G
GodnCountry
Guest
If you could get a German shepherd now, why wait until next year?
- Status
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Evolution at work! Anyways…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that God was, in some sense, “outside” of time. Moreover, I imagine that God would be able to wait for the cookie.
G
GodnCountry
Guest
God can wait for a cookie as He never needs one. however He need to love human so He can’t wait for the appearence of human
Either evolution or Creationism is true, the appearence of new species in the first few days or days corresponding to the days in Bible never stop. God didn’t stop working on creating new species until the most advanced species, human, is created.
Z
zian
Guest
Sorry bud. You got theological issues as well as scientific misunderstanding issues to deal with.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Count me in with Vern and Steve. I see no issue with being a proponent of evolution and believing that God has directed it all along. I don’t think that the hand of God can be measured or observed as part of the science, but I believe it is there. In fact, I find the science is even more wonderful because of my faith.steveandersen said, “He [God] just took billions of years to do it. [In response to GodnCountry, “God wants a relation with humans as close as possible. the closest way is taking some lifeless material like dust and directly turn into to a man.”].”
Hi Steve,I thought you were a proponent of The Theory of Evolution. You’re statement confuses me. I’m lead to think that you believe God created and organized the universe then ran the whole shebang. Is this what you want me to think?
vern said, “We studied God’s universe, learned the rules he built into it and created things like electric generators, light bulbs, and many other things. We still study it, still learn, and still develop new inventions based on His rules.”
Hi Vern,
What you both have presented to me is flavored with tinges of ‘creationism’. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your intent. Thanks in advance.
Maybe I should say that I am a geologist and not a biologist, but I don’t have any qualms with evolution.
Peace
Tim
S
steveandersen
Guest
Hi, wildleaf…may I call you wildleaf?…Hi Steve,
Guilty as charged
I’m often confused. But, as the Temptations told us…”Ball of confusion, that’s what the world is today.”
You’re of course free to think what you want. My personal point of view is that there is no conflict in holding that modern theories on cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution are some of the mechanisms for Creation. I can’t understand why some folks think that physical and chemical processes that take billions of years to complete are somehow beyond the ability God.
As to whether (a) God set up a system of rules and then sat back and watched it happen; or if (b) God was intimately involved in each and every molecular collision; or if (c) He set the wheels in motion, sat back, but put His thumb on the scale every once and awhile…. I don’t know. I can’t think of any objective test that could distinguish between the three options. The third option is more appealing to me since it accommodates the probabilistic and deterministic processes that we see all around us while still leaving room for both free will and the uncanny
I do know that evolution, as in phylogeny, is a fact and the evidence for evolution through natural selection as the mechanism for phylogeny is very very very (did I mention very?) strong. If evolution didn’t occur and the earth is 6,000 years old then God is quite the practical joker.
For some reason I don’t see Him sitting on the couch, drinking a couple of beers with St Michael, pounding him on the back and saying “Hey look! Leaky just dug up those bones We planted in Olduvai Gorge! He’s going to get sunstroke out there. ‘Mad dogs and Englishmen….’ and all that”
“He’s not English Sir, he was born in Kenya.”
“Don’t correct me Mike.”
“Sorry, Sir.”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Whoa, there!! “Tell it to the rest of the Catholics?”
The Catholic Church is not a democracy. We do not get together and vote on what we believe!! It doesn’t matter if a hundred million “Catholics” belive abortion is okay – the Church says it isn’t.
Pius XII and John Paul the Great both accepted that evolution is not in conflict with religion – while recognizing that there are those who try to use science to draw anti-religious conclusions.
As Catholics we are not required to reject science.
Who did? The devil?
If God created the universe, He surely created the rules which govern it!!
To deny that God created gravity and ordained how it works is to deny He created the universe.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Vern, I’d appreciate a response from you to my message 225 in its entirety rather than ‘quote mining’ me in your message 245.
vern humprey said, “There is no conflict between science and religion. Among God’s rules are gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics and so on. By studying the universe around us, we are able to discover some of these rules and put them to work for our advantage.”
wildleafblower replied, "Thanks vern for replying. There is great conflict between science and religion! Haven’t you heard about Intelligent Design folks misleading the public and demeaning experts in the field of science? Come on, I know you know. I’d like to know if you think science and religion has to do with ‘faith and reason’. If that be the case then I’d refer you to this url:
osjspm.org/cst/fr.htm
vern humprey responded, “I’m a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not teach there is a conflict with science.”
I’m a Roman Catholic too! Tell it to the rest of the Catholics that our faith has nothing to do with science except for the Science of Philosophy as stated in the above mentioned url and what was written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998:
"If theology wishes and should be something other than the science of religion, something more than confronting unresolved questions about what transcends and at the same time constitutes us, then it has to be based solely on the fact that it comes from a response that we ourselves did not invent. But for this answer to be truly an answer, we have to try to understand it, and not let it be diluted.
“The special nature of theology is that it concerns something that we have not imagined and that can ground our life precisely because it precedes us and sustains us, that is to say, because it is greater than our own thought. The path of theology is well expressed in the formula Credo ut intelligam: I accept a proposition previously given in order to find, from it and in it, access to true life, to a true understanding of myself. This means in turn that theology presupposes, by its very nature, an auctoritas. It only exists because I know that the sphere of my own thought has been transcended, because I know, so to say, that a hand has been extended to help human thought, a hand that pulls one upward, beyond one’s own powers. Without this presupposition, which always surpasses the capacity of one’s own thought, and which is never diluted into something purely personal, there would be no theology…”
kathsurf.at/lehramt/lehramt/ratzing.html
wildleafblower said, “Gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics aren’t rules.”
vern humprey kindly replied,“Indeed they are – in fact, they are sets of rules. If you jump off a cliff, there is a rule that draws you to the bottom – and pretty smartly, too. If you don’t believe it, I invite you to try it and see what happens.”
I’ll pass on the cliff, though I did take a nasty fall when climbing over a very high fence the other day. Talk about a midnight blue right arm. Neither you or I are scientists. Let’s say ‘what goes up must come down’! I don’t think scientists would call that a rule. But, God doesn’t make us fall down. My point is that God didn’t make the rule that if we fall from a cliff or fence we might get hurt.
Originally Posted by wildleafblower, “How does a person go about understanding these rules of God that turn into scientific theories. Does God implant them into the mind of scientists? It sounds like weird science to me. Why do we need scientists if God made the rules?”
vern humprey replied, “Do you find S=gt^2 in the Bible? Or E=MC^2? We must study God’s universe to find his rules. There is a systematic method of study (and various refinements of the system, depending on what is being studied.) This is called the scientific method. We need men who are trained in this method – just as we need bishops to teach us the theological rules.”
Heck Vern, I know what is in the bible. It is God’s universe to me too! However, I wouldn’t agree God makes scientific rules that govern over us. If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re attributing the scientific method as the study of God’s rules. Nah, I don’t think scientists would agree with you on that hum dinger!
Originally Posted by wildleafblower in earlier post, "vern humprey said, “The same study has revealed that live evolved over hundreds of millions of years.”
wildleafblower said, “What study are you referring to? God’s study of the universe or scientists? Thanks.”
vern replied, “I am referring to the scientific method. God did not give us the light bulb or the internal combustion engine. He allowed us to study His universe and learn the rules needed to make these things with our human hands.”
Yep, we have scientists that continue to help us better understand our world and the universe we live in. Fun talking to you. You’ve plum tuckered me out! God bless you.
vern humprey said, “There is no conflict between science and religion. Among God’s rules are gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics and so on. By studying the universe around us, we are able to discover some of these rules and put them to work for our advantage.”
wildleafblower replied, "Thanks vern for replying. There is great conflict between science and religion! Haven’t you heard about Intelligent Design folks misleading the public and demeaning experts in the field of science? Come on, I know you know. I’d like to know if you think science and religion has to do with ‘faith and reason’. If that be the case then I’d refer you to this url:
osjspm.org/cst/fr.htm
vern humprey responded, “I’m a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not teach there is a conflict with science.”
I’m a Roman Catholic too! Tell it to the rest of the Catholics that our faith has nothing to do with science except for the Science of Philosophy as stated in the above mentioned url and what was written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998:
"If theology wishes and should be something other than the science of religion, something more than confronting unresolved questions about what transcends and at the same time constitutes us, then it has to be based solely on the fact that it comes from a response that we ourselves did not invent. But for this answer to be truly an answer, we have to try to understand it, and not let it be diluted.
“The special nature of theology is that it concerns something that we have not imagined and that can ground our life precisely because it precedes us and sustains us, that is to say, because it is greater than our own thought. The path of theology is well expressed in the formula Credo ut intelligam: I accept a proposition previously given in order to find, from it and in it, access to true life, to a true understanding of myself. This means in turn that theology presupposes, by its very nature, an auctoritas. It only exists because I know that the sphere of my own thought has been transcended, because I know, so to say, that a hand has been extended to help human thought, a hand that pulls one upward, beyond one’s own powers. Without this presupposition, which always surpasses the capacity of one’s own thought, and which is never diluted into something purely personal, there would be no theology…”
kathsurf.at/lehramt/lehramt/ratzing.html
wildleafblower said, “Gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics aren’t rules.”
vern humprey kindly replied,“Indeed they are – in fact, they are sets of rules. If you jump off a cliff, there is a rule that draws you to the bottom – and pretty smartly, too. If you don’t believe it, I invite you to try it and see what happens.”
I’ll pass on the cliff, though I did take a nasty fall when climbing over a very high fence the other day. Talk about a midnight blue right arm. Neither you or I are scientists. Let’s say ‘what goes up must come down’! I don’t think scientists would call that a rule. But, God doesn’t make us fall down. My point is that God didn’t make the rule that if we fall from a cliff or fence we might get hurt.
Originally Posted by wildleafblower, “How does a person go about understanding these rules of God that turn into scientific theories. Does God implant them into the mind of scientists? It sounds like weird science to me. Why do we need scientists if God made the rules?”
vern humprey replied, “Do you find S=gt^2 in the Bible? Or E=MC^2? We must study God’s universe to find his rules. There is a systematic method of study (and various refinements of the system, depending on what is being studied.) This is called the scientific method. We need men who are trained in this method – just as we need bishops to teach us the theological rules.”
Heck Vern, I know what is in the bible. It is God’s universe to me too! However, I wouldn’t agree God makes scientific rules that govern over us. If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re attributing the scientific method as the study of God’s rules. Nah, I don’t think scientists would agree with you on that hum dinger!
Originally Posted by wildleafblower in earlier post, "vern humprey said, “The same study has revealed that live evolved over hundreds of millions of years.”
wildleafblower said, “What study are you referring to? God’s study of the universe or scientists? Thanks.”
vern replied, “I am referring to the scientific method. God did not give us the light bulb or the internal combustion engine. He allowed us to study His universe and learn the rules needed to make these things with our human hands.”
Yep, we have scientists that continue to help us better understand our world and the universe we live in. Fun talking to you. You’ve plum tuckered me out! God bless you.
L
landstander
Guest
if they won’t teach the intelligent design theory, then why shoudl they teach the theory of evolution? both have flaws that people can’t definitely prove through intensive scientific research…so why’s the secular one more special? it’s the gross exaggeration of the meaning of government establishing religion. reading “great expectations” in english class doens’t establish a mandate for all young boys to call themselves pip and to run around london getting an education while coveting the love of a stuck up teenage girl whose mother is a psychotic freak…(that’s coincidence if it happens), it’s to give them a perspective on what the literature means and what the author meant. Teaching about the greek gods in history doesn’t mean poseidon’s going to smite you in teh faise with his trident…it’s to give a perspective. that’s what all education is, an intake of knowledge and perspective. theories are taught to give insight on perspective…and evolution and intelligent design are both theories. 
(i love you smiley indifferent :|)
(i love you smiley indifferent :|)
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Specifically what is it you want me to reply to?
S
steveandersen
Guest
Because ID isn’t a scientific theory as Judge Jones elaborated in his recent opinion
He didn’t say that it couldn’t be taught at all, just that it couldn’t be taught in science class
Evolution is support by the preponderance of the evidence while ID is supported by none
That’s a good one. I love it. Can I borrow that?
ID is not a scientific theory…it isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.
It may be great for theology or philosophy class but it’s not biology.
To use your analogy, sure we read “Great Expectations” but we read it in English literature class not in intro Spanish or calculus.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
land << if they won’t teach the intelligent design theory, then why should they teach the theory of evolution? >>
Read Judge Jones decision for the Dover ID Trial and you’ll see why.
All 139 pages of that decision is available here.
Print it out, have it bound like I have.
All your questions are answered in that decision. There was also a court case from 25 years ago on creationism, the Arkansas Creationist Trial. Same idea.
Phil P
Read Judge Jones decision for the Dover ID Trial and you’ll see why.
All 139 pages of that decision is available here.
Print it out, have it bound like I have.
All your questions are answered in that decision. There was also a court case from 25 years ago on creationism, the Arkansas Creationist Trial. Same idea.Phil P
W
wildleafblower
Guest
steveandersen said, “Hi, wildleaf…may I call you wildleaf? ”
Please do.
Thanks for your message 244! We are both advocates for The Theory of Evolution. As a Roman Catholic woman, I accept the theory without even thinking about God being involved in the creation aspect of evolution. I’m a rare breed from what I can tell. I’m attempting to figure out why that is when so many other Catholics are thinking different than me! and there are a plentitude of 'em! 
Steve said, " I’m often confused. But, as the Temptations told us…”Ball of confusion, that’s what the world is today.”
You’re of course free to think what you want. My personal point of view is that there is no conflict in holding that modern theories on cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution are some of the mechanisms for Creation. I can’t understand why some folks think that physical and chemical processes that take billions of years to complete are somehow beyond the ability God."
Are you suggesting that physical and chemical processes are God-driven-mechanisms found within the Theory of Evolution?
Steve said, “As to whether (a) God set up a system of rules and then sat back and watched it happen; or if (b) God was intimately involved in each and every molecular collision; or if (c) He set the wheels in motion, sat back, but put His thumb on the scale every once and awhile…. I don’t know. I can’t think of any objective test that could distinguish between the three options. The third option is more appealing to me since it accommodates the probabilistic and deterministic processes that we see all around us while still leaving room for both free will and the uncanny.”
Very forthright answer. I appreciate your opinions. The problem I’m having with Vern mentioning God’s ‘rules’ is why aren’t they showing up on Google!!!
(All I’m getting is the Ten Commendments) My point of view leans in the direction of God willed **it ** to begin knowing full well it would evolve on its own. What’s it? The universe and mankind unfolding together realizing and knowing the importance of truth and love and how much God loves us. Simple thought of mine.
I do believe in the rare occurrence of supernatural events when it concerns human beings.
Steve said, "I do know that evolution, as in phylogeny, is a fact and the evidence for evolution through natural selection as the mechanism for phylogeny is very very very (did I mention very?) strong. If evolution didn’t occur and the earth is 6,000 years old then God is quite the practical joker. For some reason I don’t see Him sitting on the couch, drinking a couple of beers with St Michael, pounding him on the back and saying “Hey look! Leaky just dug up those bones We planted in Olduvai Gorge! He’s going to get sunstroke out there. ‘Mad dogs and Englishmen….’ and all that “He’s not English Sir, he was born in Kenya.”
“Don’t correct me Mike.” “Sorry, Sir.”’
You’ve given a good account of what God is not. God i love God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God sent Jesus to us. I think that is by far the most important truth to hold unto because the Holy Spirit is my dearest friend. I’m satisfied in that alone. Perhaps, I see the simplicity within the complexity of God and it pleases me and I can see the complexity in science and it pleases me too.
Thank you.
”Please do.
Thanks for your message 244! We are both advocates for The Theory of Evolution. As a Roman Catholic woman, I accept the theory without even thinking about God being involved in the creation aspect of evolution. I’m a rare breed from what I can tell. I’m attempting to figure out why that is when so many other Catholics are thinking different than me! and there are a plentitude of 'em! Steve said, " I’m often confused. But, as the Temptations told us…”Ball of confusion, that’s what the world is today.”
You’re of course free to think what you want. My personal point of view is that there is no conflict in holding that modern theories on cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution are some of the mechanisms for Creation. I can’t understand why some folks think that physical and chemical processes that take billions of years to complete are somehow beyond the ability God."
Are you suggesting that physical and chemical processes are God-driven-mechanisms found within the Theory of Evolution?
Steve said, “As to whether (a) God set up a system of rules and then sat back and watched it happen; or if (b) God was intimately involved in each and every molecular collision; or if (c) He set the wheels in motion, sat back, but put His thumb on the scale every once and awhile…. I don’t know. I can’t think of any objective test that could distinguish between the three options. The third option is more appealing to me since it accommodates the probabilistic and deterministic processes that we see all around us while still leaving room for both free will and the uncanny.”
Very forthright answer. I appreciate your opinions. The problem I’m having with Vern mentioning God’s ‘rules’ is why aren’t they showing up on Google!!!
(All I’m getting is the Ten Commendments) My point of view leans in the direction of God willed **it ** to begin knowing full well it would evolve on its own. What’s it? The universe and mankind unfolding together realizing and knowing the importance of truth and love and how much God loves us. Simple thought of mine. I do believe in the rare occurrence of supernatural events when it concerns human beings.
Steve said, "I do know that evolution, as in phylogeny, is a fact and the evidence for evolution through natural selection as the mechanism for phylogeny is very very very (did I mention very?) strong. If evolution didn’t occur and the earth is 6,000 years old then God is quite the practical joker. For some reason I don’t see Him sitting on the couch, drinking a couple of beers with St Michael, pounding him on the back and saying “Hey look! Leaky just dug up those bones We planted in Olduvai Gorge! He’s going to get sunstroke out there. ‘Mad dogs and Englishmen….’ and all that “He’s not English Sir, he was born in Kenya.”
“Don’t correct me Mike.” “Sorry, Sir.”’
You’ve given a good account of what God is not.
God i love God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God sent Jesus to us. I think that is by far the most important truth to hold unto because the Holy Spirit is my dearest friend. I’m satisfied in that alone. Perhaps, I see the simplicity within the complexity of God and it pleases me and I can see the complexity in science and it pleases me too.Thank you.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi Tim,
I think anyone can believe in evolution and God. My comment to Steve and Vern was in regards to their earlier comments that had tinges of creationism. I’m a Roman Catholic woman and the term ‘creationism’ doesn’t really have anything to do with ‘The Theory of Evolution’. This is why I was confused. You believe in the theory but some mystical aspect of creation by God is found within it?I love God more than words could ever express. I believe in providence. Is this what you’re talking about?
I think the Holy Spirit of God desires to be with us but doesn’t care too much about science.
God’s essence is one with His existence. God is perfect, I’m not. I respect your feelings on this topic as I do Steve and Verns. My opinion is that you, Steve, and Vern are for the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I don’t get a response then I’ll assume I’m correct.
Our belief systems may be slightly different but that doesn’t affect our ability to be kind and caring about each other.
Peace
Thank you.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
I’m no Catholic, but maybe I can clarify (or at least try to) the idea of “theistic evolution.” Modern evolutionary theory says a lot of things about life on Earth, and basically states a few general principles which suffice to explain what we see. That’s all evolutionay theory says, more or less. Theistic evolution would add that God made things that way (created those general principles) with the specific intention that things turn out the way they have. Some people might also add that at times, God has done more than enforce general principles - God has “put his thumb on the scale,” so to speak, and influenced specific events so that things turned out the way they did - but that this interference is indistinguishable from nontheistic accident (or something along those lines). In conclusion, there is no particular conflict between science and theistic evolution, and it is definitely not creationism in the YEC sense of the word.
Is that a good summation of the idea of theistic evolution? (this question directed at those who believe that idea to be true).
Is that a good summation of the idea of theistic evolution? (this question directed at those who believe that idea to be true).
O
Orogeny
Guest
I accept the science at face value and I don’t expect to see God or find God in the data. However, I believe God was the instigator as well as the driver of evolution (and everything else for that matter!), but I believe that, I don’t know that from the science.Hi Tim,
Yes.
Why wouldn’t God care about science?I think the Holy Spirit of God desires to be with us but doesn’t care too much about science.
If you mean ID as in the bogus attempt to introduce creationism into science curricula, you would be very wrong and, with all due respect, haven’t read many posts by any of us. If you mean that we acknowledge God’s supernatural role in nature, I, speaking only for myself but suspecting the others will agree, do accept that.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
I would generally agree with that summation. I would add that I believe God is involved at every level of life. I don’t think that God started everything, set up the rules and let things go. I believe that He was involved in every step.
Science is just the study of how He did it, not why He did it.
Peace
Tim
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi Tim,
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me.
I’ll address this comment first then return to the remainder of your message later as I’m rushed for time right now.I’m very ID knowledge conscious. It seems to me that you’re supportive of certain aspects put forth by the founders of the Intelligent Design Movement though reject only creationists within the movement that wish ID to be taught as science in public schools. Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted what you have written.
So you agree with the basic scientific concepts in evolution as presented by Alec on his website? :
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
And you agree with Alec’s comments about Intelligent Design too? If not then please tell me what you wish to reject.
evolutionpages.com/Intelligent%20Design.htm
We know for a fact and agree that the founders of the Intelligent Design Movement have attempted to brainwash the public (mostly college students) and even their supporters into believing that their Intelligent Design hypothesis was science and they were willing to go to court to make their case viable. We’re intelligent enough to know they would fail and rightfully so they did. Tim, I can’t honestly say that I trust the founders of the Intelligent Design Movement. Many of their goupies have bullied, taunted, and mocked me because I was a Catholic woman who wouldn’t agree with them. I can only compare it to being in a war zone without ever knowing when someone would take a shot at me. Futhermore, there were more than a few ID folks that were cruel and with an air of rightousness when they presented information that proved to be inaccurate by scientists and sometimes myself.
How do you visualize God’s supernatural role in life and do you favor calling it God’s intelligent design?
Tim, I’ve read quite a few of your posts. You’re definately a real sweet guy. This exchange isn’t meant to be rude or hateful. Forgive me if you thought such. It wasn’t my intention. (I won’t be able to respond to your comments for a few days.)
God bless you with peace of mind and heart.
Thanks!
O
Orogeny
Guest
I reject ID outright as science. I accept the existence of an intelligent designer (God), but only as part of my faith. I absolutely do not want that taught in science class. As far as the founders of ID go, I wouldn’t associate myself with them in any way. I find them to be dishonest and I don’t like the way they are trying to mislead people to God.
Yep.
Yep.
I can honestly say that not only do I distrust them, I don’t believe anything they say. If they were to tell me the sun comes up in the east, I would only believe it if I had confirmation from someone I trust! If they are willing to lie to get someone to come to the Lord, what can I trust them to tell the truth about?
I understand. When posting to threads regarding this topic, it never fails that at least one person will accuse me of being an athiest.
But you know what, their taunts will not change my beliefs. I have studied enough science (I am a geologist) that I understand how science works and have seen much of the evidence, at least in the fossil record.By the way, the first time I was ever told I was going to hell was by some Church of Christ folks when they found out that I am Catholic. The second time was from the devout Baptist brother of my room mate in college when he found out I was majoring in geology.
I’m not sure visualize is the term I would use, but I believe that God is directly involved in His creation. I wouldn’t use the term “God’s intelligent design” because it is too much like the other ID.
Thank you! Flattery will get you everywhere!
Peace
Tim
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi Tim,
Before continuing our discussion, I’d appreciate Alec’s spirit of co-operation by responding to my questions on the topic **Universal Truth and Moral Absolutes ** forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8531
I’m confident his comments will help me to add a new dimension of insight into our current topic of discussion.
In the meantime, thank you for your patience.
Before continuing our discussion, I’d appreciate Alec’s spirit of co-operation by responding to my questions on the topic **Universal Truth and Moral Absolutes ** forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8531
I’m confident his comments will help me to add a new dimension of insight into our current topic of discussion.
In the meantime, thank you for your patience.
- Status