Creation Museum’s new Natural Selection exhibit


Bulldog Skull
Bulldog Skull

Who knew that the lowly bulldog could be a Hero for Creationism?

 A lot of folks have been led to believe that Creationists don’t believe in Natural Selection. That’s because some people have falsely equated Natural Selection with Evolutionism.
Yet Biblical Young Earth Creationists DO observe and recognize  Natural Selection and, contrary to what some have been taught, Natural Selection is NOT the same thing as Evolution.
Some of the confusion exists because the founders of the Neo-Darwin Synthesis [aka the Modern Synthesis or MS] purposely confused the issue. Evolutionists misappropriated a term used by Leavitt in 1909 describing developmental biology, namely “microevolution.” They equated Microevolution with Natural Selection and, specifically and erroneously, as being Darwinism on a small scale as early as 1927. In 1937, Theodosius Dobzahanshy wrote in Genetics and the Origin of Species:
“There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanism of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the human  lifetime. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of micro– and macroevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.”    [emphasis mine]
This preposed presumption by Dobzhansky has become standard dogma in our children’s textbooks. Natural Selection is equated with microevolution and macroevolution is taught as larger-scale extension of microevolution. Put another way, evolution is defined as “change over time” [a purposely vague and misleading definition] by the likes of Eugenie Scott and then mic-evo is defined as small-scale changes while mac-evo is large-scale changes. It is this false conflation that allows evolutionists to make the preposterous allegation that we can actually observe evolution occuring today! Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now, this site has often used the terms macroevolution [mac-evo] and microevolution [mic-evo], but after due reflection I strongly believe that Creationists should stop using these terms [even if Gary Hurd erroneously believes we made up the distinction! We call this fallacy Hurd’s Turd in his honor.] Why? Because using the terms leads some folks to the false conclusion that we are simply talking about evolution on smaller or larger scales, when we are not. True, we generally agree that can accept observable micro-evolution but we rightly reject presumed macro-evolution, but the truth is that we don’t even accept micro-evolution. When it comes down to the knuckles, we’re not using the terms “microevolution” and “Natural Selection” the way evolutionists are using it. They think of microevolution as the nuts and bolts of molecules-to-man macroevolution. We see it as variation within a baramin [“created kind”]. They see Natural Selection as a creative force that produces new orders of information. We see Natural Selection as a conservative force, weeding out harmful mutations and allowing adaptation to new environments by a net loss of genetic viability. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the Creationist definition of these terms reflects what we actually observe in nature, not what the evolutionist presumes should be occuring! When these definitions are considered, we find that Creationists don’t ascribe to ANY form of evolution.
Therefore we shouldn’t use terms that presume the factuality of evolution.
But how is the bulldog a hero for Creationism?
It perfectly illustrates, as the photo from the Creation Museum’s new Natural Selection exhibit shows, the kinds of extreme variation and adaptation that is possible within a baramin. The chihuahua, the extinct Dire Wolf and the bulldog with it’s gloriously jutting lower jaw and rediculously punched-in upper jaw are all members of the dog baramin. They’re all very different, but they’re all still dogs. As Mendel affirmed, there is a fixity to the amount of variation possible, but oh-so-much bulldog potential within those fixed limits!
-Sirius Knott
PS More photos of the Natural Selection at Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum can be found at
Advertisements

15 Comments Add yours

  1. Thomas says:

    Hi, Sirius, and welcome back. Your post prompted a few questions.

    1. What is your definition of evolution?
    2. You wrote that it is preposterous for evolutionists to claim that evolution can be observed today. Creationists say that this observation is in fact only micro-evolution, while evolutionists say that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over long periods of time. There is really no distinction between the two, they say. My question for you is, what do you imagine evolution would look like if it were real and actually still going on?
    3. How do you determine what qualifies as a baramin? You don’t seem to have a problem with dogs and wolves being related. What about cats and lions? Zebras and Horses? I wrote a post about this at my site that more fully develops this question, if you are interested.
    4. What kind of evidence would convince you that evolution were true?

  2. Scott says:

    Welcome back! Instead of micro-evolution, what about the term adaptation? It’s reasonable that a species may adapt to its environment and change over time (understanding that it always stays within its species).

  3. Sirius says:

    @Thomas:

    1. Evolution is the common descent of all organisms by increasing orders of genetic information. It’s a fairy tale for adults.

    2. Evolution is not going on, so I would be forced to speculate, which I’m not going todo. Instead I’m going to point out that Gregor Mendel’s work on heredity proved that variation has fixed limits and that evolution is not observed but rather taken on faith to be occuring at rates to slow to be observed [which makes the whole “we can see ity happening now!” argument a bit funny] or that it occurs in saltations which have not been observed [saltations are an attempt to explain the LACK of predicted transitional forms in the fossil record – alack of evidence – in light of a continued faith in evolution.]

    3. Baraminology is a new field but it is generally agreed that if animals can hybridize [wholpins, ligers, zonkeys, zorses, etc] that they belong to the same baramin. This link [ http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology ] may provide more information on the specifics. I’ve also written a bit on the subject as it concerns the fossil horse series here [ https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/baraminology-creationists-re-examine-the-horse-series/ ]

    4. It’s the evidence that keeps me from believing in evolution.

    –Sirius Knott

  4. Thomas says:

    Thanks for taking the time to answer my questioins. As far as the fourth question went, I was not really asking what you thought of the evidence for evolution, but what kind of evidence would compel you to believe it occurred.

    1. Sirius says:

      @Thomas:

      We have the same evidence. The same rocks, the same fossils, the same biological data. Our interpretations of the evidence differ. So what you’re really asking me is what sort of new data would affect my interpretation and cause me to take up a new one. Like most folks who’ve come by their conclusions and interpretations by personal investigation, one or two anamolies would likely be dismissed. I can’t think of anything that might shatter my convictions; it would have to be pretty systematic.

      For example, I grew up in church and was indoctrinated into Creationism, but in a rather shallow, passive way. I was counter-indoctrinated in evolution in junior high and high school, successfully I might add. When I returned to the faith at 25 years old, I didn’t initially give the matter of origins much thought. In fact, my wife recalls that when she asked me about evolution that I told her I supposed God could have used evolution.

      So what brought me to my current position of Young Earth Creationism? It wasn’t immediate, but I began seeing system-wide holes in the claims of evolution. The evidence didn’t support their expectations, but the theory is so plastic that they could simply evolve the theory a bit to make it fit new data. The way speculation [and artists interpretations] is taken as gospel is really the worst part. They imagineer how it might have occurred and, 2 months later, they teach it as dogma with no more evidence than the speculation.
      I guess that there would have to be system-wide holes in Creation theory, with the quid pro quo that said Creation theory was still consistent with Biblical exegesis. [You see, Darwin rejected the Creation theory that had become popular in his day, but that Creationism had drifted from Biblicism and accomodated long ages, denying a world-wide Flood and teaching that all animals were created exactly as we see them today. He was right to reject that accomodationist Creationism, but he should have turned to Biblical Creationism instead.]

      Tell you what: What kind of evidence would compel you to believe that Biblical Creation and Catastrophism occured?

      -Sirius Knott

  5. Thomas says:

    Hi, Sirius, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in your responses to my questions. You have obviously done a lot of research in your evolution from evolutionist to six-day creationist. (Sorry, I can never resist a good pun.)

    What kind of evidence would compel me to believe that Biblical Creation and Catastrophism occurred? In a nutshell, if the same evidence that makes me think the earth is very old and that evolution accounts for the present variety of species somehow told a different story, then I would be compelled to believe that other story. So, for instance, the geological strata should indicate that there was a worldwide flood and should contain all the species mixed together. The DNA record shouldn’t have the same corruptions and reduplications present in species that were already thought to be related (like chimpanzees and humans). Stars and galaxies over ~6000 light years away shouldn’t be visible in our sky. Layers of ice on the poles shouldn’t indicate that the earth is over ~6000 years old. Radiometric dating should indicate that all rocks are 6000 years old or fewer. The mammals of Australia, excepting bats and some rodents, shouldn’t be marsupials. The list goes on. In short, there should not be such a preponderance of evidence indicating an old earth and the relatedness of species.

    1. Sirius says:

      @Thomas:

      Why should fossils and strata be all mixed up if a world-wide Flood occured? Get a glass jar of water, add different sized rocks, pebbles and sand, mix it up: what happens? Things order themselves a certain way. Now, there are several Creationist theories to explain why the strata appear as they do. You say uniformitarianism explains it. Fine, but Mt Saint Helens showed us what Catastrophism can do and how fats it can for these same features that uniformitarian geology claims take long ages.

      As for the DNA evidence, this is simply the argument from morphology all over again. I should expect that creatures of similar design and appearance should share greater similarity in DNA coding, but that speaks merely of similarity of design. You’re imposing unobservable common descent. Chesterton was right to note that it’s not how similar apes are to men that’s so fascinating, but that being so similar that they are so very different! Thumbs, check. Works of art? Architecture? Writing? Um, no.

      There are also Creationist models to explain the visibility of distant starlight. I like Dr. Russell Humphrey’s model best at present. Check out either the book or DVD, Starlight & Time if you get the chance. Of course, when I paint something, even a star, I don’t have to wait billions of years to see it, neither do I have to paint a baby and watch it grow up to render an old man on canvas, so I’m not entirely sure your point is valid to the Creation model.

      Ice core sampling is fraught with difficulties. One of which is determining the rate of accumulation. Did you know that a flight of fighters and bombers had to make an emergency landing on a Greenland ice shelf. Fifty years later, a team of airplane enthusiasts set off to recover these planes. 50 years after being abandoned, they were found under 25 stories of ice and 1 mile from where they originally landed. I won’t get into the gases argument. The ice core dating methods come with assumptions. I think the assumptions are flawed because they do not take Catastrophism into account. Wrong assumptions yield wrong conclusions, but generally conclusions consistent with the faulty assumptions. Have you never wondered why all of the flood legends of ancient peoples insist that there was a world-wide flood – or why flood legends exist the world over to begin with!

      As for the point of Australia, you do realize that YEC scientists do believe in rapid speciation and natural selection. We just don’t believe it creates new kinds. Marsupials thrived in the isolation of Aus, but not the rest of the world [save for possums]. They not only thrived, they dominated in this fishbowl down under. Why shouldn’t they be marsupials? Isolation is a big part of natural selection. btw, you should check out the new Natural Selection exhibit mentioned in this blog if you get a chance!

      In short, I think you’re letting your preconceptions interpret the data, because I see the data much differently. For example, check out What the Fossil Record Really Shows.

      -Sirius Knott

  6. Thomas says:

    Sirius, Thanks for replying to my various points. I am hardly a scientist, but I have done enough reading to have formed an opinion. The following are my answers to your points. I have included my sources. It’s quite lengthy. Sorry.

    “Why should fossils and strata be all mixed up if a world-wide Flood occurred? Get a glass jar of water, add different sized rocks, pebbles and sand, mix it up: what happens? Things order themselves a certain way.”

    If you perform your proposed experiment, you will not find actual strata as you do in the geological record. Instead, you will find graded bedding, in which the heavier grains, pebbles, or rocks sink to the bottom and the lighter grains remain at the top. This may appear like strata, but in fact, the boundaries among these sections are blurred together, unlike what you find in the geological record. Furthermore, the layers that you do find in the geological record do not progress downward from lightest to heaviest as you would expect with a flood. The sea cliffs of Marseilles, for instance, contain great boulders lying ON TOP of miles of fine-grained sediments, not beneath. My sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY and http://www.fsteiger.com/flood-report.html

    It is true that volcanoes can lay down layers quickly. No one denies that this happens, but to explain the whole record of strata upon strata in terms of catastrophes like the flood and various eruptions is quite a stretch, in my opinion. It should be easy enough for a geologist to identify a layer as having been laid down by volcanic eruptions, mud flows, floods, etc.

    I have no doubt there are other theories to explain why the strata appear the way they do, but do they explain the existence of meteor craters in these layers, or footprints, mud cracks, raindrops, and river channels? Do they explain the formation of chalk and limestone, each of which form gradually from very small creatures? It seems to me that the closer you look at geology, the greater the number of problems arise with a worldwide flood. Sources: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199706/0525.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord.

    “As for the DNA evidence, this is simply the argument from morphology all over again…”

    I guess we just disagree over what we find to be convincing. For me, though, if you consider that there are strands of garbled up code or strands of unnecessarily duplicated code found in the same species where scientists had suspected they would be before DNA, (both of which, since they are messed up pieces of code, do not affect anatomy, as far as I know) then that would indicate that the mistake in translation had been made higher up in the line and had been passed down.

    Chesterton was right. We are very different from apes. That doesn’t mean that we are not physically related to them.

    “There are also Creationist models to explain the visibility of distant starlight…”

    There are a lot of young earth creationist explanations of a lot of time indicators, like the speed of light and the various types of radiometric testing. But after a while, you have to wonder, what is the likelihood that all these various methods can be truly explained away?

    Does your painter reference doesn’t indicate that you believe God made starlight en route? I believe that position is untenable because it means you have to believe that God fabricated all the stellar events (star formation, supernova explosions, etc.) that have been observed since we started looking into deep space.

    “Ice core sampling is fraught with difficulties. One of which is determining the rate of accumulation. Did you know that a flight of fighters and bombers had to make an emergency landing on a Greenland ice shelf…”

    Volcanic ash deposits in ice layering accurately corresponds to the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 and the eruption of Vesuvius of 79. Radiometric dating has also confirmed the dating of these ice layers. That seems pretty accurate to me. The planes you mentioned crashed in a warmer part of southern Greenland where the snow melts and can refreeze several times a year. The three ice cores from Greenland exist in areas where the temperature does not exceed freezing. Source: http://www.reasons.org/deep-core-tests-age-earth

    “Have you never wondered why all of the flood legends of ancient peoples insist that there was a world-wide flood – or why flood legends exist the world over to begin with!”

    I have always thought this was a good argument for the Flood, but I think it is outweighed by other arguments. Obviously, many of these are the same stories that have changed over time (Noah, Gilgamesh, and Deucalion and Pyrrha are ones I am very familiar with). What do they reflect? Likely, it IS the existence of an actual flood or floods long ago that ancient man experienced. I don’t think this was a worldwide flood, though, in the sense that it covered all lands.

    “As for the point of Australia, you do realize that YEC scientists do believe in rapid speciation and natural selection…”

    You are not catching my point. If the various species of indigenous fauna possess pouches, while similar animals in other continents do not, then the indication is that they are all related, the descendents of a common ancestor. At least, that’s how I understand the theory.

    Thanks for the discussion. Another honest question for you: if evolution and/or an old earth were true, would you be compelled to abandon Christianity? Or would you reexamine the way you look at scripture? For me, as I have reconsidered these things, I have come to the conclusion that I was looking at Genesis wrong and that my Christianity has not changed. Things may have to be rethought, but the essentials are still there. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

    1. Sirius says:

      Thomas,

      The point of my rocks in a jar analogy is that there is no reason to presume that the fossils should be all mixed up together. In fact, current Biblical Catastrophist theory suggests that the layers represent ecological communities as they succumbed to the Flood. http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/am/v3/n4/exotic-communities.pdf

      I believe I’ve answered your comment regarding Marseilles below.

      You said: “It is true that volcanoes can lay down layers quickly. No one denies that this happens, but to explain the whole record of strata upon strata in terms of catastrophes like the flood and various eruptions is quite a stretch, in my opinion. It should be easy enough for a geologist to identify a layer as having been laid down by volcanic eruptions, mud flows, floods, etc.”

      This is an oversimplification. Vulcanism, bollides and a whole lot of water. Where would one end and the other begin. Sedimentation, rapid erosion as the waters receded, vulcanism, meteor impacts, rapidly [relatively] shifting continental plates… how would one sort it all out? A geologist would have no problem identifying rocks formed by uniformitarian processes, but catastrophism on this level makes the matter much more dubious.

      You said: “I have no doubt there are other theories to explain why the strata appear the way they do, but do they explain the existence of meteor craters in these layers, or footprints, mud cracks, raindrops, and river channels? ”

      Well, yes. There are several Flood mechanism theories that suggest bollides as a catalyst for the Flood. Then we have rapidly laid down sediments, which uniformitarian geologists must also plead to since otherwise natural weather phenomenon would erase them before they could be fossilized.

      You said: “Do they explain the formation of chalk and limestone, each of which form gradually from very small creatures? ”

      The assumption is that the form gradually. At least two Creationist theories have suggested that the Flood can accoun t for chalk formations. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp

      Must get some sleep.

      I will attempt to answer your other comments at some later point.

      -Sirius

  7. Sirius says:

    “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. ” C.S. Lewis

    Thomas,

    I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I’ve been very busy as of late and was forced to take a vacation for sanity’s sake.

    Unfortunately, I’m now back-logged! So I will not be able to answer your comments in full at this time.

    A few notes:

    The cliffs of marseilles – We YECs do not believe that all strata were laid down during the Flood. Most Young Earth Creationists now believe that the KT Boundary represents the end of the Flood Layers [though there is some disagreement] while later layers resulted from local catastrophes resulting from the geological upheaval, vulcanism and a brief Ice Age which followed the Flood. If memory serves me [and this is off the cuff, so forgive me if my memory is faulty] even uniformitarian geologists believe those boulders were laid down by Ice Age glacial activity after the strata were laid down. Or am I thinking of something else? I am aware that there are some layers which contain large boulders within finer sedimentary strata, but YECs use these as evidence FOR a worldwide flood much as we use polystrates.

    If an Old Earth were proven – The Bible plainly states a 6-day Creation which is backed by the very reason given for the 4th commandment. If we can’t trust it from the very first Word, we should rightly reject it as we would any other false religion.

    Your other comments were interesting and do deserve a fuller treatment than a passing aside, so I shall address them later.

    Regards,
    Sirius Knott

  8. Thomas says:

    I am not sure what you intended to say to me by the C. S. Lewis quote. What he was saying, if I remember correctly, was that as an atheist, he came across many beautiful works of literature by Christians, and this troubled his atheistic faith.

    Glad you are back, and I hope your vacation was refreshing. My dad used to say that Jesus himself commended rest when he told his disciples to come aside and rest for a while. I look forward to reading your further comments, but always at your leisure. I’ll check your site with interest, but there is no rush.

    I would take more caution in stating that the Bible/Christianity should be rejected entirely if the earth does turn out to be old. I would wager that many have heard that and have left Christiantiy when they became convinced that the earth was old or that evolution was true. Would it not be better to take a more cautionary stance and say (with C. S. Lewis) that there are many Christians who have reconciled their faith with science? I would hate it, Sirius, if you were to become convinced of the scientific evidence for an old earth or evolution and were to reject your faith as a result. I would certainly not want to debate with you if agreeing with me meant a rejection of Christ.

    Peace (and rest) to you,

    Thomas

    1. Sirius says:

      @Thomas:

      The Lewis quote as simply an off-hand remark about the flip-side of Morton’s Demon.

      In any case, I would take no such cautions. There are many Christians who have reconciled their faith with evolution [yes, I note that you conflated evolution with science]. Errors and compromises have always abounded in Christendom. Men embrace the faddish notions of men rather than the revealed, inerrant Word of an infallible, eternal God! Even Christ commented on those who had made he commandment of God of no effect by the traditions of men.

      No, Christ claims to be The Truth and the Bible also affirms that He is the Creator. Furthermore, His personal testimony is that Adam & Eve were created from the beginning [not somewhere towards the tailend of history]. I philosophically affirm that Christianity should be rejected if an old eart were ever proven, simply because Christ the Savior cannot be divorced from Christ the Creator. If one is false, so is the other! Intellectual honesty requires that we reject falsehood and not hold onto error out of sentimentality. These claims are irrevocavbly intertwined.

      Nevertheless, have no fear for me and my soul. While I do not wish to discount your debating skills, which are no doubt excellent, I am in no danger of rejecting Christ for the excellent reason that His Word is true. God’s Word reveals that He created the world in 6 days. Long ages have been imposed upon the text. It is this imposition which causes sinners to doubt Christ the Savior. They know that our primary sourcebook for the Gospel is the Holy Bible. They’ve been taught in classrooms that the Bible is wrong about how we came to be and about the age of the Earth. Ministers, more eager to gain the praise of goats than to feed sheep, cast doubt on the historicity of Adam and Eve. The sinner is more honest than a hundred churchmen here, for he realizes without the slightest hint of sentimentalism that if there was no literal Adam and Eve, there was no literal Fall and man is therefore not under condemnation under Adam; therefore there is no need of a literal Savior to save them from their sin debt. To tear down Genesis and dismiss it as teaching myth is to hammer the foundational basis of the Gospel itself and to undermine the overall authority and reliability of God’s Word.

      I confess that I am perplexed at those of you who try to mix oil and water. Logic gives us the Law of noncontradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Yet some try to straddle the Grand Canyon and wonder when both sides call it folly. Worse, you make strange bedfellows and offer strange fire from our pulpits. You side with those who attack Christendom over the reliability of the Genesis revelation when it comes to the word of fallible, finite men who weren’t there [so long as it goes by the name of science] and uncritically accept their praise and support when you speak on their behalf. Know you not that these same ones who doubt the miracle of Creaton also doubt that water could turn to wine, that men could walk on water, that a man could control the weather at a word, heal the sick, spontaneously regenerate limbs, raise the dead and especially that a Man could be God incarnate and rise from the dead. Where are these popular science allies when you affirm these truths? Or have you already capitulated to them on these matters as well?

      You may debate the truth of an error till you’re blue in the face. Night remains night. Debate on! Perhaps the light of truth will shine upon you!

      –Sirius Knott

  9. krissmith777 says:

    Hi, I was wondering if you’d be willing to tell me what you think about this:

    http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/evolutionists-ignorance-about-intelligent-design/

    It’s about common misconceptions evolutionists make about Intelligent Design.

  10. Thomas says:

    I can tell that you are a preacher. :>

    “I philosophically affirm that Christianity should be rejected if an old earth were ever proven, simply because Christ the Savior cannot be divorced from Christ the Creator.”

    No Christian who affirms an old earth and/or evolution would deny that Christ is the creator. Nor do I have problems with miracles, but the evidence for an old earth and evolution I listed above (on which I await your comment) are compelling.

    Throughout church history, people have been just as passionate as you on several issues of science and like you, could not fathom that the scriptures could be seen in any other way. Their example should afford pause, especially in making statements such as, “Christianity should be seen in such a way or rejected outright.” That’s my humble opinion, of course.

    Strange bedfellows? Sure, many old earth scientists or evolutionists attack Christiantiy; others are devout Christians. So what? There are many anti-Christian scientists who affirm all sorts of non-controversial things, too. What matters is whether or not it is true, not whether some or even a lot of anti-Christians believe it.

    Regarding your comment before last in which you wrote:

    “We YECs do not believe that all strata were laid down during the Flood. Most Young Earth Creationists now believe that the KT Boundary represents the end of the Flood Layers [though there is some disagreement] while later layers resulted from local catastrophes resulting from the geological upheaval, vulcanism and a brief Ice Age which followed the Flood.”

    Okay, so let’s start with the KT Boundary and look downwards. Do you find the graded bedding that you would expect to find after a flood? And do volcanic activity, upheavals, and an ice age really explain all the layers that follow the KT Boundary? It seems doubtful to me. It also seems like a relatively easy task for a geologist to identify whether a layer was caused by a volcanic eruption, an earthquake, an ice age, etc.

  11. calvin says:

    Wow.. I really missed this museum when I was in america, Although I visited some others like bible walk and holy land.. but I should have visited creation museum also.
    Inspired by these museums, I wrote an article about that as well
    http://hubpages.com/hub/See-Bible-in-an-unseen-way-Christian-museum-in-United-States

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s