Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page Science Disproves Evolution
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-17   #1741
thefr0g
Ooglemagthorpe
Admin
 
thefr0g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,667
thefr0g will become famous soon enough
Credits: 50,154,623
Pahu is back? Now it's a party.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-17   #1742
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,402
neonwraith
Credits: 108,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
What is wrong with creation and the Bible?
Besides the fact that it's a crock of shit?

Neon
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-17   #1743
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 696
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 164,799

Compatible Senders and Receivers


Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver beforehand; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-17   #1744
Billy the Kidd
Self Serving Hypocrite
Admin
 
Billy the Kidd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Progressive HELL!!!
Posts: 19,396
Billy the Kidd will become famous soon enough
Credits: 414,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

Compatible Senders and Receivers


Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver beforehand; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Someone should let Walt Brown know hes heavy on woowoo and metaphysics with a pseudo scientific wrapping, but very light on facts.
__________________
I'll never be ok. I know that now.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-17   #1745
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,402
neonwraith
Credits: 108,824
I don't think he'd care he's turned this whole endeavour into some sort of weird masturbatory act

Neon
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-17   #1746
Billy the Kidd
Self Serving Hypocrite
Admin
 
Billy the Kidd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Progressive HELL!!!
Posts: 19,396
Billy the Kidd will become famous soon enough
Credits: 414,419
my favorite argument for god is when you say, prove it and they say... Look into my sons eyes... no words can describe the feeling, its god...

its like oh ok then
__________________
I'll never be ok. I know that now.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1747
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 696
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 164,799

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1


When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. **They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. “...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1748
Wicked Lady
A Motherfuckin' Chainsaw
AdminGuide
 
Wicked Lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Djibouti
Posts: 19,169
Wicked Lady is on a distinguished road
Credits: 649,280
I love you, Pahu. You're still plugging away after 7 years. You even bother to format your posts.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1749
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,402
neonwraith
Credits: 108,824
Do you think that this is some sort of code

Neon
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1750
Wicked Lady
A Motherfuckin' Chainsaw
AdminGuide
 
Wicked Lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Djibouti
Posts: 19,169
Wicked Lady is on a distinguished road
Credits: 649,280
Yes. He's plotting with zee Russians to steal your sperms in order to create a creationist super army.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #1751
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,402
neonwraith
Credits: 108,824
Surely creationists would pray for a super army?

Neon
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #1752
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 696
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 164,799

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2


It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship...it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units...” Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. [emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #1753
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,402
neonwraith
Credits: 108,824
Ahh Pahu is this a lonely creationist cry for love?

Neon
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #1754
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 696
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 164,799

Vestigial Organs


Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. ” N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.*249, 2007, p.*826.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #1755
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 696
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 164,799

Two-Celled Life?


Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #1756
neonwraith
Voice of Unerring Reason
 
neonwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In the Cold Harsh North
Posts: 3,402
neonwraith
Credits: 108,824
I think I should write a screenplay based on Pahu's life - It's a romcom about a creationist bot looking for love in all the wrong places - such as a board full of faded 'goffics'

Neon
__________________
"I've oft been told by learned friars
That wishing and the crime were one
And heaven punishes desires
As much as if the deed were done.

If wishing damns us, you and I
Are damned to all our hearts content.
Come then we may at least enjoy
Some pleasure for our punishment..."

Sir Thomas More
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #1757
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 696
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 164,799

Embryology 1


Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.* Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The last person to post on this thread is the WINNER!!! pt2 gArGOyLe^^ Topic Discussions 4129 12-13-16 08:31
Interesting Science News articles. Panthera66 Topic Discussions 3 05-28-10 07:10
the evolution debate ShotDownStar Topic Discussions 66 12-08-06 19:14
The warped minds of the wholesome christians. Lenina Topic Discussions 122 09-21-05 01:18
Science 101! Dyshade Topic Discussions 39 07-07-04 20:37

Recent Threads
What are you thinking...
11-05-06 15:52
Last post by MainerMikeBrown
15 Hours Ago 13:19
Hey everyone!
1 Week Ago 10:39
Last post by Wicked Lady
15 Hours Ago 13:18
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 14:38
by Pahu
Last post by Pahu
3 Days Ago 07:57
The day I drove to...
1 Week Ago 06:00
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 19:59
what surprised you today?
04-11-13 17:55
Last post by Billy the Kidd
1 Week Ago 17:08
The carbonaro effect
3 Weeks Ago 19:54
Last post by neonwraith
1 Week Ago 06:02
I am thinking it's a...
08-05-04 20:46
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 16:27
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 06:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by MainerMikeBrown
2 Weeks Ago 15:06
what have you eaten...
12-24-03 19:43
Last post by MainerMikeBrown
2 Weeks Ago 15:03
Updated Member Selfies
4 Weeks Ago 12:53
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Weeks Ago 17:25
Online Users: 61
0 members and 61 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 18:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community