Be the change you want to see in yourself

Inspirational thoughts, ideas, quotes, and articles.

Can Evolution and Creation Co-exist?

Posted by Catherine Morgan on February 4, 2007

heavenan picture by © suzy1951


I know when we talk about evolution and creation, immediately a line is drawn, and you are either on one side or the other. But, at the risk of causing an uproar, I would like to suggest an alternate opinion. Why can’t evolution and creation co-exist? Who decided that if creation exists then evolution can’t, or that if evolution is correct then there could be no creator? It seems to me, more likely that they both exist. Let me explain.

First, let me just say that I am not trying to prove or disprove either position. I am simply trying to point out, that maybe we have more that unites us in this discussion, than divides us. Ultimately, my hope is that we as “humanity”, can become less divided and more united, and not just on this topic. So, that is the spirit of my opinion on this, I hope it comes across that way. I do not have any intention of disrespecting anyone’s beliefs here, just to give everyone something to think about. So, with that said, these are my thoughts.

Creation is an act of causing or producing something to exist. Evolution is the processes of gradual development. Think of it this way, when DaVinci “created” the Mona-Lisa, it wasn’t a masterpiece at the first brush-stroke. It was only after a long process of many strokes that the masterpiece “evolved”. So, the Mona-Lisa could only become a masterpiece, with the “evolution” of DaVinci’s “creation”. DaVinci was the creator of the masterpiece, but without evolving the idea from his head to the canvas, the Mona-Lisa would cease to be. There is no doubt that the Mona-Lisa had a creator, as well as there is no doubt that only by a process taken by the creator, did the Mono-Lisa evolve.

Basically, we are all creators in some sense of the word, but we couldn’t create anything without a process or evolution. That is because, just thinking it in our heads doesn’t make it so, it is our process that makes it so. This analagy applies to all things “created”, a song, a book, a home, a baby, and so on. Everything we know of as created, was created by some type of a process, therefor, evolved.

So, now to touch on the religious aspects of this thought. The Bible says that God took six days to create heaven and earth. So, if taken “literally”, then creation wouldn’t be able to co-exist with evolution. But, there “literally” wasn’t any such thing as “time” before the earth was created, at least in the sense that we are familiar with time. In that case, God had plenty of “time” to create the heaven and earth, you could even say that God “created” evolution. It seems to me, that the evolution of science, is creating the proof that the universe did have a “Creator”. Science is simply explaining the process of evolution, that the “Creator” used to create. That makes sense, right?

47 Responses to “Can Evolution and Creation Co-exist?”

  1. sdspjut said

    I’m with you on this. Creation and evolution aren’t mutually exclusive.

    We don’t know the processes that took place with the creation. Maybe one of the ways that the creation process happened (because it was a process, not an event) was by using principles of evolution.

    That is all.


  2. Thanks for your comment Scotty. That is exactly how I feel.

  3. David R. Hawkins says that evolution and creation are the same thing. I agree.

  4. Thanks for your comment. I’m going to have to look up David R. Hawkins when I get a chance, thanks.

  5. Thank you for the fast response. FYI, Dr. Hawkins’ main website is

  6. Thanks, I’ll check it out.

  7. Speaking of Evolution and Creation Co-existing, I read a few years ago about an Evangelical Christian who was a biologist and geneticist. His daily work totally contradicted his beliefs, but he took it as a challenge. His professional work helped people, but the process and methods of his work were a direct test to his beliefs, and he thought that this resistance to corporeal evidence made his belief stronger.

    I think that in the real world, most people could not live with these contradictions!

    Ultimately, I think that science and belief should be kept separate from one another because it is a very slippery slope. Attempting to merge them together would weaken both. Belief is not listed or included in the scientific process (remember high school?) and science does not have any business attempting to prove intangible beliefs.

    A more mature and accepting world view, like you suggest, would definitely improve relations between people and I agree with you. The Fundamentalist and the Scientist will not change their views, but there is hope for the people in the middle. I think that in reality most ‘moderately religious’ people do come to the same conclusion with regard to the science of evolution with a kick start from the Devine all on their own.

  8. Thanks for your comment, I agree.

  9. PB and J said


    i agree with you that our concept of time didnt exist when God was creating the world. i have no problem believing that the earth has been around a lot longer than a literal 6000 yrs.

    BUT i think it is important to ask oneself, do i really believe what the Bible says?

    if you dont believe the Bible, no need to read further.

    if you believe the Bible, we must remember that darwinian evolution requires death. however, the Bible says that God created the humans last of all. and sin didnt enter the world until they were there. and sin is what brought death into the world.

    so if one believes the Bible as God’s Word, then one cannot believe in darwinian evolution.

    can one believe in natural selection within the species? (micro evolution) of course, evolution does occur, but not to create new species. evolution helps the created species adapt to their environment.

    hope that this has been insightful

  10. Hi Peter — Thank you for your comment, it was insightful.

    Before I respond, I just want to say, I am not an expert in theology, or Darwinism. And, at the risk of “religious judgments”, I will be honest and say; that I do believe in the Bible, just not the “literal” interpretation of it.

    I think that there may have been at time, during the “original” writings of the Bible, that a “literal” interpretation could have been made. But, the Bible we know today, is an “interpretation” itself, of what the original said. I would need to believe that the linguist and translators over the last 2000 years, who have interpreted and re-interpreted, were flawless. And, I don’t. Even just translating today’s Spanish or French language into English, leaves room for mis-interpretation, so I find it a bit hard to believe that what we know today at the Bible, is an “exact” interpretation of the original. Not to minimize the importance in the Bible, because, I am Catholic, I do believe in God, and I also believe in the Bible…just not the literal translation of it.

    As far as Darwin goes, I think he did his best, with the scientific information available to him in the 1850’s, before the knowledge of molecular biology. Even then, Darwin himself stated, that his theory of natural selection was “not the exclusive means of modification…”. From what I have read about Darwin, it would seem, that if he were alive today, his views would be much different.

    I hope that answeres your questions. Thank you again for your comments, even though we don’t seem to agree, I respect your feelings and beliefs.


  11. Laz said

    If I may interject something here:

    Your question depends of course, on what one means by ‘evolution.’

    Personally I do adhere to a literal reading of Genesis. For the sake of argument though I will pretend I don’t. Let’s say that the days of creation were long eras of unknown length. Even if this assumption is granted, the account in Genesis is still incompatible with what the general theory of evolution (GTE) states.

    Allow me to illustrate:

    The Genesis account has God creating vegetation on Day Three, and He creates sea creatures and birds on Day Five. The land animals (as well as humans) are created on Day Six. So the progression is: land plants, sea creatures and birds, land animals.

    According to GTE (someone please correct my numbers as needed), the oldest marine invertebrates (575 million years ago) AND the oldest land animals (300 millions years ago) precede the proliferation of plants on land (200 mya) by at least 100 million years. Here the progression seems to be: sea creatures, land animals, land plants.

    Even throwing away the antiquity issue, there is still a conflict. It’s about the order of creation that is the most glaring conflict.

    As to your question, they can co-exist as long as there exist humans that hold to one or the other. I do believe that those who hold to both are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

  12. “Laz” –Thank you for your comment, it was very infomative. And, I appreciate your viewpoint.

  13. PB and J said


    thanks for the response. i think you make a very good point about the need for an accurate Bible in order to take it literally. let me give you some background about the Old Testament.

    the rabbis who copied the Tanakh (old testament) took pain staking measures to ensure word for word literal exact transcription. to ensure perfect (or as near as possible) copies, they counted the words on each page of scripture. they determined numerical algorithms to ensure copies were the exact same as the originals. etc. then if a rabbi made a mistake on a copy. they would burn the whole thing.

    now, a skeptic (which i tend to be) might say that its still possible that they screwed up, right? sure, but there were two groups of jewish rabbis that separated geographically due to the diaspora: the yemenites and the masorites. they continued their copying for about 1000 yrs completely separately. then we recently put the copies from each together. amazingly, only 9 characters (ie letters) were different in the entire Tanakh. that is incredible!!!

    we also have many copies of the greek translation the septuagint, which are not exactly the same in grammar and structure, etc, but the message doesnt change from the hebrew text.

    finally, when we look at most bibles today, they are translations directly from the masoretic texts. so they are not translations of translations, etc. and we can (as much as we can with any historical document) be sure that the hebrew texts are accurate.

    so the texts we have today are accurate. we have to either choose to believe them, or reject them as literal. hope this helps.


  14. Wow Peter, yes and thank you. This information is very interesting to me, and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it so clearly.

    I was raised with the Catholic Bible. So, I guess I can assume the Old Testament has been translated with great care. If you don’t mind me asking….do you know about the New Testament?

    Thanks again for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time.

  15. PB and J said


    yeah, i know a little about the new testament, but not as detailed.

    the new testament, oldest fragments we have are about 100 ad. they are consistent with what we have now. with that said, there isnt the same question about copying as with the OT, because the NT was written much more recently and we have very very old copies. (many scholars think an original copy of the original) also, the NT was spread so quickly around the roman empire that there are thousands of manuscripts that exist today from the earliest times.

    the NT was put together in the 2nd century in response to heresies arising in the church (the canonical gospels, the pauline epistles, but not the whole NT until the 4th century).

    there are over 20,000 manuscripts for the NT. compared with any other ancient text, the next highest is 643 which is the iliad. so the massive amounts of greek texts dispersed throughout the roman empire help us know that the texts are accurate. they may not be true (a different topic for a different day), but they are accurate.

    hope this helps

  16. Thank you so much Peter….for someone who doesn’t know much, you sure know a lot.

    I am going to have to spend some “quality” time at your site. I think I could learn a lot. Maybe even reconsider my position on the “literal” interpretation of the Bible. I hope this doesn’t sound “disrespectful” to any Catholics….but I have kind of considered myself a “recovering” Catholic for about the last 10 years. I believe in God, and the Bible, infact I am more spiritual than I have ever been…..just don’t have an actual “religion” anymore.

    So, thanks for all the info. And, I will get to your site soon. I’m just in the middle of a “pickle” at the momment with an unrelated issue.

    Hope to talk again soon.

  17. PB and J said


    thanks for a open mind. compared with many others i know, i do really have a small amount of knowledge, but i hope that if God has opened my eyes to anything that i am able to share it with others.

    if you check out my site, understand that it is actually a book that i am in the process of writing. so there is a consistent theme throughout. i am about halfway through right now. but i would love any outside perspective (thats why i am posting it although its not done), and will change the book accordingly.



  18. That sound great Peter. I will be checking it out very soon.

  19. Ed Darrell said

    Peter, accurate copying does not improve accuracy if the original was not accurate. Were the originals accurate? In some cases we can be sure they were not literally accurate. That does not detract from the theological message, but it raises warning flags against making greater extrapolations.

    Consider, too, that much of the Old Testament was oral tradition long before it was written down. The stories in Genesis, for example, were written down after the Book of Amos was written, collected from several different sources, written down by different groups with competing theologies, and then edited and redacted by other groups. The word “accuracy” starts to lose meaning in such case.

    After that journey of the information and the stories, accurate copying for another few thousands of years cannot improve the accuracy, and is in no way a testament to the literal accuracy of the document.

    We don’t believe something because it has a lot of Xerox copies. We put credence in documents that can be corroborated and confirmed independently. That was clear to the ancient Jews, and that’s a part of wisdom we should not deny or forget.

    Don’t fall into the Josh McDowell error. He claims “manuscripts” when he should say “copies.” Manuscript literally means a hand-written copy, but in today’s terms it usually means the author’s original composition. McDowell reads “manuscript” in the journal literature, and he assumes something other than “photocopy,” but he shouldn’t. Scripture scholars have known for millennia that the books are only as accurate as the originals, usually called autographs — and those are lost completely. So we don’t know how “accurate” any text in scripture is.

    Let’s not make unwarranted claims.

  20. “Ed Darrell” — Thanks for your comment. I guess that has always been where my confusion is….believing in the “meaning” of the Bible is one thing….but the “literal” translation thousands of years later, seems like a stretch. It’s kind of like playing whisper-down-the-lane — only in many different languages, and interpretations.

  21. Laz said

    Very interesting discussion, what’s up edarrell? still haven’t read “The Descent of Man” or any of Mayr’s works.

    Pray tell what is the “meaning” of the Bible?

  22. Well….what I meant by “meaning”….(and I see where I didn’t write it very clearly)…What I mean to say is; I believe there is a “true” and “original” meaning behind the words of the Bible….and they speak volumes…I am just not so sure of the “literal” interpretation of the Bible. It’s nothing against the Bible, I have read quite a bit of it myself, and I find it very comforting. In fact, I still have my first Bible that was given to me when I was in second grade….I have been reading from it off and on ever since. Although now at 40, I think I would consider myself more spiritual than religious.

  23. PB and J said

    ed darrell

    i didnt mean original when i said manuscript. i meant literally, manu(hand) script(writing).

    i agree that one can easily mistake the accuracy of the current text for the truth of the original. i make no claim that the original is truth in my comments. i believe it is wholeheartedly and i think there are many reasons for all to believe as i do. but that is a different discussion.

    but i will have to contend with you about the writing of genesis being after the book of amos being written. amos was written during the time of uzziah king of israel. genesis was written before there were even kings over israel. it was written before the jews ever even moved into the land of canaan with joshua. amos was written many many yrs later. this doesnt mean that the oldest COPY we have of genesis is newer than the oldest COPY we have of amos. this may in fact be true, but that doesnt mean it was written after it.


  24. Laz said

    Thanks for the clarification Catherine. You believe that there is a ‘true’ and ‘original’ meaning behind the words of the Bible but have reservations about the “literal” interpretation of it.

    Is there a method of discernment by which you differentiate what passages retain the ‘true’ and ‘original’ meaning? At what point does the ‘true’ and ‘original’ meaning cease to be just that and falls into uncertainty regarding ‘literal’ interpretation?

    What do you mean by ‘religious’?

  25. Ed Darrell said


    So, then, the “manuscript” claim is just that there are a lot of copies. A copy doesn’t corroborate or verify the original in any way. The argument that there are a lot of copies is completely meaningless in verifying the original’s accuracy. That’s the mistake that Josh McDowell makes, and it’s still error. If I write out a piece of fiction, and photocopy it, it doesn’t become any less a fiction. If I write it by hand, and keep it accurate, that also doesn’t make it any less fiction.

    Simply, then, the number of copies means nothing to the accuracy of a document.

    Genesis wasn’t written down until well after the Babylonian captivity. The consensus of scholars is that Amos was the first of the Bible to be written down. Genesis followed. Genesis 1 is explicitly oral tradition, being invented during the Babylonian captivity in order to preserve the tradition and tweak the Babylonians. The creation story told is the story of the creation of the Babylonian gods, exactly in that order. The Israelite preists took that story and added the montheistic view, that each of those things the Babylonians worshipped as gods was, itself, created by the God of Israel. It was a song to be sung or recited. It was not written down until much later.

    This only means that the stories of Genesis can be only as accurate as their preservation in oral tradition was accurate prior to their being written down, and only so accurate as they were in the beginning, and only so accurate as the written version has been held accurate since.

    If you have a set of scholars who claim Genesis was written down before Amos, I’d like to see the paper.

  26. “Ibloggle” — Thank you, you have a very poetic way with your comments, and it is very refreshing. I appreciate your support.

  27. “Ibloggle” — Thanks again. I make it clear that I am in no way a theologian, I just have my feelings and beliefs, and I’m not asking anyone to believe as I do. I’m just “putting it out there” for discussion, and I am very interested in hearing other peoples feelings on these issues, and I welcome differing opinions. However, I do like it better when the differing opinions, differ in a more “gentle” way as apposed to a more “harsh” way.

    Thanks again for your kindness….and your interesting and poetic comments.

  28. Laz said

    Thanks Catherine for providing the question that started off this good discussion.

    Genesis wasn’t written down until well after the Babylonian captivity. The consensus of scholars is that Amos was the first of the Bible to be written down.

    Interesting E.D… consensus huh? Which scholars? What are the philosophical biases of this consensus of scholars?

    Are they similar to the scholars who conclude that John’s Gospel MUST have been written after Peter’s execution because in this Gospel, Christ prophesies the manner of Peter’s death. It is these scholars who conclude that a book CANNOT be written before events which it refers to. And that’s true, unless of course prophecy is possible. Allowing philosophical presuppositions to color conclusions…

    If you have a set of scholars who claim Genesis was written down before Amos, I’d like to see the paper.

    I don’t have a set handy but Gleason Archer (Prof of Old Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, RIP) seems to support Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch at least he makes the case for it in his book, “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”

    Samuel J. Schultz (Division of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College) is another who is in agreement with Archer. Then there’s one of your faves, Albert Mohler. You might say that these men are biased because they are Christians who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture but what of the consensus of scholars you mentioned? They don’t have biases?

    Catherine, I meant to ask you earlier what you meant by:

    I think I would consider myself more spiritual than religious.

    My apologies beforehand, if I didn’t do this block quote thing right 🙂

  29. “Laz” — I guess being raised Catholic I think of “religious” as going to church all the time, and specifically going to a certain denomination. At some point around ten years ago, I felt the Catholic church turned their back on me because I got a divorce. The Catholic church doesn’t think there is ever a good enough reason to get a divorce, obviously I felt I had a good enough reason. At that point I went from church to church, one denomination to another, and found them all nice, but none that I really felt “fit” for me. I then started reading about religion, and spirituality, and realized I could feel close to God without being in a church and without being associated with a specific “religion”. So, that is what I mean. I feel very spiritual, and I feel I have a deep connection with God, I’m just not connected with a religion at the moment. I know that makes some people think negatively of me….but, I’m just being honest with you and true to myself. I hope that is a good enough answer?

  30. Ed Darrell said


    Every step of evolution has been observed in real time, including the creation of new species. The ultimate question is this: Do you call the creator a deceiver? All the evidence points to evolution — all the evidence. (Go here for a more information:

    You conjecture why there aren’t more apes becoming human, but you gloss over the fact that humans are apes. We’re on a different evolutionary path than the other great apes, including our nearest cousins the chimps and bonobos. And, in fossils, we have evidence of many branchings away from the original ape line. Humans today are the last surviving twig, but there are no fewer than 20 other branches. How many occasions of apes giving birth to a new, human-like line is necessary to disprove the claim that it didn’t happen? One should do it, we have a score. How many does it take to get a creationist to admit that even one exists? That’s an unanswerable question.

    Missing link? There are 20 species. How can you look at 20 species and fail to see them?

    Human evolution from a common ape ancestor is verified by physiology, fossils, basic body chemistries and DNA. The body of evidence, including corroborations from disparate branches of science and cross-corroborations, is massive and strong.

    And if you think evolution is a theory of chance, I would invite you to study evolution sometime, especially as Darwin laid it out. Chance is the opposite of what Darwin proposed. Think about it in practical terms: Darwin called it a theory of common ancestry through natural and sexual selection. “Selection,” of course, is an antonym for “chance.” Creationists refuse to pay attention to what Darwin actually said, to what the theory of evolution actually is, and to what evidence actually exists — and then they accuse Darwin of “going to the extreme.” Some irony there.

  31. Ed Darrell said

    Here’s another good site, focusing on human evolution:

  32. Laz said

    Yep that answered the question. As a former Catholic myself (baptized, first communion, but not confirmation) I can understand your frustrations with the RCC. Their position on divorce is unbiblical (as are many of their doctrines but that’s a whole other discussion), for Jesus does state that there is one reason where divorce is allowed: infidelity (this by either party).

    Out of curiosity, who do you say Jesus is?

  33. Hi “Laz” and “Ed” — Can you guys do me a favor? Could you check out the rest of my site? I have been working really hard on it for the last several weeks, since begging to blog in the middle of January. Although this is an interesting topic, it is only a fraction of what my site is about….I would be interested to know what you guys think of some of my other articles. Thanks.

    And “Laz” — My feelings about Jesus, are basically the same as what I had been taught as a child in CCD.

  34. PB and J said


    sorry i didnt respond earlier. i think you raise some interesting questions for me. the bottomline is that i must do some more reading because i wasnt even aware of scholars claiming such things. personally i think it sounds hoky to me, since the research that i found so far says that moses did write some of the torah, which would still put some of the torah written long before amos. however, i (and those scholars) may be wrong.

    i dont think it matters to me at all if i am wrong. it doesnt change what i believe.

    besides we were talking of the NT not the OT. you cant even possibly make the same argument for the canonical gospels (and the whole NT for that matter). all of the NT was written within 50 yrs of the death and resurrection of Yeshua. this means that they were very very soon after the actual events. not some oral tradition passed down yrs and yrs til it was written down.

    anyway, i will continue to research the OT dating. sorry i dont have a definitive answer.


  35. galvanized said

    Catherine — another wonderful post, with a view that I have espoused for many years. I think that the most beautiful quote that I have read on this debate was stated by Dr. Francis Collins, Director since 1993 of the Human Genome Project, and a practicing Christian apologetic:

    “Actually, I don’t see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument — one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there’s no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It’s unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.

    If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that’s incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It’s not as if there was a chance it wouldn’t work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They’re not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they’re part of who I am.”


    I first saw him interviewed a couple of months back on Colbert Report, and he was just such a light. I look forward to reading his book (

  36. “Galvanized” — I love that, thanks so much for sharing it.

  37. ibloggle said

    Ed-What can I say that I haven’t said already? If you did not hear it the first time, will you hear it if I repeat it again?

  38. Ed Darrell said

    Ibloggle, you could say, “Oh, I hadn’t realized that. Perhaps I need to study up on evolution.” You might reread your own post, and see whether you’re not posting more to yourself than to me.

    None so blind as those who will not see.

  39. David Miles said

    Once upon a time,long long ago, I guess even before time existed

  40. David Miles said

    Once upon a time, long long ago, I guess even before time existed God created. Starry starry night. And there was night. And the night was right!And I looked up and saw a comet plunging toward the earth. And the eruption it caused, caused the earth to darken! And the birds of the air and the beasts of the sea changed. And earth changed. Evolution began to stir. And out of the mud came life. Evolution evolved.

    God good creation
    Beast and mankind
    David and Catherine
    Savation or self-destruction
    Evolution and Creationism

  41. Meaghan said

    but can they really be the same as if they coexist can you prove it?? is there a way to prove it ?

  42. Brandon said

    You’ve got the right idea but your first point was just playing with the definitions of the english words Creation and Evolution. The second biblical point was on track though. I’m doing research on this subject because it is the subject of my senior thesis. It’s good to know that there are other people with my belief.

  43. David Miles said

    Sorry about the sp. mistakes! Let me try again part two.

    God’s good creation;
    Beast and Mankind;
    David and Catherine;
    Salvation or self-destruction;
    Evolution AND creationism!

    To Magan:

    Magan: No I can’t prove it. I don’t think it’s a matter of proof but of Faith!
    Faith does’nt need proof. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

    To Brandon:

    Sorry Brandon but I love to play with words. Too playfu for you I guess.
    My thesis in Seminary was with Amos Wiler on the subject of Folk Music’s influence on society. My other thesis was Five Characters in search of Howard Clinebell. Howard was on sabbatical and no one else could understand what I was trying to say. Oh well.

    Good luck on your senior thesis!


  44. wahPhertykary said


    I have been enjoying staying lurker for your time now.
    I elected that I want to get involved and socialize with the other folks here.
    I’m expecting to join a lot of intriguing people today and learn some terrific stuff.

    I really hope this message didn’t find itself in the wrong category. Please forgive me if this is improper.


    Order Clerk

  45. lucrari de licenta…

    […]Can Evolution and Creation Co-exist? « Be the change you want to see in yourself[…]…

  46. Break free from the affair…

    […]Can Evolution and Creation Co-exist? « Be the change you want to see in yourself[…]…

  47. Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
    Look advanced to more added agreeable from you!
    By the way, how can we communicate?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: