An Evolutionary Journey

Faith & Science Conversation
41

hi oldtimer.

because english isnt my native i will answer in short. i do think that the id\creation movements made some good points about evolution and creation. i do think that its always important to hear the second side of the coin.

i actually refer to the scientific definition. its need to be the same.

do i ever ignore scientific evidence or do i almost always give reference to

i do think that evolution isnt a real science because there is no way to test it. but genetics, chemistry and so on are a real science that support by the scientific experiments.

my claims? check it for yourself. my arguments base about scientific research and papers.

42

If an “animal without an eye evolve[d] an eye”, that would not be evolution. It would be some magical aberration that no one claims. Populations over the course of many generations evolve new structures. Not individual animals.

As to “show me”, it depends on what you mean by “show me”. If you mean “Show me evidence supporting such evolutionary processes producing major new structures over time”, that has already been done. For that presentation of the facts, you can visit your local library or educate yourself to the peer-reviewed scholarship online. Any university-level evolutionary biology textbook can also take care of that kind of “show me” request. (Potholer54 has also compiled an excellent video series you can watch on Youtube.)

“Show me” and “I alone will determine what constitutes an adequate demonstration of the science” are two very different declarations. The science academy is under no obligation to convince non-scientist scoffers. It is only interested in using the scientific method to follow the evidence where it leads.

More details of the Theory of Evolution are being explained year by year. Nobody claims that mutation and natural selection are the only evolutionary processes. Genetic draft and genetic drift also play important roles, for example. I have no doubt that other evolutionary processes will be explored and described in the years ahead. (Indeed, I personally am inclined to think that some of the most amazing discoveries are yet future!) But we already know that new anatomical structures (such as eyes) can evolve over time in organism populations because for a long time now we have observed evolutionary processes doing exactly that!

One of the propaganda tactics of evolution-denialism has been the perpetual claim that scientific observation is ONLY what we observe with our eyes in “real time”. No. [And I won’t even attempt to explore a tangent I’ve written on extensively in other threads: All scientific observations are gleaned from the past, whether that be events which transpired billions of years ago or only mere nanoseconds ago. Nothing in science is truly “observed in the present”.]

Scientific observation consists of all of the human senses plus all of the many sensing equipment and recording devices ever developed. Thus, even though no human eye can visually see a radioisotope decay, that doesn’t mean that no scientist has ever observed the spontaneous breakdown of an atomic nucleus where gamma radiation was emitted and the loss of binding energy resulted in changes in the matter contained within the nucleus. No human eye has ever visually seen an entire orbit of the planet Neptune around the sun. No human eye has ever looked upon the emergence of RF waves propagating from a TV broadcasting antenna. Nevertheless, all of these realities have been observed by scientists!

The demand that someone “show me an animal without an eye evolve an eye.” is not much more sophisticated than saying “Show me a cat evolving into a dog” or “Show me goo-to-you-evolution by-way-of-the-zoo.” These are challenges meant to cater to science-illiterate audiences, not the science academy. At best they are appalling misunderstandings of basic science. At worst they are dishonest propaganda tactics used by some ministry leaders to take advantage of gullible donors. In every case they are unfortunate distractions from following the evidence wherever it may lead to a better understanding of God’s creation.

Thankfully, the science academy does not delay further progress and discovery while waiting on those who are most uninformed about science to become convinced of that science. “Show me” is a great comment to a teacher in a science class when one finds the assigned textbook hard to understand (perhaps due to inadequate prerequisite training in science necessary for the evolutionary biology course.) Perhaps a skilled teacher can help the student to connect the dots and understand what the scientists have observed. So by all means, it is entirely appropriate when sincere students who want to learn the material ask pentrating questions. (After all, the best scientific researchers are not always the best teachers—and vice versa. Different gifts and talents are required for each profession.) So while the scientists are busy making new observations and new discoveries, science teachers will continue to help all students keep up with the ever growing body of scientific knowledge—or at least as much as is humanly possible.

Of course, one of the interesting aspects of the study of the evolution of the eye is the fact that scientists have also observed the loss of the eye in populations where ambient light is insufficient and the structure is no longer useful. This is yet another reason why the Theory of Evolution has repeatedly proven capable of useful predictions and explanations while no “creation science theory” has ever been able to make the same claims.

The Theory of Evolution continues to make predictions of future discoveries. Indeed, one of the most impressive predictions of the Theory of Evolution was the history of human chromosome #2, which was published as a prediction about seven years prior to the mapping of the human genome, an exciting and dramatic CONFIRMATION of the validity of that prior prediction. I consider that falsification testing episode one of the most momentous slam-dunk victories for the Theory of Evolution. How many slam-dunks will be required before the scoffers accept what scientists have often called the most impressively verified theories in all of science! It is very difficult to imagine a scientific theory which has shown more consistent demonstrations of its validity!)

Despite bombastic claims, “creation scientists” at AIG and ICR have never published new scientific theories which survived falsification testing. (Not even Ken Ham’s much taunted “baraminologists” have yet to make a single contribution to peer-reviewed science! Of course, this explains why Ham spends many millions per year on “creation science education” and tourist destinations—between $21 million and $92 million in a given year— but the annual 501c3 reports to the IRS have NEVER shown even one million dollars in any one year’s expenditures towards “creation science research”. Ham understands well what business he’s in. It certainly is not the business of sponsoring scientific research.)

1 Like
43

And yet there are hundreds of peer-reviewed journals devoted to the testing of the Theory of Evolution. Every time experiments are conducted to better understand evolutionary processes, the Theory of Evolution is put to the test. Do you understand that? Indeed, each has the potential of bringing the Theory of Evolution into question!

The mapping of the Human Genome Project was probably the most dramatic and impressive testing of the Theory of Evolution that has ever been published. (Of course, the Theory of Evolution had survived over a century and a half of falsification testing even before that “ultimate test” of sorts.)

If the prior evidence for evolution had been merely a massive coincidence and a case of mistaken inferences, the publication of the human genome would have been an absolutely astonishing failure of a theory to live up to a falsification test. It would have been a mind-boggling take-down of the Theory of Evolution which would have shaken modern biology to its foundations. If the PREDICTIONS which scientists had previously published about what they expected to find in the human genome had failed to be confirmed, the Theory of Evolution would have experienced a drubbing beyond belief!

Yet that’s not what happened, was it?! The genomic testing of the Theory of Evolution was a “passed with flying colors” demonstration of an already well-tested scientific theory showing its merits in the most dramatic of ways.

Dcscccc, I challenge you to explain why the Theory of Evolution is any less supported by scientific experiments than is “genetics, chemistry, and so on.”

Dcscccc, I’m not convinced that you understand what (1) the Theory of Evolution states, nor (2) how such a theory can be tested. I challenge you to explain why the publication of the Human Genome Project was not a slam dunk confirmation of the predictions of the Theory of Evolution.

Do you think there might be anything amiss when the entire biology academy considers the Theory of Evolution to be testable but you do not? I’m curious: Are you a scientist? What do you know that the Ph.D’s in biology all over the world do not know? (That’s an honest question. I really do want to know. A colleague asked me that same question almost a half century ago. I couldn’t answer it. I don’t think you can either.)

Some believe that the entire science academy—and all other scholars who agree with their conclusions----are participants in a massive conspiracy. Do any readers on this thread believe that? Or do you think that we are all simply “deceived by Satan” or are being “swept along” by some insidious “mind virus”? (If that sounds mocking, I truly did not intend it so. I genuinely want to comprehend your views on such things.)

For those who believe that “you just wanted to believe in evolution and wanted the approval of your peers”, I can assure you that (1) my life would have been easier had I remained a “creation science” activist/speaker/debater, and (2) I would certainly have made much more money speaking at “creation conferences” and churches every weekend, and that (3) being yet another professor who affirms the Theory of Evolution hardly gave me a singular advantage if I went looking for a new academic job! (Frankly, I got a lot less hate mail when I was a “creation science” proponent, my website never got hacking attacks, and my car was never vandalized when I spoke at a seminary commencement.)

1 Like
44

i dont think so. evolution can explain loss of chromosomes. so the fusion is not a prediction at all. even more- its not evidence for a commondescent. so its not evidence for evolution.

so can you show how eye evolve from non-eye?

how actually?

if evolution is science. then what evidence will falsified it? (fossil or phylogenetic finding)

45

I recommend you visit your local library and locate this issue of the periodical:
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
July 2011
Volume 305, Issue 1
“Evolution of the Eye”
“Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be”
By Trevor D. Lamb

Of course, you can also Google EVOLUTION OF THE EYE and find a wealth of tutorials for the non-scientist. Wikipedia also has an entire article under that title which includes an extensive bibliography for delving into the primary literature as well as 44 footnotes expanding upon the summary you will find in the article itself.

Sorry. I’m was not able to figure out what you are saying. But I’m glad to hear that you realize that evolution explains such phenomena.

Not understanding the concepts is not a refutation of the science.

I recommend:

…as well as:

Many forum participants have already addressed that question. However, for the benefit of readers who genuinely wish to understand this topic, here’s some help:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

Obviously, it is very easy to find lots of helps online explaining the basics of these scientific topics.

@dcscccc, do you hold a position similar to that of Kurt Wise? He says that the scientific evidence doesn’t matter to him because he would hold to his traditional interpretations of Genesis NO MATTER WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TELLS US about the past. I can respect that. Nobody has to waste any time explaining things to him that don’t matter to him. Wise believes that God’s creation cannot be depended upon to give us a reliable history of the earth and its biosphere.

Dcscccc, will you read the articles I’ve listed for you? Did you learn anything from them? Or have you decided in advance that the science academy is hopelessly deceived and ignorant of how to treat the evidence?

46

the simplest eye is an eyespot. and i showed that an eyesot contain about 200 proteins. this is your step wise explanation?

its not a prediction of evolution then. becbause its possible according to evolution to loss chromosomes.

about your article: they claimed:

" Perhaps this anomalous group was due to a now extinct second genesis, which would be a remarkable find, but unlikely to disprove evolution outright."-

so even fossils out of order cant disprove evolution. so they are actually admit it cant be falsified.

47

One more time:

Dcscccc, did you learn anything from the links I posted for you? You asked me to show you how the eye can evolve from a non-eye. You also asked for help with chromosome #2. Were my educational efforts a waste of my time? Did you read the Scientific American article?

Do you believe the science academy has erred on these topics and that you can meet the burden of proof necessary to debunk their peer-reviewed science? Have you considered submitting a refutation to Scientific American? If you exposed major flaws in university science textbooks and showed how the scientists are wrong, you could take your pick of tenure-track positions offered by major universities. Think of the tremendous influence you could have in such a position.

I’m not being facetious. There is no faster route to promotion and prominence in the science academy than overthrowing established ideas. (Look at what Einstein did to Newtonian physics.)

Of course, it doesn’t have to be you. Why don’t one of the “baraminologists” at Answer in Genesis take on that task? Yet one rarely sees anyone at the major “creation science” ministries even attending the major academic conferences, much less publishing paradigm-challenging articles/papers in the top peer-reviewed journals. Why is that?

I’ve often wondered why none of the major Young Earth Creationist ministries (whose annual 501c3 reports to the IRS show many millions of dollars in revenue each year) have even bothered to establish a single Endowed Chair for a Research Professor of Creation Science at a top evangelical university. They often have complained about the “theistic evolutionist” Templeton Foundation funding all sorts of research projects at evangelical universities, so why don’t they step up to the plate?

There is much talk but little action. Why is that?

2 Likes
48

old timer. lets be honest here. you cant disprove my arguments. right?

do you understand why the chromosome fusion isnt at all evidence for commondescent or evolutionery prediction?

did you see that movie “expelled”?:

49

I watched it twice. What a sad commentary on the worst propaganda tacts of the anti-evolution movement. Nazi stormtrooper marching and Holocaust images linked to Darwin in the early minutes of the film didn’t give the viewer much optimism for where things were headed. Yet one thing was for sure: Ben Stein wasn’t going to explain to viewers that there is no evidence that Hitler had much knowledge of Darwin’s book and that the Nazi banned book list included Darwin and all books on evolutionary biology. (Anyone who has read Mein Kampf doesn’t have to be told why the Nazi’s hated Darwin’s theory for its total denial of Aryan Superrace ideology!) Of course, a lot of young earth creationist ministries have been using the same dishonest “Stalin loved Darwin!” nonsense despite the infamous Lysenko Affair.

There is a two-hour interview of one of the Associate Producers online e that was a real eye-opener for me. It helped me to understand why one of my professors called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed the most ironic movie title in the history of cinema, and that even those at the heart of the project knew that what they were doing was dishonest. (I wish I had that link handy.)

Expelled exposed for all to see why conspiracy theory propaganda and dishonestly playing the martyr may seem like a good short-term strategy but why it backfires so tragically.

Fortunately Expelled was a short-lived punchline and few in the academy remember it (if they ever heard of it.) For those of us who wish to witness for Christ on the university campus, movies like Expelled and A Matter of Faith certainly make our job a lot harder. Lying never ever helped anyone promote the truth.

Meanwhile, the blatant hypocrisy of “All sides should be able to express their views!” from the very wing of American Christianity which regularly ignores academic freedom and fires even tenured faculty within hours of inconvenient words spoken off-campus is not lost on anti-theists.

I am not at all surprised that this thread went silent the moment the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed travesty was posted.

2 Likes
50

so you are saying that any scientists can discuss intelligent design for free in the academy?

51

Why would “any scientists” be discussing a philosophy topic in the science academy?

I strongly affirm God as the creator/designer of the universe. However, I reject the masquerading of poorly considered PHILOSOPHY as if it were a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. As a Christ-follower, honesty matters to me. That’s why the major ID organization is so frustrating to me.

Scientists in the science academy who want to discuss philosophy, theology, art, or politics instead of science will most likely experience strong pushback. And that is how it should be.

@Dcscccc, I have yet to see any scientists publish a scientific theory of intelligent design. Apparently, I’m not the only one to notice this.

In the Biologos article about the anniversary of the Dover Trial comment section, you received a response from Ted​Davis, BioLogos Fellow for the History of Science, which I saved because of the Q&A with Phillip Johnson:

dcscccc:
first- thousands of biologists do believe in the id model. why their opinion doesnt count?
What exactly is “the id model” that you refer to here? I understand that the following exchange took place more than eight years ago, and that readers can update us on relevant progress (assuming there is any such), but listen please to one of the great founders of ID, Phillip Johnson, when interviewed about this at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html:

Question: So what does intelligent design say about how life was created and how we ended up with the diversity of life we see today?

Answer from Phillip Johnson: Well, the alternative is not well developed, so I would prefer to say that, as far as I’m concerned, the alternative is we don’t really know what happened. But if non-intelligence couldn’t do the whole job, then intelligence had to be involved in some way. Then it’s a big research job to figure out the consequences of that starting point.

That doesn’t sound like very much of a model to teach, dcsccc. Can you honestly say I’m wrong here?

The DI folks want public school teachers to be free to “teach the controversy,” which amounts to saying that students should be told that the experts agree that there are certain explanatory problems with evolutionary theory. Well, that’s fine and dandy, but what’s the reason we want students to be told that about evolution, while not being told that about (say) gravitation or particle physics or … any specific part of modern science in which there are enough unsolved problems for scientists to work on to justify research grants or even entire journals devoted just to those specific areas of inquiry?

IMO, the reason that evolution gets singled out for such treatment has to do with the fact that people want to draw religious conclusions from evolution, when they wouldn’t be so inclined in so many other areas with unsolved problems. Listen to another segment from the same interview of Johnson:

Question: Many scientists ask, “How do I go about testing intelligent design?” And if I understand correctly, you were saying that the test of intelligent design is whether something can be explained by evolutionary theory. But scientists say that’s just a negative argument. That doesn’t prove anything about intelligent design. How would you respond?

Johnson’s answer: My business was actually making negative arguments. [Ted notes that this simply underscores what I’m saying about ID not offering an alternative model.] I looked at the grand story of evolution, the story that is important, the one that catches the imagination] of the world and stirs controversy. This is the story that there’s no need for a creator or a designer because the whole job can be done by unintelligent material processes. We know that that’s absolutely true, such that any dissent from it should be treated as akin to madness. That’s what I was looking at.

IMO, dcsccc, this gets to the heart of the matter. What really bothers ID people is the conflation of science with religion, specifically the inflation of evolution into atheism, a la Dawkins or Coyne. Johnson just did the same bait and switch himself, by assuming the general validity of the claim that Darwinian evolution equates to atheism. Frankly, that conflation and inflation should bother ID people, just as it bothers us at BL. However, in my opinion, if we’re going to rely on certain explanatory problems in evolutionary theory to combat it, then we do indeed have a problem to worry about, but on our own side of the exchange. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg (a famous physicist who uses science against religion), what about all of that atheism going on in meteorology? In other words, b/c meteorologists don’t invoke God to explain tomorrow’s weather, shouldn’t we Christians be calling for the government to shut down the National Weather Service?

@Dcscccc, do you understand why this is significant, when a major ID movement activist can’t provide any specifics?

P.S. If an ID Theory exists, why can’t ID proponents like Johnson tell us about it? In this interview, Johnson basically concedes that he doesn’t know of any such theory and that he is simply defending a philosophical position. It is very possible that Johnson and I share the same views on God and creation. But when it comes to science, a philosophical position is not subject to the Scientific Method and falsification testing. That explains why IDers are forced into Arguments from Personal Incredulity instead. (e.g., “Life is too complex to have evolved step-by-step.”, “I just can’t believe that natural processes can explain what we observe.”)

52

oldtimer.

so you are basically saying that id isnt science and evolution is. but id can be test- if you will show how a complex trait(like an eye) can evolve step by step (and i mean one part at time and not several)- then you will disprove the main id argument and show evolution can be possible. can you do this?

in the other hand- how can i disprove evolution if its science? what fossil or phylogenetic finding can disprove evolution theory?

53

(1) If you truly believe that “intelligent design” is a scientific theory, why do you keep evading requests that you tell us about that ID theory and explain how it can be tested?

(Until you are willing to engage #1, your protests provide nothing new.)

(2) Also, I have just discovered something we will call X. Tell us how you would apply your scientific theory of ID (which you refuse to define and explain) to determine whether or not X was “intelligently designed”?

[Of course, as a Christian who believes God created everything, I’m faced with another problem: I believe that EVERYTHING is part of God’s design. So if God created everything and God is intelligent in all of his designing, everything that was created was intelligently designed. And if everything was intelligent designed, distinctions between things which are “intelligently designed” and things are NOT “intelligently designed” are meaningless. How do you address this, @dcscccc? ]

(3) I get the impression that you keep bringing up evolution to distract from your lack of any “ID theory” and an explanation of how it can be subjected to falsification testing. (Is this a false dichotomy argument? Are you assuming that an “ID theory” and the Theory of Evolution are somehow opposites or inherently in conflict? If so, why?)

(4) As to evolution, I have no reason to reproduce here what you could easily find in a biology textbook if you genuinely wish to understand the Theory of Evolution. I suggest you consider an educational website like Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution

REMEMBER: As a Bible-affirming, born-again evangelical Christian, I would be delighted to learn more about a valid scientific theory of Intelligent Design! Yet, you, Phillip Johnson, and every other ID advocate I’ve known has refused to define a scientific theory of ID. (Did you read the Phillip Johnson interview I asked you about?)

Just because a philosophical position may involve science-related topics does NOT make it science! I suggest you investigate the definition of a scientific theory.

Tell me: Are YOU frustrated by the fact that nobody is willing to publish a scientific theory of Intelligent Design and that Phillip Johnson had to dodge the question? Do you think that there might be a good reason why nobody has published a scientific theory of ID in a peer-reviewed journal? (By the way, I’ve spent a lifetime in academia. So the tiresome “The academia is a big conspiracy to silence ID theory” just won’t fly with me. Something doesn’t have to be “popular” to get published in a scientific journal. It has to be science!)

===> Show me a valid scientific theory of Intelligent Design that can pass falsification testing and I’ll be super-interested in learning everything I can about it. (Philosophy-based propaganda doesn’t interest me.)

54

simple: how do you know that a watch need a designer?

because of the scientific evidence that show us evolution isnt true.

i check it. from your link:

“In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment”-

its a variation. not evolution of a new family or organ. so again- how we can test the evolution of new familys and kinds?

55

@dcscccc, I asked you a very simple question:

If you truly believe that “intelligent design” is a scientific theory, why do you keep evading requests that you tell us about that ID theory and explain how it can be tested?

And yet AGAIN you completely evaded the question—and this time you entirely changed subjects! Here is your reply:

Dcscccc, if you have no scientific theory of intelligent design and have no idea how you would subject it to falsification testing if you did, then why not be honest and simply write: “I don’t have a scientific theory of ID. And I’ve not been able to find one in the ID literature. That is why I haven’t be willing to explain how ID theory could be actual science.”

Now, even though you continue to dodge my questions, I will answer just one more of yours. (This is the last time I’ll do that because you appear to ignore what I write. And that tells me that I’m wasting my time.)

Simple answer: I know that a watch needs a designer because I am very familiar with watches and already know how they are made.

Obviously, *you evaded my question about using your alleged “ID theory” to determine if some newly discovered entity called X could be determined to be “intelligently designed” or “not intelligently designed” ---- and changed the topic to Paley’s traditional Watchmaker’s Argument because you realized that you can only make your “ID science” work when you ALREADY KNOW HOW SOMETHING WAS MADE! You know that you CANNOT apply it to some not-so-well-known entity X.

This also explains why you don’t understand how science works and why you assume that “ID theory” is science: Instead of following the evidence where it leads, you start with a conclusion (e.g., “Watches are made by watchmakers, therefore, everything that is complex is made by intelligent makers”) and work backwards by cherry-picking evidence which you think supports your conclusion.

Consider this: If you are unable to convince a die-hard theist like me that your non-existent scientific theory of ID makes any sense, what are your chances with an atheist who denies the Creator entirely?

Dcscccc, when you are ready to engage my questions in a two-way conversation----and not just repeat your dodge-and-evade strategy----I will be willing to resume an exchange with you on these topics. Meanwhile, I genuinely wish you a productive educational experience in your search for an actual scientific theory of intelligent design. (Unfortunately, if Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute can’t find such a scientific “ID theory”, I’m not optimistic that you will be successful in that search.)

56

id theory saying that some traits in nature are best explain by an intelligent designer, and not by a gardual natural process. so i ask you a question that show you how to test id theory. and you said:

great. but what if you will see a speciel watch in another planet. and this watch have a self replication system and even DNA. in this case you will still claim that this watch need a designer?

57

An email to the Bible.and.Science.Forum referred to this thread and the “ID theory” discussion at hand. So I decided to post my reply here for whatever value it may have for @Dcscccc and other readers.

Here are some helpful links about the definition of a scientific theory:

Believe it or not, it is not all that unusual for even science professors and professional scientists to have limited training and experience with that fundamental of science. In the USA, curricula tend to focus on specific fields of science in high school (e.g., earth science, biology, physics, chemistry) and then even narrower course-work in undergraduate universities (e.g., geology, biochemistry, genetics) with very little attention given to the History & Philosophy of Science (most students never take a course from that department). Every science textbook has a brief first chapter covering a few basic terms of science (e.g., theory, law, hypothesis, Scientific Method) but it gets very little emphasis.

So in America, at least, it is very easy to confuse science-associated topics with actual science per se. In my experience, even the best of our undergraduate science students, have major gaps in their understandings of the foundations of science. This helps to explain why there is often confusion about the nature of science. When many Americans demand “Schools should teach the controversy between creation and evolution”, they don’t understand why (1) the controversy is not within the science academy, and (2) why evolution is science (and a scientific theory) while there is no scientific theory of creation. Philosophy/theology is not science, even though scientific topics may be considered.

As I said, those who learned science in the public schools of the USA shouldn’t feel embarrassed about benefitting from a review of the science basics. I wish I had had a better background but I know that my own early public school experiences with science were both appalling and typical. For example, I can well remember being told in sixth grade that a scientific theory that is well established eventually graduates to become a scientific law. (Sadly, we were also told that Christopher Columbus was brave and bold for not fearing sailing off the edge of the world!)

58

why you did not answer my questions oldtimer? what are you afraid of?

what evolution predict in the fossil record?

59

The title of this topic sounds like a song by Doris Day recorded in 1946. Instead of singing " Going to take a sentimental journey, we are going to take an evolutionary journey." :laughing: Should I make up lyrics for it?

60

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.