| Author |
Message |
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject:
God created evolution |
  |
|
...works for me...
Les
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
BobTheDog
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 4044
Location: England
Audio files: 32
G2 patch files: 15
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Surely evolution created Gods? |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Antimon
Joined: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 4145
Location: Sweden
Audio files: 373
G2 patch files: 100
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:21 am Post subject:
|
|
|
caused
who created
in his/her own image.
The "God" word is multifaceted, and used with multiple meanings, one of which can be placed above the "Big Bang" picture above. Another is the ridiciulous, but hard-to-kill last image.
In a drunken discussion at 2AM, I have no problem with musing about stuff we can't know anything about, like whatever is beyond the big bang, and call it "God", even though I consider myself to effectively be an atheist. It allows me to have slightly more meaningful discussions with religious friends.
Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with science. Science can't look beyond the big bang - that's why I can put God there and talk about it while drinking beer. It hasn't got a whole lot to do with religion either, which is a sociological phenomenon which deals with issues concerning how people may live together without going depressed or killing each other.
/Stefan
_________________
Antimon's Window
@soundcloud @Flattr home - you can't explain music |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Mr. Mormon
Joined: Dec 10, 2010
Posts: 67
Location: US
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | stuff we can't know anything about, like whatever is beyond the big bang, and call it "God" |
There is a way to know of a surety of supernatural things: it's called gaining a testimony - a witness, a feeling of certainty that something one has learned from another, or has popped into one's head from some external place ('revelation'), is true. I would know - I personally gained a testimony in 2007, even though I have been a member of my faith all my life. Billions of people have gained one to some degree during the Earth's history. It can be sought; it can be ignored. Sadly, both revelations and testimonies are so often confused with personal emotions, things people want to believe, or random ideas that 'make sense,' that it is no wonder that religion may appear to be nothing more than a sociological phenomenon. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Fozzie
Joined: Jun 04, 2004
Posts: 875
Location: Near Wageningen, the Netherlands
Audio files: 8
G2 patch files: 49
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Antimon wrote: |
Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with science. Science can't look beyond the big bang - that's why I can put God there and talk about it while drinking beer. It hasn't got a whole lot to do with religion either, which is a sociological phenomenon which deals with issues concerning how people may live together without going depressed or killing each other.
/Stefan |
I think that in essence, science cannot say anything about religion or God at all. Science more or less precludes the 'god-hypothesis' and is based on assumptions of repeatability. This works well in practice, but is important to be aware of. Reality does not need to conform itself necessarily to the constraints of the scientific method 
_________________
Spinning at ~0.0000115740740741 Hz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Oskar
Joined: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1751
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I think God evolved Creationism. But then again, I'm slightly warped...
_________________
Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Airlock
Joined: Apr 06, 2007
Posts: 328
Location: Calabash, NC USA
Audio files: 54
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:11 am Post subject:
Re: God created evolution |
|
|
| Inventor wrote: | ...works for me...
Les |
Which God, of which religion? |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Last edited by nobody on Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004
Posts: 2503
Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mr. Mormon wrote: | | Quote: | | stuff we can't know anything about, like whatever is beyond the big bang, and call it "God" |
There is a way to know of a surety of supernatural things: it's called gaining a testimony - a witness, a feeling of certainty that something one has learned from another, or has popped into one's head from some external place ('revelation'), is true. I would know - I personally gained a testimony in 2007, even though I have been a member of my faith all my life. Billions of people have gained one to some degree during the Earth's history. It can be sought; it can be ignored. Sadly, both revelations and testimonies are so often confused with personal emotions, things people want to believe, or random ideas that 'make sense,' that it is no wonder that religion may appear to be nothing more than a sociological phenomenon. |
"Surety" is then still a very personal thing, and has no sociological aspect, since no one can prove that their revelation was also not a product of personal emotion or ego. What is sad, is when people take their personal vision as a defining path for others to follow. There are as many paths as there are sentient beings. It is also sad that most religions recognize that fact, but very few endorse it in action. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004
Posts: 2503
Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:39 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| audiodef wrote: | | Quantum mechanics is pretty damn spooky from an Einsteinian point of view. It has been suggested by Robert Anton Wilson and like-minded others that it's possible for a society to evolve with quantum mechanical belief systems instead of mystical/folklore belief systems. When you consider the quantum inseparability principle, things historically attributed to religion begin to make scientific sense. This includes "gaining a testimony", which, even with my limited understanding of quantum physics, is not to me illogical outside of religion. |
You should read this book if you haven't, as it discusses the very topic of resolving scientific thought processes and spiritual systems:
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Single-Atom-Convergence-Spirituality/dp/076792066X |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Mr. Mormon
Joined: Dec 10, 2010
Posts: 67
Location: US
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | "Surety" is then still a very personal thing, and has no sociological aspect, since no one can prove that their revelation was also not a product of personal emotion or ego. What is sad, is when people take their personal vision as a defining path for others to follow. There are as many paths as there are sentient beings. It is also sad that most religions recognize that fact, but very few endorse it in action. |
What I find sad is that so few religions encourage believers (or otherwise) to seek a testimony, as if belief alone is rational. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ian-s
Joined: Apr 01, 2004
Posts: 2672
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Audio files: 43
G2 patch files: 626
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mr. Mormon wrote: | | Quote: | | "Surety" is then still a very personal thing, and has no sociological aspect, since no one can prove that their revelation was also not a product of personal emotion or ego. What is sad, is when people take their personal vision as a defining path for others to follow. There are as many paths as there are sentient beings. It is also sad that most religions recognize that fact, but very few endorse it in action. |
What I find sad is that so few religions encourage believers (or otherwise) to seek a testimony, as if belief alone is rational. |
Could you describe your personal testimony in more detail? |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Last edited by nobody on Thu May 05, 2011 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Last edited by nobody on Thu May 05, 2011 12:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:59 am Post subject:
Re: God created evolution |
|
|
| Airlock wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | ...works for me...
Les |
Which God, of which religion? |
Jehovah, of Christianity.
I actually intended to discuss the reconciling of science with Chrisnity via the notion that God's method of creating species was evolution. Same for the big bang being His method of creating the Universe.
I see the bible as a historical book that is often accurate but not entirely, and I tend to see both sides of most issues. That's different from most people, who tend to choose sides. My Christian friends disagree with me because I don't fall completely into their faith, and so do my secular friends. Fortunately we all tolerate each other, or at least the reasonable among us do.
So, steering the boat a bit, if that is possible in Schmooze, does the notion of God creating evolution reconcile science with Christianity?
Les
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh, and I'd like to address the question of how one can truly know that God exists. It arises from experience, specifically from having a relationship with God and seeing how He influences your life over time.
I got involved with a Second Life church and they addressed many of my concerns about God and my horrible past that turned me away from Him. I decided to give Christianity a second chance, and it has paid off well.
I'm happy almost all of the time now. Though I still slip up from time to time, I no longer do the things I used to do like drink heavily or smoke pot, etc. I'm losing weight without trying and I feel very healthy. I am no longer angry at those who harmed me in the past, but rather hope (pray? sometimes) for their forgiveness and salvation. I understand things better like human nature and why people do what they do.
Some people experience a sudden revelation or phenomenal event and most others, myself included get a more subtle treatment from God. I did, however, receive three sentences as thought-voice messages in my head. I am quite certain that these were from God, crazy as that may sound, and it has been a wonderful adventure so far responding to these messages.
It is almost as if some demon inside me has been cast out and is no longer compelling me to do things that are harmful to myself. So now I too have a testimony, and you've just read it.
Les
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
emdot_ambient
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Posts: 667
Location: Frederick, MD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:32 am Post subject:
|
|
|
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/03/21/does-the-universe-need-god/
| Quote: | Consider a hypothetical world in which science had developed to something like its current state of progress, but nobody had yet thought of God. It seems unlikely that an imaginative thinker in this world, upon proposing God as a solution to various cosmological puzzles, would be met with enthusiasm. All else being equal, science prefers its theories to be precise, predictive, and minimal – requiring the smallest possible amount of theoretical overhead. The God hypothesis is none of these. Indeed, in our actual world, God is essentially never invoked in scientific discussions. You can scour the tables of contents in major physics journals, or titles of seminars and colloquia in physics departments and conferences, looking in vain for any mention of possible supernatural intervention into the workings of the world.
At first glance, the God hypothesis seems simple and precise – an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. (There are other definitions, but they are usually comparably terse.) The apparent simplicity is somewhat misleading, however. In comparison to a purely naturalistic model, we’re not simply adding a new element to an existing ontology (like a new field or particle), or even replacing one ontology with a more effective one at a similar level of complexity (like general relativity replacing Newtonian spacetime, or quantum mechanics replacing classical mechanics). We’re adding an entirely new metaphysical category, whose relation to the observable world is unclear. This doesn’t automatically disqualify God from consideration as a scientific theory, but it implies that, all else being equal, a purely naturalistic model will be preferred on the grounds of simplicity.
There is an inevitable tension between any attempt to invoke God as a scientifically effective explanation of the workings of the universe, and the religious presumption that God is a kind of person, not just an abstract principle. God’s personhood is characterized by an essential unpredictability and the freedom to make choices. These are not qualities that one looks for in a good scientific theory. On the contrary, successful theories are characterized by clear foundations and unambiguous consequences. We could imagine boiling God’s role in setting up the world down to a few simple principles (e.g., “God constructs the universe in the simplest possible way consistent with the eventual appearance of human beings”). But is what remains recognizable as God?
Similarly, the apparent precision of the God hypothesis evaporates when it comes to connecting to the messy workings of reality. To put it crudely, God is not described in equations, as are other theories of fundamental physics. Consequently, it is difficult or impossible to make predictions. Instead, one looks at what has already been discovered, and agrees that that’s the way God would have done it. Theistic evolutionists argue that God uses natural selection to develop life on Earth; but religious thinkers before Darwin were unable to predict that such a mechanism would be God’s preferred choice. |
I tend to agree with this assessment. It doesn't matter in terms of understanding the mechanics of the univers whether there is or is not a spiritual/divine creator. It has nothing to do with science. It does not help in understanding HOW things work, because it does not afford us any useful predictions about the workings of the universe.
Conclusion: "God" is a subject best delt with in theology, philosophy and comparative mythology (myth as metaphor, not as falsehood), not science.
_________________
Looking for a certain ratio since 1978 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
emdot_ambient
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Posts: 667
Location: Frederick, MD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:52 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Inventor wrote: | | Oh, and I'd like to address the question of how one can truly know that God exists. It arises from experience, specifically from having a relationship with God and seeing how He influences your life over time. |
Philosophically speaking, though, how can you be sure that experience is proof of existence?
Unless experience is universal (which it patently isn't or else there would not be hundreds or thousands of different religions in the world, but rather one unified concept of God), then what you call truly knowing is only true to you. And it seems to me, a truth that is only valid for one person is hardly proof of universal truth.
I know people who have had spiritual/metaphysical experiences that have changed their lives, but whose experiences have led them in totally different directions. Some have become ardent Tibetan Buddhists, some Protestant Christians, some Catholics, some Bahai, some Jews...some completely secular.
From reading the works of comparative mythologysts like Joseph Campbell, it's pretty clear that experiences of a spiritual/metaphysical nature are truly universal, but only in the sense that people all throughout time have had them. These experiences, however, are then filtered (interpreted and explained) through the cultures and societies from which those having the experiences came.
But even there you have to be careful of cause and effect. The fact that these kinds of experiences happen throughout human history could mean that there is some spiritual reality that some of us can connect with...or it might simply be that that these experiences arise from our human physiology. Are we experiencing some external "something"? Or are they simply products of our own brains/bodies?
Either way the experiences are just as real. But there's no real way of testing that.
_________________
Looking for a certain ratio since 1978 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004
Posts: 2503
Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I couldn't disagree more that science has no place in proving anything to exist or not to exist. Science is, in fact, very much in line with many ancient/spiritual/religious descriptions of the world as we know it.
Judeo-Christian theology illustrates that the universe was created by the word of God.
Read any String theory or M-theory lately? The universe was created by, or the big bang was, an onset of vibration that continues at the core of every atom.
The two don't read very differently to a musician.
Buddhism particularly welcomes science, because it holds logic and personal experience above all else. The belief that anything in the universe can stand on it's own, that a reality exists separate from our observation of it cannot be true. There is no objective truth to "reality".
Quantum Physics holds that simply by observing something, you change it.
...and so on.
Prediction is a side effect of the scientific method. The method, is in experiencing and observation. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:50 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| emdot_ambient wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | Oh, and I'd like to address the question of how one can truly know that God exists. It arises from experience, specifically from having a relationship with God and seeing how He influences your life over time. |
Philosophically speaking, though, how can you be sure that experience is proof of existence? |
Because experience is all we have. We have steadfast faith in physics because things always work the same way, physically speaking. Nothing ever falls up, for example. If it did, we would not necessarily trust physics, regarding it as a tendency or a likelyhood or something.
Faith in God is like that, faith in physics, but you cannot quantify God that well, mostly because we really haven't tried, I feel. I think if we applied the same effort of scientific investigation to God as we apply to, say, a gnat's DNA, then we would come up with some model of God. In fact, I once came up with the notion that the universe is a group.
Group theory is a little known but powerful part of mathematics and if you can prove that something is a group, then you can say certain things about it. I don't know much about group theory but I once showed to the surprise of professors that the universe is a group, or thought I did. I then went about saying that this was proof of the existence of God, but that was not a valid conclusion. I only mention it because I feel that math, being the one thing besides God that doesn't change anywhere or anywhen, could possibly be used to form a model of God's behavior.
For example, there is one tricky thing about God according to Christianity which is that he cannot betray his nature. He can't sin. He can do anything else, but cannot sin. Take that as observation one and then go about making observations two and three and so on, then pretty soon you have a thought-model of God's behavior that can be described with math.
Then apply all the sciences to the study, including research studies and statistics and so on, and we will find out more about the existence of God than we thought we might. But as I said, people make choices about their beliefs and few choose BOTH / AND. Most choose EITHER / OR by nature. If we began with faith in BOTH God AND science instead of EITHER God OR science, we'd get somewhere.
Les
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
emdot_ambient
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Posts: 667
Location: Frederick, MD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| jksuperstar wrote: | | Prediction is a side effect of the scientific method. |
You obviously don't understand the scientific method because if a hypothesis does not predict something, it cannot be tested.
Understand, I'm not saying there is or isn't a God or spirituality, or indeed to challenge your belief...but as far as understaning HOW the universe works, tell me: what testable predictions are made by the hypothesis that God created the universe?
_________________
Looking for a certain ratio since 1978 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
emdot_ambient
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
Posts: 667
Location: Frederick, MD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Inventor wrote: | | emdot_ambient wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | Oh, and I'd like to address the question of how one can truly know that God exists. It arises from experience, specifically from having a relationship with God and seeing how He influences your life over time. |
Philosophically speaking, though, how can you be sure that experience is proof of existence? |
Because experience is all we have. |
But it's not all we have. We have observation and repeatability. If I have an exerience that to me appeares to prove the truth of God, and everyone else who has a spiritual experience has the SAME experience no matter what culture they come from...well, then you might have the basis for claiming some kind of proof. But what's called a spiritual experiencs isn't like that. It's very different for each person and very different from one culture to the next.
| Inventor wrote: | | We have steadfast faith in physics because things always work the same way, physically speaking...Faith in God is like that, faith in physics, but you cannot quantify God that well, mostly because we really haven't tried, I feel. |
Physics isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, re-observing, altering the hypothesis when we find testing does not explain the observation, challenge from other points of view, and basically testing and retesting constantly.
Nothing is ever proved, but along the way a lot gets disproved as we move toward better understanding. Every theory is open to total discredit at any moment when observation does not match the theory, or when another theory more accurately accords with observation.
God isn't testable. He, She or It is strictly a matter of faith--and, yes, personal experience. I do not discredit anyone's faith because it is personal and no matter what you or I think it really is, those kinds of experiences can be deeply meaningful.
But it is wrong to equate a method of coming closer to understanding how things work with non-testable beliefs in something greater than ourselves.
| Inventor wrote: | | ...For example, there is one tricky thing about God according to Christianity which is that he cannot betray his nature. He can't sin. He can do anything else, but cannot sin. Take that as observation one and then go about making observations two and three and so on, then pretty soon you have a thought-model of God's behavior that can be described with math. |
Only you're restricting yourself to the Judeo-Christian model of deity, a religion followed by only maybe a third of the world's population, nor is it a tradition that has been around very long historically. So what you call observation one is actually not an observation, but simply a postulation that is already based on a theological idea. You've started with an assumption that you know something of the nature of the being you're trying to prove exists...which is a logical fallacy. Sorry.
_________________
Looking for a certain ratio since 1978 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| emdot_ambient wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | emdot_ambient wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | Oh, and I'd like to address the question of how one can truly know that God exists. It arises from experience, specifically from having a relationship with God and seeing how He influences your life over time. |
Philosophically speaking, though, how can you be sure that experience is proof of existence? |
Because experience is all we have. |
But it's not all we have. We have observation and repeatability. |
Observation and repeatability are included in the word experience, or at least that's what I intended to convey. If I see the sun rise and travel across the sky, I have the experience of seeing it. If it happens again and again regularly, that is repeatability. Measurement is simply quantifying experience. That is what I mean by experience.
Les
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Fozzie
Joined: Jun 04, 2004
Posts: 875
Location: Near Wageningen, the Netherlands
Audio files: 8
G2 patch files: 49
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:28 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Les, good to hear you are doing so well! Quite a change from what I recall to have read here some time ago, so keep up the good mood. Bless you
Now on the topic of science & God and reiterating my previous point a bit: science is based on repeatibility and predictibility, on 'fixed' laws that give consistent results in experiments or observations (if all relevant variables are kept constant). Suppose for a moment that God exists and is souvereign in deciding to interfere with reality (as experienced by us humans) in some unique instances. If this would actually be true, it would not be something that would be in the field of science, since if it would be 'detected', the observation would not be repeatable and be dismissed as an outlier. Science could only prove or disprove an existence of God if the divine actions would always be reproducible. But then we wouldn't call that God, we would call it a law of nature. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Believing or not believing in any deity comes down to unprovable assumptions that (imho) we choose to believe/hold.
I choose to believe in God, and can only try to convince people in an unscientific way what benefits I believe that brings. I will gladly try to share my experience and beliefs, but only if people are interested or open to it.
Ah well, some light-hearted schmooze on a tuesday night 
_________________
Spinning at ~0.0000115740740741 Hz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:28 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| emdot_ambient wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | We have steadfast faith in physics because things always work the same way, physically speaking...Faith in God is like that, faith in physics, but you cannot quantify God that well, mostly because we really haven't tried, I feel. |
Physics isn't a matter of faith. |
Yes it is. No one person can understand the whole body of physics knowledge, only some subset of it. The rest of our belief in physics is based on the faith that if we explored whatever part of it, we'd get our answer. The bible says that faith is believing in that which is not seen. When was the last time you saw a string, a quark, a subatomic particle, an atom, or a molecule? We have faith in theories that we do not understand. It is faith because we do not understand it.
Les
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Discussion » Schmooze
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
