Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Hey there Malachi,

    Are you totally insane, utterly idiotic, or are you just pretending to be both? The quote that you said was "exact" is not exact at all. It doesn't mention any "dot" that began "spinning."

    Quote #1: "Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

    Quote #2: Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.

    You say that quote #1 is exactly the same as quote #2?
    Hello Richard. I shall start by APOLOGISING for my lack of clarity in my retort. That is my mistake. However, I did not AT ALL say that the two quotes were "exactly the same." When I wrote, "This is straight out of a highschool textbook," I was referring to the teaching of the spinning dot theory that was in MY highschool textbook. It's not an exact quote, (my apologies for not explaining that) It is paraphrase of my remembrance of what was taught in MY highschool textbook, back in 1990. And I remember it well because the whole idea was utterly obsurd to me (as apparently it is to you), and it lead to MANY lengthy discussions inside and outside of the classroom. And from MY textbook, it was taught that there was a "spinning" dot... etc, etc. Now, I assumed because I was taught this from the curriculum, (I live in Canada by the way, perhaps that should be noted) that it was taught in other curriculums across North America, and the world as well. So it never crossed my mind that you would desire an "exact quote," as I believed it to be a common teaching of the big bang theory. But when you responded with:
    "It came from an idiotic page called The Big Bang and the Bible. This was easy to discover. I started by searching for all occurrences of the ludicrous assertion that "This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded". I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and I've never once seen a textbook. let alone a real scientist, say anything like that. It is moronic. Stupid beyond words. The product of total ignorance. So there is good reason to think it came from a Bible believer,"
    I was forced to find a reference, as I no longer have my Grade 10 highschool textbook. The first reference that I instantly found on google (that you apparently couldn't find??) that put forth the "exploding dot" theory was the "quote #2" as you have dubbed it. And in that particular textbook, you're correct, it does not say that the dot was "spinning," nor therefore that the spin "accelerated." And it says "period at the end of the page" instead of "dot."

    Therefore, there is no need to answer you question about "spinning" because you have not shown that any scientists have ever said anything about a "spinning dot" in relation to the Big Bang.

    --AND--

    They are not "clearly taught" in the textbook you quoted! There is no mention of any dot spinning. How could you write such blatantly fallacious bullshit? I just don't get it.
    You're right Richard, I do not have a reference to "prove" to you that the textbook(s) taught that the dot was "spinning." But the reference I have given IS from a textbook, and it does in fact put forth the "exploding dot" theory(can we please agree that "dot" and "period at the end of the page" are synonymous?) which states that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny dot, which exploded, thus the big bang. The fact is, whether the dot was spinning or not (like it really matters)...it still begs the question:
    1. Where did the dot come from?
    2. What caused it to explode?
    3. How could all of the matter in the known universe, possibly be contained in such a small space to begin with???

    But as I can see that you clearly reject the "exploding dot" theory (wow, we are in total agreement for once, praise God!) the extremely obvious questions still remain:
    where did energy come from?
    where did matter come from?
    what caused the big bang?
    how do you possibly get life from non-life?

    And worse - it is utterly moronic for you to think you could refute astrophysics by misquoting a few sentences of a poorly written and entirely inaccurate description in a high school textbook! You have to deal with what the scientists actually have said.
    Is it my fault the textbooks have misinformation in them??? Do not evolutionists and scientists contribute to what goes into these "science" textbooks? I can assure you creationists don't. So if its not (evolutionary) scientists putting this information in the textbooks, then who is it? If this is not what (evolutionary) scientists have "acutally said," then why is it in the textbooks? Now its been 20 years since I've grazed the hallways and classrooms of my highschool, but if I remember correctly, I was taught to believe that it was the study and findings of "scientists" that went into my "science" textbooks. No?

    I can't believe how much error and falsehood is contained in your post. You say that Eric Lyons is an astrophysicist? Where did you get that idea? Here is what he says about himself (you can find this by clicking on his name on the The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist):[INDENT]Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min. Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. Eric currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press, where he has worked for the past 12 years.
    For those reading, Richard here is referring to my quote:
    "Here is also a post from an article titled "The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist"(2007)written by astro-physicist Eric Lyons, referencing the exact same textbook!"

    My apologies Richard, this mistake is a TOTAL mis-type on my part. I did not at all intend to insert that Eric Lyons was an astrophysicist. He is not. And I know (and knew) that. It should have just read, "written by Eric Lyons." I referenced the article, because Eric gives further evidence that the "exploding dot" theory is not only just taught in highschool textbooks, but that it is still held and taught by influencial evolutionists, or at least by Peter Coles, (professor of Theoretical Astrophysics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University) who wrote an article titled "Boomtime" for the March 3rd, 2007 "New Scientist" magazine. In that article, Peter Coles explains his belief in the "instant inflation" of the universe (blah, blah, blah) right after the big bang, stating: "Without it the universe would still fit on a pinhead, yet this crucial event remains an enigma." (New Scientist, Volume 193, Issue 2593, 3 March 2007, Pages 33-37)

    A "dot", a "period at the end of a page," a "pinhead" -all synonymous references to what evolutionists believe to be the size of the universe prior to the big bang. Peter Coles is a well known and highly respected scientist in the field of evolution today. So don't tell me its not taught, because it is. Are you seriously denying the fact that evolutionists have put forth the theory that all the matter in the universe was once condensed into a tiny little ball, that went bang???

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by malachigreenidge View Post
    Hello Richard. I shall start by APOLOGISING for my lack of clarity in my retort. That is my mistake.
    Apology accepted! I respect people who admit mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by malachigreenidge View Post
    You're right Richard, I do not have a reference to "prove" to you that the textbook(s) taught that the dot was "spinning." But the reference I have given IS from a textbook, and it does in fact put forth the "exploding dot" theory(can we please agree that "dot" and "period at the end of the page" are synonymous?) which states that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny dot, which exploded, thus the big bang. The fact is, whether the dot was spinning or not (like it really matters)...it still begs the question:
    1. Where did the dot come from?
    2. What caused it to explode?
    3. How could all of the matter in the known universe, possibly be contained in such a small space to begin with???
    The "dot" did not "explode". Space expanded.

    If you want to challenge the science of astrophysics, you need to quote what the theory actually states.

    Let's begin:

    1) Do you challenge the fact that the universe is expanding? This is one of the most firmly established facts of science.

    2) Do you challenge Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity? Here they are:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png 
Views:	53 
Size:	1.2 KB 
ID:	1004

    These equations have been confirmed by many experiments. They explain why the universe is expanding.

    These are some of the facts that have led astrophysicists to conclude that the universe began in a singularity that expanded, called the "Big Bang". If you want to challenge this theory, you need to challenge the facts that support it.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post


    The "dot" did not "explode". Space expanded.
    Wow, you're really splitting hairs here with the terminology Richard, and avoiding the question at hand. It amazes me that you still neglect to answer ANY of my questions, yet you proceed to ask questions of me. You have not answered a SINGLE question I have asked. How is that a discussion?
    The fact is, in the alleged big bang theory, space "expanded" faster than any "explosion" man has ever measured here on earth. So I'm going to assume the "science textbook" used this term to create a mental picture for its students, so they could fathom the idea of the rate of that expansion. Probably the same reason why the textbook used the term "dot" to describe the alleged size of the universe too. Because the reality is that evolutionists actually believe the universe was a"sub-atomic sized dense point" to start, which is actually smaller than a "dot, like the period at the end of this page," now isn't it?
    And was that sub-atomic sized dense matter spinning? Well, yes it was according to some evolutionists.

    "The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...-born-spinning

    So Like I said before, if its bad science, (which it is) its not my science. Its in the textbooks, and "science" magazines, written by "scientists," which I have proven here, and in my previous posts.
    But REGARDLESS of whether you call it "explosion" or "expansion," you STILL have not answered my question. So let me spell it out for you again, in a language that hopefully satisfies you

    1. Where did that singularity come from? Why or what caused it to be there in the first place?
    2. What caused space to expand? (formerly, what caused the dot to explode?)
    3. Where did the energy come from to cause that "sub-atomic sized ball of mass" to expand "faster than the speed of light"???

    WILL RICHARD ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS THIS TIME?
    We shall see! Either way, I will still answer his questions.

    1) Do you challenge the fact that the universe is expanding? This is one of the most firmly established facts of science.
    No I do not challenge this. Whether it is still expanding or not, has no bearing on how the universe started.

    2) Do you challenge Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity? Here they are:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png 
Views:	53 
Size:	1.2 KB 
ID:	1004
    Again, no, I don't challenge this either.

    These equations have been confirmed by many experiments. They explain why the universe is expanding.
    I'm not contending about the expansion of the universe, I'm contending about its conception. I believe the universe and all that is in it was the purposeful planning and work of a loving Creator, who is God. You believe it was the random, chance happening of the big bang, with no creative power or person behind it. Both theories require expansion, because both theories contend that there was less than there is now.

    These are some of the facts that have led astrophysicists to conclude that the universe began in a singularity that expanded, called the "Big Bang". If you want to challenge this theory, you need to challenge the facts that support it.
    (emphasis mine)

    Singularity? - "The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly explode in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe."
    Wall, Mike (21 October 2011). "The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?". The History & Future of the Cosmos. Space.com. Retrieved April 16, 2012.

    Notice how Mr. Mike Wall said "explode" instead of "expand?" You might want to send him an email to correct him on that Richard, like you did me. But I find it uncanny how his definition sounds synonomous to my original postings (which you beraded me for by saying, and I quote: "how could you write such blatantly fallicious bullshit"). The only difference is that the highschool textbooks dumbed down the terminology for the average North American 15 year old mind. The concepts are the exact same though. Here they are again for your comparison

    Quote (paraphrase)#1: "Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

    Quote #2: "Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded."

    "The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density (dot OR period on this page) thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations (spinning)caused it to rapidly explode (ummm..expand?) in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe."
    - Mike Wall, PHd. Evolutionary Biology, Senior writer of Space.com
    Last edited by malachigreenidge; 11-28-2013 at 01:46 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by malachigreenidge View Post
    Wow, you're really splitting hairs here with the terminology Richard,
    Good morning Malachi,

    Precision with language is the primary prerequisite for clear thinking. It is the principal sign of a principled mind. It is essential for any meaningful discussion of science and philosophy. I agree with Voltaire, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

    Quote Originally Posted by malachigreenidge View Post
    and avoiding the question at hand. It amazes me that you still neglect to answer ANY of my questions, yet you proceed to ask questions of me. You have not answered a SINGLE question I have asked. How is that a discussion?
    I am not avoiding answering your questions. I was just establishing a necessary foundation for meaningful discourse. I needed to know if you were rejecting the two fundamental scientific facts from which the theory of the Big Bang is derived, namely:

    1) The expansion of the universe.

    2) Einstein's Field Equations.

    And now that you have indicated that you do not challenge the scientific foundation of the Big Bang, your title of this thread is exposed as absurd. You said that the theory was "not science" and now you say that you agree with the science that supports it. Your thinking appears to be grossly confused and inconsistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by malachigreenidge View Post
    The fact is, in the alleged big bang theory, space "expanded" faster than any "explosion" man has ever measured here on earth. So I'm going to assume the "science textbook" used this term to create a mental picture for its students, so they could fathom the idea of the rate of that expansion. Probably the same reason why the textbook used the term "dot" to describe the alleged size of the universe too. Because the reality is that evolutionists actually believe the universe was a"sub-atomic sized dense point" to start, which is actually smaller than a "dot, like the period at the end of this page," now isn't it?
    And was that sub-atomic sized dense matter spinning? Well, yes it was according to some evolutionists.

    "The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...-born-spinning

    So Like I said before, if its bad science, (which it is) its not my science. Its in the textbooks, and "science" magazines, written by "scientists," which I have proven here, and in my previous posts.
    But REGARDLESS of whether you call it "explosion" or "expansion," you STILL have not answered my question. So let me spell it out for you again, in a language that hopefully satisfies you

    1. Where did that singularity come from? Why or what caused it to be there in the first place?
    2. What caused space to expand? (formerly, what caused the dot to explode?)
    3. Where did the energy come from to cause that "sub-atomic sized ball of mass" to expand "faster than the speed of light"???

    WILL RICHARD ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS THIS TIME?
    We shall see! Either way, I will still answer his questions.
    Now you are repeating your rejection of the science that you said you do not reject. Your thinking is grossly confused and inconsistent.

    Also, you seem very confused about the relevance of the analogical language used in high school text books. Such language is utterly irrelevant to any serious, mature, informed discussion of science. The analogies are not sufficiently accurate to be used as an argument against the actual science. If you want to challenge the real science, you need to fully engage the real science, which means you need to understand that the concept of the singularity logically follows from the evidence of 1) the expansion and 2) Einstein's Field Equations. You have not challenged the evidence that implies the singularity, so it is absurd for you to challenge the singularity. Now in answer to your questions:

    1) No one knows where the singularity came from, but that's totally irrelevant as to whether there was one or not. The fact that science cannot tell us where atoms "come from" says absolutely nothing about the validity of atomic theory! Your question is nothing but typical creationist rhetoric void of any meaning.

    2) I've already answered this question.

    3) No one knows where anything "came from" and you can't legitimately argue for your god from such ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by malachigreenidge View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    1) Do you challenge the fact that the universe is expanding? This is one of the most firmly established facts of science.
    No I do not challenge this. Whether it is still expanding or not, has no bearing on how the universe started.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    2) Do you challenge Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity? Here they are:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png 
Views:	53 
Size:	1.2 KB 
ID:	1004
    Again, no, I don't challenge this either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    These equations have been confirmed by many experiments. They explain why the universe is expanding.
    I'm not contending about the expansion of the universe, I'm contending about its conception. I believe the universe and all that is in it was the purposeful planning and work of a loving Creator, who is God. You believe it was the random, chance happening of the big bang, with no creative power or person behind it. Both theories require expansion, because both theories contend that there was less than there is now.
    You have explicitly agreed with the scientific foundation of the Theory of the Big Bang. The existence of the initial singularity follows from those scientific facts. Indeed, it has been mathematically proven by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem. Therefore, your primary assertion that it is "not science" is demonstrably false and directly contrary to your own words.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    The Signs of God's Existence

    Is the Big Bang totally a joke, or can the Big Bang be an explanation for the existence of God?

    I recently watched the following video on Youtube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

    The video is around 12 months old. I stumbled on it without intentionally looking for videos on the subject. The video is 1 hour 58 minutes long. The start of the video mentions the Big Bang. The Big Bang can explain the origin of matter; not spontaneously without intelligence, but due to intelligence.

    This is one of the pieces of evidence put forward for the existence of God.

    The intelligent design argument to support the existence of God, co0ntinues to be hotly debated. The video explains how there has to be a cause for anything to happen. The cause eventually has to be credited to God, the intelligence behind the Universe.


    David

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131

    God's responsibility

    God's responsibility:
    Does God have a responsibility to prove himself?
    Is there some reason why it is not clear to everyone exactly what is going on?
    If it were clear, there would be no need to debate.
    One could argue that God has already done that, But if people still don't get it then the job has not been completed.
    One could argue that free will would be some how violated if God made everything clear enough that we could understand what is going on.
    What is my responsibility?
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico View Post
    God's responsibility:
    Does God have a responsibility to prove himself?
    Is there some reason why it is not clear to everyone exactly what is going on?
    If it were clear, there would be no need to debate.
    One could argue that God has already done that, But if people still don't get it then the job has not been completed.
    One could argue that free will would be some how violated if God made everything clear enough that we could understand what is going on.
    What is my responsibility?
    Hello Rick

    You make a good point. The responsibility is mine to understand God's word. God's responsibility has been discharged. God has revealed his intention. God's plan and purpose has been revealed.

    What makes God's plan less clear, is if we listen to other people who are deliberately muddying the waters. Some people are outright deceivers. Some people are into religion for the money to be made from it. With so much corruption in some churches that has been exposed, we wonder why anyone would continue to attend a similar church. Are people like sheep being led astray? People are like sheep and easily lead. Some people are lead by their own thoughts and those thoughts lead other people to follow. Our focus is to be on the word of God and let God's word lead us. Jesus was a lamb and was also the shepherd. Does that sound like a paradox, or can that easily be explained?

    We are to follow Jesus. Peter had his own thoughts about Jesus not dying and so Jesus put Peter in his place and said; "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. It is men's ideas which are causing a lot of confusion. It would be better to say; "I do not understand .." and have no opinion, than to come up with false ideas that get promulgated.

    This reply should not be in this thread, since this debate should form part of a more appropriate thread dealing with the topic. Man's reasoning alone is prone failure; Eve demonstrated that from the beginning and in 6,000 years, that has not changed. God makes his judgement. God is consistent in all his ways. God is righteous. It is the failure of man to see that. It is man who is unrighteous and makes himself imperfect. God uses the imperfect to prove to those who will have spiritual eyes to see, that God is in control and has a plan to save those who are acceptable to him. Those not acceptable to him, can remain acceptable to the world. That is the world we are told not to be part of and to be separate from. The question we should ask of ourselves is this; Who do I identify with?

    Those who want to remain blind to God's message will do so. The Bible tells us that they are "willing ignorant". There is no changing anyone who is "willing ignorant". It is the same as their heart is sufficiently hardened, that their heart will not soften and they will not to listen and hear the word of God speaking to them. That accounts for why there is so much evil and wickedness in the world and it is man's fault.


    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 01-06-2014 at 05:37 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rick
    This reply should not be in this thread, since this debate should form part of a more appropriate thread dealing with the topic.
    Man's reasoning alone is prone failure; Eve demonstrated that from the beginning and in 6,000 years, that has not changed.

    Those who want to remain blind to God's message will do so. .
    Eve demonstrated that [failure] from the beginning??.
    Caught my eye, David, how you insist on blaming Eve despite evidence of Adam's treachery and iniquity (Hos6:7 and Job31:33).
    We have a 2nd Adam, so why not a "2nd Eve" ? hah Though it isn't a complete white-wash, because of the Jezebel's still to be found..
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Dux

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Eve demonstrated that [failure] from the beginning??.
    Caught my eye, David, how you insist on blaming Eve despite evidence of Adam's treachery and iniquity (Hos6:7 and Job31:33).
    Eve was the one who was deceived. She was the one who ate first.

    The Genesis record does not say Adam deceived Eve, and I have not found support from anywhere else in scripture to confirm Adam did what you say.

    Hosea 6:7 sounds like a general reference to men (inclusive of women). That is what I usually mean in general terms when I speak of "man" or "men"; that includes women.

    Re Job 31:33 Do you think Adam was responsible for making Eve hide with him? Do you think Eve would have hidden herself, had it not been for Adam hiding first?

    Adam's fall was greater. He was rebuked by God for; "hearkening unto thy wife" Adam followed Eve's lead. Adam did not stop to reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    We have a 2nd Adam, so why not a "2nd Eve" ? hah Though it isn't a complete white-wash, because of the Jezebel's still to be found..
    We have the new man. We have the perfect man. We have the righteous man. These are all seen in the man; Jesus. That is what makes Jesus unique in being the only begotten Son of God; no daughter to fill the role of the perfect human.

    The righteous man (including woman) is the person God wants to dwell with in his Kingdom. Christ is already there in the presence of God, having gone through the transformation process. The harvest of believers and followers, making up the righteous, will follow at the resurrection.

    That is how I see it.

    All the best
    David

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    HELP, Richard, or anyone.. - Do you remember? The two words 'deceived' in 1Tim2:14, I learned were apatao and exapatao (greatly deceived). Now searching Blue Letter Bible doesn't confirm, and I'm beginning to think some earlier Bible references have been dropped since the NIV times. To me, at the time, it seemed that Eve was deceived by BOTH the serpent and her husband.

    Similar to the way Christian phrases are no longer to be found in modern dictionaries.
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •