Science Is/As A Religion

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.

No evidence of pre oxygen affected iron? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

There was very little, or no, oxygen in our atmosphere before plants were abundant because oxygen is so abundant that it was tied up in various compounds throughout the environment, like ferrous oxide.
 
Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.

Unlike religion...
 
What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.



thestupiditburns.jpg


Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!

:rolleyes:
 
So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthalshumans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject. The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors. They had different ..more crude tools and weapons. Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment. In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.

Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...

the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!

You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong, you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'

And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...

did you see the quote from Dawkins?

How about one from Darwin himself:

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library


"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"


Do you have an explanation?


No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.
fossilization is a rare event


How many t-rexes lived? How many fossils do we have?

How many cats have lied in history? How many fossilized/petrified/naturally preserved cats do we stumble across?
 
José;3127940 said:
Originally posted by PoliticalChic
And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...
Of course they don't "exist".

Everytime clear, undisputed examples of transitional species like Archaeopteryx are unearthed they are immediately dismissed by creationists as not being really "transitional".
Each new fossil creates two new gaps in which God can hide
 
So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthalshumans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject. The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors. They had different ..more crude tools and weapons. Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment. In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.




The evidence points the other way. Their brains were larger than ours, they were stronger and more able to deal with the cold environment of the era. The single advantage that Homo Sapiens seems to have was we were able to breed faster due to a shorter gestation time, and even that is questionable.
 
Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.

Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
 
What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.

Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.

Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941


You're really gonna quote a socialist? Why do you commutard demonrats hate America?
 
So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthalshumans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject. The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors. They had different ..more crude tools and weapons. Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment. In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.




The evidence points the other way. Their brains were larger than ours, they were stronger and more able to deal with the cold environment of the era. The single advantage that Homo Sapiens seems to have was we were able to breed faster due to a shorter gestation time, and even that is questionable.

Their brains were not larger. Below is an excerpt from the linked reference. The main differences were how the brain develops not in it's size.

A comparison of Neanderthal and modern human genomes revealed several regions with strong evidence for positive selection within Homo sapiens, i.e. the selection occurred after the split between modern humans and Neanderthals. Three among these are likely to be critical for brain development, as they affect mental and cognitive development.

Brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently
 
So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?
It's clear to me that you have no actual knowledge on evolution, but through the magic of using outdated copied and pasted information you also don't understand, you feel you are in a position to draw conclusions! Fantastic.

First off, if you want to discuss evolution, it's best to avoid material from the 1800s. Just because you don't understand the topic doesn't mean others need faith. It just means we're smarter than you in the subject.

I find it interesting that it's always the religious nuts who try to force faith upon others, even if it's not their own.

I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood. Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.
Religion does the same? Well yes, except one goes about it with evidence and fact, and the other goes about it with blind guessing and folk tales.

Again, the only ones who compare religion and science are people who don't understand science.

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.
Sciencers? Really? You do realize how absolutely retarded that sounds, don't you? And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species. That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES. It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch. They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.

I hope you realize that poor excuse for a rebuttal came from this:
christianitydemotivator.jpg


José;3127868 said:
The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory.
See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.

Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by SmarterThanHick
See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.

Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?

By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the general, all encompassing scientific paradigm according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.

And yes, the origin of life = abiogenesis is indeed one of the biggest Achiles' heel of the MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM.

But go ahead, DumberThanHick, nail me to a cross due to a poor choice of words...
 
José;3128352 said:
By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the general, all encompassing scientific paradigm according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.
So by "evolution theory" what you REALLY meant was something completely different from the scientific understanding of evolution, created by a combination of mad libs and pixie dust to fill in the gaping gaps of your lacking education.

There is no "general all encompassing scientific paradigm," let alone one which believes all things move from lower to higher levels of complexity. I repeat: there is NO general encompassing scientific paradigm except for the one you just pulled out of the air. Evolution, "scientific evolution modern encompassing [adjective] paradigm", nor the easter bunny have anything to do with the origins of life.

José;3128352 said:
But go ahead, DumberThanHick, nail me to a cross due to a poor choice of words...
You're doing a good job of that yourself. I'm just pointing out that your hanging there.
 
What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.

Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.

Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941


You're really gonna quote a socialist? Why do you commutard demonrats hate America?




Actually, I quoted a genius and while his political views are very far from my own (you clearly have no idea where my political views are) , his comments are made more impactful because of who and what he was.
 
Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.
 
What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.
100702-atheism.png

Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.
 
SmarterThanHick
There is no "general all encompassing scientific paradigm," let alone one which believes all things move from lower to higher levels of complexity. I repeat: there is NO general encompassing scientific paradigm except for the one you just pulled out of the air.

Cosmic evolution

Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework (in other words, Smarter, a PARADIGM) that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe.

Only in the mid-20th century was the cosmic-evolutionary scenario articulated as a research paradigm to include empirical studies of galaxies, stars, planets, and life—in short, an expansive agenda that combines physical, biological, and cultural evolution.

The emergentist psychology which sees the human mind and societies as co-emerging into more complex levels, also fits well into the cosmic evolution paradigm.

The arrow of time captures the sequence of events based on a large body of post-Renaissance observational and experimental data—a continuous thread of change from simplicity to complexity, from inorganic to organic, from chaos in the early universe to order more recently.

Accordingly, biological evolution is a small, albeit important, subset of a more extensive evolutionary scheme stretching across all of space and all of time.

Cosmic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SmarterThanHick
Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?

Talk about being clueless...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top