Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 70
  1. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    3,983


    I will admit I came off very condescending in my initial response. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what precipitated the big bang or even rule out that a god or godlike being is responsible. I doubt it very much but I know its not impossible. My derision was wrongly aimed at Greg who's faith is grounded in an understanding of the nature of the newly formed universe.

    I do think Trap's creationism in which the universe was created after the Earth is utter hogwash. That sort of thinking was what I was mocking with my wizard joke.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.368050,-76.729313
    My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron




  2. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,146

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    I will admit I came off very condescending in my initial response. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what precipitated the big bang or even rule out that a god or godlike being is responsible. I doubt it very much but I know its not impossible. My derision was wrongly aimed at Greg who's faith is grounded in an understanding of the nature of the newly formed universe.

    I do think Trap's creationism in which the universe was created after the Earth is utter hogwash. That sort of thinking was what I was mocking with my wizard joke.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.368050,-76.729313
    And that is what I was trying to get at in my post. I thought you were saying the big bang was the start of everything. Which is why I said it's a "theory".




  3. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,803
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Of course Spammy would could it hog wash, but Spammy posted before I did on this subject. I wasn't in on the discussion yet. My beliefs are based on scripture, his are not. My Bible says as I told Greg, the earth was created in 6 days and God said let there be light. It's what the Bible says.



    I respected Greg's beliefs and said I learned from them but disagree that there's no room for science and God's own teaching of creation.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  4. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,803
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    And that is what I was trying to get at in my post. I thought you were saying the big bang was the start of everything. Which is why I said it's a "theory".
    And that's all it is, a theory. Today's scientific theory is tomorrow's hog wash. I stated above that scientists have left the bang theory. Greg said they have not but I keep reading where they have.

    And Spammy's acceptance of Greg's position again shows where atheists are co-existing with Christians. Spammy likes Greg's position because it includes the bang so both the atheist and Christian appear in accord here.
    They seem to be co-existing. That is compromise.

    That's why I can't except the Bang. The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. Then there was light.

    Greg said above that the scientists I used didn't have much education, they were nonsense and don't listen to them. That's what atheists are telling me. I know the guy argued the 30 probs but he didn't do so hot. At least he
    listed the 30 problems. None of the atheists in here knew there were 30 probs.

    Hoyle is the one who coined the term "Big Bang" as a joke in an interview during the 50s I believe, and as more people begin to believe in it during the 1960s the name stuck. It gives the impression of a bang which wasn't the case.

    Greg is arguing for something an atheist dubbed as a joke and later believed in.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-02-2012 at 12:19 AM.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  5. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    I ask you, empirically speaking, what is so compelling about evolution that would make me anti-science for not accepting its claims?
    There is a difference between being anti-science and science illiterate.

    When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact. It is the theories of evolution that are disputable, not the idea of evolution. You comment on what you see as flaws in Darwins Theory of N.S. as proof against evolution. That is akin to saying you don't think the moon exists because you found out it doesn't consist of cheese. The moon still exists.

    Biological evolution is seen as a fact because of the simple equation of "genotype + environment = phenotype". This is learned in day 1 of and anthropology class. You don't even need to go back to the millions of years old fossil record of australopithicines and their similarities to modern man but you can look across the globe at modern man and see the effects of evolution.


    Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.

    The environment has shaped these traits and while we might not know exactly how that is done, it is clear that the environment is responsible. Darwin thought that particular genetic errors or mutations proved to be more advantageous in specific environments and subsequently those traits were more likely to be passed. Lamarck thought particular traits conformed better to environmental demands and thuse were more likely to be passed on. Either way or neither way, traits evolved to better suit the demands of different environments and thus took on different attributes....skin color, physical size, hair consistency, lung capacity etc. How is it that Himalyan Sherpas can summit Everest year after year without supplemental oxygen while North American climbers are lucky to reach the summit once in a lifetime with only perfect conditions and oxygen tanks? Why do Ethiopian and Kenyan runners almost always win American marathons? Its not their modern training centers and supplements.

    This type of example is true for every species of organism that takes up residence in different and unique environments. You can't deny it.

    Anti-science people see this fact and either attack science as "eltitist", "liberal indoctrination" or some other appeal to the uneducated or they scurry through their bibles to find some passage that refers to god's hand having some play in it and twist and turn every ambiguous statement in that direction.

    Science illiterates attack some flaw in Darwin's thought and then deny all of evolution as a result. Darwin could be completley wrong and the fact of evolution would still stand. Evolution is bigger than Darwin; it isn't Darwin.








  6. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,120

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Of course Spammy would could it hog wash, but Spammy posted before I did on this subject. I wasn't in on the discussion yet. My beliefs are based on scripture, his are not. My Bible says as I told Greg, the earth was created in 6 days and God said let there be light. It's what the Bible says.
    If you are referring to me in the underlined I challenge you to find a point where I disagree with Scripture. Your ENGLISH translation, particularly the King James, has its own issues. Most English translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek directly to English. The King James was actually translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, so it went through 2 translations.

    Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew way better than you or I believe the earth was created over 6 lengthy time frames, why is this an issue for you? Time has no meaning for a timeless God. That Jewish scholars disagree on Jesus isn't part of THIS discussion, Christians believe the same creation history as Jews. Jesus taught that the Jews had a very good understanding of the Scriptures, they just didn't live them out well.

    As for science and God, your view is ridiculous. If science discovers truths about the universe these are things God wants us to discover.

    And that's all it is, a theory. Today's scientific theory is tomorrow's hog wash. I stated above that scientists have left the bang theory. Greg said they have not but I keep reading where they have.
    Trap, do you have ANY understanding of the scientific method (developed by Christians like Newton, a STAUNCH believer)? Hypotheses are proposed, from them theroies are developed and these theories make predictions. The Big Bang thoery posited several predictions, many of them have been shown to be correct and some are still to be confirmed or denied. The main basis of the Big Bang theory is the Theory of Relativity, which has been proven to a greater degree than accepted laws like Newton's laws of motion.

    List a few scientists that take issue with the Big Bang and their published articles in peer reviewed journals for me. Meanwhile, I can show you many more that agree with it. The deniers, Trap, are either uneducated Christians or atheists.

    And Spammy's acceptance of Greg's position again shows where atheists are co-existing with Christians. Spammy likes Greg's position because it includes the bang so both the atheist and Christian appear in accord here.
    They seem to be co-existing. That is compromise.
    This is utter nonsense. Agreeing with an atheist is a compromise? Do you agree with atheists that 2 + 2 = 4?

    Spambot agrees there was a beginning to the universe. He does not agree on the cause.

    By the way, YOU ARE THE ONE LINKING TO AN ATHEIST WEBSITE IN REGARD TO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG! Try removing that log sir, and you will then be in position to point out and help remove any specks I have.

    Do you disagree that the universe began to exist or DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERY FEW ATHEISTS THAT HOLD TO TO THE STEADY STATE IDEA?

    That's why I can't except the Bang. The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. Then there was light.
    No, it says 6 "yoms." And light came before the earth. Most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1:1 is a summarizing statement that says there was a beginnning and God created everything, then the rest of the chapter goes into a brief description of what he did. After space, time, matter and energy then came light. Light was FIRST of the created objects after the universe was established in which to place these creations. This is scientific as well. The early universe was pure light with no darkness until it had cooled to a point.

    Hoyle is the one who coined the term "Big Bang" as a joke in an interview during the 50s I believe, and as more people begin to believe in it during the 1960s the name stuck. It gives the impression of a bang which wasn't the case.
    Correct. It wasn't a "bang" but the name isn't the idea. It is just a name and you are correct, it is not a good desciprtion. It is simply the coming into existence of everything from nothing we would call natural.

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html

    Take a few minutes and read that. ^

    Greg is arguing for something an atheist dubbed as a joke and later believed in.
    Do you still not understand WHY Hoyle did this initially? The idea of a Creator was abhorrent to the THEN atheist Hoyle. He understood what the Big Bang implied, that a Creator God began the universe. He accepted the Big Bang and went on to say, while becoming a believer in a Creator, that "a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics." Do you not understand how profound this was in converting this atheist into a believer of a Supreme Creator?
    Last edited by Greg; 03-02-2012 at 03:34 PM.




  7. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,120

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact.
    Because they have no choice. There are among Christians many who accept evolution in 3 main variants. There are some Christians like Trap that hold to a young universe and 6 24 hour periods of creation. Then there are several that believe in an old universe with many variants on the order of creation but believe God created various kinds that can change to a degree but not into new kinds. Canines are canines and nothing but canines can come from them being the idea (which is my position). Felines are felines, etc.

    Meanwhile, if your belief system is there is no Creator, you have NO CHOICE but to accept evolution. Any deviation would imply a Creator and as Richard Lewontin states:
    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
    This has nothing to do with science accept that scientists that are not believers refuse to allow God to be considered, DESPITE WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS! This is exactly what he says.

    Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.
    Yes, this is what is taught, but it still is ASSUMING something, that mutations caused the changes. How about if humans had all of those traits in their DNA from the beginning and those that expressed this DNA survived better in areas where it was to their advantage? That is natural selection, right?

    This is shown in dog breeding, which atheists used to try to use as proof of evolution despite the obvious intelligent direction involved. When you purposely breed dogs in similar groups you are REMOVING their ability to express certain traits so that the desired ones are expressed. You are actually REMOVING from the DNA those traits, you do not ADD to it. There is no known method of adding to the DNA. Mutations simply are way too often negative and otherwise neutral until enough of them would accumulate to form something positive (no single mutation can produce even the simplest of new parts to a being, such as an opposable thumb - much less something like an eye or a circulatory system). Natural selection discards the parts that are harmful or neutral, or at least this is what is taught in evolution classes, but it makes no sense. It is a "just so" story.

    Science illiterates attack some flaw in Darwin's thought and then deny all of evolution as a result. Darwin could be completley wrong and the fact of evolution would still stand. Evolution is bigger than Darwin; it isn't Darwin.
    Great. So what alternative to Darwin is it you hold to? How do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

    Do you know that two evolutionists, Barrow and Tipler, list in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle there are 10 separate events that are in essence miracles. Check out this video from a Craig vs. Hitchens (may he rest in peace) debate.





  8. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,120

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Oh, and one more point to Trap, Adam was created on the 6th day. In that 6th day he also existed for some time without Eve and was then put to sleep, had a rib removed, and then Eve was created. I believe all of that. But let me ask you, Adam also named all of the various animals on the earth, do you think he could squeeze all of that into just 24 hours (assuming he did not sleep at all)? Or does it make more sense that the 6th day is more than 24 hours?

    And you never responded to my other question regarding how the first 3 days, or 24 hour periods, were measured if there was no sun, moon and stars until day 4?

    And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:




  9. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post

    When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact. It is the theories of evolution that are disputable, not the idea of evolution. You comment on what you see as flaws in Darwins Theory of N.S. as proof against evolution. That is akin to saying you don't think the moon exists because you found out it doesn't consist of cheese. The moon still exists.
    I don't criticize natural selection. Natural selection is fact. Empirically proven, consistent fact. Evolution is not.

    Biological evolution is seen as a fact because of the simple equation of "genotype + environment = phenotype".
    Your doing exactly what I said in my previous post, equivocating the word evolution. Taking natural selection(genotype+environment =phenotype) calling it evolution, and using examples of it as if it has explained the formation of organisms and the complex functions therein.

    This is learned in day 1 of and anthropology class. You don't even need to go back to the millions of years old fossil record of australopithicines and their similarities to modern man but you can look across the globe at modern man and see the effects of evolution.
    The thing about the fossil record and evolution is, it's not only a matter of lacking preserved transitional ancestors. The main problem is it has preserved the exact opposite of what evolution suggests. The fossil record displays periods of sudden extinction, followed by stasis in species.

    Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.
    The above is indisputable, it's called natural selection. Now how exactly, or since its fact, what exactly have we seen in the laboratory that suggests adaptations that only have influence within species are a model for how prokaryotes formed eukaryotes, or the formation of lungs or eyes?

    Its alleged vision slowly evolved through an adaptive process, driven by necessity to survive and reproduce. Since macromutations are rejected by science, micromutions are believed to be the creators behind new functions. But what necessary advantage in progeny would 10% of an eye include while in the early stages? Afterall when you Consider the amount of neural uniformity required for sight, 10% of an eye would not equate to 10% vision.


    This type of example is true for every species of organism that takes up residence in different and unique environments. You can't deny it.
    Again, I don't. And again, natural selection does not account for the sequence of events that allegedly turned non-livig chemicals into self-replicating organisms which eventually lead to the human mind.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 03-02-2012 at 08:08 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  10. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,803
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Sorry Greg - but I just got in. I've been on the road all day. I posted that
    other thread in the gym. Then we went out to dinner and I was out with
    Rose tonight and just got in. So while I'm tired, I'm awake cause I have
    insomnia and should be able to answer your questions or the ones I think
    I can answer.

    I'll plead ignorance on the scientific facts I don't understand. I said at the
    top I'm no match for you in science and you're kicking my ass on points
    but i'm the only one who took you on and answered your Biblical questions on plant death, original sin and the fall and on yom so I scored points there
    and might score a few more here.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-03-2012 at 02:33 AM.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  11. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,803
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    If you are referring to me in the underlined I challenge you to find a point where I disagree with Scripture.

    I'm not saying that you disagree with scripture but it seems if
    Spammy likes your position of putting light first it seems like you
    are co-existing. An atheist likes what you said, not what I said.



    Your ENGLISH translation, particularly the King James, has its own issues. Most English translations are done from the original Hebrew and Greek directly to English. The King James was actually translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, so it went through 2 translations.

    Many translations say the same as King James such as RSV and
    NIV to name two. Meanings get lost when translating from the original
    language in any work of art or historical record but again, if God wanted
    it to be 13B years he would have said that instead of 6 days.



    Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew way better than you or I believe the earth was created over 6 lengthy time frames, why is this an issue for you?

    Again, because that's what my Bible says. Translations like NIV and RSV say the same thing. If God wanted it to be years he would have said years,
    not day.


    Time has no meaning for a timeless God. That Jewish scholars disagree on Jesus isn't part of THIS discussion, Christians believe the same creation history as Jews. Jesus taught that the Jews had a very good understanding of the Scriptures, they just didn't live them out well.

    I told Spammy that God had to put the universe into something, it was
    void and w/o form. God put it in time. Time is just not measurement like
    Spammy said.


    As for science and God, your view is ridiculous. If science discovers truths about the universe these are things God wants us to discover.

    There you go again. It's ridiculous. The atheist point of view is science vs God.

    Trap, do you have ANY understanding of the scientific method (developed by Christians like Newton, a STAUNCH believer)? Hypotheses are proposed, from them theroies are developed and these theories make predictions. The Big Bang thoery posited several predictions, many of them have been shown to be correct and some are still to be confirmed or denied. The main basis of the Big Bang theory is the Theory of Relativity, which has been proven to a greater degree than accepted laws like Newton's laws of motion.

    List a few scientists that take issue with the Big Bang and their published articles in peer reviewed journals for me. Meanwhile, I can show you many more that agree with it. The deniers, Trap, are either uneducated Christians or atheists.

    I used a link where a guy said that and you've been arguing it since.
    I'll have to check it out but haven't had time.


    This is utter nonsense. Agreeing with an atheist is a compromise? Do you agree with atheists that 2 + 2 = 4?

    The math is irrelevant here. Were talking creation - science vs scripture. The two don't jive.

    Spambot agrees there was a beginning to the universe. He does not agree on the cause.

    Yes, but he liked the way you put light being created before the earth
    so he said he likes what you said. That's because you're accepting the Bang. Maybe not like him but you're allowing it. I'm hog wash because I'm fighting it according to scripture. He disagrees with me that light came after the 6th day.


    By the way, YOU ARE THE ONE LINKING TO AN ATHEIST WEBSITE IN REGARD TO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG! Try removing that log sir, and you will then be in position to point out and help remove any specks I have.

    Do you disagree that the universe began to exist or DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERY FEW ATHEISTS THAT HOLD TO TO THE STEADY STATE IDEA?



    No, it says 6 "yoms." And light came before the earth. Most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1:1 is a summarizing statement that says there was a beginnning and God created everything, then the rest of the chapter goes into a brief description of what he did. After space, time, matter and energy then came light. Light was FIRST of the created objects after the universe was established in which to place these creations. This is scientific as well. The early universe was pure light with no darkness until it had cooled to a point.




    Correct. It wasn't a "bang" but the name isn't the idea. It is just a name and you are correct, it is not a good desciprtion. It is simply the coming into existence of everything from nothing we would call natural.

    I got something right here.

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html

    Take a few minutes and read that. ^

    Ok.


    Do you still not understand WHY Hoyle did this initially? The idea of a Creator was abhorrent to the THEN atheist Hoyle. He understood what the Big Bang implied, that a Creator God began the universe. He accepted the Big Bang and went on to say, while becoming a believer in a Creator, that "a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics." Do you not understand how profound this was in converting this atheist into a believer of a Supreme Creator?
    Yes, very profound.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-03-2012 at 02:39 AM.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  12. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,803
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Oh, and one more point to Trap, Adam was created on the 6th day. In that 6th day he also existed for some time without Eve and was then put to sleep, had a rib removed, and then Eve was created. I believe all of that. But let me ask you, Adam also named all of the various animals on the earth, do you think he could squeeze all of that into just 24 hours (assuming he did not sleep at all)? Or does it make more sense that the 6th day is more than 24 hours?


    On the sixth day of creation, everything was good except that Adam was alone (Genesis 2:18). God decided to make a helper suitable for Adam. This could not be just any helper. It would have to be a creature that would be a good fit or match.

    God brought the beasts of the field and birds for Adam to name. Read verse 19. Notice that He did not bring all the animals. He did not bring the sea creatures that He created on Day 5, or the creeping things He created on Day 6. Also, remember that Adam was not trying to give a name to millions of species. The Bible was written before man invented this way of naming living things. Adam probably only had to name groups of birds and animals. These could have been general names like "pigeon," "cow," "dog," or "mole," not special names like "arctic fox" or "pig-nosed softshell turtle." In just an hour, Adam could have named hundreds of birds and animals.


    And you never responded to my other question regarding how the first 3 days, or 24 hour periods, were measured if there was no sun, moon and stars until day 4?

    I don't know. The Bible says God created the earth in 6 days and then there
    was light. We can ask him when we meet him and maybe he'll give us a
    glimpse into his infinite universe.

    And here's John MacArthur, pastor of a mega church in California saying
    the same thing. He has authored tons of books and here's one entitled
    BATTLE FOR THE BEGGINNING. Again, he said long birthers are
    coinciding with evolutionists. Creation was not a long drawn out thing.
    God created the earth. He uses the original Hebrew and explains it
    better than anyone. It's over 60 pages but you might want to skim thru
    some of it.

    The fundamentalist churches I've been in have held this view which
    include millions of Christians.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=C6x...page&q&f=false
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-03-2012 at 06:17 AM.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland