|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2007 08:19:49 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks for the post. And for starting the thread. |
Well, though you frustrate and aggravate me, you're good at debate.....up to a point!.....8>)
Originally posted by RonB:
In my defense, if I may, let me just say that while I have, as you say, not entertained the point of view of the science guys, neither have they entertained mine. That is the essence of debate. Furthermore, and more to the point, with the exception of one post that I said was meant tongue-in-cheek, I have not ridiculed them, as they have me and the others who do not believe as they do. If you think that their tactics of attack, ridicule, sarcasm, back-slapping, etc. are more "reasonable" behaviours than my standing up for what I believe, and challenging what they believe withOUT such crass behaviour, then so be it. |
Don't really like to see that, but I do know that part of the reason I wasn't in on that was that some of your replies frustrated me so much, I knew I wouldn't stop at snide.....I might have gotten abusive, and you didn't deserve that, no matter how you may have rubbed me the wrong way.
I don't condone that behavior, but I certainly see how the frustration arose. Some days you just seemed like you'd be willing to argue that 2+2=5. THAT'S exasperating!
Originally posted by RonB:
The debate degenerated when they began to ridicule what I believe - not challenge it, but ridicule it. Posts about fairies, religious leaders not having any knowledge of scientific matters, arguments from ignorance, giant turtles, masses following blindly, unfounded postulates, large bearded man in the sky, irrational behaviour, etc. ( and that's just on the FIRST page of the thread ). If those are the kinds of post you call "reasonable", then I know we do not share the same view of what "reasonable" means.
Peace.
(edited for grammer) |
First, just to be a pedantic prig in the most light-hearted manner, grammAr....8>)
No, I don't think that name-calling and ridiculing is reasonable. And I'm not justifying it, BUT......most of that evolved resulted from complete and total aggravation from your unwillingness to concede what are *IMO*, and that of many others here, obvious holes in so much of religious dogma.
You cannot state in ANY crowd other than completely like-minded individuals that the Bible is literal and completely true.
For one thing, around most learned people, it's just not possible, because of loss in translation and personal interpretation. That's a fact. You may choose not to believe that or accept it, but you cannot prove that it is exact.....and before you come back at me and say that I can't prove that it's not exact, yes I can, simply because it's a known fact that there is nuance and definition that is not possible to translate from one culture to another without even getting into the whole 2000 year time frame.
God's word may very well be law, I believe that, but part of what God is doing as I understand it is to let us have free will.....that's what we're doing here, exercising that.
So......PollyAnna that I am, I wonder why science and theology cannot coexist......and I find out.
As much as you seem to me to be an intelligent guy who speaks well and doesn't rant, you scare me because your faith, *TO ME* seems blind to sense. The kind of sense that leads me to believe that although God loves me, he gave me my wits so that I don't step out a 17th floor window.
Have you heard the one about the old woman by the river?
The waters start to rise, and a good ol' boy in a jacked up 4X4 drives up and offers her a ride.....she says, "No....God will provide!". So he shrugs his shoulders and drives off. After a while, she has to move to the second floor 'cause the water's deeper, and another guy in a motorboat comes along and asks her if she wants to be evacuated. She says, "NO....God will provide!". So he motors off....Then she is forced up on the roof because the waters are just about to engulf the house, and a helicopter flies by and the guy leans out and shouts to her that he'll fly her to safety.....she says,"No....God will provide!". So the chopper flies off......and the lady gets swept away by the floodwaters and drowns.
She gets to judgement day, and she asks God, "Why didn't you provide?".
God say,"Hey, I sent a truck, a boat, and a chopper, whaddya want from me?".
I know that's irreverent, and it may not suit your thinking in any manner, but that's kinda the reaction I've gotten to with your trying to uphold your beliefs.....some of it just doesn't make any sense on any level to much of any of us.
Our young lad  ryand alluded to none of us learning or considering anything in return; I don't for one second think that's true, I think you guys taught us all some things if nothing else, that we needed to be fresher in some of our thinking when debating our side.....speaking for myself, I learned a heck of a lot.
And even though I do consider myself an evolutionary kind of thinker (pun intended), I do have faith as well......there is room in my life for both God and science......some people accuse me of straddling the fence, so be it.
But most of what I learned, I took on faith before.....faith both in science and God.
I didn't know squat about macro-evolution, cargo faith, or any of a number of other things, and I learned a lot about human behavior, too.
As far as the abuse goes, I have to tell you that this has been mild compared to some of the flame wars I've seen break out in the DPC forums, and I've been sanctioned here once or twice....in the most respectful way (Right, SC?). I think more restraint was exercised than you have any idea.(NOT meant to try and convince you how nice we were.)
I was truly sincere in my wishes for your continued faith and beliefs, and from that happiness and fulfillment.......I know all too many people who are lost simply because they have nothing whatsoever that gives them solace in anything they have or do.
I truly hope that you never have anything happen that shakes your faith because I am afraid of what that would do to you.
I believe that you're a good person and that would be a shame.
Peace and blessings to you too, my friend.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2007 10:38:12 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
As far as the abuse goes, I have to tell you that this has been mild compared to some of the flame wars I've seen break out in the DPC forums, and I've been sanctioned here once or twice....in the most respectful way (Right, SC?). I think more restraint was exercised than you have any idea.(NOT meant to try and convince you how nice we were.) |
You should see the stuff I didn't post! If things like giant turtles sound ridiculous, then that's only from certain perspectives. It was widely accepted as fact in several cultures. From my perspective, giant space turtles are surely no more ridiculous than rationalizing cabin space and veggie rations for long-extinct sauropods and mammoths alongside all other species on a hand made wooden boat less than half the size of an aircraft carrier- a boat larger than any documented wooden ship ever built with modern construction techniques and materials, yet sturdy enough to survive the greatest storm of all time when the modern versions all had structural problems. The logical extensions of such scenarios do indeed sound ridiculous. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 10:47:23 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You think Jerry Fawell was part of a tiny minority of literalists? I suppose tiny when you compare millions of followers hanging on his every word to, say, tens of millions hanging on the word of the Pope. But still... |
About 1.1 billion, so yeah, a tiny minority. |
|
|
|
11/14/2007 10:59:35 PM · #254 |
I think Pastafarians is the way to go.
(Posted before I think) |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 08:47:30 AM · #255 |
Common ancestor fosil found
And where was the Garden of Eden? Africa you say...hmmmmm
Could there be a link between science and theology? I think so.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:08:39 AM · #256 |
| You can't seriously believe in the garden of eden? really!?! |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:12:37 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
You can't seriously believe in the garden of eden? really!?! |
Really.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:20:24 AM · #258 |
Ok. Have to seen the effects of breeding in a limited gene pool? not pretty, speak to any farmer or animal breeder. If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? (skin colour, eyes, hair, shape of face etc.) Of course with evolution I can explain that. I'm guessing your answer will be 'GOD'.
Where was god when there was a talking snake? sure HE could have forseen that wasnt such a good idea! and to be honest the snake got off pretty lightly, being made to slither on his belly for evermore...instead of what! fly like usual! |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:23:20 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Ok. Have to seen the effects of breeding in a limited gene pool? not pretty, speak to any farmer or animal breeder. If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? (skin colour, eyes, hair, shape of face etc.) Of course with evolution I can explain that. I'm guessing your answer will be 'GOD'.
|
Genetic Disorders Hit Amish Hard
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:25:53 AM · #260 |
Thank you rox_rox, thats a really sad example of what I meant. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:33:45 AM · #261 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Thank you rox_rox, thats a really sad example of what I meant. |
You're welcome. Here's one more. Aicuña Is Not an Albino Town
Also, here is an article about Garrett Lisi, the physicist who wrote "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything". He's a surfer dude. Now it all makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:43:59 AM · #262 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Ok. Have to seen the effects of breeding in a limited gene pool? not pretty, speak to any farmer or animal breeder. If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? (skin colour, eyes, hair, shape of face etc.) Of course with evolution I can explain that. I'm guessing your answer will be 'GOD'.
Where was god when there was a talking snake? sure HE could have forseen that wasnt such a good idea! and to be honest the snake got off pretty lightly, being made to slither on his belly for evermore...instead of what! fly like usual! |
1. Your question was do I really beieve in the Garden of Eden?
2. My answer was yes - really.
3. From there, you deduced that I agreed with a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.
4. This was a mistake.
5. You should have asked me for clarification before you assumed my position.
a. I believe that a place existed on earth, some time near the beginnings of mankind, where the atmosphere, plant life, etc was as described in the popular notion of the Garden of Eden.
b. Science has said that such a place most likely existed in Africa. (in fact on a couple of Islands in Hawaii, some would say it exists today).
c. I have no idea what Adam and/or Eve looked like, only that the Bible says that "we" are made in God's image.
d. I have wondered myself, if we are made in God's image, then why are we all different? Logic says that replicating God's image would result in a perfect clone. Thus all mankind would be perfect clones of the original.
e. However, a photocopy is made in the image of the original, and a photocopy of the photocopy is made in the image of the original, and so on until you cannot even recognize the original any longer. Does that refute that the photocopy is not in the image of the original? No.
f. Plato's world of Absolutes describes the essence of a things identity. I suscribe to this notion, that there exists the essence of things (say for example the color red) by which all things that are red share an element of this absolute. That does not mean that all red things are the same, or even that they are the same red, only that they share in the essence of absolute red.
Hope this helps. You may of course continue to criticize what you believe I said. I would prefer you ask for clarification if you are not sure.
d.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 09:56:49 AM · #263 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Ok. Have to seen the effects of breeding in a limited gene pool? not pretty, speak to any farmer or animal breeder. If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? (skin colour, eyes, hair, shape of face etc.) Of course with evolution I can explain that. I'm guessing your answer will be 'GOD'.
Where was god when there was a talking snake? sure HE could have forseen that wasnt such a good idea! and to be honest the snake got off pretty lightly, being made to slither on his belly for evermore...instead of what! fly like usual! |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. Your question was do I really beieve in the Garden of Eden?
2. My answer was yes - really.
3. From there, you deduced that I agreed with a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.
4. This was a mistake.
5. You should have asked me for clarification before you assumed my position.
a. I believe that a place existed on earth, some time near the beginnings of mankind, where the atmosphere, plant life, etc was as described in the popular notion of the Garden of Eden.
b. Science has said that such a place most likely existed in Africa. (in fact on a couple of Islands in Hawaii, some would say it exists today).
c. I have no idea what Adam and/or Eve looked like, only that the Bible says that "we" are made in God's image.
d. I have wondered myself, if we are made in God's image, then why are we all different? Logic says that replicating God's image would result in a perfect clone. Thus all mankind would be perfect clones of the original.
e. However, a photocopy is made in the image of the original, and a photocopy of the photocopy is made in the image of the original, and so on until you cannot even recognize the original any longer. Does that refute that the photocopy is not in the image of the original? No.
f. Plato's world of Absolutes describes the essence of a things identity. I suscribe to this notion, that there exists the essence of things (say for example the color red) by which all things that are red share an element of this absolute. That does not mean that all red things are the same, or even that they are the same red, only that they share in the essence of absolute red.
Hope this helps. You may of course continue to criticize what you believe I said. I would prefer you ask for clarification if you are not sure.
d. |
Good point, Flash.
All too often, but understandably due to the rigid dogma of some sects, people of faith are assumed to be hardline.
This is not always the case.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 10:09:19 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? |
No, silly... the infallible, literal written history of the universe said that our greatest grandparents would kick the bucket the same day they munched on candied apples. It's very clear and specific on that point:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
That is the absolute Truth: chow down on the Golden Delicious of Higher Learning (on the instructions of a talking snake with legs), and you get applejacked by nightfall (give or take 8 centuries). So they obviously died that day, and you were never descended from dad and dad's clone to read this. Nevermind that this particular warning label appeared before Eve was born as an adult from a spare rib, and nevermind that they didn't yet have any concept of right or wrong (or death), it was still her fault. Unless, of course, they DIDN'T die that day (in which case God lied and the serpent told the truth).
Eden was like the original Willy Wonka candy factory: everything in this room is edible, except THAT, which will kill you immediately while you live 900 years, and inflict all manner of curses and suffering upon your descendents (not the least of which is the compelling urge to buy designer clothing). C'mon Cheeky, use your head man! It's right there in black and white, so it must be true! If you have any doubts, just read further... it even SAYS it's true! :-/ |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 10:17:52 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Ok. Have to seen the effects of breeding in a limited gene pool? not pretty, speak to any farmer or animal breeder. If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? (skin colour, eyes, hair, shape of face etc.) Of course with evolution I can explain that. I'm guessing your answer will be 'GOD'.
Where was god when there was a talking snake? sure HE could have forseen that wasnt such a good idea! and to be honest the snake got off pretty lightly, being made to slither on his belly for evermore...instead of what! fly like usual! |
1) Genetic variation only occurs when DNA is modified. That occurs in sexual reproduction by the combining of sperm and egg. After fertilization, growth occurs by cell division, and that requires DNA replication. Likewise, the creation of sperm and eggs requires DNA "splitting". DNA replication/splitting, as you should know, is not a 100% perfect process. That means that the sperm / ova of each generation have the potential for change and the development of characteristics that are NOT the same as those of either the father or mother ( or grandfather or grandmother, etc. ). If you wish, call this process microevolution. When the new DNA is formed by fertilization, there may be a difference in certain genetic areas, such as the genes that contorl eye color. When that happens, one will prevail ( dominant ) over the other ( recessive ). Inbreeding tends to concentrate the dominant genes of one ancestral line, which may or may not be a good thing, especially if the dominant genes control an unfavorable characteristic, such as sickle-cell anemia.
Neither Adam nor Eve had any genetic defects and the effects of inbreeding, for the first few generations at least, would not have resulted in any negative genetic effects. After that, it was only second and third cousins breeding, so the genetic variations would be much as they exist today. ( We're ALL cousins, after all, whether you accept creation or macroevolution ).
2) There are people with different characteristics because of errors in DNA replication affecting subsequent generations ( Replication errors, by the way, would not have occurred had it not been for the fall of man ).
3) I have explained why there are variations using microevolution, as well. But it is provable science combined with God's Creation, not apart from it.
4) Obviously, God was there.
5) Obviously, He foresaw the temptation in the garden. But He had predetermined to give Man free-will to make his own decisions, even knowing that he would choose poorly. That's why he had ALSO predetermined the way of reconiliation ( that would be Jesus Christ ).
5) Yes, the snake got off lightly. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 10:24:04 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If we all came from adam and eve why are there people with different features? |
No, silly... the infallible, literal written history of the universe said that our greatest grandparents would kick the bucket the same day they munched on candied apples. It's very clear and specific on that point:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." |
1. You assume that the definition of "a day" is a short period.
2. You state that Adam died, when he originally had eternal life, thus the snake was not correct.
3. You imply that it is God's fault for creating the snake (representing temptation), when his foreknowledge should have told him that Adam would succumb.
4. You seem to relish in the opportunities that literal interpretations afford you. (I suspect as it reinforces your need to disprove - that which makes you uncomfortable).
just my .02 cents.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 10:43:47 AM · #267 |
My apologies flash, never assume - its makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me!'
You have raised some interesting points I'd like to discuss, I'll be computerless for a bit, but will reply in couple of hours. Its getting interesting! |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 11:09:25 AM · #268 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. You assume that the definition of "a day" is a short period.
2. You state that Adam died, when he originally had eternal life, thus the snake was not correct.
3. You imply that it is God's fault for creating the snake (representing temptation), when his foreknowledge should have told him that Adam would succumb.
4. You seem to relish in the opportunities that literal interpretations afford you. (I suspect as it reinforces your need to disprove - that which makes you uncomfortable). |
1. If that's not what it means, then why specify a unit of time at all? Just say you'll die at some point.
2. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest Adam ever had eternal life. Regardless... as the first humans and absent knowledge, Adam would have had no concept of death. Thus, either of their statements would be meaningless anyway.
3. Would you care to explain the point of temptation in the context of people who don't know what it means to be right or wrong? Free will to choose between good and evil requires an understanding of the difference.
4. Absolutely (but only because the absurdities are so comical). However, even as parable obvious contradictions will sound like ridicule. I won't ridicule belief, but I have no problem poking fun at specific "evidence" that people regard as absolute fact. Ever hear the Bill Cosby routine on Noah? If you point a finger at problems with evidence on one side, you should expect the same in return. When a scientific conclusion is questioned, it must be considered and analyzed for validity, but faith shouldn't be affected when conclusions are questioned. Just ignore the evidence and go right on believing. If you feel it's your responsibility to "share the good news," then I can certainly feel it's my responsibility to share common sense. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-11-15 11:25:38. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 11:59:03 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. You assume that the definition of "a day" is a short period.
2. You state that Adam died, when he originally had eternal life, thus the snake was not correct.
3. You imply that it is God's fault for creating the snake (representing temptation), when his foreknowledge should have told him that Adam would succumb.
4. You seem to relish in the opportunities that literal interpretations afford you. (I suspect as it reinforces your need to disprove - that which makes you uncomfortable). |
1. If that's not what it means, then why specify a unit of time at all? Just say you'll die at some point.
2. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest Adam ever had eternal life. Regardless... as the first humans and absent knowledge, Adam would have had no concept of death. Thus, either of their statements would be meaningless anyway.
3. Would you care to explain the point of temptation in the context of people who don't know what it means to be right or wrong? Free will to choose between good and evil requires an understanding of the difference.
4. Absolutely (but only because the absurdities are so comical). However, even as parable obvious contradictions will sound like ridicule. I won't ridicule belief, but I have no problem poking fun at specific "evidence" that people regard as absolute fact. Ever hear the Bill Cosby routine on Noah? If you point a finger at problems with evidence on one side, you should expect the same in return. When a scientific conclusion is questioned, it must be considered and analyzed for validity, but faith shouldn't be affected when conclusions are questioned. Just ignore the evidence and go right on believing. If you feel it's your responsibility to "share the good news," then I can certainly feel it's my responsibility to share common sense. ;-) |
1. That is what it says. You'll die. I have no idea why a unit of time was used, only that a unit of time was used.
2. Again you revert to the literal "1st man Adam". I have no idea who or what Adam was. Was he the 1st Ape? The 1st Ape/man hybred? the 1st man? Is Adam singular or plural? There are many questions I have about the origin and definition of Adam. For me, that does not translate into a refutation of God.
3. Temptation is required to explain the shortcoming of man's will. Understanding as putforth in your literal context of the 1st man Adam, is based on your premise that the first human(s) were absent of knowledge.
4. I welcome common sense to this debate and am glad you feel responsible to share it. The ridicule is another matter.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 12:00:02 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
When a scientific conclusion is questioned, it must be considered and analyzed for validity, but faith shouldn't be affected when conclusions are questioned. Just ignore the evidence and go right on believing. |
The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovable, the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact; when creationists are likewise challenged, they acknowledge that they have no proof, but that they still accept the conclusions on faith.
I freely admit that theists ( or deists, for that matter ) have not, and to date cannot, prove that God exists, but that they accept His existence on faith, nonetheless.
It would be refreshing to have you admit, likewise, that science has not, and to date cannot, prove macroevolution, but that you accept it on faith, nonetheless. ( Faith: belief that is not based on proof ).
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007 12:15:21 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It would be refreshing to have you admit, likewise, that science has not, and to date cannot, prove macroevolution, but that you accept it on faith, nonetheless. ( Faith: belief that is not based on proof ). |
If I could only claim that Darwin's theory is proven because Darwin himself said so, then you'd have a case (and a familiar situation), but I submit that ample fossil evidence proves macroevolution is a fact of nature. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 12:22:38 PM · #272 |
There's something being stepped around here, and I think it's important to the debate. And that's the concept of death.
Theists believe that there is an afterlife, they have a soul, that there is a creator who they will return to when they die. Whereas Nontheists are facing up to the idea that when they die it's 'game over'; they lose consciousness, their brain dies, and they cease to exist.
My question to both groups is this; Does the concept of 'game over' dying frighten you? And does your fear or acceptance of this concept reinforce your beliefs? |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 12:31:09 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." |
Here's the explanation for those who are interested:
The word 'shalt' ( shall ) is defined as "3.( in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to. The word 'obliged' is defined as "1. to require or constrain, as by law, command, conscience, or force of necessity. 2. to bind morally or legally, as by a promise or contract."
So, to paraphrase the text in more modern verbiage:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will be legally bound to experience death.
And he did, and he did. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 12:37:32 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
It would be refreshing to have you admit, likewise, that science has not, and to date cannot, prove macroevolution, but that you accept it on faith, nonetheless. ( Faith: belief that is not based on proof ). |
If I could only claim that Darwin's theory is proven because Darwin himself said so, then you'd have a case (and a familiar situation), but I submit that ample fossil evidence proves macroevolution is a fact of nature. |
Like I said - The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovable, the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact; when creationists are likewise challenged, they acknowledge that they have no proof, but that they still accept the conclusions on faith.
Message edited by author 2007-11-15 12:38:30. |
|
|
|
11/15/2007 12:38:15 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. That is what it says. You'll die. I have no idea why a unit of time was used, only that a unit of time was used.
|
The story is saying that the punishment for eating the apple was taking away immortality from all of humanity forever. The passage is written to explain why humans die, and it shows it through the apple incident.
Originally posted by RonB:
5) Obviously, He foresaw the temptation in the garden. But He had predetermined to give Man free-will to make his own decisions, even knowing that he would choose poorly. That's why he had ALSO predetermined the way of reconiliation ( that would be Jesus Christ ). |
So is that why God was so angry when she ate the apple? God isn't always shown in the Bible as knowing the future. Sometimes he can do it (like when he speaks through some of the prophets) and other times the people clearly do something he doesn't expect and is angry about (like the people in Judges).
It all depends on which source wrote the section of the Bible you're reading. Different writers used different literary techniques and styles, thus giving different ways to look at God.
Message edited by author 2007-11-15 12:38:53. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 12:21:56 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 12:21:56 AM EDT.
|
