|
Posts:
2
Registered:
10/21/05
|
|
(1 of 99)
The Case Against Evolution (what they don't want you to know)
Oct 21, 2005 6:27 AM
|
Evolution thinking has taken over all branches of science. Geology, biology, chemistry, astrology, climatology, meterology, etc. All these scientific areas are now being used to indoctinate public schools with atheism. Here is the case against the evolutionary "sciences"
BIOLOGY
Biology is the study of living things. But now it has been taken over by evolutionists. But here is where they are wrong:
1) All mutations are harmful. In schools you are taught that good mutations always happen (like in X-men). But if good mutations really could happen then we should see rabbits with 3 ears and sharks with legs.
2) Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics states that evolution of complexity cannot happen.
3) If humans really evolved from chimpanzees then why do chimpanzees still exist? This is a major flaw in evolution which so-called scientists have overlooked. We should at least be seeing monkeys turning into semi-people if evolution were true.
4) The same applies to dogs. If evolution were true then dogs should be growing larger and larger until they are the size of horses.
5) Similarities between DNA can be explained just as well as an Intelligent Desinger who created similar animals fully formed. So why won't they teach this idea alongside evolution in schools? It's because they are scared of letting the kids decide for themselves.
GEOLOGY
Geology is the study of rocks. Again it has been taken over by atheists. But here is where they are wrong:
1) The fossil record doesn't actually exist. What they have found are a load of rocks that look like bones and so they just pretended they are bones. And then they draw some fantastical creature based on only a few "teeth"
2) The dinosaurs are NOT a fact. They are an assumption based on a few oddly shaped rocks (see above). Until we see a real living dinosaur in the flesh we cannot know if they existed. Jurrassic park was FICTION not FACT!
3) The Earth is not millions of years old. That is an assumption based on circular reasonings.
4) Geology and weird rocks can be explained just as well as the result of an intelligent designer who created rocks and geology fully formed. So why won't public schools teach this idea alongside atheist ideas? It's because they are biased.
CHEMISTRY
Chemistry is the study of chemicals which has been taken over by evolutionists too. Here is where they are wrong:
1) Scientists (wishfully) claim that life came from chemical soup. However all their experiments are flawed because they deliberately put bacteria in soup and then claim "hey look what we made!". Noone is falling for it.
2) Scientists believe that higher atoms evolve from lower atoms in stars (chemical evolution). They believe that all the types of atom (iron, helium, uranium, mercury, etc) originally came from hydrogen atoms (the simplest atom). Yet this has not been proven and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is against complexity increasing. The origin of higher atoms in the universe can equally be explained as being the creation of an Intelligent Designer. Why won't they teach this alternative theory in public science classes? It's because they are scared of the truth.
ASTROLOGY
Astrology is the study of things in space. It has also been taken over by athiests.
1) Scientists claim that the universe was created in a giant explosion. But explosions DESTROY not create.
2) Public schools indoctrinate the idea that the Earth orbits the sun. However this is false. It can equally be modelled as the Sun orbiting the Earth. Both ideas fit the data and so both should be taught. But scientists only want to teach the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun because their atheist bias won't allow them to view the Earth as the center of the universe (ie special).
CLIMATOLOGY
Climatology is the study of the climate. This has also been taken over by environmentalists.
1) They tell us that global warming is a fact, but then how do they explain when it snows?
2) Noone can prove that Earth is getting warmer.
3) Most pollution has zero effect.
4) Scientists cannot even tell the weather tommorow yet they think they can predict the climate. Yea right.
5) Man can't even affect the outcome of a thunderstorm, so how exactly do they expect us to be able to affect the climate!
METEOROLOGY
Meteorology is the study of the weather
1) Scientists assume that all weather has a natural explaination and there is no room for supernatural explainations.
2) Some weather systems are too complex to be explained by natural causes alone.
3) Lightning can just as easily be explained as being created by an intelligent designer. But public schools only teach kids the theory that lighning occurs naturally in the atmosphere, despite this theory having lots of holes. Why won't they teach the alternative idea that lightning is created by an Intelligent Designer? Is it because they are scared kids might make up their own minds?
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
8/10/05
|
|
(2 of 99)
Re: The Case Against Evolution (what they don't want you to know)
Oct 23, 2005 5:30 AM
|
I'm hoping this is a joke. We could use a joke here in Florida today.
If not, then I am truly anxious about the future of my country. Democracy cannot be sustained by this unfathomable level of ignorance.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
10/23/05
|
|
(3 of 99)
Re: The Case Against Evolution (what they don't want you to know)
Oct 23, 2005 5:46 PM
|
|
Great comeback, evolutionists such as yourself are blinded by your own ignorance of accepting, that maybe there is a God. You fool yourself into not looking at anyone elses viewpoint/proof. All you can do is call people names.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,062
Registered:
10/12/00
|
|
(4 of 99)
To the contrary, Your math is faulty
Oct 23, 2005 9:08 PM
|
To call nonsense, nonsense is not name calling. It is recognizing that the beginning of knowledge is to call things by their proper name. The original post betrays a ignorance of basic science that is criminal. It is an example of the saying, "better to remanin silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and removing all doubt."
--
qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum
|
|
|
Posts:
2,062
Registered:
10/12/00
|
|
(5 of 99)
You have got to be kidding
Oct 23, 2005 10:03 PM
|
I am not sure what other century text you are using for your source on science but it is quite amusing.
> Evolution thinking has taken over all branches of
> science. Geology, biology, chemistry, astrology,
> climatology, meterology, etc. All these scientific
> areas are now being used to indoctinate public
> schools with atheism. Here is the case against the
> evolutionary "sciences"
to the contrary the TOE was a result of reesearch doen in the fields you menitoned, save one, which all corabarate the TOE
> BIOLOGY
>
> Biology is the study of living things. But now it has
> been taken over by evolutionists. But here is where
> they are wrong:
> 1) All mutations are harmful. In schools you are
> taught that good mutations always happen (like in
> X-men). But if good mutations really could happen
> then we should see rabbits with 3 ears and sharks
> with legs.
FALSE. Not all mutations are harmful. To give a simple example, Cycle cell anemia is a dealy disease that occurs in people of African descent. It survived, however, because it gives the host some immunity to malaria, a disease common in Africa. Most mutatiosn are neutral, e.g. blue eyes vs. brown eyes, others are harmful and a few are benificial
> 2) Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
> evolution of complexity cannot happen.
First it is not Newton.s Law that concerns motion (When a force is applied to an object the object accelerates in the direction of the applied force and in proportion to the force). I assume you mean the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However it only says that in a closed system entropy, which is related to complexity, must increase. Complexity can most certainly increse, e.g. formation of snow flakes, if entropy increses somewhere else.
> 3) If humans really evolved from chimpanzees then why
> do chimpanzees still exist? This is a major flaw in
> evolution which so-called scientists have overlooked.
> We should at least be seeing monkeys turning into
> semi-people if evolution were true.
Are you that ill informed? NO ONE ever said we evolved from chimpanzees, except for some ignorant creationists. We and all the great apes have a common ancestor. Far different.
> 4) The same applies to dogs. If evolution were true
> then dogs should be growing larger and larger until
> they are the size of horses.
Evolution says nothing about size ineviably increasing. It talks about the organisms ability to survive in a given enviroment. Megaladon which is beleived ot be a ancestor of the Great White was far larger than the Great White.
> 5) Similarities between DNA can be explained just as
> well as an Intelligent Desinger who created similar
> animals fully formed. So why won't they teach this
> idea alongside evolution in schools? It's because
> they are scared of letting the kids decide for
> themselves.
There is ZERO evidence for ID so it has no place in a science class. comparitive religion, history of thought, philosophy of science, yes, but no place in a biology class. Sayiong and poof a miralce occured is not a scientific explanation.
> GEOLOGY
>
> Geology is the study of rocks. Again it has been
> taken over by atheists. But here is where they are
> wrong:
Actually it is the study of the Earth, but rocks are apart of it.
> 1) The fossil record doesn't actually exist. What
> they have found are a load of rocks that look like
> bones and so they just pretended they are bones. And
> then they draw some fantastical creature based on
> only a few "teeth"
FALSE. The record exist and is extensive albeit not exhaustive. Your descriptionm of the inductive process is ludacrous
> 2) The dinosaurs are NOT a fact. They are an
> assumption based on a few oddly shaped rocks (see
> above). Until we see a real living dinosaur in the
> flesh we cannot know if they existed. Jurrassic park
> was FICTION not FACT!
Simply false. We have extensive evidence of dinosaurs. Jurrassic Park was a book of fiction and a movie. Perhaps there is where you are getting you junk science from, Hollywood
> 3) The Earth is not millions of years old. That is an
> assumption based on circular reasonings.
Youu are right. the Earth is not millions of years old. It is billions of years old. About 4.5 billion. This is afact based on nuclear physices not circular reasoning.
> 4) Geology and weird rocks can be explained just as
> well as the result of an intelligent designer who
> created rocks and geology fully formed. So why won't
> public schools teach this idea alongside atheist
> ideas? It's because they are biased.
Again saying poof a miracle occured is not an explanation. It is the abandonment of reason and logic.
> CHEMISTRY
>
> Chemistry is the study of chemicals which has been
> taken over by evolutionists too. Here is where they
> are wrong:
>
> 1) Scientists (wishfully) claim that life came from
> chemical soup. However all their experiments are
> flawed because they deliberately put bacteria in soup
> and then claim "hey look what we made!". Noone is
> falling for it.
Experiemnts such as Miller-Urey prove that the basic building blocks of life, proteins, can be foremd from chemicals, methane, nitorgen,water,etc, that existed on th eprimordial atmosphere. I challenge you to provide a source for you claim about spiking an experiemnt with bacteria. Nop one has claimed they have made life in a test tube.
> 2) Scientists believe that higher atoms evolve from
> lower atoms in stars (chemical evolution). They
> believe that all the types of atom (iron, helium,
> uranium, mercury, etc) originally came from hydrogen
> atoms (the simplest atom). Yet this has not been
> proven and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is against
> complexity increasing. The origin of higher atoms in
> the universe can equally be explained as being the
> creation of an Intelligent Designer. Why won't they
> teach this alternative theory in public science
> classes? It's because they are scared of the truth.
What you say is FALSE. Transmutation of elements has been done in a laboratory. Plutonium, atomic number 94,hence more "complex" by your assertion is made by bombarding Uranium atomic number 92, with neutrons in a reactor.
> ASTROLOGY
>
> Astrology is the study of things in space. It has
> also been taken over by athiests.
>
> 1) Scientists claim that the universe was created in
> a giant explosion. But explosions DESTROY not
> create.
>
> 2) Public schools indoctrinate the idea that the
> Earth orbits the sun. However this is false. It can
> equally be modelled as the Sun orbiting the Earth.
> Both ideas fit the data and so both should be taught.
> But scientists only want to teach the idea that the
> Earth orbits the Sun because their atheist bias won't
> allow them to view the Earth as the center of the
> universe (ie special).
This was th eexception I mentioned earlier. Astrology is a pseudo scince that claims the posiiton of th estars affects our lives. You knowm the "What is your sign" question you hear in bars.
Perhaps you mean astronomy, a respectable science that is in accord with the TOE
Do you seriously believe in a heliocentric solar systemn. Unfortuneatly for you this idea was discredited four hundred years ago. Newton's real laws prove that.
> CLIMATOLOGY
>
> Climatology is the study of the climate. This has
> also been taken over by environmentalists.
>
> 1) They tell us that global warming is a fact, but
> then how do they explain when it snows?
The Earth has warmed, that is a fact. thje cause is very much in doubt. I question the anthropcentric cause. Hopwever the jury is still out.
> 2) Noone can prove that Earth is getting warmer.
False, we have a variety a data showing there has been a modest warming. Of course this has happened many times throughout history. Ice ages occur, then the Earth warms up.
> 3) Most pollution has zero effect.
Please. Polution does have bad effects and we have cleaned the atmosphere up a great deal. There is debate over how much is acceptalbe but at osme concentration even water and oxygen will kill you.
> 4) Scientists cannot even tell the weather tommorow
> yet they think they can predict the climate. Yea
> right.
Climate is accutally easier to predict. It occurs over a larger area and over a longer period of time.
> 5) Man can't even affect the outcome of a
> thunderstorm, so how exactly do they expect us to be
> able to affect the climate!
Apples and oranges. The difference is time. I too question th eextant of human causes for GM but to deny that indutrial society has no effect is absurd
> METEOROLOGY
>
> Meteorology is the study of the weather
>
> 1) Scientists assume that all weather has a natural
> explaination and there is no room for supernatural
> explainations.
You right, they do. A supernatural explanation is not an explanation. It is throwing your hands up in the air and saying I have no idea how it occured
> 2) Some weather systems are too complex to be
> explained by natural causes alone.
Hogwash. Please give an example
> 3) Lightning can just as easily be explained as being
> created by an intelligent designer. But public
> schools only teach kids the theory that lighning
> occurs naturally in the atmosphere, despite this
> theory having lots of holes. Why won't they teach the
> alternative idea that lightning is created by an
> Intelligent Designer? Is it because they are scared
> kids might make up their own minds?
The causes of lightnign are well understood. There is no need ofr make believe beings to explain anything. Name one hole in the theory.
Perhaps I am wasting my time. This has to be sarcasm. I bought it hook,line and sinker. Have a good laugh. Atleast it was practice for dealing with real Y.E.C.
--
qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum
Message was edited by pilgrimbob at Oct 23, 2005 10:03 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
2,240
Registered:
8/5/05
|
|
(6 of 99)
Re: You have got to be kidding
Oct 23, 2005 11:29 PM
|
|
Bob I hate to agree with you as you know lol ha ha. This one even scared me while I agree atheist controlling science is a bad thing. I think he meant astronomy rather than astrology from the definition. I think the whole earth sun thing is ludacris. I don't even think most christians debate that. I was kinda wondering where it was going to stop if he thought that the earth was a flat piece of four cornered paper. That we still might fall off the edge lol ha ha. Evilution is still a religion Bob and shouldn't be taught in schools lol.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,240
Registered:
8/5/05
|
|
(7 of 99)
Re: You have got to be kidding
Oct 24, 2005 5:33 PM
|
> > Bob I hate to agree with you as you know lol ha
> ha.
> > This one even scared me while I agree atheist
> > t controlling science is a bad thing. I think he
> > meant astronomy rather than astrology from the
> > definition.
>
> Michael Behe, Inteligent Design Creationist, has
> testified in court that he believes that astrology is
> a scientific theory.
You got to be kidding. I know presidents use it all the time it will be on the history channels decoding the past tonight. I don't know much about it to criticize it. I know most christians are against it as well as science. Long ago I think some where about nostradamus time period it was taught as science and part of science curriculum. I know that the wise men used it to find Christ. The bible goes back and forth on this issue actually like wine. Its not black and white no matter what some christians think.
|
|
|
Posts:
526
Registered:
8/7/05
|
|
(8 of 99)
Re: You have got to be kidding
Oct 24, 2005 6:33 PM
|
Well, Dion, he didn't claim that it was valid, just that it was scientific.
Basicly, he's trying to broaden the definition of "scientific theory" in order to include ID, and he admitted that with a term broad enough to include ID, astrology and a lot of other nonsense would have to be considered "scientific theories" as well.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,062
Registered:
10/12/00
|
|
(9 of 99)
Re: You have got to be kidding
Oct 24, 2005 7:16 PM
|
Grac, does even Behe ascribe to the idea that lightning requires divine intervention. I mean this stuff went out with the Ben Franklin and the lightning rod. Nobody is that loopy.
--
qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum
|
|
|
Posts:
526
Registered:
8/7/05
|
|
(10 of 99)
Re: You have got to be kidding
Oct 24, 2005 7:34 PM
|
Oh, it's not that he ascribes to it, it's that it's "scientific".
Essentialy what he's done is redefined "theory" to mean "hypothesis" or WAG. So long as it seeks to explain something real, it's "scientific"
Behe: "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
So, "God makes lightning" is "scientific" because it proposes an explaination for physical, observable data.
What he's saying is that somehting can be a "scientific theory" and dead wrong simultaneously, that ther is no burden to have a truth value in a "scientific theory".
Priceless.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,240
Registered:
8/5/05
|
|
(11 of 99)
Re: You have got to be kidding
Oct 25, 2005 9:30 AM
|
|
Well this is the route of science if it keeps insisting that evilution is science. While astrology and evilution have scientific principles involved in them neither can be observed to be called science. I just don't understand how evilutionist can't see what they are doing to science by calling evilution science. This broad version of observation that only applies to evilution because most scientist are atheist is nonsense. So I guess if you call evilution science I wouldn't be surprised that other groups want to be called science too. Whether atheist want to admit or not they do get a special pass on observation when it comes to making evilution science. What I want to know is how come? I mean you say evidence leading up too basically from what I understand that you can assume with some degree of certainty. That's nonsense and any one can claim that and your supposed to be able to do something that if another scientist came along with the same data would come to same conclusions. Well I defy you to take a person who knows nothing about evilution stick your evidence in front of them and see if they come to anything close to the same conclusions that the first person did. It just doesn't happen still you guys argue about everything we still can't figure out if T Rex was a predator or scavenger for example. You guys look at the same data and know what evilution is and still come to drastically different conclusions.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,062
Registered:
10/12/00
|
|
(12 of 99)
Oct 26, 2005 2:12 AM
|
Hope you are doing well. I can live with your sophmoric "eviluiton" but can you not edit the rest of your post. Your grammar leaves much to be desired.
To the issue at hand. TOE is most definitely science. It explains the vast amount of data from a wide variety of fields. Biology,paleontology,biochemistry,geology, astronomy,and physics all support the TOE. Nothing refutes it in any significant way. Evolution is an observational science as is astronomy. You can not do experiemnts on the stars. However you can take the principles of physics and apply them to the universe along with observaitons and construct good models of what happened. The same is true for the TOE.
Dion, you may not like the facts of evolution but it is the best, nee, the only explanation that is consistant with the evidence.
--
qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum
|
|
|
Posts:
2,240
Registered:
8/5/05
|
|
(13 of 99)
Oct 26, 2005 2:10 PM
|
> Hope you are doing well. I can live with your
> sophmoric "eviluiton" but can you not edit the rest
> of your post. Your grammar leaves much to be
> desired.
>
> To the issue at hand. TOE is most definitely science.
> It explains the vast amount of data from a wide
> variety of fields.
> Biology,paleontology,biochemistry,geology,
> astronomy,and physics all support the TOE. Nothing
> refutes it in any significant way. Evolution is an
> observational science as is astronomy. You can not do
> experiemnts on the stars. However you can take the
> principles of physics and apply them to the universe
> along with observaitons and construct good models of
> what happened. The same is true for the TOE.
>
> Dion, you may not like the facts of evolution but it
> is the best, nee, the only explanation that is
> consistant with the evidence.
> --
> qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum
I think you rely on to many assumption. The assumption that evolution can even create a ape to a man much less from a lesser organism. The assumption God doesn't exist and didn't do it. The assumption that evolution created the world. I'll give the evilution thing Bob out of respect for ya. I really do believe it is the most evil diabolical lie that will destroy all that's good in man and the world though if it continues to be taught as fact to school children. Yes if your and atheist evolution is the best possible solution. If you believe in Christs and revelations though its sounds like it came straight out of Hell. I mean revelations has pegged this belief down to calling the son of the devil the beast. The beast like an ape. The people who believe that they came from apes ancestors they would be what? Children of the beast. I mean its that simple to come to the deduction this is what the bible speaks of. A state sanctioned science /(religion) the only one that can be taught in schools. A science/ (religion) that teaches Genesis didn't happen. Therefore no original sin in the garden therefore no need for Christ to come and die on the cross for sins. I mean if you was a christian knowing these things were predicted to come and destroy the earth wouldn't you be a little worried? Science assumes their is no God how is that science then? I mean science is not supposed to have foregone conclusions that God doesn't exist its to observe and conclude. I mean what if he does exist doesn't that make all the assuming science that concluded that he didn't exist a worthless bunch of nonsense. I don't understand how evolution gets away with calling itself science maybe it does fit all those things but so does God did it fits just fine also. The only reason evolution fits better is because most scientist are atheist. If the were Christians it would be a bunch of nonsense not worth assuming over cause it can be observed just like christianty can't be.
|
|
|
Posts:
56
Registered:
10/26/05
|
|
(14 of 99)
Oct 26, 2005 7:54 PM
|
I can't believe that anyone in this day and age is so primative. After hearing this so called arguement against eveolution, how can anyone other than the author not believe in "evilution"! Dion, I really hate to ask this but are you bipedal?
I am sure that the idea of lightning bolts thrown from the sky by an invisible super being went out with Greek mythology.
Saying that dianosaurs did not exist is a bit crazy. I hope for your sake that the Loch Ness Monster is never captured, talk about bringing your world crashing down.
Does anyone have a picture or video tape of this invisible super being? How about a mailing address? I want to have coffee with him/her/it some morning.
The biggest problem with the world today is religion. I am not talking about anyone in particular because they all are responsible for throwing up walls of hate and distrust. Muslims don't like Christians, Christians don't like the jews or anyone else for that matter that doesn't allow themselves into being brain washed. The Buddist just want to get along with everyone but they get attacked by Christians. Christians doen't realize that the Muslims worship the god of Abraham and believe that Adam and Eve started this whole mess we are in. I would really like to go back in time and see the inbred offspring of the first and only people on earth at that time. It is a wonder we don't have 2 heads and 4 arms. I bet the Garden of Eden was a wonderful place. The proud grandparents, Adam and eve, their children, and then the inbred offspring of the second generation. Someplace in the mix you have Alisaurus looking for an easy meal. I bet those deformed children were easy prey!
This thread is absurd. Primative thought spewing from primative people, who says that we are progressing as a species!
|
|
|
Posts:
2,240
Registered:
8/5/05
|
|
(15 of 99)
Oct 27, 2005 1:59 AM
|
> I can't believe that anyone in this day and age is so
> primative. After hearing this so called arguement
> against eveolution, how can anyone other than the
> author not believe in "evilution"! Dion, I really
> hate to ask this but are you bipedal?
>
> I am sure that the idea of lightning bolts thrown
> n from the sky by an invisible super being went out
> with Greek mythology.
Thats the difference we believe our God is real you know we never believed this I am sure.
> Saying that dianosaurs did not exist is a bit crazy.
Most christians including me don't believe this way either
> . I hope for your sake that the Loch Ness Monster is
> never captured, talk about bringing your world
> crashing down.
Science is the one who denies it existance not us. No offence but you don't know alot about us and our beliefs from these statements.
> Does anyone have a picture or video tape of this
> s invisible super being? How about a mailing address?
> I want to have coffee with him/her/it some morning.
Observation is required for science, faith is required for God. Do you have a video of the world creating itself? Cause if not you can't say you can observe evilution and it can't be considered science.
> The biggest problemwith the world today is
> s religion. I am not talking about anyone in
> particular because they all are responsible for
> throwing up walls of hate and distrust. Muslims don't
> like Christians, Christians don't like the jews or
> anyone else for that matter that doesn't allow
> themselves into being brain washed. The Buddist just
> want to get along with everyone but they get attacked
> by Christians. Christians doen't realize that the
> Muslims worship the god of Abraham and believe that
> Adam and Eve started this whole mess we are in. I
> would really like to go back in time and see the
> inbred offspring of the first and only people on
> earth at that time. It is a wonder we don't have 2
> heads and 4 arms. I bet the Garden of Eden was a
> wonderful place. The proud grandparents, Adam and
> eve, their children, and then the inbred offspring of
> the second generation. Someplace in the mix you have
> Alisaurus looking for an easy meal. I bet those
> deformed children were easy prey!
>
> This thread is absurd. Primative thought spewing
> g from primative people, who says that we are
> progressing as a species!
Your religion will eventually cause a war with other religions at this rate. You hate other religions from your post. You find them primitive a very negative disrespectful way of describing a group of people. If you called black people or Jews that you would have a bigoted name you know? I am glad you wrote any way thanks. You seem nice and rather respectful just a little mixed up on your true feelings. Searching yourself to verify what you believe and understand yourself as am I. Even if we don't change each others minds maybe we can create and understanding of respect for each others beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
