Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 It is odd that learning has deluded the faith of many. Knowledge can increase one's faith, especially in the study of brain science and genetics.Not all but many give into pressure to get published and be popular in the eyes of men. I am an expert in my field, my speaking fees are a min of $200.00 an hour. Serve as expert witness in court cases. I just don't care what others think of me...though due to health and injury I have had to cut way back. Many here think I am opposed to learning and higher education...I am not. I just think there is room for higher education and perfect faith. But more and more I see to many in conflict and criticizing the faith of their father's for "copy's sake".
EllenMaksoud Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 Not all but many give into pressure to get published and be popular in the eyes of men. I am an expert in my field, my speaking fees are a min of $200.00 an hour. Serve as expert witness in court cases. I just don't care what others think of me...though due to health and injury I have had to cut way back. Many here think I am opposed to learning and higher education...I am not. I just think there is room for higher education and perfect faith. But more and more I see to many in conflict and criticizing the faith of their father's for "copy's sake".Oh, I know exactly what you say. I'm nothing special, though anything I see about brain science and genetics I read. Lately, as odd as it may seem, I have had to instruct doctors when I see them, because in my own narrow area, I often know more than them. Still, when it comes to Heavenly Father and my religion, too much has happened to me personally for me to question much. Oh, at times I disagree with others because well, I see things differently. Having been Evangelical, Muslim and now Mormon sometimes feels like I am spiritually autistic; just too much going on in my little haid.
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I don't deny the science behind computer technology, the inspiration for such comes from God both in inspiration and in intelligence to understand by the spirit. And I certainly have no problem acknowledging to others this very thing. I watch a lot of sports and it is pleasent to hear them praise God for their passion, their talents, etc. they know that it isn't science that is the cause of their ability but that of God. You are wrong about science and our position here. From a purely (darwinian) scientific point, man is here to evolve, survive and be the fittest so that the good genetics or mutations are passed on to the next line of species. This science says there is no right or wrong, that it is a social aspect and nothing more- part of our evolved natures. Its completely and fundamentally flawed based off of lies, conjecture and a strong atheist paradigm that seeks to destroy and remove "God" from every and all aspect of public eye, ear and book of learning. Its godless, baseless and in my opinion, damaging as a whole to society. Every thing you have said is that because science doesn't use God you won't accept it. I quote "None of those questions science can science get right because they refuse to accept that life comes from God". I am not a sport buff. But do admire the great accomplishments of athletes. You need to get out of your little bubble if you believe science has nothing to do with it. The fastest runners tend to be those whom parents were also fast runners. The best swimmers tend to come from parents who also are good swimmers, go down the list of sports you will find that those that do the best have parents whom did better than others. Lets talk about sports medicine purely science in origin and application. The clothes those athletes wear are constantly being changed by science to help them run faster, swim longer, and jump higher. The training facilities they use are specifically design by science to help those athletes do better. The food they eat while in training designed by food scientists to allow for better performance in that sport. Why do you think when athletes have to perform at higher altitudes they train in those altitudes? It is science that tells them that there is less oxygen at higher altitudes. I'm all for inspiration. Without it we'd still living in caves afraid of things that go bump in the dark. It took real inspiration and bravery to go find out what that bump in the dark was caused by. In this old world advancement is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Science is merely the way to make that perspiration more effective in solving the problem. Science is here to explain that evolution, and allows men to guide that evolution. Science helps us survive. The dinosaurs were around for a hundred million years they were the fittest in their ecological niches. A massive meteorite rapidly changed those niches, and no Adam and Eve didn't ride around on dinosaurs. No genetics do not pass down traits to members of a separate species. Speciation is where a new species is created that can not reproduce with the parent species. There is too right and wrong in evolution. If it allows for more successful adaptation to the environment then it is right. If not it is wrong. Darwin would have been aghast at the Social Darwinism that was wrongly applied to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism From the age of 10 years old to about 20 years old I studied to become a chemist. I don't have to believe in God to burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen to get water. It works regardless of my beliefs about God. Science is neither Atheist nor Theist it is Agnostic on the matter of God. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their choice. I'm fine with you believing anything you want. But it is interesting of you to use the accomplishments of science and still deny the power there of.
Stone holm Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I don't deny the science behind computer technology, the inspiration for such comes from God both in inspiration and in intelligence to understand by the spirit. And I certainly have no problem acknowledging to others this very thing. I watch a lot of sports and it is pleasent to hear them praise God for their passion, their talents, etc. they know that it isn't science that is the cause of their ability but that of God. You are wrong about science and our position here. From a purely (darwinian) scientific point, man is here to evolve, survive and be the fittest so that the good genetics or mutations are passed on to the next line of species. This science says there is no right or wrong, that it is a social aspect and nothing more- part of our evolved natures. Its completely and fundamentally flawed based off of lies, conjecture and a strong atheist paradigm that seeks to destroy and remove "God" from every and all aspect of public eye, ear and book of learning. Its godless, baseless and in my opinion, damaging as a whole to society. You are correct, Science is amoral there is no right or wrong in terms of morality in science, there is only correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate. There is nothing particularly moral in that sense about gravity. Nor is there any morality involved in whether God created man from the dust of the Earth, or through procreation, or through evolution. Where morality comes into play is when we consider whether God has a plan for man and whether man has to conform to certain behavior in order to fulfill God's plans for him. It is at that point whether something is good or evil comes into play. Its only when we start to question the existence of God and whether God has a plan for us that the potential for evil creeps in. But its not the obligation of Science to establish God's existence. History has shown over and over again that when we try to restrict the results of scientific investigations to some preconceived tenet of religion, that we wind up making bad decisions -- like decreeing that the Sun orbits the Earth. Failure to understand and study Evolution results in the same kind of bad conclusions and downright dangerous activities -- for example, failure to understand how evolution works, would lead to the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals resulting in the development of super bacteria, the over use of herbicides resulting in super weeds, all of those issues are evolutionary issues at their crux.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Oh, I know exactly what you say. I'm nothing special, though You are as special as any living...remember this. Now listen to your Pa Pa
EllenMaksoud Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 You are as special as any living...remember this. Now listen to your Pa Pa Yes, Pa Pa 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 You are correct, Science is amoral there is no right or wrong in terms of morality in science, there is only correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate. There is nothing particularly moral in that sense about gravity. Nor is there any morality involved in whether God created man from the dust of the Earth, or through procreation, or through evolution. Where morality comes into play is when we consider whether God has a plan for man and whether man has to conform to certain behavior in order to fulfill God's plans for him. It is at that point whether something is good or evil comes into play. Its only when we start to question the existence of God and whether God has a plan for us that the potential for evil creeps in. But its not the obligation of Science to establish God's existence. History has shown over and over again that when we try to restrict the results of scientific investigations to some preconceived tenet of religion, that we wind up making bad decisions -- like decreeing that the Sun orbits the Earth. Failure to understand and study Evolution results in the same kind of bad conclusions and downright dangerous activities -- for example, failure to understand how evolution works, would lead to the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals resulting in the development of super bacteria, the over use of herbicides resulting in super weeds, all of those issues are evolutionary issues at their crux. We all know and understand that micro evolution is reality and studied for its many uses in vaccines, medicine, etc. I have no problem with this study and indeed encourage it to its full potential- it is good science. This is where it should stop though in its understanding- just the observable, nothing more and nothing less. But when science starts to extrapolate science fiction from their curious minds to explain the why and how of lifes origins, where we came froma nd where we are going it is way off base- its no longer science- its called "science fiction". In my opinion science and God must merge at some point of understanding to explain every detail, especially the fundamental principles, of the how and why of life and its origin and what purpose and future is in store for it,
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Every thing you have said is that because science doesn't use God you won't accept it. I quote "None of those questions science can science get right because they refuse to accept that life comes from God". I am not a sport buff. But do admire the great accomplishments of athletes. You need to get out of your little bubble if you believe science has nothing to do with it. The fastest runners tend to be those whom parents were also fast runners. The best swimmers tend to come from parents who also are good swimmers, go down the list of sports you will find that those that do the best have parents whom did better than others. Lets talk about sports medicine purely science in origin and application. The clothes those athletes wear are constantly being changed by science to help them run faster, swim longer, and jump higher. The training facilities they use are specifically design by science to help those athletes do better. The food they eat while in training designed by food scientists to allow for better performance in that sport. Why do you think when athletes have to perform at higher altitudes they train in those altitudes? It is science that tells them that there is less oxygen at higher altitudes. I'm all for inspiration. Without it we'd still living in caves afraid of things that go bump in the dark. It took real inspiration and bravery to go find out what that bump in the dark was caused by. In this old world advancement is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Science is merely the way to make that perspiration more effective in solving the problem. Science is here to explain that evolution, and allows men to guide that evolution. Science helps us survive. The dinosaurs were around for a hundred million years they were the fittest in their ecological niches. A massive meteorite rapidly changed those niches, and no Adam and Eve didn't ride around on dinosaurs. No genetics do not pass down traits to members of a separate species. Speciation is where a new species is created that can not reproduce with the parent species. There is too right and wrong in evolution. If it allows for more successful adaptation to the environment then it is right. If not it is wrong. Darwin would have been aghast at the Social Darwinism that was wrongly applied to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism From the age of 10 years old to about 20 years old I studied to become a chemist. I don't have to believe in God to burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen to get water. It works regardless of my beliefs about God. Science is neither Atheist nor Theist it is Agnostic on the matter of God. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their choice. I'm fine with you believing anything you want. But it is interesting of you to use the accomplishments of science and still deny the power there of. So let me ask- what part of science concerns itself with the proven facts concerning the law of biogenesis and the enigma of cause for life emerging from an intelligent source preceding it?
EllenMaksoud Posted January 15, 2014 Author Posted January 15, 2014 When speaking of Science, I think the operative word about scientists is that "some" of them are Godless. Perhaps it is a bit like some yin/yang twins. Science seeks to move ahead, and religion seeks to remain traditional. Someone saw lightning strike a tree and found out about fire, later they invented a "fire God". It's been that way before recorded history, up through the ages to now. Lots of the old discoverers were persecuted or even killed for thinking. The list is long, and many of them were persecuted by religious figures. Personally, I think the retardation of scientific thought by religion strikes a balance. And, I agree that the over use of Antibiotics, and herbicides is breeding super bugs and super weeds. It has just come out that the use of antibacterial soaps is also problematic. And certain of the flora and fauna that live on our bodies that we so scrupulously try to eliminate we are finding we need. We have a huge social problem right now that I do not see a solution to. People on one side of it want their way and people on the other side say NO! I have no idea where it will end.
Stone holm Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 We all know and understand that micro evolution is reality and studied for its many uses in vaccines, medicine, etc. I have no problem with this study and indeed encourage it to its full potential- it is good science. This is where it should stop though in its understanding- just the observable, nothing more and nothing less. But when science starts to extrapolate science fiction from their curious minds to explain the why and how of lifes origins, where we came froma nd where we are going it is way off base- its no longer science- its called "science fiction". In my opinion science and God must merge at some point of understanding to explain every detail, especially the fundamental principles, of the how and why of life and its origin and what purpose and future is in store for it,Science has never stopped with the observable. But it is silly to ever expect to see something caught exactly in transition. There is no reason to hog tie science with such a silly rule anymore than it would make sense to impose such a rule upon religion.
Raingirl Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Scientific evidence shows that the above statement is not strictly true as is evidenced by the Intersex people we know about. There is not strictly XX and XY but XXXX, XY46, and XXY and thousands of other genetic anomalies. In the past, these things were veiled in secrecy largely because of prejudice and the difficulty of identifying the problem. So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female" ? Which Jewish scholars would these be?From Jewish scholars I have known, there are sections of the OT that are complete nonsense when interpreted by them in comparison to modern Christian texts. I wonder why we do not talk about these things?
EllenMaksoud Posted January 16, 2014 Author Posted January 16, 2014 Scientific evidence shows that the above statement is not strictly true as is evidenced by the Intersex people we know about. There is not strictly XX and XY but XXXX, XY46, and XXY and thousands of other genetic anomalies. In the past, these things were veiled in secrecy largely because of prejudice and the difficulty of identifying the problem. So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female" ? Which Jewish scholars would these be?From Jewish scholars I have known, there are sections of the OT that are complete nonsense when interpreted by them in comparison to modern Christian texts. I wonder why we do not talk about these things? You inserted your text in to the body of my statement, so it was difficult to find. I have actually known a few Jewish scholars to voice disdain for so called Christian translations. One is dead. I have lost contact with the other two. I know, sounds convienent, huh.
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) We all know and understand that micro evolution is reality and studied for its many uses in vaccines, medicine, etc. I have no problem with this study and indeed encourage it to its full potential- it is good science. This is where it should stop though in its understanding- just the observable, nothing more and nothing less. But when science starts to extrapolate science fiction from their curious minds to explain the why and how of lifes origins, where we came froma nd where we are going it is way off base- its no longer science- its called "science fiction". In my opinion science and God must merge at some point of understanding to explain every detail, especially the fundamental principles, of the how and why of life and its origin and what purpose and future is in store for it,I agree with this. Recent discussions on this board concerning the protocols of modern scientific method have helped me to understand it's only microevolution that can be tested using scientific method. And because nobody can go back in time to apply scientific methodologies to the phenomena that actually occurred during the creation of all the earth's species, all that can really be done is detective work. Additionally, because nobody was actually there to observe precisely what took place, there are no experiments that can be carried out to replicate any species creation phenomena because the experiments would have to be based on assumptions. And while I am able to say the detective work done thus far has enable men to present a compellingly logical case for man descending from a single one-celled ancestor, logic and reason do not amount to science. It's true that compelling logical and reasonable criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence are presented in courts of law all the time. But just because a district attorney can put together a compelling logical and reasonable case against a John Doe, that doesn't mean the district attorney is correct in his assumptions, even though he's supremely sure he is correct Unfortunately, there are many exonerated unfortunates who can testify they spent many years languishing prison for something they were zealously accused of, while in reality they were 100% innocent of the charge. So they ended up in jail while a supremely confident and self-assured district attorney basked in the satisfaction that a menace to society received only what he was proved beyond a reasonable doubt to deserve. After John Doe's exoneration, due to the emergence of irrefutable DNA evidence, the district attorney is heard to say, "How was I supposed to know? All the evidence pointed to Mr. Doe!" Edited January 16, 2014 by teddyaware 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 So let me ask- what part of science concerns itself with the proven facts concerning the law of biogenesis and the enigma of cause for life emerging from an intelligent source preceding it? Whether life was preceded by Abiogensis with God or without God, life is still here. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force.
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I agree with this. Recent discussions on this board concerning the protocols of modern scientific method have helped me to understand it's only microevolution that can be tested using scientific method. And because nobody can go back in time to apply scientific methodologies to the phenomena that actually occurred during the creation of all the earth's species, all that can really be done is detective work. Additionally, because nobody was actually there to observe precisely what took place, there are no experiments that can be carried out to replicate any species creation phenomena because the experiments would have to be based on assumptions. And while I am able to say the detective work done thus far has enable men to present a compellingly logical case for man descending from a single one-celled ancestor, logic and reason do not amount to science. It's true that compelling logical and reasonable criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence are presented in courts of law all the time. But just because a district attorney can put together a compelling logical and reasonable case against a John Doe, that doesn't mean the district attorney is correct in his assumptions, even though he's supremely sure he is correct Unfortunately, there are many exonerated unfortunates who can testify they spent many years languishing prison for something they were zealously accused of, while in reality they were 100% innocent of the charge. So they ended up in jail while a supremely confident and self-assured district attorney basked in the satisfaction that a menace to society received only what he was proved beyond a reasonable doubt to deserve. After John Doe's exoneration, due to the emergence of irrefutable DNA evidence, the district attorney is heard to say, "How was I supposed to know? All the evidence pointed to Mr. Doe!" The distinction by so called micro-evolution and macro-evolution is unwarranted. It is all evolution. Macro-evolution in the lab. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UtgR47Tgy_c
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The distinction by so called micro-evolution and macro-evolution is unwarranted. It is all evolution. Macro-evolution in the lab. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UtgR47Tgy_cOne wonders if the ability for these bacteria to metabolize citrate was a regressive trait that was present in generations much earlier than the generation they first started observing. In any case, in my unschooled mind I don't find this particularly compelling. Aren't bacteria always changing and adapting anyway? Hence the new strains of deadly super-bacteria? I would be interested to hear what a creation "scientist" has to say on the matter. Think I'll look online to see if any commented on this particular study.
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 One wonders if the ability for these bacteria to metabolize citrate was a regressive trait that was present in generations much earlier than the generation they first started observing. In any case, in my unschooled mind I don't find this particularly compelling. Aren't bacteria always changing and adapting anyway? Hence the new strains of deadly super-bacteria? I would be interested to hear what a creation "scientist" has to say on the matter. Think I'll look online to see if any commented on this particular study. Not that we know of. All living organisms change over time, that is what evolution is. Creation scientist is an oxymoronic statement. Used loosely enough I'm a creation scientist.
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) In anticipation of your objection, you'll notice I put the word scientist in quotes. Edited January 16, 2014 by teddyaware
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 In anticipation of your objection, you'll notice I put the word scientist I quotes. I get it.
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Not that we know of. All living organisms change over time, that is what evolution is. Creation scientist is an oxymoronic statement. Used loosely enough I'm a creation scientist. I won't be oxymoronic for long, because God is the ultimate creation scientist. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Whether life was preceded by Abiogensis with God or without God, life is still here. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force.There is a major issue with "how" and "why" life came into existence on this planet. If science wishes to delve into this study they "must" keep open the option that life may indeed have been brought here from another place in the universe by an intelligent process capable of possessing traits like or similar to how we define true intelligence. If science is not willing to accept this possibility then they are nothing but imbeciles. If they likewise state that nothing "intelligent" could have been the cause for life coming into existence, then they again are nothing but imbeciles. Thus-Science, by definition, MUST include the possibility that life may have arisen in an intelligent process by design by an intelligent entity, force, law, etc.
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Not that we know of. All living organisms change over time, that is what evolution is. Creation scientist is an oxymoronic statement. Used loosely enough I'm a creation scientist. And yet...scientists in labs constantly "create" and "design" their scientific experiments and manipulate, change and modify life. Doesn't that make them scientists who create using their intelligence? Hi, Im Rob, I am a scientist who creates life in the lab...
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 There is a major issue with "how" and "why" life came into existence on this planet. If science wishes to delve into this study they "must" keep open the option that life may indeed have been brought here from another place in the universe by an intelligent process capable of possessing traits like or similar to how we define true intelligence. If science is not willing to accept this possibility then they are nothing but imbeciles. If they likewise state that nothing "intelligent" could have been the cause for life coming into existence, then they again are nothing but imbeciles. Thus-Science, by definition, MUST include the possibility that life may have arisen in an intelligent process by design by an intelligent entity, force, law, etc. Whether life evolved here or came from a different planet that wouldn't have the slightest effect on Evolution. Again you are putting the cart before the horse. Evolution doesn't care whether life was created by God or natural processes. Evolution is simply how life changed once it was here. BTW. I didn't call anyone here an imbecile. The DSM defines imbeciles as those persons with mental abilities less than 70 IQ points. I seriously doubt scientists, in general or specific, would fall under that definition.
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 And yet...scientists in labs constantly "create" and "design" their scientific experiments and manipulate, change and modify life. Doesn't that make them scientists who create using their intelligence? Hi, Im Rob, I am a scientist who creates life in the lab... That is what science does. Designs experiments to test whether their hypothesis is correct or not. That by definition is science. For the last 150 years science has been try to disprove evolution. None have done it yet.
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I agree with this. Recent discussions on this board concerning the protocols of modern scientific method have helped me to understand it's only microevolution that can be tested using scientific method. And because nobody can go back in time to apply scientific methodologies to the phenomena that actually occurred during the creation of all the earth's species, all that can really be done is detective work. Additionally, because nobody was actually there to observe precisely what took place, there are no experiments that can be carried out to replicate any species creation phenomena because the experiments would have to be based on assumptions. And while I am able to say the detective work done thus far has enable men to present a compellingly logical case for man descending from a single one-celled ancestor, logic and reason do not amount to science. It's true that compelling logical and reasonable criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence are presented in courts of law all the time. But just because a district attorney can put together a compelling logical and reasonable case against a John Doe, that doesn't mean the district attorney is correct in his assumptions, even though he's supremely sure he is correct Unfortunately, there are many exonerated unfortunates who can testify they spent many years languishing prison for something they were zealously accused of, while in reality they were 100% innocent of the charge. So they ended up in jail while a supremely confident and self-assured district attorney basked in the satisfaction that a menace to society received only what he was proved beyond a reasonable doubt to deserve. After John Doe's exoneration, due to the emergence of irrefutable DNA evidence, the district attorney is heard to say, "How was I supposed to know? All the evidence pointed to Mr. Doe!" This is why I find "living fossils" so interesting because it is the one sure proof we have that macro-evolution is false. There is no "valid" theory to state why stasis happens for all species observed other than to use that fact of observation to correctly state it makes evolution false. Here is what i mean and it is like what you said- In forensic science detectives and scientists use a myriad of tools including everything from chemical analysis to logic to determine if a person was murdered and how the person died and by what process. They can only present "factual evidence" in determining the cause of death and if or if not the person was murdered or not. Suppose they find a person splatted on the ground and dead from a fall from 20 floors up off a balcony. They can say that he or she was pushed and thus murdered but without evidence of that you cannot rule out that they slipped, was accidently pushed, or that the person intentionally walked off or jumped off. It requires actual evidence even though all are possibilities. So true this is with other areas of science. In evolutionary science we can observe directly the impact of the environment and nature and how it effects all living things. We can document different sizes of finches beaks based on their habitat and surrounding where the ones most fit for survival do just that- survive and pass that genetic trait onto their offspring. But, we also can see that in environments that are not conducive to a species, even in the slightest amount, they pretty much will go extinct- no new modified species will survive. From these two observations we can see that even though there is a vast genetic range that species can have, these genetic traits do not lead to new diversity of species, more adept and intelligent, and there is definately a limit, for any species, where its genetic variation is expelled and no new information can arise. This is the very mechanism why we see dogs as varied as can be but still just that- dogs. This is also true for beetles- we can see a myriad of differences and variations in beetles but they remain just that- beetles. As you point out, if science really wants to find out about if evolution really is possible then they need to either invent a time machine (not gonna happen) or start experimenting in the lab to see if it is true that nature, all on its own, is capable of turning even a small thing such as a fly into something that isnt a fly! So far, even with millions of documented generations of flys exposed to harmful radiation and such they still remain to be just that- flys!
Recommended Posts