The Evidence for God found in Complex Information

Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations. - Romans 1:19-21

Without information, there would be no operation or functions of life. In order to understand the precise meaning of what information is, the term will have to encompass a spectrum of attributes.


  • What is it that drives man and machine?


There are specific attributes contained in the meaning: action, purpose with the use of code, syntax, and statistics. Without some type of language to communicate, information would not be relayed; man and machine would not be able to operate.

In mathematics, symbols are used to present a solution to a condition. The difference in the symbols used may show or display a pattern or complex information to be deciphered. If there was no meaning to the symbols, it would be impossible to decipher, thus no information would be attained.

A sequence of symbols can be represented as information. The information is only relevant if it has meaning. Although there may be symbols, letters, and words, a statistical evaluation would be measured to the frequency of those used.

When certain rules are applied allowing combinations and arrangements of abstract symbols, they are the constructs or syntax of information. The symbols presented are in sets of code with a required amount of symbols to be used. The choice of code depends on the mode of communication for the receiver to recognize as meaningful information.

An empirical requirement for code is that it must be meaningful and necessary. Without properly adhering to a type of code, information would not be understood or known both to the sender or the receiver. An intellectual and intelligent process is the result of the creator or originator of the code system.

A systematic code is created by an intellectual and intelligent process that has been preconceived.

Purpose
Purpose
  • All forms of matter can carry code, but where or what does the origin of the code come from?


The combination of symbols works when the basic ones form into more complex elements or structures into a language that refers to objects and concepts. The structures provide meaning by defining them in order to convey a message that makes sense, semantically sound, and can be understood.

The meaning of information is an intellectual concept from the sender who could not have originated from random chemical process or collision of particles because an outcome with a purpose is not unguided. The laws of statistics or quantum mechanics do not manifest purpose, but try to make a connection with the effects of the information.



These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1 John 5:13


An intelligent purpose requires an intelligent being to communicate information, which is not guided by happenstance. There cannot be a non-intelligent receiver who is not created by intelligence.

The purposes of the sender of information are the expectations of a desired action, response, or a result in a fixed or creative construct. The design of operational machinery requires information that is necessary to affect mass and energy. The greater the efficiency of a certain machine requires a higher intellectual value to create the intended result. The highest level of information is teleological, which comprises of the true intention of the sender. The information being conveyed must be valid for both the sender and receiver.

Natural events coupled with chance are the a-priori limitations (statistical) materialist’s use in their assumption of the origin of information. All the attributes of information should be used without an ideological assumption. Materialism conveys that the result of high complexity has no purpose and is the result of chance and determinism. This has never been seen to happen.


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. - Genesis 1:1-5

"...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 counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door..." Richard Lewontin (evolutionist) "Billions and Billions of Demons", The New York Review, January 1997, p.31



More by this Author


Comments Appreciated 14 comments

f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ok - thanks for your invitation. You did put a lot of work into creating a nice hub to the human eye but not to the objective, critical thinking mind!

You asked me to take a closer look at your reasoning here, so I have to naturally, first of all object to all your religious quotations here.

I want to ask you now why you may see a divine force at work and not a natural process which follows it's own chemical laws by providing the information for iron to turn into rust but for copper to turn into patina?

It maybe clear from this question that we still don't know exactly how nature imposes all her laws on the material world, dead or alive - but she does it constantly, and the process of natural change never stops - the process itself however changes, like everything else ... following the rules and laws of nature which you may find worthy of greater examination before distracting yourself with supernatural myths!

Why would you require some godly power to take care of all which goes on naturally, like the most remarkable process of metamorphosis in it's many variations?

Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis

If you would only find the search for how nature functions more interesting, I would also be able to credit you with sufficient intelligence to see that it clearly exists within nature without requiring a divine source!

Franto in Toronto


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

F_hruz,

There is a non-material component to the nature of living things, which is information. The origin of information requires an intelligent source for the essence of life. With an understanding of DNA, we know that it codes for protein synthesis. In living things, there is a code system that utilizes molecules that are defined in an alphabetical way. Three of the letters are used as syntax, which semantically represents instructions. These instructions are amino acids. Science is still limited to understanding all of these structural units. At a semantic level, most of the genetic code is a mystery.

With that said, I believe that the nature of life has a purpose which is a product of intelligence.

If you want to debate your version of the origin of life, you must start from a point of whether life has a purpose or not.

(“I would also be able to credit you with sufficient intelligence to see that it clearly exists within nature without requiring a divine source!”)

This is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable statement at an empirical level; it is an ideology, not science.

(“following the rules and laws of nature which you may find worthy of greater examination before distracting yourself with supernatural myths!”)

There is no proof that all scientists agree to one particular paradigm. Here are a few of many to peruse: Hermann Schneider, Sir Fred Hoyle, and Dr. Heribert Nilsson.

You only create an impediment for yourself with your own doctrine of happenstance with bias.

We can apply the laws of logic by deduction:

1.Information requires intelligence.

2.The DNA/RNA protein synthesis is information.

3.Therefore, information has an intelligent sender.

You cannot run away from the fact that information is stored in DNA molecules; therefore, the question remains, what or where did the original source of the information come from?

Whether someone believes in chance, purpose, or selective self-organization, there is no empirical evidence that shows that matter, when left to itself, is capable of creating such complex information.

1.Machines cannot function without acquiring sent, intelligent information.

2.DNA/RNA have a complexity of information greater than human-machine technology.

3.Therefore, the sender of information must be highly intelligent.


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

There is no question in my mind that human intelligence was only able to evolve through our ability to learn how to think in scientific terms.

Since it's quite obvious to me that all things in nature draw on various natural processes which impart intellectual qualities at various levels, who are these 1/2 baked scientists you are quoting here trying to kid by not taking nature as the root of our reality we have to work with to gain further understanding of how nature functions?

you simply can't study nature objectively by taking what nature obviously has - if it was always there in one form or another or not - saying it's not there and crediting a mystical source with its creation.

The introduction of a sender, creator or originator of a supernatural source points only to some sort of religious dogma by trying to put the human mind on top of nature and by taking all kinds of natural factors away from nature which obviously are an integral part of it.

To see humans as a special form of life independent of our natural support system is neither scientific, rational nor logical.

I simply don't see any purpose for any other sources of intelligence than the one nature provides us with when we build on our understanding correctly ... I am a product of nature, socialization and self-development - I see no practical use for any gods, myths or religions to help me understand reality any better than I do already.

How will anything you have to propose advance my grasp of how I understand nature to function?


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

F_rhuz,

("who are these 1/2 baked scientists you are quoting here trying to kid by not taking nature as the root of our reality we have to work with to gain further understanding of how nature functions?")

Hermann Schneider is a German nuclear physicist. Sir Fred Hoyle is an English astrophysicist, and Dr. Heribert Nilsson is a botanist at Lund University in Sweden.

("I simply don't see any purpose for any other sources of intelligence than the one nature provides us with when we build on our understanding correctly ... I am a product of nature, socialization and self-development - I see no practical use for any gods, myths or religions to help me understand reality any better than I do already.")

Many have their own opinions to share. That is why I am assuming you spend a lot of your time commenting on the philosophy and religion topics in HubPages.

("you simply can't study nature objectively by taking what nature obviously has")

By nature, do you simply mean particles and forces? You do realize that science is a concept. You are trying to use reason, which is intangible. Many scientists contemplate unobservable phenomena. Where do you think the concepts of dark matter, quarks, and consciousness, etc... come from? Furthermore, science is dependent on logic, scientific method and induction, which are too, concepts.

How are these concepts derived from particles?

You need to come up with your own logical reasonable explanation here besides saying, "because nature says so."

Who, or where, is this "nature" person you speak of in the feminine, or is she an intangible?

Kurt Gödel proved that the entire universe cannot be understood by any single inference system that exists within it.

If science deals with only with the natural world, how can it possibly prove there is nothing beyond it?

There are many truths that we rationally accept, but they cannot be scientifically proven. From the concepts above, can you scientifically prove any one of them?

Science has many unproven assumptions such as the speed of light.

("How will anything you have to propose advance my grasp of how I understand nature to function?")

("I simply don't see any purpose for any other sources of intelligence than the one nature provides us with when we build on our understanding correctly.")

There is no good logical reason to believe that the natural world is all there is. You will have to concede to agnosticism, or self-refute, and stand by your faith in naturalism.

It is impossible to prove that the supernatural does not exist. You have stated your beliefs, but with no evidence to consider to be true. You are basing your belief system on faith, but wait!, your paradigm denies any faith whatsoever; therefore, your belief system is in need of some outside assistance.

One of the following assertions is true about naturalism, and the other is false.

1.If naturalism is true, then there is a sender of complex intelligent information.

2.If naturalism isn't true, then there is a sender of complex intelligent information.

What follows?

If the first assertion (1.) is false, then naturalism is true; there isn't a sender of complex information. If the second assertion (2.) is false, then naturalism isn't true; there isn't a sender of complex information.

Hence, there isn't a sender of complex information in naturalism.

The problem here is that technology proves that there is an intelligent sender of information.

1.The sender of complex information requires intelligence.

2.The DNA/RNA protein synthesis is complex information.

3.Therefore, complex information has an intelligent sender.

Again, what evidence do have to contribute, if any, to account for the *origin* of complex intelligent information?


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

My understanding of nature is such that it includes our own universe and possibly others as existing objects with all their cosmic sub-components and forms of energy emission and conversion, anything on earth that's not made by man, on down to the sub-atomic micro cosmos ...

All the processes which take place are virtually all of natural origin and part of constant change anyway besides the small part of human activity on earth.

Since what I know about energy, matter and motion - it can neither be created nor destroyed - continuous change and transformation seems to be a universal process ... if this is a fact, than the flow of information is just another form in which some states of matter interact within their respective environments and beyond.

To integrate your search for meaning from your own personal perspective into the one of our cosmic reality is simply impossible at this point in time.

You can only take responsibility for the formation of your own mind space in such a way so you can draw on other existing objects currently in the enabled state of providing you with such valid data as you may require to advance your own cognitive abilities in line with your positive development as a socially well adjusted, intellectual being free from any god delusions.

Why use complex information to provide a simple analogy?

I do think your question about the origin of complex intelligent information is simply YOU having arrived at a point in your own mind space where you finally see it exists - but it existed in nature all along ... you just didn't know it was always there or how to use it correctly!

Rotating objects existed long before humans invented the wheal ... you see my point or you want proof? :)


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Another point ... or two:

Slarty O'Brian raises the question in a recent hub: "Is there a tree of life?"

A very good read! He talks about how Craig Venter & Sidney Altman, Molecular Biologists at Yale, created the first artificial DNA, which is like creating life from scratch ... so what it all comes down to are acids, carbon sugars, phosphates, and four bases: thymine, cytosine, guanine, and adenine. That’s what our DNA is made of. The proteins which are manufactured by this code give us our traits and characteristics ... isn't nature interesting? :)

See, not gods, nothing super natural again!

What else is so interesting? Do you know, the Vatican has it's own Academy of 1/2 baked Scientists? I even heard one member, a Particle Physicist from Vienna discuss a Secular Humanist during a public debate series. Religion lost big time, if you ask me.

Science is a lot more than just a simple concept. It's a growing body of knowlege and principles which cover all areas of human inquiry.

Reason is not just intangible but closly related to what can be found to be rational and in many cases a measurable part of reality.

Objective reality combines all of what man does with all of natures activities. I have no problem with logic and math, theoretical or applied, and other objective tools of the human mind, such as causality, de- or induction, theses, anti-theses and thyn-thesis, etc.

All of human thought is by it's very nature derived from a living object equiped with a mind capable of intellectual processes ... why the hell would you even try reducing inteligent biomass to inert particle matter without fully evaluating the various qualities of these objects?

I have a more reasonable view of nature because there are simply no super-natural attachments to be added besides all the purly human fabrications.

You, on the other hand like to strip nature naked of all she has to offer so it becomes 'logical' to your way of thinking that external inteligence from some sort of god has to be added before nature can be seen as the respectable body of enormous proportions and dimensions which she really is.

Nature is the most concrete of all objects in existance and the most vital part of objective reality. The other part of objective reality is the far more limited, trivial ralm of human activity.

Natural science can only deal with nature to explore and discover what is yet unknown to man. By definition, nothing exists outside objective reality.

There is a much better reason to behold an undestanding of nature which precludes any nead of having to add super-natural objects like gods to the mix. Why create concepts of reality in ways which will only open the door to absurdity?

The real discussion centers not around what I have to concede to. If the whole question were only theoretical, calling myself an agnostic would be ok. I can tell you that my enormous disregard for all forms of cult, religiousity and social manipulation make me into the radical atheist which I now am ... so you can possibly see now why my world view is so totally opposed to the promotion of any gods or religions.

... but what are your motives? why do you feel so strongly, you can't use more objective ideas which disqualify the nessessity of a god in your own view of reality?


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

F_hruz,

("He talks about how Craig Venter & Sidney Altman, Molecular Biologists at Yale, created the first artificial DNA, which is like creating life from scratch ...")

Vetnor digitally copied, synthesized, and inserted the DNA code, which is a great achievement. What you have to realise is that he used code that had already pre-existed. The recipient cell that he used contained all the “machinery” necessary for cell duplication.

I don’t mean to be a show stopper here for you, but there must be three steps for the process of life to begin.

1.DNA duplication (Vetnor and his team accomplished this)

2.DNA code transcribed into messenger RNA (Vetnor’s team did not synthesize this step; all this was already in the recipient cell)

3.RNA translations into the synthesis of protein nanomachines are a requirement for the replication of DNA, transcription of RNA, protein synthesis, energy conversion systems, etc…

Vetnor did not create life, but rather copied what was already there and made a working copy. His achievement actually demonstrated the extreme amount of complex information that is required for life.

(“Natural science can only deal with nature to explore and discover what is yet unknown to man. By definition, nothing exists outside objective reality.”)

When addressing the questions of *origin,* to say that happenstance in physical-chemical processes are the *only* claim to the sole information on life with no invalidation or substantiated contradiction, is a presupposed ideology. Furthermore, “life” would have no real intrinsic meaning. Morality, purpose, free-will, responsibility, love, etc… are all a matter of chance. I believe there is a rational alternative to non-purpose.

It is illogical for extremely complex information to originate from randomness.

It is illogical for extremely complex information to be created without an intelligent sender.

It is illogical to establish an extremely complex code system apart from an extremely intelligent sender.

It is illogical for an information chain to exist unless the information was created originally by an intelligent source.

The fact still remains; no information has been generated from random physical-chemical processes and cannot be explained mechanistically.

This was the headline in one of Germany`s national newspapers on May 23, 2010, `Researcher Craig Vetnor has created artificial life – WE ARE GOD`.

FYI, artificial life is an oxymoron.

Information is vital and essential to life, which is a non-material component of life. Information is purposeful with a purposeful originator.

(“I can tell you that my enormous disregard for all forms of cult, religiosity and social manipulation make me into the radical atheist which I now am ... so you can possibly see now why my world view is so totally opposed to the promotion of any gods or religions.”)

I don’t disagree from the collateral damage cults, religion, and social manipulation have caused.

Besides the fallibilities of man, there is so much diversity in life that is highly complex, organized, and integrated. The distinction can be made that we use mass and energy in our technological machinery, but they do not distinguish between the living and inanimate.


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Your sense for what is logical and what is not is simply blurred by your inability or not wanting to follow the logical steps very clearly laid out before you ... time and again!

Why do you keep missing the point by many km? Because you are trying to aim the right way but keep on looking in the wrong direction ... no religion, no gods, no Jesus will give you a logical foundation to your way of thinking, ever ... :)

A better hub than I can write makes this very point, so take a good look right here ...

http://hubpages.com/education/Origins-of-life...


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

F_rhuz,

("Because you are trying to aim the right way but keep on looking in the wrong direction ... no religion, no gods, no Jesus will give you a logical foundation to your way of thinking, ever ... :)")

If you re-read the commentary, it is you who keeps bringing up religion. I have laid out my reasoning in a scientific and logical way.

Of course, you are free to your own opinions. You've really have come full circle by the echo that you believe "religion" does not have a logical foundation. I would suggest visiting the Christianity, Bible and Jesus topics on HubPages to vent out your frustrations.

("Your sense for what is logical and what is not is simply blurred by your inability or not wanting to follow the logical steps very clearly laid out before you ... time and again!")

On the contrary, I have laid out my rationale in my comments with non-religious scientific deductions. In order to refute them, you need to throw away your prejudice and *try* to focus on them instead of giving emotional appeals.

I have read Slarty's hub. Now it is time for you to glean off of what he has written and apply your "knock-out-blow" here.

Chemical Evolution...

Chemical evolution *requires* that the DNA/RNA protein synthesising system (DRPSS) is the result of materialist process.

DRPSS could not have originated by purely material happenstance.

Therefore, chemical evolution is not true regarding the *origin* of information.

Biological Evolution...

There is only pure matter, or biological life.

Biological life exists with new information in DRPSS that is essential for life.

Therefore, the existence of pure matter only does not exist because of the origin of new information in DRPSS.

I believe that the origin of life is intelligent and purposeful. Humans have a material physical body with a non-material mechanism of information.

No one has proved that new information can be produced by unguided processes that are purely physical-chemical.


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Naa, there is nothing which originates by purely material happenstance. You only want to see it that way because you don't even look at the WHOLE picture!

Different objects are composed of vastly different forms of matter, non of which is ever random, so they end up having greatly different qualities.

The Periodic Table of Elements is not a creation of a higher mind outside of reality, nature, chemistry and particle physics. It was Dmitry Mendeleyev, who had a higher developed human mind with special training to understand where each element should be located even before they discovered its existence in some cases.

Is it purely material happenstance in your mind for two different gasses to combine virtually inseparably into a liquid called H2O or are you starting to see all the laws, forces and loads of information which all natural processes have to pass on as part of these constant and very orderly changes within nature?

It's all highly orderly - but naturally, unknown and unfortunately, seemingly all denied by you.

You don't have to invent DNA, the information it stores or anything else. It already existed long before you were even on the drawing board. Just try to discover reality and forget about your dogmas ... don't try to impress with smart talk - put your cards on the table by describing your motives for wanting to transform your irrational form of thought into reasonable sounding logic.

You are only using smart sounding arguments in ways which make no sense to please your own ideas which go nowhere because you are not really trying to discover nature as she exists.

What makes you try to fit reality into your irrational form of logic ... with tooth and nail? :)


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

F_hruz

("Is it purely material happenstance in your mind for two different gasses to combine virtually inseparably into a liquid called H2O or are you starting to see all the laws, forces and loads of information which all natural processes have to pass on as part of these constant and very orderly changes within nature?")

A molecule is just a molecule. When water is described with symbols such as H20, we are using an encoding/decoding mechanism to *describe* it, but H20 itself contains no code. Information is different than H20 because it represents something other than itself.

Let me clarify for you your misunderstanding,

Everything in nature represents only itself and does not produce information. DNA, on the other hand, is distinct with the complete information of a *living* organism. It is an encoding/decoding system that contains code.

Up to what is presently known about information requires a mind. DNA requires a mind, because there is no known mechanism by which natural processes produce information.

1.All languages, codes, protocols and encoding/decoding mechanisms that we know, the origins come from a mind.

2.DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding/ decoding mechanism

3.Therefore, DNA came from a mind.

("What makes you try to fit reality into your irrational form of logic ... with tooth and nail? :)")

Your pockets are empty and now you are trying to pass lint off as a c-note.

You can account for logic, but within your world-view you cannot account for the ability to use it.


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

You just don't want to admit that any form of information can only exist as a specific quality of matter. Just like radioactivity is a quality of Uranium, magnetic qualities exist in Fe but not in Cu, which has instead superior electric conductivity, etc.

All elements are a lot more than just the mindless matter you only see in them. When natural processes take place which force an interaction between these various qualities of matter, a lot more than just your mindless matter is involved - don't you see this by now?

Why would you think that your own mind, as limited as it is, is not of natural origin, could develop without reflecting the changes of matter it has been a part of, or even exists outside of your body?

Just like life in all it's forms, has to be part of nature by simple necessity, the transmitter, receiver and all the other toys you are still hoping for to get for x-mas, where already delivered to you on day 1 - 90

What are you still waiting to get? What's still missing in your mind?


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 4 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

Yes, molecules can spontaneously form into more complex ones with different characteristics, but that has not solved the problem.

DNA does regulation and complex interaction with biological "machinery." You have not solved the issue of information. The molecules that are composed of naturally formed elements form many patterns and combinations, but they are not analogous with respect to the information required for sentient life.

Human beings cannot be made by technological machinery. Even if you negate intelligence behind chemical reactions in nature, the problem remains that assembly of the machinery of life is in an intelligent order.

Chemicals have the ability assemble themselves into more complex chemicals, but again the issue is the information required for "a rotating shaft mesh with another gear in a perfect ratio" that is necessary for the functions of life.

Chemicals do not have the ability to just spontaneously assemble themselves into the fully functional biological machine of *sentience."

Your example of elements in nature is the same as trying to say that river water flowed into the ocean and then condensed into rainwater and the pattern continued to evolve into a pipe which fed into a pump that was perfectly calibrated to irrigate the crops above the river with a certain volume of water.

Successive logical steps of intelligent information must be inferred. It would be foolish to say that the creation of human life which has been observed to function automatically does not have extremely complex intelligent information necessary for its design or just randomly happened spontaneously.


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 4 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Nothing ever just randomly happens spontaneously in nature! Why do you keep saying such silly things?

Let yourself get inspired to discover how natural processes constantly unfold, interact, build and unwind and never get too impressed with such silly answers based on wrong questions.

If you have any amount of intellect in your head, it's because the physical brain developed over time the ability to form a thinking mind to know we don't have gods or angels or other supernatural man-mad BS to thank for but lots of mental activity of the correct kind to practice on a daily basis before our minds will be healthy and able to contribute to the evolution of life on earth in the most valuable way there is.

Natural processes follow the laws of nature, and to some degree these laws, if well known, become the laws of science ...

There are some great hubs dealing with more advanced questions of why the human mind is just a biological apparatus which functions so poorly not because of the hardware or the peripheral devices which naturally evolved but because of the mind polluting cultural input, ie religion, nationalism and commercialism,

Take it from here ...

https://service.mail.com/dereferrer/?target=http%3...

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working