Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 2:08 AM
20 online now:
GDR, PaulK (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,119 Year: 12,155/19,786 Month: 1,936/2,641 Week: 445/708 Day: 4/135 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   God's Place In Evolution
goldrush
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


(1)
Message 1 of 190 (604661)
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


It has been shown that if a modern human is not taught human language, and has void or very limited human contact/interaction (except for feeding) he will fail to speak, mature, and act more or less barbaric. Nurture has a lot to do with behavior considered civilized or "human". "Evolved", "higher" brains have little to do with what makes us human. Whatever natural "human" inclinations or potential we may be born with fail to develop if not nurtured. If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction? Where did he receive his language, and what enabled him to develop his sense of morality and values? If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals? Why aren't we all like Tarzan? Monkey see, monkey do, right? 

There is a chief difference between animals and humans. Animals are more or less sure of things (instinct). Humans, on the other hand, tend to approach the world with wonder and curiosity. We seek to learn and know things. We have a need for knowledge and instruction. This is evident from the time we learn to speak. If evolution were true, why would the inquiring minds of early humans, (whose brains had developed logic enough to write and create tools) create an imaginary God to teach and guide them? An imaginary God could not be seen or heard, nor could it help man at all to be anything more than animal-like. A mere figment could never fulfill humans' pursuit of and need for knowledge. A fresh, inquiring, new species that realizes that it is unsure of things would not "invent" a God to instruct it. This is silly. Little children don't even do this. Children leave their endless stream of questions to real humans, not their imaginary friends. Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him. Early humans spoke about God because they knew of God first hand. They did not invent Him. Really if evolution and materialistic forces truly created man from beast, then should there even be any mention of God ever in history? What is the real reason for God being connected to human society? The need for societal control is not enough since there was obviously a more important and basic need for knowledge and instruction to begin with. The idea of God has no business in a truly evolutionary genesis, yet we find He exists. Why? Because humanity did not create God. God created humanity. Ideas of God have been handed down from fact, not fiction, and records or Him have been preserved down till our day via writing. God is fundamental to humanity's existence.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2011 6:58 AM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2011 7:03 AM goldrush has responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 9:24 AM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 02-14-2011 9:50 AM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2011 9:54 AM goldrush has responded
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 12:30 PM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 11 by frako, posted 02-14-2011 4:03 PM goldrush has responded
 Message 12 by Jon, posted 02-14-2011 4:27 PM goldrush has responded
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2011 4:58 PM goldrush has not yet responded
 Message 56 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 6:36 PM goldrush has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 2 of 190 (604663)
02-14-2011 5:53 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the God's Place In Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4266
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3 of 190 (604665)
02-14-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


Think First.
You confuse "cultural" evolution with "biological" evolution.

I understand you need to make a point in favor of your religious convictions, but this one is not going to make it.

With a little study and thought I'm sure you could see the error in your screed. But you may be too far gone to have that capability anymore.

If you are young or inexperienced in the ways of language, logic and reality then take this as a learning experience. Learn to think before putting errant thoughts out for all the world to see. If you're really this stupid, well ...

Regardless. Prepare to be laughed at as a fool.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 4 of 190 (604666)
02-14-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


It has been shown that if a modern human is not taught human language, and has void or very limited human contact/interaction (except for feeding) he will fail to speak, mature, and act more or less barbaric. Nurture has a lot to do with behavior considered civilized or "human". "Evolved", "higher" brains have little to do with what makes us human. Whatever natural "human" inclinations or potential we may be born with fail to develop if not nurtured. If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction? Where did he receive his language, and what enabled him to develop his sense of morality and values?

Let me refer you to the point in bold.

Given human interaction, people do develop languages. For example, when deaf-and-dumb people were assembled into schools and other commmunities, they spontaneously produced sign languages --- which began as a mere code of gestures, and which developed by the second generation into true languages with specific rules of grammar. (We know that this was not done by copying the languages of hearing people, because the grammar is very different: for example, compare ASL with English.)

An analogue to the second phase of this process is seen in creolization. If you throw together people with different languages, then they may be able to agree to pick words from their languages to form a pidgin --- they may agree to use the English word for "banana" and the Portuguese word for "food", and so forth, but it is primitive and lacks grammar; the second generation will spontaneously form a true language, known as a creole.

If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals? Why aren't we all like Tarzan? Monkey see, monkey do, right?

If we are all descended from people who lived two hundred years ago, why do we have a word for "television"?

Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him.

Aren't you a Christian? Only the Bible presents a very different picture --- God brings the animals before Adam, who names them (Genesis 2:20). God didn't need to tell Adam what they were called, because Adam had the capacity to make up names for them, just as we have the capacity to invent the word "television", and deaf-and-dumb people had the capacity to invent sign language. Even the author of Genesis, then, doesn't seem to have swallowed your thesis.

---

If evolution were true, why would the inquiring minds of early humans, (whose brains had developed logic enough to write and create tools) create an imaginary God to teach and guide them? An imaginary God could not be seen or heard, nor could it help man at all to be anything more than animal-like. A mere figment could never fulfill humans' pursuit of and need for knowledge. A fresh, inquiring, new species that realizes that it is unsure of things would not "invent" a God to instruct it. This is silly. Little children don't even do this. Children leave their endless stream of questions to real humans, not their imaginary friends. Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him. Early humans spoke about God because they knew of God first hand. They did not invent Him.

This appears to be a completely different question, and in my view requires a completely different topic.

However, since you ask, I would advise you to try applying your own reasoning to leprechauns, fairies, kobolds, unicorns, dragons, griffins, et cetera. Did people believe in kobolds because early humans had met them first hand?

Or take gods that you don't believe in; i.e. almost all of them.

Why would anyone invent a love-god who flew around making people fall in love by shooting them with invisible arrows*? They wouldn't, right? Someone must have actually met him, or where would the idea have come from?

Either that or people are capable of making mistakes, something which I think you'll find does not contradict the theory of evolution.

* Interestingly, the Indian love god Kama is also armed with a bow. Explain that away, monotheists!

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 11:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31072
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 5 of 190 (604674)
02-14-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


Speaking as one Christian to another.
First, you need to learn what evolution actually says and then you need to explain how YOU are using the term.

Evolution as in Biological Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge or inspiration. In addition, humans are animals, members of the Primates. Second, humans do not get knowledge from gods, we get it just like all the other animals do, by observing the world we live in and questioning.

It's also pretty clear that all of the Gods we talk about, including the gods found in Christian Bibles, were created by man, were created to explain parts of what we see in this world but do not yet understand.

You can see examples of this as well as the evolution of god in the early books of the Bible. The story found in Genesis 1 is actually a much younger story than the one found in Genesis 2&3, and you can see how man changed his descriptions and understanding, how the "God" evolved in those two caricatures.

The older story was meant as a "Just So" story to explain some of the differences the people of that period saw. Why does man have to work for a living instead of just browsing like the goats, cattle and antelope? Why do we farm and have to weed? Why do we fear snakes? Why does childbirth seem harder for humans than for horses or cattle or goats or sheep? Why do we live in "moral societies" (even though by today's standards even Jesus would be seen as immoral)? Why should the man be over the woman?

These were all valid questions and the fable in Genesis 2&3 created the explanation.

The God in that fable was very human, fumbling, unsure, fearful, learning on the job, a hands on modeler and tinkerer, but also very personal, directly involved with what was created.

The God found in the much younger Genesis 1 story is quite different, more mature, aloof and apart, creating by an act of will alone without hesitation or error, but not interacting with what was created, not personable. The purpose of the stories though was not creation, but rather to explain facts about the world they lived in and justify specific points, in the older Just So Story what was described above, in the younger Genesis 1 story, the seven day week and a Sabbath set aside and that God is apart and that the Priests were the path for communication.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 3:07 PM jar has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 190 (604675)
02-14-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


goldrush writes:

Humans, on the other hand, tend to approach the world with wonder and curiosity. We seek to learn and know things.

Hi goldrush, I don't want to add to the pile on but I need to point out a few things about what you wrote:

Learning is something that pretty much every organism with a nervous system does. Have you ever seen a cat or an octopus (both pusies!) investigate something new?

Two very curious animals I'm sure you'll agree (and the octopus is not even a vertebrate).

Have you every taught in class? Ever seen thirteen year olds seeking to learn and know things?

No: neither have I (joke).

The point is that you assertions of fact and extrapolations are unsupport and contradicted by trivial exposure to the real world.

God bless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 894 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 190 (604677)
02-14-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


Hi, Goldrush.

goldrush writes:

If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction?

The very first man was not alone. He (or she) wasn't born a human to ape parents: he was a creature that differed a little from his parents, and was still quite similar to all the other creatures in his family group or other social structure. It wouldn't be for many generations that his descendants would become noticeably different from the descendants of other non-human apes.

Given that he was so much like his parents, it isn't inconceivable that he spent his childhood learning a few things from them, and then eventually improved upon what they taught him. Maybe he was a little brighter than they were, or maybe a little more creative or eloquent (and maybe not), but, whatever the case, there's no reason to think he had to have learned all his knowledge from them.

By comparison, Dr Adequate is a fantastic writer, and is probably a better writer now than some of the people that originally taught him how to write. Additionally, my mother is a better cook than my grandmother, even though my mother learned how to cook from my grandmother.

The fact that people can exceed the accomplishments of their forebears should be enough to convince you that complex skills and knowledge can gradually accumulate from a foundation of simple, primitive skills and knowledge. There is no reason to think language skills or societal skills should be any different.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 10:55 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 8 of 190 (604701)
02-14-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


It has been shown that if a modern human is not taught human language, and has void or very limited human contact/interaction (except for feeding) he will fail to speak, mature, and act more or less barbaric. Nurture has a lot to do with behavior considered civilized or "human". "Evolved", "higher" brains have little to do with what makes us human.

What we have found is during the development of the infant brain they go through stages where imprinting is very important. If children are not exposed to human social contact and language they miss this opportunity for brain development. It is the interaction between the environment and our highly specialized brain that makes all the difference.

If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction?

From the previous generations, the same place that we get our knowledge.

If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals?

For the same reason that we are not writing these posts in old english.

There is a chief difference between animals and humans. Animals are more or less sure of things (instinct). Humans, on the other hand, tend to approach the world with wonder and curiosity.

Have you raised a puppy or kitten? If you had you would know that this is false.

A fresh, inquiring, new species that realizes that it is unsure of things would not "invent" a God to instruct it. This is silly. Little children don't even do this.

Are you totally unaware that children invent imaginary friends?

Obviously, God gave the first man language, spoke to him, and instructed him.

Not obvious at all given the fact that humans will invent brand new languages, such as the deaf population spoken of in the one of the posts above.

Ideas of God have been handed down from fact, not fiction, and records or Him have been preserved down till our day via writing.

And yet you reject the thousands of gods that have been spoken of in many cultures. Why is that? Why don't you accept the idea that Zeus hurls lightning bolts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2837 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 9 of 190 (604726)
02-14-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
02-14-2011 9:24 AM


Re: Speaking as one Christian to another.
You can see examples of this as well as the evolution of god in the early books of the Bible. The story found in Genesis 1 is actually a much younger story than the one found in Genesis 2&3

First time I ever hear this, any evidence for it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 9:24 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 3:27 PM slevesque has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31072
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 10 of 190 (604729)
02-14-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
02-14-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Speaking as one Christian to another.
slevesque writes:

You can see examples of this as well as the evolution of god in the early books of the Bible. The story found in Genesis 1 is actually a much younger story than the one found in Genesis 2&3

First time I ever hear this, any evidence for it ?

If you are talking about the Genesis 1 tale being younger and from a different tradition, then sure. Look up the "Priestly texts".

Also, from Bishop Sims 1981 Pastoral letter on Evolution and Genesis:

quote:
But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:17 PM jar has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 11 of 190 (604741)
02-14-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction?

He learned and passed the knowledge on. As most animals do tough animals do not get taught language, math... they get thought what to hunt how to hunt.....

Where did he receive his language,

With a big enough brain and seeing someone running from a tiger and screaminng aaaaaaaaaaaa he could easily make the first word for danger aaaaa!!!!, with time their vocabulary got larger sentences where formed ...... and wuoala you got yourself a language.

and what enabled him to develop his sense of morality and values?

After language the Alpha males probably got screwed why because the lower on the tribe chain males could form a pact to take out the bully alpha and you get a trait that is selected fore dont be a cunt or the others will gang up on you and kill you you wont be able to breed and your bullying geens will not get passed on, with cooperation those first moral laws probably got enhanced the less bad you are to your tribesman the more likely he will help you if you find yourself in trouble on a mammoth hunt and if you help your tribesman who is in trouble on a mammoth hunt you will probably be helped in turn if you get in trouble so in both cases the geens get passed on more likely.

If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals?

Not even the same species of some animals use the same sounds as their "language" forgot what typ of animal was being recorded, tough the sounds that the same species in different places was making at night was very different, and playing those sound in the region that produced the same sound and the region that produced different sounds yielded different results.

different species use the same sighnes for different purposes a dog waggling his tail is happy a cat waving its tail is usually annoyed.

In the same way if a human smiles he is happy, if most species of monkeys smile they are not smiling but showing you their teeth saying if you dont back off il bite you.

Why aren't we all like Tarzan?

Cause we where not raised by apes in the jungle we where raised by ape cousins humans in a human culture.

Animals are more or less sure of things (instinct).

not true releasing a captive animal that had no contact with its own species in the wild is fatal to the animal because it does not know how to survive there what happened to the instinct ?????

If evolution were true, why would the inquiring minds of early humans, (whose brains had developed logic enough to write and create tools) create an imaginary God to teach and guide them?

its because your initial claim is a little off

We seek to learn and know things.
we do not like not knowing things and if we see something we do not understand our imagination runs wild and we fill the not knowing with a form of understanding lightning is caused by zeus who is throwing his lightnings around because we dint offer him a good enough calf today.

An imaginary God could not be seen or heard, nor could it help man at all to be anything more than animal-like.

tough the imaginary god would fill the void of not knowing

A fresh, inquiring, new species that realizes that it is unsure of things would not "invent" a God to instruct it.

Well they kinda did and not one but thousands of different gods. Why because we do not like not knowing so sometimes we invent things from our imagination. It happens all the time as a child you donot understand that darkness is just the abbsance of light so you fear the dark and invent monsters that are hiding in it.

Children leave their endless stream of questions to real humans, not their imaginary friends.

and yet they have imaginary friends who in some cases tell them what to do like steal a cookie from the cookie jar

Really if evolution and materialistic forces truly created man from beast, then should there even be any mention of God ever in history?

You keep talking about your one god what abbout the other 100 000 gods out there those where imagined right ???

What is the real reason for God being connected to human society?

They wanted to fill the void of not knowing

Because humanity did not create God

Orly so the hindus dint invent vishna shiva rammma, the norse dint einvent thor, odin ..... the slavs dint invent perun, morana, vesna, morana .... THEYR ALL REALL???? omg i should start praying to perun right away i think he likes wine spilling a bit from the cup is the usual means of sacirifice to him

Ideas of God have been handed down from fact, not fiction, and records or Him have been preserved down till our day via writing.

not only that we also have evidence of other gods before writing we should build temples to those old gods you know the ones that date before your god

God is fundamental to humanity's existence.

Well i dont believe in god and most of my friends dont and we still havent died been struck by lightning ....... so my guess is THEY are not so fundamental


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:10 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 23 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 10:40 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 190 (604747)
02-14-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-13-2011 10:31 AM


If evolution is true, where did the very first man get his knowledge and instruction? Where did he receive his language, and what enabled him to develop his sense of morality and values? If it all came from animals, why don't we all still use identical language and behavior of animals? Why aren't we all like Tarzan? Monkey see, monkey do, right?

So, how is this thread going to be different from the other arguments from incredulity you've posted in the other thread (Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion)?

Why should we participate in this thread when your previous behavior tells us that you'll just duck and run the moment the real arguments start flowing at you?

What do you have to offer?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-13-2011 10:31 AM goldrush has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by goldrush, posted 02-14-2011 9:31 PM Jon has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2837 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 190 (604750)
02-14-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by frako
02-14-2011 4:03 PM


Well i dont believe in god and most of my friends dont and we still havent died been struck by lightning ....... so my guess is THEY are not so fundamental

I'll just point off that this is pretty falacious reasoning. It is analog to someone saying, after hearing another person say ''oxygen is fundamental to human life'', ''well I don't believe in oxygen and I live just fine''.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by frako, posted 02-14-2011 4:03 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 5:16 PM slevesque has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 14 of 190 (604752)
02-14-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
02-14-2011 5:10 PM


I'll just point off that this is pretty falacious reasoning. It is analog to someone saying, after hearing another person say ''oxygen is fundamental to human life'', ''well I don't believe in oxygen and I live just fine''.

The difference being that we can detect the percentage of oxygen in a gaseous atmosphere. Even more, we can create oxygen free atmospheres and see if that person does survive.

What are the analogous supernatural experiments that we can do?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:10 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 02-14-2011 5:27 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 02-14-2011 5:28 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2837 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 15 of 190 (604753)
02-14-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
02-14-2011 3:27 PM


Re: Speaking as one Christian to another.
Okok, well I not too well versed in that subject, but I have to say that this all seems to be more of an hypothesis then an established fact., which seems to be intricately connected to the documentary hypothesis.

Which, in my humble opinion, seems to be an outdated hypothesis for the authorship of the Pentateuch. But that's probably another subject


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 3:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 5:25 PM slevesque has responded

  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019