Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

Radrook · Sep 27, 2016

That is totally irrelevant to the discussion of an ID.
Why you insist on injecting it into the discussion as an essential can only be explained in one way.

Response to post 1146

That is where I responded but it wound up here.

Radrook · Sep 27, 2016

1. I once inquired about why Christians mourn when someone dies and the person responded that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Incidentally, I have suffered two deaths in the family and have yet to shed a tear. So your assumption in my case is flawed.
The only death ta I mourned was one that I thought myself as the cause.

2. Religion is totally irrelevant to the discussion of an ID.
Why you insist on injecting it into the discussion as an essential can only be explained in one way.

3. I provided he reasons why the entity described in the Bible is exempt to be called immoral whenever he deems it just to take human lives. Instead of refuting each reason individually as argumentation requires, you simply chant that it is a cop-out and that you can't see a reason why, which constitutes no specific counter-arguments at all.

Such mindless convenient inability to see, and I disagree, non-responses are provided when the person doesn't understand what is involved. If indeed you understood I challenge you to explain each reason that I provided to demonstrate that you do understood.

I am, more than 100% certain that each of your attempted explanations of the concepts involved are misunderstandings or straw men based on your inability to comprehend what was being said.

His abilities doesn't change the judgments to execute an action based on his analyses of future consequences? Why doesn't it change it? You provide NOTHING. Just statements with no reasons which render all my explanations that you demanded a total waste of my time.

The only explanation that comes close to a rebuttal is that babies are innocent.
However, I never claimed that taking their lives was base on baby guilt of crime.
It also presupposes that the only reason to take or cut short a life temporarily is being guilty of a crime when there are other factors that might justify cutting a life short such as compassion for the children themselves who would otherwise suffer horribly under the circumstances into which they had been born. To which you will answer. "OH but it is still wrong!" To which I say if that is the way you are going to respond you don't need me. just stand in front of a mirror and chant.

So your premise is flawed and bogus as well. It ignores all other reasons. That is no rebuttal. That is a misrepresentation based on incomprehension of the issues involved and one reason why I am very averse in engaging in this type of thing.

After all, the least one can expect in a discussion is to be understood and not misrepresented. But as I can see that is the atheist modus operandi.

BTW
I am NOT defending the mass killing of children. I am against the unwarranted mass killing of anyone-not just children. However, I can understand how a being in a position to see the future and to weigh all relevant matters might decide that temporary termination of life is for the best under certain situations. That is all I said. But if you wish to argue against your own ideas. Be my guest.

Jimmy D · Sep 27, 2016

Radrook said:
you simply chant that it is a cop-out and that you can't see a reason why, which constitutes no specific counter-arguments at all.

Such mindless convenient inability to see, and I disagree, non-responses are provided when the person doesn't understand what is involved. If indeed you understood I challenge you to explain each reason that I provided to demonstrate that you do understood.

That's a bit rich, SFS took the time to demonstrate a small part of evidence for common descent in post 1119, maybe you should address that before accusing others.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 27, 2016

Radrook said:
That is totally irrelevant to the discussion of an ID.
Why you insist on injecting it into the discussion as an essential can only be explained in one way.
Response to post 1146
That is where I responded but it wound up here.

You are absolutely correct that it is off-topic.
But it's also simply correct.

I made a statement and you challenged that statement by implying that my assumptions were incorrect. As it turns out, they weren't.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 27, 2016

Radrook said:
2. Religion is totally irrelevant to the discussion of an ID.
Why you insist on injecting it into the discussion as an essential can only be explained in one way.

That is absolutely, demonstrably, verifiably incorrect.

Religion has EVERYTHING to do with ID.
It's religious groups and institutions that came up with it for religious reasons.

Look up the Discovery Institute and read their mission statement.
Look up the Wedge Document.
Look up where the term "cdesign proponentsists" originates from.
Look up the Dover trial.

ID is absolutely, demonstrably, a religious idea.

At best, it is only disguised in a lab coat. One only has to look up who the proponents behind those ideas are, where they come from, where they are published, what their motivations are. It's religion, religion, religion. All the way.

His abilities doesn't change the judgments to execute an action based on his analyses of future consequences? Why doesn't it change it?

For the same reason that I would consider it immoral to step into a time machine and kill Adolf Hitler as a child.

You provide NOTHING. Just statements with no reasons which render all my explanations that you demanded a total waste of my time.

I guess we disagree on what "good reasons" are.
But as per your request, let's get back to topic.

Radrook · Sep 27, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
That is absolutely, demonstrably, verifiably incorrect.

Religion has EVERYTHING to do with ID.
It's religious groups and institutions that came up with for religious reasons.

Look up the Discovery Institute and read their mission statement.
Look up the Wedge Document.
Look up where the term "cdesign proponentsists" originates from.
Look up the Dover trial.

ID is absolutely, demonstrably, a religious idea.

At best, it is only disguised in a lab coat. One only has to look up who the proponents behind those ideas are, where they come from, where they are published, what their motivations are. It's religion, religion, religion. All the way.

For the same reason that I would consider it immoral to step into a time machine and kill Adolf Hitler as a child.

I guess we disagree on what "good reasons" are.
But as per your request, let's get back to topic.

SIGH!

I said that from my viewpoint religion is totally irrelevant to MY discussion about the ID.
What others did, are doing, or will do is irrelevant.

About Hitler? Yes, I would have done anything within my power to prevent him from becoming the monster he became.
If the only way was to remove him from history, then I would have done so. The basic problem of which you seem totally unaware, is that you are religiously employing deontological reasoning-or simply stated, rule reasoning and rule reasoning can build roads to hell with good intentions due to its inflexibility.

Example: During WWII this girl had been taught that it was evil to tell lies. There were Jews hiding in her parent's basement when the SS appeared at their door. When asked if there were Jews hiding anywhere in the house everyone denied it. But since she considered it wrong to lie she told them the truth. She and her whole family perished in a concentration camp.

That is why inflexible rule-thinking it is considered flawed thinking if adhered to in the way you are doing. Ethics requires a weighing of the pros and cons of a give situation and then deciding according to what is deemed the best or at the least lesser evil. Rule thinking is like a mindless machine which mows everything in its path simply because it is mowing time and the rules say anything in its path has to be mowed. That's ethics 101.

BTW
Not killing Hitler or changing his personality via some other influential way in order to prevent the deaths of millions would make you his accomplice.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 27, 2016

Radrook said:
SIGH!

I said that from my viewpoint religion is totally irrelevant to MY discussion about the ID.
What others did, are doing, or will do is irrelevant.

But it isn't irrelevant. It is very relevant. Religion is the only reason you even know about ID. Because it is fundamentally a religious idea.

Merely stating that you don't present it as a religious idea, doesn't change the demonstrable, verifiable fact that ID is, fundamentally, a religious idea. As opposed to a scientific idea.

ID isn't science. It's religion. To its very core. No matter what you claim.
If you wish to present it as a non-religious but scientific idea, then you're going to have to completely remodel it (and do all the same work that every other actual scientific ideas are subjected to).

But you didn't do that. Instead, you just took the model as-is, with all the arguments from the cdesign proponentsists as-is, and just repeated it.

You even link to the same sources.

To state that you aren't presenting a fundamentally religious idea, is either completely dishonest or incredibly ignorant.

About Hitler? Yes, I would have done anything within my power to prevent him from becoming the monster he became.

Keyword here: "prevent".

I'ld try to prevent it as well, if I could. But that wouldn't include killing innocent people. Because yes, when Hitler was a child, he was still innocent.

If the only way was to remove him from history, then I would have done so

If an all-powerfull, all-knowing, all-intelligent being can't come up with a better way to "prevent" crimes then to kill a bunch of babies, then he deserves neither of those titles.

But let's not pretend as if those were his only motivations for killing a bunch of babies.
Read your bible. Particularly exodus and the part about all the firstborns.

Example: During WWII this girl had been taught that it was evil to tell lies. There were Jews hiding in her parent's basement when the SS appeared at their door. When asked if there were Jews hiding anywhere in the house everyone denied it. But since she considered it wrong to lie she told them the truth. She and her whole family perished in a concentration camp.

That is why inflexible rule-thinking it is considered flawed thinking if adhered to in the way you are doing.

Funny. Your example only applies to religious people.
Because they get their "rules" from an unquestionable authority.

I get my "rules" from an understanding of reality. That means that I can adjust my rules as I gain better insights. As opposed to simply following whatever my perceived authority commands me.

That's ethics 101.

Sorry, you don't get to lecture me on ethics, when you put yourself in a position where there is apparantly some context in which killing babies is not only excusable, but actually morally reasonable or worse still: a moral duty.

But anyway.... didn't you want to get back to topic?

rjs330 · Sep 27, 2016

SteveB28 said:
So, if a moth species can change its characteristics, it's genetic make-up, to such an extent that a new moth species can form, please explain how that process cannot continue indefinitely......

You are the person who says....'yes, I know you can step onto one rung of a ladder, but it's impossible you could climb its length!'

Yes that's correct. Because it remains a moth. It doesn't become anything else but a moth.

And you evidence of a murder analogy is good as a description of evolitionists though not perfect.

Evolutionists don't have a dead body. They assume there is a dead body and so then look at the evidence and find that it shows there was a murder without a body. That's how it works. They can't believe in intelligent design with an intelligent designer so the only thing,left is evolution. Can't falsify the designer they say. Well you,can't really falsify common,ancestor either because you can't prove there ever was one. It exists in the evolutionist mind because they believe there was one.

SteveB28 · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
Yes that's correct. Because it remains a moth. It doesn't become anything else but a moth.

But it has changed to a new species.....something that you people claim is impossible!

And you evidence of a murder analogy is good as a description of evolitionists though not perfect.

Evolutionists don't have a dead body. They assume there is a dead body and so then look at the evidence and find that it shows there was a murder without a body. That's how it works. They can't believe in intelligent design with an intelligent designer so the only thing,left is evolution. Can't falsify the designer they say. Well you,can't really falsify common,ancestor either because you can't prove there ever was one. It exists in the evolutionist mind because they believe there was one.

Wrong. Again.

The 'dead body' in that analogy is the variety of living things. It is the identical ERV insertions which you cannot explain. It is the nested hierarchy. It is the observed examples of speciation. It is the growing collection of transitional fossils.

But, of course, you have to pretend that there is no 'body', don't you....?

Speedwell · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
Yes that's correct. Because it remains a moth. It doesn't become anything else but a moth.

Here's another example as to why: My great-grandparents were German. How many generations of my offspring must be born and pass away before my great-grandparents stop being German?

Evolutionists don't have a dead body. They assume there is a dead body and so then look at the evidence and find that it shows there was a murder without a body. That's how it works. They can't believe in intelligent design with an intelligent designer so the only thing,left is evolution. Can't falsify the designer they say. Well you,can't really falsify common,ancestor either because you can't prove there ever was one. It exists in the evolutionist mind because they believe there was one.

If you want the existence of a designer to be a falsifiable proposition, it's up to you to make it so. What kind of evidence, if discovered, would rule out the existence of a designer?

rjs330 · Sep 27, 2016

Speedwell said:
Here's another example as to why: My great-grandparents were German. How many generations of my offspring must be born and pass away before my great-grandparents stop being German?

If you want the existence of a designer to be a falsifiable proposition, it's up to you to make it so. What kind of evidence, if discovered, would rule out the existence of a designer?

That's irrelevant because your grandparents are human. Just like a moth is still a moth no,matter how long a time passes.

God can't be falsified,and neither can the common ancestor.

SteveB28 · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
That's irrelevant because your grandparents are human. Just like a moth is still a moth no,matter how long a time passes.

God can't be falsified,and neither can the common ancestor.

Oh, rubbish....! The common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees could be "falsified", for example, if the pattern of ERV insertions was not identical. Or if the variety of shared ERVs between the other primates didn't agree with the nested hierarchy involving those groups. Or if there wasn't an obvious explanation for the difference in chromosome count between humans and chimpanzees.

Any of those and many more would be perfectly good means of falsifying common ancestry.

What a shame you have none of them......

rjs330 · Sep 27, 2016

SteveB28 said:
But it has changed to a new species.....something that you people claim is impossible!

Wrong. Again.

The 'dead body' in that analogy is the variety of living things. It is the identical ERV insertions which you cannot explain. It is the nested hierarchy. It is the observed examples of speciation. It is the growing collection of transitional fossils.

But, of course, you have to pretend that there is no 'body', don't you....?

You're incorrect. Creationist to,recognize that things can change in a creature. That's one of the things designed into,living things. The ability to try and adapt in order to remain alive. God created life and it's one of the evidences of a designer. That life continues adapts in order to survive. But it does not change into something else entirely. Like slowly morph from a bird to a lizard or vice versa.

The similarities between chimps,and humans and the ERVs are still assumed to show common ancestor. I've said this over and over. The differences between the too are far greater than the similarities. It just goes to show that ERVs really prove nothing. Show me a chimp who,can build a rocket or create a vaccine or design and build a deck.

It's all such nonsense. Believe what you will. It matters not.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
Yes that's correct. Because it remains a moth. It doesn't become anything else but a moth.

And humans remains primates. They don't become anything else but a primate.
Likewise, they remain mammals. They don't become anything else but a mammal.

And you evidence of a murder analogy is good as a description of evolitionists though not perfect.

Evolutionists don't have a dead body. They assume there is a dead body and so then look at the evidence and find that it shows there was a murder without a body. That's how it works.

"evolutionists" have data. Where in criminal forensics, the data constitutes of a body and things pointing to a murder (and murderer), in biology this data is the collective of genomes, comparative anatomy, extant life, fossils,....

To suggest that biology doesn't have this data at its disposal, is rather dishonest.

They can't believe in intelligent design with an intelligent designer so the only thing,left is evolution

That's a blatant falso dichotomy. Truelly backwards logic.
If evolution theory is completely refuted, debunked, falsified today, it wouldn't change one iota to the credibility of the religious ID model.

ID would remain just as unevidenced, unsupported, undemonstrated as ever.
It has got nothing to do with "personal preference" and everything with the actual data. It seems you are projecting. You want, or rather "need", ID to be true, because your religious beliefs require it to be true. As such it is YOU that cannot accept a certain idea, not because it isn't consistent with reality, but because it isn't consistent with your perconceived beliefs on the matter.

Can't falsify the designer they say.

I don't know who "they" is here, but in any case, "they" are correct about that.

Well you,can't really falsify common,ancestor either

Except that you can. Here are just some of the ways to do it:
- Find me a non-primate, any non-primate, with wich we share MORE erv's then with primates.
- Find me a reptile, any reptile, with an inner earbone.
- Find me an amphibian, any amphibian, with hair.
- Find me a mammal, any mammal, with feathers.

Each and everyone of these 4 ways has a potential of millions upon millions of species to choose from that could potentially falsify the evolution model.
So essentially, I have just given you millions upon millions ways to potentially falsify evolution.

Go ahead, try.

because you can't prove there ever was one

Except that we can, beyond reasonable doubts at least.
And the way to do that, is the exact opposite of my previous paragraphe.

The evolution model makes a ridiculous amount of predictions - each of wich is likewise a potential falsification of the model.

For example: no non-primate will share more ERV's with humans then primates.

This can be further abstracted into an even more general statement: no 2 species that are less closely related according to the phylogenetic tree, will share more ERV's then with species that are more closely related according to said tree.
For example:
Cats and lions will share more ERV's then cats and donkeys.
Cats and dogs will share more ERV's then cats and lobsters.
Dogs and wolves will share more ERV's then dogs and cats.
Whales and cows will share more ERV's then whales and sharks.
Etc.

If life is a family tree, then that is testable.

Consider your own family tree. That is testable as well.
If you were switched at birth in the hospital and nobody knew about it, it would still be evident from a DNA test. It would demonstrate black on white that you are not a part of that family tree by blood.

It would demonstrate/show/be evident that your dad is not your biological dad, that your siblings are not your biological siblings, that your nieces are not your biological nieces.

And the reason is that your DNA has a whole lot of baggage. It is, quite literally, a historical record of your actual ancestry.

It exists in the evolutionist mind because they believe there was one.

Projecting again....

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
You're incorrect. Creationist to,recognize that things can change in a creature. That's one of the things designed into,living things. The ability to try and adapt in order to remain alive. God created life and it's one of the evidences of a designer. That life continues adapts in order to survive. But it does not change into something else entirely. Like slowly morph from a bird to a lizard or vice versa.

The similarities between chimps,and humans and the ERVs are still assumed to show common ancestor. I've said this over and over. The differences between the too are far greater than the similarities. It just goes to show that ERVs really prove nothing. Show me a chimp who,can build a rocket or create a vaccine or design and build a deck.

It's all such nonsense. Believe what you will. It matters not.

You keep saying that it's assumed, but that is ALL YOU DO. You just repeating your claim over and over again without showing any evidence to back it up does not make it true.

SteveB28 · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
You're incorrect. Creationist to,recognize that things can change in a creature. That's one of the things designed into,living things. The ability to try and adapt in order to remain alive. God created life and it's one of the evidences of a designer. That life continues adapts in order to survive. But it does not change into something else entirely. Like slowly morph from a bird to a lizard or vice versa.

The similarities between chimps,and humans and the ERVs are still assumed to show common ancestor. I've said this over and over. The differences between the too are far greater than the similarities. It just goes to show that ERVs really prove nothing. Show me a chimp who,can build a rocket or create a vaccine or design and build a deck.

It's all such nonsense. Believe what you will. It matters not.

200,000 identical insertion points....in a genome that offers more than 3 billion.....odds in 13 orders of magnitude.... further shared ERVs with the other primates, in a pattern which exactly matches a nested hierarchy....

And, you poor, poor thing.....all you can do is pretend it isn't there.

SteveB28 · Sep 27, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You keep saying that it's assumed, but that is ALL YOU DO. You just repeating your claim over and over again without showing any evidence to back it up does not make it true.

Sad, isn't it.....?

loveofourlord · Sep 27, 2016

Commander said:
Most others here don't either.
Google-genetically we did not come from apes and you will find about 12,200,000 results.
Final proof we did not originate from apes!
A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4
Specific examples of these differences include:
1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.
In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.": https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=152540 Have a blessed day.

1. Well we know it's a fusion, because it has all the hallmarks of being a fusion, it has two markers for the part of the chromsone that is only normally in the middle, and a section thats at the ends of chromosones in the middle, so it's pretty obvios something happened there. this kind of fusion happens all the time in nature.

2. Being shorter or longer doesn't mean anything really just that for some reason we lost some of ours due to a mutation.

3. How much of that is from chromosonal flipping and such where big chunks of the DNA are flipped, we see that between other great apes that you guys would probably argue micro evolved from each other. And other such well known things, here is a fun thing, some of those rearangements you mention, we share with chimpanzee's but arn't there in other great apes.

4. And yes, again, if it's what I think your talking about our Y chromosone has lost some DNA, obviously it wasn't important enough and probably effects some of the dimorphism and such hardly something different.

5. And yes....this happens all the time, these are copying errors, where duplicates of genes get inserted, infact some diseases are FROM this, others it doesn't effect it, heck thats part of evolution. A gene duplication allows for a copy of a gene to mutate, such as snakes and platypus venom wich is derived from such a mutation.

It's impossible to get a 100% completly acurate % of differences in DNA due to the dificulty of counting differences.

do you count thefastbrownfoxjumpedoverthelazydog mutating to theffastbrownfoxjumpedoverthelzydog as 1 mutation or every letter that is now different and doesn't line up, and so on. Also if you have a section of DNA that is, "$&#($&#($&^$($&#happydog$&(*#$(#((&#@ you can make changes to the parts before and after happydog without changing the meaning, but can only make a few changes to the middle part without completly changing it.

Why most comparisons A) Only count single changes, not a entire sequence changed, and only count the important parts, as the coding regions are the parts that are preserved, and mutations are going to matter more.

SteveB28 · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
You're incorrect. Creationist to,recognize that things can change in a creature.

Oh.......and how does that change come about? What is the mechanism responsible for it?

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 27, 2016

rjs330 said:
The similarities between chimps,and humans and the ERVs are still assumed to show common ancestor.

As I have explained to you, that is not correct.
It's not an assumption, it's a fact.

The same type of fact, that allows us to determine that what you call your family, is not your actual biological family, eventhough nobody knew that you were switched at birth at the hospital.

A DNA test would be considered conclusive proof that you are not the biological child of those that you call "mom" and "dad" - NO MATTER if they know about it or not.

This, because we understand how genetics work. Because we understand how to establish ancestral lines from it. Because we understand how it is past on to off spring. Because we understand how to conclude family ties from it.

It's exactly that knowledge, wich enables us to determine not only ancestry and "level of relatedness" within a species, but cross species as well.

To deny this, is to simply be willfull ignorant. It is a severe case of head-in-sand. It is an irrational stance on modern biology and genetics.
It is, pure and simple, a denial of the facts.

The differences between the too are far greater than the similarities.

That's simply demonstrably incorrect as well...
Looking at the DNA of both and literally counting the amount of matches, there are far more matches then there are mismatches.

One thing that is consistent throughout though: the nested hierarchy of not just humans and chimps, but of all living things. As one would expect, from a giant family tree.

It just goes to show that ERVs really prove nothing

The only thing you are proving here, is an unwillingness to learn.

Show me a chimp who,can build a rocket or create a vaccine or design and build a deck.

I facepalmed so hard, my grandchildren are going to have a chronic headache.

It's all such nonsense. Believe what you will. It matters not.

Says the "believer".

Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency