Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

4Simpsons Blog- What I Want From Darwinians and Dawkinites

with 26 comments

A 4Simpsons Blog guest posed a couple good questions

I would like to ask you, what is it that you want from the evolution scientists? What would you like them to say or do?

These were so important that I decided to do another post on them.  Here are a few things I’d like from Darwinian evolutionist scientists.  Note that none of these are terribly time consuming and mainly center on being candid. 

  • Stop demonizing people as anti-science religious fundamentalists just for criticizing Darwinian evolution.  It is petty, it is bad debating and it reveals your insecurities.  
  • Stop acting as if we have never read anything about Darwinian evolution and haven’t done our homework.  We could be wrong, but these are cheap and unproductive debating tricks. 
  • Teach the debate and acknowledge the many flaws and gaps in your theory, such as going from single to double strand DNA, not having enough time to evolve and these.
  • Admit that the movie “Inherit the Wind” was false and misleading propaganda and bears little resemblance to why and how the Scopes trial played out.  Also, help ensure that it not be shown in public schools, unless as an example of how despicable propaganda can be.
  • Admit that the pre-Cambrian explosion fossil finds in China crushed your “science of the gaps” theory which held that your transition forms just didn’t fossilize.
  • Don’t pretend that you have lots of fossil evidence when even your leaders admit how big your problem is there.
  • Remind people that even IF Darwinian evolution were true that it still doesn’t explain how the universe came into existence and where the first living cells came from.  Therefore, even IF it were true one couldn’t use it as an atheistic manifesto as so many of your leaders do.
  • Acknowledge that science is not some sin-free monolith where everyone has pure motives and no one disagrees.  Just because an endeavor is scientific doesn’t mean that pride and greed won’t lead people to do bad things. 
  • Acknowledge that science has done 180 degree turns on numerous topics.
  • Acknowledge all the frauds that have taken place with “missing links” (Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s Embryos, etc.) and agree that people have a right to be skeptical of your latest “find.”  
  • Please ask the ACLU to stop wasting our time and money with ridiculous lawsuits like the Cobb County, GA case where they “convinced judges to rule that that placing disclaimer stickers warning that evolution is “a theory, not a fact” in public school science textbooks is an unconstitutional government intrusion on religious liberty.”   I’ve read the First Amendment a couple times and think it took a lot of creativity to find that the sticker either A) was due to a law passed by Congress or B) was an establishment of religion or even an endorsement.  More here.  
  • Acknowledge the logical conclusions of a materialistic worldview completely driven by random chemical reactions and the survival of the fittest.  It leads to all kinds of horrific behavior.  That isn’t a reason Darwinian evolution is wrong, but it is just one of the reasons it is important to expose its flaws. 

             


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

February 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm

26 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.


  1. # Stop acting as if we have never read anything about Darwinian evolution and haven’t done our homework. We could be wrong, but these are cheap and unproductive debating tricks.

    Creationists are wrong about science and evolution. Wildly, almost unbelievably wrong. Consistently.

    When anti-evolutionists consistently demonstrate their total lack of familiarity with even the basics of evolutionary theory and science in general, there’s only one conclusion you can come to: they didn’t bother researching evolution in the first place and are just out to push a religious agenda, rather than an educational or scientific one.

    Teach the debate and acknowledge the many flaws and gaps in your theory, such as going from single to double strand DNA, not having enough time to evolve and these.

    Every single item on that list related to evolution – and I mean every single one – are flat-out wrong, as is the ‘not enough time’ argument. A small amount of research would be enough for someone to find this out.

    The rest of the list pertains to abiogenesis, and is only partially correct; even then, it sets up ridiculous strawman arguments.

    This is yet another example of someone critsizing evolution from a position of near-total ignorance on the subject.

    Admit that the movie “Inherit the Wind” was false and misleading propaganda and bears little resemblance to why and how the Scopes trial played out. Also, help ensure that it not be shown in public schools, unless as an example of how despicable propaganda can be.

    I’ve never even heard of that movie before. If someone is passing off a fictionalized account of something as fact, they should stop, but I don’t see what this has to do with evolutionary theory.


    # Admit that the pre-Cambrian explosion fossil finds in China crushed your “science of the gaps” theory which held that your transition forms just didn’t fossilize.

    The discovery of the fossils of ‘soft-bodied’ creatures is a fantastic source of evidence for evolution, not against it. The more fossils, the better. Which brings me to…


    # Don’t pretend that you have lots of fossil evidence when even your leaders admit how big your problem is there.

    There is tons of fossil evidence for evolution. We have fossil evidence coming out of our ears, including complete fossilized transitions from one species to the next. Who are these supposed ‘leaders’, what are they the ‘leaders’ of, and when did they claim that there’s a problem in this area?

    Remind people that even IF Darwinian evolution were true that it still doesn’t explain how the universe came into existence and where the first living cells came from. Therefore, even IF it were true one couldn’t use it as an atheistic manifesto as so many of your leaders do.

    Evolution contradictions the Biblical creation account and is frequently maligned, misinterpreted and misrepresented by the religious, which is why it’s sometimes used as a ‘manifesto’.

    Nobody is claiming that evolution explains how the Universe came into existence (physics and cosmology does that) – certainly no scientists, at any rate.

    # Acknowledge that science is not some sin-free monolith where everyone has pure motives and no one disagrees. Just because an endeavor is scientific doesn’t mean that pride and greed won’t lead people to do bad things.

    First, find me someone who has actually claimed this.

    Acknowledge that science has done 180 degree turns on numerous topics.

    I don’t know how ‘numerous’ the topics are, but this is true and is a good thing. Science would be pointless if it couldn’t admit when it was wrong and start afresh.

    #
    # Acknowledge all the frauds that have taken place with “missing links” (Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s Embryos, etc.) and agree that people have a right to be skeptical of your latest “find.”

    These frauds are hoaxes are only a tiny, tiny representation of the discoveries made in evolution’s favour, of which there are literally thousands. They do not constitute a reason to be skeptical beyond the usual inherent skepticism among scientists whenever a new discovery is made.

    Please ask the ACLU to stop wasting our time and money with ridiculous lawsuits like the Cobb County, GA case where they “convinced judges to rule that that placing disclaimer stickers warning that evolution is “a theory, not a fact” in public school science textbooks is an unconstitutional government intrusion on religious liberty.” I’ve read the First Amendment a couple times and think it took a lot of creativity to find that the sticker either A) was due to a law passed by Congress or B) was an establishment of religion or even an endorsement. More here.

    What, and let religious idiots deceive schoolchildren? Not on your life. Those stickers were ridiculous and misleading.

    Acknowledge the logical conclusions of a materialistic worldview completely driven by random chemical reactions and the survival of the fittest. It leads to all kinds of horrific behavior. That isn’t a reason Darwinian evolution is wrong, but it is just one of the reasons it is important to expose its flaws.

    I fully acknowledge that whoever wrote this list is an idiot. The faulty reasoning on display here is proof enough of that even without the rest of the list taken into account.

    lifelessonsfromwriting

    February 29, 2008 at 7:12 pm

  2. We won’t “admit” those things because they’re wrong. You can’t admit that something is true if you know that it isn’t.

    Joseph Frantz

    February 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm

  3. It is like the Holocaust deniers giving the list to the Jews of things they have to admit. It is a “can’t we get along?” plee- the answer happens to be no- when you sprout nonsense don’t be surprised that people push back.

    Samuel Skinner

    February 29, 2008 at 11:22 pm

  4. “Stop acting as if we have never read anything about Darwinian evolution and haven’t done our homework. We could be wrong, but these are cheap and unproductive debating tricks.”

    Most anti-evolutionists have read about evolution–at a high school level. When you’re operating at a post-grad level of knowledge regarding evolution and keep running into high school bio students thinking they have slain the beast, it’s hard not to get annoyed. The fix? Ramp it up. I’ve often said a person needs to have the equivalent of three years of a biology major in order to be able to even begin evaluating the validity of evolution. So go get some education, and maybe you’ll do what I did and leave creationism and save others like us the work of convincing you.

    “Admit that the pre-Cambrian explosion fossil finds in China crushed your “science of the gaps” theory which held that your transition forms just didn’t fossilize.”

    Funny, just how do you conclude this? What you don’t know about the Precambrian and Cambrian has filled multiple books. Incidentally as a creationist you’re supposed to pretend that the Precambrian never existed. Creationist dogma says all modern phyla sprang into existence fully formed at the Cambrian, with nothing coming beforehand. Horsefeathers, of course.

    “I’ve read the First Amendment a couple times and think it took a lot of creativity to find that the sticker . . . was an establishment of religion or even an endorsement.”

    That explains why you write pro-creationist tripe on the internet instead of presiding over a courtroom. The judge found that the sticker was placed there due to the religious prejudices of the school board, which makes it an attempt at establishment of religion.

    “Acknowledge the logical conclusions of a materialistic worldview completely driven by random chemical reactions and the survival of the fittest. It leads to all kinds of horrific behavior. That isn’t a reason Darwinian evolution is wrong, but it is just one of the reasons it is important to expose its flaws.”

    While you’re getting that bio degree, drop by some philosophy classes and learn about the fallacy of the appeal to nature and why “you can’t get to ought from is”. The only people drawing horrible conclusions regarding prescriptions for human behavior from the theory of evolution are the creationists in their attempt to make another boogie man. And if we suppressed every school of thought that had been misused by people to serve their purposes, we’d be outlawing Christianity too.

    Nimravid

    March 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  5. 1. Demonizing? No. But I will continue to point it out that creationism is wrong. Bone-headed, flat earth, wrong.

    2. If you haven’t ‘done your homework,’ why should we start acting as though you have?

    3. Teach the debate? Like Intelligent Falling vs. Gravity? (See #1)

    4. I haven’t seen “Inherit the Wind.” Who cares?

    5. They found a mammal fossil in the Pre-Cambrian? Um, no. (See #2)

    6. Big problems in paleontology? Um, no. (See #2)

    7. Dodging the question of evolution by invoking classical deism admits that Christian theology is bunk. Thanks for admitting that biologists are right on their theory, and you’re wrong on yours.

    8. Actually, I already admit that scientists often disagree. Not about evolution or gravity or heliocentrism, but about a lot of other things. And we discard the niceties. So what?

    9. Again, I already would have admitted that science has made 180 degree turns before. But, again, not on gravity, heliocentrism or evolution (See #1 and 2).

    10. Okay – and will you acknowledge that for every fraud, there are thousands and thousands of valid fossils? Yes, you should be skeptical of individual finds, but for you to ignore the very great many (not individual) finds that all point to the same thing is bone-headed. (See #1)

    11. Please learn what a Non sequitur is.

    12. And what’s up with the unsupported ideological rant? If you actually understood what it is that you’re ranting about, you’d recognize that altruism is the logical conclusion of natural selection in a social animal (e.g. humans), not horrific behavior. (See #1)

    Dan

    March 2, 2008 at 9:35 am

  6. “altruism is the logical conclusion of natural selection in a social animal”

    Nice try, but as usual the materialists sneak a moral good in the back door. It is anything goes in a materialistic world. If having a baby helps perpetuate the species, then of course that is altruistic. But if I want to pay someone to crush and dismember it, then gee, that must be altruistic, too. If altruism is the logical conclusion then everything we do must be altruistic. You’ve had hundreds of millions of years for your evolutionary process, so it ought to be humming along quite well then. Why don’t we see more altruistic behavior, then?

    What is really funny is that in your God-mocking worldview, every religious idea you hate so much and think is idiotic came from your natural selection processes! So you have nothing to blame except your pet process. Cheers!

    Neil

    March 3, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  7. Okay, you have never heard of kin selection or reciprocal altruism. Maybe you want to go read about what you don’t know before you shoot your mouth off.

    Dan

    March 4, 2008 at 7:11 am

  8. And, by the way Neil, there are also cultural anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists who study the question “Is Religion Adaptive?” Personally, I do think that it was adaptive, especially from about the beginning of civilization to the Industrial Revolution. Reciprocal altruism and the extension of kin selection to non-kin clearly was good for harmonious living in cities and small nation-states, as humanity shifted to ever larger communities. The hostility towards members of opposing religions also benefited competition between such large communities.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071026173536.htm

    Whether it still is adaptive is a good question though. I think that it’s not, as we generally think that cooperation between nations and globalization are better than hostility.

    Dan

    March 4, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  9. Checked out the reciprocal altruism . . . looked pretty fuzzy and proved nothing. Once again, in the materialist tautology you can kill your neighbor if you are convinced it benefits you and you can help him if you think it benefits you. In the moral relativism of atheism, who is to say either is right or wrong?

    Neil

    March 4, 2008 at 10:23 pm

  10. Neil is mistaking the issue; it’s not about “atheism”, just “truth”. It’s true that we evolved from gorillas. If that implies that the Bible isn’t true, too bad.

    In any case, he’s mistaken to believe that evolution says anything about morality. It says something about what is true, not what should be true.

    Some day, Christians may learn that wanting something to be true does not push it towards being true a single centimeter.

    J. Frantz

    March 5, 2008 at 12:29 am

  11. “In any case, he’s mistaken to believe that evolution says anything about morality.”

    If you claim that evolution doesn’t say anything about morality then we agree. Got that? So I’m not mistaken at all. Glad we cleared that up.

    I was pointing out the error of the materialists who try to rationalize a foundation for morality. They fail every time because they always sneak in a moral good without explaining how it got there.

    Some day, materialists may learn that wanting to pretend God doesn’t exist won’t work:

    Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    “It’s true that we evolved from gorillas.”

    Sure.

    Neil

    March 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

  12. “I was pointing out the error of the materialists who try to rationalize a foundation for morality. They fail every time because they always sneak in a moral good without explaining how it got there.”

    This is exactly what Christians do. They try to explain the existence of good without explaining how it got there.

    Do you actually think that quoting scripture is going to do anything? There is actually evidence that evolution is correct. The same can’t be said of the Bible.

    J. Frantz

    March 5, 2008 at 1:07 am

  13. Hi J., I’m going to bow out now. To say that Christians don’t have an explanation for how good got here shows you aren’t serious about this. That is one of the worst atheistic arguments I’ve seen (and I’ve had a ton of atheists visiting lately and have seen lots of bad reasoning – Poor arguments to make with theists ).

    If you don’t like the logic and can come up with reasons to refute it, that is one thing. But it is the height of absurdity to say we don’t have an explanation.

    Yes, quoting scripture will do a lot of things. Maybe not for you, but for others. There are many excellent Christian apologetics websites to explain why the Bible is reliable (check out my blogroll for some – Stand to Reason, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, etc.). If you are authentically seeking I encourage you to check them out. If not, then don’t bother. I’m not on commission.

    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

    Neil

    March 5, 2008 at 1:18 am

  14. If it’s “one of the worst atheistic arguments” that you’ve ever seen, it’s amazing how helpless you are to respond to it. Worse yet, you bow out as though you’ve actually stated anything substantial. At least Christians are forthcoming about their dogmatism…

    J. Frantz

    March 5, 2008 at 1:41 am

  15. Many of the responses here remind me why scientists should stay as scientists and let Philosophers and Theologians deal with questions of value.

    M

    March 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

  16. M,
    Right – so philosophers and theologians weren’t bound by empirical reality. That way, they could claim anything they want.

    Dan

    March 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  17. Neil I thank you for borrowing these cats for a while, but you can see the frustrations of dealing with Dawkinites but you are right to point out that they claim a monopoly on reason.

    dawkinswatch

    March 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  18. Thanks DawkinsWatch. Keep up the good work. You have more patience than me. Maybe they should read Romans and see if Paul is a clear thinker. Or even C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Augustine, or any of the other countless great theological minds. Reason through and through.

    Neil

    March 7, 2008 at 12:07 am

  19. Admit that the movie “Inherit the Wind” was false and misleading propaganda and bears little resemblance to why and how the Scopes trial played out. Also, help ensure that it not be shown in public schools, unless as an example of how despicable propaganda can be.

    False and misleading?

    Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee wrote a play in the early 1950s about the McCarthy witch hunt. They used a Scopes-trial-like setting to show how mindless dogmatism often misleads those who least want to sin into sinful ways.

    Arthur Miller wrote a play about the McCarthy witch hunt, too. It was set in Salem, however, about a real series of witch trials.

    Both plays were fiction. One was called “The Crucible” (Miller’s), and the other was called “Inherit the Wind.”

    That Miller’s play was about the McCarthy witch hunt does not make false the fact that there were real trials in Salem, Massachusetts, of accused witches. (I fear Neil Simpson would cheer such events on, even today.)

    Lawrence and Lee’s play was called “Inherit the Wind.” That it was about the McCarthy witch hunt does not make false the fact that there was a real trial of a teacher in Tennessee for teaching evolution.

    The difficulty is, of course, that creationists appear always to have difficulty separating fact from fiction, or even determining methods for doing so. Neil confuses a play about McCarthyism as a play about evolution, and complains that the trial portrayed in the play never took place.

    Lawrence and Lee used the actual trial transcripts from the Scopes trial for some of the testimony “given” in the play. Is that what confuses Simpson so much?

    Why should scientists “admit” that a fictional work is fiction, if they had nothing to do with its creation, and if there is no historical inaccuracy in the thing? Simpson claims the play is really about the Scopes trial. Simpson didn’t write the play. Excuse me if I take the Lawrence and Lee play as the parable it was meant to be.

    Jesus never apologized for any of his parables, fictional though they were. I see no reason for science to apologize for Simpson’s imagined sins here, either.

    Ed Darrell

    March 7, 2008 at 2:13 am

  20. More like demonstrates a monopoly on evidence-based reason.

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 7:13 am

  21. I will address only one of these points: “I’ve read the First Amendment a couple times and think it took a lot of creativity to find that the sticker either A) was due to a law passed by Congress or B) was an establishment of religion or even an endorsement.”

    In addition to the first, you should prehaps read the fourteenth, which reads in part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” The practical meaning of this is that no lower body of government, right down to and including the Cobb county school board, may not take actions that abbrogate any citizens constitutionally granted rights. In other words, even though the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law..” it does not mean that a state can pass a law establishing a religion. Thus, the first complaint here is wrong. It is irelevant whether it was an act of Congress or a school board, the protections of the constitution still apply.

    The next question, given that the court had the clear right to intervene was the question of the establishment clause, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This is commonly understood to mean that Congress can’t pass a law to establish a state church or to prohibit anyone from practicing religion as they choose. To force a non religious person to practice a religous observance is prohibiting the free excercise of their ideals, which is to not practice at all.

    So, no governmental agency can force any person to participate in an observance of religion. It’s just that simple.

    The next question is whether or not the sticker is such an observance. The court found, quite correctly, that it is. By singling out evolution, a theory as well founded and supported as other theroys such as gravity and heliocentrism, the school board was engaging in a religous act, as the inane and fanatical disbelief in the science of evolution by a particualr type of religion is so well know that even mentioning it is a direct reference to the hateful practice of evangelical, creationist Christianity.

    So, yes, the first amendment applies whether it was the Senate or the Cobb County School Board and the sticker was an endorsement of a religion.

    Mike

    April 10, 2008 at 7:22 pm

  22. Hi – you probably figured this out, but Ed Darrell is a spectacularly foolish and deceptive person. He was the first person I ever banned from my site. After many warnings, he continued to use such idiotic reasoning as, “You oppose Darwinism, and so did Joseph Stalin, so you are like Joseph Stalin.” Uh, sure, Ed. Very productive dialogue.

    He didn’t take kindly to being banned, so he trots out his little ad hominem attacks against me wherever he can (the blog world just isn’t big enough!). Very Christian of you, Ed Darrell. I mean, I don’t expect sound reasoning from a pro-legalized abortion Christian. After all, how anti-science can you be to deny that abortion kills an innocent human being? And how could any Christian favor such a procedure? But your incoherent ramblings and attacks above are a new low for you.

    Oh well. I usually ignore the guy but wanted to give the other readers fair warning. I find that many bloggers just ignore him and he eventually goes away.

    Prediction: He’ll be back with more personal attacks. I won’t bother responding. Proverbs 26:2 Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest.

    Neil

    April 10, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  23. The Romans thought Peter “foolish and deceptive,” too. To those with their fingers in their ears, the Good News probably sounds foolish and deceptive.

    There was a lot more subtlety to the argument, Neil. I pointed out that opposing Darwin is not the Chrisitian nor Yankee Patriot position. It was THEN you started acting like Joseph Stalin. I hadn’t intended to provoke your latent Stalinism, and I still regret it.

    But it is an object lesson that it was Stalin who censored Darwin, as did Hitler. And so it is odd that Americans who claim to be Christian have demanded more than 100 times that we censor Darwin, by law. What is truly sad is that no fewer than 13 states succumbed to the wails.

    I’ll take Neil on in an ethics challenge any day. I can stick to the facts, he’ll resort to making up things to call me. And then he won’t notice the difference in the arguments, and when he thinks I’m not looking, he’ll try to kick me again.

    Enough of the foolishness, Neil. If you have something to say, even an insult, come say it to my face at my blog. You’re not banned there, nor will you be. We practice what we preach on the free, sunny side of the street. I’ll correct your factual errors, but always in the hope that you’ll discuss. Do you think I characterize the play incorrectly? Bring on your history books. We can look at the history of the play, its premiere in Dallas, and the many writings about it. Do you claim the play quotes the transcripts incorrectly? It’s a work of fiction, Neil. Where it quotes, it borrows (from a non-copyrightable source, cleverly enough). That the actual words that embarrassed creationists in 1925 are so dramatic and pack such a punch just made the playwrights’ jobs a little easier.

    A witchhunt is still a witchhunt, and still probably produced more by hallucination than factual charges.

    Listen to Mike. He’s right. “Congress shall make no law” does not mean the Constitution applies only to Congress. That’s just one of several bans on religion/state fornication in the Constitution, and it simply means that, not only is the Cobb County School Board banned from establishing religion by the Georgia Constitution, and not only prohibited from such action by the U.S. Constitution, but also, the Congress can’t try to carve out an exception.

    The message of the First Amendment is that there is no authority granted to a state government in religion, neither can Congress create an authority to grant.

    Ed Darrell

    April 11, 2008 at 9:21 pm

  24. Quite interesting to come across Neil’s rantings on other blogs.

    He will do anything to promote his petty agenda of backwards-directed religious views.

    He thinks himself to be smart, alas his argumentative “powers” are rather limited. He has only got a small repertoire of “arguments” that he keeps repeating and every times he is cornered he accuses his opponent of creating a strawmen.

    On his own blog he liberally edits and deletes postings so they do not sound too devastating for his agenda. And when he is at the end of his tether, he bans people without comment, so it looks as if they have given up.

    Neil is just another of those narrow-minded Christian apologetics, who have nothing to support their false views but shout out the louder for that.

    pro-truth

    January 16, 2009 at 9:10 pm

  25. Since the previous comment on this post is 9 months old, I’d say that “obsessed” is a more accurate way to describe your behavior than “interesting.” Does it not occur to you that hunting around for places I’ve commented makes you sort of a stalker? Is this really what you do with your free time?

    Though you really should connect with Edarrel. You guys have lots in common.

    Please keep sending people to my site, though! As bizarre as your behavior is I’m encouraged that you keep coming by to read it.

    All the best,
    Neil

    Neil

    January 16, 2009 at 11:10 pm

  26. google

    antaptattPren

    June 23, 2011 at 4:43 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: