Friday, April 17, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Texas School Standards: Age of the Universe Erased

by Miranda Marquit

Thanks to SPS for the link.
Reposted from
http://www.physorg.com/news158320278.html

blank

(PhysOrg.com) -- The fight over the new education and curriculum standards for the public schools in Texas has been long and publicized. Most of the publicity, though, focuses on the school board's focus on "intelligent design" as it relates to the biological question of evolution. Because evolution has long been contested in public schools, it is no real surprise that this has gotten the most play from the media. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned as much is the fact that the Texas school standards also remove mention of the age of the universe. Long-standing ideas of cosmology are being challenged as well.

Originally in the Texas school standards was this phrase: "concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago." However, board member Barbara Cargill thought this wasn't good enough. It was too definite. The standards now read, "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe." You can bet that the age of the earth is not listed in the Texas curriculum as about 4.5 billion years old -- in spite of the fact that most of the people my age and older have known (or rather, estimated) this for years.

There certainly are many different theories about the formation of the universe. Whether it was a big bang or a big bounce are two of them. Cosmologists and astronomers wonder about the rate of expansion in the early universe, and they debate the effects of gravity (not to mention its nature) as well as consider questions about the composition of the universe and the kinds of particles that exist. However, despite the questions that do exist about the origination of the universe, there is very little debate about its age.

Right now, the latest estimate is that the universe is 13.73 billion years old, plus or minus 120 million years. This information is the latest from results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (WMAP). While the age of the universe is likely to be fine tuned in coming years, it is extremely likely that it will remain in the neighborhood of 14 billion years. And few scientists see the age of the earth being cast in doubt as well. But it appears that cosmology could now be thrown into the fray of science v. religion.

Until now, matters of space have been very little addressed in terms of religion. After all, couldn't God have created the universe well before putting humans on Earth? But it appears that by working from Earth outward, some are becoming concerned. If God created humans on Earth just a few millennia ago, then Earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. And if Earth isn't as old as all that, surely the universe isn't, either. It's an interesting train of logic. And one that could result in all we know about space science being brought under attack.

Posted: Friday, April 17, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 194 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #365662 by Inside centre on April 17, 2009 at 6:54 am

Seems to me like this is the exact opposite of what the Prof calls 'consciousness raising' by the religious people of Texas. More like 'consciousness lowering' or 'ignorance raising'.

For these people and their odd little minds it seems that the less their kids learn, the better their education. Bizarre.

Edit: Spelling

Other Comments by Inside centre

2. Comment #365663 by Nails on April 17, 2009 at 6:54 am

Ths is sheer idiocracy and it has to stop.

Talk about intolerant and closed minded individuals.....

Thankfully, the UK is not as bad as this, and I for one am glad that I didn't have misfortune to raise my children in Texas.

How long before they want to teach geocentricism?

Other Comments by Nails

3. Comment #365664 by irate_atheist on April 17, 2009 at 7:01 am

Gross imbecility bordering on the criminal. These people aren't fit to run a bath let alone an education system.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

4. Comment #365666 by Roland_F on April 17, 2009 at 7:05 am

The universe is just one day older than earth. And humans are just 2 days older than earth. Very simple.
....or just wait....
Version 2 of Genesis states it was all done in 1 day.
And all creation somewhere in Sept 4004 BC (Usher estimate) which leaves Methuselah still alive for 17 years during/after the flood. So Jehovah Witnesses date it to 4022 BC.

Of course this is all not true as Scientologist "know" the universe must have existed Trillions or Trillion or Trillions (10**70) of years ago as God Xenu released some souls from Space Opera and flew them in an DC8 aircraft across the Universe (or something like this).

PS: and everyone questioning anything of this is intolerant, commit blasphemy and breaks the UN decision of inciting anti religious hatred !

Other Comments by Roland_F

5. Comment #365671 by bujin on April 17, 2009 at 7:17 am

If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious. Texas is rapidly becoming the laughing stock of world education. Their school standards are organised by people who are incomprehensibly stupid.

A perfect example of their stupidity and malevolence is the way they shoehorn the word "evolution" into the phrase "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe."

They know that evolution already leaves a sour taste in some of the religious imbecile's mouths, so why not use that to their advantage?

I truly feel sorry for Texans who are subjected to this school system. Not knowing a great deal about the USA, is there anything the president can do to stop this sort of thing happening?

Other Comments by bujin

6. Comment #365673 by AdrianT on April 17, 2009 at 7:22 am

This is an attempt to make it OK to argue that the world is 6000 years old. To make placard waving crackpots campaigning against contraception, any abortion from the moment of conception, gay rights and sex education, as not complete lunatics.

That's what the wedge is driving for - imposing Biblical law on society. It must be opposed.

Other Comments by AdrianT

7. Comment #365674 by Wosret on April 17, 2009 at 7:23 am

Morons...

Other Comments by Wosret

8. Comment #365677 by heafnerj on April 17, 2009 at 7:26 am

Folks this is the Wedge Document in action! This is why I now include a discussion of the Wedge Document in my introductory courses. Students need to be aware of the undermining of all science. I wish Texas would go ahead and secede from the country.

Other Comments by heafnerj

9. Comment #365680 by flobear on April 17, 2009 at 7:35 am

Wowret: No matter how many times I see that clip, it still makes me laugh.

We should just have that automatically attached to every posting here.

Other Comments by flobear

10. Comment #365682 by Coruscator on April 17, 2009 at 7:38 am

Inside Centre - 'Seems to me like this is the exact opposite of what the Prof calls 'conscientiousness raising.'

Do you mean consciousness raising?

Other Comments by Coruscator

11. Comment #365683 by firstelder_d on April 17, 2009 at 7:38 am

"concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago." However, board member Barbara Cargill thought this wasn't good enough. It was too definite. The standards now read, "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe."

Barb must be a member of the Texas Ministry of Truth. Does anyone else see 1984 parallels with these idiots?

Other Comments by firstelder_d

12. Comment #365688 by chewedbarber on April 17, 2009 at 7:47 am

Is it mullet hunting time again, already?

Shit, earth ain't that o'le!

Other Comments by chewedbarber

13. Comment #365689 by Quetzalcoatl on April 17, 2009 at 7:49 am

Chewedbarber-

Thanks, I think that image just scarred my retinas.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

14. Comment #365694 by Tyler Durden on April 17, 2009 at 7:56 am

Having taught biology for many years, I assure you that high school students are smart, savvy, and curious. A sound teaching strategy is to allow them to discuss multiple aspects of controversial subjects. For example, when evidence for universal common ancestry in the fossil record is taught (i.e. scientific strength), then the contradictory evidence showing the huge gaps of missing transitional fossils in the record must also be presented (i.e. scientific weakness). We must educate our students -- not indoctrinate them by letting them hear only one side of an issue.

Barbara Cargill taught biology?!?!?! The poor students. I wonder if she taught "stork theory" along side sexual reproduction just to, ya know, allow them to discuss multiple aspects of controversial subjects.

http://www.barbaracargill.com/

Texas, you voted for this woman, only yourself to blame!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

15. Comment #365695 by TheLordHumungus on April 17, 2009 at 7:58 am

It is at times like this I miss Carl Sagan the most.

Other Comments by TheLordHumungus

16. Comment #365696 by stephenray on April 17, 2009 at 7:58 am

The universe is not evolving in that sense. It is merely developing.

For it to evolve it must have 'offspring' universes and an imperfect reproduction process. Even then, it is arguable that no one universe evolves.

It's a common mis~uh~nderstanding amongst the woo-woos that the theory of evolution by natural selection encompasses everything in all branches of science, including cosmology.

Other Comments by stephenray

17. Comment #365697 by Inside centre on April 17, 2009 at 8:01 am

Comment #365682 by Coruscator

I do. The joys of the spell check.

Other Comments by Inside centre

18. Comment #365698 by aristophanes_rising on April 17, 2009 at 8:01 am

As a native Texan, I can safely say that this is the buckle of the Bible belt. My high school barely mentioned evolution--it wasn't until college that I learned about it in depth. So while this isn't really a new development in Texas education, it does lead me to believe that it will open the door for teaching creationism in Texas schools. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Other Comments by aristophanes_rising

19. Comment #365700 by rod-the-farmer on April 17, 2009 at 8:05 am

I just sent the following to Barbara Cargill.

Well, I just read on the internet that you appear to want Texas school children taught the age of the universe is not 14.5 billion years or so,
it might be 6,000 years old or thereabouts. This has to be a joke, right ? I see from your resume that you claim several degrees from Baylor, in
science. How did you ever make it through university with a mindset that thinks Genesis is the true story of our existence ? I suggest your money was wasted, as it does not seem as though you received any science education there at all. Between you and Don McLeroy, you have made Texas
the laughing stock of not just the United States, but the entire western world. As of this moment, I plan to seek out and donate money to ANYONE
who will contest your elected office. You are not fit to be a public servant in the education field. And I don't even LIVE in Texas, although
I do have many friends there. They have my deepest sympathy.

signed, me.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

20. Comment #365705 by quantum_flux on April 17, 2009 at 8:10 am

Good, because we don't honestly know the universe to be merely 14 billion years old. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are quite dishonest explanations from a scientific standpoint too, and especially the inflationary period. These things are all dogmatic beliefs that shouldn't be taught as fact, instead we should teach kids to be every bit as skeptical of modern astronomy as they should be of religion.

I've seen some progressive hypothesis attributing galactic scale forces to electrical attractors which makes much better sense than the theoretical assumption of particles making up 90% of the mass of the Universe that interact merely with gravity alone and don't interact with electrical fields. That makes better sense in explaining the acceleration of the Universe than does the entirely theoretical framework of General Relativity and certain universal constants. On the quantum scale of things, the ratio of the strengths of electrical forces between elementary particles to the strengths of gravitational forces is on the order of 10^42 times bigger, and modern astronomy has only just begun to scratch the surface of the effects of the electrical forces involved. In short, there are bound to be some radical changes to the field of astronomy and we shouldn't be dogmatising people on the current theories, including on the age of the Universe.

I think, what is possible, is to show kids the math equations involved in General and Special Relativity, and show them some of the math of Quantum Mechanics and thereby show them that it is a hypothetical model of the Universe to assume Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but that it is in all honesty, probably not the correct one. This is similar to all of the previous scientific theories (angels pushing planets in the solar system, gods of dark energy pushing galaxies, Space filled with Ether causing a Universal Index of Refraction, angry Maxwellian demons of hot lava in the Earth's Core causing volcanic activity and indefinant plate tectonics) that got or could be thrown into the dust bin of history.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

21. Comment #365710 by robotaholic on April 17, 2009 at 8:16 am

if there is any study whatsoever of the universe any person would come to the conclusion that the universe is at least old enough for the light to reach us from distant stars..ie billions of years...
so if the age of the universe gets censored kids would still come away from science knowing its approximate real age...and for the religious to prevent THAT, they would have to stop all cosmology info...like for example they'd have to prevent kids from learning the speed of light, the distance of stars, cepheid variables, the paralax method, the process stars go through in which to emit light...the list goes on and on and I just don't think religion can do that-
true parents can brainwash kids into believing the earth is so young but I *think* that's really just compartimentalism - self deception -
I'm going to bet on science on this one...religion doesn't have a chance it seems to me
EDIT - but yeah Texas does suck though and removing the estimated age of the universe is really stupid for sure

Other Comments by robotaholic

22. Comment #365712 by Godfree Gordon on April 17, 2009 at 8:20 am

There is a perfect correlation between the reliance on oil for gross domestic income and not having a need for an educated populace.

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

23. Comment #365719 by Oystein Elgaroy on April 17, 2009 at 8:34 am

I am very happy to hear this. No cosmic narrative is better than any other, so it is wrong to give special emphasis to the atheist myth of the Big Bang. If the age of the universe really were as large as 13.7 billion years, it would make me feel really small and unimportant, and make me lose all sense of purpose. It is good that children in Texas will no longer be exposed to this dangerous and depression-fostering myth.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

24. Comment #365720 by PabloDF on April 17, 2009 at 8:35 am

How exactly are school board members elected in Texas? Are they selected from the top scores in Sunday schools' Biblical quizzes or something like that?

Other Comments by PabloDF

25. Comment #365724 by quantum_flux on April 17, 2009 at 8:37 am

The Universe is likely to be Eternal from a physical point of view, given the laws of Conservation of Momentum, Energy, and Angular Momentum (assuming photons and other rest-massless/chargeless particles actually have constant angular momentum as quantum mechanics may or may be wrong on this one). Roger Penrose hypothesizes a cyclic (bang-collapse-bang-collapse-etc, like a reciprocating piston engine that runs out of fuel) universe that obeys the laws of entropy.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

26. Comment #365726 by Tyler Durden on April 17, 2009 at 8:38 am

Have sent Barb an email to: sboecargill@sbcglobal.net

Not holding my breath with regard to a reply. Intelligent or otherwise.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

27. Comment #365737 by chewedbarber on April 17, 2009 at 8:48 am

Oops, guess I better remove it then... actually it's not a big image, but maybe too wide ... nope just right at 500px exactly

Other Comments by chewedbarber

28. Comment #365746 by phasmagigas on April 17, 2009 at 8:58 am

Originally in the Texas school standards was this phrase: "concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago." However, board member Barbara Cargill thought this wasn't good enough. It was too definite.

'too definite' what a stupid fool, once again creationists have thought this one up carefully, its another of those 'both sides'strategies.

why not widen the scope a bit then, 10-20 billion yers, or maybe 6000 to 15 billion years, i guess that would make her happy. I suppose the 6000 wouldnt be especially definite compared to that 'about 14 billion', oh no.

Until now, matters of space have been very little addressed in terms of religion

because of course just what can it have to say about it££

After all, couldn't God have created the universe well before putting humans on Earth£ But it appears that by working from Earth outward, some are becoming concerned. If God created humans on Earth just a few millennia ago, then Earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. And if Earth isn't as old as all that, surely the universe isn't, either. It's an interesting train of logic

evidence please.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

29. Comment #365749 by JonLynnHarvey on April 17, 2009 at 9:00 am

Texas of course publishes text books used throughout the USA so this effects a lot more folks than Texans.

quantum_flux, the purpose of high school education is to teach state of the art science as it now stands while also allowing that occasionally established theories (such as the ether) do get subsequently proved wrong through further experiment and peer-review. Yes, student's should be taught that there are paradigm-shifts in science.
However, there's a difference between informed skepticism and a kind of cynical nihilism about scientific enquiry, so no I don't think we should teach students to be skeptical of modern astronomy unless it involves teaching REAL controversies that are live in the scientific community.
As for religion, I approve of Daniel Dennett's proposal to teach a comparative religion course in high schools covering multiple religions, though otherwise moderately neutral point of view. DD's viewpoint is the less dogmatic/toxic religions can survive this and the morbid and ugly ones will not.

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

30. Comment #365750 by chewedbarber on April 17, 2009 at 9:02 am

x m d, the boards discombobulate (hehehe) the image tag, so when you're done using one make sure you enter edit mode and refuckulate it so that it works.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

31. Comment #365751 by FredNurke on April 17, 2009 at 9:02 am

For a truly innovative concept on the age and cycles of the universe, check out the work of Steinhardt and Turok:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

Their theory is that the universe cycles in trillions of years, but the bang/collapse model has a bridge. It's a constant refreshment model as the n-branes collide spewing matter and time into this universe. Very interesting indeed.

Other Comments by FredNurke

32. Comment #365754 by prettygoodformonkeys on April 17, 2009 at 9:04 am

That's either an astronomy picture taken by the Hubble, or Barbara Cargill's brain MRI.

EDIT: so it's either a gaseous nebula, or nebulous gas......

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

33. Comment #365755 by Rikitiki13 on April 17, 2009 at 9:05 am

A Texas creationist named Barb
Earned degrees without thinking too hard
Evidence she'll prohibit
Instead, "Hey! God-did-it!"
Then to geocentricism retard

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

34. Comment #365756 by phasmagigas on April 17, 2009 at 9:06 am

then the contradictory evidence showing the huge gaps of missing transitional fossils in the record must also be presented (i.e. scientific weakness).

what a ignorant moron. gaps in the fossil record are contradictory evidence££ and just what does 'scientific weakness' actually mean££

so if a body is found with stab wound to the heart we can call the missing murder weapon contradictory evidence and also a forensic science weakness perhaps££

Other Comments by phasmagigas

35. Comment #365760 by quantum_flux on April 17, 2009 at 9:09 am

Look, there are plenty of down-to-Earth scientific beauties that kids should be much less skeptical about than modern-astronomy or cosmology, such as thermodynamics, gravitation on a local scale, electrical and magnetic interactions, the derivation of the speed of light and the doppler shifts experienced by space missions thereof, using GPS triangulation methods for determining distances to objects, sensors and RCL circuits, electric motor theories, basics of bow and shock wave aerodynamics with lift and drag coefficients, mechanical forces-moments-stresses on rigid objects, elemental chemical titration equations and caloric experiments, etc....the economy will thank us for accelerating our public education system when all of the older competent people are retiring.

Also, the probabilities involved in calculating 5 card draw poker odds are equally as complicated as the probabilities found in nature on the quantum scale, and I figure kids should be able to understand both equally as well. Don't sell kids short on their ability to grasp these concepts.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

36. Comment #365765 by Stafford Gordon on April 17, 2009 at 9:14 am

How stupid.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

37. Comment #365780 by dirigibleBehemothaur on April 17, 2009 at 9:31 am

I like Richards analogy regarding the age of the universe, stretch out your arm and imagine if the big bang was your shoulder and present day the end of your nail on your middle finger then you could erase the whole of human history with one stroke of a nail file.

Edit
It might have been the age of the Earth.

Other Comments by dirigibleBehemothaur

38. Comment #365781 by Count von Count on April 17, 2009 at 9:33 am

quantum_flux -

I think, what is possible, is to show kids the math equations involved in General and Special Relativity, and show them some of the math of Quantum Mechanics and thereby show them that it is a hypothetical model of the Universe to assume Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but that it is in all honesty, probably not the correct one.

Seriously? Have you ever worked with children? Have you ever studied the 'math' equations involved in general relativity? I am a PhD student in mathematics and have recently started studying general relativity on the side. After five years of grad school in math, and a few months of studying these equations, they still make little sense to me. I can't quite tell what you mean from your statement here, but if you are arguing that we should show children, for example, the Einstein field equations, maybe first you should see if you can get them to understand the equation d=rt (distance = rate*time), or even 2*x=4, and see if you can get them to understand what is going on. I wish you luck in such an endeavor, but I think you will find that yourself a laughing stock of people who study child development. The brain simply isn't equipped to understand that level of abstraction until it is older.

The Universe is likely to be Eternal ...

...Roger Penrose hypothesizes a cyclic ... universe...

Sir, I think you will find that these ideas do not sit comfortably when forced into the same paragraph as you have so unscrupulously done. You claim that an eternal universe is "likely" is hardly backed up at all, only standing on what appears to be a Freshman's understanding physics and an armchair philosopher's idea of evidence. You should also know that Roger Penrose, while a very good mathematician and often good physicist, tends to wax toward the highly conjectural realm of physics enough to make his more colorful ideas often disregarded by the physics community at large. Citing him here as your only reference does not help your case, but it does move you a step closer to the crack-pot pop-physics armchair-philosophy category. I suggest that either you quit making these wild, weakly supported declarations about the nature of the universe and how we should teach children, or you go join the Texas school board, where you will surely find yourself in good company.

Other Comments by Count von Count

39. Comment #365783 by crookedshoes on April 17, 2009 at 9:34 am

Next on the agenda, I am sure, is the "energy cannot be CREATED or destroyed" idea. I mean it is just a "law" and aren't "laws" made to be broken? How dare those physicists declare that things can't be created or destroyed. We need to loosen that statement up a bit... "Energy can kinda, sorta, be created, but not really, well only if....."
I was wondering when the wedge would widen it's scope and look to challenge other BASIC TENETS of a good science education. Hey guys (physicists)...WELCOME TO THE PARTY. Prepare to be baffled and dazzled by an overwhelming show of idiocracy. I've (as a Biology teacher) been up to my elbows in this bullshit for 15 years.

Other Comments by crookedshoes

40. Comment #365785 by aristophanes_rising on April 17, 2009 at 9:38 am

Something to think about when the fundies are referencing all the so-called "Godly" people.

http://digg.com/d1opcn

Other Comments by aristophanes_rising

41. Comment #365786 by NewEnglandBob on April 17, 2009 at 9:41 am

I also sent an email to: sboecargill@sbcglobal.net

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

42. Comment #365788 by godless1 on April 17, 2009 at 9:47 am

If God created humans on Earth just a few millennia ago, then Earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. And if Earth isn't as old as all that, surely the universe isn't, either.

I am no expert in astronomy but can't astronomers prove the cosmos is 14 billion years old because light travels at a constant speed thus they are able to calculate that some stars are 14 billion light years away?

Other Comments by godless1

43. Comment #365790 by severalspeciesof on April 17, 2009 at 9:57 am

I have sent her an e-mail telling her to read Coynes' book "Why Evolution is a Fact"...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

44. Comment #365791 by zeroangel on April 17, 2009 at 10:00 am

I sometimes wonder how many of these politicians actually believe what they say on these topics and how many are simply vote whoring.

Perhaps some even reason to themselves that it is their job to represent the "people" and somehow think they are doing their job.

I just have a hard time imagining that so many politicians are so incredibly ignorant, at least SOME of them must be being willfully disingenuous.

Other Comments by zeroangel

45. Comment #365794 by quantum_flux on April 17, 2009 at 10:13 am

distance = (velocity)x(time) should be a concept understood by second graders. The curriculum should seriously be restructured, especially in light of modern computers....but in light of the article, people can go on believing this inflation dogma.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

46. Comment #365795 by Caudimordax on April 17, 2009 at 10:13 am

I am no expert in astronomy but can't astronomers prove the cosmos is 14 billion years old because light travels at a constant speed thus they are able to calculate that some stars are 14 billion light years away?

Some creationists (young earth) argue that light travelled a lot faster in the past. Here's a video explaining why their reasoning backfires.

Creationists and the Speed of Light (Tribute to cdk007)

Other Comments by Caudimordax

47. Comment #365806 by dirigibleBehemothaur on April 17, 2009 at 10:29 am

Pz Myers has a useful tool for the good people of the Texas school board.

Timeline

Other Comments by dirigibleBehemothaur

48. Comment #365808 by Caudimordax on April 17, 2009 at 10:35 am

distance = (velocity)x(time) should be a concept understood by second graders

I agree with CvC, it's very unusual for kids that age to grasp a concept like that. And the state that public education is in in the US (especially for disadvantaged kids) means that my husband spends part of his high school geometry class trying to explain the concept of the area of a rectangle. Einstein? They never heard of him.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

49. Comment #365814 by Rowdy1 on April 17, 2009 at 10:46 am

Maybe Gov. Perry CAN succede from the union and then Texas can replace its current constitution with the bible. Then they wouldn't have to be bothered with the inconvenience of learning about reality. Imagine Texas as it's own country. Not much hope for the tourism industry.

Other Comments by Rowdy1

50. Comment #365815 by quantum_flux on April 17, 2009 at 10:47 am

Put that rectangle on a graph and then compute the area under a curve, or volume under a 3d surface....easily done with a calculator that does integrations, no thinking required, just doing. But of course, even Archimedes knew a thing or two about using rectangles and taking limits and he didn't even need calculus to do it. Of course, perfection is my standard no less.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 | Next | Last