ephys88 and other IM evolutionists, please explain the origin of the universe

[Standard Donkey]

It's nice to think that but most Americans believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. You are among a minority.

Do you believe that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?

i mean.. i guess.. havent put much thought into it, but i dont see why not

 

[Paranoid Fitness]

Humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from chimps.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: faq-head02"]Where We Came From[/TD]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-head03"]1. Did we evolve from monkeys?[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body01"] Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"] Learn More Human Evolution [/TD]

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-head03"]2. How did humans evolve?[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body01"] Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?"

[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]

[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"] Learn More Origins of Humankind [/TD]

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-head03"]3. Is culture the result of evolution?[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body01"] A society's culture consists of its accumulated learned behavior. Human culture is based at least partly on social living and language, although the ability of a species to invent and use language and engage in complex social behaviors has a biological basis. Some scientists hypothesize that language developed as a means of establishing lasting social relationships. Even a form of communication as casual as gossip provides an ingenious social tool: Suddenly, we become aware of crucial information that we never would have known otherwise. We know who needs a favor; who's available; who's already taken; and who's looking for someone -- information that, from an evolutionary perspective, can mean the difference between failure and success. So, it is certainly possible that evolutionary forces have influenced the development of human capacities for social interaction and the development of culture. While scientists tend to agree about the general role of evolution in culture, there is still great disagreement about its specific contributions.

[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]

[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"] Learn More Is Love in Our DNA? [/TD]

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-head03"]4. How are modern humans and Neanderthals related?[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body01"] There is great debate about how we are related to Neanderthals, close hominid relatives who coexisted with our species from more than 100,000 years ago to about 28,000 years ago. Some data suggest that when anatomically modern humans dispersed into areas beyond Africa, they did so in small bands, across many different regions. As they did so, according to this hypothesis, humans merged with and interbred with Neanderthals, meaning that there is a little Neanderthal in all modern Europeans.

Scientific opinion based on other sets of data, however, suggests that the movement of anatomically modern humans out of Africa happened on a larger scale. These movements by the much more culturally and technologically advanced modern humans, the hypothesis states, would have been difficult for the Neanderthals to accommodate; the modern humans would have out-competed the Neanderthals for resources and driven them to extinction.

[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]

[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"] Learn More Origins of Humankind [/TD]

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-head03"]5. What do humans have in common with single-celled organisms?[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body01"] Evolution describes the change over time of all living things from a single common ancestor. The "tree of life" illustrates this concept. Every branch represents a species, each connected to other such branches and the rest of tree as a whole. The forks separating one species from another represent the common ancestors shared by these species. In the case of the relatedness of humans and single-celled organisms, a journey along two different paths -- one starting at the tip of the human branch, the other starting at the tip of a single-celled organism's branch -- would ultimately lead to a fork near the base of the tree: the common ancestor shared by these two very different types of organisms. This journey would cross countless other forks and branches along the way and span perhaps more than a billion years of evolution, but it demonstrates that even the most disparate creatures are related to one another -- that all life is interconnected.

[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]

[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"] Learn More Deep Time [/TD]
[TD="width: 25"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="width: 7"][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"][/TD]

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-head03"]6. What happened in the Cambrian explosion?[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: faq-body01"] Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began, most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense -- over 10 million to 25 million years. These Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period.

[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]

[TD="class: faq-body02, align: left"] Learn More Deep Time [/TD]

[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
From: Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[exphys88]

i thought evolutionists believed that humans did in fact, evolve from chimps? is this a new development.. like.. evolution of the theory of evolution?

No, that statement is what creationists say that highlights their ignorance on the matter.
Chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and they're our closest species.

And, science is always evolving, that's the beauty, not a flaw. Evolution may see changes in particular areas, but it will never go away.

 

[exphys88]

i mean.. i guess.. havent put much thought into it, but i dont see why not

Omg are you serious?
First, don't you think there would be some stories about the horrors if living alongside them?

Secondly, the geological record is a perfect match in terms of the timeline. There has never been human fossils found alongside species of another time period that they did not live with.

 

[troubador]

The origin of the universe was the big bang, before that is speculation. Not sure why you lumped evolution in with that.

 

[OMEGAx]

I think the universe was created by a spaghetti monster who loves pirates. Prove me wrong. I even have gospels written by man detailing exactly how he did it. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Im scratching you off my Rep list lol

 

[exphys88]

Im scratching you off my Rep list lol

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Standard Donkey]

No, that statement is what creationists say that highlights their ignorance on the matter.
Chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and they're our closest species.

And, science is always evolving, that's the beauty, not a flaw. Evolution may see changes in particular areas, but it will never go away.

interesting

 

[Standard Donkey]

The origin of the universe was the big bang, before that is speculation. Not sure why you lumped evolution in with that.

im not sure why either.. for some reason i thought the two were related.. as i said in my original post, my knowledge on the topic is very limited.


what exactly was the big bang?.. and what caused it?

 

[Standard Donkey]

please fill in the holes if there are any-


so, it is unknown where the earth came from, but it did come from somewhere, and on earth, organic material appeared. This organic material then evolved into single-celled organisms which then differentiated into more complex organisms over billions of years. Then, roughly .5 billion years ago, an explosion of radiation occurred which caused the process of evolution to accelerate greatly, and the simple organisms evolved into plans, animals, and humans based on envioronmental conditions and natural selection over hundreds of millions of years.

i understand that this is likely a gross oversimplifcation, and for that i apologize... but how far off am i?

 

[exphys88]

Sounds pretty accurate to me. I'm unfamiliar w the radiation thing though.

 

[troubador]

im not sure why either.. for some reason i thought the two were related.. as i said in my original post, my knowledge on the topic is very limited.


what exactly was the big bang?.. and what caused it?

We don't know. I mean everything that happened before the big bang occurred is speculation and that includes what caused it. The big bang theory starts a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.

 

[Standard Donkey]

Sounds pretty accurate to me. I'm unfamiliar w the radiation thing though.

Cambrian explosion apparently

 

[exphys88]

Cambrian explosion apparently

I've just never heard radiation was the cause, not refuting it, just saying I'm ignorant to it.

 

[Standard Donkey]

We don't know. I mean everything that happened before the big bang occurred is speculation and that includes what caused it. The big bang theory starts a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.

so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.

so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?

 

[exphys88]

so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.

so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?

Yes, kinda like god came from nothing. Or, maybe god was created from a super god, since everything has to have been created?

 

[Standard Donkey]

Yes, kinda like god came from nothing. Or, maybe god was created from a super god, since everything has to have been created?

im not sure why it's only when christians believe that something came from nothing... that it's absurd

 

[troubador]

so the big bang theory describes the development of the universe.. not necessarily its origin.. which leaves a lot left unexplained.

so somewhere down the line, something came from nothing..?

No, the universe didn't exist before the big bang. It's the origin of the universe but we don't know the origin of the big bang. There are hypotheses though.

No, the big bang theory does not posit that something came from nothing.

 

[exphys88]

im not sure why it's only when christians believe that something came from nothing... that it's absurd

I'm merely pointing out the flaw in arguing that because the earth is here, it had to have been created by god. The argument by christians is that it's not possible, yet that's exactly what they suggest about god.

 

[Paranoid Fitness]

Another point of view from Wired magazine:

[h=1]Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning[/h] By Brandon Keim 02.19.08

The Big Bang was big, but it wasn't the beginning, Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok says. He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there will be many more.
Cambridge University


For decades, physicists have accepted the notion that the universe started with the Big Bang, an explosive event at the literal beginning of time. Now, computational physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model -- and some scientists are taking him seriously.
According to Turok, who teaches at Cambridge University, the Big Bang represents just one stage in an infinitely repeated cycle of universal expansion and contraction. Turok theorizes that neither time nor the universe has a beginning or end.
It's a strange idea, though Turok would say it's no stranger than the standard explanation of the Big Bang: a singular point that defies our laws of physics, where all equations go to infinity and "all the properties we normally use to describe the universe and its contents just fail." That inconsistency led Turok to see if the Big Bang could be explained within the framework of string theory, a controversial and so-far untested explanation of the universe as existing in at least 10 dimensions and being formed from one-dimensional building blocks called strings. Within a school of string theory known as m-theory, Turok said, "the seventh extra dimension of space is the gap between two parallel objects called branes. It's like the gap between two parallel mirrors. We thought, What happens if these two mirrors collide? Maybe that was the Big Bang."
Turok's proposition has drawn condemnation from string theory's many critics and even opposition from the Catholic Church. But it's provoked acclaim and wonder, too: He and Princeton University physicist Paul Steinhardt published Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang last year, and Turok -- also the founder of the South Africa-based African Institute for Mathematical Sciences -- won 2008's first annual TED Prize, awarded to the world's most innovative thinkers.
Turok spoke with Wired.com about the Big Bang, the intellectual benefits of cosmology and his bet with Stephen Hawking.


Wired: In a nutshell, what are you proposing?
Neil Turok: In our picture, there was a universe before the Big Bang, very much like our universe today: a low density of matter and some stuff called dark energy. If you postulate a universe like this, but the dark energy within is actually unstable, then the decay of this dark energy drives the two branes together. These two branes clash and then, having filled with radiation, separate and expand to form galaxies and stars.
Then the dark energy takes over again. It's the energy of attraction between the two branes: It pulls them back together. You have bang followed by bang followed by bang. You have no beginning of time. It's always been there.


Wired: But isn't there still a beginning?
Turok: Imagine you have a room full of air, with all these molecules banging around. The vast majority of time, these molecules spread uniformly -- but once in a trillion trillion years, they all end up in the corner of the room. If you look at the room and run the clock forward, they'll eventually make themselves uniform: But it would reverse, and you'd watch them flying into the corner. Then they'd fly out again.
If this is right, it means that time runs forward for a while. Then there's a random state without an arrow of time, then time runs backwards, and then time runs forward again. That's the bigger picture: We're still very far away from understanding it, but that would be my bet.
But my main interest is the problem of the singularity. If we can't understand what happened at the singularity we came out of, then we don't seem to have any understanding of the laws of particle physics. I'd be very happy just to understand the last singularity and leave the other ones to future generations.


Wired: How do you test this theory?
Turok: If the universe sprung into existence and then expanded exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through space-time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could see which theory is right.
Stephen Hawking bet me that we'll see the signal from inflation. I said that we won't, and he can take it for any amount of money at even odds. So far he hasn't named an amount. He's richer than me, so he's being nice.


Wired: You've said the standard explanation of the Big Bang is Rube Goldberg-ian, but this seems like quite the convoluted contraption, too.
Turok: The structure of the sandwich was forced on theorists by mathematicians: It's basically the only way you can make the equations consistent and avoid infinity. The extent to which we believe it derives from the mathematics. We're not smoking something and making it up.
However, I feel that the main role for these scenarios of the early universe is to stimulate our thinking. I don't necessarily believe any of them. The most important thing is that the only intellectually honest way to study such questions of cosmology is to make the most precise model you can. I think of the whole thing as a giant intellectual exercise, a stimulating exercise, to make us better appreciate the universe.


Wired: It's stirred a lot of emotion for an intellectual. When Alan Guth criticized you and your theory at a conference, he showed a picture of a monkey. Is this sort of vitriol normal?
Turok: The monkey was maybe a bit exaggerated. But I'm actually good friends with Guth, and I'm sure he did it as a joke. I meet him regularly at conferences, and he's a reasonable guy. The field is driven by reason. The inevitably human things that come into it don't matter in the long run.
In the end, bad ideas will not survive. If you have a good, clean idea that's elegant and precise and agrees with observations, it'll get through.


Wired: The Catholic Church hasn't been very receptive to your ideas, either.
Turok: I think they like the Big Bang for obvious reasons. It's a creation event, and they find that appealing. Whereas if you talk to most physicists, they'd prefer that there was not a creation event, because there are no laws of physics that indicate how time could begin.
I'm not motivated by [theological considerations]. I'd be perfectly happy with a mathematically precise description of how time began. I see science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.
If the world is cyclical, in a sense you still need a policeman to enforce the laws of physics. If you need a God to do that, fine -- but I think that's a belief in why the world is the way it is. Science studies how the world operates, not why it's here.


Wired: To many people, science is valuable because of the metaphors it gives us -- a poetry of the natural world. Does your work resonate that way with you?
Turok: We need poetry as well as science, but it's completely irrelevant to the science. That doesn't motivate me either. I just feel incredibly lucky and honored to think about these problems and try to make models that may or may not be relevant. It's a fantastic privilege to ponder these questions -- even if we don't succeed, even if all we do is appreciate how hard the problem is, it brings us together. The world is an incredible miracle, and we have to do whatever we can to appreciate it.


Wired: Whatever you find, though, it's not going to have much everyday importance.
Turok: No, but one of the extraordinary things about the field is that whatever culture people come from, they all love this stuff. The popularity Hawking has achieved is due in part to him being an exceptional individual, but it's also because the questions and the science are inherently fascinating.
It's been amazing to see students from all over Africa, from countries that have been disaster areas for 30 years, come to the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences and try to best Einstein.
The side effects are quite good, too. I teach math to hundreds of students every year, and because the stuff we work on is high-powered and rigorous, we add to the intellectual environment. Many of the brightest students love to do this. It's like the Apollo moon program, which had a huge spinoff in technology. So even though this kind of science and thinking has no intrinsic economic value, it's hugely motivating and quite cheap.


Wired: With all your work with students from Africa, what do you think of James Watson's remarks on Africans evolving to possess less intelligence than other racial groups?
Turok: I think he's nuts. My students are highly motivated and have a very high success rate. If he really believes they're inferior, he should just come to the institute. I guarantee that if he spends an afternoon with these students, he'll revise his opinion.

 

[Curt James]

Now, could you explain how god created the universe?

Magic, of course. Duh.

 

[Curt James]

You should read a junior high biology book. Or an anthropology, zoology, paleontology, archaeology, or geology book.

All tools of Satan!

Have you ever even seen a bible?

 

[Paranoid Fitness]

[h=1]The Origin of the Universe[/h][h=2]The Big Bang[/h]From John P. Millis, Ph.D

In 1959 a survey was conducted of scientists across America concerning their understanding of the physical sciences. One particular question asked ?What is your concept of the age of the Universe?? More than two thirds of the scientists polled responded that there was no origin of the Universe. They believed that the Universe was eternal.

Then five years later, in 1964, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a microwave signal buried in their data. They attempted to filter out the signal, assuming that it was merely unwanted noise. However, they soon realized what the signal actually was; they had inadvertently discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the Universe had a beginning.
[h=3]The Big Bang[/h] Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask ?how did it come into existence, and what existed before it??
Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes.
The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?
Once the singularity was created (however it happened), it began to expand through a process called inflation. The Universe went from very small, very dense, and very hot to the cool expanse that we see today. This theory is now referred to as the Big Bang, a term first coined by Sir Fred Hoyle during a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) radio broadcast in 1950.
Interestingly, there really wasn?t any sort of explosion (or bang) as the name suggests, but rather the rapid expansion of space and time. It is like blowing up a balloon, as you blow air in, the exterior of the balloon expands outward.
[h=3]The Moments after the Big Bang[/h] The early Universe was not bound by the laws of physics as we know them today. Consequently, we cannot predict with great accuracy what the Universe looked like during the first minutes of creation. In spite of this, scientists have been able to construct an approximate representation of how the Universe evolved.
Scientists believe that the Universe was initially so hot and dense, that even elementary particles like protons and neutrons could not exist. Instead, different types of matter (called matter and anti-matter) collided together, creating pure energy. But as the Universe began to cool during the first few minutes, protons and neutrons began to form. Then slowly over time these protons, neutrons and electrons came together to form Hydrogen and small amounts of Helium. During the billions of years that followed, stars, planets and galaxies formed to create the Universe as we see it today.
[h=3]Evidence for the Big Bang[/h] The CMB signal detected by Penzias and Wilson, a discovery for which they later won a Nobel Prize, is often described as the ?echo? of the Big Bang. Because if the Universe had an origin, it would leave behind a signature of the event, just like an echo heard in a canyon represents a ?signature? of the original sound. The difference is that instead of an audible echo, the Big Bang left behind a heat signature throughout all of space.
Another prediction of the Big Bang theory is that the Universe should be receding from us. Specifically, any direction we look out into space, we should see objects moving away from us with a velocity proportional to their distance away from us, a phenomenon known as the red shift.
Edwin Hubble, in 1929, was able to correlate the distance to objects in the universe with their velocities -- a relation known as Hubble's Law. Big Bang theorists later used this information to approximate the age of the Universe at about 15 billion years old, which is consistent with other measurements of the age of the Universe.
[h=3]Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory[/h] While the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory about the origins of the Universe, and is supported by all the observational evidence, there are other models that explain the evidence equally well.
Some of the other theories argue that the Big Bang theory is based on a false premise -- that the Universe is built on an ever expanding space-time. Some, instead, prefer to build theories on a static Universe, which is what was originally predicted by Einstein?s theory of general relativity. Einstein?s theory was only later modified to accommodate the way the Universe appears to be expanding.

 

[maniclion]

I know the secret, but for me to tell you you'll need to drop a megadose of lsd to understand, then I will explain how the infinity symbol (the sleepy 8) fits in along with the yin/yang sign and how we are in the murky end of that pool and that there is a light on the other side of those devourer of stars, an ever present light, and the black stars feed the planets, and the dark matter is matter. How in the end there can be only one and then the yin yang starts a reversal. That is why we are just an agave worm at the bottom of the great mezcal bottle that is this universe...selah!

 

[exphys88]

I know the secret, but for me to tell you you'll need to drop a megadose of lsd to understand, then I will explain how the infinity symbol (the sleepy 8) fits in along with the yin/yang sign and how we are in the murky end of that pool and that there is a light on the other side of those devourer of stars, an ever present light, and the black stars feed the planets, and the dark matter is matter. How in the end there can be only one and then the yin yang starts a reversal. That is why we are just an agave worm at the bottom of the great mezcal bottle that is this universe...selah!

I get it! But it took a mixture of acid and ecstasy.

 

[theCaptn']

I'm merely pointing out the flaw in arguing that because the earth is here, it had to have been created by god. The argument by christians is that it's not possible, yet that's exactly what they suggest about god.

I can understand primitive humans seeing aliens as a God. That would nearly draw the two theories together.


Sent from my jewPhone

 

[Robalo]

What i don't understand is why is so difficult to understand that some of us, humans, need to believe in a god, a deity that we can reach for peace of mind, that we can see as an answer for the inexplicable, the big bang, the evolution, life itself. Are we right? We may be or we might not be, who knows?
Cristians, muslims, jews, indus, budists, whatever. All of us look for answers, some of us just find diferent answers for the same questions. I believe that this is called being Human.

peace

 

[theCaptn']

The issue is when religious arseholes start selling their beliefs as facts.


Sent from my jewPhone

 

[Watson]

I find it ironic how all people who believe in god think they will get into heaven.

I also think jesus would have liked the tranny pics we post on here.....they are gods special miracles also

 

[Watson]

I want to join the church of no maam

NO MA'AM Church - YouTube