossils or petroleum.

Click to expand...

Again, a global flood has been falsified. There was no global flood to throw off dating.

(16) THROWING OFF THE CLOCKIn his book, Evolution or Degeneration (1972, pp. 80-81)Evolution or Degeneration (1972, pp. 80-81)</I>, H.R. Siegler mentions that *Willard F. Libby, the developer of radiodating, found a serious discrepancy at a certain point in past history that indicated his assumed build-up of terrestrial radiocarbon was inaccurate. But, since he was convinced that the earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his date assumptions. Siegler suggests that a relatively recent Creation (plus, we might add, the catastrophic effects of the Flood) would account for the discrepancy. Keep in mind that, before the Flood, a vast vapor canopy was in our atmosphere, which would tend to shield the earth from radiocarbon buildup.

Click to expand...

ROFL, they are trying to use carbon out of its useful range to prove a point. I guarantee you that the date they found all of these organisms dieing off in is around 30,000 years. Guarantee it! I'll buy you a coke!

Also, this bellshaped curve they got from this data... shouldn't it just be one immediate peak? There weren't any animals dieing off in the few years after the flood afterall.... Oh well, it's not like you care about the evidence anyways

And thats it ladies and gentlemen! Everything that website has to say about Carbon dating. Now, are you going to return the favor and address my falsification of a global flood?

Placing your trust in anything but the Lord is wrought with folly.

You are very correct and if the Lord came down and told me that an old earth and evolution were false I would believe Him in a heart beat.

Seeking to explain by science or any means of man is seeking to second guess the Word of the Lord.

Creation was written by the Lord, no? Doesn't the evidence to be found in the universe matter?

Do you not follow the Ten Commandments?

If you live by the law you die by the law. What is it with fundamentalists and their adherance to the Ten Commandments? You do realize that the Pharisees also kept the Ten Commandments. That aside, I do my utmost to obey them, I do not follow them. I follow Christ.

Do you not obey the Fourth?

Christ didn't

Do not let the whims of man interrupt up with the Almighty Grace The Lord, our God tries to enevlope us with.

So... I let evolution get in the way of my relationship with God? Nope, sorry, you must have me confused with someone else.

He wishes only to be loved and believed.

Our God wishes more than that. Don't forget the second most important commandment.

Why must you insist on questioning Him?

I do not question Him; I realize that He had more purpose in giving us Genesis than to have something for us to read in a science classroom. Anyways, it's always YECs who thinks He lies through creation....

Evolution and atheism

Legend

Well-Known Member

Critical loyalist

Ark Guy

Guest

Jedi Master

Saved by the Grace of God

Jedi Master

Saved by the Grace of God

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Legend

Member

Be wise and be smart

Member

Active Member

Be wise and be smart

Be wise and be smart

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency