Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

Does 16s rRNA gene prove all Abrahamic religions wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Curtis

Curtis

    Metaller Scientist

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
59
Excellent

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:37 PM

I am agnostic, never believed in any religion or faith. If according to Abrahamic books there were an Adam and Eve, made from clay by God, then how do religious scientists explain 16s rRNA gene. I can't consider anyone as scientist if they are religious.

I think there is already enough proof in the world for intelligent people. It's just that some brains still can't handle the reality.

I read somewhere that 60% of American scientists are agnostic.

#2 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:24 PM

Hey curtis! Interesting question, but you need to look at the context of the original writings. A totally pre-scientific time, when everyone "knew" the earth was the centre of everything, and was flat to boot. Male semen actually contained tiny, tiny fully-formed people that just grew inside a woman. Blood was a complete mystery, but the blood of animals contained the essence of that animal (drinking it would give you the characteristsics of that animal: lion's blood, anyone?).

Remember that the creation account in Genesis was written down over 3500 years ago, and the scientific method has only been around for 500 years or so, and I think I am being generous there. Considering the fact that even in the early-middle 20th century science still thought that proteins, rather than nucleic acid, constituted the hereditary material, you might want to cut other people a bit of slack...

Speaking as an committed Christian, all I can say is that Christianity should not be thought of as a philosophy or a way of thinking, but as the response to historical events (I would also guess that Jews and Muslims would say the same thing). And as for your comments about religious people not really being scientists, I think that Michael Faraday, John Lennox (who has destroyed Dawkins' arguments on a number of occasions) and Francis Collins (who led the public Human Genmoe effort, and who now runs the NIH), just to name three, may dispute your statement...
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#3 ascacioc

ascacioc

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
44
Excellent

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:54 PM

I totally agree with Curtis: how can you be a scientist if you are not open minded? (I cannot see how somebody who believes in God is open-minded). Personally, I was an atheist since I was 10 and I was told that atheists are those people who believe in evolution. It was a thought choice then, but between denying evolution and denying God (at that time both absolute truths to me), the child in me chose to believe the evolution thing. I do not say that I still believe that one negates the other (I grew up in between :) ), what I am saying is that religion pushes some beliefs as facts. These beliefs might make it difficult for scientists to accept new ideas or new discoveries. This is why it is advisable, in my opinion, for scientists not to be religious. I go so far as saying that, when I'll be a professor or group leader (in a future, far-far from now), I will ask during the interview the future PhD student whether he/she believes in God and/or evolution. I know, it is illegal in most countries to do so because you get sued the hack out of you. But still... I cannot see myself giving the PhD title to people who are religious. (this comes from bad experience in my lab now with a fellow PhD student, that in the meantime got her degree, that, being very religious stated that evolution is a just a theory; so, is gravity, but, I don't see her jumping off buildings :) )

However, swanny has a point as well: religion did not prevent good scientists doing great work. Bottom line: whatever one does/believe at home is fine with me as long as this does not affect his/her intellectual performance or belief in scientific facts.

Coming back to 60% American scientists are agnostic: is it a lot, or little? What about 20-30% of Americans (I do not remember the exact numbers but <50%) believing in evolution, the rest in creationism? Or how about this political candidate (a very religious one) that recently said that women who are raped for real do not get pregnant (and I do not believe that he was the only one thinking so; I believe that a lot of his followers said: if Akin says so...it must be so).

Andreea

#4 ascacioc

ascacioc

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
44
Excellent

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:54 PM

If according to Abrahamic books there were an Adam and Eve, made from clay by God, then how do religious scientists explain 16s rRNA gene.


Just for the sake of the argument: challenge accepted! I will try my best to argue the other side:

You state that 16S rRNA being conserved enough, is direct proof of evolution. Phylogenetic trees are constructed based on sequencing this gene.

My counterargument is: in recent years, it was shown that 16S rRNA gene can be horizontally transferred. This makes all the phylogenetic trees built on sequencing this gene questionable. This makes evolution (as scientists accept it) questionable. Check this recent article as an example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22902729
The creationisms state: God created one original 16S rRNA gene that was transferred (horizontally) in all the other organisms after their creation by viruses.

Ball in your court :)

#5 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:53 PM

Without wanting to get things started on the wrong foot, but I just can't help myself here Posted Image , ascacioc, isn't your attitude a bit closed minded? ("...how can you be a scientist if you are not open minded? (I cannot see how somebody who believes in God is open-minded)."). Not saying anything, just saying...

I think both curtis and ascacioc are forgetting a very significant factor: the hardline creationists who hold to a literal 7-day creation are not the major voice in Christianity.I am convinced that they are misusing the text as an argument "for" just as much as hardline evolutionists misuse the text as an argument "against". Remember how I said that the text was written 3500 years ago, before the modern understandig of the world? Clearly, that means evolutionists cannot use the text as a proof text by comparing what was written with what we now know (For myself, I can't see how an old earth with the evolution of species can be wrong). It also means that creationists are mistaken when they try to make the document (which was written as Hebrew poetry) into a modern historical summation of how things have come to be as they are.

Seriously, this is a total red herring when it comes to reasonable discussions about religion. No religion at all is centred on its creation narrative, but on the teachings of its leaders. As I said before, Christianity is not a philosophical position: anyone who tries to argue through it or against it (or for it) as though it is a philosophical position is going to come to false conclusions. The only way to get to know what Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!) is about is to actually do the research yourself and read the book, in your native language. As you say, ball's in your court...Posted Image

ascacioc, it is a great ptiy that you were told such a simplistic statement about an atheist being someone who believes in evolution. Even more than that, your fellow PhD student gave a very poor response to you. I am most glad though that you were not involved in my PhD, nor that of people like Lennox and Collins... And I will lob the ball straight back Posted Image: when God created life, he introduced differences in the 16S RNA as a means to separate the different species. (That last point was made tongue in cheek...)
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#6 leelee

leelee

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
53
Excellent

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:17 PM

Remember how I said that the text was written 3500 years ago, before the modern understandig of the world?


But it is supposed to be the word of God, not man, isn't it? And surely he would have known all about DNA and RNA, given that he created it, no? So it is irrelevant what we knew or didn't know.

#7 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:21 PM


Remember how I said that the text was written 3500 years ago, before the modern understandig of the world?


But it is supposed to be the word of God, not man, isn't it? And surely he would have known all about DNA and RNA, given that he created it, no? So it is irrelevant what we knew or didn't know.

But any piece of writing has to mean something to the people of that time, or else it would not be written. Have you ever heard of a piece of writing from the past that was predicated in modern-day concepts? By that I mean concepts that have only come about recently. No, all writings have to make sense to the people to whom it was written. So, straight back at you, it doesn't matter that God already knew all of the nuances of RNA and DNA, they weren't included in the narrative because the people he addressed had no concept of them.

As to the Bible being God's word, it describes itself as being written by men (and therefore meaningful to their own contemporaries) as they were carried along by God's spirit. That is not to say they were in some kind of trance state when they wrote, but their thoughts were directed or guided to communicate God's words. I suppose some might then protest about how we know that they didn't just write down anything and call it "the word of God". Well, that is where you need to consider how a letter or a book fits into the rest of what God has said. In the 3rd century, several councils met to discuss what should, and should not be included in the Christian Bible, and I believe a similar thing happened centuries before with the Jewish Bible. But even before that, during the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, the various church leaders wrote to each other frequently, discussing what was God's revelation, and what wasn't, and it wasn't just a matter of tossing a coin... Documents were compared very carefully, and those documents that were rejected were rejected for a number of reasons.

If you really want an example of God's word, though, you need go no further than his own "logos" (whence we get "logic" and the suffix "-ology"), Jesus. Like I said, you have to do the research for yourself, you can't just rely on other people's filtering of what they have read about what others have thought about what they have read.
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#8 leelee

leelee

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
53
Excellent

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:35 PM

you have to do the research for yourself, you can't just rely on other people's filtering of what they have read about what others have thought about what they have read.


But isn't that exactly what organised religion is? Relying on religious leaders to filter what they have read and been told to decide what the congregation (or whatever) is told?

I think your point that God wouldn't include them because the people of the time wouldn't understand is valid. But I wasn't saying that there was a need for DNA or RNA and all the complexities that discussing those would introduce to be discussed in any text. Rather that the text needs to be consistent with these things.

#9 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:44 PM

But isn't that exactly what organised religion is? Relying on religious leaders to filter what they have read and been told to decide what the congregation (or whatever) is told?

Actually that is what a dead religion is all about. Unfortunately, that probably means many religions are dead, relying on unthinking compliance to what you are told... I guess I've been fortunate to never go to church where that attitude rules.

I'm not sure that the text has to be consistent with what we understand about the universe. It was, after all, the jewish people's understanding of how everything has come t obe as it is. And how would you write the account to make it consistent with 16S data? God first made a bacteia (something invisible until the microscope was invented), then He changed it again and again and again, making bigger and bigger and more different creatures, turning some into fish, some into birds, sone into... Kinda clunky, don't you think?
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#10 ascacioc

ascacioc

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
44
Excellent

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:35 AM

to support a bit the Biblical creation, even though they did not know too much at the time, they got smth right: according to Genesis (as far as I remember so do correct me), God created fish and birds before other animals (mammals?). Isn't this the order in the evolution? On the other hand, plants were there before anything else, one eon before. A bit of mistake there.

My bottom line is: with a bit of thinking, Bible can be explained in accordance to nowadays knowledge. Even the 16S RNA: either a virus made horizontal transfer or God created everything in an order and built on the previous created organism by changing a bit to label the differences between organisms. If we want to negate religion/creationism, we must come up with stronger arguments.

@swanny: I know I am not open-minded. I would like to be more tolerant. But, nobody is totally open-minded (there are quite a few studies about discrimination and racism that prove that everybody has his/her limit of non-discrimination). Extreme religion (not the moderate one that accepts evolution) is my weak point towards which I cannot be open-minded. My reason tells me that I should be accepting other opinions since I do not hold the absolute truth. But I cannot. This is why I am trying to keep the people who do not share my anti-religion views away from me: to protect them from me. In the long run, if I would have to interact with such a person every day of my life and at some point would have to take the final decision in a situation in which a religious person has a fight (or similar decision) with a non-religious person (in a both right and both wrong situation, not black and white), I am afraid I will be biased. We all are biased a bit (not conscious) towards people who share the same opinions as us. If I have learned something from the discrimination research I have read is that you cannot prevent yourself from discriminating, but you can learn to take care not to put yourself in situations in which you will discriminate which leads to discriminating from the beginning... Nothing is perfect.

#11 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
109
Excellent

Posted 31 August 2012 - 03:44 AM

Well if God made Adam and Eve from clay I would try to found out where he get the nucleotides first, not talking about any rRNA...

In my oppinion it's not possible to take the Bible literaly. From that comes the simple implication, that people who take Bible literaly are wrong. Be it for any reason, that it was writen by God (he has strange sense of humor then, since there are contradictions and mistakes) was written by someone by direct inspiration from God (well he should have taken someone more copetent then).. anyway it means that Bible is not a perfect ideal absolutelly correct holly-spirited amazing wonder, but just a book.
I take it that christians finds the book quite interesting, inspiring and wise, the parables or so, why not, that is only the way to percieve it, I found wery amazing insipiring and wise the american remake of The Ring (I mean it, I made me thing really deeply about human nature and I came with a theory obout fluctuation of evil.. but about that maybe some other day..), thing it these thing we see between the lines are in part individuall, so for someone it's Bible, for someone Qur'an for someone esoteric literature and for someone it's the book About the mole who wanted to know who pooped on his head.
So if someone tries to persuade me that only Bible is right or is the only source of morality and wisdom, I just woudn't agree. The christianity and religion in general doesn't have a monopoly for moral. Besides, I personaly tried to read the real Bible (I read the childrens version when I was young, with lot's of images and I thougt that Bible was sort of book with ancient stories) and I was repulsed, really, what they call a Gods superiority I just see arogance. In the Second part I just see the arogance multiplied, I've seen those missionaries telling people on the streets to read Bible. I did, and God... Jesus is a huge jerk! So what does it tell? Wrong translations from hebrew (or what language) they say.. well, lot's of people swear on their translations od Bible as it was a law.
So what does all this say? Nothing, that just I have to find interesting and moving things for me somewhere else than in the Bible, that's all. Bible is just not as unique. It's been massively advertized through centuries.

So basically I have no problem with any religious (or atheist for that matter) person who is not close minded or dogmatic or fanatic of any kind. Apart from that it is a personal thing. Most people who I know and have no problem with don't have those absurd christian (or other religion) oppinions about public matters, and don't take the holly textbooks literally, just as an inspiration (hopefull not of being a jerk). One friend told me about the christian unitarians groups he comes to meet (funny on the fact is, that he's actually jewish), and that he likes it there, because their motto is always doubt, always ask questions. I think that's not a bad move, if they take it seriously. People of this kind can be actually scientists without any problem, because they don't close they eyes from facts. I had one colleague and he once said, partly in joke, that there must be a God, because enzymes are such a wonder. Also the best-known astronomist of my country (you can say such local Carl Sagan) and member of a important skeptic group actually in private believes in God, and was repeatadly explaining that these doesn't exclude. None of those have any problem with evolution or the Big Bang, naturally.

Another question is a personal believe, where I came to conclusion that for me is any religion a merely unnecessary extension above things that are really important. It's like you need a driver to a very required part of hardware, and you can choose either to compile your own (linux style), or choose from existing driver by various companies, some open-source, some freeware, some paid.. and that religion or specifically christianity is like a 250MB HP driver, that installs many things you don't actually need in addition. So I go for the own-compiled driver, it may take longer, but it would fit perfectly, work perfectly and don't bloat on resources. Finally. It would require a life-long version updates anyway.
I share oppinion with several atheist thinkers, that life itself is such a wonder, that is no need to create additional wonder-things above that. Atheism doesn't steal wonder from things, it learns you to look for them in the very ordinary places, through knowledge. There are several laws in the universe (like the law of thermodynamics for example), that simply makes the world the way it is. You don't need testaments to obey them, you can't dissobey them. I mean can you dissobey gravity? (I mean make it non-existent, not for example compansate its effect) You can't. So if there is a question in believing that there is something bigger that us, I don't need to create gods, there is something bigger than us and we're supposed to be humble, not because of gods wrath, but because every action causes reaction and you will eventually pay for it. Now, not in afterlife. And the other thing is, gravity and other "laws" don't needs prayers, churches or groups of people who will tell other people that gravity is great. Gravity doesn't care, you just fall when stumble on Earth, that's gravity and it just works. The obvious limitation is our incomplete understanding if these phenomenons, but they work non the less. But for that reason we should be open minded as Einstein was even ybout these so called laws.

I've seen some document about various "famous" people in a past, who all over the globe shered this one thing, the feeling that there is something bigger than us and that we shall be accountable for our actions, moral etc. Curiously there were atheists, christians, buddhists, muslims, esoterically-centered etc. all kinds of people. This made me finally realise, that what is important is not a religion/or absence of religion, these are but different ways to achieve this. The document also showed many examples of people who shared same "version" of religion, but lack this.. thing..(there was a word for that but I don't know how to translate it to english).. these were the fundamentalist, extremist, blind wrong people, people hurting other people because of different beliefs, people who took the same information from each religion and took it wrong.

So, maybe we should not focus on religion at all, but on other things, is the person open-minded? Can he take facts? Can he admit he was wrong? Can he act responsibly and not arrogantly and selfish?
It's not important that he goes to the church each Sunday if he does, and it's not important that he is atheist if he's a selfish jerk who took literally "the stronger always wins" twistedly from Darwin for a change.

Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#12 Curtis

Curtis

    Metaller Scientist

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
59
Excellent

Posted 31 August 2012 - 05:23 AM

I think the truth is just out there, but some people are not able to see it yet. Just like how everybody saw the apple fall, but only Newton asked why.

#13 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 03 September 2012 - 01:37 PM

Well if God made Adam and Eve from clay I would try to found out where he get the nucleotides first, not talking about any rRNA...

Trof, put yourself into the shoes (or sandals?) of the ancient people for a second. How would you try to describe how people came to be? You only have four elements to work with: earth, air, water and fire. Well, it's pretty clear we're not air or fire, so maybe we come from modified earth. And we're clearly not made of stone, because we're soft, so perhaps we were made from earth mixed with water (because we excrete wet sloppy stuff, and we need to drink), so "logically" we were made from clay. That seems to make sense, given how little they knew about anything...

In my oppinion it's not possible to take the Bible literaly. From that comes the simple implication, that people who take Bible literaly are wrong. Be it for any reason, that it was writen by God (he has strange sense of humor then, since there are contradictions and mistakes) was written by someone by direct inspiration from God (well he should have taken someone more copetent then).. anyway it means that Bible is not a perfect ideal absolutelly correct holly-spirited amazing wonder, but just a book.

I guess it also matters what part of the Bible you are talking about. The Bible was written down over a couple of thousand years, so there is a huge historical factor to consider. The first part was, in all probability, based on oral tradition (which is more accurate than we moderns think, as it was the only way ANY knowledge was passed on), plus there is history, poetry, prophecy, law, theology. Some parts are clearly not meant to be taken literally, others definitely are literal. Some parts are similar to other ancient writings, but lots of it are totally different. It has very human figures who are clearly reognisable even today (I think everyone knows of brothers who fight to get the best share- Jacob and Esau, or men who tell half-truths to avoid conflict-Abraham, or women who have falsely accused a man who has spurned them -Potiphar's wife and Joseph, otherwise good men who get themselves into all kinds of marital trouble because they weren't where they were meant to be - King David and Bathsheba). And that's jsut the old testament, the Jewish bible.

So if someone tries to persuade me that only Bible is right or is the only source of morality and wisdom, I just woudn't agree. The christianity and religion in general doesn't have a monopoly for moral.


Clearly, the Bible doesn't have the monopoly, and I don't think any serious Christian would say that no other book has any meaningful moral material.

Jesus is a huge jerk!

Wow. big call! I would recommend a bit of caution, here. Not only is that incredibly offensive to Christians and Muslims, Jesus is widely acknowledged as one of the world's greatest moral teachers...

Wrong translations from hebrew (or what language) they say..

Actually, that argument has been well and truly discredited, as we have found more and more ancient papyri and codices (the forerunnbooks).

Bible is just not as unique. It's been massively advertized through centuries.

Actually, the Bible is unique. It is the foundation of three of the world's great religions, and the three major monotheist religions. It has been more deeply examined, criticised, pulled apart, translated and spread than any other document, and its teachings are the highest moral code in terms of how we should live together in a society. And if it has been massively advertised, it's because of Christianity's ability to spread through the world to all people (no matter what you may think of the message...)

So I won't go completely overboard with the other things you have written about, and turn this into a full-scale apologetic (sorry, I do have a tendancy to over-respond...), can I just say that while I see your point, I have a pile of reasons for not agreeing with it. Maybe it will have to wait until I write a book... :-)
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#14 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
109
Excellent

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:24 PM

@swanny: I think we got to agreement, because I totally agree with your second to last sentence.

Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#15 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,330 posts
81
Excellent

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:10 AM

Trof, put yourself into the shoes (or sandals?) of the ancient people for a second. How would you try to describe how people came to be? You only have four elements to work with: earth, air, water and fire. Well, it's pretty clear we're not air or fire, so maybe we come from modified earth. And we're clearly not made of stone, because we're soft, so perhaps we were made from earth mixed with water (because we excrete wet sloppy stuff, and we need to drink), so "logically" we were made from clay. That seems to make sense, given how little they knew about anything...


True: you have to see it in the "light of time", but then why are we still seeing people out there claiming that it is 100% correct ? Why are there still people out there that do not understand that most of the bible is illustrative , figure of speech, view of that area and not literally what happened.

Also: I do not completely agree with what you state , even this (what you now state) is a figure of speech and the one who wrote this, might not (I am pretty sure of this) be literally meaning we are made from clay.
Lots of the stories in the bible are "stories" , lots of them are written during bad times and were ment as a pass time! Also: people dont seem to realise that many of these stories were passed on orally and later written down .. We all know what happens if you pass a story orally...

How come religious people are blind for these arguments?

Its a proven scientific fact that the bible is a gathering of stories from different times and still there are people out there claiming it was written by 1 person during 1 "lifetime".

Also: the idea that a book or orally passed on story would be kept unchanged during all those years is idiotic. There are indeed some writing evidences, old "bibles" , but they are not as old as where the origin of the bible is situated.
The oldest one is just found in bits and pieces.



Actually, the Bible is unique. It is the foundation of three of the world's great religions, and the three major monotheist religions. It has been more deeply examined, criticised, pulled apart, translated and spread than any other document, and its teachings are the highest moral code in terms of how we should live together in a society. And if it has been massively advertised, it's because of Christianity's ability to spread through the world to all people (no matter what you may think of the message...)


Teachings are the highest moral code? An eye for an eye?
If you would live the way it is written down in the bible (litterally), we would be in total war.

And massively advertised, its because of chirstianity's ability to spread through the world to all people? What?
Are you forgetting how the "christians" did spread their so called religion?
(ok, I confess, many of the so called "spreading" of believe was an excuse to conquer and get rich, but still......)

But in general: there is absolutely no problem in spreading any believe (it can be any idiotic believe, just think of the most idiotic thing out there) if you have enough power and are able to "brainwash" people and keep the people "stupid" and afraid.
Thats how religions thrieved for many years: out of fear! Think about the devil and hell!

Edited by pito, 04 September 2012 - 10:11 AM.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.





Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.