Refuting ICR (Part I): “Cause and Effect”

cause-effectGoogling ‘evidence for God’, the first suggestion Google gives(at least in my location) is the official website of The Institution for Creation Research. The title seemed quite interesting to me, probably because I thought that here I will get most of typical theistic arguments, well presented. It didn’t disappoint me in that sense. I got what I expected. There are three ‘lines of evidences’ ICR has proposed. The law of causality, “the triune universe” and “design and purpose”. So, I am introducing this series, through which I will try to refute the proposed arguments from ICR. So, let’s begin.

1. Everything has a cause.
The article starts with “In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation”. This statement is true, as it clearly mentions ‘ordinary experiences’ and ‘intuition’. Of course, our ordinary experiences always tell us the an effect must have a cause, like when you make a cup of tea, it does not just pop out into existence, you have to make it. Your TV doesn’t automatically turn on, you have to press the switch.
But then, “A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced”, this is a blunder. One of the fundamental pillars of modern physics, is Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics tells us a fascinating thing about nature, it is not possible to exactly predict the consequences at any given set of circumstancesDon’t get me wrong here, the idea tricked me as well when I first heard of it. It is not necessary that every time I perform the very same experiment, same results will come out. Is it likely? Yes. But is it necessary? No. It might trick the philosophers, they might say that there are any internal ‘wheels’ in which we haven’t looked close enough. No, there are no such ‘internal wheels’, that claim is baseless. The uncertainty principle is a good example for this, you can’t exactly measure or predict two qualities of a given particle simultaneously, the more accurate measurement or prediction a quality gets, the more inaccurate the other one becomes. That implies that if we perform the same experiments measuring only one of the qualities first time and measuring another in the latter, different consequences may come out(and that is actually confirmed).
“Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease”, this statement should alternate the word ‘classical mechanics’ with ‘science’, it is a terrible strawman (as I explained earlier). But classical mechanics has almost nothing to do with this topic, because we are obviously going to be resorted to the ‘Big bang’, which was a quantum event.
” This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything)”, since the derivative logic used in this article isn’t valid, I don’t I have to care what the conclusion it got.

2. The effect problem.
The site claims that there are two ‘universal laws’ which is demonstrated in every observation we make of the universe:
i. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.
This is simply untrue, because it is neglecting the random popping out of virtual particles in and out of existence inside an atom as well as in empty space. They stay for a very short time(so short that you can’t observe them), but they are there. In fact most of the mass in your body comes from those ”virtual particles” continuously popping out inside the atoms in your body.
ii. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.
This also is true in the classical sense, but is untrue at the quantum level, you know radioactive decays in a particle…

From these premises, the author concludes that some ‘first cause’ must have caused all the causes and effects. Since the premises(or so called ‘laws’) are invalid on themselves, I will leave it just here.

As you would understand, modern physics questions every one of the fundamental aspects of our ordinary life and takes it to a purely analytical level. Ordinary experiences don’t work, specific experiments and critical thinking does.

Thanks for reading and understanding, any counter-arguments are welcomed. Leave a reply.

You can find us on facebook: Refuting God

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Refuting ICR (Part I): “Cause and Effect”

  1. If something has a cause it’s pretty easy to believe that this same cause also has a meaning.

    Why being a cause without having a meaning as well?

    Being a cause, which is often bothersome in itself, without any meaning at all, wouldn’t that be “meaningless”, almost a waste of time and energy?

    I think evolution has given us a brain that is constantly searching for causes. AND, therefore, meaning, too

    If you can’t find any visible cause while looking around you, then the brain tries to invent Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs).

    Your brain seems to prefer HCAs capable of also conveying, at the same time, an “attached” message of meaning.

    It looks, according to your brain, like the HCA does this to you to reward or punish you.

    Thereby you can imagine – and feel – there is a locus of control located inside yourself. Or in other words, it seems, at last partly, that it’s up to you if the HCA causing/originating the cause will choose to reward, or punish, you for your deeds.

    When in doubt, you can always ask the sage of your tribe/group/community.

    That sage has often many similarities to a medicin man, a shaman or a priest (a.k.a. god interpreter).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Mass Delusions a.k.a. Magical & Religious Woo-Bullshit Thinking and commented:
    A very good article about arguments used on the ICR website to prove the existence of God – and how they can be refuted.

    ICR stands for the Institution for Creation Research, probably one of the most famous – or rather notorious – sites on the internet, promoting creationism and other religious true believer bullshit.

    Rounaqb is, as I have written before, an unusually clever blogger and, as such, also good at logical reasoning, which you all can see, if you read his newest blog article, which is now reblogged my me.

    Because the most important of the ICR God arguments revolves round cause and effect, I think my own comment, given in the comment field below rounaqb’s blog, can be seen as a kind of summary of what is at issue here (at least some aspects thereof). So I choose to re-use the content of my comment also here in this “introduction”, to my own readers, of rounaqb’s refutation arguments.

    I wrote: If something has a cause it’s pretty easy to believe that this same cause also has a meaning.

    Why being a cause without having a meaning as well?

    Being a cause, which is often bothersome in itself, without any meaning at all, wouldn’t that be “meaningless”, almost a waste of time and energy?

    I think evolution has given us a brain that is constantly searching for causes. AND, therefore, meaning, too

    If you can’t find any visible cause while looking around you, then the brain tries to invent Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs).

    Your brain seems to prefer HCAs capable of also conveying, at the same time, an “attached” message of meaning.

    It looks, according to your brain, like the HCA does this to you to reward or punish you.

    Thereby you can imagine – and feel – there is a locus of control located inside yourself. Or in other words, it seems, at last partly, that it’s up to you if the HCA causing/originating the cause will choose to reward, or punish, you for your deeds.

    When in doubt, you can always ask the sage of your tribe/group/community.

    That sage has often many similarities to a medicin man, a shaman or a priest (a.k.a. god interpreter).

    With that said, I hope you are going to acquaint yourselves with rounaqb’s own arguments.

    I’m sure you won’t be disappointed.

    Like

  3. Cool blog man; although I’m a bit confused as to why you’re wasting your time reading ICR’s stuff.

    Like

  4. Thanks for the appreciation. To be honest, I am also confused on that matter. Maybe because I am new to the blogosphere, I don’t know most of the hi-fi stuffs going on. Maybe in future I will seek for some advanced stuffs in this field, like William Craig’s rebuttals, Alister Mcgrath’s stuff etc. However, hope this goes well.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Craig and Mcgrath are very popular and not a bad place to start (plus, their work is miles better than the stuff produced by ICR). If you’re interested, my supervisor, Yujin Nagasawa, has written a great introductory book on this subject. It’s entitled_The Existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction_ and is published by Routledge. He’s a respected analytic philosopher who teaches at the University of Birmingham (and a real cool dude). I think you’ll find his work very balanced and engaging. Another crucial introductory text is Edward Feser’s book _Aquinas_. Feser is an Analytic Thomist; so he’s good at explaining and defending Scholastic philosophy within the context of naturalistic analytic philosophy (which dominates “Western” academia). Both of these books can be found on Amazon and are relatively inexpensive.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi rounaqb,

    Although there seems to be universal agreement that quantum mechanics appears random,( A general consensus that all experimental results yet unknown can be predicted in the framework of quantum mechanics measurements being basically random.) I don’t believe this matter has been settled. There is still ongoing research as to whether what we see is due to fundamental randomness, or merely “emergent” randomness resulting from underlying hidden variables which cause measurement results to happen a certain way each time.

    The theist will reject your argument, claiming that whilst you may be reasonably sure of your facts, there is still a chance that you are wrong. On the other hand you would find it very difficult to deny his claim that a table was caused to come into existence by the carpenter.

    You claim that there is the “random popping out of virtual particles in and out of existence inside an atom as well as in empty space. They stay for a very short time(so short that you can’t observe them), but they are there.”
    This is also problematic – define existence? Existence is to be, and that is to be something in particular. Existence is always in the present tense. Just because you observe the effects of, or detect a particle and then you don’t or cannot, does not mean that the particle is becoming something from nothing and then becoming nothing again.

    I can assure you that the mosquito under my net was definitely there last night, until I turned the light on, and then would “disappear”. Could the mosquito be claimed to pop in and out of existence? Quantum mosquitoes? Are you absolutely sure your particles are something from nothing?.

    The theist will reject your claim on the basis that there is just a lot that we are not sure of and are only beginning to understand. I think the “causality” argument is best refuted on the basis that it is presented;- simply. If you like I can post a refutation later.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Hello, Sean. Sorry for the late reply, I was ridiculously busy during the in between period.

    Although I will not jump to the technical part regarding quantum mechanics appearing to be random, I will still try to properly response. To summarize your first set of propositions; you are basically implying that while my argument may be reasonably sound, but there is still more to learn and in future, a broader range of observations and mathematical paradigms may disprove the correct version of this model.
    This can be said for anything, from the law of energy conservation to quantum electro-dynamics. “Maybe something we don’t understand, is giving rise of the apparent randomness”, as far as I know, there’s no evidence for this to be the case, there may be some ongoing researches on this matter(although I would ask you to give me some links to them), but all of our current understanding points us to the conclusion that the quantum world is definitely weird and random.

    The table argument appears to be an argument from ‘composition’. It is like saying that because each individual part of an aeroplane is unable to fly, the aeroplane itself is unable to fly as well.

    And here comes your interesting chain of questions. Let me first explain that how do we know that virtual particles exist. The uncertainty principle implies that any atom, running through space, can violate the laws of general relativity for a pretty short time. That implies that, say, an electron running through space, can exceed the speed of light for a short time, and if it does so, it runs backwards in time. Then, an electron running backwards in time is equal to a positron running forwards in time! Then, we can imagine the scenario, an electron was running through space, suddenly a positron-electron pair popped up from nothing, and then vanished(when that ‘short time’ ends). The calculations of Paul Dirac, which were found to be incorrect, for it was assuming too little energy density of the universe compared to what is observed, got modified and exactly matched to the data when the values of virtual particles were added, they are there. So, as you see; your example of ‘quantum mosquitos’ being valid, it is ‘classical’ example; but that’s not how it works.

    And yes, I will definitely like to here your reflections on the causality argument.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hey there,
    Thanks for your reply,
    I don’t think QM does away with the causal principle in the sense relied upon by the argument from causality. This argument relies only on there being underlying reasons for things coming into being. If something happens in a manner that can be probabilistically predicted, as is always the case in QM, then it’s not a case of something being created without a cause from nothing. Things originating without causes cannot be predicted even probabilistically!

    Physicist/philosopher David Albert states the following on why QM doesn’t explain the origin of the Universe from nothing: “The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.”

    “Backwards in time”?????. How do we even begin to think of backwards in time? Certain influences may appear to travel faster than light, but they do not convey energy or information faster than light, so they do not violate special relativity or create problems with causality.

    I do not think that the QM argument is a good one against causality and that is why we do see it employed by those debating/arguing against the argument from causality.

    Link RE Further research/QM not understood.(highlight and google search) arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163

    Like

  9. Sorry, Correction – “I do not think that the QM argument is a good one against causality and that is why we do NOT see it employed by those debating/arguing against the argument from causality.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Okay, you claimed that things coming without an efficient cause cannot be probalistically predicted, why do you think so? Perhaps you may justify the claim.

    As for the quote of David Albert, I don’t think it is any close of being an argument. The analogy he gave seems to be completely based on his own biases. A purely classical analogy for a quantum occurrence? How does that even work?

    Well, yes, backwards in time. It happens all the time. It is predicted by the uncertainty principle and it works on mathematical paradigms. The problem is in the classical sense, when we think about backwards time travel. But in quantum world….you know….

    As for the paper you gave me link to, I see a very technical argumentation(which is the reason for why I read it fully), suitable for me; a cosmology passionate. I will like to make it clear that I am not claiming ‘elementary particle-pair comes from nothing’ in an absolute sense. What I want to invoke here, is that all the current observation we have, points to that direction. Quoting the same paper, “Of course, if the
    usual form of QM is really the ultimate truth, then it is true that nature is fundamentally
    random. But who says that the usual form of QM really is the ultimate truth? (A serious
    scientist will never claim that for any current theory.) A priori, one cannot exclude the existence of some hidden variables (not described by the usual form of QM) that provide a deterministic cause for all seemingly random quantum phenomena”. This is a hypothesis which is not falsifiable, thus currently, it is invalid. I mean, we can do this all the time; suppose we formulate a hypothesis assuming some hidden variables; one can then argue that the explanation for ‘hidden variables’ may be random; well, you can’t exclude that possibility, can you? So, I don’t think it does much. In contrast, there are many well formulated theorems called ‘NHV theorems’, which the author himself agrees, but he then argues that the axioms of those may not be valid, or correct. Again, you can do this all the time, the claim is not falsifiable. But those NHV theorems are falsifiable, they do provide meaningful predictions, and they agree with our current observations.

    In summary, I do not claim that the philosophical implications of QM are necessarily settled. Rather I try to figure out the current form of QM, agreeing with all available data, which clearly contradicts the causal principle quite devastatingly. If you open those advanced textbooks of QM that the author refers to in some areas, the terms ’cause’, ‘effect’ or ‘causality’ are hardly mentioned, you will not find them anywhere. These are not the terms you should be using when talking about modern science. What you will find, are equations, differential equations especially. I believe Prf. Carroll mentioned it in one of his debates, but I personally know this because I have myself studied cosmology for a short time.

    However, thanks for engaging with me; if you have any counter-argument, it is most welcomed.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Hi, Sean Brennan,

    First of all I must thank you for initiating this interesting debate with rounaqb.

    That said, I have a couple of questions to you specifically. (But of course any interested persons is allowed to comment my posed questions.)

    I noticed, in one of your own comments, Sean, that you used a paper by the Croatian physicist Hrvoje Nikolic as a reference (or at least you linked to one of Nikolic’s papers).

    After googling his name I now want to come up with the following link: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/466 .

    When I read the comments in that thread I began wondering why you chose to link to just Hrvoje Nikolic instead of any other physicists?

    According to Hrvoje Nikolic – and now I quote from the thread i’m linking to – “[u]ltimately, anything is possible in physics, unless we know the final laws of physics. But we can never be sure that the laws of physics we know are the final ones, so we allways [sic!] must admit that anything is ultimately possible, even if very unlikely in most cases”.

    If we consider him being right in his assumptions, then how close do you think his assertions are to nihilism? According to this link – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Epistemological_nihilism – “[n]ihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied”.

    Is this the point of view you want to convey in this debate, Sean? Please correct me if I am wrong and misinterpreting you.

    From the abstract in the paper (by Hrvoje Nikolic) you yourself link to, Sean, I now quote the following sentences:

    A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and
    practical users is often plagued by a number of “myths”, that is, widely accepted
    claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations
    of QM. […] The fact is that the existence of various theoretical and interpretational ambiguities underlying these myths does not yet allow us to accept them as proven facts. I […] conclude that QM is still a not-yet-completely-understood theory open to further fundamental research”.

    Taking this into consideration I agree with your assertion, and now I quote from you: “I do not think that the QM argument is a good one against causality and that is why we do NOT see it employed by those debating/arguing against the argument from causality”.

    That makes me wonder: What other arguments against causality do you prefer instead? Can those other arguments also be dismissed by asserting that we know too little today about the physical laws and that, therefore, anything is possible (or at least not impossible)?

    And finally: If that sort of reasoning allows for God as a first cause, will not that God then be a ‘God of the gaps’? I so, do you have any “hidden” message in your comments, Sean? If there is a hidden message, why not unhide it to us who follow your interesting debate with rounaqb?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Hey rounaqb,

    “Okay, you claimed that things coming without an efficient cause cannot be probalistically predicted, why do you think so? Perhaps you may justify the claim.”

    I did not say efficient cause. I said cause.
    Nothing happens until something moves. In QM, (according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter at times behave indeterministically. This comes from the collapse of the wave function, in which the state of a system upon measurement cannot in general be predicted.

    Furthermore, the events associated with the coming into existence of quantum particles must have a cause, even if it is a probabilistic cause, because if this were not the case and these particles were truly uncaused, then scientists would be unable to replicate in the laboratory the circumstances where these particles come into existence, which is claimed to have been accomplished.

    You state,” David Albert,……. A purely classical analogy for a quantum occurrence? How does that even work?”

    I guess he states that, because these classical observances seem perfectly causal to us; Macroscopic processes involve a vast amount of particles so we don’t see any substantial deviations from the statistical average. We live in a causal world, not a quantum one.

    Like

  13. “Nothing happens until something moves.”
    Again, this is a classical analogy, which cannot be relevant to the quantum world.

    “Furthermore, the events associated with the coming into existence of quantum particles must have a cause, even if it is a probabilistic cause, because if this were not the case and these particles were truly uncaused, then scientists would be unable to replicate in the laboratory the circumstances where these particles come into existence, which is claimed to have been accomplished.”
    Again, it is coming from your own biases that causality must be true because that’s what fits with your ordinary experience, that may not be true with particles. And I will like to ask you to define a ‘probabilistic cause’, what is it? What’s the example of it? Further, I don’t think that anybody have succeeded to replicate observable vacuum fluctuations in laboratories, which you think is true.

    Moreover, honestly, he(David Albert) has no right to compare macroscopic occurrences to quantum occurrences because no viable quantum theory of gravity has yet been proposed, and further, I hate to argue based on authority. It may seem in your daily experience that everything surrounding you is causal, but deep down, up to 99.99999% of your current mass comes from the empty space of your atoms, you know why? Because of the virtual particles that are covering most of that ’empty’ space you posses. I don’t think that the common conclusion or the usual model of quantum mechanics has yet been challenge by any sort of scientific proposal, thus, I am inclined to accept the common conclusion and follow up its implications.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. rounaqb

    We do not live in a world predicted by mathematics, we live in a causal world. Mother nature never went to school, it does not care for QM, or math, we do pretty well predicting the return of comets and getting space craft to go where we want them to go – without worrying one wit about QM.

    You claim things like “backwards in time”, these things are just mathematical possibilities, they have nothing to do with reality.

    You write,” It may seem in your daily experience that everything surrounding you is causal, but deep down, up to 99.99999% of your current mass comes from the empty space of your atoms, you know why? Because of the virtual particles that are covering most of that ’empty’ space you posses.”‘

    rounaqb, a “virtual particle”, (generally), is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, most often of other fields. A virtual particle can hardly be labelled as something that arrives without a cause..

    I will leave it there rounaqb, see you around.

    Like

  15. I don’t see any point here, it all comes down to this: You believe the causal principle, therefore it is true.

    And what? Everything in this universe, EVERYTHING, obeys mathematical laws. How can a old boy sitting in a armchair doing strict mathematical calculations in a closed room, come up with an answer that shocks our understanding of the universe and also gets a Nobel prize? Peter Higgs, by the way, did exactly this. Again, the classical model works well with comets, planets, stars, but it is helpless with particles, waves or fields.
    Again, those ‘mathematical possibilities’ are actually true because they give viable predictions which agree with the data.

    And ‘something that is caused by the presence of other particles’? Well, I think here maybe you can be right, but it is not an efficient cause, ultimately it all relies on abstract mathematical paradigms; that’s one of the reasons why they are labeled to be coming without a cause.

    However, thanks you for talking with me, have a nice day.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Have to bite at this one rounaqb,

    “You believe the causal principle, therefore it is true.”

    Belief has nothing to do with it. As I said, we live in a causal world.You are never going to convince anyone that causality is nonsense.
    We live our lives as if all actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it, and since things are what they are, and since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, we live our lives as if nothing in reality occurs without a cause, or by chance.

    So no rounaqb, we are not going to start releasing dangerous criminals from prison because you can show mathematically that someone could have gone back in time and committed the crime on the accused’s behalf, and lets not forget, that is even with us knowing that – “EVERYTHING, obeys mathematical laws”.

    Your argument for QM debunking causality is not a good one – Sean Carroll wrote a blog –

    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

    He writes of QM, “And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).”

    There does not seem to be much agreement on the interpretation of QM amongst so called top brains on the subject and yet this is the basis of your argument against what we all intuitively know to be the case.
    A causal world.

    Like

  17. Sorry, I am out these days, have some work to do; please excuse the delayed reply.

    Yes, you first say that belief has nothing to do with your statement, and at the very next statement you submitted to your belief. And the next statement was also a kind of dogmatic one, like convincing anybody has to do anything with truth. And also, I am not saying that causality is nonsense, that is a poor straw man, I said the current data does not permit us to admittedly submit to causality.

    Again and again, you are constantly giving poor classical analogies for quantum factors, which acts as a sign of dogmatism. Again and again I am telling you that we are not talking about classical world, Big Bang singularity was a quantum object, if there was a singularity; it is completely out of the question of any Newtonian methods.
    Releasing criminals? What kind of red herring is that? What does it have do to anything with the subject!?

    Debunking causality? What the…I am not attempting to debunk causality, I am just saying that we do not have any data that directs us to the ASSUMPTION that there must have been a cause for everything. Assumptions are not debunked, they are declined.

    Let’s look at your argument, “We do not understand QM completely(ignoring the factors we do understand), therefore, it must be causal”. I mean…is that even an argument against my assertions? I have repeatedly said that the current model of QM has compelling evidence for its validity, we are not going to reject it for ‘what if’ statements, Sean; as we are not going to release a criminal for ‘what if’ statements, ‘what if they are all causal’, ‘what if we are wrong despite of the current data’, these are meaningless babbles.

    And we all intuitively ‘know’ to be the case? Had not we intuitively known that the sun revolves around the earth? Had not we intuitive known that sun is a flat disc? Don’t we already have enough reason to accept that common intuition or everyday’s ordinary experience has nothing to do with what is actually going on?

    Liked by 1 person

  18. @Rounaqb: I smell a mind here that seemingly has been primed by creationist thoughts of some kind. A mind looking for God of the Gaps. A debater refusing to tell us the conclusions his own thought paradigm about the existence of a first cause must (or maybe should or might) lead to.

    Why emphasize the already well-known fact that today’s leading physicists still have to admit that they don’t know – and therefore cannot explain – everything that is going on in the microworld of QM?

    I recognize this tactical debate strategy. It can be summarized like this: If you can’t strengthen your own point of view, then try instead to destabilize your opponent’s.

    Can also you, rounaqb, smell the same odor as I do?

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Sorry for the late reply again, as I said, I am not in my hometown, as I see this poor argumentation, it is not worth pointing out the fallacies or the mistakes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s