Metro State Atheists

Promoting Science, Reason, and Secular Values

Joel’s Commentary on appearance on Bob Enyart Live 1/7/09


As many of you know, I was a guest on the KGOV program, Bob Enyart Live.  Bob is the pastor at Denver Bible Church and host of the show bearing his name.  If you missed the show you can listen to it here.  Since the show is only half an hour, there were things I didn’t get to explain or talk about in the detail I would have liked.  Further, since Bob is the host, he is obviously going to control the speaking time and thus I was left with less than he had, further added to the lack of time I had to explain and expand on my points.  However, this is not way a swipe at Bob or the way he conducts the show, it’s the way it is with any radio show regardless of topic.  The topics I wanted to address are: the discussion towards the end relating to my statement that design and beauty are subjective, that “Bob and Joel agreed that Christians do not assert that God came into existence with the writing of the Bible. Thus inconsistencies, even if they were shown to exist in Scripture, would not disprove God’s existence.”(Source:, and that “being a person has more to do with the non-physical realm of ideas, logic, relationships, and reason, than it does with chemistry and physics.” (Source:  I was going to tackle the Einstein quotation, but a comment left on a previous blog addresses the topic/point well enough that I don’t not feel that further elaboration is necessary.

1. Beauty and Design are subjective

“The eye may be useful, and apparently well adapted for vision, however it could also serve as a moderately good tetherball for some appropriately sized people or sophisticated mice.”

As previously stated, this discussion occurred toward the end of the show and left neither I nor Bob the sufficient amount of time necessary to address each other’s point to the extent they deserved.  In an effort to state this correctly I will quote directly, both myself and Bob.  Bob begins by claiming “there is a universe of extraordinary beauty and sophistication and obvious design”.  To which I responded “…everything you just said, design and beauty, those are subjective claims”, to which Bob said “design is not subjective”.  Here is where the discussion prematurely ended due to time constraints.  Thus, this is where I’d like to begin my expansion of my claims and a refutation of Bob’s.

Bob and I agreed that beauty is subjective but disagreed with me about my assertion that design is.  When it comes to object of human manufacture, this is true.  However, to reverse the ‘watchmaker’ example, suppose one does in fact come upon a watch.  One who is ignorant of clocks and watches and possibly the idea of time itself may derive a alternative idea of what the device, that we call a watch, is designed for.  This may be stretching a bit, given we must assume the person finding the watch is more or less an idiot.  Therefore, let us examine my claim only using examples to drive the point home.  When I say design is subjective, I obviously do not mean it literally.  What I mean when I say that is observations of some structure or object cannot lead one to infer design automatically or because something “looks complicated”, which is what Bob and most creationists mean when they say something is designed.  Further, if design isn’t subjective then creationists should stop using the term as in the following sentence: “the eye looks designed”.  The word “looks” has a contextual sense of subjectivity; its a word that, used in this context, implies that the viewer/speaker is offering his/her opinion of the observation, not stating a fact of any kind.  However, one need not include the work “looks” in the statement;  such is the case with Bob’s statement “there is a universe of extraordinary beauty and sophistication and obvious design”.  He means design in the way I described above.  This is, in fact, a subjective use of the word design.  Bob used the eye example, like most creationists do.  He says that the eye is designed for vision.  That’s a subjective claim, because evolution wasn’t trying for an eye that has vision, per say.  Vision is an incidental by product of the arrangement of the different “parts” of the eye working together.  I will now attempt to drive home my point using my own example.  Let us suppose we have an ordinary hammer.  There are those that would say that a hammer is “designed” to drive nails into wood, or some other equally pliable material.  Now, suppose further that we happen to find this same hammer used as an axle for a toy truck.  Now, although the hammer works as an axle for the toy truck, it wasn’t designed for this purpose; or was it?  The fact that it works as the axle for the toy truck might be used as evidence that the hammer was, in fact, designed for this purpose.  However, this assumption is baseless and is flawed because it is fraught with the bias of seeing it work this way in this particular, specialized instance.  To bring this back to the famous eye example brought up by Bob; the eye may be useful, and apparently well adapted for vision, however it could also serve as a moderately good tether ball for some appropriately sized people or sophisticated mice.  So, to wrap up my point.  The appearance of design can be and is, most of the time, quite deceiving.  This is precisely because the human brain is wired such that it seeks out patterns and logically systems in things that may not have them at all, such as clouds.  Therefore, it will also seek out a “reason” for something being the way it is; its design.

2. Biblical/Scriptural inconsistencies do not disprove God’s existence

“God is then, at best, reduced to a highly intelligent extraterrestrial capable of creating life on a planet and futilely attempting to affect that life by writing a book.”

This, on the surface, appears to be true.  In fact, on some level it is.  This is useful for getting out of the circular logic of “God wrote the bible, the bible asserts that God exists, therefore God exists”; for if God didn’t write the bible, then what it says about God’s existence is irrelevant to some degree  and since it’s the not the foundation of the argument for his existence, one has broken free of the circle.  However, Bob asserts that the bible is “the infallible word of the living God”.  Starting with this premise, the following are also true (written in order of implication): God exists, God is perfect and thus infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible then is perfect and infallible as a prefect being cannot beget imperfection.  Therefore, any imperfection, however slight, would ,at minimum, call God’s perfection into question.  But, following the implications of this, we see that the following would then be true if any imperfection were discovered in the bible: God exists, God isn’t perfect or infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible isn’t perfect or infallible.  Thus, we’re left with an imperfect, fallible God.  What good is this?  God is then, at best, reduced to a highly intelligent extraterrestrial capable of creating life on a planet and futilely attempting to affect that life by writing a book.  In other words, God would be a super intelligent cosmic mad scientist bent on power, self satisfaction and the cessation of boredom.  Of course, this doesn’t disprove God exists but it sure lends quite a bit of doubt.  In fact, it creates enough doubt to make it more reasonable not to believe in such a deity.  (Notice that this line of reasoning can be applied to all three monotheisms, not just Christianity.)

3. Being a person has more to do with the non-physical realm…than it does with chemistry and physics

“Then with this 60% of soul and spirit, shouldn’t all dogs go to heaven? “

This is hefty claim, even by theological standards.  I’ll start by taking a tally of those things “about us” that are physical, aka comprised of tangible matter and energy.  Our DNA, made of amino acids, which are molecules composed of atoms; our nervous system is made of nerves and energy in the form of electrical impulses which are generated by internal and external stimuli which are themselves are physical; lastly, and most importantly, our brain, composed of tissue, fluid and neurons which are themselves are physical matter. Further, these neurons “communicate” with one another via chemical and electrical signals, which are also physical.  The brain receives information about the world via stimuli provided by the aforementioned nervous system and its various specific subparts (ie eyes, ears).  So far, we’re looking like pretty material beings.  However, Bob asserts that things like memories, personality, consciousness and ideas are non-physical and thus are proof of, at least, a realm beyond the purely material.  I attempted to point out on the show that memories are stored in the brain via the chemical and electrical impulses that the neurons use to communicate with each other.  Personality can be seen in what is commonly referred to the “animal kingdom” (though I don’t care too much for this distinction as it implies that we’re higher than animals when we clearly are animals).  For instance, any individual of our closest evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee exhibits what we recognize as personality.  To “move down” , so to speak, the “animal hierarchy” (again these terms are misleading) to our more distant relatives; dogs are said to have personalities of their own.  Their owners tend to use words and emotional descriptors usually and generally reserved for humans.  Some dogs also have a uncanny memory that we humans have attempted to harness via artificial selection.  So if dogs have memories and personalities, shouldn’t they have, at least 2/3 of soul and spirit, as Bob claims we do because we have these properties.  Then with this 60% of soul and spirit, shouldn’t all dogs go to heaven?  No.  They don’t because they haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior.  Poor dogs.   But I digress. The only property, as far as science can tell thusfar, that we have attained that is different from the rest of the animals that cohabit this planet, is consciousness.  What is consciousness exactly?  Its not easily defined, is it?  Let us examine what it means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Consciousness is “The state or faculty of being conscious, as a condition and concomitant of all thought, feeling, and volition; ‘the recognition by the thinking subject of its own acts or affections’” and “The state of being conscious, regarded as the normal condition of healthy waking life”.  What is conscious, you might ask?  It is “having internal perception or consciousness: a. of a fact. b. of one’s sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc.”  However, as far as science can tell us to this point, this is also a manifestation of the matter and energy of the brain;  similar to memories and personality, described earlier.  This leads to an interesting thought concerning the story of Adam in the bible.  In the traditional bible story, Adam and Eve are walking around naked without a care in the world.  That is until, according to the story Eve eats the apple and all the sudden they become “aware” of themselves.  So one could in a sense posit that Adam and Eve weren’t conscious until this point.  According to Bob consciousness is an important, if not the most important part of what he called the soul and spirit.  So, Adam and Eve weren’t conscious human beings until they ate from the tree of knowledge.  The last of the non-physical things Bob brings up is ideas.  It is true that ideas are nebulous.  However, what can be said is that not all ideas are 100% original.  Ideas stem from combining, sometimes consciously and subconsciously, memories, stimuli, and logic.  Thus, like the other things our brain does ideas are also is a manifestation of physical matter.


I hope this has helped clarify some of my points and my refutations of Bob’s points.  This isn’t in anyway intended to be an attack on Bob Enyart, his show or anyone close to him.  I don’t want this to be misconstrued as me “getting back at him” nor is it saying that I was shortchanged during the show in terms of time.  This was simply an expansion of my views and thoughts on certain topics of the show I didn’t feel got enough explanation or attention.


January 11, 2009 - Posted by | atheism, Bible, Center For Inquiry, Christianity, creationism, Events, First Century, god, Interview, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus is Lord, Language, Metro State Atheists, Morality, New Testament, Newsletter, Old Testament, philosophy, Politics, religion, Rome, science, The Holy Bible, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. Hi Joel,

    That’s great you dialogued on these issues with Bob Enyart. I enjoyed reading your responses because I share in your objections. Interestingly, I recently graduated from Denver Seminary with a Masters in Divinity degree with an emphasis in philosophy. The more I studied the bible, original languages (Greek & Hebrew), and philosophy, the more issues I found with Christianity. While I am not sure where I officially land on beliefs these days, I am on the search for truth. Feel free to check out my website to see some of the issues I have with Christianity. This spring I am taking philosophy classes at CU Denver to seek for truth and decide for sure whether Atheism or Christianity makes the most sense. I am leaning more towards Atheism, but haven’t arrived at a full rejection of Christianity yet.

    However, the most substantial problems I see with God is his inconsistent behavior in the OT and how Christians gerrymander their interpretations of Scripture. If christians cannot even agree on who God is or what His Word says, then why bother? How can God allow millions, if not billions of people to spend eternity in hell if He is far from obvious (hiddenness of God problem)? I am looking forward to studying more metaphysics, ethics, and the philosophy of mind. I’m glad there’s a blog to discuss these issues!

    Comment by Sarah Schoonmaker | January 15, 2009

  2. I’m very glad you enjoyed the blog and I’d be happy to discuss other issues further with you. I find many many problems that the idea of God creates. It’s an unnecessary assumption (Occham’s razor) to posit.

    Comment by Metro State Atheists | January 15, 2009

  3. Joel, thanks for your kindness in the dialogue. It was interesting to read your clarifications. I’d like to ask you to reconsider your claim that the statement “the eye is designed for vision” is “a subjective claim.” It’s hard to know where to go with statements like that. And here you showed good comprehension of Darwinism: “evolution wasn’t trying for an eye that has vision…” but that should help you realize how utterly impossible it would be for Darwinism, with no goal or direction, to therefore produce a system of millions of interrelated parts.

    You can see a drawing we commissioned to demonstrate this problem at:

    Regarding Adam and Eve, nakedness, etc., if its ok, I’d like to post something I wrote in a debate with atheist Zakath at TheologyOnline.

    Thanks for talking Joel!
    -Bob Enyart

    As a believer in God, I have often stated that everywhere you look everything you ponder provides evidence for a supernatural Creator regardless of how unlikely the thing you consider. How do we test this claim? We check to see if even apparently improbable issues are explained well by theism or by atheism. So, to see if we find evidence for a supernatural Creator even in the most unlikely topics, I submit to you: [BA10-7] Dirty Jokes. On two occasions, I publicly sparred with The Man Show host, now with ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live, calling him a crotch humorist and pointing out that TV’s old romantic comedies mostly have been replaced by genital comedies. Unlike animals, human beings have a sense of embarrassment about various bodily functions which humor can exploit. Why do people commonly laugh and feel uncomfortable in public regarding reproduction and expelling waste? If human beings were not at all spiritual but strictly made of matter, consisting only of atoms and molecules, then we would have no context from which to view our base bodily functions as funny or embarrassing. So we theists describe both human and animal behavior as an expected function of our worldview. Since animals do not have spirits, they have no context from which to be embarrassed about relieving themselves or reproduction, and readily do both in public. A male horse pulling a carriage of tourists in Denver will defecate in front of his favorite mare and the rest of the world, while a human being would die a thousand deaths emotionally before doing likewise.

    Humor requires degrees of truth and the unexpected. A popular comic has noted that when we knock on restroom doors, we often hear the occupant say, “There’s somebody in here.” Somebody? As in somebody else? Since a restroom is primarily for our basest bodily functions, we tend to distance ourselves from its use and even refer to the facility as though it is for resting or bathing. We speak of heart doctors, ears, nose, and throat specialists, eye doctors and even brain surgeons, but we disguise experts in our most embarrassing function by calling them proctologists, so well veiled that we don’t even recognize the Greek root of the title. If we called him a crapologist, no one would take the job. A slight reference to the function in public can get a frown or a laugh out of billions of people. Yet a dog in heat cares nothing about witnesses; monkeys make no attempt to hide their private parts; and a statue at the center of attention will get covered in bird droppings. Mark Twain critically observed in Following the Equator: A Journey Around the World (1897, ch. 27) that “Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.”

    Everything, even dirty jokes, provides evidence for God’s spiritual realm. And again, atheism cannot directly explain even one of all the observations ever made, while all those same observations are themselves ready and direct evidence for theism. Thus in this debate Zakath the atheist is on the defensive and tries to run away even from scientific discussions. Human beings have a spiritual dimension and thus we do not have a matter-of-fact attitude toward our lowest material functions. If you could teach a dog to laugh, you couldn’t get him to laugh at fire hydrants or reproduction, because he would have no frame of reference from which to consider such things funny or distant. But spiritual beings could look with surprise, shock, and embarrassment, the stuff of dirty jokes, upon their physical selves. Actually, to introduce this matter, I have simplified the issue somewhat, for the derivative of the word psychology does not come from the Greek word pneuma for spirit, but from the word psyche for soul. Life is more complicated than just matter and spirit, for man is body, soul, and spirit. Both scientific observation and religious writings indicate that animals are not simply made of matter, but they also have souls, which enables them to relate to one another. The souls of men and animals do not exhibit identical capacities, and even the souls of different animal species enable different degrees of social and even rudimentary emotional capacities for relating to other animals and to man. As relationships have a greater value than chemical reactions, soul is a higher function than body. And as a relationship with a spiritual (supernatural) Creator is the greatest possible relationship for a creature, spirit is a higher function than soul. Only humans exhibit evidence of having an eternal spirit which observations are also consistent with the most common religious view. Thus the species of Homo sapiens possesses the widest context from which to distance ourselves from various bodily functions, and as those functions become most base, we have the context to view them as virtually foreign from our true identities.

    We conceal reproduction and the expulsion of waste (which even prostitutes and pornographers do in their private lives), and then we also cover our nakedness with clothes, and reside in private domiciles. We get married in the most public of ceremonies and then live in extremely expensive privacy. As a group, the most progressive liberals could have billions of dollars extra to use toward meeting other needs if they did away with expensive private accoutrements like clothing and bedrooms. And if atheistic evolution were true, especially indoors, the universality of clothing itself is difficult to account for and should be easily discarded. Even nudists use private restrooms and claim to conceal their sexual behavior from relatives and other onlookers. In rejecting God, an individual or societal conscience can be seared and values lowered. So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty. Behaviors that are characteristically human, which are unlike those in the animal kingdom from which we supposedly evolved just a short time ago, testify to a morality of human nature imposed upon us by the Creator.

    Now let’s move from jokes to fears, specifically, fears of the dark, of ghosts, and of the dead. We humans differ from animals in strange quirks which theism readily explains. Evolution supposedly selects so well for survival that human brains advanced quickly to now process quadrillions of instructions per second. Yet if atheism were true, then natural selection has introduced the most backward oddities only among human animals. According to Isaac Asimov, the human brain “as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe” (Asimov, In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even, Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10). And yet people, the greatest supposed achievement of evolution, are the only animals that are afraid of the dark, afraid of spirits, and afraid of dead bodies. A little mouse moves about fearlessly at night. A fish calmly sniffs at the recently deceased corpse of its own mother. No snake is afraid of ghosts. Yet human beings have an uncanny fear of these which we overcome to varying degrees. But why do these experiences exist for humans and not animals? Why? Because human beings, being spiritual as well as physical, are inherently aware of the spiritual realm, the domain beyond death, of spirit beings, the realm that cannot be seen with the eyes. Such physical experiences remind us of that realm when we are in the dark and confronted with a reality which we cannot see, and when we think of the spirit beings who inhabit that realm, and when we come in contact with the remains of another person who has departed from this life into the next. For a dead body is the closest physical connection we have with the afterlife. Such behavioral evidence further distinguishes humans from animals and provides additional evidence for mankind’s reasonable and unshakeable belief in the afterlife. For if God put an eternal spirit into man but not into animals, we could predict that animals will not behave as humans do regarding the dead and the unseen. And even the atheist exhibits such fears, not being able to shake his own awareness of the spiritual realm. Again every single observation ever made provides direct evidence against atheism and for God.

    Atheists of course will always attempt explanations. “We fear a dead body because whatever killed it may lurk nearby to kill us.” Or, “Fear disguises our sadness at losing a loved one.” But these do not explain our eerie feeling if we happen to stumble upon an old human skull. Some atheists may even deny that such fears are a common part of the human experience, but just hold a discussion with a random test group, about spirits, in the dark, at night, in an old cemetery. Yes by training or repetition people can overcome such anxiety and atheists can find one in a thousand people who will deny ever experiencing such creepy reactions. But then, let him find one in a thousand cows that show such fear. So my theistic worldview would predict and directly explains these broad differences in behavior between trillions of non-humans and their billions of human counterparts, while atheism fails to account for any of it, tripping up even over dirty jokes and universal fears, requiring secondary and tertiary assumptions, along with a boatload of completely unimaginable factors in which they nonetheless implicitly trust.

    A human can experience a fear of the dark and want to quickly switch on a light even when walking through his own familiar bedroom, even when sure that nothing is amiss and without worry of any intruder. Humans have a fear of spirits, and commonly, even those who do not believe in ghosts get readily spooked in so-called “haunted houses.” (I know; I saw more than 30,000 people pass through one that I worked in run by Youth for Christ’s Campus Life high school ministry in New Jersey.) If evolution simply produced such universal fears of the dark, and of ghosts, and of the dead because they are valuable for survival, then why produce them only in humans and not in countless other species? Of course, God could have created animals with such instincts, but not doing so helps men see the uncrossable divide between us and animals, and helps deter even depraved men from modeling animal behaviors such as eating their own young. Compared to animals, humans have both noble and evil distinctions that atheism cannot account for, like our greater intellect, depth and breadth of personalities and emotions, our standing erect which gives us an upward heavenly gaze looking toward the immeasurable Creator, and even our sinful flesh. For the bigger the man, the harder his fall, and to whom much is given, much is required. And thus compared to animals, it is mankind that has the extraordinary capacity for evil. So the unknown, the unseen, the spiritual, the dead, all strike a chord that resonates uniquely throughout mankind. For if God made us with a spiritual dimension, to have an awareness of a spiritual life after death, then we should expect such behavior.

    Psychology leads us also to consider beauty. Can we accurately reduce the recognition and appreciation of beauty to simply a ploy of evolution? Or is beauty independent of any human or biological observer? Atheists have claimed that evolution produced the beauty in flowers, butterflies, and peacocks; but what of the splendor in snowflakes and galaxies? The universe is filled with evidence that beauty exists independently of biological observation. The beauty of deep sea plants and distant nebulas awaited discovery by man. If beauty does not exist independent of man’s observation, then it does not exist as evidence for God, but if a mountain stream or a wheat field is objectively beautiful, then God exists. The atheist can tell his wife she is not truly beautiful, or he can mimic the Christian and tell her the truth.

    I took a class in Artificial Intelligence at Arizona State University in which I wrote a software program that could play chess. Also that semester we looked at vision systems which began my own continuing consideration of beauty. The appreciation of beauty is a spiritual function not attributable to matter. Albert Einstein in his 1944 Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge wrote of “the gulf — logically unbridgeable” between ideas and matter referred to by some linguists and scientists as Einstein’s Gulf. Atheists are impotent to explain anything at all, and are especially unable to explain how the universe can begin with matter alone and develop to where knowledge is possible. They attempt to defend their atheistic worldview with knowledge, ideas, reason, science, language, and logic. But nothing inherent in matter should reliably give rise to any knowledge whatsoever, and especially not to beauty. For information science shows that knowledge does not arise nor increase by chance. And if any atheist thinks otherwise, then produce the proof discovered since Einstein which shows that knowledge can arise from matter.

    Beauty is not purely subjective to biological life. The innate beauty intrinsic to the animate and inanimate world testifies to us of a Creator who appreciates that delightful quality of things which possess a harmony of form, color, texture, and perspective, things which show originality and excellence of craftsmanship, all within the right setting. For we find beauty in a sunrise but not in a rotting corpse, in a soprano’s voice but not in a man’s belch, and in the eyes of a child but not in the droppings of a pig.

    Human observations provide evidence of purpose. We analyze our temperaments and so classify ourselves as introverts and extroverts, thinkers and feelers, detail-oriented and big picture types, planners and doers. Our population is filled with these fundamental characteristics in proportion. Since opposites attract (remember the Creator made both physics and romance), we have equal numbers of opposites and so as an extrovert I could marry a wonderful introvert named Cheryl. Clinical research shows that 2/3s of men are thinkers and 2/3s of women are feelers, meaning that men act more upon rules, and women act more upon relationships, giving us again a fine-tuned symbiosis. Thus men build bridges across rivers, and women build them across generations. And speaking of rules, atheistic feminists say that men made the rules of traditional morality in order to keep women down. But if it were up to the average man, society’s morals would force women to go naked, and instead of faithfulness in marriage, the Ten Commandments would insist upon promiscuity. And if men made up the rules, why is it that men are less virtuous than women? Just look at the jails, unfaithfulness, addiction, crassness, and murder. Sadly, as our society increasingly rejects belief in God, this gender gap narrows as women become less feminine, and we see the atheistic feminization of crime, infidelity, alcoholism, perversion, rush hour, and suicide.

    Just as no conceivable process can account for consciousness, i.e. self-awareness, arising of itself from matter, neither could personality and emotion so originate. Logically, the effect cannot be greater than the cause. Our consciousness comes from a self-aware Creator who made us. We are persons, with personality, because He who made us is a personal God. And we have emotions because He can love and hate. Emotions do not arise from chemical reactions, as though mixing a compound in a test tube for an eternity could produce envy or hope. Of course, since emotional beings can express their conditions emotionally, then we can emote our reactions to substances like alcohol or adrenaline, but it is naïve in the Einstein sense, “which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts” (ibid), to say that such substances produce the emotions. Chemicals do not feel anxiety. To get to emotion, requires personality, and to get personality requires a Person. Thus the evidence points not only to God, but it shows us what kind of God He is. He is not just a cosmic energy source, nor an impersonal organizing force. For neither a Duracell battery nor an Oracle database could ever produce a happy or sad personality. Since we have personality, it is rationale, logical, and utterly scientific to conclude that the cause of our existence is a personal God (just as Pasteur scientifically concluded that microbial growths came from unseen microbes). Atheists reject the Creator apart from any evidence and out of an unprovable, pre-existing bias which they typically refuse to show as falsifiable, leading them to irrational, illogical, and unscientific theories which defy every single observation ever made.

    Comment by Bob Enyart | January 20, 2009

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: