menu 2
menu 4
menu 6
menu 8
menu 10
menu 12

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> ID flattened with a steamroller
Donnie Darko
post Dec 14 2006, 10:41 PM
Post #1


Alethiometer
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 7959
Joined: 24-September 03
From: NYC
Member No.: 51



That whole God discussion in the KOSG thread reminded me of a discussion my wife had with my cousin over Thanksgiving. It wasn't so much a two way discussion as a sermon delivered by my cousin about why Evolution was wrong and why Intelligent Design was right. He's a Physician's Assistant, which suggests some rudimentary scientific knowledge, and he certainly does grasp scientific concepts fairly well. The problem is that he grasped the lazy science contained in Michael Behe's book (he's the Darwin of "Intelligent Design"), which has become a favourite tome of Creationists looking to cherry pick science to support their position. It amazes me that, even after the crushing defeat of ID in the courtroom in Dover, PA, ID has so many devout followers who won't let go of it. They're even attempting to rechristen it "Critical Analysis" theory.

Well hold on to your hats, ladies and gentleman, because Cell Biologist Ken Miller resoundingly crushes the theory of ID.. Every argument used by advocates of ID is masterfully and convincingly refuted by scientific evidence in this lecture. The theory of intelligent design, based on the evidence, is unsupportable, and for anyone to continue to hold on to such a delusion is willful ignorance. To continue to try and force public schools to teach our children such a fallacy is akin to teaching them you can get cancer from a handshake.

This is a 2 hour lecture, but worth every second of time spent watching it (except perhaps for the prayer given before he is introduced, but that's another matter), and it requires no faith to accept the hard science Miller presents.

I routinely find myself shocked and dismayed when I discover how many people think Evolution is nonsense or at best a hypothesis that's full of holes and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I have no idea if any supporters of ID here will take the time required to watch Miller's entertaining lecture, but I certainly hope they do. This isn't about trying to convert people to any broader theistic or atheistic point of view, it's merely an attempt to flush a certain kind of junk science down the toilet once and for all, which I'd hope any reasonable human would desire.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Provenance
post Dec 15 2006, 01:12 AM
Post #2


Antipathist of Light
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 4046
Joined: 16-November 06
Member No.: 2442



QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Dec 14 2006, 03:41 PM) *

Cell Biologist Ken Miller resoundingly crushes the theory of ID.

I think not. Please don't take that to mean that I am an adherent of ID as I regularly lose my Id when drinking absinthe. Instead, belief in Intelligent Design is based on belief. Belief, by definition, is not going to be "crushed" by reason. I never cease to marvel at well-meaning people who think that if only others heard the lecture, read the book, what have you, everyone's views on religion, politics, other controversial subjects would start to mirror their own.

As for my own views, to keep it short, should I need to be treated with an antibiotic, I would greatly prefer that the drug be developed by someone who understands evolution.


--------------------
We all used to be things we aren't anymore.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ari
post Dec 15 2006, 01:29 AM
Post #3


Informed Imbiber
***

Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: 22-July 04
From: California, USA
Member No.: 892



Well Behe et al. claim their belief is scientific theory so it can be steam rolled in that regard.

Ignoring the glaring errors in ID I find it says more about a believers faith as the Discovery Institute version effectively calls God either an imperfect moron or the most obscure hinter in the universe.


--------------------
"you mean we're supposed to read 'em? i thought signatures were there to be ignored..."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
traineraz
post Dec 15 2006, 03:10 AM
Post #4


Absinthe Mafia
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 5749
Joined: 24-September 03
From: Salem, Oregon
Member No.: 38



QUOTE(Provenance @ Dec 14 2006, 04:12 PM) *

Belief, by definition, is not going to be "crushed" by reason. I never cease to marvel at well-meaning people who think that if only others heard the lecture, read the book, what have you, everyone's views on religion, politics, other controversial subjects would start to mirror their own.

Well said!

Religion in general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular, is a belief system which is ingrained from infancy. Belief is not necessarily rational. The Bible, for example, contradicts itself left and right on key issues. Doesn't matter, millions still believe every word is the Perfect and Complete Word of God. More often than not, because they only know what they've been told it says.

A direct "assault" on a person's deeply-ingrained beliefs -- whether he's given them much consideration or not -- often results in his defense of those beliefs. After all, this is what mom and dad and the preacher and the sunday school teacher and people who died 2000-5000+ years ago said was true, all those people must be right, and now THAT guy (probably Donnie) is attacking it. Cognitive dissonance, propaganda and religion's best friend, comes into play.

QUOTE
The theory of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956 after observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy; that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.


Once this two-hour lecture (I'd wager the average ID supporter would listen to about 15 minutes of it before deciding it was drivel and shutting it off) was heard attacking his views, the supporter would likely find resources which reinforce his existing belief system. It's easy to reinforce an existing belief ("Everything is possible with God", or "God put these things out here to confuse the unfaithful so they would stay confused; their lack of faith makes them unrighteous and unworthy of his presence" (2 Thessalonians 2: 11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. )). Dissonance resolved, God's just tricking the unfaithful. Tah-dah, all "scientific" evidence is now invalid in the believer's mind.

This is safe. The belief in a personal god who created the world and watches over everybody is what gives many people's lives meaning and structure. If that's taken away, their entire worldview, PLUS their social circle, their families, and everything else (possibly even jobs!) are taken away, too. That's a scary place to venture into. Everything they thought they knew is suddenly called into question.

Isn't it a whole lot easier to just believe that all things are possible with God, and leave it at that?


--------------------
"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship." - Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group which apparently promotes pedophilia.

. . . and don't forget to read the FAQ and check out the Absinthe Buyer's Guide for brand reviews and distributor links!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndrewT
post Dec 15 2006, 03:21 AM
Post #5


Informed Imbiber
***

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 818
Joined: 25-April 04
From: Herndon, VA
Member No.: 680



You're very right, Provenance. ID is a belief and is unaffected by rational thought. I think anyone who claims otherwise is either being unreasonable or willfully ignorant. This video will not convert any of the latter, but it may help those who believe the pseudo-scientific ID tripe without examining the evidence that's really out there. And now, a diatribe. Feel free to skip the rest of this post if you don't care to hear me rant about ID.

The idea of ID being on equal footing with evolution is a joke. The theory of evolution has been criticized and scoured for holes for over 140 years by people much more intelligent than the ID supporters of today. Every unearthed fossil and every new genetic discovery adds wave upon wave of evidence for the theory of evolution. No scientist is "afraid" to challenge the theory- conversely, many young scientists try as hard as they can to overturn well-accepted theories. Should any scientist find a fatal flaw in evolution and propose a new one that fits the facts better, they would surely win a nobel prize. The fact that evolution has withstood the test of almost a century and a half of new discoveries that lie directly in its scope is a testament to how sound the theory truly is.

Keep in mind that when Darwin's Origin of Species was published (1859), genetics and DNA were not known yet (Mendel released his findings on plant genes in 1865 and Mieschel reported the first signs of DNA in 1869). That's an entire branch of science that formed after the formation of the theory of evolution, and its discoveries have done nothing but support the theory of evolution.

More importantly, I think the evolutionary perspective of life is far more beautiful than "God did it". Anyone who's ever wondered at the Grand Canyon --chipped away grain by grain by an incessant flow of water-- or been to the Himalayas --pushed up inch by inch by the collision of massive tectonic plates-- can appreciate the evolutionary marvel that made us what we are. Anyone who denies that beauty is not truly alive.


--------------------
We’re the first new snow in winter, virgin white and crisply defined, armed with an ideology as neat as a snowflake, rigid and fine—a hexagonal wheel of ornate spears, as prickly as it is handsome. We explode with flags. The world will break on us like waves on coastal crags.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bob_chong
post Dec 15 2006, 05:20 AM
Post #6


Paging Dr. CHONGER!!!
***

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 600
Joined: 21-July 04
From: The Queen City
Member No.: 891



QUOTE

I never cease to marvel at well-meaning people who think that if only others heard the lecture, read the book, what have you, everyone's views on religion, politics, other controversial subjects would start to mirror their own.


Bravo. Like the last election. I know Bush haters run 10-1 here, but did you ever even consider that the people who voted for him aren't just a bunch of hicks who "voted against their own interests" or "didn't understand" or "are too ignorant." This isn't a Bush defense: what I'm getting at is that there is a great big world out there full of people who disagree with you. Lots of them are intelligent, and lots have studied the issues just as much as you did. And sometimes you're part of the 51% who wins, and sometimes with the 49% who loses. No amount of Chomsky-ite lecturing is going to convince me that I should desire to have a government which confiscates more wealth from the populace to increase its own power and scope. Likewise, no matter what I say, guys like Donnie and Prol are convinced that my position is "evil" or "social Darwinism" or "unenlightened."

Shit, we all do it.

As for this:
QUOTE

Religion in general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular, is a belief system which is ingrained from infancy. Belief is not necessarily rational. The Bible, for example, contradicts itself left and right on key issues. Doesn't matter, millions still believe every word is the Perfect and Complete Word of God. More often than not, because they only know what they've been told it says.


TAZ, this will sound deeply patronizing, so I apologize in advance and there's no way for me to say this except that I don't mean it that way, but...I am sorry for whatever has happened to you in your life to carry around so much animosity towards Christians. I know that as gay man you have likely endured a lot of assholery by people who thought they were being clever when all they were doing was singling out the splinter in your eye while ignoring the mote in their own. There are a lot of mean spirited people in the world. Your words also reflect an attitude that belief in God is some kind of mental deficiency, so maybe you've never been subjected to bigotry and simply arrived here by other means. Obviously, you can say whatever you want but you're painting with a pretty broad brush here, and your arguments are not infallible. However, coming here and saying what you say is sure to find the mark: when you shit on God and Christians in this forum, you will always have dozens ready to slap you on the back and say atta-boy.

Jello had it right when he said, "Trash a bank if you've got real balls," if you know what I mean.

As for the specifics to your speech above, I think most people go through some kind of journey of discovery in life, and it is NOT always "ingrained from infancy." Well, on memritv.org you can see plenty of evidence of that, but this country is not the fundamentalist hotbed folks like you shout that it is. I am well travelled, and I just don't see it.

As for the Bible "contradicting itself left and right," there's nothing I could ever write or point you to that would budge you from your beliefs (cf. Prov's Rule above), so I won't even bother. Likewise, you couldn't argue me to change my mind either.

QUOTE
A direct "assault" on a person's deeply-ingrained beliefs -- whether he's given them much consideration or not -- often results in his defense of those beliefs.


You say that like it's a bad thing. Should we all roll over and play dead whenever our belief system is insulted or we are insulted for believing something?

I don't give a shit about ID. I've never studied it, really. But I do believe that God created the world. And that man is sinful. And that I have broken the law. And continue to do so but am trying not to. But that trying will never be good enough to stand judgment before a perfect and holy God. I believe that God's own son was born to a virgin and he lived a perfect life, without sin. And he willingly died on the cross for my sins, as a blood atonement in my place, a substitutionary death. I believe he rose again. And it is only through faith in him that I am saved. There is nothing I could ever do to earn this: it is only by grace that I am saved from the certain wrath to come.

So right now, as y'all finish reading that last paragraph, you're thinking that I am some kind of nutcase. I'm not. I'm a regular dude. There are lots of us. And I've examined the evidence, as an adult, and came to these conclusions. I am a big boy. I believe all these things to be true and no amount of sneers or "evidence" otherwise could ever convince me that I am wrong.

If I've said anything offensive, I apologize. That was not my intent.


--------------------
To Sir Piss, With Love
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sixela
post Dec 15 2006, 07:48 AM
Post #7


Anal sage
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 3273
Joined: 24-September 03
From: somewhere closer to Boveresse and Pontarlier than most of you
Member No.: 48



QUOTE(bob_chong @ Dec 15 2006, 07:20 AM) *

I don't give a shit about ID. I've never studied it, really. But I do believe that God created the world.

The universe, even. And we're not necessarily alone in it (both the possibility of not being alone in the universe and the one of indeed being alone in it are fascinating to contemplate).

QUOTE
I believe that God's own son was born to a vigin and he lived a perfect life, without sin.

But not necessarily without error. Oh, and most of us will agree with the first sentence, too, if only you let us pick the meaning of the word "vigin".

QUOTE
And he willingly died on the cross for my sins,

Willingly is a bit strong a word (depending on the definition you're thinking of); though he certainly seems to have accepted it (in the end) and perhaps even to have understood the necessity of it, I don't think he was striving to die.

QUOTE

as a blood atonement in my place,

I don't think we have a personal God that wants blood offers; the death of Jesus serves as a powerful symbol that God doesn't like others to pick scapegoats, and that "winners" picking them (which means almost all of us) aren't the winners in the end. In that, I do think his death was necessary, because it serves to warn us that we have to break an ancestral habit (picking a "them" so that we can feel to belong to "us") to truly become human.

QUOTE
And it is only through faith in him that I am saved.

Well, there I have to disagree, if only because the vast majority of humanity has little choice but to believe in something else (not to mention that I don't think for a moment no one born before Jesus Christ is worth of salvation). I think our actions and our treatment of our fellow men are the true witnesses to who we are and whether we got the message, not what we superficially believe in (in other words, that the love of God is through the love of your neighbour, and that the rest of our Faith is something that should merely serve us to remind us of that, not something to be bolted on separately).

QUOTE
There is nothing I could ever do to earn this: it is only by grace that I am saved from the certain wrath to come.

It's a dangerous statement to make. I certainly think we have to earn it - that doesn't mean we deserve it if we get it, but Jesus certainly didn't tell people to sit on their fat arses, have faith, and wait for divine grace to save them. He certainly didn't, now did he (even though he didn't need salvation)?

QUOTE

So right now, as y'all finish reading that last paragraph, you're thinking that I am some kind of nutcase. I'm not.

What's wrong with being a nutcase? People thought Jesus was one bad enough to crucify him.

Oh, and I do give a shit about ID, because I believe God (our creator - you won't hear me say "our designer") wants us to seek out the truth, and that our tendency to put strongly held beliefs before truth is part of what we call "original sin": because we're human, we tend to also hold beliefs that make society limp along but aren't true at all, and effectively prevent us from becoming fully human ("in His image"). To believe that some beliefs should somehow be shielded from critical scrutiny is not only arrogant -- it's also, quite ironically, a lack of faith.

As Taz put it:

QUOTE

Isn't it a whole lot easier to just believe that all things are possible with God, and leave it at that?


It certainly is, but it's not because it's easy that it's right, and in particular, helpful if we want to become truly human. It's proven deceptively for any group of humans to believe that "we" are right and "they" are not, and that "our" personal God wants us to rip their heads off - so much so that Christianity (and a couple of other belief systems) had to step in to point out to us that it's not necessarily true, either. Faith isn't believing the easy thing, and faith is certainly never "leaving things at that": you can't really have faith in something unless you try to know exactly what it is you believe, in other words, resolve cognitive dissonance the hard way.


--------------------
Varno Ettanu Parmantaurëo
--
For incredibly brain-melting hotness, always bet on Number Six -- Maxim, December 2003.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Donnie Darko
post Dec 15 2006, 01:12 PM
Post #8


Alethiometer
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 7959
Joined: 24-September 03
From: NYC
Member No.: 51



QUOTE(bob_chong @ Dec 15 2006, 01:20 AM) *

Likewise, no matter what I say, guys like Donnie and Prol are convinced that my position is "evil" or "social Darwinism" or "unenlightened."
...............................
If I've said anything offensive, I apologize. That was not my intent.


Likewise, whatever I said to make you think I'm convinced your position is "evil", I apologize sincerely for that.
On the contrary, I actually think you have very good intentions, and anybody who doesn't believe in personal freedoms as strongly as you do had better go home and rethink their life. We may disagree on the best way to improve society, but there's no question we both want to improve society. Evil is nihilism, and you are certainly not a nihilist. I don't think you're "unenlightened" either. Unenlightened people don't read books, they read tabloid magazines and believe everything they read on the Internet. "Unenlightened" people saturate both political parties. In spite of the 10-1 anti-Bush ratio here, I'm glad you still speak your mind, and I'd place you, Oxy and Artemis in the top 5% of intelligent posters here. If you guys quit posting I'd probably fall alseep.

OK, now that I got that dick sucking out of my system, I'll address all the other interesting points raised when I have more time...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jaded Prole
post Dec 15 2006, 03:12 PM
Post #9


Absinthe Mafia
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 4205
Joined: 3-May 04
From: Xit City
Member No.: 704



Bob, I'm especially hard to offend and have not been. I think you are wrong, maybe misguided but probably with the best of intentions. I'd still be glad to drink with you.


--------------------
A fine absinthe is the product of knowledge, craftsmanship, and talent. An exceptional absinthe is the product of those things plus obsession. Most absinthe is the product of marketing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Donnie Darko
post Dec 15 2006, 04:14 PM
Post #10


Alethiometer
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 7959
Joined: 24-September 03
From: NYC
Member No.: 51



QUOTE(Provenance @ Dec 14 2006, 09:12 PM) *

I never cease to marvel at well-meaning people who think that if only others heard the lecture, read the book, what have you, everyone's views on religion, politics, other controversial subjects would start to mirror their own.


For what it's worth, I wasn't citing that lecture because I wanted anyone's opinion to mirror my own. That lecture is not a matter of "opinion". It's a matter of empirical data, which is clearly presented. I'm sure it will be completely ignored by anyone who "thinks" evolution is wrong, but I think it's important to put this lecture out there for anybody who is interested in allowing empirical data to influence their understanding of reality. It's merely an attempt at consciousness raising, which is never a useless endeavour. I suspect a lot of people are unaware of a lot of the information in that lecture, and even if they close their ears to it, at least it's good to get that information out there.

The faithful will be faithful no matter what. The problem is that some of the faithful as of late have co-opted science in an attempt to justify their faith, and have been so outspoken, influential and mistkaen, that science must get off its ass and fight back. This lecture is a useful weapon in that fight, especially since it's delivered by a Christian.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Provenance
post Dec 15 2006, 04:46 PM
Post #11


Antipathist of Light
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 4046
Joined: 16-November 06
Member No.: 2442



If I gave the impression that I was dismissing the scientific rebuttal of ID as mere "opinion" then please forgive my clumsy posting. Instead, I was simply pointing out that reason will not crush faith because they are two separate worlds. I don't see crushing faith to be anymore of an idealized endpoint than crushing reason. Again, please understand I'm not suggesting that you seek to crush anyone, I take it that you are simply calling attention to a worthwhile scientific discussion.

Based on my own experience, it is futile to attempt to assess someone's character based on their faith, non-faith, political views, social status or similar ephemeral criteria. The only valid way to judge a human's soul (or non-theistic simile) is through their taste in absinthe.


--------------------
We all used to be things we aren't anymore.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Artemis
post Dec 15 2006, 05:12 PM
Post #12


Master of Oblivion
********

Group: Ragin' Cajun
Posts: 44702
Joined: 30-May 03
From: Pont D'Amour, Louisiana
Member No.: 2



I voted for Bush to keep his opponent out of the White House. I'm not happy with how it turned out, but I'm confident I would have been a lot less happy if the other guy had won.

There are any number of people for whom I would have preferred to vote, but those people were not on the ballot.


--------------------
Il arrive souvent que les personnes couvertes d’esprit enflamme courent en appelant du secours.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Donnie Darko
post Dec 15 2006, 05:22 PM
Post #13


Alethiometer
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 7959
Joined: 24-September 03
From: NYC
Member No.: 51



QUOTE(Provenance @ Dec 15 2006, 12:46 PM) *

Instead, I was simply pointing out that reason will not crush faith because they are two separate worlds.


That in and of itself is another interesting discussion. Faith is essentially belief without physical evidence, and I see no good that can come of exempting it from rational scrutiny. Those Taliban guys sure are faithful, aren't they? Obviously most faithful people are not fundamentalists and are harmless in and of themselves, but the moderate Christian notion that staunch faith is a virtue makes the world safe for fundamentalists who also believe staunch faith is a virtue.

QUOTE
Again, please understand I'm not suggesting that you seek to crush anyone, I take it that you are simply calling attention to a worthwhile scientific discussion.


I fully understand your point, and you are correct about my intentions. I just fail to comprehend the apparently commonly held notion that faith and science are on equal footing. Science is the antithesis of faith, since faith is belief without physical evidence. Each question about our origins answered by empirical evidence closes a gap which faith can no longer fill. ID is a battle to fight that closing of gaps, and to deceive the public about scientific consensus. They lost in Dover but they are still trying it in other states, and science must be more assertive if it is to continue to win these battles.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sixela
post Dec 15 2006, 05:56 PM
Post #14


Anal sage
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 3273
Joined: 24-September 03
From: somewhere closer to Boveresse and Pontarlier than most of you
Member No.: 48



QUOTE(Artemis @ Dec 15 2006, 07:12 PM) *

I voted for Bush to keep his opponent out of the White House. I'm not happy with how it turned out, but I'm confident I would have been a lot less happy if the other guy had won.


That's not faith, that's self-delusion < ducks >.



--------------------
Varno Ettanu Parmantaurëo
--
For incredibly brain-melting hotness, always bet on Number Six -- Maxim, December 2003.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Donnie Darko
post Dec 15 2006, 07:04 PM
Post #15


Alethiometer
*****

Group: Absinthe Mafia
Posts: 7959
Joined: 24-September 03
From: NYC
Member No.: 51



QUOTE(bob_chong @ Dec 15 2006, 01:20 AM) *

There are a lot of mean spirited people in the world. Your words also reflect an attitude that belief in God is some kind of mental deficiency.


I don't think anyone is "stupid" for being a theist, and atheism in no way guarantees wisdom, or even a basic ability to think. I just fail to understand theism in general. In my mind it's just an opinion that should be open for scrutiny just like any other. I do realize that faith is a deeply personal thing, so I just hope that no one is taking personal offence at my attack on faith in general, as I'm not intending to judge anyone personally.

QUOTE

You say that like it's a bad thing. Should we all roll over and play dead whenever our belief system is insulted or we are insulted for believing something?


No one should roll over. If they did, I'd wager their beliefs are weak. However, one choosing an alternate belief system should not be viewed as a call to arms, either. Obviously you do not view others with alternate beliefs as mortal enemies that should be converted or purged, but fundamentalism does. That fundamentalism flourishes because of enormous faith in scripture. People can call Osama Bin Laden crazy all they want, but the man merely carried out what his holy book advocated, just as any Jew who would kill their daughter for promiscuity would merely be carrying out what their holy book advocated.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th July 2018 - 10:17 AM