Question:
Why don't evolutionists admit that evolution is just another religion?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Why don't evolutionists admit that evolution is just another religion?
34 answers:
2008-04-02 06:57:50 UTC
Fail.



"All of the proof brought by scientists are just suppositions"

Blatant lie. Evidence submitted is not based at all on suppositions.



"I have an IQ of 143"

Woop-de-doo. All that shows is that you're an idiot with a high IQ ;) Actually, you must be lying. If you had a high IQ you'd be capable of seeing that evolution isn't a religion.



"Micro-evolution is called adaptation"

That's kind of like arguing semantics, except microevolution is just small scale genetic changes within a population, not necessarily adapting to the environment. Sexual selection can cause microevolution, for example.



"It is the result of activation of genes that are already in the chromosomes"

And your basis for this opinion is what exactly?



"When you say birds evolved from reptiles you don't demonstrate anything"

There is evidence to back up this claim including comparative morphology in living and ancestral species and genetic. Much in the same way evidence is there to back up the claim that humans are descended from the same primate ancestors as chimpanzees and other great apes.



"I would say the car evolved from a bicycle, because they have similarities"

Cars and bicycles don't reproduce, living organisms reproduce using a storage medium that is suseptable to error. The comparison is stupid.



"I know what I am talking about"

Odd, you seem to know sh*t all about it.



"it doesn't mean it didn't exist before in it's DNA"

Are you saying that the genome of bacteria that produce nylonase, that have been proven (ie: recreated in a lab environment) to have acquired the genes through an error, were actually designed to have that potential error? Again, you don't know sh*t all about it.



"Every dog on this planet has the same number of chromosomes"

Uh, and? They're all the same species, it's no surprise they do. Horses and zebras can breed despite having a huge difference in chromosome number and only produce sterile offspring. There's no doubt that the two are related through ancestry though, and this can be backed up with additional genetic and fossil evidence.



I really don't know if you're a troll or just dumb. Considering the amount of blatant lies here I'm guessing you're just a creationists trying to sound smart. ;) Again, fail.
Johnny Sane
2008-04-02 04:24:09 UTC
There is no form of worship included in the theory of evolution. No rituals, no churches, no prayers. No supernatural entities at all. In fact, it says nothing about anything supernatural. Period.



You say you respect science, but you don't understand what a scientific theory is. It is not a "guess," and not "supposition." Even a hypothesis has to have some basis in observation. And a hypothesis has to undergo testing and peer review before it can be considered as a theory.



For the record, there are a number of scientific theories which anti-evolutionists overlook. The Theory of Gravitation, Atomic Theory, the Theory of Electricity, and Germ Theory, just to name a few. And yes, they are THEORIES, not laws.



Furthermore, we have witnessed evolution. We have seen new species form, like the nylon-eating bacteria. We have seen species change, like various flower species. We have more transitional fossils than we thought we would have. And yet, creationists deny that any of this has happened.



First, you misunderstand the theory of evolution. Selective pressure and survival of the best traits is not 'chance.'

Second, you seem to imply that evolution refers to the origin of life; I assure you that it does not. It only refers to the way life diversified and adapted after it already existed. This means it's compatible with Christianity, unless you're a complete literalist.



Finally, something for you to think about... all vaccines, and all the cures and disease treatments we have were developed through evolutionary biology. Epidemiology, the medical study of diseases, has a firm basis in evolutionary medicine.

We know AIDS is so hard to treat because of its rapid mutation - evolution.

We get flu shots every year because the flu mutates new strains - evolution.



EDIT:

Adaptation, what you call micro-evolution, is just activation of pre-existing genes? Tell me, then, how bacteria have always had genes for digesting nylon, a material that was only invented recently? And how is it that the gene was 'invisible' when scientists studied the bacteria before the species diverged?

Also, quoting your IQ online is arrogant bragging, and unverifiable. You're falling into the same category as those people who claim [online] to be models and actors. Anyway, the IQs of the millions of scientists who disagree with you are probably higher.
?
2016-05-31 10:35:15 UTC
What about evolution suggest God doesn't exist? It discredit's the book of genesis in many ways yes, but there's nothing in the theory to suggest that God doesn't exist. Also evolution is a science, not a religion. The difference between a science and a religion is that religions can't be proven. What proof, what physical evidence is there to actually back creationism? none while there's more evidence to support evolution than there is to support Gravity. If that's the case, the i guess The theory of relativity, newton's laws of motion, and thermodynamics are religions too huh?
knujefp
2008-04-02 05:38:29 UTC
I'll pick out a small portion of your statement and PROVE right now that you are wrong.



You said "Evolution is not demonstrated experimentally"



Oh really, then show me where the wild wiener dogs live, because man surely isn't powerful enough to breed desired traits into a living thing that "God" made right? So where are the wild wiener dogs?



You don't think a process that took mankind a few hundred years to do i.e. breeding in desired traits into dogs, could happen naturally over millions of years?



Sorry I forgot, according to "fundies" like you the earth is only 6000 years old and we lived with the dinosaurs, just like the flintstones.



A man with a 143 IQ should know better.



P.S. Nothing in the bible states that evolution is wrong or god didn't program it into his creations. So why do you "fundies" take this position?
Soulless - The Anti-Cat
2008-04-02 04:17:10 UTC
You don't want an answer. You have done minimal reading on the subject and decided your faith is more important to you than truth. Nothing I nor anyone else can say will change your view, but don't presume to apply falsehoods to real science just because you can't resolve a conflict between your faith and reality. You want to believe in the creation of the bible story or 'I.D.' then feel free, I don't care. What I do care about is people like you trying to change the laws to treat mythology as actual science and have it taught to impressionable young minds as fact.



By the way, I have an IQ higher than yours but I only speak one language and never finished high school so quoting your IQ means absolutely nothing about the validity of your statement.
2008-04-02 04:02:42 UTC
I find it hard to understand why you keep insisting it's a theory based on "supposition". Like everything in science, it is a theory based on known mechanisms, available evidence, and empirical data that best explains the observable facts.



So: Theory of creation - we have seen mirco evolution, we have observed and tested the pattern of genetic similarties among branches of the evolutionary tree, we have fossil records (incomplete because of the comparative rarity of fossils but proof evolution can occur nonetheless). SO we have a potential mechanism, and observed data that fit the expected pattern of this mechanism. This is as much as ANY scientific theory needs or gets.
Sirensong sunshine
2008-04-02 04:01:55 UTC
You already done that?



Hmmm...



"Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.



As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. "
2008-04-02 04:01:36 UTC




It is not just a theory. Admittedly some of it stems from the laws of probability but it this is always based on some sort of tangible proof. Skeletal remains and fossils are real and not a figment of the imagination like religion. Or do you deny they exist?



There are many provable points in the evolution theory. There are none in Christianity so you cannot compare them.
Skippy
2008-04-02 04:54:14 UTC
Ummm...cos its not.



Okay, evolution is based on a combination of proof they already have and educated guesses on what they don't have based on what they do have. Thats called Science. You should know, they have that with most areas of science.
2008-04-02 04:05:19 UTC
it's a scientfic theory. nobody's arguing about that. And even in the scientific community there's debate about it. But unlike religon, belief is not absolute in science.



Besides, it doesn't fit into what is considered religon. There are no deities, there are no texts, or philosophies,. It's just someone's idea of how life on this planet works.



It could be dead wrong for all we know.
upsman
2008-04-02 23:31:29 UTC
Secular humanism is a religion. Even the supreme court declared secular humanism to be a religion. Evolution is a tenant of secular humanism so I suppose you could say that it too is religion.

Evolution certainly is not science. Evolution does not follow the rules of the scientific method. First of all, I don't reject science. I reject evolution. Evolution is not science. True science is a process that proceeds according to the scientific method that was originally put forth by Francis Bacon back in the 1700's. The scientific method proceeds along these lines: 1)Observation 2)Identify patterns and irregularities 3)propose hypothesis which advance to theory as more evidence accumulates 4)test and predict[it must be repeatable] 5) theory becomes law. The scientific method requires that an event be repeatable. Chemical evolution(how we got the first cell from dead chemicals) is not repeatable. Even evolutionists will acknowledge that. Chemical evolution could have only happened once because all life(whether it's plants, animals or humans) has the same genetic structure. The language is the same even if the words(the specific information) is different. Even evolutions admit that this could not have happened more than once by chance. Of course, creationists and common sense will tell you that it couldn't have even happened once.

Evolution contradicts known scientific laws. Using the scientific method, Louis Pasteur proved the Law of bio-genesis around the year 1800. That is a scientific law. It says that life always comes from already existing life and that LIKE always produces LIKE(rabbits always produce rabbits, antelopes always produce antelopes, humans always produce humans......). Speaking of observation(the 1st criterion of the scientific method), this is what we always observe.....life coming from already existing life and like producing like.. That is why the law of bio-genesis is a scientific law. It's been around for over 200 years and it's never been disproven. It's not non-falsifiable. It could be disproven. All you would have to do is find one example, either today or down through history that contradicted this law. That's never happened. Evolution, on the contrary, is a wacko theory. In reality, it's not even that. Something doesn't get to the theory level in science until there is much reason to believe it's true. Evolution is more like a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence. Again, speaking of observation(the 1st criterion in the scientific method), no one has ever observed an ape evolving into a man or a reptile evolving into a bird or any "kind" evolving into another "kind". You have a proven scientific law going against hypothesis with no evidence and they diametrically contradict each other. The 3rd law of logic(the law of noncontradiction) says they can't both be true. I think I'll go with the law.

Evolution is based upon naturalism. Without naturalism you don't have evolution. But naturalism is a philosophic presupposition. Naturalism just redefines the law of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect says that for every effect there must be a cause. Naturalism comes along and adds one word. It says that for every effect there must be a NATURAL cause. That's only one word but a universe of difference. You can only say that if you can state dogmatically that there is no God. You have to be able to show that you know for a fact that there is no God. The burden of proof is on you. A theist does not have to state dogmatically that there is a God. All he has to say is that there might be a God. If you just leave that possibility open then you can't say(as the naturalist does) that for every effect there must be a natural cause because there might be a supernatural cause. Naturalism goes out the window unless you can state dogmatically that there is no God. That's called atheism. Naturalism is based upon atheism. But atheism could never be proved. How could you say that I know for a fact that nowhere in this vast universe is there a God.

Evolution is based upon naturalism which, in turn, is based upon atheism. So you're trying to tell me that you have a scientific discipline(evolution) based upon a philosophic tenant(naturalism) which, in turn, is based upon a philosophic-religious tenant(atheism). Evolution has nothing to do with science.

Here's some quotes by some well known scientists:

1)"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)

2)"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."[in other words, only evidence that seems to support evolution is accepted and scientists who show evidence that contradicts evolution will find their careers in danger].

-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

3)"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."

-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).

4)"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

5)"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."[in other words, evolutionists will lie, cheat and whatever is necessary to con the public].

-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.

6)"If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."

-Dr. E.A. Maness.

7)"Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact". Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.

8)"Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. All the details differ, but the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.....the scientist pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedly strange developement, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the bible. 'In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth'......For the scientist who has lived by the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries". - Robert Jastrow

(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)

9)Fred Hoyle….world famous English astronomer and writer.......……”The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is nonsense of a high order”.
2008-04-02 03:58:30 UTC
lol, april fools was yesterday.
2008-04-02 03:58:56 UTC
If you say it happened "by chance" you don't understand evolution, so how can you understand the Theory of Evolution?



You can't say you read a book on evolution and then say it happened by "chance" and we have "faith", when what we actually have is thousands of fossils, and a scientific theory which explains them neatly, without relying on chance at all?
Walter
2008-04-02 04:00:15 UTC
"I don't want to hear arguments like: go to college, read an evolution book, because I already done that."



Ya done that, eh? lol... your education level is apparent in your writing abilities.



Well that big IQ of yours isn't helping much, is it? Does your high IQ help you ignore the fact that 99 percent of all scientists disagree with what you say? Scientists, I might add that are much more intelligent than you.
☮ Pangel ☮
2008-04-02 03:59:10 UTC
because it isn't

and evolution is a scientific theory ... which means it is as close to fact as fact gets given the collective evidence in its favour
2008-04-02 03:58:46 UTC
You're just angry because Christianity will never been a scientific theory. That's the difference.
2008-04-02 03:57:58 UTC
because unlike religion there is evidence for evolution
Biddelcastro
2008-04-02 04:01:25 UTC
The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:



1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

3. the geographic distribution of related species

4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations





The Fossil Record



Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.



The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens.



Chemical and Anatomical Similarities



Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.



All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.



All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.





These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.





All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.



In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.



Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.



All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.



Geographic Distribution of Related Species



Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.



Genetic Changes Over Generations



The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.



This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors.



This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection. That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away. They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.



People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding. This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed.





Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes. Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness. We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures. Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.



If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.
2008-04-02 04:00:21 UTC
"All of the proof brought by scientists are just suppositions based on the "faith" that something happened in billions of years by chance. "



Doesn't the fact that you have to lie like this to support your position tell you something about the quality of your position? It should.



"I don't want to hear arguments like: go to college, read an evolution book, because I already done that."



You "already done that", huh?

LMFAO. Aren't you aware that we can tell when you're lying, kid?



Why don't you creationists just go argue about something you know something about, like reality television, People Magazine, or pop stars? You're in this stuff WAY over your head.
karmagrl76
2008-04-02 03:59:55 UTC
No evolutionary TV evangelist has ever asked me for money or threatened to "lay hands" on me.
2008-04-02 03:58:20 UTC
So do they worship the Big bang™?
2008-04-02 04:40:15 UTC
You don't understand the theory, as demonstrated by the phrasing of your "question"... Please don't embarrass yourself any further by editing your question.



You've already proven beyond doubt that you're incapable of understanding any possible explanation we could provide... just go away and don't come back until you understand what you're opposing.



*sigh*



...kids these days... What DID we do wrong?
smile4me
2008-04-02 04:06:05 UTC
NO ONE should be forced to believe in any particular religion in the first place! Why can't everyone just mind their own business and believe in whatever they wanna believe in. It's a free world.
talon_wolfstar
2008-04-02 04:15:25 UTC
Because they believe science is never wrong.



Regardless that theories like the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth have been debunked or that the theory of evolution has been modified as science found Darwins original theories to be wrong.



Science can and has been wrong in the past.
stewart t
2008-04-02 04:05:35 UTC
Evolution is fact..that's why its taught in schools.....you don't see the schools teaching about a god that impregnated his creation (Mary) so that their son could be used in a blood sacrifice to enable the god to have the ability to forgive do you! You need to wake up...you are brainwashed. Your God isn't real! Evolution is!
2008-04-02 04:10:20 UTC
Since you have no idea what proof is, nor what evolution is about, and how chance has nothing to do with it, I suggest you go back to college and ask for your money back - they failed to educate you.
BJtheGreat
2008-04-02 04:01:27 UTC
Ironically I am a Christian who believes in Evolution. I also leave room for error as any Scientist will say they do not know for sure if it is accurate or not. It is only a theory.

But yes there are plenty of atheist evolutionists who try their best to spread/convert others into their religion while judging other's. On this site it seems as if the atheist do more preaching than Christians.
Iluvmyhubby
2008-04-02 04:10:14 UTC
You will never get them to admit they worship at the alter of science. Most people don't realize that you spend your life worshiping something.Science,money,sex,drugs. There are many idols to worship in the world and only one true God.They talk about evolution not being about faith,but I wonder why so many so called scientists go strictly by faith when trying to prove evolution. It takes faith to keep blasting fruit flies with radiation for 35 yrs of your life and nothing happening. Like one dimwitted evolutionist did.
qxzqxzqxz
2008-04-02 04:10:33 UTC
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
.
2008-04-02 04:02:56 UTC
evolution is not religion. religion requires faith and ,,worship,, of supreme being. evolution lacks it. evolution is a fact, not fiction.
2008-04-02 04:03:01 UTC
it has nothing to do with religion and subject here is offtopic..
2008-04-02 04:19:09 UTC
"because I already done that."

It's so obvious.

~
2008-04-02 04:00:09 UTC
It is not even a religion....there is no god in it to worship. It is merely a THEORY made up by a man named Darwin, who was obviously insane!
toocoolringlady
2008-04-02 03:59:43 UTC
Very good question and conclusion. I agree 100 percent.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...