|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2007 : 15:43:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But I listed many facts. You just choose to igonore them. Does not mean they are not facts just because they are ignored. If you dismiss the evidence for the resurrection then you might as well reject Alexendar the Great as well.
|
No Bill what you have provided is a link to an article written by Josh McDowell an evangelical pastor. Hardly someone you could reply on for honest and impartial analysis of the available data. He too has already reached a conclusion that the bible is true because he believes that the bible is true. Your source is not compelling, it is simply preaching to the choir of which you are a member.
You need a better/independent source if you expect anyone in a skeptics forum to take you seriously. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2007 : 16:47:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So you accept Alex the great and reject Jesus the king, even though the historical evidence for the resurrection is more abundant and more recent then that for Alex? That is not very scholarly of you and one might say even indicates bias.
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce
Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian
"Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
Sir William Ramsay
|
I reject the divinity of both as well as the rest of history's gods, demons and other hallucinations.
It's interesting to note that Alexander and Jesus died at about the same age, one a conquering general and the other as a common criminal.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 03:03:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Although I'm an electronics engineer, I do have an appreciation of mechanical design too |
To the pessimist the cup is half empty. To the optimist the cup is half full. But to the engineer the cup is twice as big as it needs to be.  |
Great line, Thanks! I'll try remember that one.
| But I think of more than that. I think of T-Ford, diesel powered cars, old electrical cars. What I see is an evolution of automobiles from the horse-and-carriage, a vehicle that has evolved in a lot of small steps. Several inventions have been added, only to later be discarded as new inventions increase performance, or safety, or comfort. The 2007 Z06 Vette is by no means the end of the line, to will continue to evolve. |
But behind all these improvements to the automobile was what? A designer who designed with forethought and intent. |
What I see is a lot of trial and error and a lot of auto-parts being discarded as better parts become available.
You said it yourself: Even the most senior designer has to tweak his designs to make them work. Do you have any idea how many prototypes with different modifications an engine goes through before it's introduced to mass production? Of all the prototypes, survival of the fittest decides which prototype goes to the production line.
Now, as Dave have pointed out earlier, analogues between nature and construction are inherently flawed because of the very nature of what "designer" is present. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 03:10:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Bill scott, you have already put nearly identical posts in part one of this thread with no stated reason for the duplication. Why?
|
It looks to me as if Bill scott wants to jump-start the continuation thread, and make it easier for us to continue the discussion by providing a vehicle for easy quoting.
Though I do agree that stating such is in order.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:55:47 [Permalink]
|
People used to "know" that everything revolved around the earth. And what was their proof? Well, just look at the sun and the stars - see how they move?
So, you look at something and it seems to be designed; that doesn't mean squat. A lot of things in the universe are counter-intuitive. That is the beauty behind the scientific method. The method helps us move past the confusing and counter-intuitive aspects of reality to get closer to the objective reality.
But remember that humans are the ones who have to use it, and they are not perfect. So mistakes are made; most are accidental, rarely they may be intentional. Again, the beauty is that the mistakes can be and are corrected. This is why the religion/dogma label fails to apply to science.
I know that this doesn't sit well with a lot of people, who need order and structure and rules. They need things to be good/evil, black/white, coke/pepsi. But the problem isn't with science, it is with them. They need to evolve past the archaic; because that viewpoint is doomed to extinction.
And you must also remember that the scientific method and science has no opinion at all to the existence of any god. This is outside of science and is not considered. The label that science promotes atheism/materialism is a lie, and those that promote this are liars. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/27/2007 06:58:47 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 07:51:51 [Permalink]
|
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries. |
These are not facts - except the bolded part. These are the writings in a religious text. This information is not corroborated in histrocial texts. Where are the contemporary Roman records about Jesus? They don't exist.
There were contemporary Roman records about John the Baptist and about his death. If Jesus really did all that magical stuff why no information on him. The only surce you have is the bible.
By the way there was a tremedous amount of historical records about Alexander the Great, writen at the time when Alexander was alive. The countries he defeated wrote records, as well as his own country and by individuals in his army. Surely you can see the difference between historical records and scripture. If you accept religious writings as historical then you should accept all the other religious texts as historical.
LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts. |
Evidence? If true, are you surprised that that dissenting opinions were not in the bible???
| The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. |
This is at odds with most biblical scholars.
You also have the:
BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
EMPTY TOMB
LARGE STONE MOVED
ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
OVER 500 WITNESSES
HOSTILE WITNESSES |
Again all from the same religious text.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 08:31:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
Again all from the same religious text.
|
Agreed. That's the problem I had with his argument. He was using the contents of the Bible to support the contents of the Bible. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 10:17:09 [Permalink]
|
moakley said:
| That's the problem I had with his argument. He was using the contents of the Bible to support the contents of the Bible. |
That, and the tactic of flooding. Throw out as many possible things as you can at once, and when your debate opponent can't respond to every single contention, you claim victory.
Doesn't work quite so well in written format, but Bill is giving it a go with his OP in part 2 here...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 13:03:11 [Permalink]
|
Guys, that part of the discussion belongs in the religion folder.
This thread is about the different usage and meanings of the word theory in the context of biological evolution. Evidence of Jesus' proposed life and death and life again is a completely different topic.
I would ask Bill scott to repost his "Evidence for Jesus" there instead of here.
Thanks... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 13:32:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
|
| I find it both irritating, and a demonstration of your bullheaded close-mindedness, Bill, that you have time to copy and paste the same long passages repeatedly, yet when I compose and post a short essay in a polite and real attempt to explain to you why evolution has the appearance of design, you totally blow it off. In fact, you ignore everything I write. |
I don't have time to respond to every post aimed in my direction, sorry, nothing personal.
| So please accept my contempt, Bill. Have a nice life, |
Thanks and same to you.
| then rot in the dirt just like everyone else always has, you delusional, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious ass. Meanwhile, you can both kiss my ass. |
This just took a turn for the worst.
| Even if I somehow could believe your infamously contradictory book of myths, or your mythical God, I would refuse to worship that bloody-handed, bigoted, genocidal Yahweh. |
That is because you have a limited outlook with your earthly perspective, rather then having an eternal perspective. Your bogged down in the trials we face in this life and cannot comprehend what God has planned for those that love him and are called according to his purpose.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 13:45:38 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by furshur |
| These are not facts - except the bolded part. These are the writings in a religious text. This information is not corroborated in histrocial texts. Where are the contemporary Roman records about Jesus? They don't exist. |
Why should we expect them too? At the time of his crucifixion Jesus was just a Joe Blow Jew. And the years following his resurrection the Roman government did it's best to crush and eliminate the gospel message of Christ risen and was not interested at all in recording the event for historical purposes. It took a few hundred years before Rome gave up trying to discredit the resurrection and finally approved their own version of Christianity.
| If Jesus really did all that magical stuff why no information on him. The only surce you have is the bible. |
Who are you expecting to record this information? Jesus was nothing but a common Jew to the Romans at the time of his crucifixion and after the resurrection they did all they could to suppress Christ risen, not to promote and record it. And the religious leaders of the Jews would not have recorded the miracles of Jesus as they were the ones who sought to have him executed for steeling all their converts as they saw it.
| Surely you can see the difference between historical records and scripture. If you accept religious writings as historical then you should accept all the other religious texts as historical. |
Why? I don't accept or reject the Bible solely based on the fact that it is a "religious" text no more then I accept or reject any other "religious" writing just for being a "religious" writing. I accept or reject them based on the evidence, or lack there of, for each text. The scientific method. Accepting or rejecting any text solely based on it being a "religious" writing is a pretty biased perspective.
| LIVING WITNESSES The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts. |
Evidence? If true, are you surprised that that dissenting opinions were not in the bible??? |
I would be surprised if they were eyewitness and then had a dissenting position. History shows that many of the eyewitness were ready to die a torturous death rather then to deny the risen Christ.
| The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. |
This is at odds with most biblical scholars. |
How so?
| You also have the: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL EMPTY TOMB LARGE STONE MOVED ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED OVER 500 WITNESSES HOSTILE WITNESSES |
Again all from the same religious text. |
No, they are not all from the same religious text. The Bible is many different texts written by different authors and not "one religious text." You have the authors of the four gospels and then Peter, Paul, James etc... At the crucifixion all the apostles had abandoned Jesus. Peter even denies him with an oath. Yet after the resurrection all are willing to die a gruesome death rather then to deny the risen Christ. Now some men might die for what they believe to be the truth, but no man will give his life for what he knows to be a lie. Before the resurrection even Peter denies Christ with cursing but after the resurrection all are willing to now die? What could have convinced such a large group of people, who were previously unwilling to go to bat for Christ, to now give their lives for him other then eyewitness account of the risen king?
And we see more evidence besides just that which was preserved in scripture. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)
In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p. 3)
These passages indicate that Christianity was wide spread in the Roman empire within 80 years of Christ's death. Again, these are eyewitness accounts, not historians looking back years later.
The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).
It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.
The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).
Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.
The Accuracy of the Biblical Records
In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the dessert near the Dead Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the manuscripts, "they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more that 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.
When we come to the New Testament we see a similar phenomenon. There are over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. This is by far more than any other historical documents, which usually have maybe a dozen copies from very late dates. The New Testament manuscripts are many and old and they are spread over a wide geographical area. What this enables the New Testament historian to do is collect manuscripts from Jerusalem and Egypt and Syria and other places and compare them for variations. And variations do exist, but as with the Old Testament they are relatively few and rarely important to the meaning of the text. What these manuscripts demonstrate is that different families of texts existed very early that were copied from the original or good copies of the original. This allows us to trace the manuscripts back to the source as one would follow the branches of a tree to get to the trunk. Aside from the manuscripts themselves, "virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 15:55:46 [Permalink]
|
Guys, what did I just ask you?
Bible discussions (about it's authenticity as a historical document) in the Religions Folder, unless your discussing creation/evolution. Please?
Thanks.
edited to clarify |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/30/2007 16:18:35 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:13:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Can you imagine that people may see a designer other than God/Jesus/Yahweh? |
I can imagine it, but what do they base this off of? |
My point is that we, who think the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, think the Laws of Nature is "the designer".
If you want to know the answer to "what do they base this off of?" you need to study the Theory of Evolution the way scientists teach it. Not the way Pastors or Priests teach you.
Imagine a seeking person comes to me asking me to teach him about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. Would you trust me to not misrepresent Christianity to him? Honestly?
In the very same way, I do not trust Christian creationists to teach you about Evolution, since I know it is in the best interest of the creationist to misrepresent it.
Question is, are you willing to admit that creationists will be trying to poison the well when they teach you about evolution?
Do you dare ask skeptics or scientists to teach you what evolution is all about and how it works? Are you open-minded enough to learn what our position really is?
(Edited to fix spellings) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/30/2007 16:21:17 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 18:02:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
My point is that we, who think the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, think the Laws of Nature is "the designer".
If you want to know the answer to "what do they base this off of?" you need to study the Theory of Evolution the way scientists teach it. Not the way Pastors or Priests teach you. |
Unfortunataly I agree, there is alot of misinformation about evolution in most congregations as I have learned by reading here. But I do not think they are intentionally deceptive.
| Imagine a seeking person comes to me asking me to teach him about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. Would you trust [i]me to not misrepresent Christianity to him? Honestly? |
This is a very though provoking question.
| Question is, are you willing to admit that creationists will be trying to poison the well when they teach you about evolution? |
Some are but most are not. I get the feeling that you and many here think that most religious people are intentionally deceptive.
| Do you dare ask skeptics or scientists to teach you what evolution is all about and how it works? Are you open-minded enough to learn what our position really is? |
If I can find one that is not condencending toward my beliefs. Reading here has been a help to me understand evolution. Especially the thread about the fact and theory of evolution. I am grateful.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 19:49:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb...
Some are but most are not. I get the feeling that you and many here think that most religious people are intentionally deceptive. |
It's not about most religious people. It's about the religious people who take a position against the occurrence of evolution and/or against the validity of the theory of evolution.
Evolution, the process, occurs all the time, everywhere, with evidence right there for any moderately curious and aware person to see. It's only a bit more discrete than, for example, the process of weather. Nobody claims weather doesn't occur. Many religious people are arguing against the reality of the process of evolution; claiming it doesn't occur. They actually believe magic is a legitimate explanation for the way things are. Any opinion on where those people's minds are, Robb? Are they being intentionally deceptive, maybe willfully ignorant (intentionally self deceptive?), or could it be they're too stupid to get it?
The science supporting evolution, the theory, is also out there for everyone to see. Tons of it is readily available through innumerable sources. Often it is literally laid at the feet of those who argue against it. They have at least the same opportunity to access the science as anyone else, yet many insist there is no evidence. What do you think, Robb, intentionally deceptive, willfully ignorant, or just too stupid to get it? And many of them have apparently reviewed the science, yet choose to present arguments, not against the science, but against gross caricatures of it. How about those folks, Robb? Intentionally deceptive, willfully ignorant, or maybe too stupid to get it?
If you don't think those religious people who are arguing against evolution are being intentionally deceptive (or intentionally self deceptive), maybe you can offer another explanation.
| Reading here has been a help to me understand evolution. Especially the thread about the fact and theory of evolution. I am grateful. |
Pretty easy to get a handle on it if you just run it a couple times around in the ol' bean box, isn't it?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com part 2
