razzelflabben said:
Wrong. Not one testable and tested scientific prediction has ever been made using this so-called "Theory of Creation." If you think there is one, I invite you to share it with us.
Upvote
0
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.
razzelflabben said:Now many claims have been made that the toc makes no testable predictions, a simple web search shows us just the opposite. But this is not a discussion about whether it is or is not scientific, so I will leave you to look for yourself. Suffice to say that there are testable predictions made and it is easy to find information that evidences this.
So then, if it makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory? Your above explaination does not isolate the toc from science unless...you assume the only thing the toc says is that God did it. Is this your premise?
Sorry to disappoint you but I have been to college, I have already studied the site you reference, and dispite what you might think I am saying or doing here, it is apparent that you have no idea. I can show you through additional websites where the criteria for scientific method is followed by the toc. Yet you deny that it exists, that is your opinion and I have nothing to say to you other than that evidence esists that would be to the contrary of your opinions.Ledifni said:Forget all of that. The so-called "Theory of Creation" is neither a theory nor science, because it meets none of the conditions for a theory nor was it developed using the rules by which science discovers reliable knowledge about nature. Science has these rules because common sense and intuition ARE NOT RELIABLE. Thus, there are rules -- which we call the Scientific Method -- that define how we must do science in order for it to accomplish its purpose. As creationism flatly ignores these rules, it is not science.
As far as where I'm getting my ideas -- for the love of God, go to college, man. But in the meantime, this should explain the matter to you.
I read the post several times and didn't see that. Please point it out specifically.He claimed that evolution is unscientific and that creationism is, in the post I responded to. On the contrary, evolution is science and is fully accepted by the worldwide scientific community, whild creationism is not science is any way whatsoever.
I asked you to define religion because I have never heard of a claim that creationism is religion before. I have never known of anyone worshiping creation, though I guess it happens, or that claims that accepting creationism will get you to heaven, narvana, paradise, etc. Which is usually a part of the religous experience. So either we understand religion differently or our communication is not effective. Can anyone show me the religion of creationism? where do you go to meetings for such a religion? Who leads it, it there a priest, pastor, scientist, lay, leader? What resource do they use to guide them through life? I would like to know more about the religion of creationism. ThanksI am telling you that creationism is religion, because it is. It is not science, it is a faith-based belief. And that is not a "new claim" -- it is what any reputable scientist will tell you.
How? I invited evolutionist and creationists alike, I respect all opinions even yours. I ask for clarifications that I am not sure about on all sides of the issue. I am not asking science to compromise anything. I am asking people to clarify what they are saying. I have worked with words for a long time now, my husband as well, and one thing that we are always surprised at is how often what appears to be clearly stated is misinterpreted. This occurs for many reasons, but words are not and "exact" science as it were. Words have different meanings and understandings and as such are interpreted in different ways. This thread is an attempt to communicate on a level that few debating the issue of our origins have ever done. Nothing more nothing less.But you're trying to get people to listen to what is false, confusing, and misleading. Rather, you would do better to exhort people to learn the correct terms and definitions and facts so that they can correctly discuss science. This idea of getting science to compromise with nonscience is a very bad idea, believe me.
I think that is a bit overstated, but a good point non the less.As long as we're talking about evolution vs. creationism (which is the subject of this board) then the word "theory" is limited to science. When we start using the colloquial definition of "theory" it becomes impossible to discuss science, since that definition has absolutely nothing to do with science and is so ambiguous as to be virtually useless as a word even in common speech.
I must wonder where all the hate and anamosity is coming from?!? I have heard many different definitions for the toc, many from creationists themselves, so how is it irrelavent to discuss the meaning? Do you believe that the toc is scientific or not? We know what you think but that is not an understanding shared by all.Yes, there is a meaning, of course. The meaning is well-defined and easy to learn. Unfortunately, creationists willfully misunderstand the meaning continually -- and you want us to solve this problem by using the completely useless definition used by creationists. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
I am not playing a game, I am trying to get people to communicate. for example I distinguish between prediction and explaination. A prediction preceeding an observation. An expalianation by contract, explaining how the observation fits the theory. It seems to me that given the vast amount of possible tests and observations that all theories would include some of both.Razzelflabben, I won't play this game. The scientific method is not in question, and if I answer your question as you've phrased it then I am implicitly claiming that what I say is merely my opinion. It's not. It's the way science is strictly defined by all scientists so it can proceed accurately. Now, go do some research, it really isn't that difficult, and learn something about how science works. Then we can discuss the scientific method and actually get somewhere.
If you think communication does no one any good why are you posting to this thread? Why are you on the forum at all? Meaningless or meaningful, the forum is all about communication. Why be here if you find no value in communication?Correction: you are trying to establish meaningless communication, which does nobody any good at all.
razzelflabben said:I try very hard not to argue at all but instead to discuss and I have discussed many times with both sides.
. Isn't hard to do, btw, they consider the evolutionist view the same as you do, that the evolutionist wants their unscientific nonsence taught in the science lessons and the reasons are very much so the same. Take some time to listen and you might be able to better explain your side of the issue.
Not necessarily, what you are missing in this idea is that creation has nothing to do with our orgins. The term creation is not specific to origins. Creation means to make something.
The theory of creation then explores a smaller, more detailed, specific creation, that of the world and life
. Much as the general understanding of evolution is different from the theory of evolution. More is included and excluded alike. So the book we made, is not assumed to be in existance magically because the creationist doesn't apply the idea of "magical existance" to everything created.
Does that make sense now? The creationist is dealing not with creation alone, but with the creation of our world.
That is why it is important to understand that whether or not you see the theory of creation as scientific, it does have a meaning. That meaning to you might only be that we are removing certain variables to isolate out what we are talking about, but it does have meaning.
As I understand the words, the theory of creation is where those things are addressed and as I understand it, that is the machanics of the creation of the world/life. This is the differences I see between the words creation and the theory of creation.
razzelflabben said:This can be disputed, but it is your opinion, just as mine is that God has evidenced himself to us.
To discuss it further is outside the purpose of this thread which is why I offered to discuss it in a pm. .
These are the misconceptions that I am asking to be clarified. I never said, nor do I believe that I am wiser than anyone, including you. This is assumed by you and not part of what I said or intended. Older, yep, that is no big deal, I wear my age proudly. I worked hard for every year. But that does not always equal maturity or wisdom and you would do well to learn the differences.Ledifni said:Oh, really? As you're so much older and wiser than me, why don't you explain this?
I believe it was Glady's post in which I gave a reference that does a much better job of defining the differences, start there. YOu seem to love to study, research it and study it for yourself.Please, tell me how the definition of "species" is today "much different" from what it was when you were in school. What was the definition then, and what is it now?
Being that I am not a crationist and do not know the things that you consider creationist Pratts, I am not sure how to address this issue with you. the definition for species has evolved, and it is a matter of record, look it up.(The accusation of a "changing definition of species" is one of the typical creationist PRATTs, so your reply to me should be amusing)
What people?There is really no issue here except that you people refuse to learn about or understand the subject you're discussing. If you would, there would be no confusion.
I guess we can say this for every person alive, because there is always something new to learn, but I think that is the point of changing definitions and understandings, it is the point of revisions and communication, so that we never assume to know it all and always look to learn more. Education is great, it comes in many different packages and places, and should never cease to be sought after. At least that is my opinion.Not when the discipline they are discussing is impossible to discuss or properly conduct without using the correct definition, old one. When one does not know one's subject, old one, such as you do not, one needs to learn that subject before discussing it, isn't that so? You would do well to get an education.
I have said very little about what I believe until ask today to define the words I put forth, so what are you basing these assumptions on? What have I said that leads you to this conclusion? I have asked questions of clarification, but until today little else. So are you claiming that questions of clarification are creationist pratts? That's an interesting concept. Thanks for offering it into our discussion.Pretty much. Everything you've posted so far has been full of typical creationist misunderstandings and PRATTs. If you accept evolution but have this many misconceptions, you might as well be a creationist for the purposes of this discussion. But I don't for one second believe you're not a creationist.
Actually, I do not think that wisdom is scientific or learned at all. I think wisdom is impossible to learn, you can acquite wisdom, but it is not learned as such. Now to finish the question off, let me say that I do not think ignorance is every acceptable where there is opertunity to learn and learning is always best done when our ideas and conclusions are challenged. Yet so many people fear this challenge, your posts suggest you do as well, why is that? Why do so many people fear challenge of their ideas and thoughts?Why? I don't know, my dear, but I suspect that you see no problem with creationists entrenching themselves in ignorance because you believe that their ignorance is actually wisdom.
Believe what you will, it is not my burden to convince you that I speak the truth, it is my burden to speak the truth. What you believe is the burden you alone must carry.You've perhaps run into nonscientists pretending to be scientists (creationists, for example) who think such a ridiculous thing. But you haven't run into any scientists who think that. For such a thing to be true, the person would have to be completely ignorant of the scientific method, which would mean that he/she is a nonscientist by definition.
But your post seemed to indicate that only scientists were alowed to discuss our origins on this forum? Are you changing your mind now, or was there unclear understanding of what you were saying?I don't know who on here is or is not a scientist. There's no way to verify claims about who somebody is over the Internet. I can point to people who are not scientists, due to their obvious ignorance of science, but I can't point with certainty to anyone who is a scientist IRL.
Now, let's step back a moment, the definition of species has changed, so for me to ask someone which definition they hold to is changing the consistance in science how? it is commonly accepted on the forum and by science that revision is a part of science and theory. So to ask for clarification of these revisions is to change the consistancy how? Do you understand that even science is inconsistant, that is why our theories are revised?I won't play this game, lady. I will not let you ask me questions about matters on which science must remain consistent if you are going to phrase it as "my belief" or "my opinion." I will not stake the very foundations of science on how wise others think me. I suggest you do the research yourself.
Where are your boasts of education now. (Sorry, I stepped out of line there for a moment) research it for yourself. I put forth a link to begin the study for those willing to learn.Ledifni said:Wrong. Not one testable and tested scientific prediction has ever been made using this so-called "Theory of Creation." If you think there is one, I invite you to share it with us.
But I gave a link (just as an example) of testable predictions that the toc does make. Are you claiming they are not claims made by the toc or that they are not testable because we can always fall back on the God did it claim?Physics_guy said:But no "theory of creation" ever presented makes testable predictions. That is because inherent in the nature of "testable predictions" is the possibility of results that would falsify the theory. That is how science works.
This sounds like you are saying that the toc can fall back on the God did it explaination to therefore it is not a testable claim. Is that correct?Unfortunately, that is not how supernatural beliefs work. No possible data or result from a test could falsify any belief that allows for supernatural intervention. That is why to equate the scientific theory of evolution with some nebulous theory of creation is simply an equivocation and a poor use of language. They are fundamentally different and not comparable in any way.
Personally, I see the toe as historical in nature and therefore find it hard to view as a scientific theory. I have issues with the toc being scientific as well, though for different reasons.Now, that does not mean that the ToE is in any way "better" - it just means that it is scientific. Your concept of creation may indeed be correct, but the physical evidence does not lead one to that conclusion.
But I gave a link (just as an example) of testable predictions that the toc does make. Are you claiming they are not claims made by the toc or that they are not testable because we can always fall back on the God did it claim?
This sounds like you are saying that the toc can fall back on the God did it explaination to therefore it is not a testable claim. Is that correct?
Personally, I see the toe as historical in nature and therefore find it hard to view as a scientific theory.
I have issues with the toc being scientific as well, though for different reasons.
razzelflabben said:Now many claims have been made that the toc makes no testable predictions, a simple web search shows us just the opposite.
But this is not a discussion about whether it is or is not scientific,
I understand what you are saying, at least I think I do, you are saying that science cannot evidence the supernatural.
1. the theory of creation does not have to be considered scientific in order to be considered a theory. So your understand of the theory of creation must be that the term is only refering to the scientific nature of the creation of the world? or life? or both?
2. That the theory of creation offers more to us than simply "God did it" which apparently you do not understand. Would that also be correct? You see the theory of creation only as saying "God did it"?
Right, but theories don't have to be restricted to scientific in my opinion and in fact, I have heard those on this thread express the idea that the toc is not scientific theory. So it would seem that your understanding is that only scientific theory exists?
If I form a hypotheses, and test that huypotheses, and observe within and without that hypotheses, when what makes it not scientific?
By the criteria you presented of your understanding, I can identify my "opinion" theory as scientific if I follow through with scientific methods.
So then, if it makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory? Your above explaination does not isolate the toc from science unless...you assume the only thing the toc says is that God did it. Is this your premise?
razzelflabben said:This is new to me, the idea that religion cannot revise itself.
Right, so back to the original question when is "evidence" not sufficient to verify a theory.
Let's see if I can clarify the question even more. I would predict that my fingerprint would be found at the scene of the crime, how does that evidence tell us anything about who stole the banana? When is evidence to weak to tell us anything about the original theory?
So then by this explaination, then even my fingerprint at my grandmothers house is evidence of the crime because it is predicted by the theory that I was at my grandmothers home around the time of the crime? Is that what you are saying?
Right but many scientists work this way, they begin with a theory and seek a way to support it.
Case in point, I watched a documentary on Mars, the scientists, when they didn't find what they expected, didn't say, humm, we may have been wrong, let's keep looking, instead they said, keep looking it has to be there somewhere.
razzelflabben said:Yes this is my broad understanding of the toc. For specifics, we would need a new thread.
I have talked about my understand of the words evolution, toe, creation, toc, let's see, what other words did I include on the list.
To me evidence is either hard or soft. Hard evidence be directly observed, where as soft evidence is like circumstancial, it need explaination or interpretation in order to link it to the original theory.
speciation: The evolution of one species into another as is currently defined by science for the term species. This type of speciation relies heavily on genetic mutations caused by a host of different possible variables.
kind: usually refered to as a general group. Though not well defined, is close in understanding to the old definition for species.
Theory; an explaination of the machanics of what we observe.
Scientific method; this one throws me a bit because we can talk about what it is or we can talk about what it is suppose to be but you and I have already covered that.
razzelflabben said:I must have expressed that poorly, relying too much on the referenced site and not enough on my ideas of species. We were taught the old definition.
Actually I have found this true on both sides of the issue and why I am trying to encourage discussion rather than arguements.Edx said:
I once tried to "discuss". It becomes futile once you realise their faith means they have to obstinately stick to their beliefs no matter what evidence there is.
So are you saying that the only creationists are those who follow the ICR and/or AIG? I know of many in fact, most that I know do not hold to either of these groups. That would be like saying that the only way to find out how to drive a car is to talk to triple A.This is why ICR and AIG both have their followers accept a sworn statement that say that no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. That is not scientific.
A quick web search shows us reputable, well educated scientists that hold to the toc or id, I wonder why you only see the toc through the eyes of AIG or ICR? Are there only one or two organizations that all evolutionists belong too so we can compare their claims to all evolutionists?They say that but they have no postion. Their organizations are lying either way. Either they are lying about understanding what they are talking about, or they do know what they are talking about, but they are lying about science anyway. They are inherently unscientific as they have to sign statements that no amount of evidence will ever be good enough and swear that they will always believe that their literal interpretation is correct. If Creationists had any real scientific criticisms they wouldnt need to resort to misrepresentations and these antiscientific attitudes in order to make their arguments. Why do you think they dont submit to peer review? Its because they wont correct themselves. Its not a coincidence that there are no credible Creationists to be found anywhere.
I understand what you are saying, and I respect that opinion, but where I am differing in my opinion you don't seem to understand. What I understand about the term creation is that it means in essence to make. It does not specify who what when or where it was made. The who what when and wheres are reserved for the toc (not discussing whether or not it is scientific here, that is a discussion about scientific method and how the theory fits our understanding of scientific method). The toc deals with the mechanics and hypothesis, predictions, etc. That is how I understand the terms creation and the toc.You still arent understanding. For the non-Creationist Christian god created the universe like you would go about creating that book. Your actions to make the book are like the natural laws god uses, IE. Evolution for example. For the the Creationist, they believe you just poofed the book into existence out of nothing.
This is a totally false impression of the majority of creationists that I kmow. Could be the circles of people we talk to, the understandings of the words and ideas being spoken, the difference between communication and assumptions, or something else altogether. Interesting.No. There is no theory of Creation. Why do you keep calling it that? It isnt a scientific theory. It isnt even a theory since it isnt open to question, nor is it falsifiable. All "Creationism" is is a strict adherence to their literal interpretation and a refusal to ever change their mind. They use science because they are trying to pretend it holds more weight than blind faith, but they have to twist science because it simply does not support their beliefs. In short, "scientific Creationism, is just their attempt to make their literal interpretation taken seriously.
I know a lot of creationists that do not assert the idea that every answer is Goddidit. It seems to me that this is a common misunderstanding and miscommunication. We can wait and see what the creationists say on the issue.Creationists do apply magic to everything, they have to thats the point. They even start with the premise that Goddidit, but they first need to provide a scientific method for knowing if god exists before they do anything else. Of course they dont bother with that. Most of their time is spent twisting science like Kent Hovind, for lay people, that dont know any better. They are a odd curiosity just about everywhere accept America.
Actually not through magic, in fact, magic is viewed by many in the church as evil and Satanic (though not all see it that way) It is more accurate to say that it was spoken into existance, or that is was a divine act of creation, not magic and poof. The use of such words insight emotion and show little to no understanding for the ideas and thoughts being presented by the creationist.Sure. But not the way you told it. Creation doesnt have to be unnatural, which is what most Christians think. Creationism is a belief god did it through magic - "poof!".
Hummmmmm.....not my any definition I have seen for thoery other than scientific theory of which I have a couple of so far unanswered questions still waiting for explaination on. I do not see anything in the actual defintion that leaves the toc not as a scientific theory though I do not think it scientific, I find it unscientific for other reasons that how it fits the definition for scientific theory.They can call it a theory if they want to, but it is neither scientific nor a theory. They know this, and that is why none of them are credible.
Interesting, I have never seen this being said by the creationists. Very interesting.For Christians that accept evolution, which is most of them, to them Evolution IS the theory of Creation. Because to them that is HOW God Created. To them what science shows is how to interpret the Bible. So if it was unclear how to interpret Geneis before, science cleared that up by showing that it was wrong to interpret literally. YECs proved the earth was old before Darwin wrote Origins, and changed their minds. Its only todays obstinate Creationists that insist science must be wrong, and lie to people that you cant be a real Christian if you dont have the same interpretation as them.
Ed
Unless you examine the evidence provided, you can not know how much weight to put on the opinion. That is why communication on the issue is vital. Many creationist are walking around debating evolutionists without ever knowing what the evolutionist believes. At the same time, many evolutionists go around argueing creationist without ever understanding what the creationist believes. This is a total lack of communication and doesn't get us anywhere. Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition) not what the organizations tell you, or what the evolutionist tells you to believe, but what the creationist actually believes and make it a bit more challenging, why do they say they believe what they do (the number one arguement against the toe).Edx said:Not all opinions are worth the same. If I tell you I can fly, and you say I cant, whose opinion is worth more?
Creationism is inherently scientific because they posit things that cannot be known, tested, observed or evidenced in any way. Theres nothing to show and nothing to know. They have already made up their minds, and sign statments that no evidence will sway them - yet this alone renders them inherently unscientific.
Why? That wasnt my point. If your evidence for god is good enough for you thats fine, but if it isnt objective then it isnt any better than any other religious person that tells me that have this "personal evidence" about their God or belief.
Ed
Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition)
Emphasis addedrazzelflabben said:Even if we specify creation to be the world and/or life, we have not addressed the who what when and wheres. As I understand the words, the theory of creation is where those things are addressed and as I understand it, that is the machanics of the creation of the world/life. This is the differences I see between the words creation and the theory of creation.
God has evidenced himself to us.
it is apparent that you have no idea. I can show you through additional websites where the criteria for scientific method is followed by the toc. Yet you deny that it exists, that is your opinion and I have nothing to say to you other than that evidence esists that would be to the contrary of your opinions.
I asked you to define religion because I have never heard of a claim that creationism is religion before. I have never known of anyone worshiping creation, though I guess it happens, or that claims that accepting creationism will get you to heaven, narvana, paradise, etc. Which is usually a part of the religous experience. So either we understand religion differently or our communication is not effective.
Can anyone show me the religion of creationism?
where do you go to meetings for such a religion?
Who leads it, it there a priest, pastor, scientist, lay, leader?
What resource do they use to guide them through life?
Now, let's step back a moment, the definition of species has changed, so for me to ask someone which definition they hold to is changing the consistance in science how?
razzelflabben said:Yes this is my broad understanding of the toc. For specifics, we would need a new thread.
I have talked about my understand of the words evolution, toe, creation, toc, let's see, what other words did I include on the list.
theory of creation: the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)
To me evidence is either hard or soft. Hard evidence be directly observed, where as soft evidence is like circumstancial, it need explaination or interpretation in order to link it to the original theory.
speciation: The evolution of one species into another as is currently defined by science for the term species. This type of speciation relies heavily on genetic mutations caused by a host of different possible variables.
kind: usually refered to as a general group. Though not well defined, is close in understanding to the old definition for species.
Theory; an explaination of the machanics of what we observe.
Scientific method; this one throws me a bit because we can talk about what it is or we can talk about what it is suppose to be but you and I have already covered that.
So again I am asking you if by this you are saying that creationists always rely on the Goddidit idea and since we cannot falsify there being a God, then the theory is unscientific? This is what it sounds like you are saying, but I don't want to read into what you are saying and make assumptions as to your understandings.Physics_guy said:They are not testable because there exists no possible result of any test that would falsify any supernatural explanation.
The claim is that there are testable predictions. Now, to claim God did it dispite the observations would most certainly fall into this catagory of not scientific, however, there are also most certainly creationists that do not rely on the God did it answer to every question presented. In fact, equating the creationist mindset to the religious, the bible tells us to study and search for answers to the questions we have about the world around us. If the christian does this, he must also be willing to accept the answers that he finds. This claim, from a biblical theology understanding would not be made if the observaitons would disagree and as to my study, I have not seen observations that falsify the toc as put forth in the book of gen. I have seen many things that do not line up with the traditional creationist so before jumping to a conclusion about what I believe, listen to what I am saying. I have yet to see scientific observations that falsify the toc as put forth in Gen. Nothing more nothing less for this part of the discussion.As long as it is not a potentially falsifiable test (i.e. one in which some result of the test would falsify the hypothesis) it is not a testable claim. Supernatural explanations are consistent with all possible test results - therefore, they provide you with no answers whatsoever.
Not always.The problem is that creationism does not have tests like this. Any data that is not consistent with observation is explained by supernatural intervention. For example: the numerous problems caused by the concept of a worldwide flood (heat released from that much water falling, pressure, where the water went, etc) are simply glossed over with appeals to supernatural intervention. Therefore, even if it is true, we learn nothing from the hypothesis - we can't use it to make any predictions about wha we would find in the geological record nor can any technology be developed.
I have given my understanding for bothDon't take this the wrong way but, if you believe this then you likely do not know much about either science or the theory of evolution.
I spoke about my belief that a theory about our history is not scientific in nature. The history of how we can to be is not empirical by nature, it is historical. To study and theorize how our world evolves, is changing, will change, is scientific in nature. I have even read evolutionist papers that talk about our inability to go back in time, or sciences inability to know history. So I voice this idea and I am told I don't understand what science is. What makes my opinion unscientific when the same opinion voiced by a scientist is scientific understanding?I think you need to learn a little bit more about what science actually is before you make these pronouncements.
razzelflabben said:edx said:For Christians that accept evolution, which is most of them, to them Evolution IS the theory of Creation. Because to them that is HOW God Created. To them what science shows is how to interpret the Bible. So if it was unclear how to interpret Geneis before, science cleared that up by showing that it was wrong to interpret literally. YECs proved the earth was old before Darwin wrote Origins, and changed their minds. Its only todays obstinate Creationists that insist science must be wrong, and lie to people that you cant be a real Christian if you dont have the same interpretation as them.
Ed
Interesting, I have never seen this being said by the creationists. Very interesting.
razzelflabben said:Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition) not what the organizations tell you, or what the evolutionist tells you to believe, but what the creationist actually believes and make it a bit more challenging, why do they say they believe what they do (the number one arguement against the toe).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?