Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2016, 12:08 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:But we have Coordinates in the Universe Paleophyte. The Big Bang singularity can be given a cordinate just like the Milky Way can be given a cordinate.

No, it can't. The universe was contained within the singularity. It was the singularity. All space-time, all coordinates were within the singularity.

The only coordinates that the singularity could accurately be assigned are all coordinates. And that is singularly unhelpful.

In order for the singularity to have any single set of coordinates it would be necessary for it not to have included all the others. So kindly tell me, what parts of space were not included within the singularity?

The Big Bang isn't a firecracker going off, it is the expansion of space-time from the singularity. The oft-cited example is of a baloon being inflated.

The singularity is the baloon when it is infinitely small.

The inflated baloon is the universe today.

What point on the inflated baloon was not included in the original?

Quote:All we are interested in is the time taken for it to get from the event start cordinate to our present cordinate in the observable universe.

It took 13.8 billion years to get from here to here at a speed of zero.

Quote:You keep comparing the flight time to the age of the plane & i do not see the correlation. Would you care to show me how determining the age of the plane can tell us how long the flight took?

The age of the plane cannot be less than the duration of the flight. You will not be changing universes, this is a direct flight.

Quote:How determining the Age of the universe is going to determine how long the process of creation took?

You seem to think these are two different things, despite having quite clearly defined them as the same:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Kindly explain what you mean by "how long the process of creation took" and how it relates to the age of the Universe.

Quote:The problem is you don't understand the meaning of the word create throughout this entire debate.

I took it to mean what you said above. From singularity to present is fairly unambiguous. Kindly show me where I've gone wrong.

Quote:You seem to think we are discussing the age of the Universe when I am only discussing the age of it's creation.
aka:
The time taken to bring the universe's initial state of event start (the singularity) to it's present state.

And how are these different in any way?

Quote:I take it you no longer wish to discuss the topic unless i change the subject we had initially agreed to, right?

Wrong. I would appreciate it if you would stop muddying the waters by creating new terms and claiming that they are not the old terms despite having identical definitions.

To that end, kindly define this "age of creation" and how it differs from the age of the Universe.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
15-02-2016, 12:10 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 11:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Answer me this then. Which one of these do you think you are discussing?

1. The age of the universe.
or
2. The time taken to create the universe.

You have defined them as the same thing. Kindly define them clearly so that the difference is obvious.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
15-02-2016, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2016 12:11 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(15-02-2016 12:10 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(14-02-2016 11:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Answer me this then. Which one of these do you think you are discussing?

1. The age of the universe.
or
2. The time taken to create the universe.

You have defined them as the same thing. Kindly define them clearly so that the difference is obvious.
Where have I ever defined the age of the universe as the same thing as the age of creation? You are making that assumption continuously even though I am correcting it repeatedly.
I have made the distinction at numerous points in this debate.
You have yet to tell me what you think creation means. Once you do it you will see why they are two distinct topics. This is the 4th time I am asking now. What do you think creation means?
It's in the very topic title I started in the colosseum which you brought into the boxing ring.
Creation has been referred to in my first proper reply here as the time taken from event start to event end, and has been agreed to be the basis of our debate.
I further emphasized the meaning of creation with regards to the dictionary meaning.
Creation is the process of bringing something from one state of objective reality to another state of objective reality.
It has nothing to do with "something from nothing" nor does it have to do with an outside observer. At least not for the purpose of this debate.

The reason I am claiming the age of the observable universe is not correlated to the age of creation is because of the following:
1. There are instances where a creator can be younger than the createe based on frame of reference.
2. You are not using the reference frame of the creator to determine the age of the creator.
3. You are using the frame of reference of the createe to determine the age of the creator.
4. General relativity requires point 2 for you to determine the age of the creator
5. Nowhere in GR does it state that an object will always be younger than something that created it.

Now tell me this:
How did you determine the age of the inflationary epoch? GR based on the singularity frame of reference right?
How did you determine the age of the expansion epoch? GR based on the CMB frame of reference right?
Which frame of reference do you think is required to determine the age of event event start to even end? I it not the singularity reference frame?
Do you honestly expect that CMB frame of reference of zero is to now is going to affect the time taken from start to finish?

Let me put it like this.
Event start to finish has a distance of 10km and a speed of 1km/hr based on the starting reference frame.
During that journey someone starts a frame of reference measurement 9km into the journey and unknowingly uses a 1000% slower clock to measure time. They will get a slower speed than than the event start frame of reference than the one they measured.
To them t=d/v so 1km/0.001 km/hr for the last 10% of the journey. Therefore the last 10% of the journey took 1000 hours relative to them.
To the event start frame of reference t=d/v so 1km/1 km/hr the last 10% of the journey. Therefore the last 10% of the journey took 1 hour relative to the journey.

You are claiming that the clock we are using carries the same time as the event start clock, when in the above scenario we have no way of knowing.
It has nothing to do with special relativity. If you used an incorrect starting velocity of zero to create a measurement of time then you will never have a synchronized clock with the real starting frame of reference.
I didn't use any special relativity in the above scenario. It's just plain old general relativity based on an assumed starting velocity of zero for the last km.

P.S. How are you ever going to determine the distance between event start to event end without a coordinate? You need some form of positioning to find distance. Cosmologist use coordinates everyday to describe cosmological locations. Just because nothing else existed at the start of the singularity doesn't mean we cannot give it a coordinate the instant inflation begins. If the big bang has no coordinates then we will be aging the universe based on infinity.
We already agreed event start is the beginning, why are you refusing to have a starting point for measuring expansion at this point in the debate?
Find all posts by this user
15-02-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(15-02-2016 07:49 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 12:10 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  You have defined them as the same thing. Kindly define them clearly so that the difference is obvious.
Where have I ever defined the age of the universe as the same thing as the age of creation? You are making that assumption continuously even though I am correcting it repeatedly.

Funny about that. Let's check the agreed upon definitions that you posted:
(28-01-2016 09:25 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 06:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 05:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 01:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Before I reply to your answers we need common ground on understanding of the question. I don't know if you agreed with my explanation of what we are debating here so I will state it again.
"For the purpose of this debate I will use the singularity as the the event start state & the limit of the expansion as the event end state."

I will happily accept the singularity as the starting state of the universe. That's the generally accepted consensus even though it's been giving quantum mechanics fits for decades.

I will have to ask you to clarify what you mean by "the limit of the expansion".

The limit of expansion:
As in the present state of the universe based on our observation

It was a bit of a confusing way of saying 'from the Big Bang to the present' but yes, I can agree that that is the only definition that makes any sense.

Kindly observe the bits in bold. From the Big Bang to the present. That's the age of the universe. That's what you defined for the purpose of this debate and after clarification I agreed to.

Quote:I have made the distinction at numerous points in this debate.

Using the term is not the same as making the distinction. Failing to define the term when previously agreed to terms are already in use is simply being needlessly confusing.

Quote:You have yet to tell me what you think creation means.

I think that it is a term with connotations that should not be applied to a sensible debate. Creation implies a Creator, as your previous post demonstrates.

I have been using your definition posted here:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Once again, from singularity to present state. That's the definition of the age of the Universe. You have defined it as such twice, both times at your insistance.

Quote:Once you do it you will see why they are two distinct topics. This is the 4th time I am asking now. What do you think creation means?

Your term. You define. Do so quickly and clearly.

Quote:1. There are instances where a creator

And now we have ourselves a Creator. Colour me unsurprised.

Quote:based on frame of reference.

You can't define a frame of reference external to the universe so this doesn't apply.

Quote:You are not using the reference frame of the creator to determine the age of the creator.

I am not using any reference frame at all.

Quote:4. General relativity requires point 2 for you to determine the age of the creator

Good luck doing that with the universe.

Quote:5. Nowhere in GR does it state that an object will always be younger than something that created it.

Nowhere in GR does it say bugger all about creation.

Quote:How did you determine the age of the inflationary epoch? GR based on the singularity frame of reference right?

Wrong. Neither apply. The lower limit is determined by symmetry breaking and the upper limit by the effect of quantum fluctuations on the gravitational tensor field coupled with the inflaton.

Quote:How did you determine the age of the expansion epoch? GR based on the CMB frame of reference right?

Wrong. Adiababtic temperature change based on expansion of the universe.

Quote:Which frame of reference do you think is required to determine the age of event event start to even end? I it not the singularity reference frame?

None whatsoever. Stop trying to misapply relativity. It's like trying to weigh your shadow and as likely to provide a meaningful answer.

Quote:Do you honestly expect that CMB frame of reference of zero is to now is going to affect the time taken from start to finish?[quote]

Nope. Not one jot.

[quote]I didn't use any special relativity in the above scenario. It's just plain old general relativity based on an assumed starting velocity of zero for the last km.

That was not General Relativity. That was just plain old wrong.

If you had used GR you might understand that GR doesn't give a damn what speed you are moving at. Time dilations in GR are the product of the curvature of space-time, the the result of velocity. Here's the wikipedia entry:

Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity


Quote:How are you ever going to determine the distance between event start to event end without a coordinate?

By not using the v = d/t equation that I advised you to abandon long ago. It has served you poorly and continues to lead you wrong.

Quote:You need some form of positioning to find distance.

I neither need nor want distance.

Quote:Cosmologist use coordinates everyday to describe cosmological locations.

Relative to Earth. No cosmologist anywhere ever refers to coordinates relative to the singularity and for excellent reasons. A quick Google search would have shown you as much. Here's the youtube video explaining why:




Quote:We already agreed event start is the beginning, why are you refusing to have a starting point for measuring expansion at this point in the debate?

I agreed to a starting condition, not a fixed point in space. Links here and here.

But never let it be said that I'm not giving you a fair shake. Define your terms clearly and show your work. Demonstrate the possibility of this 6 day age of creation.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
15-02-2016, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2016 04:36 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(15-02-2016 04:17 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 07:49 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Where have I ever defined the age of the universe as the same thing as the age of creation? You are making that assumption continuously even though I am correcting it repeatedly.

Funny about that. Let's check the agreed upon definitions that you posted:
(28-01-2016 09:25 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  It was a bit of a confusing way of saying 'from the Big Bang to the present' but yes, I can agree that that is the only definition that makes any sense.

Kindly observe the bits in bold. From the Big Bang to the present. That's the age of the universe. That's what you defined for the purpose of this debate and after clarification I agreed to.

Quote:I have made the distinction at numerous points in this debate.

Using the term is not the same as making the distinction. Failing to define the term when previously agreed to terms are already in use is simply being needlessly confusing.

Quote:You have yet to tell me what you think creation means.

I think that it is a term with connotations that should not be applied to a sensible debate. Creation implies a Creator, as your previous post demonstrates.

I have been using your definition posted here:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Once again, from singularity to present state. That's the definition of the age of the Universe. You have defined it as such twice, both times at your insistance.

Quote:Once you do it you will see why they are two distinct topics. This is the 4th time I am asking now. What do you think creation means?

Your term. You define. Do so quickly and clearly.

Quote:1. There are instances where a creator

And now we have ourselves a Creator. Colour me unsurprised.

Quote:based on frame of reference.

You can't define a frame of reference external to the universe so this doesn't apply.

Quote:You are not using the reference frame of the creator to determine the age of the creator.

I am not using any reference frame at all.

Quote:4. General relativity requires point 2 for you to determine the age of the creator

Good luck doing that with the universe.

Quote:5. Nowhere in GR does it state that an object will always be younger than something that created it.

Nowhere in GR does it say bugger all about creation.

Quote:How did you determine the age of the inflationary epoch? GR based on the singularity frame of reference right?

Wrong. Neither apply. The lower limit is determined by symmetry breaking and the upper limit by the effect of quantum fluctuations on the tensor field coupled with the inflaton.

Quote:How did you determine the age of the expansion epoch? GR based on the CMB frame of reference right?

Wrong. Adiababtic temperature change based on expansion of the universe.

Quote:Which frame of reference do you think is required to determine the age of event event start to even end? I it not the singularity reference frame?

None whatsoever. Stop trying to miapply relativity. It's like trying to weigh your shadow and as likely to provide a meaningful answer.

Quote:Do you honestly expect that CMB frame of reference of zero is to now is going to affect the time taken from start to finish?[quote]

Nope. Not one jot.

[quote]I didn't use any special relativity in the above scenario. It's just plain old general relativity based on an assumed starting velocity of zero for the last km.

That was not General Relativity. That was just plain old wrong.

If you had used GR you might understand that GR doesn't give a damn what speed you are moving at. Time dilations in GR are the product of the curvature of space-time, the the rsult of velocity. Here's the wikipedia entry:

Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity


Quote:How are you ever going to determine the distance between event start to event end without a coordinate?

By not using the v = d/t equation that I advised you to abandon long ago. It has served you poorly and continues to lead you wrong.

Quote:You need some form of positioning to find distance.

I neither need nor want distance.

Quote:Cosmologist use coordinates everyday to describe cosmological locations.

Relative to Earth. No cosmologist anywhere ever refers to coordinates relative to the singularity and for excellent reasons. A quick Google search would have shown you as much. Here's the youtube video explaining why:




Quote:We already agreed event start is the beginning, why are you refusing to have a starting point for measuring expansion at this point in the debate?

I agreed to a starting condition, not a fixed point in space. Links here and here.

But never let it be said that I'm not giving you a fair shake. Define your terms clearly and show your work. Demonstrate the possibility of this 6 day age of creation.
Look again at the op:
"The event in question is the expansion of the observable universe. "
The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"
Does this not ring a bell?
The universe's expansion is not the universe. It's an event, whereas the universe is not an event.
To date the process of creation we has agreed to find the time taken from event start to event finish.
Why are you now refusing to date the expansion? Are you shifting the goal posts we agreed to?
I don't mind discussing the age of objects in the observable universe but that's a different topic to what we initially agreed to.

Creation was further explained to be the process of bringing the universe from event start position to the current position with regards to expansion.
It was based on the definition of the word create.
I asked you if you have a better meaning of the word creation and to date you have not given me one.
For the 5th time pleas please please define what you think creation means.
Find all posts by this user
15-02-2016, 05:38 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(15-02-2016 04:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 04:17 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Funny about that. Let's check the agreed upon definitions that you posted:

Kindly observe the bits in bold. From the Big Bang to the present. That's the age of the universe. That's what you defined for the purpose of this debate and after clarification I agreed to.


Using the term is not the same as making the distinction. Failing to define the term when previously agreed to terms are already in use is simply being needlessly confusing.


I think that it is a term with connotations that should not be applied to a sensible debate. Creation implies a Creator, as your previous post demonstrates.

I have been using your definition posted here:

Once again, from singularity to present state. That's the definition of the age of the Universe. You have defined it as such twice, both times at your insistance.


Your term. You define. Do so quickly and clearly.


And now we have ourselves a Creator. Colour me unsurprised.


You can't define a frame of reference external to the universe so this doesn't apply.


I am not using any reference frame at all.


Good luck doing that with the universe.


Nowhere in GR does it say bugger all about creation.


Wrong. Neither apply. The lower limit is determined by symmetry breaking and the upper limit by the effect of quantum fluctuations on the tensor field coupled with the inflaton.


Wrong. Adiababtic temperature change based on expansion of the universe.


None whatsoever. Stop trying to miapply relativity. It's like trying to weigh your shadow and as likely to provide a meaningful answer.


That was not General Relativity. That was just plain old wrong.

If you had used GR you might understand that GR doesn't give a damn what speed you are moving at. Time dilations in GR are the product of the curvature of space-time, the the rsult of velocity. Here's the wikipedia entry:

Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity



By not using the v = d/t equation that I advised you to abandon long ago. It has served you poorly and continues to lead you wrong.


I neither need nor want distance.


Relative to Earth. No cosmologist anywhere ever refers to coordinates relative to the singularity and for excellent reasons. A quick Google search would have shown you as much. Here's the youtube video explaining why:





I agreed to a starting condition, not a fixed point in space. Links here and here.

But never let it be said that I'm not giving you a fair shake. Define your terms clearly and show your work. Demonstrate the possibility of this 6 day age of creation.
Look again at the op:
"The event in question is the expansion of the observable universe. "
The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"
Does this not ring a bell?
The universe's expansion is not the universe. It's an event, whereas the universe is not an event.
To date the process of creation we has agreed to find the time taken from event start to event finish.
Why are you now refusing to date the expansion? Are you shifting the goal posts we agreed to?

The expansion. From start to now. Big Bang to Present. The Age of the Universe, as agreed.

If I am wrong, kindly show me some time at which the universe was not expanding.

Quote:For the 5th time pleas please please define what you think creation means.

No. The term is context sensitive and loaded with baggage. It can mean most anything depending on how it is used.

You have repeatedly accused me of misunderstanding you despite clear and obvious definition of terms so you will define this "age of creation" and explain the difference between that and the age of the Universe.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
15-02-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation




Spoiler: It sounds as bad as it looks.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
16-02-2016, 04:11 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2016 04:44 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(15-02-2016 05:38 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 04:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Look again at the op:
"The event in question is the expansion of the observable universe. "
The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"
Does this not ring a bell?
The universe's expansion is not the universe. It's an event, whereas the universe is not an event.
To date the process of creation we has agreed to find the time taken from event start to event finish.
Why are you now refusing to date the expansion? Are you shifting the goal posts we agreed to?

The expansion. From start to now. Big Bang to Present. The Age of the Universe, as agreed.

If I am wrong, kindly show me some time at which the universe was not expanding.

Quote:For the 5th time pleas please please define what you think creation means.

No. The term is context sensitive and loaded with baggage. It can mean most anything depending on how it is used.

You have repeatedly accused me of misunderstanding you despite clear and obvious definition of terms so you will define this "age of creation" and explain the difference between that and the age of the Universe.
We are discussing creation here.
It's in the topic title I started in the colloseum which you brought here.
It has always been a debate about creation.
I posted the google meaning of create along with the meanings of the word "bring" and "existence" to further clarify the meaning.
As far as Science can tell everything that exists now also existed at the time of the big bang & it did not come from nothing. We aren't discussing the age of something from nothing.
If you had to date creation it would have to be by choosing a starting point in time of a specific event and an end point for the same event.
We aren't debating the age when the universe suddenly popped into existence from nothing. That would be a Theistic debate & we are sticking strictly to the science.
I have already defined creation as the process of bringing the universe from event start state to its present state with regards to objective reality. Fully in keeping with the google meanings.
What is inflation/expansion if not the exact process as described above? Taking something that already exists as a singularity and expanding it to it's present state (aka the universe).
This is why I asked that we find the age of the expansion to determine if the universe can be created in 6 days.
I even went further to show you that there is only one objective age for anything in the universe since everything that exists is known to have existed since the singularity in a different state. Just because it's form isn't the same as you would describe it now doesn't mean it never existed at an earlier stage in the universe. You are never going to objectively find alternative ages for anything in the universe without first defining a starting point & state of the thing in question.
This is why I asked that we agree on the starting point and end point in an effort to determine the age of the universe.
There are two distinct things which you fail to realize:
1. The expansion of the universe is an event
2. The composition of the universe a thing.
We don't really date "things", we date "events".
"The event in question is the expansion of the universe"
This event is what I describe as the process of creation.

If you do not agree with the meaning of the word create as described above (and also the dictionary meaning) please put it in your own words for this debate to move forward.
The debate cannot proceed further until we both agree on the most important word in my original topic's title.
"Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"

For the 6th time now. Please define what you think the word create means as I have already explained my understanding. Feel free to put whatever "context" you think it should be used, just don't deviate from science and the English language please.
Are you trying to throw the debate based on a communication barrier?
Find all posts by this user
16-02-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(16-02-2016 04:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are discussing creation here.
It's in the topic title I started in the colloseum which you brought here.
It has always been a debate about creation.
I posted the google meaning of create along with the meanings of the word "bring" and "existence" to further clarify the meaning.
As far as Science can tell everything that exists now also existed at the time of the big bang & it did not come from nothing. We aren't discussing the age of something from nothing.
If you had to date creation it would have to be by choosing a starting point in time of a specific event and an end point for the same event.
We aren't debating the age when the universe suddenly popped into existence from nothing. That would be a Theistic debate & we are sticking strictly to the science.
I have already defined creation as the process of bringing the universe from event start state to its present state with regards to objective reality. Fully in keeping with the google meanings.

(1) From the Big Bang to present. The singularity is not nothing. I've repeatedly agreed to this definition. It seems to be what you are insisting on. Is this correct? If not, kindly define what is.

(2) I have repeatedly accepted your definition of "creation". I have no bloody clue what you are still arguing about since I have spent the last two pages of this debate agreeing with that definition. Can we move on to something productive now?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
21-02-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
CricketsPopcornCrickets Another busy week? CricketsPopcornCrickets

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: