1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

True Science Debunks Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Alter2Ego, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. #1
    ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

    According to the Macroevolution Theory, the first living organism developed from nonliving matter and became the "common ancestor" of all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have happened without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention by God. It just happened by itself (abiogenesis). The favorite theory is that abiogenesis occurred in the ocean where amino acids formed by a long string of accidents that all happened at the right time, one after the other, defying all odds and resulting in an "organic soup" which eventually produced the "common ancestor."

    The Genesis Creation Account, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the different kinds of life on earth exactly as they are. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)
    SEMrush
    As you can see, these two positions are exact opposites. Those who accept evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is macroevolution theory scientific? Which of these positions are in harmony with modern scientific discoveries?

    Keep in mind that more than 150 years have passed since Charles Darwin wrote his book Origin of Species. Charles Darwin predicted that future generations would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. As of this date, not one single fossil (bone of long-dead animals) has been found that connects one species of animals to a completely different species. This is what paleontologists (scientists who study ancient bones) have repeatedly admitted while they continue to insist all living creatures came from a "common ancestor." In other words, the scientific evidence does not support macroevolution theory.

    According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin
    "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


    Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.... The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


    Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted:
    "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)


    As you can see by the dates of the above quotations, more than 30 years have passed since they were made by pro-evolution paleontologists. Has anything changed in 30 years? Hardly, as will be demonstrated later on in this thread.
     
    Alter2Ego, Jul 30, 2012 IP
    SEMrush
  2. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    Do please enlighten me as to just WHERE Darwin predicted this. I want the publication and the page number please.

    Oh dear! Another scientifically bankrupt 'scholar' that doesn't even know the first thing about evolution. Because he can't see a cat turning into a dog ....overnight.... then evolution can't be true!

    I suppose such people make for good entertainment but when you realise that these people are allowed to VOTE..it's not funny any more.

    Hey dude! What about this one!!!!

    [​IMG]


    Oh why have I got drawn into this shite? I must remember my New Year Resolution....

    Do not discuss the ToE with people that don't understand the ToE.
    Do not discuss the ToE with people that don't understand the ToE.
    Do not discuss the ToE with people that don't understand the ToE.
    Do not discuss the ToE with people that don't understand the ToE.

    Ah...again we see that the 'Liars For Jesus' will stop at nothing to advance their agenda...

    This is what Stanley ACTUALLY rather than A2Ego's quote mine claims he said....

    Evolutionist Steven Stanley on no gradual transitions in the fossil record

    In an effort to advance its claim that the fossil record provides evidence against evolution, the Jehovah's Witnesses' publication Life--How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?, hereinafter referred to as Life, notes:

    The failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." (p. 21)

    In fact Stanley is explaining Ernest Mayr's modern punctuational view of evolution. The quote in context in the original source reads:

    The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found. The other aspect of this argument is that the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another did not reflect a poor record for large, well-established species, but the slow evolution of such species: full-fledged species are not the entities that undergo the majority of major evolutionary changes.[1]

    Although Stanley does speak of inadequacies of the fossil record, he offers an explanation as well as noting its strong points. This is not mentioned by Life.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_o...n_no_gradual_transitions_in_the_fossil_record

    So there you have it folk. Yet more lies, misquotes and quote-mining from the LIARS FOR JESUS within the Jehovah's Witness organisation (of which, A2Ego is a member) .
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2012
    pladecalvo, Jul 31, 2012 IP
  3. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #3
    This is so painful to read.

    I got this far "According to the Macroevolution Theory, the first living organism developed from nonliving matter . . . " before realizing that yet again I was reading the words of someone arguing against the scientific theory of evolution from a position of nearly complete ignorance on the subject.

    Is it too much to ask that those who attempt to refute evolution at least stick to that which is proposed by evolution instead of demonstrating nothing more than their inability to pass a high school biology exam?

    To explain why I got only this far before dismissing the entire post: There is no such thing as a "Macroevolution Theory" . . "macro evolution" and "micro evolution" are mostly unnecessary distinctions sometimes made within the scientific theory of evolution, neither are scientific theories unto themselves. Biogenesis or life emanating from non living material is not and never has been a part of the scientific theory of evolution. TOE does not propose the beginning of life and never has.

    I could go on but simply cannot bear to read such poorly constructed arguments . . .
     
    Gomeza, Jul 31, 2012 IP
  4. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Have you EVER known a creationist argue against evolution from any other position than complete ignorance of the subject?? That is why they rely so much on 'lying for Jesus web-sites like 'Answers in Genesis', ICR and in this case Jehovah's Witnesses..... because they don't know enough about what they are trying to dismiss to be able to form an argument from their own thoughts, using their own words and based on their knowledge of the subject.

    In my experience (and probably yours) the answer is.... NO!
     
    pladecalvo, Jul 31, 2012 IP
  5. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #5
    pladecalvo

    I stopped short of saying what I really wanted to say in an attempt to adhere to forum rules and in full knowledge of how fruitless these types of discussions always are. The opening argument of this thread (if it can be referred to as an argument?) has been posted multiple times on numerous forums and torn to shreds multiple times by non creationists with a bit of education. Still, the author of this nonsense charges forward re-posting the same old incoherent drivel as if persistence will eventually win out over any form of accuracy or truth.
     
    Gomeza, Jul 31, 2012 IP
  6. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Yes...I agree Gomeza.
     
    pladecalvo, Jul 31, 2012 IP
  7. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #7
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    What I stated in my OP is an accurate description of "that which is proposed by evolution." I've read books and scientific papers on this topic, so I am well informed about the subject matter. I will prove this in subsequent posts on the topic.


    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Abiogenesis is part and parcel of macroevolution theory. Charles Darwin proposed it in a letter to one of his friends, indicating that abiogenesis thinking guided his theory. Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:
    "...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html


    In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God.)


    Truth be told, the entire macroevolution theory relies on life starting by itself spontaneously, because evolutionists are notoriously atheists. They don't believe in the existence of God for the most part. But because they are unable to overcome the problem of how the "common ancestor" came to life from non-life, some now claim they are Christians who believe God created the "common ancestor" and then took the back seat and left everything to evolve into whatever they felt like evolving into--from this "common ancestor."

    Below is further documentary evidence that macro-evolution is based upon abiogenesis. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.

    http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/origin_of_life.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
    Alter2Ego, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  8. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #8
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:

    Nobody at any forum has ever been able to overcome what I post on this topic, because I always back my statements up with scientific info that debunks the macroevolution myth. I never rely on my personal opinions. I come well armed with scientific data.

    As soon as pro-evolution atheists at various websites realize they cannot overcome the scientific info that I post, they resort to cursing me out. Some who are particularly resentful, cyberbully me by following me from one thread to the next hurling insults and demanding that the moderators ban me. At that point, I put them on "Ignore."

    I might add that the behavior is often encouraged by atheist moderators. I have been at websites where the atheist moderators joined in, calling me names--because they could not overcome the scientific info that I was posting. Once I realize the moderators are in on it, I abandon the account--permanently. If the moderators refuse to cancel my account when I ask them to, I simply abandon the account. That's why you see me registered all over the place. I don't stay at websites where moderators encourage that sort of behavior.

    The Christian websites are no different. A word to the wise: If you go to a Christian-moderated website, don't post any scriptures that debunk the Trinity or the hellfire dogma. You will be banned very quickly by Trinitarian moderators and those who insist that God will burn people in literal eternal flames. Take that advice from someone who has been banned from multiple Christian websites for posting verses that debunk those false teachings. Trust me on this.
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  9. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #9
    Sorry buddy but you picked the wrong guy to argue with on this subject.

    Macroevolution is not a scientific theory, it is a term sometimes used within evolution to describe changes above the species level. No real scientist has ever used this term for anything but. You can look it up, the answer you find will always be the same.

    In my first post in this thread, in my haste I actually made an error using the term biogenesis in place of abiogenesis. Darwin speculated that biogenesis (The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter) may have been responsible for the appearance of the first self replicating cell which began the process of natural selection. . . . . you can look that up as well, the answer will always be the same. Biogenesis is not considered a part of the scientific theory of evolution, though Darwin did speculate on the subject.

    Abiogenesis (life emanating from non living material) on the other hand is nothing more than a nonsensical and completely erroneous addition to the scientific theory of evolution inserted by creationists like yourself. It only demonstrates that you have concocted and are arguing against a strawman version of TOE.

    I will grant you one of your claims, I have seen you being unfairly ganged up on in other forums but you do ask for it.

    From beginning to end you do not have a grasp of what it is proposed by the scientific theory of evolution, so don't try to tell me "Nobody at any forum has ever been able to overcome what I post on this topic", Your arguments are so poorly constructed, utilizing false and irrelevant terms that you are simply lying to make your point.

    The scientific theory of evolution provides for us a mechanism (natural selection) by which living things change over time, nothing more. It has never proposed the beginning of life. Most believers in the world have reconciled this notion by accepting evolution as the means utilized by their creator to create life. Science does not even argue this point, until proven otherwise no one knows how the first replicating carbon based cell appeared. Additionally, the fossil record (some of which I have seen with my own eyes) is so expansive and includes numerous transitional fossils that all claims the contrary are lies as well.

    I would suggest that you pick up a Websters dictionary and begin looking up some of the words you are using erroneously. Then take a trip to a place like Drumheller, Alberta, Canada and check out their natural history museum located at one of the world's premier dinosaur digs.

    If you do these things and maybe meet a real paleontologist or two while you are there, if you have any integrity at all, you will return and begin deleting these nonsensical posts you keep littering the internet with.
     
    Gomeza, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  10. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Well that's a lie for a start. Don't you remember 'Rifleman' on CD? He was a REAL scientist with over 40 years experience in the field. He used to beat the crap out of you regularly. There were others too...until one by one you accused them all of 'insulting' you so that you had an excuse not to respond to their refutations of your drivel.

    No you don't dude. You come armed with pseudo-science from the 'Liars for Jesus' on various evangelical apologist sites such as 'Answers in Genesis', 'ICR' and in this case 'True News',


    Stand by for him accusing you of insulting him and getting put on his 'ignore' list.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
    pladecalvo, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  11. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #11
    Gee, that sounds familiar.

    Run Forest, run!
     
    Obamanation, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  12. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    He "suggested" no such thing. He SPECULATED. The full quote is:

    "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

    A little tip for you Alter. If you are going to quote-mine Darwin, don't give a link to the full quote. People tend to check it out ya know!
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
    pladecalvo, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  13. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #13
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Thanks, but I don't need to look anything up. Macroevolution is a scientific theory. It falls under the umbrella of "evolution theory" which is then broken down into two sections: (1) Microevolution, and (2) Macroevolution.


    Semantics will not help you here. I've been through this routine at numerous websites where atheists tried to argue that micro- and macro-evolution are one and the same. They are not. In fact, this was supposed to be in the next post I had already prepared in response to your earlier objection to my use of the term.

    Macroevolution is what Darwin proposed when he said future generations would find fossils showing a whale on its way to a bear and a squirrel on its way to a bat. In other words, the creature evolved ABOVE the species level and therefore can no longer interbreed with the creature it started off as (a whale cannot interbreed with a bear, and a squirrel cannot interbreed with a bat).

    Microevolution, on the other hand, is nothing more than a trick phrase used by pro-evolution scientists to describe variations of the exact same creature (eg. different breeds of dogs are examples of microevolution because they show slight physical changes--but the changes are "below the species level." Therefore all the different variations of dogs can interbreed. Below are definitions of micro- and macroevolution from two school textbooks and a website.

    DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
    "Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


    DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
    "Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Macroevolution

    Notice from the definitions above that macroevolution supposedly results in an entirely different species from what the creature started off, as I previously stated. Meanwhile, microevolution is not evolution at all but it has been defined as "evolution" when in reality it is simply natural variations of the exact same creature. Notice also that because paleontologists cannot produce a shred of evidence to prove macroevolution, they try to play slick by claiming it takes millions years or "over geologic time." How convenient.

    In other words, one is supposed to believe something occurred even though there is no proof it occurred--since it "cannot be observed" due to the fact it happens over geologic time. Now, how slick is that? And if that's not a act of faith, believing something for which there is no proof, then I don't know what else to call it.

     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  14. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Are you recalling the time that I proved that you lied about and misrepresented my words on this forum? But, how could you ever forget that...it must have been excruciatingly embarrassing for you to have been exposed as a liar in front of your little clique of rabid right-wing Zionist friends. LMFAO! You have been proven a liar and your constant snipping remarks are not going to change that so please, stop yapping like an annoying little puppy that craves attention.. Live with it...just like you tell the Palestinians to do.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
    pladecalvo, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  15. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    There ya go Gomeza. Do you need any more evidence for what you are dealing with here. Don't wast your time pal.
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  16. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #16
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    I made no mention of biogenesis. I used the word "abiogenesis" and attributed the idea to Charles Darwin. In Post #7 above, I went so far as to quote Darwin verbatim from a letter he wrote his friend in which he speculated abiogenesis. I also provided the weblink so that anyone can go to the website and confirm I am not making it up. In addition, I followed that up by quoting another source that also attributes abiogenesis to Charles Darwin. You can argue that Darwin never proposed abiogenesis if that makes you feel better. But the fact remains he did.



    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Wait... wait... wait. Creationists added abiogenesis to the mix? Are you saying Richard Dawkins, the king of evolution, has now turned into a creationist?

    Dawkins claimed in his book, The Selfish Gene, that in the beginning, Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, lightening, and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart; then they formed into amino acids, some of which reached the sea and combined into protein-like compounds and became a lifeless "organic soup." Then according to Dawkins, a "particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident"--a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself and cluster together--by accident. These molecules wrapped a protective protein membrane around themselves--by accident--and generated the first living cell from which the "common ancestor" of all living things eventually evolved. While admitting that this was exceedingly improbable, Dawkins insists that it must have happened.
    And there goes your formula for abiogenesis, compliments of Richard Dawkins, Mr. Evolution himself.


    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Right. I asked to be "unfairly" ganged up on. Understood.
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 2, 2012 IP
  17. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    No you didn't quote him verbatim at all. What you actually did was select a part of what he said and left other parts that he said which were extremely important. You then posted the selected parts in a way that looked as if Darwin agreed with you. That's called quote-mining. Also, what Darwin did or didn't say doesn't have much weight these days. He was working with what we knew 150 years ago. He couldn't even have dreamed about the resources that we have at our disposal today.

    We have moved on somewhat since Darwin (well some of us anyway). Now, with DNA genome mapping, accurate fossil and geological dating, and other hard to refute techniques that grow ever more sophisticated, but are progressively less understood by dogmatic and intransigent theists such as yourself, there is no longer any debate on whether evolution happens. It has been proven to happen beyond a reasonable doubt and people like yourself, who choose to argue against it, using out-of-date and decades-old information that is no longer even vaguely related, or has been improved and verified by millions of experiments, are simply demonstrating that they have not kept up with even the basics. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of modern theories about evolution....or perhaps I should say, the pseudo-science, apologist sites that you copy and paste from have a fundamental misunderstanding of modern theories about evolution. You don't appear to have any knowledge at all because not only do you not understand what the evidence of Evolution actually is. You do not even understand WHAT Evolution is claiming.

    That's OK. Go with what the scientifically illiterate websites, or your local pastor, tell you to blurt out. The choice is up to you. You're either going to have to live with the fact that Evolution is no longer in doubt...or get left behind whilst the rest of the class head off to new levels of knowledge and education, leaving you to howl at the moon as you are left behind, so far behind yet, sadly......celebrating it.

    Oh...and btw. The next time you get sick, please don't use antibiotics to make yourself well again. They rely on this nasty idea of mutations and natural selection (you know, lies) in bacteria in order to be effective.
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  18. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    212
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #18
    Whilst I am into evolution I would like to know what the theory you ascribe to is.

    Are you saying God created the billion distinct lifeforms as they are & nothing serious has changed since then?
     
    Bushranger, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  19. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #19
    That must have been right about the same time the peace loving Palestinians laid down their arms and declared that all the desired was peaceful coexistence with Israel. Oh yes, who could forget it!

    Run forest run!


    "one by one you accused them all of 'insulting' you so that you had an excuse not to respond to their refutations of your drivel."


    LoL. A case study in how idiocy will survive and thrive, long after creationism is extinct, and how a little education does not necessarily make you any smarter.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  20. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #20
    ALTER2EGO -to- BUSHRANGER:
    I don't ascribe to a "theory." I believe the Bible's Genesis creation account is a fact. True scientific evidence bears this out. But what I believe is not the topic of this thread.

    The topic of the thread--and my opening post--is that the true scientific evidence does not support macroevolution. In other words, what you or I or anybody else personally believes is irrelevant. Why? Because our personal beliefs do not change the reality of the hard scientific evidence. The scientific evidence strikes down abiogenesis, and the gaps in the fossils record strike down macroevolution.


    The only thing that would prove macroevolution is bones (fossils)—because that's the only thing solid enough that would have survived thousands of years in the ground. But all the paleontologists keep finding out is that there are no bones linking one type of creature to an entirely different type. So what do these scientists do? They speculate and opine and write all types of fabricated, high-sounding words such as "gradualism" and "species transition" and "punctuated equilibrium" and "intermediaries"—terminologies that were created by pro-evolution scientists for the sole purpose of impressing people. The result is that atheists are convinced they've found a viable option for Jehovah.
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 3, 2012 IP