Jump to content
Science Forums

What Creationists Should Learn Here


Pyrotex

Recommended Posts

So who was arguing against evolution!!

 

Creationists... the target audience of this thread. Literary critiquing of the Bible is another thing, if that is what you are undertaking, then this thread has nothing to do with you.

 

That being said, statements you have made in this thread lead me to question the consistency of your logic. For example, I asked for proof of the supernatural, and you respond with, "Quantum Weirdness is saying some pretty bizarre things." Your "interpreting methodology" can not be scientific, at least in my understanding of what you are doing. You could try to discuss that in your thread, but to be honest, it is a subject that doesn't particularly interest me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the physical vs. non-physical dichotomy

There are four kinds of people: the ones who are only concerned with the physical reality, the ones who are only concerned with God or religious matters and those that are in the middle and believe the two realities interact, causing a 'rip in the fabric of time', and those that don't give a rip.

 

I think that most Hypographers deal with the physical reality only, which is certainly fascinating on its own but have you considered that you're only looking at one side of the coin?

I’m late in joining this conversation – my recreation time is unusually crimped lately – but am eager to jump in, as I think the worldview dduck is evidencing in the above, which I think is sharply different than my present one, and that it is so different than mine and many other “science-y” folk, is of profound importance.

 

In short, I believe the physical vs. non-physical (AKA spiritual, supernatural, etc) dichotomy is a false one in the sense dduck intends it.

 

There is a tendency among people who don’t have an intuitive sense of what science is that agrees in large part with that of most science professionals to conflate the unknown with the non-physical, a view described theologically as God of the gaps, which can be generalized to include non-theistic belief in the non or super-physical. The root of this error, I think, is an unrealistic, stereotypical view of the practice of science and scientists which holds it and them to be unaware of the existence of the unknown, mysterious, paradoxical, deep, etc. Further, this view appear to me to extend beyond one of science and scientists to one of the object of scientific attention: physical reality.

 

In most of the deep and sincere conversations I’ve had with (for lack of a more precise term) people I’ll call mystics, I’ve been impressed with that they see physical reality as being much more limited than I do. It’s as if mystics see physical reality as reflecting the occasionally dull personalities of scientific technicians, and thus, like the way a good party needs non-dull people to spice it up, see physical nature as needing to be complemented by a non-physical supernatural. Mystics intuitively believe there is a distinction between the natural and the supernatural. Scientifics do not, seeing everything that is or can be as physical and natural.

 

In these conversations I try to convey with all the passion I can muster that physical reality is boundlessly amazing, so much so that there’s no need whatever for a non-physical reality.

 

Much of the reason that mystics see physical nature as so limited, I believe, is that they have less experience in the study of it than scientifics do. My personal experience recapitulates this: when young, I saw the physical world as consisting essentially of the inanimate, with even simple motivating factors such as heat and biological metabolism belonging to a different existential class that I might have called, roughly, spiritual. As I learned more about physical reality, my view changed, as one by one, I came to view every factor I formerly thought of as spiritual as physical instead. At some point, I generalized this process of worldview change to conclude that every factor is physical.

 

Mystics, I believe, don’t make this generalization, but rather continue to believe in a real division between the physical and the non-physical.

 

I should emphasize that the correlation between an entirely physical worldview and a one that contains a real physical – non-physical dichotomy and being scientific or non-scientific is strong, but not absolute. It’s possible to be methodically scientific – that is, strictly follow the scientific method of theorizing, predicting, testing, revising and repeating – and be wildly supernaturalistic (many traditional magikians are like this), or to be intuitively impulsive in reaching conclusions, yet absolutely materialistic.

 

A couple of famous cases-in-point are J. B. Rhine, who from the 1930 through the 1970s methodically sought evidence of ESP, and Frank Tipler, a physicist who in the past couple of decades concluded via appealing philosophical arguments that every religious belief in heaven, no matter how outlandish, will someday be realized in complete accordance with scientific physical law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, statements you have made in this thread lead me to question the consistency of your logic. For example, I asked for proof of the supernatural, and you respond with, "Quantum Weirdness is saying some pretty bizarre things."

 

I know. I'm having a difficult time understanding it myself and so explaining it is even harder. What I mean by the supernatural may not be supernatural but different. Quantum Weirdness says there are many universes (physical realities), and my understanding of 'supernatural' is non-physical yet has properties of its own.

 

I question whether our supposed reality is in fact real - and I wonder if our universe is really matrix-like. What appears to us as normal may in fact be abnormal.

 

 

Your "interpreting methodology" can not be scientific, at least in my understanding of what you are doing. You could try to discuss that in your thread, but to be honest, it is a subject that doesn't particularly interest me.

 

What I'm proposing doesn't even have a name yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post craig, however i just want to say again that if something exists, whether in this universe or another, that humans might label as non-physical at the moment, if we were ever to discover it it would be classed as physical. In which case people arguing over the existence of something non-physical is nonsensical.

 

Personally i'd label supernatural as the same but i've got into arguments here before over that idea so i won't say it again now :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other day, thinking about some of the chemicals in humus, this phrase rang out in my head:

 

...and God so loved the world that he gave us vanilla ...AND chocolate!

 

Now I "should" have thought...

 

...and physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and evolution unfolded such that our brains were rewarded with the positive effects and stimulations of nutritious and medicinally favorable foods whenever certain sensory chemoreceptors of the gustatory system were exposed to the benzaldehydes ...AND the pyrazines. ;)

 

But I enjoyed hearing the former, even though to me they mean basically the same thing (and may help explain some of the medicinal qualities of some humic substances).

===

 

Just an example of how it is difficult to define things... speaking about the definitions of natural vs. supernatural. :lol:

===

 

But seriously, re the OP:

 

I think creationists should learn that science doesn't pretend to understand the "true nature of reality, but only that they have models to help interpret whatever that reality may "truely" be. Science doesn't really think that there are tiny billiard balls (called electrons) orbiting around the nucleus of an atom (which itself is composed of tiny billiard balls called protons and neutrons). That is just a model (an early model) of some aspect of reality that we call the atom. It's the atomic theory, or the atomic model, but not the atomic philosophy or religion. The ideations, concepts, or images of those models can be interpreted as a philosophy of reality, but that is not really a part of the scientific method.

 

So creationists shouldn't feel threatened by science's models of reality, even if some folks sound somewhat self-righteous when explaining how the theories and models do not require a priori causes... or something like that.

 

But creationists should realize that they too have anthropomorphized their understanding of reality, life, and living into definitions that are way too myopic, morphed by history, and too contradictory to pursue any sort of "logical" or rational discussion on a scientific, material level. So maybe they should dial-it-back a bit and be more understanding of others, accepting, and possibly forgiving of those who do not understand things the same way.

Both sides model and view the fundamental basis for reality as some sort of duality.

 

Scientifically, there is nothing to preclude the belief that the universe was created 20 seconds ago, with all the evidence and memories purposefully included to "prove" that the universe is 14 billion years old, or whatever; but...

It is a lot more convenient to associate creation with the dawn of civilizations and oral histories, some 5-7 thousand years ago, isn't it? ...Or to associate creation with nucleosynthesis, or a big bang, or whatever works, eh?

 

Both side are talking about the creativity of emergence, regardless of what ontology one subscribes to. Just translate what they mean ...and be forgiving by sounding accepting instead of self-righteous.

 

~ IMHO :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your "interpreting methodology" can not be scientific, at least in my understanding of what you are doing. You could try to discuss that in your thread, but to be honest, it is a subject that doesn't particularly interest me.

 

I should have clarified. Science is all about confirming: the same experiment will have the same results each time it's conducted. And that's what my methodology is all about, which makes it scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post craig, however i just want to say again that if something exists, whether in this universe or another, that humans might label as non-physical at the moment, if we were ever to discover it it would be classed as physical. In which case people arguing over the existence of something non-physical is nonsensical.

 

Personally i'd label supernatural as the same but i've got into arguments here before over that idea so i won't say it again now :unsure:

 

If it is discoverable, then yes it would be classed as physical.

 

However, there are things that occur in the physical universe that are classed as supernatural because they appear to break physical rules.

 

Instead of supernatural I should have said immortal.

 

The physical is mortal, the supernatural, immortal.

 

I have a theory that we're really on some immortal plain, and this seeming physical reality may be something like a hologram and Quantum Weirdness is acknowledging this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think creationists should learn that science doesn't pretend to understand the "true nature of reality, but only that they have models to help interpret whatever that reality may "truely" be.

 

If they're so unsure, why do they argue so hotly? The physical has manipulable qualities otherwise we wouldn't have science at all.

 

Science doesn't really think that there are tiny billiard balls (called electrons) orbiting around the nucleus of an atom (which itself is composed of tiny billiard balls called protons and neutrons). That is just a model (an early model) of some aspect of reality that we call the atom. It's the atomic theory, or the atomic model, but not the atomic philosophy or religion. The ideations, concepts, or images of those models can be interpreted as a philosophy of reality, but that is not really a part of the scientific method.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe that science really does see tiny billiard balls, otherwise why give them names and try to play ball with them?

 

But creationists should realize that they too have anthropomorphized their understanding of reality, life, and living into definitions that are way too myopic, morphed by history, and too contradictory to pursue any sort of "logical" or rational discussion on a scientific, material level. So maybe they should dial-it-back a bit and be more understanding of others, accepting, and possibly forgiving of those who do not understand things the same way. Both sides model and view the fundamental basis for reality as some sort of duality.

 

Creationists tend not to look at evidence, which is unreasonable. Science is all about reason.

 

It is a lot more convenient to associate creation with the dawn of civilizations and oral histories, some 5-7 thousand years ago, isn't it? ...Or to associate creation with nucleosynthesis, or a big bang, or whatever works, eh?

 

Creationism isn't rational, it's all about indoctrination and if you knew what that really does to people you would be fighting it tooth and nail.

 

Just translate what they mean ...and be forgiving by sounding accepting instead of self-righteous.~ IMHO :blink:

 

Who are you speaking to specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the physical vs. non-physical dichotomy

 

In short, I believe the physical vs. non-physical (AKA spiritual, supernatural, etc) dichotomy is a false one in the sense dduck intends it.

 

Again, perhaps I should have said immortal vs mortal.

 

There is a tendency among people who don’t have an intuitive sense of what science is that agrees in large part with that of most science professionals to conflate the unknown with the non-physical, a view described theologically as God of the gaps, which can be generalized to include non-theistic belief in the non or super-physical. The root of this error, I think, is an unrealistic, stereotypical view of the practice of science and scientists which holds it and them to be unaware of the existence of the unknown, mysterious, paradoxical, deep, etc. Further, this view appear to me to extend beyond one of science and scientists to one of the object of scientific attention: physical reality.

 

I'm aware that science deals with physical (mortal) realities but I'm simply stating there is another reality (the true one) that is immortal and my basis for that is Quantum Weirdness theories.

 

Not all physicists agree but I was wondering what people here think of the multi-universe theory!

 

In these conversations I try to convey with all the passion I can muster that physical reality is boundlessly amazing, so much so that there’s no need whatever for a non-physical reality.

 

I agree that it's amazing but on the other-hand, considering the very short span of human life, if there's something beyond this supposed reality, I would like to know about that also.

 

A couple of famous cases-in-point are J. B. Rhine, who from the 1930 through the 1970s methodically sought evidence of ESP, and Frank Tipler, a physicist who in the past couple of decades concluded via appealing philosophical arguments that every religious belief in heaven, no matter how outlandish, will someday be realized in complete accordance with scientific physical law.

 

 

Have you never thought of someone and they suddenly decide to call you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi dd, all,

 

The reason I wanted to present the interpreting anomaly was with the intent of having it torn apart but no one seems to want to take it on. Perhaps I haven't presented it properly!

 

Here's an interesting interpreting anomaly that goes straight to the core of the evolution of our systems of religions and systems of laws.

 

Consider the interpretations of the two core justice statements below.

 

(a) Do unto others as others do unto you.

 

(b ) Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

Interpretation (a) implies that both parties are both good and bad with good being whichever party you are in and bad being whichever party you are not in at any moment. Its just like looking at your own reflection in a mirror.

 

On the other hand interpretation (b ) implies a conscientious realisation that one party can be good and the other party bad in the context of specific social situations.

 

One of these interpretations is the law of the (quantum) jungle and the other is the original starting point that evolved into the global systems of laws that govern human behaviour today.

 

I would hope that most true scientists know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant observation. The true interpretation however, is more like 'treat others as you yourself would like to be treated': I won't steal from you and you won't steal anything of mine (literally or more figuratively as in 'not properly compensating me for my time and work').

 

The idea is consideration but more like fairness.

 

In Christian circles it has been skewed to mean 'I will love you as I love myself' so when you do wrong, I will forgive your debt. There is no accountability for wrong because the guilty party can say 'woe is me' and the debt is cancelled. It's like getting a speeding ticket and the judge saying 'I'll pay it out of my own pocket'.

 

And yes, the usual interpretations are a selfish gene response (as was the case of black slavery), as many slave holders were Christians.

 

The true interpretation is mutualism but often skewed as parasitism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post craig, however i just want to say again that if something exists, whether in this universe or another, that humans might label as non-physical at the moment, if we were ever to discover it it would be classed as physical. In which case people arguing over the existence of something non-physical is nonsensical.

 

Personally i'd label supernatural as the same but i've got into arguments here before over that idea so i won't say it again now :unsure:

 

If it is discoverable, then yes it would be classed as physical.

 

However, there are things that occur in the physical universe that are classed as supernatural because they appear to break physical rules.

This statement illustrates a very important distinction between the two worldviews – naturalistic (AKA materialist, physical, scientific, bright, etc) and supernaturalistic (AKA mystical, dualistic, etc) – to which I’m trying to draw attention.

 

Only supernaturalists class any kind of “things that occur” as supernatural. Naturalists class all occurrences as natural – they reject the dualistic dichotomy of two classes of occurrences, natural and supernatural. To a naturalist, an occurrence that appears to break physical rules indicates that the data by which we measure the occurrence is faulty, or the physical rule (AKA law or theoretical prediction) being broken is wrong or only an approximation to the occurrence being observed. Examples of the former include the failure to find a planet of about 7 M at about 43 AU (or various other masses and radii), which was due to slightly inaccurate measurements of the masses of the known planets (more here) . Examples of the latter include the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which broke the Kepler’s laws (more here)

 

As I intimated in Concerning the physical vs. non-physical dichotomy, I think this distinction is due to naturalists having had sufficient experience with finding scientific explanations of phenomena they at one time believed to be nonphysical that they embrace the generalization that all phenomena must be, ultimately, physically explainable – experience that Supernaturalists lack. In other words, I think we are all born supernaturalists.

 

Many naturalists, maintain that they arrived at their worldview via the rational arguments, primarily the one that notes that knowing is a form of detection, so if the supernatural is by definition undetectable, is tautologically unknowable, AKA nonsensical.

 

I have a theory that we're really on some immortal plain, and this seeming physical reality may be something like a hologram and Quantum Weirdness is acknowledging this.

A few important technical criticisms:

  • You’re using “theory” in a non-scientific sense, meaning more-or-less a speculation, tentative claim, or guess. There’s nothing illegitimate about this use, but it’s confusing in a context of a scientific setting, where theory is assumed to mean “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world”. (more here)
  • The holographic principle is a property of certain quantum gravity and sting theories. It does not, nor does any scientific theory of which I’m aware, state that physical reality is something like an optical hologram. We’ve discussed this distinction previously – it’s an important one!
  • ”Quantum weirdness” refers to the intuitive disconnect between the predictions of classical physics and quantum physics. Classical physics is intuitively sensible, while quantum physics is weird. Neither predict the existence of anything nonphysical.
    Since quantum physics became widely recognized enough to attract diverse attention, and even before, via the speculation of its early theorists, the notion that quantum physics does imply the existence of the supra-physical has found voice in a tradition and literature commonly called quantum mysticism. However, as experimental results have falsified most of the tentative theories arising from quantum mysticism, it’s become an increasingly non-scientific position.
    I’ve a lot of personal history with quantum mysticism, having been for years a pretty devout quantum mystic. My intuitive “loss of faith” became irreversible with my reading of the unexpected difficulty with – and IMHO practical impossibility of – quantum computing, which show early paradoxes such as Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend to be naively unrealistic. To appropriate a common aphorism and t-shirt/bumper sticker slogan, decoherence happens.

 

Concerning the physical vs. non-physical dichotomy

 

In short, I believe the physical vs. non-physical (AKA spiritual, supernatural, etc) dichotomy is a false one in the sense dduck intends it.

 

Again, perhaps I should have said immortal vs mortal.

While the physical vs. non-physical dichotomy, is IMHO false, it’s semantically well-defined – that is, it makes sense. Equating it to the mortal vs. immortal doesn’t make sense to me.

 

Mortality and immortality are primarily biological, and metaphorically informational, concepts. Some biological organisms senesce, some don’t. The former are mortal, the latter immortal. Metaphorically, we call persistent ideas and artistic expressions immortal. Physics, however, encompass both the mortal and immortal. Although physics predicts long-term fates for physical reality bearing such names as the heat death of the universe, death in this context is metaphorical – physical reality is, in every meaningful sense, immortal.

 

I believe I get dduck’s point – it, is, in short, Socratic/Platonic/Aristotelian formalism. Though this is a central and (please pardon the pun) essential philosophical idea, I think it’s essentially pre-scientific – that is, methodologically and technologically primitive. Were one to formulate Greek formalism as a scientific theory and test it experimentally, it would fail – it has at its heart, I believe, the same naive inanimate matter vs. animating soul dualism I described in my previous post as a child’s worldview.

 

Analogous to the famous aphorism "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", I think the intellectual development of modern humans recapitulates the history of science – but unlike biological recapitulation, which is “hardwired in our genes”, the latter requires exposure – to use a dirty but appropriate word, indoctrination – to the scientific ideas it recapitulates. Such exposure isn’t assured – though some individuals seem to have an innate drive to acquire it, most people, including me, get or don’t get it due to a series of happenchance circumstances.

 

Not all physicists agree but I was wondering what people here think of the multi-universe theory!

I think that the MWI is an interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics, not a theory itself. It doesn’t make theoretical predictions, but rather is interpretive framework to make the theory more intuitively sensible and steer theorists in using quantum mechanics to make theoretical predictions and design experiments to test them.

 

We’ve discussed the MWI quite a bit at hypography. It’s important to understand that it only vaguely resembles the “parallel universes” of many science fiction stories. Per best current theory, it’s impossible to travel or communicate between the “many universes” of the MWI. They’re more of a “bookkeeping technique” than real, accessible space-time domains.

 

Have you never thought of someone and they suddenly decide to call you?

Yes. I have also though of someone and they did not suddenly decide to call me.

 

Unless you carefully statistically control for it, evidence of the paranormal like this is invalid due to [/wiki]Confirmation bias[/wiki].

 

Sheldrake did an experiment on this in 2003 (see here), and as usual for Sheldrake, reported “huge statistical significance” – but Sheldrake isn’t IMHO credible, as none of his “hugely significant” effects can be reproduced by others with sound statistical blinding.

 

In short, there’s no credible scientific evidence that effects like this really exist. They are best explained as wish fulfillment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could always shift our "religious aspirations", could we? Product brands are more than happy to receive new "cult members"?

 

http://connect.in.com/bbc-news/article-scientists-apple-makes-your-brain-go-all-religious-510067-1bc651b72333d2a1890aea09be7477e72d48455a.html

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0dUuHo58UE&feature=related

 

What "cult" are you supporting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who was arguing against evolution!!

 

Creationists, that is who is arguing against evolution and all other forms of science.

 

Besides Moontanman, whatever happened to:

This has to be some of the most outrageous interesting assertions i have ever read, I look forward to explanation of these things. I am familiar with the bible and I have never seen anything close to what you claim but i am willing to learn if you can show me where it says this.

 

Gave in to the pressure did you?

 

 

What does that have to do with this thread? The video I suggested points out the fallacies of creationism and the supernatural, I know it's difficult to watch your ideas so easily falsified but you should really watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're so unsure, why do they argue so hotly? The physical has manipulable qualities otherwise we wouldn't have science at all.

I was figuring to offend both sides equally.

I guess by pointing to physical effects (manipulable qualities), you suggest we understand the source of those effects? We have different models that respectively explain different aspects of reality, but there is no one unified model, is there? And even for one aspect, such as the atom, there have been (and still are) different models. Whichever model of the atom you happen to use, or whether you view things in a Newtonian way, or an Einsteinian way (probably depending on the circumstances and your needs), the external reality isn't changed; and others might have a different model or interpertation of reality that serves their needs. This all hinges on very personal, subjective, definitions.

I bet if you got into the details, any two people belonging to the same church would have differences about how to define God. But they can both say they agree with what some book (or any book or person) might describe (after they each subjectively translated what they heard or read into something that fit into their particular worldviews).

 

Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe that science really does see tiny billiard balls, otherwise why give them names and try to play ball with them?

I think if you pin a physicist down, [they'd yell, but] they'd agree that we don't know "true" reality, but just have (internally self-consistent) models that help us "understand" and imagine something coherent (based on certain presuppositions and other "givens") about reality. And I'll bet some physicists disagree about their particular models more than many religions do about their particulars.

But maybe I'm being presumptuous and sounding self-righteous myself, by speaking for physicists; I'm more of a biochemist that reads about this stuff, and maybe I misunderstand but our view about the "true" nature of reality seems to be continually evolving.

 

And speaking of evolving, there have been different theories there too, and on the origin of life; and now that we understand epigenetics better, perhaps it's easier to see why some people couldn't quite see how random point mutations led so obviously to all those "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful."

 

And it's called the billiard ball analogy, so it breaks down with things like wave/particle duality, Pauli's exclusion principle, quantum energy levels, internal structure, etc.... And the structure of the nucleus has even more competing models than does the electonic part of the atom.

 

Creationists tend not to look at evidence, which is unreasonable. Science is all about reason.

...

Creationism isn't rational, it's all about indoctrination and if you knew what that really does to people you would be fighting it tooth and nail.

Yep, science is a tool that uses rationality to better understand the material world; and creationism isn't. But I was talking about creationists and scientists, and how they might benefit from understanding that science is a tool and not a philosophy. I'm sure creationists could talk about the indoctrination of Doctorates (PhD's) too, but it is the "fighting tooth and nail" that I'm trying to get beyond here. There is more to life than just rationality and the material.

 

I find their insistence on the literal interpretation of the written word to be troubling, and it makes people more narrow-minded--since they know they are right--it seems.

 

Who are you speaking to specifically?

Both sides....

“One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.” -Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

 

...and of religeous paradigms too.

~ :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the atom: what remains is different views about how they work but the properties of the atom itself, as far as I know, is pretty much non-debatable.

 

I do agree there's more to life than rationality (as it exists in this space-time)! :D

 

Re: literal interpretations, I agree, but to put it another way, it is literal interpreting that created/s 'creationism'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with this thread? The video I suggested points out the fallacies of creationism and the supernatural, I know it's difficult to watch your ideas so easily falsified but you should really watch it.

 

I think you know what I was getting at!! <_<

 

I most certainly did watch the video and it points out the fallacies of creationism very nicely. However, Creationists have videos that point out the fallacies of science (it's a game: science makes a video and Creationists make another video to counteract the video that science made). I think the whole thing is really ineffective and does not bring the desired end as Creationists and I.D.er's actually end up more indoctrinated! There's got to be a better solution!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...