2nd law of thermodynamics: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » 2nd law of thermodynamics » 2nd law of thermodynamics

2nd law of thermodynamics
please explain the creationist attack in detail

Page: 1 2

2nd law of thermodynamics

eski
<default rank title>

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Location: Under the Sea
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 114

Posted 06/04/07 - 08:40 AM: Subject: 2nd law of thermodynamics	#1
I’m rather confused what exactly the Creationist are going off about and, perhaps, what the theory actually is. What I don’t understand is: If entropy works in isolated systems how does this relate to the universe? To be more specific, how do the Creationist think it disproves evolution? Is it in the big bang or the creation of complex organisms themselves or both? To go into further detail, what is the isolated system which they are referring? Isn’t an isolated system, theoretical? Is it possible that the laws were the same during creation? If not, how does this attack hold water? Though this is of lesser importance, why is it sometimes called a law of heating and cooling if it deals with organisms? Just wondering, because my friend from Germany, previously a staunch atheist, converted to creationism because of the second law of thermodynamics and I thought since he is into science he might know what he’s talking about whereas I have no idea what he’s on about.
gnostiagnostiagnostic- I know that I don't know but I don't know that.

Alayth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/04/07 - 08:49 AM:	#2
I've heard creationists claim that complex life couldn't have evolved because this would mean things becoming more ordered (life), which means a decrease in entropy. Of course - as you have eluded to - the Earth is not a closed system, so the creationists who claim this simply don't have a good grasp of science. If your friend is into science, I doubt this is what led to his conversion. I have no idea what he might mean, you might need to get him to elaborate.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 455
Total Posts: 11618

Posted 06/04/07 - 09:14 AM:	#3
The universe is an isolated system, basically by definition. If we look at the evolution of the universe, it began as something very simple -- shortly after the big bang it was virtually uniform, then even later there was only hydrogen and helium, if I recall. Over time the universe has spread out and become chaotic and complex. Stars were born and died, supernovas introduced the heavier elements. What was once simple is now an unfathomable mess of stars, planets, black holes, galaxies, quasars, dark matter, etc. It's the natural way of things to become disordered. A classic example is ice melting -- see wikipedia. There's also Brownian motion, the random movement you see on the microscopic scale. With the universe becoming so increasingly disordered, the suggestion that something as complex as a human being somehow gets constructed by chance over time is absurd. Time will tear things apart -- let a beautiful painting sit out for centuries and the elements will wear it down, but time can never create the painting.
"If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Alayth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/04/07 - 12:19 PM:	#4
Paul wrote: the suggestion that something as complex as a human being somehow gets constructed by chance over time is absurd. I think you mean "the suggestion that something as complex as a human being slowly was constructed through a process of natural selection over a huge amount of time with much outside energy sources has been proven, with heaps of evidence, to have happened."

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Exeter University
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 896

Posted 06/04/07 - 12:56 PM:	#5
Alayth wrote: I think you mean "the suggestion that something as complex as a human being slowly was constructed through a process of natural selection over a huge amount of time with much outside energy sources has been proven, with heaps of evidence, to have happened." Have you ever asked yourself why rocks don't evolve? Why stars don't evolve? Why glass doesn't evolve? Why water doesn't evolve? Only some things evolve. Why should these things evolve if not everything? Because that which evolves is unique. It is life. Why does life evolve but not everything else? Because life needs to evolve so that it survives. But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. If it was a simple case of adapting, then everything should be adapting. But this is not the case.
I both love and hate language with a passion.

Sepiraph
Arayashiki

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
Location: In the vastness of the Net
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 488

Posted 06/04/07 - 03:33 PM:	#6
First of all, I find it fairly ironic that Creationist would be using scientific ideas to disprove evolution. But nevertheless, the argument is that the 2nd law dictates that entropy of a closed system (universe in this case) tends to increase, and can never decrease. Then what they try to argue is that somehow the more evolved lifeform tends to decrease entropy, or that given a choice between a life and non-living, somehow the latter has a lower entropy. AFAIK I don't see how this is the case and this has never been proven. I mean, I can understand the argument that the information from DNA is passed on, and that life has the ability to organize matter in a specific way. So in some way it does decrease the configurational space of the arrangement of matter, but this pertains to the entropy in the informational sense, and not in the thermodynamical sense. Hence I don't see how one can make the argument that the entropy from thermodynamics is decreased by evolution. Therefore, I think the argument itself is incorrect, and worse yet not a lot of people would understand the rather subtle differences between the two concepts of entropy from thermodynamics and information theory. Here is an interesting article that explains the idea in greater detail: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm eski wrote: I’m rather confused what exactly the Creationist are going off about and, perhaps, what the theory actually is. What I don’t understand is: If entropy works in isolated systems how does this relate to the universe? To be more specific, how do the Creationist think it disproves evolution? Is it in the big bang or the creation of complex organisms themselves or both? To go into further detail, what is the isolated system which they are referring? Isn’t an isolated system, theoretical? Is it possible that the laws were the same during creation? If not, how does this attack hold water? Though this is of lesser importance, why is it sometimes called a law of heating and cooling if it deals with organisms? Just wondering, because my friend from Germany, previously a staunch atheist, converted to creationism because of the second law of thermodynamics and I thought since he is into science he might know what he’s talking about whereas I have no idea what he’s on about.
"... But as pioneers, they can become entities that will enlighten those who remained in the lower structure and make them continually aware of the higher structure, in the same way man felt respect and terror towards spiritual entities in antiquity." - Hideo Kuze

Alayth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/06/07 - 07:18 AM:	#7
Yahadreas wrote: Have you ever asked yourself why rocks don't evolve? No I haven't, but I know one major reason why they don't: they don't replicate. Replication is obviously needed for natural selection, which leads to evolution (due to imperfect replication). Yahadreas wrote: Why stars don't evolve? They don't replicate. Yahadreas wrote: Why glass doesn't evolve? Doesn't replicate. Yahadreas wrote: Why water doesn't evolve? Doesn't replicate. Yahadreas wrote: Only some things evolve. Why should these things evolve if not everything? Because they don't replicate. Why would we expect these items to just magically get better, without going through generations of natural selection? Yahadreas wrote: Because that which evolves is unique. It is life. Why does life evolve but not everything else? Because life needs to evolve so that it survives. But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. Yea - designed by evolution. Yahadreas wrote: If it was a simple case of adapting, then everything should be adapting. I am not sure what you mean by this - Do you understand the theory of evolution? It doesn't happen through adaptation. Adaptation was something which had to evolve.

frankquietly
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 06/07/07 - 01:49 PM: Subject: It all evolves	#8
I'm not happy with any distinction between animate and inanimate evolution. For sure, the evolution of living organisms is dynamic, the selection pressures and replication obvious and forceful. But water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen and this is not by magic, it is by an evolution. A replication and a selection. Cars reproduce in that they are reproduced, they evolve. Evolution is not a two tier world of the are and the are nots, it is a continuum between the active respirers and the inactive inert.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5411

Posted 06/09/07 - 05:03 AM:	#9
Selection follows interaction. Interaction presupposes a dynamic universe. The dynamics of matter in motion provide for a great deal of interaction of inanimate matter. Chemical and physical laws of interaction of bits of matter provide an opportunity to select the more stable combinations and select against the transitory. Animate selection will also involve replication. In that sense, we can claim evolution for both animate and inanimate matter, but the word "evolution" denotes something different in each case. Speaking in generalities usually leads to misunderstanding.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

avivsworld
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 10, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 06/10/07 - 07:16 PM:	#10
Yahadreas wrote: Have you ever asked yourself why rocks don't evolve? Why stars don't evolve? Why glass doesn't evolve? Why water doesn't evolve? Only some things evolve. Why should these things evolve if not everything? Because that which evolves is unique. It is life. Why does life evolve but not everything else? Because life needs to evolve so that it survives. But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. If it was a simple case of adapting, then everything should be adapting. But this is not the case. I'm assuming that you believe in ID. Just so you know, under certain conditions (e.g. high temp, high voltage (lightning), etc.) Amino acids have formed from different subsances - these form proteins, and are the building blocks of life. This shows how random events can occur that would support life, even if they are unlikely. Life has had millions, if not billions, of years to evolve, and just because it is complex doesn't mean that something else must have created it. If we had been created by something else, wouldn't we already be perfect?
Blessed be the mind too small for doubt.

jimRH7
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/03/08 - 01:15 PM:	#11
I've always thought of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as evidence against God. Why would and all-good, all-powerful God make a world that functions by decending into chaos? As for life conflicting the law, living things are simply a collection of very elaborate chemical reactions, reactions driven by this law (among others).

Legion
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:12 AM:	#12
I don’t know. Maybe the cretinists, I mean the creationists, are confusing evolutionary theory with the original emergence of life on Earth. This is a mistake as I see it, because our current theories of evolution rest on the assumption that we already have reproducing organisms. They don’t pretend to explain how life emerged in the first place or even what organisms are. So perhaps if they are talking about the original emergence of terrestrial life, they then argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents the accumulation of order in a system. But I gather that this law only applies to thermodynamically closed systems. And most systems, including organisms, are open thermodynamically. I suspect though that at the heart of their argument is the worn-out watchmaker argument. They look at the admittedly exquisite order found in organisms and they think this implies a god. jimRH7 wrote: ...living things are simply a collection of very elaborate chemical reactions,... Jim how does this help me recognize what an organism is? I firmly believe that evolution has occurred and that terrestrial life emerged by a natural process. But I am not sure if life is reducible to chemistry. For me among the things I've been asking myself recently is... What is organization? How is it characterized formally. And what differentiates living organization from non-living organization?

jimRH7
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/08/08 - 02:13 PM:	#13
Yeah, I found it a really strange idea, after studying chaos and order in philosohpy in such an abstract and detached way, to find later on that in chemistry the idea of what does and doesn't constitute order is not only agreed apon, but has units and is included in calculations in much the same way as mass, concentration etc. The best answer I could give, from the little I understand, is that acording to thermodynamics if you had, say two gasses separated by a deviding wall, this is more ordered than having the two gasses mixed uniformly. In this case, the chaos is called enthropy. This is not to say that the entire scientific community takes this philosophical stance on chaos and order and procliams it fact, but in thermodynamics when we say something is more "ordered" we mean it is more separated into different bits, and less spread out uniformly. That's why they use the term "enthropy" - to distinguish it from what we would call chaos generally, and the great philosophical debate that comes with it. I am not completely convinced that life is only chemistry either, but I also find it hard to say there is more to something like a single celled animal than the entirely physical, especially when, if I took years and years of research looking into the various reactions that happen inside this animal and listing them all out, I would not (OK, in theory) find anything that happens that was impossible to explain in physical terms. To me, it seems very strange to say that such an animal would have, say, a soul. If we are made up only of lots of these cells joined together, why would we be any different? I guess what divides organisms from the rest of the world, like robots, machines etc. is that they are made of primarily carbon chains bonded to hydrogen and oxygen, nitrogen etc. in various ways. In chemistry the whole area of reactions involving carbon chains bonded to hydrogen is reffered to as organic chemistry, despite the fact that it can often involve things that have nothing in common with organisms. Stuff like paint, soap, plastic, pharmacuticals are all organic chemistry. Supposing in the future a boilogist found a way to manufacture an entire microbe from only elements like carbon, hyrdogen etc. Would we have any reason not to call it an organism?

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2496

Posted 05/08/08 - 05:40 PM:	#14
I wouldn't say that the notion of order and chaos is all that well understood and codified in chemistry. Thermodynamics may be explained by statistical mechanics, but it may not be. A lot of philosophers still earn their dough working on the specifics.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Wowbagger
Goal achiever

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2007
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 219

Posted 05/08/08 - 07:38 PM:	#15
Our cells can only take a fraction of the chemical energy available to them, the rest being lost to increase chaos. That's in accordance to the 2nd law of thermodynamics I think.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2496

Posted 05/09/08 - 04:03 AM:	#16
Thermodynamics says that the efficiency of an engine is related to the amount of heat that it exchanges with the environment. At best, the 2nd law says, the engine will do its work and there will be no net heat exchange. However, this is an ideal situation and for practical engines, some of the energy of the system will go to doing work and some will go to heating the environment of the engine. The law means that you can't build a mega engine built out of one engine to do work and one engine to undo the heat exchange, so there will always (except in the ideal case) be energy that is "lost" to heating the environment rather than doing work. Now it is possible to discuss heat and heat exchange in terms of the aggregate movement of particles. The project to do this has a lot of interesting philosophical implications. (See almost anything by Lawrence Sklar, particularly Physics and Chance. I think Craig Callendar [sp?] is a more contemporary philosopher working on these issues.)
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Legion
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12

Posted 05/09/08 - 05:55 AM:	#17
jimRH7 wrote: I am not completely convinced that life is only chemistry either, but I also find it hard to say there is more to something like a single celled animal than the entirely physical, especially when, if I took years and years of research looking into the various reactions that happen inside this animal and listing them all out, I would not (OK, in theory) find anything that happens that was impossible to explain in physical terms. To me, it seems very strange to say that such an animal would have, say, a soul. If we are made up only of lots of these cells joined together, why would we be any different? Well, I don’t subscribe to idea of souls or of a vital force that infuses organisms. But I do believe there is more to living systems than we currently know. In my opinion mystery still abounds with organisms. And I think the Creationists exploit the current ignorance of science on matters biological to assert the action of their gods. I believe that our understanding of organisms and the organic world will grow. However it may require a paradigm shift before we find ourselves on the right track. I am not convinced that the formalisms which are currently used to model chemical and physical phenomenon are adequate for modeling living systems. But I also don’t believe there is anything forever mysterious about living systems.

philosopher8293
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:16 AM:	#18
If a glass, an ordered object with low entropy is dropped and smashes, it's entropy increases because it is left as many shattered pieces. If you melt it down and reform it as a glass, it's entropy decreases again because it becomes a more ordered shape. However the energy transformed to do this spreads out through space, increasing the net entropy. The energy taken to create the first life will have spread out through space increasing the entropy. The universe started as an infinitely small point with all of the energy in the universe concentrated in it - infinite order and 0 entropy. Time started and space expanded and energy spread out to fill it, increasing the entropy of the universe. Everything that is ordered actually creates more disorder than the order that it is in.

ManiacJack
Dictator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: austin tx
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 204

Posted 06/08/08 - 03:52 PM:	#19
Why can't the universe be a perpetual motion machine?
Why make Sense When You Can Make Dollars? "Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated." -Spacetime Bustin' Albert Muther F*cking Einstein

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1060

Posted 06/08/08 - 11:55 PM:	#20
It's interesting that the definition of information is the negative of entropy, in the sense that the measure of information is inversely proportional to the order. If there is order in the message then the information can be compressed. The universe is growing up; it loses the energy of youth, but gains in wisdom.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1579

Posted 06/09/08 - 01:26 AM:	#21
eski wrote: I’m rather confused what exactly the Creationist are going off about and, perhaps, what the theory actually is. What I don’t understand is: If entropy works in isolated systems how does this relate to the universe? To be more specific, how do the Creationist think it disproves evolution? Is it in the big bang or the creation of complex organisms themselves or both? To go into further detail, what is the isolated system which they are referring? Isn’t an isolated system, theoretical? Is it possible that the laws were the same during creation? If not, how does this attack hold water? Though this is of lesser importance, why is it sometimes called a law of heating and cooling if it deals with organisms? Just wondering, because my friend from Germany, previously a staunch atheist, converted to creationism because of the second law of thermodynamics and I thought since he is into science he might know what he’s talking about whereas I have no idea what he’s on about. Entropy works in all systems, not just isolated or closed systems. Think of it as a pot of water on the stove. If nothing enters the system, it will cool off, (lose available energy). When the heat is on, it is still losing thermal energy and gaining it at the same time, with the gains outweighing the losses. Even if you took the heat away from the system, eventually it will reach equilibrium with room temperature. If not for that energy, the pot of water would eventually lose all of its heat and reach nearly absolute zero. If you include the source of energy as part of the system, then the net result is still a loss of energy. The fuel will run out and what energy is in the system will eventually cool off. Same with the earth -- include the sun in the system and look at a longer time line and you see that everything will eventually cool off to an icy doom. I think, if creationist were smarter, they would find some compatibalist position where entropy and evolution were acceptable assuming that some deity/designer were providing some extra energy input into the system. But even in that case, trying to claim that living things could never exist because of entropy would still be wrong. Living things are terribly inefficient at entropy, to the point of almost complete system failure. I don't agree with a lot of the previous posts. There are plenty of non-living things that fit within the same mechanisms as evolution because those pieces aren't specific to living things. First, I try to distance myself from the term "evolution" because of its misuse. We are talking about "natural selection". In living things, it is usually used to describe a system of replication, modification and selection from its existence. Entropy applies to the last part. Things that cease to exist because of the natural trend toward lower entropy are selected out in favor of those with lower entropy. For example, when dirt and rocks accumulate on a planet, (large enough to have a significant gravitational force), things with higher potential energy. Most planets aren't alive, but they form into spheres because the sediment tends to gather into the shape with the lowest entropy. Yet somehow this appears "ordered" to the human eye because of its symmetry and some primitive instinct tells us to assume it is designed that way. Look at how sediments arrange themselves by weight. A rainbow seems to be a divinely inspired shape as long as you don't think too much about how it is just a prismatic reflection of a spherical sun. The argument for design ought to prefer something that was shaped in some other way that what ought to happen naturally.
A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Gnidrologist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 06/10/08 - 12:34 AM:	#22
ManiacJack wrote: Why can't the universe be a perpetual motion machine? Because if it was, than there wouldn't even be a notion of the universe as ''not perpetual motion machine''. Thus it is perpetual motion machine.

reincarnated
should have known better

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Dubai
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 430

Posted 06/19/08 - 04:21 AM:	#23
Yahadreas wrote: But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. Oh please. "Why" must life survive? Because the examples of life who didn't want to fight for their survival simply died out - leaving the examples of life who DID want to fight for their survival. That's what evolution is all about. Things can only evolve if they fulfil certain criteria - which rocks and glass do not.
�If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

NeoScholastic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 18, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 06/19/08 - 09:01 PM:	#24
Preface: I am a believing Catholic. I think the problem with this argument against evolution can be most clearly stated as follows. Firstly, entropy is a measure of the usable energy within a given system. More usable energy = more entropy. Usually, but not always, the more entropy a thing has the more it will be in line with our intuitive sense of disorder. Now, if I understand the argument correctly, the creationist is arguing that life requires energy to exist, and a more complex form of life requires more energy than a less complex form. Since life, according to evolution, is growing increasingly more complex, it would require increasingly more energy. That would result in a decrease in usable energy, and thus violate the second law of thermodynamics. But this disregards the sun, which is the energy source of Earth. The radiation of the sun is constantly providing usable energy to Earth. As a result, the amount of usable energy on earth is not static. And because of this, even though life, as it advances, requires more energy to sustain itself, the total entropy of the earth still increases. Edited by NeoScholastic on 06/19/08 - 09:14 PM
"I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: 'Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.'" - St Augustine

jimRH7
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 58

Posted 07/03/08 - 08:48 AM:	#25
If I had, say for example a mouse, and all the food and water needed for a mouse's lifespan and a cage and treated them collectively as the system, the mouse would live as long as any other mouse does, converting food into waste to supply energy to itself, and increasing enthropy in the process. the mouse would not break the 2nd Law, - far from it. if the creationists are trying to argue that life could not have begun or propagate because it is more ordered than it's Constituent parts, this arguement has to also be false, The second law does not Forbid ANY decrease in enthropy, all it says is an decrease in enthropy requires an input of energy, we get that energy from food, and vegetables get that energy from the sun like the guy above said. virtually all chemical reactions are reversable under different conditions (pressure, temp. etc.)If It wasn't the case this would be impossible. It might seem like Complex organisms are also pointless, I mean, What's the point when bacteria can process food and are much less complex? But just because one form of life is the most efficeint, doesn't mean all other forms of life die. Goldmining might be the most profitable buisness, but not every buisnessman is a gold miner.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.