Search this Topic:
Aug 2 09 11:04 PM
Tooth Fairy Agnostic
I wasn't trying to say that M-theory is just as unprovable. I'm saying that M-theory is very hypothetical. Nothing major has been proven yet but as
you said we are still waiting to see what happens. I just thinks its funny that you would use such a abstract version (just a mathematical model no less) of
science to defend your 'no god' views.
True but String theory was not a coherent idea either
My understanding is that M-theory does in fact deal with events outside our universe. I wonder what other events that lay outside our universe. To me this
gives more possibility to the god question.
However, why does god have to be needed in order to exist? Just curious.
But try to keep in mind that I can not base my final decision on what science comes up with. Indirect mathematical observations aren't very convincing to
Right, which would make us gods (creators of a universe and maybe eventually even life. It's far fetched and abstract but if we could theoretical be gods
then who's to say that we aren't a product of the same scenario? Of course even then I highly doubt we will create life out of thin air.
That would be the first cause. The first cause of our universe and our existence.
Who's to say that our synthetic universe would be an exact copy of an original universe?
Simply false. I am not the least bit religious. You are more religious than me. That's not an insult.
No I am suggesting that you called my parents that. (sigh) ... I'm going to let this go because people denying the obvious tends to really piss me off
and I don't want to get into another name calling match with you. You win.
No, that is an over generalization of what I was saying.
Who says there has to be a point? When I was a kid I asked my pastor what the point of everything was and he said that he couldn't answer that question.
So I asked him, what if all of this is just Gods little science experiment and it's just a big game to him. My pastor replied that that may indeed be the
case but it still wouldn't change anything. But from my perspective now I suspect that nothing has any real meaning and why should it?
No, god wouldn't have used science. Science is a limited man made process which was created to observe and test things that man can not comprehend and
understand without it. If god used natural processes to create thing then he used his own self to create. If god created everything then everything is a
by-product of god.
It's not that I want to believe in god, I want to believe in god just as bad as I want to believe in M-theory.
So far I can't fully believe in either because both are too abstract to even fully grasp.
I'd rather believe in the tooth fairy than god because at least the tooth fairy gives away free money.
Well I suppose it's a bit like science then. We come up with String theory then realize it's unprovable so we change it up a bit, keep what we like
about it and look for the same answers in a different hiding place, this one being parallel universes.
I don't buy it.
Just because science can't find a cause now doesn't mean it isn't there.
It's almost impossible for me to believe that quantum fluctuations are acausal.
If cause and effect are decoupled then there need not be a "first cause" in context to god.
God just exists without a cause for no good reason or perhaps god makes things happen but we can't detect god so therefore it appears as if things just
happen for no reason.
Without cause and effect everything breaks down.
Saying things just happen without cause is lazy and unbelievable.
That is possible. Why don't you explain what you meant so we don't have to do this dance again.
First of all I thought you were asking me which one is not a bad guess so I wasn't trying to disagree with you, I was trying to play the devils advocate
for geothermal vent theory for the sake of this discussion.
You said, "What is not the answer? The RNA hypothesis? Clay as a catalyst? Metabolism first? Cell vesicle first? Warm pools? Geothermal vents?"
And I said that geothermal vents are the most plausible of the bunch. I was not disagreeing with you at all. I was answering a question.
Well I thought we had gotten past the fact that I don't really accept things that are unprovable as of now.
QM tells us that sometimes there is no cause and effect which contradicts everything we've been told by science in the past.
You didn't explain properly, you just threw more stuff into your rant to complicate things and when asked to explain you won't. Forgive me for being
Unless science is just unable to explain it yet
No you have taken this completely out of context. Maybe you should go back and refresh your memory.
I'm just a guy who thinks there could be a god but don't have any religious beliefs.
I agree with fighting against stupidity being taught to our kids so after you take out Creationism will you please do something about all the lies they teach
our kids in history class?
You just had to do it huh? Couldn't leave the Buster thing go? Listen I called him a silly bitch because he attacked me
We've called each other worse.
Buster should keep his mouth shut and he won't get verbally bitch slapped.
Actually yes, I would love to see those things. I will buy a ticket to the U.K. and pay for a room we can set up a lab in if you can show me these things.
How does next weekend sound?
Why are you talking to them? I'm right here. I said "you people" as in 'message board' atheists. I wasn't arguing anything about
atheist just making an observation.
I don't know what position I am advocating. Why are labels so important to you?
That's not true. There are plenty of ufo cases that are genuinely interesting and worth looking at.
I have spent year(sic) looking at this crap and I have to say that I pretty much gave up
because while I know for a fact that something is flying around up there
it is impossible to determine what it is or who it is.
I'm just waiting for the government to come out and tell us these objects are theirs, that would confirm my suspicions.
I've told you that science is not the end all.
Sure why not, gravity does right? I was thinking more along the lines of god being outside the universes. Even if god was confined to a universe (ignoring
the first cause argument for a moment) according to M-theory with the universes merging anything is possible.
Because while science is the best thing we've come up with to explain things it is limited to what we already understand.
Things change, things get proven wrong. How can you believe in anything?
Do you believe that Einstein really thought of reality as an illusion literally or is that quote (I assume you know what quote I'm speaking of) in
context to something else entirely?
Aug 3 09 7:20 PM
Aug 4 09 1:12 AM
But a theory or hypothesis that has not been properly tested yet is not the same as one that has been around for a couple of thousand years and has been
shown to be wanting.
Why do you say that? String theories were "theories of everything". That there was more than one didn't make them incoherent or internally
inconsistent. M-theory is a coherent explanation, whereas the idea of god isn't even logically consistent.
M-theory allows us to conceive of other brane universes. How exactly do you think this makes god more possible?
The point is not that just because god is not absolutely necessary that means he can't exist, it is that in the absence of obvious evidence or argument
FOR god, saying that god could still exist anyway is no argument at all.
Do you believe in anything undetectable to the naked eye?
Goes back to the issue of first-cause. Our universe could well be the product of a high-energy experiment in another universe, but it's not a first-cause
But not the other universe wherein the origin of ours lay.
Religion. noun. Belief in or worship of a god or gods.
Religious. Adjective. -of or relating to religion; pious, devout, following the rules of a religion or form of worship closely.
Care to try that one again?
You seem to think they were though, or how could you believe I was referring to them?
I'm not sure what you were saying except that you think the idea of life starting via natural chemical reactions as unlikely an idea as god.
I think you've missed the point. I'm not asking what the point of everything is, just what reason would there be to believe in god if there is no
argument or need for god?
religionists want to have it both ways: if science can't explain it, that's evidence for god.
That's an odd way of looking at it. I see M-theory as competing with, say, Loop Quantum Gravity etc, not with god.
And as far as religionists are concerned, either god and science live side by side and ne'er the twain shall meet, or god just created everything,
including the laws of science, or they just don't believe in stuff they don't like (evolution, for example). It's a funny thing that so many
believers jump on the "big bang" and believe that because it says the universe (so they think) had a beginning (and thus a need for a creator by
their reasoning) but not in evolution...
What does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?
Are you trying to bait me? Yes, some scientific hypotheses fail in their testable predictions (or through further observational evidence later) and are
modified in order to explain the observed evidence.i Not the same thing at all - the complete opposite, in fact.
"God does not throw dice!"
Missed the point. It's not that science can't find a cause, it's that QM says there isn't one. Different thing.
Exactly. Go to the head of the class.
It's not that god exists without cause but that there's no reason to insert god as a cause if the universe is acausal.
I think we just have. Haven't we?
BEFORE that, you numpty, you said it was a bad guess. What was? I was just throwing some of the ideas I knew about into the ring, but you said it was BEFORE
But QM has been proved. Very much so.
QM does contradict both intuition and classical physics, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
I've discussed abiogenesis at length on this board before. I feel no reason to do so again. But ignorance is not reason for scepticism.
Science has not fully explained it YET but that's no reason to therefore insert god as an answer.
The point was that assuming there is a natural explanation (and there is no reason to believe there is not, as it has not been shown to be impossible ) then
there is no reason to suspect the hand of god seeding the petri dish.
No, I don't believe I have. You're just making disparaging remarks about science for the sake of trying to justify your scepticism of science.
Yes, but why? I don't understand why god should get the benefit of the (lack of) doubt without being able to make a case for belief.
In all likelihood, if god were to exist, there would be good objective evidence for this existence.
And saying that people have a tendency to believe in god justifies your separating god from teapots and fairies and pink fucking uniforms........
Which ones, specifically? I could rant on for ages about the myths and lies in the USA about the colonisation of the Americas, the War of Insurrection
(sorry, Independence) and the 1812 go-around. But maybe you had something else in mind?
He made a crack about Velikovsky which, let's face it, you walked into. Requisition a sense of humour, man.
Yes, that's true, but I don't give a fuck.
Pot, meet kettle.
You want me to create a supernova in a lab? Hooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy....
What's the defining feature of a message board atheist, WC? You know I was an atheist before I was on the internet, right?
Because you have an annoying habit of refusing to define your position so that you can chop and change it at a whim.
I never said there weren't.
There are things that are seen and not identified. UFOs exist by definition. UFO doesn't mean "alien spaceship" though.
Some of them certainly will have been. People have been secretly testing flying machines since at least the time of the Montgolfier brothers.
And you support this assertion with what evidence?
Rubbish. Science is a tool for gaining knowledge and understanding.
You do sound like a typical religionist.
Of course scientific understanding changes, but for the most part it has been busy overturning the "truths" of religion.
But then of course you don't believe in "religion"
Aug 4 09 2:50 AM
Aug 4 09 5:20 PM
Aug 4 09 7:30 PM
Aug 4 09 7:39 PM
A more efficient process than two apes screaming and yelling at each other about something that neither of them understand? Noooooooooo!!!!!!
Neither structured debate nor internet forum interchanges are for the exchange of ideas, they are for entertainment purposes only.
Aug 4 09 9:31 PM
What does a coherent theory have to do with a logical consistency in god?
Because it goes to show that we don't know shit. We keep learning and discovering new things. Just when we think we got it figured out we find something
else that forces us to perceive things differently.
The universe(s) is more complex than a "theory of everything" can explain now or anytime soon.
How exactly does one form a complete "theory of everything" without actually knowing everything? How can one ever know for sure if he knows
everything or not?
But there is in fact a good argument and 'what could be perceived as evidence to some' out there so.....But of course that evidence to some is not
evidence to you and your evidence for some things is not real evidence to them.
But anyhow, like I said earlier, there was not obvious evidence for some of the theories that Strings made but that didn't stop anybody from looking.
Yes. Do you?
Well, then I've just proved myself wrong that a god must be the first cause. That changes things.
Just as this universe may not have a first cause just as that one didn't directly.
I do not worship god(s). As for belief, I am here arguing the possibility of a god of some kind. How is that belief?
Not religious. Don't worship. Don't believe. Yeah you're right. I'm very religious.
So if I believe Davey is talking trash about you in his post then whatever he is saying about you must be true? Dude, I don't know who you are used to
talking to but these denials don't work on me. Care to try again?
Actually I was saying it's more unlikely.
um...No you missed the point. What you were saying is that man invented God, partly, in an attempt to find the meaning on life or the [b]point[/i] of life. I
responded saying that most religious people I know are trying to figure out the point of life. I'd say that life was the point of life for most people.
That's not true. It may be true for a few rednecks down in the swamps of Florida who know nothing about science but most people don't automatically
attribute things to god. Most religious people aren't anti-science, you are just used to interacting with the type that do but that doesn't mean that
most people are like that.
Never said anything about competition.
You over generalize everything. LIke I keep repeating, most people aren't as religious as you think. You are just obsessed with religion and so you think
that they are all just like the people you meet online or something. It's not that most religious people (where I've lived anyways) don't believe
in evolution, it's that most everyday people don't care. Most people say "I don't know." Because they honestly don't and don't
care to look into it either. I thought everybody believed in the Big Bang (except a few wacko's here and there) but I don't see what that has to do
with evolution. Either way I think you haven't spend too much time with religious people because you seem to know very little about them.
I don't see what that [the big bang] has to do with evolution
I don't know, how much does a soul go for these days?
If you don't want to answer just say "pass". You don't have to type so many letters to avoid it.
There has to be a first cause.
First of all, I have no idea what a numpty is. Second, you are too confused too reckon with. Just let it go. Let it go. Now doesn't that feel better?
Oh really? So what happened in the week that it took you to respond to this? I must've missed the huge scientific breakthrough of our time. Damn!
Too easy. Pass.
Oh. You've talked about it so I'm ignorant because we all know everything you talk about is solid fact. Silly me. Don't strain your brain trying
to explain what I've read many books about to me, it would be pointless anyways. Who should I listen to, a scientist or Rambo? Hmmmmm........
God has not fully explained it YET but that's no reason to therefore insert science as the answer. How does that feel?
We've already determined that if god exists and is the first cause then in fact everything is a creation of god, directly or indirectly.
I don't have a skepticism of science I have a healthy skepticism about certain aspects of some sciences. Huge difference buddy. Always over generalizing
I think my case is decent. Sorry to disappoint.
No, that's your opinion.
If there is a god then there are probably millions of reason why he is not detectable by science yet.
No it doesn't.
I'm not really sure what your trying to get at in the rest of this rant.
I'm just saying, all of that is more important and has a more direct bearing on your life than a bunch of crazy Christians. I think the reasons for your
hatred and anti-religion has nothing to do with anything other than misplaced aggression. Or maybe because you erroneously feel that it threatens your
science gods. Who knows.
No he made a crack about me. Do you need reading glasses? Maybe contact lenses to make you look cooler while you re-read that post? Your argument sucks so
you blatantly lie. Wow.
Obviously you fucking do Mr. I Love to Threaten to Ban People.
Oh, you can't? Then obviously I was tight. Next.
Yes and I'm sure you're probably actually a good person in real life.
It's funny how not being able to look someone in the eye can change how they act.
LOL. So me being open minded and willing to be proven wrong is a flaw? And you worship science of all things?
Yes you pretty much did.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
You mean lack of evidence.
We will never know if science if able to prove everything or not. Why assume that it can?
Never said it wasn't. But how is my comment rubbish? Both mine and your comment is true.
Yet we've already established that you have no idea what religious people are like other than the crazies you read about in the papers. So you obviously
don;t know what your talking about thus I have no reason to be offended.
No, I like to spent a good chunk of time lying about my position in a two week long debate just for the fucking fun of it.
Aug 4 09 10:13 PM
Aug 5 09 1:36 AM
Neither structured debate nor internet forum interchanges are for the exchange of ideas, they are for entertainment purposes only.
Aug 5 09 9:19 AM
Me and my piers share ideas via message boards all the time.
Aug 5 09 2:41 PM
Aug 5 09 7:27 PM
Isn't it obvious? You were the one who wanted to compare god to M-theory (or other scientific hypotheses)
A god that has an active hand in the day-to-day running of the universe, changing the laws of physics to suit himself will-nilly, would have been detected by
So as with you, the fallback is to make god vaguer, less defined. But the vaguer you make the notion of god, the less like an actual testable hypothesis the
And I thought you had a different train of thought in mind but it's the same "science keeps changing so how can we trust it?" whine, it seems.
The corollary to your above is that scientific understanding keeps growing and still hasn't found god.
It's true that every time we think we have come close, we've ended up realising there is a deeper level of underlying reality, but this is not to say
that we should expect this type of Russian doll scenario to go on forever.
Omniscience is not required to formulate a complete model of how things work.
Because only real, objective, scientifically acquired empirical data would count as evidence. Whatever anecdotal evidence or personal "religious
experiences" some people find as "evidence" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I suggest therefore you reconsider your above statements in light of this admission.
That statement needs clarification. Are you saying you no longer see a need for god, or believe that the term "god" could properly be applied to
things that are not first-cause type deities?
Let's go back and recall that you were talking about scientists with a belief in god. Your personal position (whatever it is) is neither here nor there.
You've missed the point. Firstly, I just ignore Davey when he's being like that, I imagine his meds must be clashing again. Secondly, you have
already seen that Dave has directed remarks specifically toward me, about me - rather than the generic use in my statement.
And you based this remarkable pronouncement based on your avowed ignorance of the actual current state of research into the area of abiogenesis. Nice work.
No, I wasn't. If god serves no function, there is no case to suspect god is a necessary piece of the puzzle, then there is no reason to suspect he
exists. I'm talking about the argument for god, not the meaning of life.
You seem to be forgetting we're discussing the issue of theologists and apologists arguing the case for god, not your average inbred fuckwit who
doesn't even think about the issue.
So why do you keep contrasting the two?
If you want to talk about religious people, what about the Texas thread?
The very fact that people are so ignorant as to not know or care about evolution is offensive, and ignorance isn't much of a case for anything.
Well that's possibly because, contrary to the evidence of your previous activity on these boards, you are not a creationist fuckwit (just someone who
likes to argue with atheists, apparently).
I'm slightly puzzled as to why you feel you need to say so. I don't believe I've conflated the two.
I was talking about people like Max, though he's hardly a unique snowflake. Max in any case steals all his material from Craig et al anyway...
Actually that was an answer. I'll leave you to work it out
No, there doesn't. Firstly, in the absence of space and time, there is no time to give a causal structure to events in which case must precede effect. As
I pointed out, QM shows how even if time is not absent, in a region of spacetime that is small enough, causality ceases to be a factor.
If anything can be causeless, then instead of positing that god fills this role, it is simpler to say that the universe is.
A numpty is a feckless moron, and you are the one who is confused. A bit like when you lost a bet over a matter of $1000.
QM has already been proven time and again, numpty. And this past week I've been working double-fucking shifts, you wanker.
I haven't had the time to write a proper response to your asinine drivel.
Look, if you can disprove Quantum Mechanics, go write a paper and get it published in a peer-review publication. You get that printed in Nature and
you'll be instantly famous.
Typical non-answer. God has never personally explained anything or serves to explain anything. At best, "god" just shifts the question.
You were using the case of abiogenesis not being explained by science to argue that therefore god did it.
But the scientific method, peer-review process and the rest of the mechanisms of scientific inquiry mean that if you are sceptical of some areas of some
science, you may as well just come out and say you distrust the whole lot, since it amounts to the same thing.
To cast doubt on an established theory, you need to produce counter-evidence, a disproof. Not just express your scepticism. Science is about scepticism in
the first place.
If not even sure I know what your case is.
No, it's a premise.
And this is where you should actually list a few examples as a counter argument...
You've effectively arguing the equivalent of "People believed in Zeus so I'm justified in not disbelieving in Jesus"
And just wtf is it to you whether or not I rail against the offences of religious fundamentalists and creationists? What's your fucking excuse for coming
here and spending your day insulting people?
You merely needed to point out that they were recorded and are widely available, withot the insult.
Do you have some sort of a problem distinguishing between people criticising you and people criticising what you have written?
No, I don't give a fuck what you or anyone says to me (nor do I care about getting banned elsewhere simply for speaking my mind as I see fit), but I do
care when other people are unjustly victimised by the bad attitudes of others here. Such as yourself. And you have the cunting nerve to moan about MY
aggression? Fuck you.
So you don't believe in supernovae either? Okay, interesting to know. Were you not born in 1987?
Only when wankers don't provoke me.
Being open minded doesn't mean refusing to draw conclusions or even take a position, You just argue against other people as takes your fancy, which is
nothing to do with being open minded.
I find with you it's safest to state the obvious to avoid confusion. It doesn't always work...
Science is not limited to what we already understand, otherwise it would be useless in increasing our knowledge and understanding. Your statement is utter
I'm just telling you what you sound like. Just like you once sounded like a typical creationist, which you swore you weren't. Nevertheless, you
sounded exactly like one.
P.S. I have a problem with my "U" key.
You're friends with a lot of structures that project out into water, are you?
Aug 5 09 7:29 PM
Okay, start your next hissy fit about me.
Aug 6 09 12:13 AM
Aug 6 09 12:21 AM
Aug 6 09 11:39 PM
I didn't compare god to M-theory. I brought up Strings as an example of scientific faith in something impossible to prove true.
Wrong. I am not making god less vague.
I just don't happen to believe in the typical, cliche, mythical gods that you are familiar with.
Kind of yes. How can you put 100% faith into something that is ever changing? I am aware that the point of science is to constantly change to fit the
predictions which is fine but I suspect that even real scientists don't put as much stock into science as you do sometimes.
It still hasn't found lots of things.
I expect it to go on long, long, long after me and you are gone. I'd say that the chances of all of our science actually being right and then that same
science taking us to absolute full understanding of everything is very highly unlikely to happen anytime in the near or distant future.
I believe that it is required if you are going to put your full faith into it.
That's false. In a court of law, personal testimony is considered evidence. If somebody I trust tells me something happened without any motive to lie
then why would I call them a liar? How can I possibly know that I am right?
I don't follow.
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. If man can create a universe in a lab and thus become Gods then in fact they are the first cause of that
universe. This means that while there was a designer/creator of the universe, man was still not the first cause of the "original" universe. So, God
does not need to be the first cause in order to be the creator of this universe.
You're confused. You implied that I am religious, not you. Remember, I accused you of being religious, scientifically.
Science worshipers annoy the shit out of me. Just about the same way overly religious people annoy me. It's like atheists use science as an excuse not to
believe in a god of some type when science cannot prove not disprove the god theory. There is an internal atheist debate about whether or not the god
question even belongs in science. Most say it doesn't have any place there. I mean we all know religion is bullshit but needless to say nobody really
knows whether there is a god or not.
So the atheist always resorts to science as if some man made idea of how things are supposed to be could ever really explain the universe with or without
god. Science is great but it's not the end all. Science is just one key on the key ring. Nothing more.
I shouldn't have used Davy as an example because you always resort to the excuse that he's on drugs. Let me get back to my point which is this: Just
because somebody accuses somebody about something doesn't mean they automatically right just because the accusation was made.
Care to try again?
You assume too much. Nice work
You're having memory lapses. You said that one of the reasons people believe in God is because they are looking for meaning in their life.
Care to try again?
Since when? Never did you specify that. You are amending your argument as you go.
I shouldn't need to explain this to you but just because I compare something to another thing doesn't mean that both things are in competition.
What about it? There are plenty of religious people all over the world, not just in Texas.
Offensive to you maybe but not to anyone else. Most people are so busy with their everyday life and just trying to survive that they don't have time to
spend hours and hours on the internet researching the details of evolution. Most people are not like us.
I believe you did. Go back and look so that you can be sure.
Yes but people like Max aren't even worth debating seeing as how they don't think for themselves. They steal material and then rely on that for their
case, he recently posted a bunch of that jargon at my site.
Right. and you can prove this to me?
Actually I didn't think of that. So, if causality is not needed then god and the universe could have been created from nothing for no reason. Nice.
Now what the fuck does feckless mean? You got some strange descriptive words over there huh?
I didn't loose(sic) that bet
and I was never serious about the bet, it was a figure of speech.
You've never said, "I bet you a million bucks your wrong?" Do you really have a million bucks to give?
Jesus you're a prick today
Did I fucking ask? I was making a point that QM has not been proved true beyond a shadow of a doubt by any means. Take a valium.
I don't want to prove QM wrong even if I could. I don't want to be famous either for that matter. I never said QM is wrong, never.
Dead wrong, try again
Um....not true at all. So because I have doubts about some political policies I have to be critical of the entire gov't since they are overseen by
committees who make sure everything is legit? Same thing. Government doesn't fail just because I disagree with one aspect of it. Same with science
I wouldn't say science is about skepticism but whatever. I am not trying to disprove anything, I am just not putting my full faith into something that
will inevitable change once we learn more.
That's because you're a slow learner. They do make medicine for ADD.
....based on your opinion.
Isn't that what I've been doing this whole time?
Nope. Try again
I could care less what you do, I was just explaining that your hatred of religion clouds your judgement. I don't come here and insult people all day, I
insult Invunche and Buster, that's it. They both deserve it. You call me more names than I've ever called anybody here.
When somebody calls out my credibility due to a misunderstanding on their behalf I will ALWAYS call them a bitch. Because that is a bitch move.
No. An in any case Buster didn't criticize what I wrote, he criticized my creditability thus me.
Obviously you do care because every comment you make on this subject ends with you either calling me an insulting name or saying "fuck you". You
really expect me to believe that you don't care while cussing at me? LOL!
What?! No, I was not born in 1987. What are you going on about?
I have taken a position, it's not my fault you are too dense to see it.
Is this an insult? You're getting less creative.
No my statement is true and is common sense. Think about it. Are you suggesting that we are making discoveries and predictions about things we've not yet
discovered or predicted?
You misunderstanding is probably due to the fact you are so full of contempt for creationist that you think anyone who asks questions about evolution is a
Aug 7 09 12:39 PM
Aug 7 09 7:14 PM
Aug 7 09 7:20 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.