Skip to content
April 6, 2015 / itsnobody

Concrete Proof that Evolutionists DO NOT CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE

79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will, thereby proving that biologists do not care about evidence and that the reason why they believe in evolution has nothing to do with evidence.


A fool (atheist) might think in their mind how could this be?

It’s simple: If you go strictly by evidence you would be more certain that free-will is non-existent than you would be that evolution is true.

Atheist biologists aren’t going by evidence, that’s why they have no issue with denying repeatable experiments and direct observations telling us there’s no free-will but have an issue with people denying assumptions in evolution that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, LOL!

If you’re willing to deny repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete form of evidence in science) to believe in free-will then you should be willing to deny any type of evidence in science.

On the other hand if you’re willing to believe in evolution (relies on many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate) then you should be willing to believe in anything supported by repeatable experiments and direct observation.

But we see that this isn’t the case, thereby proving that evolutionary biologists do not really care about evidence.

The reason why evolutionary biologists believe in evolution is because they are strongly biased towards evolution, not because of evidence. If evidence was important to them they would be much more certain that free-will is non-existent than they would be that evolution is true.

There aren’t any evolutionary biologists that value evidence or go strictly by evidence.

You have to realize the truth that not one atheist evolutionist in all of the entire world actually cares about or values evidence, they are just biased towards evolution.

Most biologists who believe in free-will don’t even realize that non-determinism and disorder would falsify evolution, lol (most free-will believers attack determinism).

“The Problem of Free-Will” argument is usually used against religion so of course the atheist-controlled media won’t come out to attack free-will believers like how they’ve attacked Creationists.

Have you ever heard even one time a Professor getting fired for believing in free-will or teaching that free-will could exist? I haven’t.

On the other hand if a Professor merely questions or criticizes evolution they could get fired or heavily persecuted, why is this?

Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon was heavily criticized for merely saying that studying evolution was useless (not even criticizing evolution or saying that it’s false). Of course Egnor is correct, evolution has very few real-world applications. When you’re studying neurosurgery and other things it doesn’t matter if humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, or Neanderthals, or were genetically engineered by aliens, or Created, what matters is how the brain works here and how.

So indeed studying evolution would be useless…can you believe someone can get that much trouble for saying that but if they were to say something like studying ancient history is useless for electrical engineers nothing would happen would to them? It shows you how well-controlled the atheist-controlled media is.

I’ve read lots of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals, apparently you’re allowed to be unscientific if you’re not criticizing evolution. For instance people are allowed to criticize the evidence telling us there’s no free-will with all types of unscientific junk, and nothing happens to them, they don’t get attacked, they don’t get fired.

The media has no issue with free-will believers or people questioning the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will but has an issue with people questioning the evidence on evolution, why is this? Because the media isn’t going by science or evidence, they’re going by what supports atheism.

The media is ATHEIST-CONTROLLED and can careless about evidence.

The media is atheist-controlled and biased that’s why they have no issue with people questioning the experiments telling us that there’s no free-will, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or anything else in science but have an issue with people questioning evolution – a crackpot perpetual motion machine idea, because evolution is protected like a religious belief and not treated as another theory open to criticism and scrutiny.

Why should evolution be protected like a religious belief rather than treated as just another scientific theory open to criticism and scrutiny?

It’s the because the media and society is biased and ATHEIST-CONTROLLED. That’s the only rational explanation.

Atheists are always trying to force and impose their ways and their beliefs onto society.

I’ve already proven in my other article that evolution is just nonsense, basically a crackpot theory nearly equivalent to believing in perpetual motion machines.

On anti-science/atheist blog sites like “” they have to pre-approve comments and don’t allow people to question or criticize them, this is because they are anti-science and know that they are wrong.

One of the main principles in science use to be criticism and scrutiny prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science, this is because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

Since evolutionists know that they are wrong of course they will try everything in their power to prevent and stop any type of criticism of evolution, perhaps the very weakest theory in all of science history.

Evolutionists can’t handle that their science fiction story called “evolution” is obviously false.

From a strict empiricist point of view only conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments can be regarded as “true”.

We can objectively measure how weak or strong a theory is by how many assumptions it relies on that have been experimentally tested and verified as accurate.

By that measure, evolution has to be very weakest most fragile theory in all of science history!

Informal Proof that believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution:

Premise 1: Denying repeatable experiments and direct observations is more irrational than denying assumptions that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate

1. The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is based upon direct observations, repeatable experiments, and also physics (which engineers have experimentally verified as accurate billions of times already)

2. The scientific evidence supporting evolution is based on inferences and conclusions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, and is an anomaly in physics

3. From Premise 1, denying the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent would be more irrational than denying the evidence supporting evolution

Thus believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution


Summary of the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent (atheist biologists have no issue with people questioning this evidence yet they have an issue with people questioning the extraordinarily weak evidence supporting evolution which is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate showing their anti-science/atheist nature):
– Libet’s experiment
– Transcranial Magnetic Stimuli experiment
– Reaction Time experiment
– Evidence supporting the neural-correlate explanation (means that neurons make our decisions, no choosing involved)
– The empirical observation that drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness
– The empirical observation that brain-related injuries can cause permanent changes in behavior and consciousness
– The empirical observation that the brain is a vital organ and must behave in a deterministic way for humans to survive
– The empirical observation that different species have different behaviors varying by their brain size and structure
– Accidental decisions
– Involuntary decisions
– Impossible decisions (eg…someone feels as if they can run 100 mph or reach something too far away)
– Psychology (tells us that human behavior is the result of conditioning, not choices)
– Neurology
– Biology
– Chemistry
– Physics (no model in physics allows for free-will to exist, neither determinism nor non-determinism)

So basically questioning the evidence on free-will is equivalent to questioning science in general.

The problems and gaps in evolution are much much much bigger than the issues with the hypothesis that there is no free-will, humans merely feel as if they can choose when in reality they always uncontrollably act all the time (there’s no issue at all with this hypothesis, it matches into all the data perfectly).

Since 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will we can be 100% certain that they don’t really care about evidence, science, logic, or reasoning.

They believe in evolution just in the same way that someone would believe in a religious idea. They really want to believe in evolution and have to blank out all the evidence telling us that evolution is impossible.

“Evolution” is only true in biologists’ imagination…just like if you show someone a perpetual motion machine diagram they might be able to imagine it working in their minds…but in reality it wouldn’t work, it’s just fantasy and imagination…it’s the same thing with evolution, biologists just imagine it working in their minds, it wouldn’t happen in reality.

Just imagine how much better things would be if people gave up on the “free-will delusion”, you wouldn’t be able to blame anyone, people would instead focus on the scientific causes of negative behavior, it would be really easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, let go of anger, and see the true innocence in all beings.

Right now because people really believe in free-will they can’t forgive or forget or not hold grudges…they think in their mind “this person chose to do this, they could’ve done this or that, but they chose not to”.

If instead they believed in science they would instead think in their mind “this person never chose to do this, it happened because of uncontrollable reactions in the person’s body and brain” and it would really really easy to forgive and forget and not hold grudges!

Based on modern science I’ve concluded that I was chosen for a special purpose, and that certain individuals are destined to achieve certain things.

In conclusion: Don’t trust what evolutionary biologists say or believe since they aren’t going by evidence and are basically anti-science clowns.



Leave a Comment
  1. Brian Dunning / Oct 12 2016 6:44 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  2. Anonymous / Mar 29 2016 9:05 pm

    A biologist’s idea of a lack of free will would involve genes, hereditary traits (so, again genes) and a lot of post-birth mental conditioning. A devout theist’s view of a lack of free will would constitute one’s actions being controlled by a higher being or entity– God. Your argument falls apart due to the fact that you’re essentially comparing apples and oranges– you’re treating two very different concepts as though they’re the exact same thing. This is huge reason why a great many atheistic views can not be considered comparable in the manner in which you describe them. On a solemn side note, I urge you to seek medical attention for your clear narcissism and probable sociopathy, as evidenced by your post “Top 10 Questions for Swedes.” In addition to the above, I’d note that you have never put forth an argument defending your beliefs, only ones which derogate others. You are, in fact, a genuinely poor logician with a massively inflated ego– see “dunning-kruger effect” for a clearer definition of what you clearly are afflicted with. On a final note, please do not take any of this as a personal insult, and do not attempt to rebuke me with an actual personal attack– this would only add to the ludicrousness of your entire blog, which is no more than an outlet for extremely poor reasoning, horribly skewed opinions, unsubstantiated nonsense and ultimately massive amounts of downright hate speech. I genuinely hope you get the care and help you so obviously require.

  3. Ape Man / Oct 31 2015 5:16 pm

    You sir, are one very confused individual. I really don’t know where to start criticising your views as the writing is all over the place. One thing I will say is that grade A students (which you claim to be one of) generally do not use the expression “lol”, which I notice you are very fond of.

    One more point, surveys and WordPress blogs do not constitute proof.

    • itsnobody / Nov 2 2015 10:13 am

      No, you’re the one who’s confused. I didn’t use surveys, or blogs as proof. That poll is from “American Scientist”,, and cited by Universities.

      There are many peer-reviewed literature on the experiments and observations telling us that there’s no free-will.

      I gave an informal proof that believing in free-will is more irrational than believing that evolution is false based on the logic that denying repeatable experiments and direct observations is more irrational than denying imaginations and speculations.

      Imaginations and speculations aren’t equivalent to scientific evidence.

      Almost all the evidence for evolution is imaginations and speculations, lol, I don’t know how anyone can believe something so stupid that “if you can imagine it happening, it’s good enough evidence”.

      From physics and engineering we know for a fact that you can imagine lots of things that would never occur or be possible.

      Even though the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution people are allowed to publish all types of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals criticizing the evidence on free-will but people aren’t allowed to criticize the evidence on evolution with valid scientific criticism, lol!

      It really shows you how evolution is well-protected like a religious belief rather than treated the same as any other theory.

      All of the evolutionists I’ve spoken to believe in free-will making the poll sound true, lol, they are stupid as fuck.

      • rednig / Nov 2 2015 12:50 pm

        Lucy, evo’s only claim to fame, may be on the way out. There’s evidence the fossils were tampered with to make it appear to walk upright. A lot of money will be lost if that’s true. And, many paleontologists seem eager to crush her.
        I see you’ve met the illogical “You can’t do that” whine from atheists. Try to tell them they can’t trust polls and so on, and they freak out, baby 🙂 Creepy and weird people for the most part. No wonder every poll shows people would rather trust a rapist or murderer than an atheist.

      • Anonymous / Nov 6 2015 1:50 pm

        Atheists exist. Which in itself proves free will.

      • rednig / Nov 6 2015 10:16 pm

        But, can you prove atheism is reality? The world says no, and atheism is fading from the scene. If trends continue, it will be a note in history. Sociologists say 2050 will be the year. Even now, it’s leveled off in Europe and will soon in the US, the only two places it yet thrives.

      • Anonymous / Mar 29 2016 9:06 pm

        You leaving yourself open for “constructive criticism” doesn’t work if you call those who criticize you “idiotic,” “foolish,” or “fucking stupid.”

      • blacknig / May 10 2017 9:19 am

        Benjamin Labet himself stated his experiments prove the existence of free will. Determinists often exclude the point that he noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious “decision” after the readiness potential appeared.

        Like all determinists before you, you have omitted important factors in the “evidence” you listed in order to support your beliefs.

      • rednig / May 10 2017 5:44 pm

        And your point is? So what if you don’t agree. As a manuscript researcher, I need to know the difference between fact and fiction. Atheists tend to stick their heads deep in the box of outdated urban legends for their version of fact. Guess what, science has moved on without atheists, and if you read PZ Mweryers’ blog, you’ll find he made a major ass of himself commenting on cellular material and C-14. But then, he’s new atheism, and that overrides science.

  4. wweaea a watag / Jun 25 2015 12:36 am

    Just stop giving this guy attention. And now back to gaming (should really stop going to random sites on internet just shows me how stupid the world really is)

    • rednig / Jun 25 2015 1:44 am

      I agree! Your post shows me just how stupid the world is. And, as most people in the world disagree with you, there’s hope for us yet.

    • itsnobody / Jul 8 2015 11:57 am

      Well if you can’t refute anything I said or say anything constructive just give up and go home, ignore the whole situation, and block everything out of your mind.

      Once we compare the evidence supporting evolution to the evidence telling us that there’s no free-will we can see how unbelievably weak of a theory evolution really is.

      When we compare evolution to almost any other scientific theory it’s just like a joke, I don’t know how anyone can be confident that so many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as real and contradict physics must be true.

      Since most atheist biologists believe in free-will we know that they don’t really care about evidence, they care about promoting atheistic ideology.

      That’s why the media and society doesn’t attack free-will believers or fire professors for teaching that free-will could exist or does exist as opposed to science.

      The media and society is so well-controlled by atheists/anti-science fans.

  5. rednig / Apr 6 2015 5:11 am

    Yet, there are those in biology who have looked into the evidence and concluded there must be a god. Creationist labs are filling with them. As it is, anyone who does the math knows evolution is a joke. All major decisions–age of the earth, age of the dinosaurs and so on–were decided several centuries ago. If any machine doesn’t agree, then the machine must be wrong and adjusted to correct it.
    The fact of soft tissues was mocked and hidden from the general public for several decades. To a thinker, this shows that evolution is a money-making scam. Note that the price of fossils dropped as much as 80% in many cases. They have yet to recover, though investors have had their own researchers trying to find proof of age.
    A few years ago, they attempted to find Columbus’ ancestry by DNA. His body had been sealed far better than the average dinosaur and they still could barely find enough to make a case. In a bare 500 years, it had decayed away. Yet, we find fossils all the time with plenty in them.
    Evolution: A comedy routine gone sour.
    Peace to you, and God’s blessing.

Post a Comment

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: