Age of the universe - General Discussion - Third Millennium Discussion Groups - Third Millennium Ministries Discussion Forums - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: Age of the universe	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/04/06 23:18:00	*Quote:* Is the framework view a valid possible reading of Gen. 1? I would say so. Is...the 24/7 view the only proper way to read the text? No. However, I still believe the 24/7 view, as I am not convinced by the various framework views. Personally, I find the 24/7 view unconvincing in light of the evidence in creation itself, and I think the day-age view is a stretch to read the creation narratives literally. The bit about the recapitulation in days 1 and 4 and the kingdom-kings parallels that Kline lays out are the most persuasive parts of the exegetical case he is making, IMHO, and then natural revelation pushes me toward a much older earth. BTW, you can find other articles on the framework view here, including another article summarizing the exegetical case more comprehensibly than Kline (though it argues for a 24/7 view where Kline leaves it open). *Quote:* I also am not convinced that a young earth is ruled out by scientific evidence, as the creation science folks have done a lot of work in this area. I agree that creation scientists have done a lot of work here, but I also agree with Hugh Ross that much of their work is -- to put a find point on it -- unconvincing junk science. (He actually said their work "lacks integrity", but I think they have simply read things according to their preconceived ideas -- just as secular scientists do.) The most impressive evidence to me is astronomy, not least because I fancy myself an amateur astronomer and have done a good bit of reading on the subject. As Ross says, astronomy is the only branch of science that actually allows us to look back in time since some of the light that reaches our telescopes today started its journey a long time ago. That gives us a literal window into the past. So, did God create the light from these stars and galaxies en route to us 10000 years ago to make it look as though it were coming from 9 billion years ago? That just doesn't sit well with me. The heavens declare the glory of God, and they do so honestly.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deins	Re: Age of the universe	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 04/05/06 11:09:20	What about the appearance of age argument?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: Age of the universe	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/05/06 11:22:35	*Quote:* So, did God create the light from these stars and galaxies en route to us 10000 years ago to make it look as though it were coming from 9 billion years ago? That just doesn't sit well with me. I agree that this idea presents problems, though I expect most of us would say that God could have done it that way. Given his absolute sovereignty, anything is possible. But there is a potential problem either way. Genesis 1 teaches, in part, that God created the stars in order to give light to the earth. But if he really wanted to light the earth, why would he hang an orb that wouldn't actually do anything to the earth for 9 billion years? Yes, he could have done it this way, just as he could have created light in transit. Either way, his motivation seems odd to some and commonsensical to others.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deins	Miracles	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 04/05/06 11:42:23	Should it not sit well with us that Adam and the first trees looked far older than they were? Should miracles not sit well with us because they defy science or reason?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Are you asking me or Matt?	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/05/06 12:07:09	Looks like you may have intended to post this under Matt's most recent post.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deins	Questions were for any replies...	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 04/05/06 12:13:09	but more towards the enlighted Matt
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: Miracles	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/08/06 13:59:15	*Quote:* Should it not sit well with us that Adam and the first trees looked far older than they were? More to the point, did Adam have a belly button? *Quote:* Should miracles not sit well with us because they defy science or reason? Not at all. Here's my word study for the day: The Greek "dunamis" is sometimes translated "miracle" in the NT and means power, might, and strength and becomes virtus/virtutis in the Vulgate. The Greek "teras", also translated "miracle" (and always joined with semeia, signs), means sign, wonder, marvel, portent in English and becomes prodigium (a form of prodico, to say beforehand) in Latin. The former has more to do with showing God's extrodinary power, while the latter has more to do with indicating that something is going to happen (e.g. the Messiah will come). Primarily, I think you are referring to the former type, which are beyond human power to enact and against the normal operation of things (e.g., dead people stay dead). This would not include, e.g., the skillful surgeon saving your life. Creation of spacetime itself is a miracle -- an exhibition of God's power that is beyond us -- and even God's putative use of supernovae and black holes and the like to generate and sustain earth is miraculous in the sense that it is a display of raw power far, far, far beyond our capabilities. But, returning to your question, I don't see the relevance. An old earth view (whether framework or day-age) does not deny any miracles. (Hugh Ross and Meredith Kline both believe firmly in the miracle of creation, the miracle of the virgin birth, the water into wine, etc.) Rather, an old earth view simply argues that God performed his miracle of creation differently than the way the young earth view understands it. There is no denial of miracles or submission of faith to an "enlightenment mindset" here. I'm afraid you'll have to take your pigeonholing elsewhere. [edited for minor clarification of Latin]
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deins	Re: Miracles	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 04/08/06 21:34:50	*Quote:* ...did God create the light from these stars and galaxies en route to us 10000 years ago to make it look as though it were coming from 9 billion years ago? That just doesn't sit well with me. Glad to hear that the miracle of light in place would now sit well with you so I can't pigeon hole you with a rational enlightenment mindset on creation. Adam's naval is irrelevant to his appearance of age in size. i.e. his size alone would "not sit well" with a rational mindset. Adam to rational mindset scientist: "A second ago I was dust". Rational scientist replies: "You are wacked dude." Never let an unbelieving world shame you Flexibilis into theological novelties contrary to the word. All you do is grant them the freedom to interpret other passages of scripture using the same novel devices to deny the plain meaning or truth of scripture.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: Miracles	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/09/06 09:50:00	Deins, I don't have a problem with miracles and am not in an "enlightenment mindset." Your repeated claims to the contrary miss the mark, as I trust any disinterested party will see. Having interacted with you on this and other threads and having read your interactions with others, I feel that it is appropriate and necessary to publicly rebuke your lack of humility. You are unnecessarily combative and polemical; you sit in judgement over all; and you are unteachable. I'm sure this is not a new charge to you, and when asked about your sins, I have little doubt that you yourself list arrogance as high among them. I believe this about you because I have seen it in myself, and I also believe that you, by the grace of God, can make greater progress in combatting this sin than you might think possible. I will pray for your progress, but until you publicly repent for this public sin, I have chosen to stop interacting with you because I think doing so is a futile endeavor (like talking to a wall) and, quite frankly, is a waste of time. [edited for spelling]
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: Age of the universe	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/07/06 23:17:49	*Quote:* I agree that this idea presents problems, though I expect most of us would say that God could have done it that way. Given his absolute sovereignty, anything is possible. Agreed. God can do whatever he wants, and the data from astronomy is not an open-and-shut case. My point is that the second book of revelation is trustworthy, though like the first book, we do not fully comprehend it and will learn more about it every day. Take for instance, that the universe appears vast from the views of our telescopes. Somewhat like the title character in The Trueman Show, I would be quite surprised to fly to the edge of our solar system and find a large black wall with galaxies upon galaxies and stars upon stars painted on in with sparkly paint. It seems to me that our observations, while incomplete, more likely than not tell the truth about what the universe is like. I guess I think this because I can't come up with a reason for God to "trick" us by creating the light in medias res any more than I can believe the old canard that he planted dinosaur bones to test us. *Quote:* But there is a potential problem either way. Genesis 1 teaches, in part, that God created the stars in order to give light to the earth. But if he really wanted to light the earth, why would he hang an orb that wouldn't actually do anything to the earth for 9 billion years? Yes, he could have done it this way, just as he could have created light in transit. Either way, his motivation seems odd to some and commonsensical to others. Again, we're agreed. One old earth answer to your question is that God apparently chose to create the earth by (generally observable) processes, which include creating the "first generation" stars, which existed in a universe with nothing more than hydrogen and the occasional helium atom. Over millions/billions of years, these stars burned up all their fuel and then exploded in supernovae that created conditions where heavier elements (e.g. carbon and oxygen) can form, and the remnants of this first generation gradually coalesced into a new population of stars and also (drum roll, please) planets. When we look at the universe, we can directly observe what looks like these processes in action, and by looking at objects nearer or farther away, we see them at various times in the past and thus at different stages of development. I personally find it less plausible that God chose to show us processes in action which he didn't actually use, as if to say, "This is how I might have done it but didn't." It seems more likely to me that God is saying, "This is how powerful I am -- I create spacetime, then stars, then planets, then life. I took so long to do it and my creation is so vastly ginormous compared to you that you can't even conceive of it. Nonetheless, I created you in my image and even entered into the creation as one of you minuscule persons. Why? Because my love is even greater than the heavens and will last longer than all the time it took to make it." [edited for spelling]
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: Another thought on light in medias res	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/13/06 11:49:10	Another point about light being created in medias res is that it seems to go too far. If we should not generally trust our senses that things that appear to have happened in the past haven't necessarily done so, then what is to keep us from supposing that we have just now been created ex nihilo and imbued with memories, callouses, and belly buttons? If this is the case, then not only was the universe not created in the Big Bang whose processes can be witnessed in the sky, but Abraham never actually walked the earth, and Christ never actually died on a cross. Granted, this philosophical conundrum applies no matter what school of thought you adhere to, but though it can't be proved true or false, it seems to be one idea that everyone feels reasonably comfortable in rejecting because it seems out of accord with our presuppositions about reality. Still, some young earth creationism advocates a moderated form of this idea as an answer to the apparent age of the universe. ISTM that this view is similar to the debate over the nature of the Eucharist. Could God transubstantiate the bread and wine into Christ's actual body and blood at the purported miracle of consecration? Sure. Could Christ really be "in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine" as Lutherans suppose? Sure. The question is not, Is God capable? Rather it is, Is this the proper understanding of Jesus' words "This is my body"? So it is with light in the universe, methinks. Given the form (genre) of Genesis 1, including the apparent recapitulation between days 1 and 4 and the king-kingdom structure (see the previously cited links by Kline and Irons), why should we read into the text a miracle of this type when the text can, ISTM, legitimately be interpreted in a way that leaves the cosmologist free to examine young and old earth theories without contradicting special revelation? Now, this sort of reasoning does not authorize, e.g., the swoon theory of Jesus' resurrection since the form of those texts do not lend themselves to figurative interpretations like Genesis 1 seems to. We're dealing with on particular text that seems to have several plausible readings, and we can choose between them, not arbitrarily, but by reading the further revelation God has provided for us in nature. Viewed in this way, old earth theories do not strip God of his power -- quite the contrary, I think. What do you think?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	But we aren't left with....	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/13/06 16:07:02	reasoning from the current behavior of light to the apparent age of light. We are explicitly told that God created light before He created anything else. So I don't think it raises that particular conundrum. That some light was created ex nihilo without emanating from light-generating sources is not merely required to justify the six day interpretation, as though it was made up later to solve the problem, it is an actual part of the six day interpretation -- it says it right there in scripture. If the "it says it right there in scripture" method is in fact the valid one, then light ex nihilo is not at all confusing -- it's explicitly stated. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	But by that interpretation	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/13/06 21:20:51	we are still left with these two seemingly contrary facts: 1. God created the visible stars to shed light on the earth. 2. Most visible stars never have and never will shed any light on the earth (unless the second coming is many billions of years in the future).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: But by that interpretation	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/14/06 12:03:24	*Quote:* Most visible stars never have and never will shed any light on the earth (unless the second coming is many billions of years in the future). Do you mean because under a young earth interpretation the light never actually emanated from those distant stars and the text seems to imply that that is their primary purpose? Some (perhaps) interesting footnotes: we are in an outer arm of the Milky Way galaxy, which contains about 200 to 400 billion stars. Since the galaxy is about 80,000 light years across, even the light emanated by most of the stars within our own galaxy would not have reached us yet if the earth were 10,000 years old. The nearest galaxies to our own are the satellites of the Milky way, each of which is at least 25,000 light years away. To get an idea of how many galaxies (large collections of stars) there are out there, check out this long-exposure image taken by the Hubble Telescope. It covers an area of sky that is the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length. Finally, here is a collection of some of my favorite space photos (including that image from the Hubble).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: But by that interpretation	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/17/06 12:09:55	*Quote:* Do you mean because under a young earth interpretation the light never actually emanated from those distant stars and the text seems to imply that that is their primary purpose? Yes.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	Me no understand.	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/15/06 09:33:08	How can they be visible stars if their light never reaches the earth? I mean, yeah, if they are too many light years away, then their light would never each the earth in a given amount of time. But we all agree that we can see them, so how is it that their light has never reached the earth? Either way, whether the earth is a jillion years old, or whether the light we see was created ex nihilo, while generated light continues to work its way toward us, we do see them. As for what would happen to them if the earth didn't last that long -- I don't think it's true that the creation will be obliterated at the eschaton. But even if their light never does get to earth, so what? What we see when we look at the stars serves the purpose of the stars being in the Heavens to declare God's glory, whether the light was specially created, or emanated. Or so ISTM. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: Me no understand.	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/17/06 12:28:52	The young earth interpretation of general and special revelation seems to require that light be attributed to stars even though it never actually came from the stars. This would be miraculous, and it is certainly within the realm of things God can do. But it doesn't seem to do justice to the purpose of the stars. And it also doesn't seem to be implied by the text itself. The text seems to say that lights shine, and then we see them. It doesn't seem to envision a world in which the light from the stars takes any time to get to us. There are a number of ways to handle this. One is to say its a metaphor. Another is to say that science is wrong, that light really does get to us rather immediately. Another is to say that the text is simply phenomenological -- a pre-scientific description of observable reality. A phenomenological interpretation could be part of a young-earth interpretation or an old-earth interpretation, whereas the other explanations are more limited.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	Another possibility might be...	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 04/18/06 08:47:17	that since the earth was created as the home of man, and the stars exist to give light to the earth, it's not unreasonable to give the stars a little "boost" of specially created light so that man can derive the benefit of the stars despite it taking time for the light to reach us ordinarily. But my question was really, how can they be "visible stars" if the light has not yet reached us? The only way something can be visible is if the light reflected or generated by the object reaches our eyes. So the whoe concept of "visible stars whose light has not yet reached us" utterly confuses me. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots, and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	hard to describe	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 04/18/06 12:07:48	Well, that's part of the problem of talking about "seeing" anything in space. What we're actually seeing is light that emanated from an object that used to be there, but that may since have moved or even been destroyed. I simply meant that, phenomenologically, we can "see" the stars. But in point of fact, if God created light in transit from stars billions of light years away, there would be little reason to create the stars themselves. After all, we will never actually see any of the light from those stars. The only light the world will ever receive is the light that was created in transit.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
deins	Biblical Authority	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 04/13/06 22:05:32	Jane, Keep up the good work. Ultimately, it's not an issue of light from the stars anyway - it's an issue of biblical authority as the blurb below states. Liberalism usually starts in the seminary and the pulpit - not the pew. Then when you come on to internet discussion forums and disagree unbendingly and call unbelief what it is, you get publicly rebuked by easily irritated pontificates who contradict the Word and yet want to accuse others of arrogance. I'm with you all the way girl. Semper Reformanda. Ra by the way has exemplified Christian patience and gentleness with me on this forum which is a strong indication to me that he truly belongs in the ministry as opposed to someone like myself who can be a bit of an inciter. John Frame also strikes me as a sweet man. A young Earthits not the issue! By Ken Ham First published in: January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as young Earthers. The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the old Earthers (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many conservative Christians) who appeal to what they call science, versus the young Earthers, who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed scientific evidence for an old Earth. I want to make it VERY clear that we dont want to be known primarily as young-Earth creationists. AiGs main thrust is NOT young Earth as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively young Earth (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator. Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe? The answer from this scholar? Absolutely not! Lets be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You cant find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they dont believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called science that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture. When someone says to me, Oh, so youre one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists, I reply, Actually, Im a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist! (which means Im a young-Earth creationist!). Heres what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sinthis is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noahs day). Also, the word for day in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information]. Thus, as a revelationist, I let Gods Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bibles genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with mans ideas about the age of the universe. And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.] Question: Why would any Christian want to take mans fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that mans word is infallible, but Gods Word is fallible! This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept mans fallible dating methods to interpret Gods Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible cant be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on Gods Word. Once this door has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible. You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the worlds teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret Gods Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality. Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from Gods Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept mans dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bibles authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America. So, the issue is not young Earth versus old Earth, but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God? A young-Earth view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. Compared to what God knows, we know next door to nothing! This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on Gods Word. Its also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that knowledge puffeth up. Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the worlds fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible. At Answers in Genesis, we believe this message needs to be proclaimed to the Church as a challenge to return to Biblical authority, and thus stand tall in the world for the accuracy of Gods Word. Ultimately, this is the only way we are going to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel message. Lets start 1998 by putting more and more pressure on our Christian leaders to take a long, hard look at how they are approaching the question of the authority of the Bible! Please help us fulfill our mission statement: to bring about reformation in the Church!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthaeus Flexibilis	Re: But we aren't left with....	#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 434 04/16/06 20:16:46	*Quote:* But we aren't left with reasoning from the current behavior of light to the apparent age of light. We are explicitly told that God created light before He created anything else. So I don't think it raises that particular conundrum. Agreed. What I was trying to articu

Yuku free message boards