RpTheHotrod Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 According to the theory of the big bang, the universe started as a singularity, a single point in space, infinitely smaller than grains of sand, or the atoms that make them, or the quarks that make them. Eventually, it exploded, things crashed together, pieces broke apart but still orbited together to make galaxies.... It's a nice little theory. Here are some reasons why I think it’s wrong. 1: Stephen Hawking is a smart fella. Although he supports the big bang theory, his work goes against it completely. Stephen Hawking’s theories on black holes, etc, have been very useful. He says that if something as massive as the sun, were smashed down to the size of the earth, the escape velocity would be greater than C. This is an important number, because Stephen Hawking believes in Einstein’s theory that nothing can go faster than light. It's been observed that the faster something goes, the more mass it gains. When trying to get electrons to go the speed of light, they go very close to that speed, but no matter how much energy is pumped in, the electrons simply gain weight... not speed. Therefore, the faster something tries to go, the more mass it would have, the more it would be sucked in by the black hole. So the sun smashed down to the size of the earth... or the earth smashed down, maybe to the size of a pea (According to a book called "It's All Relative”), the escape velocity of a black hole would be so great that nothing could escape. So, what does this have to do with the big bang? Well, according to the big bang, the sun wasn't the only thing in the singularity... the entire universe was in there. All of the billions of stars and planets in each of the billions of galaxies would be smashed, not to the size of the earth... not the size of a pea, or a grain of sand or a molecule or a quark, but a single point in space. If nothing can escape a black hole, nothing should have been able to escape the universal singularity which exploded during the big bang. This means V would have to be less than C for the big bang to work according to Hawking where V = the escape velocity of a universal singularity. This doesn't work. (to give you an idea.... if there were only 10 billion stars in each galaxy [there are many, many more], and none of them had any planets or moons or comets or debris around them, and there were only 1 billion galaxies [there are MANY MANY more]... that would be the force of ten million million million suns [10,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 10^19]... smashed down to the size of a singularity. That's a lot of gravity, and the escape velocity would be faster than C. 2: Albert Einstein's a smart fella to. He supported the big bang... yet his work didn't. Remember general relativity, the famous "bowling ball on a rubber sheet" illustration? He says gravity isn't really a FORCE, just the mass or energy bending space. A universal singularity would bend space so much, the explosion/expansion would be going out... yet still crash into itself. Either the big bang's wrong or general relativity's wrong. But what about special relativity? That's a good theory, right? According to it, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. This means two times the escape velocity of the universal singularity would have to be less than C because if matter is escaping one way, other matter will be escaping in the opposite direction. That doesn't work at all. 3: Isaac Newton was a smart fella to. I'll just stick with one of his theories for now: Inertia. "Matter in motion tends to stay in motion," yes? Assume the universe COULD expand in such a speed that it could escape the universal singularity... nothing would be there to slow it down... so the universe, according to Newton’s data, would still be going the same speed.... but it's not. The universe IS expanding. We know this because we can observe the Doppler effect... but it's also speeding up. Scientists have found quasars 14 billion light years away, the universe has to have been here at LEAST long enough for that light to have been created and then travel here (if using the big bang theory...meaning the universe is at least 14 billion years + however long it took that quasar to form and start to emit light.). Thus, however fast the universe is speeding up, it has to have been able to speed up at, at least, that rate for 14 billion+ years. This changes the formula to 2V+(14,000,000,000X)<C (again, V is the excape velocity of a universal singularity and X is how much the universe is speeding up each year). The big bang would have to cause the universe to expand INCREDIBLY slow. 4: Charles Darwin was a smart fella as well. According to Big Bang followers, the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. Therefore in only 4.5 billion years the earth must cool down, form an atmosphere, and then molecules must just bump together randomly forming a working DNA strand out of only 4 elements (G, C, A, and T), and then forming at least one working mitochondria to provide energy for the DNA replication, then, because there's only one, reproduce asexually until the DNA randomly mutates to form a compatible male and female of the same species? THEN, evolve into dinosaurs and then into humans plus allowing at least 6,000 years of human history. That is not enough time for global cooling, spontaneous biogenesis, AND evolution. (Note: I personally don’t agree that spontaneous biogenesis is possible at all, thus I don’t believe in Darwin’s idea of evolution. In my own opinion a Dog can change into a dog with different traits, but a bacteria can’t change into a human no matter how much time you give it) 5: Look at the law of entropy. Chaos increases, never decreases. Look at how the universe was according to the scientists involved in the "big bang" say it was... and look at it now. Do you see quarks smashing into antiquarks all over the place? no. It's MUCH calmer than scientists say it was. This is a reduction of chaos. Entropy must be wrong for the big bang to be possible 6: The singularity was there... but how did it get there. The best we can come up with is “Because no matter/energy can be created or destroyed." We can assume one of two things, 1: There has been a finite amount of big bang/big crunches (whether this was the first one or there has been a certain amount before us). If there has been a finite amount, if you travel back to the first big bang, there is still an infinite amount of time for that singularity to sit there and do nothing before it suddenly pops. It is illogical that an inanimate object in the vacuum of space will sit for an infinite amount of time and then just decide… “I think I’ll explode now.” Without outside stimuli it would be going against inertia, if nothing else. Or, 2: There has been an infinite amount of big bang/big crunches. If nothing else the odds of something that goes against so many laws of physics succeeding an infinite amount of time would be unbelievable. For something to happen an infinite amount of times, it can’t be breaking a law, thus, everything we know about science today would be wrong and we would have to declare our own idiocy and admit we know nothing about our own universe. Humans will never admit they’re wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryn Dreith Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Interesting points. I think I can sense a couple of responses headed your way, though. Namely as far as point one goes (while I agree with you, someone will point this out): quantum physics behaves differently than Einsteinian physics would predict. You'll soon hear the "We're not exactly sure how quantum physics gets around the whole escape velocity thing, but it sure can... it's just so different down there!!!" Your last point is excellent as well. But they won't like it very much, those atheists and agnostics.... They'll say that's theology! Course, that's just because science has absolutely no way of ever determining the ultimate origin of the universe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 But it's got a better shot at it than religion. Let me address a few points here (since i only have time for a few). For point 1, Black Holes are suggested to have been formed by rapidly dying stars. Specifically, supernovas. If this is the case, than Black Holes would not have been created in the initial "Big Bang," but rather after it. So they wouldn't have an impact on it. The universe IS expanding. We know this because we can observe the Doppler effect... but it's also speeding up. To my knowledge, it's actually slowing down. The reason stars are blueish-white is because they are moving away from us, and that somehow affects the part of the visible light spectrum that we can see (recalling from way back in Astronomy class 3 years ago, so bear with me). When the Universe begins to contract again, the stars will appear with a reddish hue to them. Which could look pretty creepy, if you think about it. "Aw, crap, we're on the downward slope now. Only 70 billion years left." As to why it's slowing down... I dont know. Some central force of gravity that contracted it in the first place? Hard to tell at this point. That is not enough time for global cooling, spontaneous biogenesis, AND evolution. Why not? It only took 50-100 million years for the planet to form. It may not have cooled entirely when life first appeared. Life first popped up around 700 million years after the formation of the earth. http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earthorigin.htm (ok, ok, I know it's not the greatest source, but it serves its purpose.) It's not Theology, Kryn. Theology would stick God wherever science hasn't come up with an answer yet Great, now I'm late for class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 The reason stars are blueish-white is because they are moving away from us, and that somehow affects the part of the visible light spectrum that we can see Correct, it's Blue Shift and Red Shift. 1. Black holes are stars that imploded on themself. When a star reaches the end of it life, it either explodes(creates a supernova) or implodes(creates a black hole). 6. There could be an infinite amount of big bangs that happen. The universe could be timeless. Edit- Humans will never admit they’re wrong. True. Goes both ways for the Evolution/big bang vs. creation arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joetheeskimo Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I can't really deeply debate this, as science isn't my strength. But, I think the Big Bang could actually be true without going againast the bible. God said let there be land and water and the earth, and it was. Maybe the Big Bang was the way he made it, instead of just "it was". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I wont discount that possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 19, 2003 Author Share Posted November 19, 2003 Well, there's also another scientific "rule of thumb". An object in motion tends to stay in motion, or something along those lines. If there was nothing, and suddenly a big bang in the middle, the universe would expand, and just...keep going. Pretend the planet earth is the only thing in the entire universe and beyond. Now get out of the pull of the earth's gravity. Throw a football. It's just going to go.......go................go.....and never slow down. So, if the universe is expanding faster OR slower, either way...it's doesn't make sense. If nothing is there to stop it from speeding up or slowing down, why is it speeding up or slowing down? (remember, the little big bang explosion is now the only thing that exists) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Well, there's also another scientific "rule of thumb". An object in motion tends to stay in motion, or something along those lines. That "rule of thumb" is one of Newton's Laws Originally posted by RpTheHotrod If there was nothing, and suddenly a big bang in the middle, the universe would expand, and just...keep going. Current models that astronomers (and mathmaticians) are using doesn't assume "there was nothing." Well, some might, but the more accepted ones don't. People always have this problem with time: they have no problem conceptualizing that it can move infinitely forward, but can't imagine that it might also go infinitely backward were it possible to travel that direction. Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Pretend the planet earth is the only thing in the entire universe and beyond. Now get out of the pull of the earth's gravity. Throw a football. .... So, if the universe is expanding faster OR slower, either way...it's doesn't make sense. Sure it does... you just don't see it. The hint is, earth isn't the only substance in the universe. Originally posted by RpTheHotrod If nothing is there to stop it from speeding up or slowing down, why is it speeding up or slowing down? If you ever have the opportunity to take a course in astronomy or read a current text on the subject, you'll see that among some of the currently agreed upon principles is that the universe contains 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, and 4 % normal matter (you, me, the earth, the stars, planets, etc.). Also, the average density of energy in the universe is estimated at 0.8 joules per cubic kilometer. So since there are in the standard picture of things an infinite number of cubic kilometers there has to be an infinite number of joules of mass-energy. I'm a little pressed for time today, but perhaps I'll have the opportunity to post more on this later or this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Intriguing debate. Hotrod, you've got some good points. Hey Skin, I'd like to see what you're getting at there with that last paragraph or so, cause it sure isn't making any sense to me - as in, I understand what you're saying just fine, just not how it's relevant. As far as the earth not being the only thing, that's not the point he was trying to make, Skin. He was trying to point out that if the universe was the football, it should be expanding at a constant rate (as the football would be moving at a constant rate after you released it). There wouldn't be any speeding up or slowing down. Moreover, application of Newton's laws tells us that as soon as a force is no longer acting on an object, there can be no acceleration, positive or negative, since acceleration is directly proportional to force. And once the BB's done, you have no general force acting on the universe as a whole. Sure, stars and whatnot might be interacting. But the whole universe shouldn't be expanding at either increasing or decreasing velocities, unless there's one huge force acting on the universe as a whole.... And if there is, we don't see it. Now, I'm not gonna pull the "We don't see it so it isn't there" argument, but the fact that despite all our many observations we have no evidence for the existence of any such force would tend to lend itself to the argument that there isn't one. It would be theology. Kryn was right: there is a point when science cannot explain something: it's impossible to see past the big bang, regardless of what form it took and when that occurred. For more info on that, head over to Origins and Possibilities. Despite my and CJ's incredibly long argument (wherein I was proven wrong ) it does contain some very good info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Hey Skin, I'd like to see what you're getting at there with that last paragraph or so, cause it sure isn't making any sense to me - as in, I understand what you're saying just fine, just not how it's relevant. That's my error.. I'm popping in and out of the forums while at work today... only get a minute at a time, so I'm a bit rushed in my typing.... Gotta do the same thing here, unfortunately Originally posted by Master_Keralys He was trying to point out that if the universe was the football, it should be expanding at a constant rate (as the football would be moving at a constant rate after you released it). There wouldn't be any speeding up or slowing down. Moreover, application of Newton's laws tells us that as soon as a force is no longer acting on an object, there can be no acceleration, positive or negative, since acceleration is directly proportional to force What I was saying about the "earth not being the only thing" was that the universe is filled with other "things." These "things" act upon the football. Even here on earth, if you were to eliminate air resistance and gravity of the earth itself (the two primary forces acting on the football), every other object on earth would interact gravitationally with the football: other footballs, players, goal posts, birds, the moon, etc. The universe's momentum to expand is from the original energy released during the big bang. Any slow downs would be ostensibly due to "drag" created by the gravitational effects of other "things" which inlcudes 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, 4 % matter. I'll spend more time on this later... (hopefully :-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys It would be theology. Kryn was right: there is a point when science cannot explain something: I can see that... But I liken it to Homo neanderthalis being unable to explain the eclipse of the sun by the moon with the science he had available. He can't explain it, therefore it's supernatural. We can all agree that 50,000 since H. neanderthalis we've figured out how an eclipse works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 I know it's Newton's Law Skin walker...you're not seeing my point, or you're trying to dance around the subject. My point was, they say there was nothing except for some spec out of the middle of nowhere that suddenly exploded. BOOM...out everything goes. Now the planets and stars and etc would be part of this boom. . (spec to go boom) boom .----stars-----planets-----etc--------> (nothing) Why would the universe ever speed up or slow down, because there's "nothing" out there other than the now expanding "universe". "nothing" is there to speed or slow it down. Remember, all the stars and planets are part of the thing that is expanding. My point is, pretend there is NOTHING at ALL other than the football and it's suddenly by itself thrown in some random direction. Would the football ever speed up or slow down? The football is the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 I guess we just don't know yet why the universe is slowing down. There are still a lot of things out there that we don't know. But that's no excuse to "god-gap" a question. Just because we can't answer it right now doesn't mean that we never ever will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 Heh, the same can be said for Creation. What gets to me is people with evolution say Creation must be false because no one can show absolute proof. Saying it just "happened" doesn't make sense. Heh, well the same thing is for evolution....it just....went bang and all this is in place now. In other words, all because there is a "we can't prove" factor doesn't mean it's false....so stop claiming creation is false when you can't even prove evolution either. You don't know why yours started the way it did....it just.....happened. You can't explain it. You must have an open mind and at least realize that creation is another possibility. There's just no absolute proof for either evolution OR creation. BOTH require faith. That is the only absolute FACT about the origin of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryn Dreith Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Nic call, RP. Skin, there's no known gravitational field strong enough to generate that kind of pull. Like Master_Keralys, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I just feel that it's kind of interesting that such a field wouldn't let off any other detectable energy, etc. There should be no reason for it to speed up/slow down without that source, so... yeah. And while it might be out there, we have no proof that it is. I find that a lot of "science-ists" God-gap, too. They say, not God, but "some unknown force that we haven't discovered yet" instead. It's the same thing, and it seems really silly to me when science-ists accuse ID-ists of God-gapping when they themselves are "unknown force"-gapping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 There's a difference. Unknown-gaping usually means we are striving towards finding the reason why it happens, we just dont know about it yet. God-gaping is pretty much just giving a reason, and stopping there. By the way, RP, you do make a good point. Any and all theories on how the universe was created, are just that, theories. Doesnt matter on wether or not you believe bacteria evolved into humans, if you believe God created the universe, or if this is really the imagination of pink elephant in other dimension. It's all theories based on faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Heh, the same can be said for Creation. What gets to me is people with evolution say Creation must be false because no one can show absolute proof. Saying it just "happened" doesn't make sense. Heh, well the same thing is for evolution....it just....went bang and all this is in place now. In other words, all because there is a "we can't prove" factor doesn't mean it's false....so stop claiming creation is false when you can't even prove evolution either. You don't know why yours started the way it did....it just.....happened. You can't explain it. You must have an open mind and at least realize that creation is another possibility. There's just no absolute proof for either evolution OR creation. BOTH require faith. That is the only absolute FACT about the origin of the universe. Creation as written in the Bible is false. I feel confident to say this. But an omnipotent, invisble being sparking off the creation of the Universe as we know it? I guess that's possible. But Evolution has a lot more physical evidence going for it than creationism. If there are two theories and neither can be proven, but one of them has some pretty decent physical evidence and the other one has a book, which one are you going to believe? Also, the Big Bang theory is not the theory of Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 I understand that, but in many cases it's part of it. Big Bang, a chunk cools, forms earth, life beings, and now we're here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Well, if everything before the big bang was SO small... there was such an amazing amount of potential energy... A quantum sized accident would seem to be enough in my mind to cause a sudden explosion. I think of it like this: An atomic bomb takes up a fairly small amount of space, right? But as soon as you start that detonation process, a chain reaction occurs. Soon you've got an explosion that can level a major city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kryn Dreith Skin, there's no known gravitational field strong enough to generate that kind of pull. Like Master_Keralys, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I just feel that it's kind of interesting that such a field wouldn't let off any other detectable energy, etc. Why do you believe this to be true? Until recently, the thought of the universe was that it was slowing down because of the attraction that it had upon itself. Actually, it was the attraction of the individual parts. The energy of objects in space is very detectable. Their gravitational effects upon each other are predictable and obvious. Mathematical models that took this into account predicted that the galaxies with their stars, etc. would have attraction on each other and this attraction would slow the expansion and eventually cause a contraction becuase of the attraction. Current models of the universe discount a "slowing" down, however, as evidence of "speeding" up has been shown. Apparently, some previously unknown energy is pushing the universe to expand faster and faster. Moreover, most of the universe—2/3 of it—is made of this energy, termed "Dark Energy." Most models still don't see the universe as "living for ever" and consider three basic possibilities: 1) that the universe will keep expanding forever until it's energy is depleted then die a "cold static death;" 2) that the universe will eventually stop expanding, but still die a "cold static death;" or 3) the universe will eventually collapse into the big crunch into a "hot death." As to which model is correct (if either) has to do with what's known as an Omega density. In these models, Ω = <1, 1, or >1 respectively. Originally posted by RpTheHotRod Why would the universe ever speed up or slow down, because there's "nothing" out there other than the now expanding "universe". "nothing" is there to speed or slow it down. Remember, all the stars and planets are part of the thing that is expanding. Why can't the individual attractions of the particles of the universe itself cause the slowdown? Or, as recent evidence suggests, a substance/energy within the universe that is contributing to a speedup? That the "stars and planets" are a part of the universe itself is irrelevant. To discount their influence on one-another is definately not the way to go. Originally posted by RpTheHotRod My point is, pretend there is NOTHING at ALL other than the football and it's suddenly by itself thrown in some random direction. Would the football ever speed up or slow down? The football is the universe. It's a bad and unfair analogy. The football isn't expanding nor is it made up of billions of galaxies that are in turn made up of billions of stars. Nor does it have the influance of dark energy and dark matter, which comprise a full 98% of its composition. As a particle, it would be a good analogy. Then, indeed, the football would continue to travel at its initial velocity forever. Assuming that the person throwing it was without mass. Originally posted by RpTheHotRod Therefore in only 4.5 billion years the earth must cool down, form an atmosphere, and then molecules must just bump together randomly forming a working DNA strand out of only 4 elements You do realize that 4.5 billion years is rarely charactarized as only by those who have an idea of how long a period of time this is? If you can imagine this 4.5 billion years as a scale bar graph the size of the Empire State building, then the period in which life has existed on Earth (the Cambrian until now) would be at the top of the graph, but no taller than the width of a dime. Also, the Earth isn't completely cooled yet (thankfully), and so the cooling is an on-going process. Originally posted by Shock To my knowledge, it's actually slowing down. ... As to why it's slowing down... I dont know. Some central force of gravity that contracted it in the first place? Hard to tell at this point. That's the old model... new evidence supports the speeding up. Finally, I would point out that there is a lot we don't know about the origins of the universe, primarily because the evidence is so hard to find. I don't discount the possibility of a god creating the universe (nor does Hawking), but I also don't see this as any more likely than a godless explanation. What I do concede is that the knowledge is to us as the Solar Eclipse was to Homo erectus, H. neanderthalis, or even Bronze Age H. sapiens sapiens: it's not understandable, therefore it's easier to assign it to theology. I would like to point out that in at least one theory I've seen on origins of the universe, the singularity of the big bang was a point in time, not necessarily a point in space. In the last twenty years, our knowledge of the universe has increased tremendously. Simply throwing in "god did it" because we can't understand it is a primitive response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 or maybe, just maybe, that's the way it happened I'm one of the most logical people you'll meet. I put facts together when deciding, and would make a fantastic laywer. I love debate teams as well......but the strangest thing about me.....I believe "and God said" which totally goes against what I normally go by. Strange, but I do believe. But as you said....there is no concrete evidence for either side. Merely theories and faith. I just thought those points were interesting so I brought them to you guys, to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 There was an article in New Scientist recently about string theory - basically that the smallest particle is not a point of space at all but a string of energy, or something. I think it's supposed to fix problems like this. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 Too bad it's just a theory. Just like the theory that pink bunny rabbit sfrom outer space first colonized earth. However....easter shows evidence that it is true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Too bad it's just a theory. Just like the theory that pink bunny rabbit sfrom outer space first colonized earth. Actually, that would not be considered a theory. This is because a theory consists of a set of one or more hypotheses that have been tested. Such as the "theory of relativity." Einstein and others tested the hypotheses that comprise this theory by making predictions that were born out and by noting that the hypothesis held. Thus, Einstein was able to state his theory. Inventing a wild scenario and calling it a theory doesn't actually make it a theory. It just makes it a wild scenario or extraordinary hypothesis at best. Interestingly enough, one can only call the 'god' factor of the possible origin of the universe a hypothesis, as it doesn't measure up to the standard of "theory." I'm not versed in string-theory, but I do know that it is based upon several tested hypothesis even though it is still being developed. So saying, "too bad it's only a theory," is a bit misleading. The fact that it is a theory says a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 23, 2003 Author Share Posted November 23, 2003 that's what I meant.....you take things too literal But what about the pink bunny rabbits!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.