- NEW!
nope, and im currently in medical school and i have a ton of anatomy classes and am learning about all the systems of the body and cells and stuff like that....after that class no ONE can tell me theres no GOD!! there is no way that evelution made every single cell to do every thing as perfectly and precise as our bodies do. there has to be a God. If you need someone to give you a reason???...read the bible.
OH!! and another thing....there was a study done a while ago where scientist found out that EVERY SINGLE human being has ONE gene in common...even from way back then....they also found that that gene is not found in any animals...hmmmm??? guess we didnt come from monkeys. (or watever evelutionists say we come from) also, if evelution was true, wats the chance that only one monkey changed into a human being..wouldnt they still be evolving into us today?
first off there are more historical documents used in the bible then any other historical book
second fossil records is the most gapping form of evidence availably
third the whole believing in magic idea is valid but then i ask u do you honestly believe that every atom cell and galaxy and everything inbetween could happen in perfect order without and orchestrater
forth the are mountains of evidence supporting creation
example...3rd law of thermodynamics states that order always goes to chaos therefore a direct conridiction to evolution
fifth i was referrin to macroevolution(changing species) not microevolution(like different dog breeds)
lastly the garden of eden was forbidden from all men therefore of course we cant find it
if i didnt hit on your arguement please tell me and im sure that ill give u an answer that sufices u
by Life Not Faith on January 21st, 2010
Paloma Faith sums up the entire religion verses science debate with one line:
"Do you want the truth or something beautiful?" Science is based on facts and truth, religions are based around works of fiction and so can contain any fantasy you want them to.
Evolution isn't something you believe in, its is a factual process that is happening all the time. It's like gravity, you don't have to believe in that to stop yourself flying into space.
Creationism has no evidence in its favor, only the blind faith of those that can't except that they aren't quite as important as they'd like to believe they are.
by 23Skidoo on January 21st, 2010
Yes. A great many reasons, actually.
Any competent Jr High school biology teacher can.
And countless books (such as by Dawkins, Olivia Judson, and others) and websites can.
I can.
But not if you close your mind. And, though I may be wrong, I guess from the tone of your question that your mind is made up and no amount evidence or reason will threaten your faith.
by Stepper on January 19th, 2010
Because it's true.
Keep in mind that evolution does not inherently invalidate God. More than half of confessing Christians in the US, and three-quarters worldwide accept evolution as the tool that God used to diversify life on the planet.
It's only a conflict if you choose to make it one.
Evolution is supported by fossil evidence preserved in layers of sediment, that clearly and consistently shows increased adaptability (and general "complexity" as we move from the least, to the most recent layers). Evolution (as a working theory) routinely predicts transitional forms between two species that have been known to exist, and then sees these fossils later discovered in layers of sediment between the layers in which these known forms were originally found.
Various forms of radiometric dating can verify the date of the formation of various fossils to back up the dates generally accepted by geologists for a particular layer.
Biology has also consistently observed close similarity's in DNA between human beings, and animals that have been shown through fossil evidence to share common ancestry with human beings. Gene sequencing has uncovered a great number of dormant genes that are linked to functions that are no longer required in modern humans, and were "disabled" long before we had the tools to discover them.
The presence of various ERV's in humans beings (and a host of other animals) backs up the observation of DNA similarity among species with common ancestry, as identical ERV's can be identified in animals that share a common ancestry.
Evolutionary Biology also routinely makes predictions that, when tested, support the theory. The fusing of Chromosome #2 comes to mind, and is very interesting if you wanted to look it up.
The presence of vestigial structures (and the computer models we have formulated based on converging evidence) give credence to the idea of adaptive change.
My specialty is not in the natural sciences, and as such I can barely do justice to the amount of evidence supporting evolution, and would hope that somebody more informed than I will take the time to respond. Evolution is the accepted theory because of the ridiculous amount of observation that can be explained from multiple different unrelated scientific fields. This convergence is what makes it so convincing, as does the fact that it's predictions have been validated ad-nauseum, while the evidence that could easily refute it has yet to surface.
In short, it is about as inconceivable that evolutionary theory as a whole will turn out to be "wrong", as it is that electricity or gravity will. If by some unfathomably small chance it is, any theory that ends up replacing it has to explain EVERYTHING that evolutionary theory now does...and will have it's work cut out for it to say the least. Small errors will however continue to be identified and refined, as they are in all theories.
by Moongrim on January 20th, 2010
What the heck does Creation have to do with Christianity?
Let's see here. Do you wish to learn about science and reality? Or do you prefer to learn about fairytales and magic?
by RC loves ice cream on January 19th, 2010
First of all you should keep in mind that Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive - most Christians worldwide accept evolution. It seems that the US is the main exception.
Besides, facts are facts. The Bible says that the earth is flat (in the gospels, Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain so high he could see the entire surface of the earth from it. That's only possible if the earth is flat). So, will you also reject the idea that the earth is roughly spherical?
by Friartuck on January 21st, 2010
One is supported by mountains upon mountains of evidence from every corner of the scientific world.
The other is just one magic creation story among thousands of magic creation stories, attributing the creation to one god thingy among a hundred thousand god thingies within one religion among thousands - with no supporting evidence behind it at all.
by Arisztid on January 21st, 2010
If all of the scientific evidence is not enough to convince you, then I certainly cannot.
The Sumerians were befuddled by all of this as well:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as
by x-narpolax on January 19th, 2010
Inorder to belive in creation, you must belive in a super being, and thats just silly.
by Gingerminx on January 19th, 2010
Believe what ever you want. I am sure you are capable of finding all the information you need on the net to make your decission. For me personally, at least evolution has some damn good scientific evidence to back it up whereas creationism has nothign but belief.
by HelloWalls on January 28th, 2010
Dinosaurs. End of story.
by iwnit on January 22nd, 2010
No. One does not *believe* in evolution, one gets convinced by the overwhelming evidence for evolution. You can "believe" whatever you want, but if you want a plausible description of the processes that lead to the configuration of today's world, you have to follow the way of science.
by Nightwatchdog on January 21st, 2010
Saying you believe in evolution doesn't sound half as stupid as saying you believe in magic, ( creation ).
Case in point: Sentence one: Live as we know it evolved over billions of years.
Sentence two: A super space creature created the universe
and everything in it in six days.
Nuff said.
by BlackRider on January 21st, 2010
That reminds me, where is the Garden of Eden?
by buttman on January 21st, 2010
From the moment Charles Darwing unveiled the first draft of his theory, it became clear that it encroached on a territory which was, up until that moment, exclusive of religion. His theory, as you perhaps know, aroused a storm of controversy
because clearly and directly challenges the literal interpretation of the story of creation in Genesis. The Christian belief was/is that a deity created the earth and
all the species around 6,000 years ago. Darwin's theory, and subsequent studies
hold that the earth is much older than 6,000 years and that species had evolved
over millions of years, and that current species had evolved from earlier ones, and
that any two species had a common ancestor thus contradicting the religious theory
of "separate and unchanging creation--challenging and even weakening the argument held by theists, such as Thomas Aquinas, for the existence of a "god-designer." Even if we concede that "design" implies a "designer," why should we must assume that there was/is just one "designer" and not a team? Or that said designer was/is "perfect", "omnipotent," and "good"? Even if we accept that a deity
personally guided the evolutionary process, this would be not only inconsistent but
problematic as well because adaptations appear to be "designed" to enhance inclusive fitness. What this means? It means, according to Darwinian studies, that
adaptations are designed to increase the likelihood that the genes giving rise to them will be passed on, whether these genes are housed in the individual possessing the adaption or in close relatives. So it's very curious that the deity used
"inclusive fitness" as his/her/their guiding principle; for this means that the deity
chose to design life by a criterion that would make it perfectly explicable as the result of a mindless process of gene selection. In addition, all species have design flaws and imperfection which is a very poor evidence for creation by a "perfect" being. And if you're a thinking person, this, at the very least, should raise some serious questions in your mind.
by MrJosh on January 19th, 2010
Whales have toes.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 25th, 2010
The theory of evolution is backed up by physical evidence and empirical data.
The hypothesis of creationism is backed up by blind faith.
Science can fly you to the moon, blind faith will fly you into buildings (assuming it hasn't condemned flight as evil first).
by warex255 on March 19th, 2010
Because evolution has way more evidence than creation. All Creation has is a book which has ben translated and picies that don't sound good removed until someone is satisfied with it. While evolution has evidence and which is being observerd in labs all around the world.
by Mr. Black on February 14th, 2010
This is how I see it. Some how Christians love to steal from Pythagorus. The wager if there is no god you go about it fine, but if there is a god you may land in hell. So given the choices the safe bet is to believe. Or is it? Now you have a second option, a place of beauty beyond. If this becomes your truth then this world become devalued. All the offerings of this world become less compared to what is to come. Your health ..... I've been good I'll be taken care of later in heaven..... why bother looking for any cures all we have to do is wait till heaven. It give a false truth that there is a second chance now try the wager. Will your effort be stronger knowing this is your one and only shot at this world or would you rather leave it to chance no legacy no future.
by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on January 28th, 2010
I do not believe in evolution, that's like believing in my own feet, I know they're there because I can see the evidence for them right in front of my eyes.
Evolution is the same, you can see it in the multifarious shapes of livestock we have selectively bred, thereby short circuiting the power of evolution, to produce forms more useful to our needs and desires.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the creationist view beyond mindless dogma.
by Coexist on January 21st, 2010
You can still be a christian and accept evolution to.
How evolution works Parts 1-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ17JKIBSS4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFvK77Fsz8&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0tmb3Evhc&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1GwkFmylY&feature=channel
Why accept evolution?
Proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM&feature=channel
Creationist dishonesty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoZW7-3YSns&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZjxBdyu10A&feature=channel
Questions if you still don't accept it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63LRfLyR-JU&feature=channel
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on January 20th, 2010
Evolution contradicts /only/ the Book of Genesis. Many Christians are accept that the teaching and resurrection of Jesus do not retroactively validate the entire Old Testament. As far as I know, the Creeds of the various flavours of Christianity refer only to Jesus, his revelation, crucifixion, resurrection etc. Most Christians are ready to accept that the Old Testament is studied because it is the background against which Jesus taught, and many of his teaching (particularly about what he changed) need to be understood in the light of what he was changing from. But, so far as I know, Jesus never referenced Genesis.
And, on the other side, there is an incredible mass of evidence for evolution. If you are to reject this, you must really reject the scientific method and everything that science has brought.
by UnitedIreland on January 19th, 2010
Yah how about the millions of historical texts or even the thousands of dinosoar bones cause according to cristianity the world is only 3000 years old
by (,,,)(-.-)(,,,) on March 19th, 2010
Evolution has evidence of life before people which can be found in fossils. Other than that if you want you can believe both instead of just one because we all know that over time species change and evolve but it happens so slow that we can't see it with our own eyes. Some survive and some go extinct. Evolution happens everywhere you go and every day.
by Reverend_Boomerang on March 19th, 2010
by Sorrow on March 7th, 2010
maybe i can give you the reason..the fact that you're asking that question makes me think that you want to believe evolution over creation cuz you want to find an answer through AB just to persuade you about that concern..
by mtndewman44 on February 14th, 2010
And by the lack of response from you,we should then conclude that we have supplied the reason and therefore you haven't any other way to explain your empty beliefs that there is one supreme being still orchestrating each and every action now and forever?
by Self Consuming Cannibal on January 28th, 2010
Evolution doesn't really have to go against Christianity. The Bible is so metaphorical and it says that god made us out of dirt or clay according to your version of the Bible.
That could simply mean that he helped the ground walking monkeys (that would walk on dirt or clay) evolve into humans.
by yojo2084 on January 19th, 2010
well i cant say i belive in either. because know one was around at the beginning of time so i dont know. my question is christians say everything must have a creator so therefore eveolution cant be true, but then if everything needs a creator who created god?
by Heather108 on September 23rd, 2010
It's not a matter of "belief" because every museum of natural history in the world has the bones to prove evolution.
The human race as we know it has been on earth over a million years but there is no form of religion that goes back more than several thousand years.
Molecular evidence, DNA, indicates that the last common ancestor between humans and the remaining great apes diverged at least 4 million years ago when gorillas and then chimpanzees split off from the line leading to our oldest ancestors.
Human DNA is still today 98% identical to that of chimpanzees and gorillas and more closely related to the Common Chimpanzee and Bonobo Ape. Between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99% identical and our lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of Bonobos about eight million years ago.
Humans of the Homo Sapien species diverged from the Neanderthals 500,000 years ago and anatomically modern humans, as recognizable as your next door neighbor, first appeared about 195,000 years ago.
When you pick up and hold in your hand a human skull that is almost 200,000 years old, and it is exactly like your own skull, you realize that all religion is nothing more than Egyptian, Greek, and Hebrew mythology and churches are only community social clubs.
by Great Lakes Shipping Company on September 20th, 2010
I'm sure that you will get a lot of reasons but they may not be legitimate.
by Parepidemos on July 31st, 2010
Judging by some of the answers given, one would have to conclude that there is no legitimate reason to believe in evolution. You have to give them an A for effort though. :)
by RefreshPerspective on June 25th, 2010
Yes.
by Locke on February 4th, 2010
anyone with further questions check http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm or http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n4p17.htm
by crystal4040 on January 21st, 2010
Share your answer...
by relicbones on January 19th, 2010
One gives a sense of hope and community. The other is just survival of the fittest.
by Reverend_Boomerang on March 19th, 2010
by harryadzhyan on May 20th, 2010
there are two types of evolution microevolution and macroevolution
Question: "What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?"
Answer: Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally-occurring, biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment).
Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological changes, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists therefore often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. We will now take a closer look at both microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution
We will begin with microevolution. Let’s say for example that within the dog genome there is both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.
Now let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e. microevolution).
If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.
Genetic Mutation
Now imagine that within a longhair Hh population a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation.
Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic therefore has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information, they lose it. It is not therefore an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted as, but microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)
Macroevolution
Now let’s look at macroevolution. Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from the an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”
The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution [i.e. macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
Creation vs. Evolution
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomena. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no truly scientific evidence for macroevolution, and in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation vs. evolution debate.
Which do you believe is true... Everything came from nothing, or something always existed and created everything?
by TheAgonist on June 11th, 2011
| 4 people like this
Why should I believe in creation?
by AnonymousGirl on May 15th, 2011
| 2 people like this
by Mountaineer on January 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Buddha states 'consciousness exists in the stone' (ie ALL matter). Is that the same consciousness that exists within your body?
by kakskee on January 14th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Does denying the theory of evolution help to prove that God exists -and that evolution is just 'creation theory' for atheists?
by aldonoir on June 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Can anyone give me a legitamate reason to believe in evolution over creation(christianity)?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Where can I find the peer reviewed journal in which the article about the gene not found in animals was published in?
by MrJosh on January 23rd, 2010
ill post it on here in one day..i have to go ask my psych teacher, shes the one that told me this. ill have it up here soon :)
by neena613 on January 25th, 2010
Not only one monkey. Most likely a whole group in a certain area. Evolution is evoked by need. Only the monkeys that needed to evolve in order to survive evolved. If they were not striving to get by they would stay the same way.
And ONE gene? Are you kidding? There is absolutely no way the various gene combinations could have origionated from only two origonal sources, let alone ones THAT WERE MADE OUT OF MUD.
by HelloWalls on January 28th, 2010
I question the medical school you are allegedly attending.
by MrJosh on January 28th, 2010
And the returned requested information has still to be supplied,,I can't believe the poster has this information,because it doesn't exist.
by mtndewman44 on February 14th, 2010
That was what I thought when I first read it. I had to laugh at both the tone and the butchering of English found in the original answer. They sound nothing like a med student.
by MrJosh on February 14th, 2010
The argument from personal incredulity: because I cannot understand how it happened, the only possible answer is God. Basically, you are claiming omniscience: what you cannot understand cannot be understood, ever.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on March 3rd, 2010
Shit son, good luck becoming a doctor, you can't even spell evolution, let alone put together an intelligent argument against it. Let's hope that your patients believe in god, they are going to need him if their lives are in your incapable hands.
by amygdala85 on March 4th, 2010
neena613 , using your vast medical school education , please explain the funtion of the appendix nowadays ,, in this perfectly created body you speak of ;-)
by The Anonymous Witch on March 7th, 2010
Reading this comments renews my faith in the medical profession.
PS: Can anybody give tell me where I can find Sarah Palin's Nigerian witchdoctor? Is he listed?
by Reverend_Boomerang on March 19th, 2010
To the med student. Why is the human eye imperfect? In other words? Why is the image the eye sees transmitted upside down and backwards to our brains? You'd think a perfect creator would have designed it a bit different no? Well, a perfect creator anyways.
Why do predators that hunt in the dark have better night vision than humans do? Is it perhaps because of evolution? You know, they adapted.
And perhaps you meant to spell evolution as evil-lution.
And evil-lution takes thousands of years and yes evolution is happening today.
What do you have to say about the transitional fossils? Planted there by god to test your faith?
by Kiko7920 on June 25th, 2010
there are plenty of genes that are unique to humans.
they're formed by ERV genetic corruption.
it's a well documented and understood phenomenon.
.
not only is it not a point for creation, it's one of the best proofs for evolution.
.
you see, humans aren't the only animals with unique genes.
many animals have such ERVs.
.
by mapping out which species have what ERVs, one can create an evolutionary tree that syncs perfectly with embryology, mitochondrial DNA analysis, comparative anatomy, and countless of other independent fields that all point to the same answer.
evolution.
.
if anyone's interested in hearing about what exactly ERVs are and how they validate evolution, i'd be happy to oblige.
.
surely a med student has the background in genetics to see why ERVs aren't proof of magic.
by Sympho de Proggy on July 14th, 2010
2 things, needa.
1st, I see you haven't posted that study about the single gene in humans yet. Will you or did you make it up?
2nd, you haven't the slightest concept of how the theory claims evolution works. For instance, a single individual doesn't evolve. So there was no monkey that evolved into a human. Since you are so ignorant of a topic you feel qualified to comment on - AND you claim to me going to Med school (How I pray that's not true), AND I prefer my doctors to know what they are talking about - will you let us know where you are going and pl;an to work so we can avoid your services?
Locke - If THIS is your Asker's Pick then no one can provide an intellect such as yours a legitimate reason for continued breathing over prayer to keep your blood oxygenated. You have shut your brain off completely.
by 23Skidoo on September 23rd, 2010
Damn I wish we could add likes to comments,,we should,you know>>23 is 100% on the mark(here anyway...:p )
by mtndewman44 on September 23rd, 2010