Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1274603 members, 1753060 topics. Date: Thursday, 27 November 2014 at 07:42 AM

Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures - Religion (3) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures (2466 Views)

Atheists Are More "Moral" Than Christians/muslims (the Evidence). Do You Accept? / The Evidence For The Deity Of Christ. / The Evidence Of The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Agiliti(m): 9:06pm On Dec 25, 2012
Uyi Iredia:

That's not evolution at work. It's genetic recombination at work.

and what exactly drives evolution? or do you think they are mutually exclusive?
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Agiliti(m): 9:20pm On Dec 25, 2012
turnstoner: Uyi Iredia and honeychild are way way out of their depth in this matter, but don't know it! They think they are making sense because there are respondents ready to indulge them sad.

Honeychild knows she is BSing, remember she has already called herself an ignorant gullible believer. maybe she's trying to switch but wants to make sure her new team is not made up of BS as her old team was.

@Honeychild....don't worry on this side, all hypotheses are taken with a grain of salt, all theories are tested, and all laws are FACT.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by honeychild(f): 7:38am On Dec 26, 2012
If people like Logicboy did not insist on asserting that evolution was a fact instead of the theory still undergoing tests that it is, I probably would not have started this thread.

1 Like

Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Nobody: 7:58am On Dec 26, 2012
honeychild: If people like Logicboy did not insist on asserting that evolution was a fact instead of the theory still undergoing tests that it is, I probably would not have started this thread.


What do you think a scientific theory is made up of?
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by turnstoner(m): 10:48am On Dec 26, 2012
honeychild: If people like Logicboy did not insist on asserting that evolution was a fact instead of the theory still undergoing tests that it is, I probably would not have started this thread.

But evolution is regarded as fact among mainstream scientists. Its a fact arrived at by the same empirical methods used to arrive at the conclusion that matter is wave-particulate in nature. Only creationists and or religionists are still struggling to accept evolution as a fact. But it doesn't matter because nobody is waiting for them!

1 Like

Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Heatblast(m): 11:47am On Dec 26, 2012
turnstoner:

But evolution is regarded as fact among mainstream scientists. Its a fact arrived at by the same empirical methods used to arrive at the conclusion that matter is wave-particulate in nature. Only creationists and or religionists are still struggling to accept evolution as a fact. But it doesn't matter because nobody is waiting for them!

Gbam... I couldn't have said it better... Its a losing battle they're fighting... Creationist are looking for loop holes in evolution theory forgeting the fact that their creation myth has lots of gorges, ask them to give you bone fragments of giant Nephilim, or ask them to give you the location of so called garden of eden or ask them where the nodites came from and you'll see them claiming that human logic does not apply to the creation myth(a creationist once told me that)
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by turnstoner(m): 12:13pm On Dec 26, 2012
Heatblast:

Gbam... I couldn't have said it better... Its a losing battle they're fighting... Creationist are looking for loop holes in evolution theory forgeting the fact that their creation myth has lots of gorges, ask them to give you bone fragments of giant Nephilim, or ask them to give you the location of so called garden of eden or ask them where the nodites came from and you'll see them claiming that human logic does not apply to the creation myth(a creationist once told me that)

My usual retort to such claims is that they have no business on the debating floor. If your world view has no room for logic then we should have nothing to discuss, not so?

1 Like

Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Heatblast(m): 12:59pm On Dec 26, 2012
turnstoner:

My usual retort to such claims is that they have no business on the debating floor. If your world view has no room for logic then we should have nothing to discuss, not so?

Exactly
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by TroGunn(m): 2:49pm On Dec 26, 2012
It is fraud in science when you arrive at a "fact", without conclusive evidence. If truly, simple organisms evolved to more complex ones, the fossil record would be full of evidence of such changes. Instead, the fossils show an explosion of varied organisms in a relatively short period of time - which tallies more with creation.

Overall, fossils indicate that organism are largely unchanged over large periods of time. No one is arguing that mutations don't occur, there is not one evidence it can lead to a new organisms. Humans over time remain humans whether shorter or darker, same goes for fishes, monkeys, etc.

1 Like

Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by turnstoner(m): 3:38pm On Dec 26, 2012
TroGunn: It is fraud in science when you arrive at a "fact", without conclusive evidence. If truly, simple organisms evolved to more complex ones, the fossil record would be full of evidence of such changes. Instead, the fossils show an explosion of varied organisms in a relatively short period of time - which tallies more with creation.

Overall, fossils indicate that organism are largely unchanged over large periods of time. No one is arguing that mutations don't occur, there is not one evidence it can lead to a new organisms. Humans over time remain humans whether shorter or darker, same goes for fishes, monkeys, etc.

You agree that mutation occurs. Good, we are heading somewhere. You must agree too that it is responsible for the origin of species. If you do then you don't need any more proof that evolution is a science!
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by TroGunn(m): 3:45pm On Dec 26, 2012
turnstoner:

You agree that mutation occurs. Good, we are heading somewhere. You must agree too that it is responsible for the origin of species. If you do then you don't need any more proof that evolution is a science!

Mutation being responsible for origin of species is the quantum leap of faith needed by evolutionists. No evidence whatsoever.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by turnstoner(m): 3:57pm On Dec 26, 2012
TroGunn:

Mutation being responsible for origin of species is the quantum leap of faith needed by evolutionists. No evidence whatsoever.

No evidence for mutation or what?
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by TroGunn(m): 4:09pm On Dec 26, 2012
turnstoner:

No evidence for mutation or what?

No evidence that mutations can lead to one organism evolving into a different species. Mutant fruitflies remained fruitfiles, though with messed up wings, for example.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by rawtruth(m): 5:14pm On Dec 26, 2012
Seun:
I agree with that. I do not understand why evolutionists are so confident about their guesses about what prehistoric animals looked like. However, that doesn't change the fact that evolution is the best theory about how things came to be. When someone comes up with a better theory, we'll adopt it. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is dynamic. We learn new things every day. We are open to change when new facts emerge. I think some scientists go to far when they try to portray speculative theories as hard facts.

Well said.

....And now, atheists have made a 'religion' out of evolution, though without admitting it.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by turnstoner(m): 5:17pm On Dec 26, 2012
TroGunn:

No evidence that mutations can lead to one organism evolving into a different species. Mutant fruitflies remained fruitfiles, though with messed up wings, for example.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let us clear the little matter of whether evolution is a science or not. Many Creationist/religionists have been harping on ''missing links'' in palaeontology and pretending as if palaentology was the same thing as as evolution. Mutation became another evidence in support of Darwin's original theory of the origin of species by natural selection arrived at by careful observation, mesurments and records keeping (the scientific method) .When he first propounded the theory, all he had was natural selection and the occurrence of vestigial tissues to support it. It was accepted by his peers at the time even without the discovery of mutation, genetics, embryology and palaeontology. His only opponents then and now are people of the literal word-of-the bible sects.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by wirinet(m): 7:01am On Dec 27, 2012
Nigerians never cease to amaze me with their refusing to learn basic science, just because it contradicts their religious beliefs. They would refuse to read up on a scientific theory but claim enough authority to be able to criticise it.

The theory of evolution has gone beyond debate in advanced industrialized societies. Even in Christian Europe (those that brought us the bible) and Jewish Israel Yahweh's chosen people), majority of the general population, including children understands and accepts evolution. But here you have academics including professors questioning the validity of evolution based only on religious sentiments.

For the ignorant, the theory of evolution was propounded and accepted before any fossil was ever studied. Charles Darwin wrote his book - The Origin of Species, and propounded the theory of evolution based solely on the differences he found among various animals in his travels around the world especially south America. When he compared animals between different continents and various habitats, he found differences between the animals can be explained by environmental, nutritional and social factors. He did not study fossils.

Study of fossils came much later to give more evidence on the theory of evolution. Just like the study of DNA which is barely a decade also gives credence to evolution. Even the study of hominid fossils is less than 50 years old while the theory of evolution is more than 150 years, so it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by davidylan(m): 7:14am On Dec 27, 2012
wirinet: Nigerians never cease to amaze me with their refusing to learn basic science, just because it contradicts their religious beliefs. They would refuse to read up on a scientific theory but claim enough authority to be able to criticise it.

The theory of evolution has gone beyond debate in advanced industrialized societies. Even in Christian Europe (those that brought us the bible) and Jewish Israel Yahweh's chosen people), majority of the general population, including children understands and accepts evolution. But here you have academics including professors questioning the validity of evolution based only on religious sentiments.

For the ignorant, the theory of evolution was propounded and accepted before any fossil was ever studied. Charles Darwin wrote his book - The Origin of Species, and propounded the theory of evolution based solely on the differences he found among various animals in his travels around the world especially south America. When he compared animals between different continents and various habitats, he found differences between the animals can be explained by environmental, nutritional and social factors. He did not study fossils.

Study of fossils came much later to give more evidence on the theory of evolution. Just like the study of DNA which is barely a decade also gives credence to evolution. Even the study of hominid fossils is less than 50 years old while the theory of evolution is more than 150 years, so it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution.

how? Please explain how DNA lends credence to the theory of evolution.

allow me to evaluate this - "it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution" . . . this is quite baffling. The theory of evolution requires a fossil record as concrete evidence. To suggest that somehow the fossil record is completely divorced from the theory of evolution is absolute crap and clear evidence you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by wirinet(m): 8:49am On Dec 27, 2012
.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by wirinet(m): 9:18am On Dec 27, 2012
davidylan:

how? Please explain how DNA lends credence to the theory of evolution.

allow me to evaluate this - "it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution" . . . this is quite baffling. The theory of evolution requires a fossil record as concrete evidence. To suggest that somehow the fossil record is completely divorced from the theory of evolution is absolute crap and clear evidence you have no idea what you are talking about.

David, my old mortal foe. You seem to be actually "born again", no insults, intolerance and aggression as your old self. Anyway, in the spirit of the season, happy new year and a joyous season.

I did not say that fossil records is completely divorced from the theory of evolution, the misconception i am trying to correct is that the theory of evolution is based on the study of fossils, meanwhile the reserve is the case. The study of fossils is based on the theory of evolution. What i am saying is that problems in fossil records like missing links, lack of fossils for a particular specie or incomplete record can not invalidate the theory of evolution as creations wants us to believe. The theory of evolution does not necessarily require fossils to give it credence as there are other methods to study evolutionary paths using other methods like DNA, differentiation of existing species as done by Darwin, etc.

When i say the study of DNA is about a decade, what i mean is the study of the complete genome of animals is barely ten years. I remember when the complete genome of humans was decoded about a decade ago, it was well celebrated. And the comparison of complete genome between different specie gives further credence to evolution.

Study of fossils gives very strong credence to the theory of evolution. Even if you are not convinced with the evidence provided by hominid fossils, there are very compelling evidence of those of other animals, like bovines, sharks, dinosaurs and even insects.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Enigma(m): 9:50am On Dec 27, 2012
Going back to one of the comments and the claim that "majority of the general population" in Europe etc "understands and accepts" evolution: I think this is at least an overstatement if not indeed an inaccuracy. It is true that people at the GCE/Secondary level of education generally "accept" what they are taught without critical thought; that does not however mean that they "understand" it or really recognise it to be true beyond that they they were told it is.

On another thread currently there is a somewhat amusing disussion whether the big ban.g involved an explosion or not. However, see an example of an explanation at a level for the "general population".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/big_bangrev1.shtml

Scientists have gathered a lot of evidence and information about the Universe. They have used their observations to develop a theory called the Big B.ang. The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today.

Can we therefore extrapolate from that that the majority of the general population in the UK understands and accepts the big ban.g theory?

The so-called "religionists" are in fact correct when they say that majority of those who accept what the so-called scientists say on things like evolution etc simply do so on faith; not on knowledge, understanding or proof.

cool
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by frosbel(m): 10:27am On Dec 27, 2012
davidylan:

how? Please explain how DNA lends credence to the theory of evolution.

allow me to evaluate this - "it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution" . . . this is quite baffling. The theory of evolution requires a fossil record as concrete evidence. To suggest that somehow the fossil record is completely divorced from the theory of evolution is absolute crap and clear evidence you have no idea what you are talking about.

They are so clueless it's unbelievable !!
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by TroGunn(m): 10:30am On Dec 27, 2012
wirinet: Nigerians never cease to amaze me with their refusing to learn basic science, just because it contradicts their religious beliefs. They would refuse to read up on a scientific theory but claim enough authority to be able to criticise it.

The theory of evolution has gone beyond debate in advanced industrialized societies. Even in Christian Europe (those that brought us the bible) and Jewish Israel Yahweh's chosen people), majority of the general population, including children understands and accepts evolution. But here you have academics including professors questioning the validity of evolution based only on religious sentiments.

For the ignorant, the theory of evolution was propounded and accepted before any fossil was ever studied. Charles Darwin wrote his book - The Origin of Species, and propounded the theory of evolution based solely on the differences he found among various animals in his travels around the world especially south America. When he compared animals between different continents and various habitats, he found differences between the animals can be explained by environmental, nutritional and social factors. He did not study fossils.

Study of fossils came much later to give more evidence on the theory of evolution. Just like the study of DNA which is barely a decade also gives credence to evolution. Even the study of hominid fossils is less than 50 years old while the theory of evolution is more than 150 years, so it smacks of gross ignorance to equate the study of fossils to the theory of evolution.

Who is saying that study of fossils equates evolution? The point being made is that if evolution is truly the process through which we now have diferrent species as opposed to creation, then the fossil record should support that theory. Overall, study of fossils show fully formed species virtually "exploding" into existence and remaining largely unchanged over time - a big challenge to evolution theory.

2 Likes

Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by wirinet(m): 10:45am On Dec 27, 2012
Enigma: Going back to one of the comments and the claim that "majority of the general population" in Europe etc "understands and accepts" evolution: I think this is at least an overstatement if not indeed an inaccuracy. It is true that people at the GCE/Secondary level of education generally "accept" what they are taught without critical thought; that does not however mean that they "understand" it or really recognise it to be true beyond that they they were told it is.

On another thread currently there is a somewhat amusing disussion whether the big ban.g involved an explosion or not. However, see an example of an explanation at a level for the "general population".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/big_bangrev1.shtml



Can we therefore extrapolate from that that the majority of the general population in the UK understands and accepts the big ban.g theory?

The so-called "religionists" are in fact correct when they say that majority of those who accept what the so-called scientists say on things like evolution etc simply do so on faith; not on knowledge, understanding or proof.

cool

Your assertions are not exactly accurate. Although it can sometimes be true that people accept some subjects, theories or doctrines based on inpartation through the learning process, but in the case of most scientific theories, this is not correct. Apart from scientific theories passing through the vigorous process of investigation, experiments and peer review, they are astonishingly basic to understand without religious bias. Take the theory of evolution for example, it says animals change to adapt and survive in their changing environment, those that cannot change fast enough go extinct. Now what is difficult to understand in that, especially when 99% fossils of animal and plants found are extinct.

Also take the big b.ang theory, hubble observed that further a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us, and this phenomenon can be observed in all directions with us as the centre of this expansion. So what is difficult in understanding that the expansion must have started at a point at a distant point in time. Now we might not know when the expansion started because we no not know the exact rate of acceleration or decceleration over the period, but it is easy to understand what an inflatable closed system entails.

Also the fact that someone studies a subject does not mean that the person would believe or accept the subject matter without understanding it. In Nigeria we have thousands of science graduates graduating yearly from our tertiary institution and have hundreds of thousands school cert. graduates with science subjects leaving secondary school every year, but the number who accepts these basic scientific theories is less than 0.01%. In Nigeria you will find majority of doctors, biologists and professional scientists reject the the theory of evolution based solely on religious and emotional sentiments.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Enigma(m): 10:54am On Dec 27, 2012
^^ Evidently, you have not understood my post or my point. Incidentally, you are making another claim without proof and, I believe, making up your statistics on the spot. Well, someone did say that 88.29% of statistics are made up on the spot.

The point is that no evidence was produced for saying that the "majority of the general population" in Europe etc understands the theory of evolution; in fact none was produced either for saying they "accept" it though I am less concerned about that presently. Additionally, the fact that someone with a secondary level education accepts what his/her teachers said, without critical examination let alone empirical examination, does not mean the person truly understands the thing and may not even necessarily mean that they truly accept it. Often, they are acting on no more than mere faith.

cool
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by wirinet(m): 10:59am On Dec 27, 2012
TroGunn:

Who is saying that study of fossils equates evolution? The point being made is that if evolution is truly the process through which we now have diferrent species as opposed to creation, then the fossil record should support that theory. Overall, study of fossils show fully formed species virtually "exploding" into existence and remaining largely unchanged over time - a big challenge to evolution theory.

please provide a source that supports the spontaneous explosion of species into existence. I mean a scientific source and not some warped creationist website. Does your source prove that we have land animals in the cambrian period? That evidence would be truly earth shattering.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by davidylan(m): 11:06am On Dec 27, 2012
wirinet:

David, my old mortal foe. You seem to be actually "born again", no insults, intolerance and aggression as your old self. Anyway, in the spirit of the season, happy new year and a joyous season.

Jesus does have the capacity to change a man from the inside. It is true bro. Happy new year to you and yours as well and it is my prayer that you will find the truth of the gospel of Christ soonest.

wirinet:
I did not say that fossil records is completely divorced from the theory of evolution, the misconception i am trying to correct is that the theory of evolution is based on the study of fossils, meanwhile the reserve is the case. The study of fossils is based on the theory of evolution. What i am saying is that problems in fossil records like missing links, lack of fossils for a particular specie or incomplete record can not invalidate the theory of evolution as creations wants us to believe. The theory of evolution does not necessarily require fossils to give it credence as there are other methods to study evolutionary paths using other methods like DNA, differentiation of existing species as done by Darwin, etc.

I'm not at all sure you truly understand your own point here because it is seriously convoluted and does not convey a clarity of message that is required when it comes to issues like this.

1. To the issue of the fossil record - it is true that the theory of evolution is not based on fossils (that is BECAUSE the fossil record itself exposes the lie that is evolution!). It is impossible to claim that man evolved gradually YET be unable to point to clear examples of these intermediate creatures in the fossil record. Where did they go? Thin air? It is scientifically impossible to calculate the true length of a chain just by looking at the first and last links and completely ignoring the fact that the middle links are all missing or perhaps do not even exist. this escapes logic.

2. What was your point on the DNA issue exactly?

wirinet:
When i say the study of DNA is about a decade, what i mean is the study of the complete genome of animals is barely ten years. I remember when the complete genome of humans was decoded about a decade ago, it was well celebrated. And the comparison of complete genome between different specie gives further credence to evolution.

Again you fail to explain HOW beyond just asserting an empty claim that you made earlier. How for example do we know that we evolved from monkeys and not from a mouse considering we share a tremendous amount of similar genetic information?

wirinet:
Study of fossils gives very strong credence to the theory of evolution. Even if you are not convinced with the evidence provided by hominid fossils, there are very compelling evidence of those of other animals, like bovines, sharks, dinosaurs and even insects.

But this was what you said barely 5 lines ago - "The study of fossils is based on the theory of evolution."

Isnt that circular logic? undecided How can the study of fossils give strong credence to the theory of evolution when the very study of fossils is BASED ON the theory of evolution?

It appears to me that you have not thought out your arguments very well.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by davidylan(m): 11:09am On Dec 27, 2012
wirinet:

please provide a source that supports the spontaneous explosion of species into existence. I mean a scientific source and not some warped creationist website. Does your source prove that we have land animals in the cambrian period? That evidence would be truly earth shattering.

This is universally accepted fact. It is absurd that you would query that.

Your own assertion here seriously dents your theory... if there were no land animals in the cambrian period (a speculative guess on your part), then when did human evolution really start?
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Enigma(m): 11:11am On Dec 27, 2012
davidylan:

This is universally accepted fact. It is absurd that you would query that.

I remember reading somewhere that this supposed distinction between "expansion" and "explosion" is mere semantics. smiley

cool

(EDIT: actually this post is more appropriate for the other thread on the big b.ang!)
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by wirinet(m): 11:53am On Dec 27, 2012
davidylan:

Jesus does have the capacity to change a man from the inside. It is true bro. Happy new year to you and yours as well and it is my prayer that you will find the truth of the gospel of Christ soonest.

Thanks. I know the truth about the gospel of Christ already, it preaches unconditional love for neighbour and other humans irrespective of race, religion or political views. It emphasises empathy for the less privileged and most of all it promotes contentment and peace within our soul. It is the Christians who preach hatred, intolerance and unbridled accumulation of wealth in the name of Christianity that needs to accept the gospel of Christ.

Have to go now. Wil be back later.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by TroGunn(m): 1:05pm On Dec 27, 2012
wirinet:

please provide a source that supports the spontaneous explosion of species into existence. I mean a scientific source and not some warped creationist website. Does your source prove that we have land animals in the cambrian period? That evidence would be truly earth shattering.

"Explosion" was used in quotes and it's the term used to describe the relatively sudden appearance of different fully formed species during the Cambrian period - "Cambrian Explosion". "Spontaneous" is your term, not mine. Point is that new species appeared so fast, within a few years, they possibly couldn't have evolved.
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Nobody: 1:11pm On Dec 27, 2012
Enigma:

I remember reading somewhere that this supposed distinction between "expansion" and "explosion" is mere semantics. smiley

cool

(EDIT: actually this post is more appropriate for the other thread on the big b.ang!)



What an ignorant statement
Re: Evolution: The 'evidence' Behind The Pictures by Enigma(m): 1:25pm On Dec 27, 2012
TroGunn:

"Explosion" was used in quotes and it's the term used to describe the relatively sudden appearance of different fully formed species during the Cambrian period - "Cambrian Explosion". "Spontaneous" is your term, not mine. Point is that new species appeared so fast, within a few years, they possibly couldn't have evolved.

I think your point was pretty clear; it is about the suddenness of appearance disclosed in the fossil record; and the use of quotation marks for the word "explosion" should also have been noted.

cool

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)

Tb Joshua's Church Branch In London / Is It True That The Man Christ Is Not God? / Is Lust Wrong Even In Marriage?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise. 139
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.