I don't think that the author would mind my sharing a bit from the beginning of the chapter, and then the end of the chapter here on my blog. She has much more to say in between, but this short glimpse may encourage people to buy her book except, of course, in the cases of Phronk, Ubersehen, GMpilot, Boo and Jody who would most likely cringe at the thought! ;-)
I can't wait to get into chapter 10, which is entitled The Scientific Method of Stoning and Burning because it speaks directly to the conversation going on in this post.
Chapter 10 begins with, "The single greatest victory of the Darwiniacs is in the realm of rhetoric, not science." Whew! Bet that chapter will make them blisteringly angry!
Anyway, back to chapter 9:
Ann points out that:
"Darwiniacs do not have a single observable example of one species evolving into another by the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection. All they have is a story. It is a story that inspires fanatical devotion from the cult simply because their story excludes a creator. They have seized upon something that looks like progress from primitive life forms to more complex life forms and invented a story to explain how the various categories of animals orginated. But animal sequences do not prove that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection caused the similarities. It is just as likely that the similarities are proof of intelligent design, creationiam, or the Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory."
Some of the chapter covers what Jonathan Well's exposed as frauds in the Icons of Evolution book; and also includes some facinating faux pas from the likes of Scientific American and the New York Times (not a surprise!). There is much more as well, but for the purpose of sharing just a bit of what she wrote, I will skip over to the final two pages of chapter 9.
The only evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution is fake evidence, and every time Darwiniacs are caught hawking fake "proof," they complain that it's merely a "gap" in the theory. The Darwiniacs play a shell game with the evidence, but the evidence is never under any of the shells. The point isn't that schoolchildren should be "taught the controversy" - schoolchildren should be taught the truth.
This includes:
* the truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see
* the truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors
* the truth about the Galapagos finch population changing not one bit since Darwin first observed the finches more than 170 years ago
* the truth about the peppered moth experiment
* the truth about Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist
* the truth about the Miller-Urey experiment being based on premises that are no longer accepted
* the truth about the nonexistence of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye
These aren't gaps in a scientific theory - there is no scientific theory. There is only a story about how a bear might have fallen into the ocean and become a whale. As Colin Patterson asked, What is any one true thing about evolution?
In the end, evolutionists' only argument is contempt. The cultists know that if people were allowed to hear the arguments against evolution for just sixty seconds, all would be lost. So they demonize the people making those arguments. You're just saying that because you believe in God! You probably believe in a flat Earth too! You sound like a Holocaust revisionist! That's all you ever get.
The evolutionists' self-advertisements paint a different picture. A New York Times review of a book on intelligent design summarized the situation this way: "As Michael Ruse points out, modern science's refusal to cry miracle when faced with explanatory difficulties has yielded 'fantastic dividends.' Letting divine causes fill in wherever naturalistic ones are hard to find is not only bad theology - it leaves you worshiping a 'God of the gaps' - but it is also a science-stopper." 11Far from chastely refusing to acknowledge miracles, evolutionists are the primary source of them. These aren't chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen burners. They are rligious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary - including, for example, the entire fossil record- is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like "our evidence didn't fossilize."
Meanwhile, and by stark contrast, ID scientists do not fill the "gaps" with God. They simply say intelligence is a force that exists in the universe and we can see its effects and what it does - in Behe's flagellum, in the Cambrian explosion, in Gould and Eldredge's "punctuated equilibrium."
Evolutionists keep modifying their theory to say, "Assume a miracle," and the intelligent design scientists say, "Hey, does anyone else notice that it's always the same miracle?" It's a miracle of design. Design in the universe may well be explained by something other than God, but we'll never know as long as everyone is required to pretend it's not there. To say intelligent design scientists are merely "filling in the gaps" with God is like saying Sir Isaac Newton "filled in the gaps" with the theory of gravity. He saw stuff dropping to the ground and tried to explain it. If only the Darwiniacs had been around, they could have told Newton, I don't see anything dropping! It's just an accident! Do you believe in God or something?Nor are intelligent design scientists looking at things they can't explain: Quite the opposite. They are looking at things they can explain but which Darwin didn't even know about, like the internal mechanism of the cell, and saying, That wasn't created by natural selection - that required high-tech engineering. By contrast, the evolution cult members look at things they can't explain and say, We can't explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe. It must have been random chance, or it's not "science."
Let the conversation (or, perhaps more likely bickering) begin!
11 Jim Holt, "Supernatural Selection, " New York Times, April 14, 2002
Posts
29 comments:
While I don't begrudge you your beliefs as to evolution vs. creation, I would strongly urge anyone to do some research before relying on anything Ann Coulter says. And I do mean anything. With her track record, if she told me the sun rose in the east I'd aim my camera west for a shot of the sun rise.
Convenient that Coulter also appears to have been caught red-handed plagiarizing material for her latest book. For a journalist, this is an especially grave offense. A few more such offenses, and we may have a pattern developing here.
Our discussion grows too large for a bitty chat line. I’ve moved it here to continue it.
Is the flawed research still being passed off as "evidence" since these flaws are still in the textbooks? And, if they are, that's dishonesty being passed off as "proof" of Darwinism.
Who are you accusing of trying to pass of flawed research? If you are referring to the publishers of such textbooks, then I would be inclined to agree, and so would the scientific community at large. In fact, did I not just say this? Yes, I did, I said “It has been pointed out several times that scientists AGREE with this assessment. They have been trying longer than Wells has to change this. Why do you keep repeating this argument as though it were pertinent?” So, you seem to want to pin the blame for outdated educational material on the scientists who already AGREE that the material is outdated and needs to be replaced. Scientists are not to blame for the manner in which the publishers of outdated textbooks represent their research. Obtusely repeating your flawed point of view will not make it true.
Darwinism has not shown the mechanism for change from what we view as created kinds. The missing link is sstill missing...The habit of extrapolating small changes within a kind is not evidence of macroevolution...it's a presumption.
Since you don’t care what the scientists have to say about the “missing link” or transitional fossils, why even attempt to make a scientific argument against it? The answer to your question is readily available here, but if you really wanted to look for an answer and not just throw up agenda-laden, scientifically refuted “problems”, you’d find out what ACTUAL problems exist with the various fields of scientific research that make up the study of evolution. It doesn’t matter how many qualified scientists examine Wells’ already well-trampled opus, you’ll support it with as much faith as you follow your god. This, again, supports my argument that you are unwilling to find fault in your peers’ work, or with anyone that agrees with the ultimate message that you try to promote. Your faith cannot sustain it, and this makes you weak and highly prone to error.
The bottom line is this: Intelligent Design/Creationism attempts to provide evidence for the existence of a god by venturing into the realm of scientific research. They have not, to date, stood up to the rigours of the scientific method, and so they are not science. In retaliation to this rejection, they have attempted to debunk the evolution-related uses of the scientific method, but the catch is that these criticisms must also be scientific in nature. Possessing no scientifically supported counter-research, the criticism falls equally flat.
Nestled and sheltered in your comfortable Christian fundamentalist community, it is easy for you to believe that scientific research supporting evolution (that you pejoratively lump together using such terms as “Darwinism”, “Darwinists”, “Darwiniacs”, etc, in hopes of reducing the mountains of well-documented research to the level of an eccentric opinion) is on the decline. This is unsupported opinion, and given your complete disinterest in the actual research going on in the various fields that comprise evolution research, is worth nothing more than a laugh.
Coulter's sources have been recognized and documented in the extensive notes at the end of her book. Besides, I remember hearing (or reading) that the plagiarism claims have already been refuted.
Ubersehen,
I haven't heard of any stickers being placed on the textbooks warning that the peppered moth, Miller-Urey experiment, Haeckel's embryos etc. are frauds, fallacies and have been refuted.
You can bet your life that if anything about Creation or ID had been flawed and included in the textbooks, the evolutionists would have the ACLU at the doors of the school burning the pages and suing the textbook makers and distributors.
The microevolutionary changes in the fossils cited at the link are not in dispute. No transitional fossils between created kinds (e.g. between a cat and a dog, or a cow and a horse) have ever been found. The "mountains of research" that you refer to do not address this fact. Even some evolutionists have been forced to admit to the lack of transitional fossils. It's the "trade secret" of the theorists.
Well's information may be "well-trampled" by his detractors, but the the facts he presented about the frauds, fallacies, and downright deceptions by Darwiniacs who childishly passed these things off as "truth" for so many years (while knowing they made it all up) cannot be denied or refuted; no matter how loud Darwiniacs scream or how hard they kick!
Actually, Coulter's plagiarism charges have not been refuted. Some of her allies, most notably her publisher, (Crown, I think), have tried to explain them away by saying, essentially, that there are only so many ways to say something about the same topic. The problem, from a journalism perspective, is that if you're going to say the same thing about the same topic that someone else has already written about, you need to acknowledge that first person. Coulter doesn't do that. Also, her endnotes in the past have been misleading if not flat out wrong. Bottom-line, don't trust Ann Coulter.
Wow! In chapter 10, Ann details the staging of the Scopes trial and what propaganda the film Inherit the Wind really is! It appears that Darwiniacs not only faked experiments by staging frauds, fallacies, and downright deceptions to promote their macroevolutionary religion, but they also got an entire town plus Hollywood to go along with a faked, staged and deceptive story about the Scopes trial! I knew that the movie wasn't entirely truthful or accurate, but according to the book Summer for the Gods by Edward Larson, the Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt! There's even more information about the farce of Inherit in Jack Schnedler's, The Real Scopes Trial: 'Inherit the Wind' Is Seared into the American Public Consciousness, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock), July 10, 2005. When I get some extra time I will post more about this.
What's worse, according to a story in the Kansas City Star News, in 2003, they are still showing this film in high school biology classes! Talk about propagandist indoctrination and being "lose with the truth" as Phronk claimed about ID!
Ann Coulter plagiarism charges overblown
Of course, being that "The Daily Kos" is a left wing loonie, he would include disparaging remarks about Ann. But at least he was honest enought to admit that the plagiarism accusations were overblown.
A somewhat nicer article:
Syndicator Denies Coulter Lifted Material
An interesting and even accurate point. The Darwiniancs did, I guess, "stage", the Scopes trial in the sense that there was a deliberate challenge to a Tennesse law, no doubt passed by Magic Space Lizard Fundies, which criminalized the teaching of evolution. What the Darwiniacs did was find a volunteer, in this case Scopes, who would agree to stand trial as having taught evolution contrary to the law. My recollection of this is a little fuzzy, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Scopes may not even have taught evolution or been that big a proponent of it. I could be wrong about that, but I do know he agreed to be the subject of a trial so that the Magig Space Lizard Fundies would have to actually defend their position in open court. You can certainly call it a staged performance, but it's not as underhanded as you, (and I may be being harsh here, as I'm sure Coulter is a 100 times worse), makes it sound. Our legal system does not allow for cases to be brought just to test theories; there has to be an aggrieved party. In order to contest the law, the Darwiniacs had to have a client, hence Scopes. Of course, if there was no law in the first place, there would have been no case.
Also, in the end, Calrence Darrow subjected Wiliam Jennings Bryan, the atty for the state, to a withering cross-examination that pretty much ended the legitimacy of teaching Creationism as science. While the Darwiniacs did lose that case, they won the war.
One other thing, I don't agree that the trial was a publicity stunt, although the town where the tiral was held certainly looked to benefit from it. For both sides, it was an important argument that needed to be heard.
And it was.
And now we teach evolution in science class and creation in Bible school. As we should.
You can bet your life that if anything about Creation or ID had been flawed and included in the textbooks, the evolutionists would have the ACLU at the doors of the school burning the pages and suing the textbook makers and distributors.
The issue with Creationism or ID in science classrooms is not whether or not they are flawed, so much as whether or not are science. Since Creationism and ID are not science, the evolutionists, ACLU, NCSE, PTA, and any other concerned organizations would obviously heatedly rebel against their presence in a science textbook.
For the rest of the "arguments" you present, they are not worth responding to. They have already been addressed by numerous qualified scientists and refuted. But it is again made clear, based on your continued assertion that there are no transitional forms, in the face of clear evidence that there are, that you have no interest in the research going on in the scientific fields that comprise the study of evolution. Thus, you are hopelessly tied to the flawed, outdated, and refuted pseudo-scientific arguments of Wells, Behe, Dembski, and their ilk.
Why do you persist in claiming the authority to argue scientific matters if you have no interest whatsoever in science?
Here is an alternative. Start yet another organization, call it the "Magic Space Lizard Fundie Organization for Research Into the Nature of God's Universe" (MSLFORINGU), or "TRUTH > Science" or whatever you like. Begin your own research into the origins of the universe, but continue to ignore science (it won't be hard, you're doing well with that bit already). Then, when you've found a way to reiterate The Good Christian's Grand Unified Theory of Everything (TGCGUTE), present it to the school boards as its own course. Not as science of course ('cause it's not), but as its own unique approach to exploring life. At least then your approach will be more honest.
Oh, and be sure to buy your own fundies today!
But before you answer anything I've had to say, Christine, I'm really interested to hear what you have to say about Phronk's link to evidence for hundreds of transitional fossils. Particularly in light of your repeated claims of there being none. Just so I don't steal any of his steam and so there's no confusion, here's a repeat of his link.
Transitional Fossil FAQ
All of us Darwiniacs are interested in what you Magic Space Lizard Fundies have to say about it.
Interesting stuff,
The scopes trial totally was a publicity stunt to make the evolution theory of origins seem slick and progressive and biblical creationism backwoods. You can read the actual transcript of what went down online.
As far as the fossils supporting macro evolution go, I think in the philosophy of science a strong case can be made that all data is theory laden. Darwinists come to data (new fossil) with a theory in hand making the data fit the theory. Every time now when a new unknown species fossil is found it is automatically an ancester to a modern species. Unfortuanatly, that is hard to know with certainty.
Personally I think the main push to uphold evolution is because it gives philosophical support to atheism. As a theist I can believe in a theistic evolution, however the atheist is not left with this option, he must speak of lifes origins purely naturalistically. Therefore, whatever goes against the a-priori dogma of naturalism in science is non-science. Thus ID and CS are automatically ruled to be non-science in an a-priori fashion.
Oh also to add, to the data being theory laden, this does not apply to exact sciences such as physics, mathmatics, and chemestry. But sciences like paleontology, much of geology and archaelogy are really dependant upon a objective interpretation of the evidence. Unfortunatly, objectivity is pretty well impossible to come by. It is hard to view evolutionists as objective when men like Richard Dawkins say stuff like: "Every explanation of lifes origins before 1859 is useless." Evolution gives presupositional support to Dawkin's atheism, it's hard to say that Dawkin's would be neutral on this when his faith is at stake.
If you have just skimmed part of the FAQ and concluded that it doesn't have what you consider to be "real" transitional fossils, go back to part 1 of the FAQ and carefully read the section titled "What is a transitional fossil?" Think about what you have read. Then read the rest of the FAQ, and pay particular attention to the "species-to-species" sections in part 2. If you still think the FAQ doesn't have "real" transitional fossils, chances are you have misunderstood the theory of evolution. Define what a "real" transitional fossil should be, and why you think the modern theory of evolution would predict such a thing. Then let's talk.
'talkorigins', the Fact based Bible for Uber and phronk had the above to say.
So it's more of a definition game?, and STILL NO EVIDENCE of evolution.
Or is it dating techniques? and which one?
btw, Hunt's evidence for each and everyone of her Transitional Phases are peppered with the words "Probably, Should Have, Most Likely". Yeh! thats Fact!
SCORE CARD
God - 7259845225874662002584002540+
Uber - 0
Phronk - 0
limpy - still looking for his pp. :)
Actually, Mark, it's more a matter of that one extremely important definition. If you declare that "transitional fossils" should be an archaeological find of neatly stacked, completely intact skeletons that each vary slightly from one to the next as the progress further towards to top, you'll likely find that there is no such thing and that "transitional fossils", as you've defined them, do not exist.
Since what transitional fossils actually are, according to the paleontologists who would know, is defined very clearly in the Talk.Origins FAQ, you will, sadly, have to use that definition instead of your own.
Transitional Phases are peppered with the words "Probably, Should Have, Most Likely".
This just reveals that you are an ignorant moron who is deliberately deceiving himself and anyone else he can get on board into believing that he knows anything about scientific research. Evidence does not corrolate to fact. Evolution is based, in many areas, on probability, so it is quite responsible of Hunt, and others, to use words like "Probably", "Should have", and "Most likely".
I'll ask you the same question I asked Christine:
Why do you persist in claiming the authority to argue scientific matters if you have no interest whatsoever in science?
I found it!
This just reveals that you are an ignorant moron
Does name calling help your point uber?
It does help my point, you are frustrated, most Godless people worshiping themselves are. You still have time to change.
Why do you persist in claiming the authority to argue scientific matters if you have no interest whatsoever in science?
I love science Uber. I am not an authority in the science world, and never have claimed to be. You care to prove your accusation? I, unlike you, know the difference between Man's opinion or observations and God's truth.
limpy99, Good Boy! ;)
I knew you could do it!
How is it that you can claim to love science, and yet disbelieve what science tells you? Is it love in the same sense that I love pugs, but would never want to own one?
And I'm not frustrated. I'm simply convinced that you are an extremely obtuse individual. I make my statements with rational consideration. But I don't suppose this is something that you can help easily. You've been brought up this way, after all, and we all begin as slaves to our roots.
So again, what about those transitional fossils?
what about those fossils?, and why do you keep using the word transitional as if that means something scientific in terms of making your belief that evolution is more likely than ID.
what about those fossils?, and why do you keep using the word transitional as if that means something scientific in terms of making your belief that evolution is more likely than ID.
Since you clearly want nothing to do with science, understanding the importance of correct definitions, common sense, and any other number of essential qualities for such a discussion, my answer is:
Because Mutant Lava Monkeys told me so.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to the pet store so that I can have a more intellectually stimulating discussion with a trout.
Hi all,
Quite a conversation going on here. I've been away for the past 2 days getting my daughter's apartment packed up to move into a better place for her 2nd year at college. The cable was already shut off so no TV or internet was available. It drove me crazy...but I did get to read a great book during the breaks from packing.
Just walked in the door back home, but wanted to let you all know why I've been absent from the debate.
I'll post replies tomorrow. Good night!
Christine
Jody-
Nice story, I'll stick with the more authoratative "In the beginning God..."
Uber, you are illustrating my point well, all anti-theists can do when it comes to the issues of origins is call anything theistic explaining origing as unscientific. This is an a-priori dogma that you have (and many "scientists" for that matter), therefore everything MUST be explained purely naturalistically for theism is ruled out from the start.
Thus, when it comes to evolution I think that the data is read through the lense of a theory, and as Jody shows we have a nice wonderful heart warming story about how life came to be. Thus fossils which are found are made to fit into that story, though there are infinite possibilities. This is why I don't bank to much on what Paleontologists like Dawkin's and Gould say, all they can do is look at data and really make hopefully educated guesses. This is in contrast to exact sciences like mathmatics, chemestry and physics where there really can't be too much debate over data interpretation.
Although I too don't think Coulter is the best rescource to show the flaws of evolution (Alvin Plantinga is brilliant when it comes to this) she is right to a point. Much of it is a well played game.
Personally I think we need to get to the root of this and ask "what is science?" That word is tossed around so often yet it is never really defined. Why is ID and Creationism unscientific? Just because atheists impose methodological naturalism on the scientific endeavor?
Ubersehen,
You stated: "The bottom line is this: Intelligent Design/Creationism attempts to provide evidence for the existence of a god by venturing into the realm of scientific research."
Your first mistake is lumping ID and Creationism together. They are different in several respects.
Your second mistake is misrepresenting what ID is:
"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."
-- William A. Dembski
There is nothing in that definition that says anything about God. In fact, in Dembski's online book excerpt, he flatly claims, "In particular, it is not my aim to guarantee creationism." (Go to link, scroll down to page 4 and read section under the subtitle Rehabilitation Design.
You stated: "They have not, to date, stood up to the rigours of the scientific method, and so they are not science."
In Phillip E. Johnson's book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, he addresses a very important point about your (above)claim:
The intellectual elite think that reason starts with the assumption that nature is all there is and that a mindless evolutionary process absolutely must be our true creator. the common people aren't so sure of that, and some of them are very sure that God is alive.
I agree with the common people. If we are right, the consequences are very, very important. The ruling naturalists know that too, although they may deny it. That is why they are so determined to define words like evolution and science in such a way that naturalism is true by definition.
Like Bob, I agree that it is God, who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all over the evidence...
However, if Creationism is rejected because of adherence to Genesis, the Intelligent Design is a theory that explores the designer's handiwork without specifically identifying just who is the designer. Dembski's definition above shows the aim of ID theory. If people want to extrapolate and place a "name" upon the designer, then so be it. I could identify the designer as the God of the the Bible, just as a Carl Sagan follower might identify the designer as an alien; but that issue would not need to be discussed in the science class. For all we know, Carl Sagan could be correct that it was aliens (like in the movie Contact). So, the argument against ID as a legitimate scientific inquiry because someone wants to add a "God inference" doesn't negate the work being done to identify design scientifically.
Christine,
I am just curious here....not a part of the debate at all...I care not for such things. But... are you saying you adhere to Intelligent Design and not Creationism?
Just a yes or no sort of answer will suffice. Don't go to great lengths for me...I promise...it's not worth your time!! :)
love,
grace
Hi Grace,
Nice to see you here again!
I believe in Creation. I am a young-earth Creation believer, in fact. However, I don't see Intelligent Design as a "rival" to Creation, per se, I see it as a possibly legitimate way to challenge the a priori definition of science that has been imposed upon us because right now, words like evolution and science are used in such a way as to make naturalism (to the exclusion of anything else) true by definition.
Oops...that was too long an answer! Sorry! ;-)
Well, we've gone in circles so many times on this topic that I'm starting to get dizzy.
Bob,
Uber, you are illustrating my point well, all anti-theists can do when it comes to the issues of origins is call anything theistic explaining origing as unscientific. This is an a-priori dogma that you have (and many "scientists" for that matter), therefore everything MUST be explained purely naturalistically for theism is ruled out from the start.
As much as you word it so that it sounds like a criticism of the scientific method, it is not a negative thing that science does not consider the supernatural in its examination of the natural world. Because scientific research is the study of the natural world, methodological naturalism is the only way to go about it. As Steven Schafersman put it; “Science, an inanimate discipline, demands methodological naturalism from its practitioners for science to work properly, and science could care less whether metaphysical naturalism (the a priori dogma you mentioned) is true or not, or whether its practitioners believe it or not.”
- See Schafersman’s essay, Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry if you’re actually interested in knowing why scientists reject supernaturalism in any of its forms as a valid means of doing science.
This is why I don't bank to much on what Paleontologists like Dawkin's and Gould say, all they can do is look at data and really make hopefully educated guesses. This is in contrast to exact sciences like mathmatics, chemestry and physics where there really can't be too much debate over data interpretation.
I think you'd find, if you actually talked to the scientists doing the research, that paleontologists do a little more than "look at data and make hopefully educated guesses." Appealing to ridicule certainly won't invalidate their work. But are you really interested in finding out, or do you prefer to rely on baseless criticisms, the scientific refutations of which you've chosen to ignore?
Personally I think we need to get to the root of this and ask "what is science?" That word is tossed around so often yet it is never really defined.
Natural science is really quite clearly defined. It's a recognized creationist tactic, however, to attempt to introduce doubt into the minds of average citizens to make them think that there is some kind of controversy.
To rephrase this, there may be some controversy as to the meaning of science between creationists, but there is no significant controversy of the kind you're implying as to the meaning of science between scientists.
Just because atheists impose methodological naturalism on the scientific endeavor?
If you'll read the essay I posted above (or even some parts of it), you'll understand that atheists do not impose methodological naturalism on the scientific endeavour, it is the scientific endeavour that requires methodological naturalism from anyone attempting to take part, not just atheists.
P.S.
Christine,
Your quibbles with creationism and ID not being held as science are addressed in Schafersman's essay too. He explains it much better and much more thoroughly than I could.
Post a Comment