BF3S Forums Intelligent design gets kicked in the nuts

destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
Offline No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+154|3130|Canada
are people forgetting that MAN wrote the bible? and MAN is fallible. so the bible is literally a man's fictional story. If someone wrote a book nowadys saying that the words were god's words flowing through him, no one would believe him, hes a nut. so genisis cannot be taken seriously
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM
+142|2847|California

Flecco wrote:

Prove that there is no deity.


What came before the 'Big Bang'? What was the, to use Aquinas' term for it, 'prime-mover' then?
I'll do you one better. Prove to me there is and I'll renounce everything I've ever said. Good Luck.

Do you believe that time will go on forever (I know what you are going to say. I mean in some form or another)?

Stingray24 wrote:

I write it off because I see no reason that this is more significant to evolutionary theory than primates, who are closer relatives according to the theory.  You think it's significant and that's fine.  I don't.  Is that ok?  That doesn't automatically mean I don't leave room for evolution in my beliefs.  I claim no corner on knowledge and wish the rest of you here would do the same.
The point isn't a closer proximity to humans, it's the bridge to the branch in between where older 'ape-like' fossils and ones that look like more modern apes or lemurs that we descended from.



As for the mammoth, just the way your post was worded and the images I simply assumed that's what you were using as an example. In either case you can use my dinosaur bone marrow example. Also, if I had more info on how the dinosaur was found, that could help explain it too. In tar it would have essentially been as perfectly preserved as maybe being 4 days dead. Ice could yield similar results depending on how and how fast it was frozen over. Things like this could very well explain the preservation. The only reason other fossils in rocks aren't preserved like this are because it usually takes a longer time for the rock to form around it as well as the pressure of the rock and the pressure needed to form it.

Oh! Let me ask Christians this. It's a simple proof by reason but tell me if you find an error:

Jesus is god
Jesus was a man
Jesus is god that is man
God is man

Correct?

Also, many of the texts in the Bible (written by man as previously said) were not written in the time of Jesus' life; not to mention by anyone even close to as scholarly as the average stupidest person you'd ever encounter today.
Flecco
iPod is broken.
Offline No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,048|3169|NT, like Mick Dundee

BF2S Honors:
BF2S Game Admin
Donator

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Prove that there is no deity.


What came before the 'Big Bang'? What was the, to use Aquinas' term for it, 'prime-mover' then?
I'll do you one better. Prove to me there is and I'll renounce everything I've ever said. Good Luck.

Do you believe that time will go on forever (I know what you are going to say. I mean in some form or another)?
Just pointing out the 'prove it!' 'no you prove it' cycle. There are no conclusive answers available on the topic.
Australian culture is about two things, football and racism.

I never know what to kick. sad
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,178|2915|'Murka

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

Uzique wrote:

Ziiiing.

One single book is enough to justify an entire lifestyle of devotion and self-sure narrowminded belief?

lol
No. Not unless one is self-sure and narrowminded to begin with.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM
+142|2847|California

Flecco wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Prove that there is no deity.


What came before the 'Big Bang'? What was the, to use Aquinas' term for it, 'prime-mover' then?
I'll do you one better. Prove to me there is and I'll renounce everything I've ever said. Good Luck.

Do you believe that time will go on forever (I know what you are going to say. I mean in some form or another)?
Just pointing out the 'prove it!' 'no you prove it' cycle. There are no conclusive answers available on the topic.
Actually, as you may have learned in Geometry back in the day or just recently depending on your age, there's a term called "Proof by Contradiction". Works like this:

You start by assuming the opposite of what needs to be proven; ie. God doesn't/does exist. If the opposite assumption is false, then the original proven is correct (and vice versa). There isn't necessarily proof to prove god doesn't exist, but there's proof of another matter that says, by being true, God can not exist.

Simple example:

Prove - All Cats hate water

All cat's don't hate water. My cat Toby hates the water. Ergo, not all cat's hate water.

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ziiiing.

One single book is enough to justify an entire lifestyle of devotion and self-sure narrowminded belief?

lol
No. Not unless one is self-sure and narrowminded to begin with.
You would be surprised at how many people with whom I've come across where, with their faith of God, comes the answer "because the Bible says so".

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-05-21 03:03:51)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,178|2915|'Murka

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

xBlackPantherx wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ziiiing.

One single book is enough to justify an entire lifestyle of devotion and self-sure narrowminded belief?

lol
No. Not unless one is self-sure and narrowminded to begin with.
You would be surprised at how many people with whom I've come across where, with their faith of God, comes the answer "because the Bible says so".
No, I wouldn't. I know many like that, as well. That doesn't obviate the underlying message...it only points out those individuals' faults.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM
+142|2847|California
Ok, then at what point does that percentage of those kind of people vs. the general community stop being individual and start being a general feeling? If at all.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
Offline No stats No Email No PM
+5,695|3105|132 and Bush

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor

It's a shame that this discovery is focused around "in your face religion". There is so much more to talk about.
http://i.imgur.com/YDMKY.png  http://i.imgur.com/QJkH5.png  http://i.imgur.com/q4cNI.jpg http://i.imgur.com/TTT8R.png
Flecco
iPod is broken.
Offline No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,048|3169|NT, like Mick Dundee

BF2S Honors:
BF2S Game Admin
Donator

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Flecco wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:


I'll do you one better. Prove to me there is and I'll renounce everything I've ever said. Good Luck.

Do you believe that time will go on forever (I know what you are going to say. I mean in some form or another)?
Just pointing out the 'prove it!' 'no you prove it' cycle. There are no conclusive answers available on the topic.
Actually, as you may have learned in Geometry back in the day or just recently depending on your age, there's a term called "Proof by Contradiction". Works like this:

You start by assuming the opposite of what needs to be proven; ie. God doesn't/does exist. If the opposite assumption is false, then the original proven is correct (and vice versa). There isn't necessarily proof to prove god doesn't exist, but there's proof of another matter that says, by being true, God can not exist.

Simple example:

Prove - All Cats hate water

All cat's don't hate water. My cat Toby hates the water. Ergo, not all cat's hate water.
There's no proof that the 'prime-mover' doesn't exist though. You cannot prove or disprove it with any modern scientific evidence or any modern theory or projected model. There is evidence claiming that a literal interpretation of the Genesis story of the monotheistic religions is false, and it's highly compelling evidence. Thing is, why bother arguing with people who believe in snakes that can converse with humans and a fruit that instantly grants you knowledge? For that story to be entirely factually true either there's some sort of crazy alien civilisation involved or the guy who came up with the story was full of shit.

@ Kmarion: On the news here they described Ida as more the great great great great great great etc. Aunt. Some-where back in the family tree, but definitely not any sort of direct ancestor.
Australian culture is about two things, football and racism.

I never know what to kick. sad
13rin
Member
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+976|2983

Kmarion wrote:

Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor

It's a shame that this discovery is focused around "in your face religion". There is so much more to talk about.
I understand.  I bet you could put together a rather badass post about it.  Create a thread about its scientific merits in evolution (what the 'bigger picture' discussion is about then).  This one will be about it's religious implications.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
Offline No stats No Email No PM
+5,695|3105|132 and Bush

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor

It's a shame that this discovery is focused around "in your face religion". There is so much more to talk about.
I understand.  I bet you could put together a rather badass post about it.  Create a thread about its scientific merits in evolution (what the 'bigger picture' discussion is about then).  This one will be about it's religious implications.
If I wanted to raise some unanswered biblical questions I would start here. "A" missing link, not "the" missing link will do little to rattle a faith based belief system. However, (imo) a universe full of intelligent life design could not easily be explained away or discredited.
http://i.imgur.com/YDMKY.png  http://i.imgur.com/QJkH5.png  http://i.imgur.com/q4cNI.jpg http://i.imgur.com/TTT8R.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,178|2915|'Murka

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Ok, then at what point does that percentage of those kind of people vs. the general community stop being individual and start being a general feeling? If at all.
Probably when that percentage becomes a significant majority.

We can't paint all of Islam with the fundamentalist nutjob suicide bomber woman-stoning brush...but it's perfectly OK to do the same with other religions (namely Christianity) here.

The outliers get the press...because they are outliers.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,101|3085|SE London

BF2S Honors:
Tech Team

Kmarion wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor

It's a shame that this discovery is focused around "in your face religion". There is so much more to talk about.
I understand.  I bet you could put together a rather badass post about it.  Create a thread about its scientific merits in evolution (what the 'bigger picture' discussion is about then).  This one will be about it's religious implications.
If I wanted to raise some unanswered biblical questions I would start here. "A" missing link, not "the" missing link will do little to rattle a faith based belief system. However, (imo) a universe full of intelligent life design could not easily be explained away or discredited.
Why not?

The maths is all solid. The probabilities shape up in the right sort of ball park figures. The whole concept of evolution is based around random occurrences and the proliferation of that which happens to be more successfull. Why should it not be happening at random? There is nothing to support any other conclusion apart from irrational disbelief in the kinds of astronomical improbabilities that have led to the world we know today. It's just things that are so improbable as to seem to be "magic" - like for example if someone walked straight through a wall, it is possible, you would need an absolutely exact balance of forces acting on the particles of both bodies and they would need to be perfectly aligned, but it could happen (not that it would).

Why is it difficult to accept that within an almost infinitely complex system, given an almost infinite amount of time, that virtually anything could happen randomly and without any sort of guidance?
ATG
Banned
Offline No stats No stats No Email No PM
+5,233|3033|Global Command
I find this to be ridiculous.

This creature appears to be related to homo sapiens about as much as a chimp.

The fact is that 0.0005% of dead animals fossilize. There will likely never be a complete link or a clear lineage from monkey to human. Several species similar to humans co-existed at various times. or, look at it this way, so this 45 million year old fossil is found. Great!

There is virtually nothing between 44 million and six million years old that would fit into that link and sugest any direct descendancy.

The Bible is irrelevant in anthropology. If there is a biblical timeframe suggesting that the earth is some 6000 years old, that refers to biblical time, it has nothing to do with geology or evolution of species which is a obvious and observable fact.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
Offline No stats No Email No PM
+5,695|3105|132 and Bush

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I understand.  I bet you could put together a rather badass post about it.  Create a thread about its scientific merits in evolution (what the 'bigger picture' discussion is about then).  This one will be about it's religious implications.
If I wanted to raise some unanswered biblical questions I would start here. "A" missing link, not "the" missing link will do little to rattle a faith based belief system. However, (imo) a universe full of intelligent life design could not easily be explained away or discredited.
Why not?

The maths is all solid. The probabilities shape up in the right sort of ball park figures. The whole concept of evolution is based around random occurrences and the proliferation of that which happens to be more successfull. Why should it not be happening at random? There is nothing to support any other conclusion apart from irrational disbelief in the kinds of astronomical improbabilities that have led to the world we know today. It's just things that are so improbable as to seem to be "magic" - like for example if someone walked straight through a wall, it is possible, you would need an absolutely exact balance of forces acting on the particles of both bodies and they would need to be perfectly aligned, but it could happen (not that it would).

Why is it difficult to accept that within an almost infinitely complex system, given an almost infinite amount of time, that virtually anything could happen randomly and without any sort of guidance?
I do not understand how this relates to what I was saying. It seems you either misunderstood my point or you are agreeing with me.

Edit: I see, you think when I said that could not be easily explained away that it would solidify intelligent design. I was implying the opposite.
http://i.imgur.com/YDMKY.png  http://i.imgur.com/QJkH5.png  http://i.imgur.com/q4cNI.jpg http://i.imgur.com/TTT8R.png
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+651|3046|Texas - Bigger than France
In my opinion scientific theory and deism theory are unrelated.  There's faith in science providing the answers to the unknown, eventually.  Just as there is faith that science will eventually prove the existence of God, eventually.

But it doesn't have to be a zero sum game, unless you want it to be.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,101|3085|SE London

BF2S Honors:
Tech Team

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


If I wanted to raise some unanswered biblical questions I would start here. "A" missing link, not "the" missing link will do little to rattle a faith based belief system. However, (imo) a universe full of intelligent life design could not easily be explained away or discredited.
Why not?

The maths is all solid. The probabilities shape up in the right sort of ball park figures. The whole concept of evolution is based around random occurrences and the proliferation of that which happens to be more successfull. Why should it not be happening at random? There is nothing to support any other conclusion apart from irrational disbelief in the kinds of astronomical improbabilities that have led to the world we know today. It's just things that are so improbable as to seem to be "magic" - like for example if someone walked straight through a wall, it is possible, you would need an absolutely exact balance of forces acting on the particles of both bodies and they would need to be perfectly aligned, but it could happen (not that it would).

Why is it difficult to accept that within an almost infinitely complex system, given an almost infinite amount of time, that virtually anything could happen randomly and without any sort of guidance?
I do not understand how this relates to what I was saying. It seems you either misunderstood my point or you are agreeing with me.

Edit: I see, you think when I said that could not be easily explained away that it would solidify intelligent design. I was implying the opposite.
Fair enough. I did think it was a bit out of character for you. Really I just wanted to draw attention to how absurd it is that anyone should think life requires design (not that I'm ruling out the possibility altogether, but where's the evidence?).
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
Offline No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+62|3025|Istanbul-Turkey

Bertster7 wrote:

Why is it difficult to accept that within an almost infinitely complex system, given an almost infinite amount of time, that virtually anything could happen randomly and without any sort of guidance?
You already gave the answer.

infinitely complex.

you cannot create an infinitely complex system with random selection. even if you reach the half way correctly,-which is really impossible- you have to restart if you select next random variable wrong, because everything will go wrong after that wrong selection. That is the rule of probability. You cant go one step back. And there is nothing to control this restart mechanism.

Probability of putting 10 numbers in correct order is 1/10,000,000,000.

Now think a single DNA and information it contains. It includes billions of nucleic acids. a molecule of a adenine nucleobase consists 15 atoms. Only one connection type confirms structure.

I cant see a chance for whole system to be created from random selection no matter of time.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
Offline No Xfire No stats No Email No PM
+874|3178|Canberra, AUS

ATG wrote:

I find this to be ridiculous.

This creature appears to be related to homo sapiens about as much as a chimp.

The fact is that 0.0005% of dead animals fossilize. There will likely never be a complete link or a clear lineage from monkey to human. Several species similar to humans co-existed at various times. or, look at it this way, so this 45 million year old fossil is found. Great!

There is virtually nothing between 44 million and six million years old that would fit into that link and sugest any direct descendancy.

The Bible is irrelevant in anthropology. If there is a biblical timeframe suggesting that the earth is some 6000 years old, that refers to biblical time, it has nothing to do with geology or evolution of species which is a obvious and observable fact.
Pretty much all perfectly correct...

I'm afraid this has been beaten up a lot.

If everyone in North America dropped dead right now, there probably wouldn't be enough fossilized bones for a complete fossil in a few dozen million years...

---

I know that it's completely unprovable but the no-boundary theorem holds promise for solving the problem of 'First Cause' - applies a simple mathematical concept in physics to time, and generates a result consistent with some other rather odd mathematical results.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
jsnipy
...
Offline No Email No PM No website
+3,246|3026|...

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

there is no such thing as a random number
Planetside 2 >> Server: Emerald (East Coast) >> Faction: New Conglomerate >> Player Name: jsnipy999
Planetside 2 >> Server: Emerald (East Coast) >> Faction: Terran Republic >> Player Name: jsnipy
PureFodder
Member
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+225|2789

Ottomania wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why is it difficult to accept that within an almost infinitely complex system, given an almost infinite amount of time, that virtually anything could happen randomly and without any sort of guidance?
You already gave the answer.

infinitely complex.

you cannot create an infinitely complex system with random selection. even if you reach the half way correctly,-which is really impossible- you have to restart if you select next random variable wrong, because everything will go wrong after that wrong selection. That is the rule of probability. You cant go one step back. And there is nothing to control this restart mechanism.

Probability of putting 10 numbers in correct order is 1/10,000,000,000.

Now think a single DNA and information it contains. It includes billions of nucleic acids. a molecule of a adenine nucleobase consists 15 atoms. Only one connection type confirms structure.

I cant see a chance for whole system to be created from random selection no matter of time.
Life isn't infinately complex, just hugely improbable. Given enough matter, energy and time, every possible organization of atoms will occur.

The idea that you have to get each step correct is totally flawed btw. What actually happens is that most reproduction involves no steps forwards, occasionally there is a mutation and it is either terrible, killing itself off, neutral, meaning it survives or useful meaning it tends to get spread across the species.

The scientific theory of Intelligent design postulates that the first life of the Earth was so complex that it must have been designed by an advanced, complex being, which according to the scientific theory of Intelligent design, means the designer also requires an intelligent, complex designer,  which according to the scientific theory of Intelligent design, means it also requires an intelligent, complex designer, which according to the scientific theory of Intelligent design .........
Flecco
iPod is broken.
Offline No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,048|3169|NT, like Mick Dundee

BF2S Honors:
BF2S Game Admin
Donator

Spark wrote:

ATG wrote:

I find this to be ridiculous.

This creature appears to be related to homo sapiens about as much as a chimp.

The fact is that 0.0005% of dead animals fossilize. There will likely never be a complete link or a clear lineage from monkey to human. Several species similar to humans co-existed at various times. or, look at it this way, so this 45 million year old fossil is found. Great!

There is virtually nothing between 44 million and six million years old that would fit into that link and sugest any direct descendancy.

The Bible is irrelevant in anthropology. If there is a biblical timeframe suggesting that the earth is some 6000 years old, that refers to biblical time, it has nothing to do with geology or evolution of species which is a obvious and observable fact.
Pretty much all perfectly correct...

I'm afraid this has been beaten up a lot.

If everyone in North America dropped dead right now, there probably wouldn't be enough fossilized bones for a complete fossil in a few dozen million years...

---

I know that it's completely unprovable but the no-boundary theorem holds promise for solving the problem of 'First Cause' - applies a simple mathematical concept in physics to time, and generates a result consistent with some other rather odd mathematical results.
I demand links to further internetwebnet sources for this no-boundary theorem right now because it sounds interesting.
Australian culture is about two things, football and racism.

I never know what to kick. sad
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,101|3085|SE London

BF2S Honors:
Tech Team

Ottomania wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why is it difficult to accept that within an almost infinitely complex system, given an almost infinite amount of time, that virtually anything could happen randomly and without any sort of guidance?
You already gave the answer.

infinitely complex.

you cannot create an infinitely complex system with random selection. even if you reach the half way correctly,-which is really impossible- you have to restart if you select next random variable wrong, because everything will go wrong after that wrong selection. That is the rule of probability. You cant go one step back. And there is nothing to control this restart mechanism.

Probability of putting 10 numbers in correct order is 1/10,000,000,000.

Now think a single DNA and information it contains. It includes billions of nucleic acids. a molecule of a adenine nucleobase consists 15 atoms. Only one connection type confirms structure.

I cant see a chance for whole system to be created from random selection no matter of time.
Then you don't have much understanding of natural selection or maths.

I don't know what this correct order you are talking about is anyway. There is no right and wrong. There is what works and what doesn't. If it doesn't work it fails and goes no further, if it does work it may be perpetuated.

The whole point is that within a system as complex as the universe (you seem to have taken my description of an (almost) infinitely complex system to mean life - which it doesn't at all) given the vast amount of time it has had (16 billion years or so) it is almost impossible for life NOT to occur because of the probabilities involved. The fact it is as it is, is vastly improbable, but the fact it exists at all is not.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
Offline No Xfire No stats No Email No PM
+874|3178|Canberra, AUS

Flecco wrote:

Spark wrote:

ATG wrote:

I find this to be ridiculous.

This creature appears to be related to homo sapiens about as much as a chimp.

The fact is that 0.0005% of dead animals fossilize. There will likely never be a complete link or a clear lineage from monkey to human. Several species similar to humans co-existed at various times. or, look at it this way, so this 45 million year old fossil is found. Great!

There is virtually nothing between 44 million and six million years old that would fit into that link and sugest any direct descendancy.

The Bible is irrelevant in anthropology. If there is a biblical timeframe suggesting that the earth is some 6000 years old, that refers to biblical time, it has nothing to do with geology or evolution of species which is a obvious and observable fact.
Pretty much all perfectly correct...

I'm afraid this has been beaten up a lot.

If everyone in North America dropped dead right now, there probably wouldn't be enough fossilized bones for a complete fossil in a few dozen million years...

---

I know that it's completely unprovable but the no-boundary theorem holds promise for solving the problem of 'First Cause' - applies a simple mathematical concept in physics to time, and generates a result consistent with some other rather odd mathematical results.
I demand links to further internetwebnet sources for this no-boundary theorem right now because it sounds interesting.
I originally found out about it from a book - amazing, innit?

This source ain't bad:

http://www.everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

http://ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_cosmic_universe.asp is even better, but you would do well to know basic calculus (applied, especially) and some complex numbers - at the very least, have a vague idea of their geometry. That way you can get what the Wick rotation implies.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
Offline No Xfire No stats No stats No stats No Email No PM No website
+1,178|2915|'Murka

BF2S Honors:
Moderator

They used imaginary numbers. Doesn't count unless they're counting unicorns.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2014 Jeff Minard