|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 4:39:56 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8754
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
No, they just approach interpretation of the scriptures with a much greater level of sophistication, depth, and reason.
Their reason is to be dismiss it, and they'll use scientifical claims as the depth for their reasoning, while not even fully understanding the claims they represent.
Yeah, some sophistication.
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Evolution is not a denial of the doctrine of creation.
Neither is it a promotion of creation. It offers a different concept, a concept that is in opposition with creation.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 4:48:28 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mandicoot
In reading the account of creation, take a minute to notice something. When He created the plants, He created them "with seed in them". He made not saplings, but grown, mature plants. He created them with the appearance of age. It's not deception at all, because if He hadn't made full grown plants, Adam and Eve and the rest of creation wouldn't have had anything to eat. If He created vegetation with the appearance of age, what would stop Him from creating everything else with the appearance of age? Is it so far fetched to think that He made the stars already visible as if the earth had been here longer?
This is a version of what is now jokingly called "Last Thursdayism", in that the universe was started at some arbitrary point in it's existence... Think of time as a DVD and God skips ahead to the good part, and as such it has the appearance of age. Sure that could be the case, but it means that the sciences are indeed on the right track. For all intents and purposes, in trying to understand our universe and the laws it operates by, assuming old age, evolution etc is the right thing to do to properly understand how the universe functions now according to this view.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 4:56:21 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:
quote:
2. many more stars are visible today than thousands of years ago
(only accounts for stars less than 10,000 light years distant)
3. God created photons "in-transit" positioned between us and the stars such that the universe appears old
(deceitful deity hypothesis, that accounts for stars more than 10,000 light years distant)
In reading the account of creation, take a minute to notice something. When He created the plants, He created them "with seed in them". He made not saplings, but grown, mature plants. He created them with the appearance of age. It's not deception at all, because if He hadn't made full grown plants, Adam and Eve and the rest of creation wouldn't have had anything to eat. If He created vegetation with the appearance of age, what would stop Him from creating everything else with the appearance of age? Is it so far fetched to think that He made the stars already visible as if the earth had been here longer?
Ok. That's a fair and acceptable theological resolution that simultaneously allows the appearance of a 14 billion year old universe and the appearance of the validity of the Theory of Evolution without being heretical in the process.
It is also known as the Omphalos theory and was first suggested in 1857 in the book of the same name.
http://books.google.com/books?id=acwQAAAAIAAJ&dq=gosse+omphalos&pg=PP1&ots=EbVlEXXVxt&sig=l_NNXdz1VytqBlvaKCGokdgI0xA&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dgosse%2Bomphalos%26safe%3Dactive&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA2,M1
In modern times it is also called the "brains in the vat" solution. Or "last Thursdayism". There is no way to refute it scientifically, because it is basically a denial that we can trust our senses at all. Sense and observation tell us nothing useful. They can't even tell us that the universe around us is really there and not just a solopsistic dream.
Omphalos was quickly rejected by most 19th century Christians as a denial of the doctrine of creation which holds that God did indeed create a universe, a real one, and furthermore, that he created an ordered universe which is amenable to study by sense and reason. In addition he created humanity with the qualities of sense and reason necessary to explore the world and gain real information about it.
To a Christian who takes the doctrine of creation seriously, it is disturbing to see the level of heresy fundamentalists are willing to import into their interpretations of scripture. The Omphalos theory (gets its name from the idea that Adam, though never carried in the womb, nevertheless was equipped with a navel, giving the false impression of one gestated and born.
It is important to note that it does not merely say that Adam was made as an adult, but as an adult with the marks of a false history in his body--the remnant of an umbilical cord that he never had and never needed.
Similarly, all appeals to "appearance of age" fall afoul of the fact that things don't just appear to be old, but to have had a history that could not have occurred. This is the factor that makes "appearance of age" deceitful. Had Adam not had a navel, one could possibly sustain that he was made instantaneously as an adult. If starlight was simply light, one could possibly sustain that it was generated instantly in transit.
But Adam with a navel (or any other mark of events in his life which occurred before he was made) is not just appearance. It is deceit. And starlight from a super-nova dated millions of years ago is not just light, it is light with an historical origin. To deny that the history took place is to say that light bears false witness.
This is anathema to any coherent doctrine of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 4:59:10 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Evolution is not a denial of the doctrine of creation.
Neither is it a promotion of creation. It offers a different concept, a concept that is in opposition with creation.
No, it is not in opposition with creation. It may be in opposition with your particular idea of creation, but your idea may need to be amended to agree with scripture and with reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:03:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
If you have a problem with evolution because of the scriptures, I suggest it is because you need some help understanding the scriptures. Then, by all means gluadys, enlighten us with just one Scripture passage that even remotely suggests universal common descent over hundreds of millions of years. I certainly would not want to be part of a *gasp* conspiracy to silence truth!
What makes you think the bible is an encyclopedia of modern scientific discoveries? Does just one scripture even remotely suggest the chemical composition of water?
The whole idea that the bible ought to be read as if you would find science in it is wrong-headed to begin with.
God already gave us a different text for the discovery of science. It is called the created natural order.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:11:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
And I am a Christian who accepts evolution----as do most Christians.
I don't know what Christians you talk to, but perhaps you should broaden your horizons?
Unless you can show that most Christians live in the USA, I suggest it is you who needs to broaden your horizons. Outside that country, even most theologically conservative Christians accept evolution.
quote:
if you ask an Atheist why he doesn't believe in a God, he will say there is no evidence to persuade him otherwise. This argument implies he indeed has evidence against a God.
No, it doesn't.
You are confusing two different statements.
1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. There is evidence that God does not exist.
The first does not imply the second.
All atheists I have heard affirm the first, but many deny the second. I suppose a few might claim to have positive evidence that God does not exist, but most would say this is not a possibility, and doesn't concern them anyway. It is enoughfor them that the evidence for God is negative.
Of course, the whole notion of proving God's existence through evidence is a fool's errand anyway. I, for one, would not worship a god who is an object of scientific verification. Any such god could not be the creator of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:13:52 PM
|
|
|
SoldierInGodsArmy
Posts: 19
Joined: 5/8/2008
Status: offline
|
I apologize for the offensive nature of my first post. I wrongly let my emotions get ahold of me as I typed it.
I don't think that the bible was meant to be an accurate scientific report of how the earth was created. I also think it is foolish to think that way because it distracts you from the message of the story. I prefer to learn from the teachings of Christ not from the "literal" aspects of the bible. The message is more important than the story.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:23:56 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mandicoot
In reading the account of creation, take a minute to notice something. When He created the plants, He created them "with seed in them". He made not saplings, but grown, mature plants.
That is an improper interpretation in that you are adding to the text something you are assuming, but which the text does not actually say.
In this account the writer is saying that God commanded the earth to bring forth vegetation and specifies several kinds of vegetation which it is to produce. Among these are plants that bear seed and fruit trees that have the seed in the fruit. (These, of course, are the plants of most interest to humans. Interestingly, it does not mention trees that do not bear fruit, or plants that do not bear seed, but I expect we agree that they were included in the overall creation of plants, though they are not named.)
And the earth does, in fact, bring forth vegetation of this sort.
Nowhere, though, does the text say that the earth produced this vegetation in an already mature state. All it affirms is that it produced the sort of vegetation God commanded it to produce. That the earth produced grown, mature plants is something you have added to the text, not something in the text itself.
If the earth had produced immature saplings of fruit trees, it would still have obeyed the command to produce fruit trees, for as they matured, they would bear fruit, and the fruit would have seed in it. The command only names the type of vegetation. It does not specify that it was to be produced in its mature state.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:28:32 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8754
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
your idea may need to be amended to agree with scripture and with reality.
My idea was derived from scripture, but thanks for trying to correct me anyway. You're so humble.
Reality is nothing more than conjuntion of thoughts and ideas. The Bible is accuracy, in and of itself.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:32:23 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
your idea may need to be amended to agree with scripture and with reality.
My idea was derived from scripture, but thanks for trying to correct me anyway. You're so humble.
Deriving an idea from scripture is not a guarantee that it was derived correctly. History is filled with examples of ideas derived from scripture which are wrong.
quote:
Reality is nothing more than conjuntion of thoughts and ideas.
Ah, so in fact, you actually do not believe in creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 5:54:27 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8754
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Deriving an idea from scripture is not a guarantee that it was derived correctly.
So that justifies your thought of genetic mutation being biblically correct?
The Bible reveals creation in chronological order, numbered by days. Nowhere mentioning a form of evolution over hundreds of mya.
quote:
Ah, so in fact, you actually do not believe in creation.
You caught me! I'm an aspired evolutionist passing myself off as a creationist just for the mere sake of arguing. Dangit, I should've dressed up like Henry Morris just to further my disguise.
... no. Not at all. Reality, as in worldview, is compiled of thoughts and ideas generated from every direction.
Our physical reality; i.e. the universe in its entirety, is the source of intelligent design which has produced from creation.
Again, thanks for taking my statements out of context. You're just a basket of modesty, aren't you?
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 6:06:58 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Deriving an idea from scripture is not a guarantee that it was derived correctly.
So that justifies your thought of genetic mutation being biblically correct?
The Bible reveals creation in chronological order, numbered by days. Nowhere mentioning a form of evolution over hundreds of mya.
Genetic mutation happens every single day. Point mutations, deletions, insertions, duplications, etc, etc. Are you saying these things do not happen?
Nature itself, reveals the chronological order of creation. The Bible contains a fable, which illustrates that God was the creator. If there were proof of God in nature, one wonders why humanity would need a Bible at all?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 6:15:32 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7341
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
99.98% Biologists accept Evolution and 70% of those people believe in God according polls.
Actually it would appear among leading biologists, some 95% are effectively atheists.
This would seem to suggest either atheists really like being biologists, or there is some causal link between evolutionary theory and belief in atheism.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 6:25:37 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
99.98% Biologists accept Evolution and 70% of those people believe in God according polls.
Actually it would appear among leading biologists, some 95% are effectively atheists.
This would seem to suggest either atheists really like being biologists, or there is some causal link between evolutionary theory and belief in atheism.
quote:
some 95% are effectively atheists.
Several studies have shown a casual relationship between intelligence and atheism as well. Generally, atheists tend to be more intelligent and more educated than the religious, on average. Studies have also shown that in areas of the world that are the most miserable (poverty stricken, war torn, poor quality of life etc etc) tend to be the most religious.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/25/2008 6:31:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 6:39:30 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7341
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Several studies have shown a casual relationship between intelligence and atheism as well. Generally, atheists tend to be more intelligent and more educated than the religious, on average. Studies have also shown that in areas of the world that are the most miserable (poverty stricken, war torn, poor quality of life etc etc) tend to be the most religious.
I think there is certainly a relationship between level of education, particularly certain kinds and atheism, but less so intelligence. The overwhelming majority of doctros for example are religious believers of some sort, as are engineers.
And while some of the poorest parts of the world are indeed 'religious', many, like North Korea amd Vietnam are much less so. And one of the wealthiest and most educated, the US, is of course one of the most religious - Christian even.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 6:50:57 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1191
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
Deriving an idea from scripture is not a guarantee that it was derived correctly.
If I were in a doctrinal dispute with fellow Christians (e.g. historical accuracy of Genesis) and discovered that atheists were lining up on my side of the dispute I would not automatically assume that I was on the wrong side of the dispute. However, I would put serious consideration to the fact that atheists are far more likely to line up on Satan’s side than God’s side.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 7:10:33 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8754
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Are you saying these things do not happen?
I'm saying it wasn't the beginning of life.
quote:
If there were proof of God in nature, one wonders why humanity would need a Bible at all?
One wonders why humanity would take a telescope and look over everything in existence and question the existence of God.
Everything material in detail came from a source. Something infinite produced something finite.
quote:
The Bible contains a fable, which illustrates that God was the creator.
Is creator. There is no past tense. He always was, is, without end.
The Bible is not even remotely related to a myth. Jesus isn't some Little Red Riding Hood wannabe.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 7:31:53 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
The Bible contains a fable, which illustrates that God was the creator.
Is creator. There is no past tense. He always was, is, without end.
The Bible is not even remotely related to a myth. Jesus isn't some Little Red Riding Hood wannabe.
Well, Genesis in particular draws upon symbolism and story telling techniques present in many creation stories, all of which I'm sure most here would agree are myth, allegorical, or fable.
Well, you could more accurately call Jesus a Zarathustra wanna-be ;)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 7:59:57 PM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 571
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoldierInGodsArmy
I'm a Christian and I accept Evolution.
99.98% Biologists accept Evolution and 70% of those people believe in God according polls.
Stop going to these Creationists websites and finding all this nonsense disproving Evolution because most if it is doodoo. You all who choose to be willfully ignorant are throwing gasoline on the fire of atheism. You make us look like idiots to those who don't believe in a god, so quit plugging your ears and going to creationistevolutionconspiracy.com and look at the facts.
Here is a basic intro to Evolution by a CHRISTIAN biologist *gasp*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY
Hmmm. And I could refute this website with other scientific evidence quite easily. But this topic has become quite tiresome and it has become tiresome to the point that we are forgetting the real reason why we are here. Frankly, evolution is a theory in crisis. Perhaps you confuse evolution with natural selection? I do not know. I just know that I do not want to go thru another evolution VS creation debate here as it will be reduced to mudslinging.
Just a thought - and I do doubt your statistics on 99.98% of biologists and all, and I could refrain from the "Well if everyone else was jumping off the bridge would you also?" analogy... but...
Most of those biologists who do believe evolution believe it because they have been taught it and have not gotten farther into biology to realize that it simply does not make sense. Just as I was taught that the Lord's Supper should be observed quarterly until I read the Good Word myself and saw it seemed to be a weekly event, these biologists have been taught evolution without giving a second thought to the scientific side of the evidence for creation.
Wait... did I just go back on myself by saying I did NOT want to be involved in another evolution VS creation debate? Huh? I may as well start bringing in Bush and 9/11. WAIT! I do not want to open a can of worms!
Hmm....
We need to get back to the 2 R's of Christianity. Redemption and Resurrection. Forget the rest.
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 8:34:57 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Deriving an idea from scripture is not a guarantee that it was derived correctly.
So that justifies your thought of genetic mutation being biblically correct?
I have never claimed that the bible teaches correct science.
quote:
The Bible reveals creation in chronological order, numbered by days. Nowhere mentioning a form of evolution over hundreds of mya.
Ever wonder why there are seven days in the week? It comes from the paganism of the ANE. They identified each of the major heavenly bodies visible to the unaided eye as gods controlling the events of earth. So the days of the week are named after the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn and you have the basis of astrology. (Our English names for the weekdays are derived from the Nordic equivalents, Tyr, Woden, Thor & Freya.)
So the biblical writer writes a repudiation of paganism by putting all the days under the rule of one God, not seven. Another indication that the days are not intended as chronology is the ordering of creation in great categories within a balanced framework of 1. creating structural form and 2. filling each structure with appropriate inhabitants. This recollects the opening statement that the newly-created earth was "without form and empty".
It is interesting to note that ancient interpreters of scripture fully understood that the chronological approach had to be incorrect because of the problem of light without sun. (See Origen, for one.) Also that the development of the "Framework Interpretation" does not come from any liberal theologian but from the theologians of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which is very conservative theologically.
The bible does not mention evolution or gravity or atomic theory or relativity or the laws of motion. The bible does not teach science. That is not its purpose. So there is no reason for it to mention the scientific details that went into creation.
quote:
quote:
Ah, so in fact, you actually do not believe in creation.
... no. Not at all. Reality, as in worldview, is compiled of thoughts and ideas generated from every direction.
Well, I was talking about reality, not worldviews. Worldviews are just opinions and they may or may not agree with reality. I expect an acceptable worldview to agree with the reality God created.
How about you?
Do you believe God created a reality?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 8:38:43 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
The Bible is not even remotely related to a myth. Jesus isn't some Little Red Riding Hood wannabe.
1. You don't know the difference between myth and fairy tale.
2. Why would God not inspire a myth? Everything I see in scripture leads me to believe God often uses story and imagery for teaching purposes. Jesus told stories, and by his own claim, he did nothing his Father did not do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 8:45:29 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: draexo
Frankly, evolution is a theory in crisis.
Of course, the fellow who originally said that has backtracked on the claim.
quote:
Perhaps you confuse evolution with natural selection?
Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. If natural selection is occurring, then evolution is occurring. Natural selection cannot take place without producing evolution.
quote:
We need to get back to the 2 R's of Christianity. Redemption and Resurrection. Forget the rest.
That would be a very good idea. We could stop grumbling about science curricula, shut down all the creationist propaganda organizations, and refuse to demand that Christians who believe in Redemption and Resurrection also adhere to a modernistic, scientific reading of a literalized Genesis which was never written with modern science in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 9:13:08 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8754
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
1. You don't know the difference between myth and fairy tale.
2. Why would God not inspire a myth? Everything I see in scripture leads me to believe God often uses story and imagery for teaching purposes. Jesus told stories, and by his own claim, he did nothing his Father did not do.
1. Stop trying to correct me. The Webster dictionary sitting beside me reads "a false belief or opinion". That is the context I took it as.
2. Using the previous definition, why would He inspire something false when He professes truth?
I know Jesus often used analogies and imagery to relate stories and prophecies. But to say the account of creation was written as an analogy, that's basically saying it was an image painted to resemble a different fact. Which, as you profess, is evolution.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 9:20:40 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 8754
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. There is evidence that God does not exist.
It's no more logical to proclaim God does not exist than it is to proclaim His existence.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/25/2008 9:36:31 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. There is evidence that God does not exist.
It's no more logical to proclaim God does not exist than it is to proclaim His existence.
Well, glad we can agree, proclaiming the existence of a god is totally illogical.
But you are confused with what atheism is... it's a lack of belief in God, not and outright proclamation that no God can possibly exist. There is a big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
