Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Evolution as a viable component in the creation of life


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#1 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 13 April 2008 - 02:00 PM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Let's put a stop to all arguments and criticisms between supporters of evolution theory and the literal interpretation of Genesis by having two separate threads to keep all good Christians happy.

This thread exclusively for evolutionists to post their interpretations of Genesis and patristics in support of evolution and to include scientific data as back up when desired, but bearing in mind the guidelines of the forum which require patrisitic references.

No creationists to post criticisms or arguments against evolutionist posts in this thread.

The other thread is for creationists.

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:43 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#2 Yuri Zharikov

Yuri Zharikov

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 18 April 2008 - 06:21 AM

I had a very interesting conversation with our Archaeological resource manager this morning, which prompted some thoughts, perhaps relevant to this thread or any other thread in the general creation/evolution realm. Here is the short story I heard this morning. A colleague of our manager, himself an archaeologist at a University in British Columbia, decided to publish a paper on a particular biological phenomenon (spring emergence of spade-footed toads, if you care). The manuscript was rejected a few times and so he finally submitted it to one of the lower ranking journals in North America, The Canadian Field Naturalist. The manuscript came back again rejected and with a scathing remark from the editor: I have never seen a manuscript with so much rampant speculation and unjustified conjecture! The author, the archaeologist showed this to our manager and could only say: But this is how we do things! He did not expect that in field biology, evidence standards are slightly more stringent than in archaeology and unchecked use of imagination is not exactly encouraged.

This story immediately brought recollection of a recent book by a renowned anthropologist Ann Gibbons (Gibbons A. 2006. The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors. Doubleday, New York. NY.) where she says that nowhere has imagination had a bigger role than in devising the human ancestral tree, where just about every new fossil shatters preconceived notions on human “evolution” [quotes are mine] and data vacuum is thus often filled with speculations.

It is common sense that imagination and speculations fill gaps in historical sciences where unique events are dealt with, validation is impossible, quality of the data decays exponentially with time and conformity runs supreme or else everybody wants to be the discoverer of the “missing link” (which incidentally is a speculation itself). Basically, what often happens in anthropology/archaeology is this: subsequent students strive for “originality and creativity” and thus try to undermine views and ideas of their predecessors. Even when an agreement is reached, it is based on personal authority (school of thought) and consensus as opposed to any objective factual evidence.

Vanity is a major driving force in science in general and in historical sciences in particular. Fr. Seraphim (Rose) wrote about this very brilliantly in Not of this world and anybody who has been in the scientific publication business even for a short time can attest to that. However, work done for the sake of vanity amounts to nothing (Isa. 41:29). In other words when a mind is guided by a passion, can it see and comprehend the truth? Somebody will say perhaps that there is no connection... Perhaps there is no connection when claims can be validated and verified, but when they cannot be as is the case with evolutionary “sciences”?

Most people will remember a story from the Desert Fathers when a brother saw a fellow monastic fornicating. Indignant, he came up and kicked him only to realise that what he saw where two stacks of hay in the wind. What do we have here: His mind was guided by the passion of hatred for his brother. Based on this passion he assumed that his brother was a fornicator and then the devil furnished evidence for him. If by God’s mercy he did not chance to validate his observation, or say if the action took place across a river or a gorge, he would have killed his soul and perhaps even the soul of the brother by accepting a demonic lie. If on top of this he was a person of power and influence he could probably damage souls of many men and women by telling them a lie and making them believe it. One could argue that an individual error cannot carry far, before it is corrected by others (aka science always corrects itself).

Is this not how heresies are born? A person of power, authority and great talent, but infected with the passion of pride and vanity, rises against the Church and ultimately leads into perdition and separation from God whole countries. Why do they all believe him?

These are the few things that come to mind when I hear the words “science has proven this or that” with respect to the events of the distant, distant past. As an observation, during the creation/evolution discussion same people who would not accept Genesis literally also said that they would not accept incorrect scientific “knowledge” either. Yet, no one made it clear how correctness or incorrectness of what is taught in schools and lectured in universities will be determined and everybody shied away from defining/discussion the limits of scientific knowledge. I am not saying this to start arguing again but more as a food for thought, a question to answer to one's own self.

Morals are based on and determined by theology, themselves, of course, not being theology... By theology I mean here belief in any god, including the evolution-god, no-god, etc. Literal acceptance of the Genesis, has been suggested on this forum, to have nothing to do with morals... Does it have anything to do with theology? If the great Fathers, Teachers and Hierarchs did not say that it does, I would probably feel free to say “I don’t know” but they say that it does... what am I to do?

If literal acceptance of the Genesis in and of itself has little to do with morals, what then about theology? How we view the connection between our theology and morals depends a lot on our personal and cultural experience... In the Soviet Union Darwinism was the state religion and children in schools were indoctrinated to believe that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis and nonsense like that. What did this theology do to their morals? Somebody may say nothing. They fought and died for their country, worked like salves, helped whom they could, cared for their parents, as a rule, and so forth. All seems well. Yet you will be hard pressed to find a woman in Russia or Ukraine or the Baltics from 40 and older who would not have committed at least one abortion. My personal sample size is small, but of the three women I spoke with about this, all three had killed their own unborn children. How does this square with apparently good morality?

Their theology dictated them that what they had in their womb was a piece of tissue or a “fish” or something like that. They took it literally. To his day 4 mln unborn children are killed in Russia every year as the state continues to indoctrinate its citizens about their “literal” origins while suggesting to the Church that the “non-literal” origin should be one’s private business. The other example that comes to mind... about 10 yrs ago an Orthodox bishop who accepted theistic evolution as his world-view, at a youth conference, responded to a question about the attitude of the Church towards abortions as follows: I am not to tell a woman what she should do with her body. Was he an immoral person – most emphatically no, but is there something wrong here – yes. His theology was false, he took it literally and in doing so he at least confounded a few people. Only Lord knows if something worse happened following and/or due to that comment.

All the people I know in real life believe in something about their origins literally and this something usually has a clear-cut dichotomy. When I hear somebody say “I do not believe Genesis literally” I never know what this means... I cannot say anything about my origin, nothing... I believe that I evolved as taught by evolutionary anthropology... I believe that I evolved by God’s guiding the evolution... It is a negative statement and it is impossible to understand what it actually means.
Could somebody, who does not believe in Genesis literally clearly articulate as to what it is that he/she literally believes about the origins, so are to make the statement a positive one.

Edited by Yuri Zharikov, 18 April 2008 - 08:28 PM.


#3 Yuri Zharikov

Yuri Zharikov

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 29 April 2008 - 07:47 PM

I recently received this email from one of the Platina Fathers:
I'm writing to let you know about a new movie that's just come out in theaters: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Here are some reviews of the movie:
http://www.spectator...sp?art_id=12759

Surprise - monks watch movies (with a blessing)! I have not seen the film so cannot form an opinion on it, but am very curious if anybody has. The review (link above) suggests that the documentary covers many issues that we have discussed on the evolution/creation related threads as seen/understood by professional scientists accepting either the Biblical or the evolutionary world-view as well as those taking the in-between position. Again based on the review I think the documentary provides a good background on the demarkation line between science and pseudoscience.

XRISTOS VOSKRESE to everybody.

#4 John M.

John M.

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 05:32 AM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

If evolution is claimed to take millions or billions of years to make one species evolve into another, why hasn't it evolved species with very long lifespans for survival? Why don't dogs live to be 100 years old?

John

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 08:45 AM.


#5 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 22 May 2008 - 03:03 PM

If evolution is claimed to take millions or billions of years to make one species evolve into another, why hasn't it evolved species with very long lifespans for survival? Why don't dogs live to be 100 years old?

John


Very simply, long lifespans are counter-productive for an evolutionary process. Short life spans with many generations are best.

What if, otoh, we have got it all wrong? What if the role of evolution is not the origin of species but the deterioration of species? from the scriptural account, man had, at one time an extremely long life span (compared to the present), however, that long life span has been reduced to a fraction of what it was. Could it be that natural selection is at work to eliminate long life? Could we be devolving rather than evolving? This is not meant as a criticism of the evolutionary process, but rather an attempt to explore an alternative role for evolution in the creation of life.

Fr David Moser

#6 Misha

Misha

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 03:31 PM

A Greek theologian wrote recently that it's a major mistake to try to find in Sacred Scriptures scientific interpretations of what's happening in the nature.
He used these quotes
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"Cor 1,22-23

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain"Tit 3,9

I think he's right.

#7 Demetrios

Demetrios

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 04:09 PM

Very simply, long lifespans are counter-productive for an evolutionary process. Short life spans with many generations are best.

What if, otoh, we have got it all wrong? What if the role of evolution is not the origin of species but the deterioration of species? from the scriptural account, man had, at one time an extremely long life span (compared to the present), however, that long life span has been reduced to a fraction of what it was. Could it be that natural selection is at work to eliminate long life? Could we be devolving rather than evolving? This is not meant as a criticism of the evolutionary process, but rather an attempt to explore an alternative role for evolution in the creation of life.

Fr David Moser


I completely agree.

His Eminence Metropolitan John Zizioulas writes

Thus, Man’s fall had, as its outcome, Man’s loss; Nature overall lost the meaning of truth, the meaning of true life, and was deceived into an impression that the thing called “life” is actually life, when in fact it is death. Thus, death enters the scene as synonymous to life. Note here, that this could well be the most tragic consequence of the Fall, i.e., that death enters the scene as a synonym of life. What do I mean with this? Well, we are under the naïve impression that “death” is a point located at the end of Man’s “life”. We say that someone died “at the age of 90”, as though death suddenly made its appearance during his 90th year. In reality however, this man began to die from the moment he was born. Biology sees death as a process that begins simultaneously with birth. Moreso modern Biology and the latest theories on ageing, link ageing to reproduction. At least in beings with organs – especially mammals – the ageing cycle begins from the moment that the organism reaches the point of reproductive maturity. And this is characteristic, precisely because it is linked to the mystery, the phenomenon of life. The phenomenon of life bears inside it the phenomenon of death. The deception, the clouding of the truth here, is that we are under the impression that we are actually living (and when I say impression, I mean the existential, the experiential kind; an impression that we are all influenced by).

We shield our eyes from the truth of death; We are speaking here of biological, existential categories. When we go to the psychological categories, things are even more evident. We don’t even want to think of death, or, we are unable to, psychologically. But the psychological aspect is not the most important aspect; the biological, the existential one is. These are fermentations that already exist inside the organism. The fermentations of deterioration exist, but we cannot see them. Biological existence is structured in such a manner, that it cannot see the truth; and even if it does see it, it will see it only psychologically – it cannot see it ontologically. It is not possible; this is the way that things are: out of our control.

We have therefore entered into a circle that is a fake life, which is why the Gospel speaks of the “real life”. Why was this distinction necessary here? We say “real life”. What is “real life”? We seem to have de-spiritualized the term. These modern perceptions are not Biblical. When one speaks of the “real life”, he is not implying another life – the kind that we call “spiritual”. He is implying a life that does not die; a life that is not subject to this deception of the so-called life that leads to death. Consequently, real life is the life that is not proven false, because it is not defeated by death. Real life springs from the Resurrection of Christ, from Christ Himself, precisely because that is where biological death was actually transcended. This is not a matter of ignoring biological death in favor of another life. No. The everyday expression of “other life” which we use is the extension of this life – it is the real side of this life. Thus, death (i.e., this deceptive life that carries death inside it), is the outcome of the Fall and it is a bad, unacceptable thing. The Christian view can never regard death as something good.

The transcending of death, therefore, is –par excellence- the Gospel, which the Church offers us. With His Resurrection (which signifies the transcendence of biological death), Christ provides us with the conviction, the hope, that it is possible for this admixture of the real life with the false that we are subject to can be cleared, so that the element of death may be removed, leaving only the element of life. This is the real and eternal life, because a “real” life is also an eternal life. As for the word “eternal” in the New Testament, it has no other inference, except that it is an extension of this life. It is only in Platonism that the term “eternal” is juxtaposed to the term “current”, i.e., an entirely different level of thought. We do not find this kind of level in the Biblical perception. In the biblical perception, we have straight lines. Time, and consequently History, the corpus and the course of matter- of the material world - is a blessed part of Creation. In Platonism however, this is a negative point of reference, since one must escape from Time in order to be released and move on to another level; i.e., to fly beyond Time. Unfortunately, many Christians interpret things in this Platonic manner, when they say: “Did he die? Consider him blessed. He has departed from this fake world. He has slipped away from Time. He has gone to eternity, where Time doesn’t exist. These ideas are not Christian. The expectation therefore of the Resurrection is precisely an expectation of the transcendence of death and the catharsis of existence, so that the false and the deceptive element is taken out of the way.



#8 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 24 May 2008 - 08:56 AM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Very simply, long lifespans are counter-productive for an evolutionary process. Short life spans with many generations are best.

What if, otoh, we have got it all wrong? What if the role of evolution is not the origin of species but the deterioration of species? from the scriptural account, man had, at one time an extremely long life span (compared to the present), however, that long life span has been reduced to a fraction of what it was. Could it be that natural selection is at work to eliminate long life? Could we be devolving rather than evolving? This is not meant as a criticism of the evolutionary process, but rather an attempt to explore an alternative role for evolution in the creation of life.

Fr David Moser

Based on this idea and this alone, that would make the common house fly higher than man in evolution. Then again. That's only the opinion of a primitive life form named James.
In +, James

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:18 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#9 Rick James York

Rick James York

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 24 May 2008 - 09:15 AM

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

A Greek theologian wrote recently that it's a major mistake to try to find in Sacred Scriptures scientific interpretations of what's happening in the nature.
He used these quotes
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"Cor 1,22-23

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain"Tit 3,9

I think he's right.

Yes and to a very small number perhaps (2 Tim. 3:7) also applies, making our efforts in vain.

Edited by Administrator, 10 June 2008 - 09:18 AM.
Added notice of identity fraud


#10 Pandelis

Pandelis

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 10:40 AM

It was very interesting reading all these posts on evolution and creation, in fact it was a bit of a headache, but beneficial. This is my first time posting, so I'll see how it goes. Excuse my ignorance before I add my two cents worth.

I think that if any scientific theory, whichever one we may consider, undermines someones faith, then it is possible that that person had no faith in the first place. Science and scientific theories give (mostly mathematical) descriptions of nature, but we must never choose to 'believe' in a theory because it may vaguely resemble something in Scripture (ala creationism)or, from the other perspective, reject a scientific theory because it is against our religious beliefs, which are fueled by our pride anyway. Scripture, Orthodoxy, these are about meaning, what it means to have a personal relationship with God and with eachother. And when we use science to 'extract' meaning from the Bible, we are bound to end up nowhere. In fact, it may be interesting to add that if God had revealed all of science through the Bible, we would still not be able to understand it.

I, myself, view evolution as a beautiful theory. Most scientists possess a certain reverence for nature, they see it as something beautiful, and in their own way are searching for the truth. This may be more than one can say about may apathetic Christians.

With prayers,
Pandelis

#11 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 October 2009 - 02:22 PM

Ironically, this is also how Darwin justified the theory in the first place -- it was a beautiful theory.

#12 Ryan

Ryan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 October 2009 - 06:25 PM

One of the earliest materialist philosophers, Epicurus, began with the premise that we shouldn't fear God or death. It was from there that he began to elaborate various hypotheses for natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, lightning, etc.) that were devoid of any supernatural element. He didn't pretend that his theories were empirically proven, but simply sought to offer explanations which were compatible with his general philosophical stance that the universe was self-existing and that the gods did not intervene in the lives of mortals. I think it is a major propaganda triumph for materialism that, nowadays, most of us assume that modern science has no philosophical basis and that it is simply "the way things are."

#13 Jake A.

Jake A.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:11 AM

I'm not sure if I'm contributing to the discussion with any of this, but a few might be interested in checking out a video series that I made on evolution, essentially debunking it, though not including all of the fallacies based on a time frame allowed by YouTube, I highlight the basics.



Long story short...evolution is not scientific, only micro-evolution has been observed, therefore only micro evolution can be considered scientific, macro, cosmic, planetary, chemical, and organic "evolutions" are made up fairy tales.

#14 Speros

Speros

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 30 December 2010 - 04:19 PM

The real truth about evolution is that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we share a common ancestor with chimps, provided it is God who made it possible.

By the way: remember the contemporary theories of Darwin and others concerning the descent of man from monkeys. Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world. And what of it? What difference does it make where man is descended from..., God still breathed the breath of life into him. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
http://www.utoronto....DS/09/063.shtml


If God is within all things at all times, then the course of evolutionary history followed his ultimate plan. God evolved man so that he could become man.

The word "miracle" originally meant an "object of wonder." A wondrous event can point to God's presence without it being supernatural. Consider all the seemingly random chemical processes involved in the development of a flower. Is that not a miracle? I read this observation in a book by a contemporary Eastern Orthodox scientist.

The debate ultimately isn't about creation vs. evolution but between religion and materialism. Some scientists, like Stephen J. Gould, have considered science and religion as not mutually exclusive:

Nonoverlapping Magisteria
by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenja...gould_noma.html

I don't "believe" in evolution in the sense that one believes in the Bible or the deity of Christ. I simply accept it as a legitimate scientific theory that may have been God's method of creation.

#15 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 31 December 2010 - 06:04 AM

Are you serious? Good God man! We were made in the image of God. Not an ape. If you need a proof to debunk the evolution "theory", get one of these scientists to tell you the mathematical probability of the evolution of the human eyeball and then compare that to how long they say the Solar system, or better yet, the universe has been around. If they are anywhere near the same and I'll spot you 1 Billion years, I'll wash your shorts for a year.

Paul the best looking ape ancestor you have ever seen

#16 David Lanier

David Lanier

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 06:32 AM

Speros and Paul:

This subject has been touched on in another thread here. I tend to agree with Speros insomuch as the debate isn't about Creation vs. evolution. There are flaws in evolution theory however, the points of which are escaping me at the moment.

Fr. Thomas Hopko has an excellent lecture series on Darwin and Christianity. It's a 17 part series, so it will take a while to listen to all of them, but well worth it IMO.

#17 Theophrastus

Theophrastus

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Guest from Another Religious Tradition

Posted 31 December 2010 - 04:48 PM

Are you serious? Good God man! We were made in the image of God. Not an ape. If you need a proof to debunk the evolution "theory", get one of these scientists to tell you the mathematical probability of the evolution of the human eyeball and then compare that to how long they say the Solar system, or better yet, the universe has been around. If they are anywhere near the same and I'll spot you 1 Billion years, I'll wash your shorts for a year.

Paul the best looking ape ancestor you have ever seen


I think one could, as a Christian, believe that the human body evolved from an ancestral ape or ape-like species. I don't think the "image of God" referred to in Genesis is physical. Rather, the higher, noetic qualities of humanity are the "image", and non-humans lack these qualities. Our noetic qualities are the image of God, since apes lack these noetic aspects.

#18 Speros

Speros

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 31 December 2010 - 09:16 PM

I think one could, as a Christian, believe that the human body evolved from an ancestral ape or ape-like species. I don't think the "image of God" referred to in Genesis is physical. Rather, the higher, noetic qualities of humanity are the "image", and non-humans lack these qualities. Our noetic qualities are the image of God, since apes lack these noetic aspects.


That's the exact point of this quote:

By the way: remember the contemporary theories of Darwin and others concerning the descent of man from monkeys. Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world. And what of it? What difference does it make where man is descended from..., God still breathed the breath of life into him. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
http://www.utoronto....DS/09/063.shtml



#19 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 31 December 2010 - 11:19 PM

Actually, looking at culture in general, I find it rather easy to believe that humanity is devolving rather than evolving. Is there really any evidence beyond conceit to make us believe that we are really that much "better" than our forebears? I certainly do not accept that we are "evolving" towards some sort of "higher" lifeform, and that all we have to do is avoid wiping ourselves out and science will solve all our problems and give us "eternal life".

I put not my trust in scientists, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation…

#20 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 01 January 2011 - 06:20 AM

800 years? If I get over 80, someone shoot me. The more man tries to play god the shorter all our lives are going to be simply because they will declare survival of the fittest and kill off all those of us who don't measure up. (oh wait, as of Jan 1, 2011 they are). Anyone see the movie where people had a crystal inbedded in their hand and when they reached the age of 30 they were all conditioned to go to the death chamber in expectation of rebirth only no one was rebirthed and one dude was supposed to find a way out of the underground city? Its all a crock to take our tax dollars and blow them all on keeping calories away from fungus with the idea people will live 800 years +. Just shoot me right now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users