• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

If Evolution were true...

Status
Not open for further replies.

singpeace

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Oct 21, 2009
2,439
459
U.S.
✟62,677.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Okay, don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that evolution is a fact.

But for the creationists out there who don't believe that evolution is a fact, I have a question for you.

IF evolution was true, what would we see that we DON'T see in the world around us?



Even if evolution were true (for the sake of argument), does that mean there is no God? How do you know God didn't use it to get us here? (I am not teaching that evolution is true, nor that God used it, which is called theistic evolution; I am simply reasoning.) If you believe in evolution, does that mean you aren't a sinner? God won't accept the excuse that you believed in evolution and not Him.

Have you examined evolution to see if it is true? Evolution is not all that you are led to believe. There are all kinds of problems in the fossil record and there are lots of books that show this. New theories are being raised all the time to account for why there aren't any undisputed transitional forms found between any species of any kind, anywhere, anytime in all the fossil record. But you wouldn't know these things if you haven't studied the other side of the issue. You need to know the facts about evolution, and you need to know the facts about Jesus. So, have you read any anti-evolution books so you can see both sides?
 
Upvote 0

JustMeSee

Contributor
Feb 9, 2008
7,703
297
In my living room.
✟38,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
For the sake of the discussion (I am a skeptic):

Why are there no other animals as highly developed as humans?
Humans pretty much have control of most of the land.
Why are no other animals intelligent enough to build complex structures (skyscrapers), have complex language, and exhibit human-like skills?
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Even if evolution were true (for the sake of argument), does that mean there is no God? How do you know God didn't use it to get us here? (I am not teaching that evolution is true, nor that God used it, which is called theistic evolution; I am simply reasoning.) If you believe in evolution, does that mean you aren't a sinner? God won't accept the excuse that you believed in evolution and not Him.

Have you examined evolution to see if it is true? Evolution is not all that you are led to believe. There are all kinds of problems in the fossil record and there are lots of books that show this. New theories are being raised all the time to account for why there aren't any undisputed transitional forms found between any species of any kind, anywhere, anytime in all the fossil record. But you wouldn't know these things if you haven't studied the other side of the issue. You need to know the facts about evolution, and you need to know the facts about Jesus. So, have you read any anti-evolution books so you can see both sides?

Creationist propaganda. Could you provide evidence to support these claims?

For the sake of the discussion (I am a skeptic):

Why are there no other animals as highly developed as humans?
Humans pretty much have control of most of the land.
Why are no other animals intelligent enough to build complex structures (skyscrapers), have complex language, and exhibit human-like skills?

Why are there no other animals as highly developed as humans? I'm afraid you have the wrong idea about evolution if you think it is striving towards being as highly evolved as possible. Evolution is about genes being passed on. A gene gives an individual animal a particular characteristic (this is over simplifying it quite a bit, but it will do for the sake of the example). If this characteristic gives the animal an advantage over others that helps it live long enough to reproduce, then the gene that produces that characteristic is more likely to spread throughout the population. That's all evolution is. It's not striving to be more highly evolved. Look at bugs, for example. They are far more common that people. But you wouldn't say they are more highly evolved. Their genes are just very well suited for being passed on to their ofspring.

As for other animals having complex structures, termites build mounds that would be several miles tall if they were built on a human scale. And they have in built air conditioning systems. Prairie dogs also build ventilation systems into their burrows, and beaver dams are another example of sophisticated engineering.

As for other animals developing language, there are many species that are capable of communicating ideas between individuals. Prairie dogs use different alarm calls for different predators. For example, the alarm call for snake means "Everyone climb a tree to escape" whereas the alarm call for eagle means "if the eagle is flying towards you, run into the burrow." The alarm call for people means "Everyone get into the burrow NOW!" but the alarm call for a wolf means "Run to the nearest burrow and stay there, keeping an eye on things, but be ready to run inside if you need to". And dolphins are known to have a specific sequences of sounds that seem to refer to individuals within the group, acting much like names.

And as for Human like skills, there are many examples of animals that use tools. Chimps are famous for it. But birds are also known to do it.
 
Upvote 0

singpeace

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Oct 21, 2009
2,439
459
U.S.
✟62,677.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
'Didn't mean to twist your words. I apologize.

Actually, I do believe in evolution to an extent; that a species' DNA will mutate over time in order to help the species survive a dramatic change in climate.

But, I believe there is a Divine Creator who created everything there is.

Do you believe in God or are you strictly an evolutionist? I am only asking so that I can understand better where you're coming from. Again, I apologize. I'm usually not like that. Don't know what got into me.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,258
52,668
Guam
✟5,157,784.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
IF evolution was true, what would we see that we DON'T see in the world around us?
A jillion fossils -- the earth, if scanned by aliens from space, should appear to be one big graveyard.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟26,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Thus one of the central tenets of evolution. Man is nothing special, simply an accident of nature.

Man is not more evolved than any other animal. We have traits are better than other animals, we have traits that work much worse.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,258
52,668
Guam
✟5,157,784.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whether evolution is true or not does not affect the process of fossilisation. It would still be a rare event.
Fossilized or not then -- my opinion is that one should find a jillion of them.
 
Upvote 0

singpeace

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Oct 21, 2009
2,439
459
U.S.
✟62,677.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Posted by Tiberius:

"That's all evolution is. It's not striving to be more highly evolved."

Thus one of the central tenets of evolution. Man is nothing special, simply an accident of nature.


Okay. I can see how some believe in evolution rather than Creation.
If Evolution is correct, and Creation is wrong, I will have lost nothing by living a good clean life - believing there is a Father in Heaven who loves me. No harm there. But for arguments sake, I've provided a partial list of scientific discoveries supporting Divine Design/Creation.

The scientists who believe in this list include but are not limited to:

Dr. Edward Wright, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy at UCLA
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist)

(There are an additional 90+ Scientists and 140+ discoveries belonging to this list which I did not include - but I am happy to provide them if you wish.)

The majority of these scientists found in 2008 that the entire Universe supports life on Earth alone (Divine Design). No opposing scientists have been able to disprove the Divine Design Theory. Meanwhile, more evidence FOR Creation is discovered almost weekly.


Sorry for the information overload, but I have done so much research on both sides of this issue. I'm the type who has to find out for myself.



A partial list of evidences/discoveries supporting Creation:

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life

2. chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus
incapable of producing heavy elements

6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy

11. elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element dEnsity would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

17. fine structure constant
(describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all

23. stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid 25.
water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-
essential elements would be unstable

34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Fossilized or not then -- my opinion is that one should find a jillion of them.

And if there were a "jillion" fossils? What would you say then? The Flood, of course! God you would say didn't bother to "clean up for sanitary purposes."
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Okay. I can see how some believe in evolution rather than Creation.
If Evolution is correct, and Creation is wrong, I will have lost nothing by living a good clean life - believing there is a Father in Heaven who loves me. No harm there. But for arguments sake, I've provided a partial list of scientific discoveries supporting Divine Design/Creation.

The scientists who believe in this list include but are not limited to:

Dr. Edward Wright, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy at UCLA
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist)

(There are an additional 90+ Scientists and 140+ discoveries belonging to this list which I did not include - but I am happy to provide them if you wish.)

The majority of these scientists found in 2008 that the entire Universe supports life on Earth alone (Divine Design). No opposing scientists have been able to disprove the Divine Design Theory. Meanwhile, more evidence FOR Creation is discovered almost weekly.


Sorry for the information overload, but I have done so much research on both sides of this issue. I'm the type who has to find out for myself.



A partial list of evidences/discoveries supporting Creation:

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life

2. chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus
incapable of producing heavy elements

6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy

11. elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element dEnsity would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

17. fine structure constant
(describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all

23. stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid 25.
water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-
essential elements would be unstable

34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


this is to no point at all for various reasons:

-Nothing about evolution is an either / or about god. Most of the people in the bio dept here are christians.

-Your list is almost entirely of people in different fields. Like we dont ask doctors to hold forth on geology.

-NONE of them has data point one agaisnt evolution

-ALL of them take their position for religious not scientific reasons.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Even if evolution were true (for the sake of argument), does that mean there is no God? How do you know God didn't use it to get us here? (I am not teaching that evolution is true, nor that God used it, which is called theistic evolution; I am simply reasoning.) If you believe in evolution, does that mean you aren't a sinner? God won't accept the excuse that you believed in evolution and not Him.
No, it doesn't mean there is no God. What does this have to do with the O.P. question?

Have you examined evolution to see if it is true? Evolution is not all that you are led to believe. There are all kinds of problems in the fossil record and there are lots of books that show this. New theories are being raised all the time to account for why there aren't any undisputed transitional forms found between any species of any kind, anywhere, anytime in all the fossil record. But you wouldn't know these things if you haven't studied the other side of the issue. You need to know the facts about evolution, and you need to know the facts about Jesus. So, have you read any anti-evolution books so you can see both sides?
What do you mean by "undisputed transitional forms?" I could show you plenty of transitionals, thet are accepted as such by the vast majority of paleontologists. Would they qualify? Also, are you aware that the best evidence for common descent have nothing to do with the fossil record? The twin-nested hierarchy (morphology and genetic)comes to mind.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
And if there were a "jillion" fossils? What would you say then? The Flood, of course! God you would say didn't bother to "clean up for sanitary purposes."


his opinion plus a can of soup would make lunch for a homelsss person.

There is in fact an immense quantity of fossils.

And..he is welcome to toss a leaf, an ant, a cow on the g round and see if any trace is still there ten years later. Relatively speaking, fossilization is rare. And immense numbers of fossils have weathered out and been destroyed. Any we find on the surface are only years at the most from being lost.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,258
52,668
Guam
✟5,157,784.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And if there were a "jillion" fossils? What would you say then? The Flood, of course! God you would say didn't bother to "clean up for sanitary purposes."
Hmmm -- good point! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.