What is “Truth”? p2 [v121]

MARCH 2009

Last month I talked about the first four topics in the course. (For those just joining this ‘class’, here’s the list of all the topics:

1. Veritology: What is Truth? (Part 1-FEB09)
2. Philosophy and Ethics: Says Who? (Part 1-FEB09)
3. Anthropology: Who is Man? (Part 1-FEB09)
4. Theology: Who is God? (Part 1-FEB09)
5. Science: What is True?
6. History: Whose Story?
7. Sociology: The Divine Imprint
8. Unio Mystica: Am I Alone?
9. The State: Whose Law?
10. The American Experiment: Stepping Stones
11. Labor: Created to Create
12. Community and Involvement: God Cares, do I?

Because of winter break, and that the “Science” session was two parts, I will be only reviewing two sessions in this ‘post’—“Science: What is True?” and “History: Whose Story?”

SESSION #5 (Science: What is True?)
We now considered what does “the stuff in the box” really tell us when we honestly look at it? Dr. Tackett argues that ‘scientific investigation’—“the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”—is also a valid way of ascertaining ‘truth’. For when we open the ‘box’, we find that it is filled with ‘voices’ that speak to us loudly about the majesty and power of the One who has created the physical universe. Everywhere we look—whether up at the grandeur of the stars and galaxies or deep into the tiny and elegantly designed inner workings of a living cell—there is evidence that the cosmos is the handiwork of an intelligent, rational mind. In the contemplation of nature, we come face to face with the truth that God ‘exists’ and that He has ‘revealed’ Himself to us, not only through His written Word (special revelation) but also through the works of His hands (general revelation).

Back in 126 BC, the Greek astronomer and philosopher Hipparchus stated that he had counted 1,026 stars, even though he had access to what the prophet Jeremiah had written 400 years previously—“the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore” [Jeremiah 33:22].

Today, “Science and Space” magazine states that many surveys of the heavens now believe that there are 70 sextillion stars! (70 x 10 to the 21st power).

So, at this point, Dr. Tackett brought up the “Great Cosmological Question”—where did the cosmos come from?—it either had a beginning or it has always existed (Note: some people have a third theory that it is an “illusion,” but no reputable scientist holds this opinion).

[For more info on the universe as ‘evidence’ for a creator God, visit this link:
http://www.thesearchformeaning.net/sfm_pres/sp_q1_d3_1of10.html ].

The problem with the universe being eternal is, that is contradicted by the “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” which says that while the ‘quantity’ of matter/energy remains the same, the ‘quality’ deteriorates gradually over time (useable energy is converted into unusable energy).

Then, for those who believe the universe had a beginning but deny a “creator,” there is the “First Law of Thermodynamics,” which states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed (commonly known as the “Law of Conservation of Matter”)—the ‘quantity’ of matter/energy remains the same.

So then, ‘where’ did the matter come from originally? Hmmmm… some have a lot of ‘faith’ that something came from nothing!

Another few questions Del posed was, “Where does all the ‘order’ come from?”…”Why isn’t there ‘chaos’?”… Why does music exist?—with all it’s ‘complexity’, how could it have ‘evolved’?

Del gave us an analogy for the probability of the genetic code coming together to produce the ‘organized’ information is has proven to be.

Imagine dropping a bunch of Scrabble letter squares onto a table to create the sentence, “Why is there order?” How many squares do you think it would take you to create that sentence without any assistance fro you? Probably never—no matter how long! Then, think about this… where did the ‘squares’ come from?… and how did the ‘letters’ get on them?

Hmmmm… some have a lot of ‘faith’ that “Time is the hero of the plot…the impossible become possible” (George Wald, Scientific American, 1954).

Central to this philosophy are the assertions of Darwinian evolutionary theory. By keeping the details of creation’s story completely inside ‘the box’, evolution effectively rules out the existence of God. Herein lies the ‘heart’ of the debate over “Intelligent Design.” Atheist C. Richard Bozarth actually goes so far as to claim that “evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.” It is exactly this kind of ‘philosophical’ assumption that inspires the visceral antagonism of evolutionists toward anyone who dares question the validity of their theory. This is why Darwinists so fervently assert that “evolution is no longer merely a theory, but an established fact.” But the truth of the matter, as Dr. Tackett and his guest experts demonstrate in great detail, is that the theory is not supported by the evidence. Many inside the scientific community are beginning to recognize this. But they dare not acknowledge it publicly because of the worldview issues at stake. As Dr. David Berlinski says, “The consequences are serious.”

Dr. Tackett then mentioned “Paley’s Argument for Design.” Named after William Paley (1743-1805), this is sometimes referred to as the watchmaker analogy: it is plain to see that the parts in a watch are designed and placed in relationship with each other for a purpose and that the watch therefore must have a maker. In the same way, our universe bears evidence of design and purpose and, therefore, must have a ‘maker’.

Del then showed us a picture of Mount Rushmore. Do you think that the wind and rain, over a period of many years, could have created this?

Dr. Tackett then presented what the evolution ‘guru’, Charles Darwin, said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Del then cited author, Michael Behe, from his book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” He said: “To Darwin, the cell was a ‘black box’—its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has ‘absolutely broken down.’ ”

Del then showed us a mouse trap and said that Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls “irreducible complexity.” In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

Dr. Tackett then discussed the fossil record, where, if evolution is true, there should be many thousands of morphological changes for us to see—but, in reality, there are only hundreds of ‘examples’ that are cited (that can be explained away by the fact that they are just ‘disfigurement’—as we see today with three-legged horses and such).

So, Dr. Tackett uses Darwin’s own words about the fossil record: “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”

Stephen Jay Gould, a modern day Darwinist (just passed away a few years ago) was at least honest when he said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.”

Scientist, Soen Lovtrup, said in his 1987 book, “Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth,” that “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

One would think that our ‘natural’ reaction to this experience should be like that of a child: wonder, marvel, and praise for the Creator. But because of the effects of sin ‘coming into’ the world and the polarizing influence of the ‘Cosmic Battle’, man shows a tendency to deny what is plain to the senses and to “exchange the truth of God for a lie” [Romans 1:25]. Driven by this impulse, he transforms straightforward scientific inquiry, which properly concerns itself with ‘particulars’, into an all-embracing ‘philosophy’, which claims to establish ‘universals’ on the basis of the “stuff in the box.” The result is the propagation of a worldview that ‘scientifically’ excludes the Creator, thus ‘freeing’ mankind from accountability to a higher authority.

The essence of Dr. Tackett’s message may be summed up as follows: ‘fallen’ man ignores the plain evidence of objective scientific inquiry and promotes the atheistic ‘philosophy’ of evolutionary theory primarily because he is determined to do as he pleases without answering to a higher authority. This charge may make some group participants uncomfortable precisely because it hits so close to home. Dr. Tackett also illustrates the point that “ideas have consequences” by drawing a historical connection between Darwinian theory and the horrors of Nazi Germany.

[Note: In his book “From Darwin to Hitler,” California State University historian Richard Weikart concludes: “Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy”].

SESSION #6 (History: Whose Story?)
Here too we come face to face with the implications of man’s fallen nature and encounter yet another manifestation of the ‘Cosmic Battle’. Man resists the idea of a sovereign God. He wants to control his own destiny, live inside his own “little story,” and free himself from all connections with or references to an all-inclusive divine plan. Thus he devises ways to propagate the “pernicious lie” of self-determination (“I am my own god,” or “I believe in myself”) by taking the larger story of history into his own hands and turning it into a powerful ‘tool’ for the manipulation of other people and the accomplishment of his own selfish purposes. Historical revisionism, or the agenda-driven re-writing of history, operates on the basis of the premise, “If I can change your historical context, I can determine the way you view the present.”

This strategy is consistent with George Orwell’s observation that “He who controls the past controls the future” and Karl Marx’s dictum, “A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.” ‘Postmodernism’—the contemporary philosophical perspective that rejects both ‘revelation’ and ‘reason’—takes this process to an extreme conclusion by denying the validity of all comprehensive truth systems, or what it calls “metanarratives” (Any “large story” that pretends to give an all-encompassing explanation of anything, especially an over-arching story of history and life in attempt to legitimize some version of truth). Stated simply, the postmodern perspective maintains that there is no “larger story.” Instead, everyone must tell his or her ‘own’ story and invent (if possible) his or her ‘own’ concept of meaning and significance. In other words, history does not exist at all except as it exists in our own minds, where it can be edited and ‘tailored’ to further our own goals in the present.

This ‘re-writing’ of history is happening right now in the textbooks used in America—they are being ‘expunged’ of any reference to the God of the Bible.

An example of this is the Mayflower Compact, and the ‘real’ reason for the Pilgrims settlement. William Bradford, the leader of the Pilgrims, Governor of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, and primary ‘architect’ and signer of the Mayflower Compact, said this: “Last and not least, they [the Pilgrims] cherished a great hope and inward zeal of laying good foundations, or at least of making some way towards it, for the propagation and advance of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in the remote parts of the world, even though they should be but stepping stones to others in the performance of so great a work.”

I say, one doesn’t have to ‘like’ or agree with what the Pilgrims or William Bradford believed, but just be honest enough to accurately represent what they did say—for all others in the future to be able to make their own decision based on the TRUTH.

Author Ravi Zacharias then notes that just in the past few centuries, mankind has gone through many changes of thought: the “rationalists” were preoccupied with the mind; the empiricists were preoccupied with science; the “existentialists” with feeling and emotions; but the “postmodernist” comes along without any desire to hold on to anything of the past and “throws it all out.”

Os Guinness noted that, “Where we’ve come from, the past and history, is the key to who we are, and where we are. And those who don’t know history, have no sense of identity, and no sense of wisdom as they explore where they’re going to go.”

Question: Do you believe Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle lived? How about Homer? Julius Caesar?

Well, why do you believe all this? Probably because you’ve been told by many ‘scholars’ about the veracity of the many ancient documents we have uncovered, and the people that are mentioned within them.

It might interest you to know that, in the case of Homer, we have 643 copies of his “Iliad” manuscript, with the earliest copy being dated 500 years after he wrote it. Concerning Julius Caesar’s “Gallic Wars,” we only have 10 copies and the earliest is more than 1,000 years after the original autograph. Comparatively, we have over 24,000 copies of the New Testament of the Bible, with many being only 40-60 years after they were written! So, if one doesn’t want to believe that the writings of the New Testament are “accurate,” then they have to be honest enough to ‘throw out’ all of the other ancient writings as well.

[For more info on the ‘evidence’ from ancient documents, visit this link:
http://www.thesearchformeaning.com/sfm_pres/sp_q4_d2_5of10.html ].

As we have seen so often during the course of our first five sessions, the essence of the “Cosmic Battle” or the conflict between Truth and Lies can be boiled down to a confrontation between the claims of the sovereign God and the claims of the sovereign self. It’s the old story of the Garden of Eden, where the serpent re-wrote the past by asking, “Has God really said …?” and where man became completely caught up in his own “little story.” From beginning to end, Dr. Tackett’s message in session six is that “It’s NOT all about you.” As Jesus put it, “He who seeks to save his life will lose it.” Given our current “self-actualizing” cultural climate, it is likely that some group participants will take exception to this idea. Others may have theological objections to Dr. Tackett’s statements about the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human free will; for he states very plainly that if we are ‘only’ free agents, then we are completely without hope.

One of the most frequently-quoted  phrases from William Shakespeare, was a monologue from his play “As You Like It.” Sometimes this is referred to as the “seven ages of man,” Shakespeare commented later that he was talking about how we all are “playing a part in God’s timeless redemptive drama of the ages.”

Hmmmm… Let me leave you with this unique ‘analogy’—just imagine that if mankind’s history is God’s ‘photo album’, and He’s just flipping the ‘pages’ (Garden of Eden; Tower of Babel; Worldwide flood; New ‘Covenant’; Exodus from Egypt; Jesus to bear our iniquities; Jesus proves He was God by resurrection; Jesus will come back again to take His followers to Heaven for eternity).

Sometimes humanities ‘problem’ is remembering what we should forget (i.e. hurtful things done to us), and forgetting what we should remember (Jesus ‘washing away’ our sins and offering eternal life).

The ‘script’ that God has given to us for His ‘drama’ on earth is not specific as to times and dates—it is only specific in terms of events. That is, we are told that Jesus will return for His “Church” (ANYONE that believes in Him)—but we are not told the exact day or hour [Matthew 24:36]. Therefore, we must be ready for God’s ‘curtain call’ to happen at any time.

Jesus told a parable to accentuate the need to live a ‘watchful’ life—the ten virgins [Matthew 25:1-13]. The occasion was a wedding, and the guests were awaiting the arrival of the bridegroom. Five of the virgins trimmed (filled) their lamps with oil while five did not. Because the bridegroom was a long time in coming, all ten fell asleep. But when the cry went out that the bridegroom had arrived, only the five who had PREPARED their lamps were able to enter the wedding feast with the groom—while the other five went away to get oil for their lamps. The door to the ‘feast’ was closed, and the foolish virgins were not allowed to enter when they came back. “Watch therefore,” Jesus concluded, “for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming” [Matthew 25:13].

So, the question is, do you have a ‘part’ in the script? Are you now a part of God’s ‘cast’ of characters who will be invited to participate in history’s final ‘curtain call’?

If not, you can join the cast today by placing your faith in Jesus, receiving Him as your Lord and Savior. Only then will you be assured of hearing His ‘call’ when He returns to remove His believers from this earth. It’s something you don’t want to miss!!!

[Excerpts from: Dr. Del Tackett; The Truth Project; Dr. David Jeremiah]

If you would like to investigate further “The Truth Project,” visit the following link:


If you have a ‘neat’ story or some thoughts about an issue or current event that you would like me to try to respond to, I would be glad to give it a try…so, send them to me at: mbesh@comcast.net

One of the assumptions behind the question of whether science has disproved religion is that the discoveries of modern science have proved biblical religion to be indefensible. One such false belief is that the scientific method can actually “prove” things. In fact, because empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities.

Induction is the principle of scientific inquiry that begins with particular instances of a specific observation in order to offer a generalization about the thing observed. For example, all the dogs I have encountered have four legs, so I conclude with the generalization that all dogs have four legs. However, my conclusion is not proved as such. It is not deduced from a universally known truth; it is based on limited exposure to the “facts,” and so is only a statement of probability. And as it happens, there are dogs born with three legs or injured and left with three.

Inductive scientific methods cannot prove with certainty. Furthermore, the past is not directly accessible to us and so all theories concerning origins and earth history are hypotheses not facts. Similarly, the future is not accessible to the senses so predictions about natural processes in the future are based on philosophical assumptions (faith).

Though readily admitted by philosophers of science, the general public is often unaware of the nature of the scientific enterprise. So when the question is posed in relation to Christianity, most people are referring to a blind leap in the dark that is undertaken at the point where science and reason can take us no further. Christianity, they believe, is held to in the absence of evidence or even contrary to the known facts.

Faith is not, however, a leap; it is a foundation. Furthermore, all science is based upon a faith of some kind; we must all believe certain things before we can speak of science. For example, we must believe there is a real world of matter “out there” that is accessible and correlated to our senses. We must believe that our minds are giving us reliable information about the world. We must believe that language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.

In fact, the most basic assumption of the sciences, taken for granted by each, is the uniformity of nature—the expectation that the present and future will be like the past. Yet these are not proven by natural science—they are believed on faith! It is because we believe these things that science itself is made a meaningful and intelligible discipline.

Since science is based upon faith assumptions (metaphysical beliefs) that cannot be proved, we need to ask a different question: What ‘kind of faith’ do we need in order to make our use of science intelligible? Which faith provides an adequate foundation for science? And, importantly, how then does each faith perspective affect the methods and conclusions of science?

Everybody, scientist or not, nurtures these “religious perspectives” about the world through a number of interconnected beliefs (presuppositions). We call this simply, a worldview. In order to adequately answer these questions then, we must compare and contrast the pre-suppositions of these differing faith systems.

Naturalism holds that matter and energy is all there is. The whole universe is in flux, matter in motion. Everything we observe in the universe created itself from an ultimate chaos. The universe is the product of chance not design, and thus requires no recourse to God for an explanation. Human beings are nothing more than a random collocation of atoms.

In contrast, Christian theism holds that the God of the Bible, perfectly manifest in Jesus Christ, is the creator, sustainer and redeemer of this world. Rather than the void of chance, the mind of the triune God creates orders and sustains all that is.

Recognizing the two divergent starting points is imperative—it is either chance or it is God.

As we observed yesterday, the starting points for the naturalist and Christian are very different: it is either chance or God. In the first case, the mind of finite man must be the ultimate criteria for truth. The Christian theist on the other hand holds that God and his infallible Word are the ultimate criteria for truth. God alone (who is not confined to the inductive method) has all the facts readily available. So, humans do not create knowledge or fashion the universe from their own minds, but rather they look to the God of creation as the ultimate source of all knowledge and reality.

People with both religious worldviews are looking at the same data or evidence. However, the facts do not speak for themselves; they are interpreted according to a worldview. Thus, when the naturalistic thinker looks at the evidence, he interprets everything accordingly. He claims, for example, that he does not see design in the genetic code, just selfish genes and random replication. He claims not to see God revealed in the heavens, he sees cosmic evolution. In looking at himself, he does not see a creature made in God’s image, but an animal that has arisen from lifeless chemicals. To him all “facts” must be naturalistic, evolutionary facts in order to be facts at all.

The Christian theist, on the other hand, sees all the evidence as pointing to God. All facts are theistic facts. They are not interpreted arbitrarily by the finite and ever-changing thinking of people but pre-interpreted by the mind of God. All facts are therefore read in the light of God’s revelation in scripture.

So we see that the idea that science has disproved Christianity is a myth. Naturalism as a religion has its science and the theist has his science. Each worldview stands antithetically opposed to the other. It is one faith (religion) that opposes the other, not an objective scientific establishment that opposes religion.

For the genuine seeker, the ‘real question’ then is simply, which faith makes scientific knowledge possible? Which view provides an adequate foundation for the sciences?

If the universe is ultimately chaotic, just time plus matter plus chance, if all is in flux, then you cannot finally know anything at all. Thus, how can we believe in the uniformity of nature in a chance-driven universe? How can we trust that the chemical accident of our brain is giving us valid knowledge? How could we judge what is valid from what is invalid? If everything is matter in motion how can we apply abstract, universal and immaterial laws of mathematics and logic to reality? How can we even use meaningful language to communicate ideas in science if we have come from nothingness and are returning to it?

Has science disproved religion? Some scientists would like to make their views synonymous with science itself, and so claim that science ‘has’ indeed disproved religion. I suggest however, that the Christian faith must be the very bedrock of all intelligible science. It is the Christian worldview alone that can provide the pre-conditions of intelligible science. It is God who gives order, structure, and regularity to the universe, who makes the cosmos rational. He has made us in his image with mind and Spirit distinct from matter, capable of exploring understanding and investigating the world. It is the God-given nature of human beings living in God’s world that makes science possible.

And without such a faith, there is no science to speak of.
[Joe Boot]

According to Will Durant, “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God.” The importance of this question impacts us all because it is not simply an intellectual exercise, but a question of life. If God ‘does’ exist, then it would change everything. The consequences would be major, and to ignore Him, avoid Him, or reject Him could be costly. But can we really know that God is real?

As it is often framed, such a question means that we are asking for overwhelming evidence, or evidence of a particular nature, ‘before’ we feel we can make a judgment. We may insist that if God were real He would reveal Himself on our terms, whether through science, or the arts, or philosophy. Yet my response would be that we should defer judgment, hold back our prejudices and our desired terms, and follow the trail of intimations to where they may lead. Let me lay some foundations.

Since the beginning of time until the present, the overwhelming majority of people have believed that God exists. This is not a compelling argument, but it is nonetheless an occurrence that demands explanation. What’s more, despite over a century of evolutionary thought, many scientists and philosophers continue to see overwhelming evidence of design in the natural world. The complexity, order, and life-sustaining factors are too significant to be answered by time plus matter plus chance. If you watched a movie and were clearly awed by it, but were then told that it just came together by chance, you would scoff at the suggestion! The beauty, the plot, the detail, and the coherence tell you plainly that an intelligent agent was involved. As the old song says, “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.”

Our encounter with nature, life, and the sheer majesty of the universe invites reflection, and often generates a sense of awe. Albert Einstein said, “The mathematical precision of the universe reveals the mathematical mind of God.” The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” [Romans 1:20]. The information and data points to design; the order and creativity suggest a Creator. And the Scriptures describe a holy and personal being.

But can we know Him? The Psalmist said, “Taste and see that the Lord is good” [Psalm 34:8]. Paul said to the Romans, “It is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” [Romans 10:10]. God is not an abstract idea, a philosophical concept, or a proposition. He is the Lord of life and the Lord of all, and can be known to those who will humble themselves.

Believing is a starting point for a new, real, and active relationship with the living God. The God who is seen in creation, hinted at in conscience, revealed in Jesus, testified to by witnesses, and written about in Scripture, can be known practically in the life of the Holy Spirit given to us by faith and repentance.

Can we know that God is real? The answer is yes, but on his terms, not ours. And Lord willing one day we shall see fully, even as we are fully known.
[Stuart McAllister]

“When I die, I’m leaving my body to science fiction.”
[Steven Wright]

Hope you enjoyed some of these insights—share them with your friends and colleagues—so we can have a larger ‘pool’ to receive from, and more to share with! Also, remember to include your name as the “source,” if some of this wisdom is of your doing—I would like to give credit where credit is due!

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands” [Psalm 19:1].


Disclaimer: All the above jokes & inspirations are obtained from various sources and copyright are used when known. Other than our name and headers, we do not own the copyright to any of the materials sent to this list. We just want to spread the ministry of God’s love and cheerfulness throughout the world.

<‘)))><     <‘)))><     <‘)))><     <‘)))><     <‘)))><     <‘)))><     <‘)))><

One Response to “What is “Truth”? p2 [v121]”

  1. Silvana Mumper Says:

    I usually get bored easily and close the tab but i honestly enjoyed what i read. Bravo !

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

%d bloggers like this: