Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…7071737576…78

Comments

  • #2162
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Saganist quoted:-

    Quote:-


    ... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.
    [/B].


    There is no ban on any type of evidence being presented.

    But, when a claim such as a God is argued, the court or the scientific method will demand that that claim meet it's burden of proof. It's had thousands of years to do so. Yet never has. And it never will.

    I like you posted a clip of "expelled".. A Bein Stein creation I think. What a fool that fella is.

    At the end of the day. Science is able to produce real life applications that improve human life on an on-going basis.

    Please let me know what application ID has led to or is currently working on ?

    I already know the answer, but please let me know what scientific applications ID is currently working on that will lead to a real life application that can benefit people in the future.


  • #2163
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    ... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
    ... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

    Which is any different than God creating himself how? you can't use the nothing can come from nothing argument then have a god who appeared from nothing.

    Without the bible ID falls apart, you know this, you just won't admit it.


  • #2164
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Evolution claims absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe or life. Are you sure you're a qualified scientist?

    JC is as much of a scientist as I am, none at all. At this point it's plain as day he's just a fruit loop and a liar, it just keeps getting funnier though.


  • #2165
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    CBT could probably help your OCD with CFSI. :):):)...
    Big fan of your work,btw, trigger words like pondslime, m2m etc keep the posts rolling in until you're sated, rinse and repeat every day for 9 years.
    Different strokes for different folk and all that.


  • #2166
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Plenty of scientists are religious FFS. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    They may be religious ... but they are operating under rules that limit science to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

    Science therefore must be Atheistic under its own rules, to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... and there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

    ... Science is a 'creature of Atheism' when it comes to investigation our 'origins' and anything it says about Evolution, Abiogenesis or the origins of the Universe needs to be tempered by this reality.

    ... and 93% of the National Academy of Science are reputedly Atheists ... which means that anything that this 'august body' may say about 'origins' science research needs to be tempered by this reality as well.


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    J C wrote: »
    They may be religious ... but they are operating under rules that limit science to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

    Science therefore must be Atheistic under its own rules, to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... and there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

    ... Science is a 'creature of Atheism' when it comes to investigation our 'origins' and anything it says about Evolution, Abiogenesis or the origins of the Universe needs to be tempered by this reality.

    For the third time, what "logical and physical evidence"? feel free to keep ignoring me but honestly I can ask all day because...well thats what Sundays are for, slating unfounded claims of the existence of anthropomorphic personifications and all the psudo-science related to said ridiculous claims.


  • #2168
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    They may be religious ... but they are operating under rules that limit science to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

    Science therefore must be Atheistic under its own rules, to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... and there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

    ... Science is a 'creature of Atheism' when it comes to investigation our 'origins' and anything it says about Evolution, Abiogenesis or the origins of the Universe needs to be tempered by this reality.

    You just counter argued yourself there, equally ID must be based on the bible by it's own rules, as the science behind it doesn't add up without it. (well it doesn't add up either way but still).

    Do you think all evolutionary scientists are just out to get people like yourself and Dembski? or are they merely using proper science not pseudo guff to prove their theories. There was a good show about Creationism on BBC a while back where they put in simpletons terms (for the Creationists) why Creationism just simply doesn't make sense. I realise deep down you know it too but just don't want to back down from something you've spent years arguing for but hey

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug


    The bit at 8.30 is priceless, geologist states flood water simply couldn't have caused the Grand Canyon. Norn Iron idiot Creationist asks if he's ever read any Creationist literature "Oh I've read them but I don't count them as scientists" Norn Iron idiot looks like he's just found out there's no Santa :pac:


  • #2169
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    JC is as much of a scientist as I am, none at all. At this point it's plain as day he's just a fruit loop and a liar, it just keeps getting funnier though.
    I'm a fully qualified conventional scientist ... but, as I'm not an atheist, and I no longer believe that life had a natural cause, this disqualifies me from doing 'origins' research within conventional science ... so myself and my fellow Creation Scientists and ID Proponents do our research of necessity outside of conventional science.
    It has the full status of conventional 'origins' research' ... just with the Atheist-bias removed.:)

    ... and the fact that you (and practically every other Evolutionist poster on this thread) thinks that name-calling qualifies as evidence that I am wrong and you are right says something very profound about the intellectual bankruptcy of Evolutionism.
    If evolution was valid then surely the evidence would be presented every time it's validity is challenged ... and not just handwaving and name-calling.


  • #2170
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a fully qualified conventional scientist ... but, as I'm not an atheist, and I no longer believe that life had a natural cause, this disqualifies me from doing 'origins' research within conventional science ... so myself and my fellow Creation Scientists and ID Proponents do our research of necessity outside of conventional science.
    It has the full status of conventional 'origins' research' ... just with the Atheist-bias removed.:)

    So what new application are you and your fella ID'ers working on ?


  • #2171
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Why do you keep harping on about abiogenesis and the origin of the universe in a thread about evolution?
    Evolution and Abiogenesis are both part of the Atheist ... and, surprise, surprise ... the conventional science explanation for the origins of life and its diversity.


  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a fully qualified conventional scientist ... but, as I'm not an atheist, and I no longer believe that life had a natural cause, this disqualifies me from doing 'origins' research within conventional science ... so myself and my fellow Creation Scientists and ID Proponents do our research of necessity outside of conventional science.
    It has the full status of conventional 'origins' research' ... just with the Atheist-bias removed.:)

    Yet you won't post your credentials, if you're not doing any research within the confines of conventional science your job isn't at risk. More lies.

    There's no atheist bias in science, something is either a fact or it isn't the lack of a belief of a god or gods has nothing to do with gravity or physics or any other measurable basic scientific principle.
    There is Christian bias in Creationism, failure to see that makes you look pretty stupid. No bible, no Creationism. It's that simple.


  • #2173
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Again with the strawman. Evolution=/=atheism=/=an explanation of the origins of life.

    Evolution is a theory that explains how life changes over time.

    Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.

    The two are not connected. Compatible, yes, but not interlinked.

    I think we could tell him that till the end of time and he'll still say it is.

    It's a case of putting fingers in ears and going *la la la la la, I can't hear you*


  • #2174
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a fully qualified conventional scientist ... but, as I'm not an atheist, and I no longer believe that life had a natural cause, this disqualifies me from doing 'origins' research within conventional science ... so myself and my fellow Creation Scientists and ID Proponents do our research of necessity outside of conventional science.
    It has the full status of conventional 'origins' research' ... just with the Atheist-bias removed.:)

    If thats the case then any theories or research you put forward will be flawed and, more importantly, utter rubbish. If you had any decency you'd go into whatever organization you work for tomorrow and just submit a piece of paper with the words "A Wizard did it" on it and save them some money that they could give to a real scientist.


  • #2175
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    What's so bad about posting your credentials? I'm currently studying for a BSc in Computer Science and Software Engineering at NUI Maynooth/Maynooth University. I doubt anyone bar a couple of people from the NUIM board can name me just by studying my Boards posts.


  • #2176
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    What's so bad about posting your credentials? I'm currently studying for a BSc in Computer Science and Software Engineering at NUI Maynooth/Maynooth University. I doubt anyone bar a couple of people from the NUIM board can name me just by studying my Boards posts.

    It's pretty clear he has zero scientific credentials, but he's lied about it so much now he can't back down.


  • #2177
    splitcro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27 ✭splitcro


    lanomist wrote: »
    just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

    Apes are still out there because they are nicer then people..and Darwins theory doesnt say that people evolved from monkeys but both from the same gren gren pa..:-)


  • #2178
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's pretty clear he has zero scientific credentials, but he's lied about it so much now he can't back down.

    I've also asked him a number of times to explain what new applications ID/Creationism is working on and how they are going to benefit society.

    Silence so far.... *la la la la la la*


  • #2179
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote:

    The bit at 8.30 is priceless, geologist states flood water simply couldn't have caused the Grand Canyon. Norn Iron idiot Creationist asks if he's ever read any Creationist literature "Oh I've read them but I don't count them as scientists" Norn Iron idiot looks like he's just found out there's no Santa
    Firstly, the 'Norn Iron Idiot' as you so outrageously refer to him, is a qualified Barrister ... so I would go easy on such unfounded prejudicial statements about an identifiable individual, if I were you.

    Secondly, the fact that Phil recognizes and respects the geologist as a qualified geologist ... but the geologist doesn't recognize other equally and conventionally qualified geologists, simply because they are Creationists say that the Atheist dominance of science has gone too far.


  • #2180
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Respect isn't a two-way street in science - you earn it through backing up your work with evidence and sound reasoning.


  • #2181
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    Firstly, the 'Norn Iron Idiot' as you so outrageously refer to him, is a qualified Barrister ... so I would go easy on such unfounded prejudicial statements about an identifiable individual, if I were you.

    Secondly, the fact that Phil recognizes and respects the geologist as a qualified geologist ... but the geologist doesn't recognize other equally and conventionally qualified geologists, simply because they are Creationists say that the Atheist dominance of science has gone too far ... and in the interest of equality, it now need to be seriously looked at.

    You're just being a small minded twat now.

    I've seen the documentary, Phil comes across as a really dishonest person during the course of the trip. I could care less that he's a Barrister, doesn't take away the from the fact that he comes across as a closed minded fool.

    There is no way that the Grand Canyon could have been caused by a "Flood". The geologist explains that, Phil disagrees, then puts forward his "scientists" to which the geologist says that he's listened to them, but doesn't class what they do as science.

    Why ?

    Because it's not science. Simple as that.


  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    Firstly, the 'Norn Iron Idiot' as you so outrageously refer to him, is a qualified Barrister ... so I would go easy on such unfounded prejudicial statements about an identifiable individual, if I were you.

    Secondly, the fact that Phil recognizes and respects the geologist as a qualified geologist ... but the geologist doesn't recognize other equally and conventionally qualified geologists, simply because they are Creationists say that the Atheist dominance of science has gone too far ... and in the interest of equality, it now need to be seriously looked at.

    Mmm, no, the geologist doesnt recognise them because they're not proper geologists, anyone who takes a basic principle like how flood water acts i.e something that can be measured and viewed, and then tries to explain that god just made it act differently that one time, isn't a scientist.

    Again you're more preoccupied with hand wringing and crybaby antics than addressing any points, you're a joke.

    That guy Phil is a notorious windbag, I wouldn't put it past you knowing him in real life either :pac: Not sure what him being a barrister has to do with anything?

    You can claim there's an Atheist dominance to science if you want, it just makes you look even more pathetic than you currently do, since you wont back up ANYTHING you say.


  • #2183
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Exactly, these people seem to think you can just walk around saying 'I'm a scientist' as if that has any kind of weight to it.

    One time I had a science kit and nearly set fire to my mother's carpet. I'm a scientist.


  • #2184
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,923 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    J C wrote: »
    Here is the scientific basis for ID ... while it may point towards the existence of God (not very surprising when He exists and Created life) ... it is exclusively scientifically and evidentially based.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

    Look, no matter how many times you post this, it will never be true.

    So please, stop.


  • #2185
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    ... and has an a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour.

    Hilarious!

    Definition: A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience. Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."

    That is exactly how you do "science".

    Everyone else in the [scientific] world is wrong because god!


  • #2186
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,923 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    J C wrote: »
    I could equally say that because God exists it is insane to not believe He exists ... but, as I'm tolerant of diversity of opinion and believe in tackling the belief and not the believer, I wouldn't do so.
    ... and it would add nothing to the debate, just like your insults also detract from whatever point you are trying to make.
    ... and your foul mouth does nothing for your case, either.:(


    Here is the logical, evidentially backed basis for ID ... you may deny it but you cannot disprove it.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

    ... are there any more unfounded names that you would like to call me?
    I used be an evolutionist ... I evaluated the evidence and I scientifically concluded that M2M Evolution was invalid and ID is valid.
    ... and as a man of integrity, I have published my conclusions ... for anybody that likes to invalidate.
    ... and all I have received in return, is plenty of nasty personalised name-calling that would do justice to any school-yard bully ... but no invalidation of my hypothesis.


    The killing and the general denial of Human Rights all happened in the name of atheism (and ironically also in the name of 'Reason' and the 'Rights of Man') in the French Revolution ... and the blood-letting reached it's peak with the Atheistic Communists of the 20th Century as they tried to the build a world without God or religion.
    They literally killed people to 'free' society from religion ... while gleefully ignoring the fact that they held an equally human-invented idea that there is no God. They also destroyed churches or turned them into 'Museums of Atheism'. This cathedral in Eastern Europe that was taken over and turned into a Museum ... and it is now back in use as a church, after the fall of Communism
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/376765112/

    Quote:-
    "The former Soviet Museum of Scientific Atheism, better known as St Isaac's Cathedral in St Petersburg, photographed in December, 1985. Internally, it is the second biggest cathedral in the world.

    Under Stalin in the 1930s, by which time the city had been renamed Leningrad, the building was cleared of all religious clutter and turned into a Museum of Scientific Atheism. Exhibits included a pendulum which proved the rotation of the earth.

    Stalin's enthusiasm for Scientific Atheism led to the regime treating faith and belief in God as a form of mental illness. Anyone who was openly Christian had their path to promotion at work blocked, and many professions closed to them.

    Thousands of people who stubbornly persisted in the Christian faith were treated as delusional, and found themselves carted off to special hospitals for treatment and re-education. Many of these people ended up in the gulags, a system of concentration camps, many in northern Siberia, where millions of people met their deaths.

    Scientific Atheism also promoted the idea that bringing up your kids in the Christian tradition was a form of child abuse. Inevitably, many children of militant Christians were taken into care by the State, to be brought up in vast orphanages."

    When you guys make unfounded assertions of 'delusion' and 'mental illness' against Christians, ye are following in very ignoble, evil and sinister 'foot-steps' indeed.

    This church wasn't as lucky ... and was destroyed by the Atheistic Communists in a fit of wanton destruction and barbarism that beggars belief:-



    I fully accept that all beliefs are open to challenge ... whilst respecting the person who holds the belief.

    Any belief system, and scientism is a belief system, can fall into the error, just like any other belief system.
    Creation Science believes that it has evidence for the truth that God Created the Universe and all life ... Evolutionists believe that it created itself.
    ... and could you please make even one point without resorting to unfounded name-calling.


    I have posted the basis for ID ... it is scientifically based and logically sound ... and nobody has yet successfully and part of it ... so I'm quite entitled to publish it as the truth.

    You have to stop repeating yourself in the hope that the things you say become true, its almost a sickness that you have.

    You have not posted anything as the basis for ID, ever, at all.

    And also, evolutionists don't claim to know how life began, thats not what evolution is the study of. So this again calls into question your "qualifications".

    You are also very quick to just reference Communism under stalin, so let Hitchens sort that out for you, and you can rest your little head easy.
    Stalin—easier still. For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine.


  • #2187
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Hilarious!

    Definition: A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience. Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."

    That is exactly how you do "science".

    Everyone else in the [scientific] world is wrong because god!
    Expert testimony (under oath at the Dover Trial) revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
    Science has therefore effectively bowed out as an independent source of information and ideas on any 'origins' question ... as it has self-limited itself to only considering hypotheses that don't involve God ... and this self-censorship has now been extended to even hypotheses involving intelligent action.

    So science has bizarrely excluded itself from being able to objectively evaluate the evidence for Direct Creation ... and has 'hitched its wagon' firmly to Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Evolution and any other idea that is acceptable to Practical Atheists ... and only ideas that are acceptable to them.


  • #2188
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gintonious wrote: »
    You are also very quick to just reference Communism under stalin, so let Hitchens sort that out for you, and you can rest your little head easy.
    Quote:
    Stalin—easier still. For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
    The point is that Stalin referred to Christians as 'deluded' and 'insane' ... words that are routinely used by you guys on this forum about me and my fellow Christians ... and this led to the enslavement and death of millions of people under Stalin's evil empire.

    Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine never used such words ... and that is why you guys seem to be heading in a Stalinist direction ... rather than a Jeffersonian one.:(


  • #2189
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
    - Thomas Paine


  • #2190
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Expert testimony (under oath at the Dover Trial) revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
    Science has therefore effectively bowed out as an independent source of information and ideas on any 'origins' question ... as it has self-limited itself to only considering hypotheses that don't involve God ... and this self-censorship has now been extended to even hypotheses involving intelligent action.

    So science has bizarrely excluded itself from being able to objectively evaluate the evidence for Direct Creation ... and has 'hitched its wagon' firmly to Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Evolution and any other idea that is acceptable to Practical Atheists ... and only ideas that are acceptable to them.

    Yes. Science is the search for evidence. Creationism is trying to explain things by ignoring evidence.

    And why the fcuk have you capitalised practical atheists?

    And what the fcuk is a practical atheist? Is there any other type?

    And who wants practicality anyway?


  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    We. Are. Not. Discussing. Origins. We. Are. Discussing. Evolution.

    They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.
    You may nit-pick all you like ... but Evolution and Abiogenesis are both part of a continuum from non-life to life to Human life that Atheists and their Atheist-dominated science presents as fact.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The hilarity of a creationist criticising anyone for being hitched to a certain belief system is just amazing though.

    People of all faiths and none can see the evidence for evolution.
    If they can why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Only those with a very specific belief system can see the 'evidence' for evolution.

    There is only one conclusion a rational person could come to based on that.
    Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement