Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 406 of 409 FirstFirst ... 306 356 396 404 405 406 407 408 ... LastLast
Results 4,051 to 4,060 of 4085

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #4051
    Senior Member FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,140
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    11:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Nope, the universe had a beginning. The definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, there was nothing.
    As I said, I personally believe that it had a beginning. The difference is that I take the Scientific view & acknowledge that I could be wrong, as I know that there are other equally plausible theories.

    But space isn't nothing.
    Also what I said.

    No, it just means it is expanding.
    Just that in order to expand it has to have something to expand into, and if the Universe that exists is expanding, then the only way it can expand is into something that doesn't exist.

    If you trace the universe back to the beginning, and then go back another step, you have nothing.
    Which is why I said that it should not be a binary thing. If each step is 50% nearer to the beginning, then you get increasing close to the absolute beginning, but you will never reach it. Therefore, the size of the origin becomes increasingly infinitessibly small.
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics
    Answers to Critics

    by Jonathan Sarfati

    Open Systems

    'Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

    'This does seem to be a valid point-do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?'

    The Second Law can be stated in many different ways
    This is the point at which a valid statement goes over to interpretation. In Physics, a Law is just that - it cannot be expressed in different way. It cannot be Cherry Picked. It is what it is. As for disorder never tending towards order, then explain crystals. Explain a snowflake. The are extremely mathematically precise examples of order created from random disorder.

    I know the universe had a beginning. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.
    NOBODY knows anything of the sort. As I've said over & over again, I believe the Universe had a beginning, but I do not KNOW it. Also as I've said, you still don't get it, entropy does not apply as we are not working with a closed system. Even our own Solar System is not a closed system. It is part of a Galaxy, which in turn is a miniscule part of the Universe which, in turn is expanding further. Anything that is expanding cannot, by definition, be closed.

    There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
    You can use any Fairy Story to cite indications of the existence of magic. It doesn't count as Scientific evidence & can, therefore, be disregarded.


    Apart from your irresistable urge to revert to irrelevant & incorrect pastings from Creationist sites, using no Scientific insight whatsoever, you did better than usual, at least attempting to form an argument - not very successfully, which isn't surprising seeing as you don't have a clue what you're talking about, but I will attest that you at least tried.

  2. #4052
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by FourPart View Post

    In Physics, a Law is just that - it cannot be expressed in different way. It cannot be Cherry Picked. It is what it is. As for disorder never tending towards order, then explain crystals. Explain a snowflake. The are extremely mathematically precise examples of order created from random disorder.

    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Entropy and Open Systems


    BY HENRY M. MORRIS, PH.D.

    The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.

    The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.

    "This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1

    "Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2

    It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.

    "In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3

    "Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4

    "Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5

    When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:

    "In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6

    Some evolutionists try to solve the problem by suggesting that the entropy law is only statistical and that exceptions can occur, which would allow occasional accidental increases in order. Whether this is so, however, is entirely a matter of faith. No one has ever seen such an exception, and science is based upon observation!

    "There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."7

    By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.

    Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:

    "Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8
    Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."

    [continue]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  3. #4053
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Entropy and Open Systems

    [continued]

    If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    To cite special cases (such as the seed, for which the genetic code and the conversion mechanism of photosynthesis are available) is futile, as far as "evolution" is concerned, since there is neither a directing program nor a conversion apparatus available to produce an imaginary evolutionary growth in complexity of the earth and its biosphere.

    It is even more futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this:

    "The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."9

    Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance — their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow.

    But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible.

    To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem and are trying to solve it. Prigogine has proposed an involved theory of "order through fluctuations" and "dissipative structures."10
    But his examples are from inorganic systems and he acknowledges that there is a long way to go to explain how these become living systems by his theory.

    "But let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."11
    Another recent writer who has partially recognized the seriousness of this problem is Charles J. Smith.

    "The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value."12

    Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.

    It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law.

    The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.

    Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model.

    The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  4. #4054
    Senior Member FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,140
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    11:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Deja vu all over again.

    There is, of course that Time & Space are folding in a multi dimensional mobious loop. Pahu's repeating postings seem to support this theory. He puts the same old pastings with no additional input, using the same old phrase that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

  5. #4055
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by FourPart View Post
    Deja vu all over again.

    There is, of course that Time & Space are folding in a multi dimensional mobious loop. Pahu's repeating postings seem to support this theory. He puts the same old pastings with no additional input, using the same old phrase that demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    The 'Animal Connection' Points to Creation, not Evolution




    BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

    What do the oldest European artworks and the domestication of animals have in common? A Penn State University paleoanthropologist suggested that they are evidence of a unique connection with animals that profoundly shaped the evolutionary development of early man. However, though her hypothesis provides an interesting spin on the evolutionary story, it ignores much of what the data actually reveal.

    The presumed oldest artworks in Europe are ivory carvings depicting animals. Since artists have to think about and visualize an artwork before they make it, it's safe to assume that these artists had the same capacity for thought that modern sculptors have. But why did they choose animals as their subjects? In both a technical paper in Current Anthropology and the book The Animal Connection, Penn State's Pat Shipman hypothesized that humans (or human-like ancestors) who shared a more intimate connection with animals were able to obtain more meat, accelerating their evolutionary progress toward modern man.

    In addition, their ability to use animals for work and sustenance--"tracking game, destroying rodents, protecting kin and goods, providing wool for warmth, moving humans and goods over long distances, and providing milk to human infants"1--tailored the "selective pressures" that supposedly formed humans.

    According to a Penn State news release, Shipman even suggested that the "animal connection" with man led to the evolution of language. Supposedly, domesticated animals became so important that the need for accurate communication about how to manage them gradually turned ape-like grunts into symbolized abstract thoughts.

    [continue]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  6. #4056
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    The 'Animal Connection' Points to Creation, not Evolution


    [continued]

    However, the available data regarding language, animal domestication, and early artwork are most easily interpreted within a creation, not an evolution, narrative.

    If the first man was created in the image of God, complete with both the creativity of mind to make art and the appropriate biomechanisms to express that creativity,2 one would expect to find evidence of the sudden appearance of high-quality art. The examples of man's earliest artwork are extraordinarily accurate and fine pieces--obviously the products of people who were fully human. Where are the crude and clumsy artifacts formed by evolution's "pre-people"?

    According to Genesis, man was made with a purpose--to rule over the animals and "subdue" (or organize) the natural environment, including its creatures.3 Thus, early evidence for animal domestication is expected. In fact, Genesis offers verification of early animal domestication, since one of the first man's sons "was a keeper of sheep."4

    And rather than having to rely on "just-so" stories about how language somehow "emerged," it is more logical to conclude that since the core features of language had to all be present at once for any language to exist, they could not possibly be the result of any simple force of nature and must instead be the result of deliberate design.5

    Expertly carved ivory art, cleverly managed animals, and fully adept language--which are all evidenced among man's earliest historical relics and documents--strongly testify to man having been fully man right from the start.

    The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  7. #4057
    Senior Member FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,140
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    11:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Yawn - Same old, same old.

  8. #4058
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by FourPart View Post
    Yawn - Same old, same old.

    The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Stone Blades Cut Back Evolutionary Dates



    BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

    Evolutionary anthropologists once thought that stone knives were developed in the late Stone Age, around 40,000 years ago. That figure was later revised to 200,000, around the Middle Stone Age, when stone blades were discovered in lower strata.

    Now stone blades have been found in Kenyan rock layers dated at about 500,000 years old according to evolutionary estimates.1 Thus, the original claim that “40,000 years ago, man made his first stone implements” was off by over 92 percent, suggesting that evolutionary depictions of human history are unreliable.

    The news of 500,000-year-old knives may be frustrating to evolutionary anthropologists, who had already faced difficulty adjusting history to accommodate the supposedly 200,000 and 300,000-year-old stone knives found in recent decades.2 An attempt was made to reconcile those data to the old historical framework by reasoning that since modern man only emerged from an ape-like ancestor some 200,000 years ago, pre-modern (almost-man) creatures who lived over 380,000 years ago must have been able to make knives, even though they were quite ape-like in other respects.

    But these newly-discovered knives predate even “pre-modern” man’s imagined ability to make such tools. A difference of about 160,000 years is significant enough that it cannot easily be ignored. Another major alteration is needed to accommodate the new data.

    Although puzzling to evolutionary scientists, evidence such as these stone knives fits perfectly with the biblical record, which teaches that mankind was created fully human from the beginning, without any “ape-man” ancestors. In fact, ape-kind and mankind are described as being created as distinct kinds (Genesis 1:25), thus ruling out that “kind” of evolution.

    Removing the restriction of long-age assumptions, the stone knives were most likely made somewhere on the order of several thousand years ago, at least since the time of the Tower of Babel, circa 2200 B.C. The forced dispersion of peoples from the Middle East outward across the rest of the world, as described in Genesis 11, caused migrating families to start from scratch, eking out an existence with stone knives and cave dwellings for a time. The volcanic deposits that sandwiched the newly-discovered African blades could well be remnants of post-Flood volcanic activity, marks of a time when earth’s crust was less stable, still settling down from the great, year-long upheaval of Noah’s Flood. This historical picture, unlike the standard evolutionary one, is based on eyewitness accounts, not on unfounded and ever-changing presuppositions.

    In describing the “human ancestors” who made the Kenyan blades, the journal Science stated that “these toolmakers were capable of more sophisticated behavior than previously thought.”1 Of course they were. They were fully-created human beings!

    The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #4059
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution


    The First Cell 2

    There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).

    b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.” Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p.7.

    “No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.” Kenyon, p.A-20.

    “If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be able to construct one—only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely dares to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p.45.

    Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.” Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.”

    “However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp.406–407.

    “Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.” Crick, p.153.

    This fascination explains why the “origin of life” topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  10. #4060
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-16-2018
    Local Time
    07:07 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.

    Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways


    Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?

    All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).

    a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.

    b. Behe, pp.77–97.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 406 of 409 FirstFirst ... 306 356 396 404 405 406 407 408 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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