Creation versus evolution

order now!

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby ARJ127 » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:50 pm

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:
Only because evolutionists are deathly afraid to put their pet theory to the test or to seriously consider a testing regimen for ID.

The problem is that the school board did a very poor job of arguning their case. They allowed evolution proponents to frame the issue, namely that ID = Creationism. Given the current climate of growing religious intolerance from the Left, the judge gave in to pressure and took the coward's way out.

But the real issue is how afraid of competition evolutionists are. A school district in Gerogia wanted to place a sticker in biology books that read something like 'Evolution is a theory but it is not the only theory.' and that 'students are to be encouraged to explore alternative possibilities.' It did not mention creationism or intelligent design, yet the ACLU went berzerk at the blatantly unconstitutional notion of encouraging students to expand their knowledge. We can have students questioning whether the United States is the greatest civilization mankind has every produces or whether it is a racist, bigoted society built on slave labor and capitalist oppression....but we can;t have anyone questioning whether man is simply a well-dressed ape.

There was a time when scientists expanded their knowledge by putting their beliefs (and I'm referring here to scientific beliefs though other types would be equally true) to rigorous testing. They did not fear that the testing would prove them wrong, and they felt that, even if proen wrong, the expansion of knowledge was more than enough recompense for failure.

I guess those times are long past.


WOMI - you have repeatedly said that scientists have refused to critically examine natural selection. You are quite wrong. In fact scientists have repeatedly examined natural selection and have confirmed its major findings. As for ID, how can you possibly create a meaningful test for something that relies on the supernatural? In short, you can't. That means the ID version isn't verifiable while natural selection which is based on the observation of natural science is subject to verification.

Your statistical argument is meaningless. For example, your chances of wining the Powerball lottery are infinitesimally small as are every other individual's chances of winning. However, regularly some individual somewhere wins the jackpot. The same applies to natural selection. Why don't you go back and read the Q&As given in the link I provided in my previous post?

The with regard to whether ID was creationism repackaged to appease the judges, I suggest that you take a very careful look at the evidence presented in the case. The plaintiffs found that the board had used some creationist material and had changed creation to ID. Trouble is, they slipped a couple of times and were caught doing it. Every argument the board attempted to make was effectively countered by the plaintiffs. The board's case was disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. I doubt that you are approaching this with an open mind so I won't waste any more time writing to you about this. Believe what you will, but the science is not on your side.
ARJ127
Media pundit
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Creation versus evolution

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:22 pm

WOMI - you have repeatedly said that scientists have refused to critically examine natural selection. You are quite wrong. In fact scientists have repeatedly examined natural selection and have confirmed its major findings. As for ID, how can you possibly create a meaningful test for something that relies on the supernatural? In short, you can't. That means the ID version isn't verifiable while natural selection which is based on the observation of natural science is subject to verification.


Are you familiar with the test that Darwin proposed for his own theory?

"If it can be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

OK...so how about this:

'If it can be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been foremd by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.'

Why is it that Darwinists put stock in the first 'test' but not the second one?

Your statistical argument is meaningless. For example, your chances of wining the Powerball lottery are infinitesimally small as are every other individual's chances of winning. However, regularly some individual somewhere wins the jackpot. The same applies to natural selection. Why don't you go back and read the Q&As given in the link I provided in my previous post?


Read Darwin's test statement again and tell me why statistical probability is irrelevant. After all, he is arguing the exact same thing I am.

The with regard to whether ID was creationism repackaged to appease the judges, I suggest that you take a very careful look at the evidence presented in the case. The plaintiffs found that the board had used some creationist material and had changed creation to ID. Trouble is, they slipped a couple of times and were caught doing it. Every argument the board attempted to make was effectively countered by the plaintiffs. The board's case was disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. I doubt that you are approaching this with an open mind so I won't waste any more time writing to you about this. Believe what you will, but the science is not on your side.


Neither is science on yours.

Is there a single instance wherein a life form has been proven to develop into another life form? Nope.

Evolution has been fraught with fraud.

The Piltdown Man.

The great spotted moth experiment.

Darwin's Galapagos finches.

Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

Those and many, many more are all FRAUDS.

There has never been a single case in which one life form has been shown to evolve into another life form. Not even the most rudimentary form of life- bacteria- have evern been shown to evolve into anything else, this despite there being literally billions of generations of bacteria being created since Darwin's theory. The most you can offer in support is that some bacteria have developed immunities or resistances to some drugs....but they remain nothing more than bacteria, albeit drug-resistant ones. So much for evolution.

What of the fossil record? Well, Darwinists tell us that the record, while incomplete, is still unequivocal. When challenged to cite this proof, we are told that, 'gee, we'd love to who you the record but, you see, all the life forms which would establish the tree between protozoa and humans just happened to be soft-bodies and, gosh, soft-bodied organisms don't leave fossil evidence. But trust us! They existed'. Rubbish.

So what's the real goal of Darwinists? Simple answer- the further breakdown of traditional society. Now I don't say that that was Darwin's goal; I say that many who siezed upon Darin's theory have that as their goal because if they can exclude any possibility of God, then they can anoint themselves as the arbeiters of all that is good or evil, right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral. If you remove God from the calculus, then things like embryo-destructive researc, cloning, mandatory euthanasia and the like become more palatable because, after all, we're just the product of totally random chance- nothing special at all.

So yes, I question your grasp of science and your motivation.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby ARJ127 » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:37 am

WOMI

Don't try to parse Darwin with me. What part of the statement "Intelligent design is not science" do you not understand? The hypothesis of "irreducible complexity" was disproved in court. You just can't seem to get the concept that ID is religion in disguise. Judge John Jones' findings are reproduced here for you and everyone else to see:

After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.


You seem to have a real problem with accepting facts in place of faith.
ARJ127
Media pundit
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby MrSinatra » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:57 pm

and the judge is qualified to say all that b/c his science degree is from where?

to his point 1:

ID does not claim the cause must be supernatural. the same people who have a problem with "god" being the cause have no problem with aliens being the cause.

is it not possible aliens designed and seeded life here?

to his point 2:

that is near ad hominem attack. i do not claim to be expert enough to prove it one way or the other, but i do not see where science proved irreducible complexity is false. i also do not think it is proven true. but to me, the book is still open on that issue.

to his point 3:

how many times has the scientific community REJECTED something we later determined to be true? i grant you that peer review is indeed necessary, but in such a hostile environment is it even possible?

i'm NOT saying ID is true. i don't know if i buy the irreducible complexity argument, that the math stats try to make, (just like the so called bible code), but to me that isn't the point...

i am against ANYONE or ANYTHING that tries to silence scientific inquiry for any reason that isn't based on the merit of the argument itself.

so what that means is i am FOR someone attacking the logic of the ID mechanics, like say the math parts and what they are supposed to mean, but i am AGAINST attacking the SUPPOSED MOTIVES of the theory or hypothesis.

attacking the perceived MOTIVES, rightly or wrongly, is hardly scientific.
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:00 pm

WOMI

Don't try to parse Darwin with me. What part of the statement "Intelligent design is not science" do you not understand? The hypothesis of "irreducible complexity" was disproved in court. You just can't seem to get the concept that ID is religion in disguise. Judge John Jones' findings are reproduced here for you and everyone else to see:


So just answer the very simple question I posed rather than ducking it.

If Darwin can use a statistical argument to support evolution, why can I not use a statistical argument against evolution?

Or do you just not like having to actually defend evolution?

As for courts and their decisions, need I remind you that courts are far from infallible- or did you think Dred Scott properly decided?

If you're going to defend evolution, defend it rather than attack those who disagree with you.

Assuming that you can of course.....
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby ARJ127 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:31 am

WOMI

I don't think that you could understand statistics or any other subject. It's obvious that you don't understand simple statements like "ID is not science". By questioning the judge's credentials to make that finding, you should have some post-secondary scientific education of your own. That is as unlikely as my chance of winning the Powerball lottery.

I'm not going to waste any more time debating with an idiot like you. :roll:
ARJ127
Media pundit
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby MrSinatra » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:04 pm

1. we don't allow personal attacks here.

2. way to concede your argument. :roll:

my kingdom for a civil liberal!
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby Topher » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:04 am

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:Mathematical tests have already been run that show the statistical probability of evolution leading from single-cell organisms to human beings (the most 'evolved' life of which we are currently aware) is so close to zero as to be mathematically impossible. Now I admit that this is circumstantial 'proof, but it is enough that it should call into serious question whether evolution, as currently described and understood, is the correct answer to how we're here.


I don't think you'll find any evolutionary biologist that will argue that the statistical probability for evolution from single-cell organisms to human beings is very statistically remote, as, to the best of our knowledge, it only happened once. But it does bring to mind the Sherlock Holmes question, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:
Besides, if ID supporters can come up with experiments, I'm quite certain they can come up with funding to perform them. If the experiments and results meet the standards of academic journals, they'll be able to get published.


Funny but I say the exact same thing about embryonic stem celll research.


The difference being, obviously, that embryonic stem cell researchers have raised funds for experiments and have had results published in academic journals.

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:
Indirectly, ID is tested regularly, as any experiment that shows a way that something could have happened without an intelligent designer weakens the case for ID. However, like I've said before, just because a designer isn't necessary doesn't mean there isn't one, so the existence of a designer will never be disproved.


Actually, it is evolution that, whenever it is put to serious and rigorous scientific testing, is found to be less than adequate theory.

Whenever the statistical numbers are run, the chances that humans are the result of a series of random mutations is so infinitely small as to be statistically impossible. No, the result is not zero....but it is approximately the same chance as that of a Giant Raccoon passing gas that spontaneously created all life as we know it.


Statistical analysis <> Experimental results

Recent research appears to indicate that the rate of beneficial mutations in bacteria is faster than previously thought. If this is later shown to be true for higher animals (unfortunately, this research will take much longer, due to longer life cycles), then the probability of intelligent life evolving from bacteria will be substantially improved, as the likelihood of each mutation in the chain will be improved. Will it still be terribly remote? Absolutely. But will it become more plausible? I guess that depends on your position. ;)

Topher
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:18 pm

ARJ127 wrote:WOMI

I don't think that you could understand statistics or any other subject. It's obvious that you don't understand simple statements like "ID is not science". By questioning the judge's credentials to make that finding, you should have some post-secondary scientific education of your own. That is as unlikely as my chance of winning the Powerball lottery.

I'm not going to waste any more time debating with an idiot like you. :roll:


Thank you for proving that Liberals ae intellectual cowards.

Obviously, your understanding of science extends no further than that with which you agree. It's a shame, really, that your comprehension shows no greater depth....but then that seems to be rather symptomatic of the Liberals with which we are forced to deal. I keep hoping that we'll be blessed with a Liberal who is actually capable of making a cogent, rational argument...but you are merely the latest disappointment.

And your assumptions are no more factually correct that your other assertions. I do happen to have some "post-secondary" education in science, though none is necessary to refute the likes of you. Come back after you've added something more forceful than "I know you are!" to your arsenal. You may be assured that I will be waiting.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:32 pm

Topher:

I don't think you'll find any evolutionary biologist that will argue that the statistical probability for evolution from single-cell organisms to human beings is very statistically remote, as, to the best of our knowledge, it only happened once. But it does bring to mind the Sherlock Holmes question, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”


It's a good thing AJ agrees with your postion. If he subjected me to a 'withering intellectual attack' (a.k.a."childish temper tantrum") for quoting Darwin to refute Darwin, imagine what he'd do to you for quoting Doyle to prove Darwin....

My issue is what it alwaus have been: I've read or heard nothing that convinces me that God and Darwin are mutually exclusive. That argument, turned 'round, eminates from the Darwinist side, not the religious side. I have no doubt that, if God desires that Man evolve from an amoeba, He can make it happen and leave as much or as little evidence of the process as He wishes.

The problem I have is with the militant atheists who want to say that the theory of evolution, even to the extent that we understand it as of right this moment, conclusively proves that God does not exist. They've not even made the case that evolution is proven and they want to take the next step (again, that exactly describes the global warming movement as well and, as I've said before, for the exact same reason). But rather than attempt to prove evolution, most of these militant atheist scientists spend all of their time trying to avoid having to even recognize that alternative theories (such as ID) exist, much less attempting to explain why they are right and ID adherent as wrong).

The difference being, obviously, that embryonic stem cell researchers have raised funds for experiments and have had results published in academic journals.


And have precious little positive- and much negative- to show for their efforts.

Which is why they are now so happy that they are being given Federal taxpayer funds to carry out their 'research'- because they are not expected to actually produce tangible results. When it was private money being raised and spent, the onus was on the scientists to actually produce something of worth or promise. This particular academic kaffee klatch doesn;t operate well under such pressure. What was the line in Ghostbusters? "You haven't worked in the private sector; I have. They expect you to actually >DO< something."

Hey...if you can quote Holmes to make your case, I think I can quote Dan Akroyd.

Statistical analysis <> Experimental results

Recent research appears to indicate that the rate of beneficial mutations in bacteria is faster than previously thought. If this is later shown to be true for higher animals (unfortunately, this research will take much longer, due to longer life cycles), then the probability of intelligent life evolving from bacteria will be substantially improved, as the likelihood of each mutation in the chain will be improved. Will it still be terribly remote? Absolutely. But will it become more plausible? I guess that depends on your position.


All we're asking is that a bactieria evolve into a higher life form than a bacteria. How many generations of bacteria should that take? And how many generations have passed since scientists began testing for this? Billions? Trillions? And still nothing to show for it? That makes for a pretty bad report card.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby Topher » Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:49 pm

I think we're in agreement on evolution not disproving the existence of God; I think the main difference between us is whether or not we believe God is necessary.

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:All we're asking is that a bactieria evolve into a higher life form than a bacteria. How many generations of bacteria should that take? And how many generations have passed since scientists began testing for this? Billions? Trillions? And still nothing to show for it? That makes for a pretty bad report card.


The main long-range experiment on this (at least the best known), is the Lenski experiment that started in 1988. Recently they passed the 40,000 generation mark--about 800,000 years in human terms. I don't know how many generations it should take (or how many years it did take--my limited Googling time suggests it may have taken as long as two billion years originally), but my guess is that without some mechanism for increasing the mutation rate and assuming the time required for the formation of a new order would be roughly equivalent to the development of primates (65 million years), we should be looking at around 3,000,000 generations, which unfortunately would take 1500 years at the current rate of the experiment.

So, in effect, it seems like you're looking to grade the results based on the first ten minutes of the semester.

Topher
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby genealady99 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:55 pm

Just a thoughts, take them or leave them. This is all at the top of my head, spur of the moment type post. Forgive my disjointedness.

I see this debate was Creation vs. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Within the branch of creationism there are Young Earthers vs. Old Earthers. Within the sphere of Old Earthers there Gap Theory and each day of creation was 1,000 years, etc- basically trying to stretch out the age of the earth. Young Earthers believe what we see today is the result of the Flood. I interpret Intelligent Design as reconciling bits and pieces of Creation and Evolution.

I frame the debate like this when an archeologist discover a fossil, all they really know is that this creature died. They don't know if it had any children, if it had any different children, etc. Creationists have their theory on the fossil, IDer's have their theory on the creature, and evolutionists have their theory. Thing is we're arguing over a set facts (that we're here) and each of us have interpretations on how we got here. Some of us believe God, some of us believe Big Bang, some of us believe a combination, and some of us believe Aliens.

I should dig up my biology notes. I actually tallied how many times the professor said "we think," "we suppose," etc in his lecture on Evolution.
genealady99
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby straight » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:25 pm

shame on you bernie for calling christians ignorant on oreilly for believing in creation as the Bible teaches it. george washington was ignorant, the writers of the declaration of independence were ignorant ,mother teresa was ignorant shame on you bernie i am offended by your comments. i agree teach both sides and let the children decide for themselves or teach neither side. i would much rather have someone who forms public policy to have a christian based morality than someone who has no value system or regard for human life. a faith whose highest standards are those based upon love for their neighbor is not a bad place to govern from. because you have not done your homework mr goldberg on the creation model versus random selection you mr goldberg are the ignorant one
straight
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:04 pm

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby Topher » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:54 am

straight wrote:shame on you bernie for calling christians ignorant on oreilly for believing in creation as the Bible teaches it. george washington was ignorant, the writers of the declaration of independence were ignorant ,mother teresa was ignorant shame on you bernie i am offended by your comments. i agree teach both sides and let the children decide for themselves or teach neither side. i would much rather have someone who forms public policy to have a christian based morality than someone who has no value system or regard for human life. a faith whose highest standards are those based upon love for their neighbor is not a bad place to govern from. because you have not done your homework mr goldberg on the creation model versus random selection you mr goldberg are the ignorant one


It isn't only ignorance--it's willful ignorance. Evolution is a fact, while creationism/intelligent design is based upon cherry picking the data that agrees with a book written three thousand years ago by people with Bronze Age technology. Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, was a Deist who edited his Bible to remove all the miracles because he didn't believe in them. Whether George Washington was Christian or Deist has been debated for over two hundred years. Christopher Hitchens has done a better job dismembering the legacy of Mother Teresa than I can do in a few sentences here.

Contrary to your beliefs, atheists and agnostics can have value systems and most, if not all, place a very high value on human life. I'd argue that I, as an atheist, place a higher value on human life than those who believe in an afterlife since I believe that after death there is nothing, so preserving human life is far more important to me than it is to you. Christianity's highest standard isn't "love your neighbor"--it's "accept Jesus as your savior or spend eternity in Hell." We are fortunate that many Christians (I'd say most, but I've known too many truly evil Christians) are interested in helping their neighbors and strangers, but I assure you that most of the atheists I know are as generous with their time and resources. (Unfortunately, statistics on charitable giving don't corroborate this, but I suspect much of this is due to Christians counting all of the money they give to their churches as charitable contributions, while I would argue that money given to a church that is spent on employees and facilities instead of for helping the needy really isn't charity.)

Mr. Goldberg has done his homework. You obviously haven't, because if you did you would understand that evolution is not "random selection." Evolution is (mostly) random mutation combined with non-random natural selection (a.k.a. "Survival of the fittest"). I'd recommend you read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne so that you can understand why your current views are so very, very wrong.

Topher
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Re: Creation versus evolution

Unread postby Phinehas » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:02 pm

I'd argue that I, as an atheist, place a higher value on human life than those who believe in an afterlife since I believe that after death there is nothing, so preserving human life is far more important to me than it is to you.


Why? A theist can say that they place a higher value on human life than those that don't believe in an afterlife since a typical human lifespan is rather short compared to eternity. So, in other words, what happens to you here on earth isn't much of a big deal if you cease to exist after a hundred years...but if you don't cease to exist, then there is more concern about you otherwise.

but I assure you that most of the atheists I know are as generous with their time and resources. (Unfortunately, statistics on charitable giving don't corroborate this, but I suspect much of this is due to Christians counting all of the money they give to their churches as charitable contributions, while I would argue that money given to a church that is spent on employees and facilities instead of for helping the needy really isn't charity.)


Non-religious charity organizations have buildings, expenses and staff as well. As far as taking your word for the generosity of most atheists, like you said, the statistics don't show that to be the case. Anecdotally, one can always look at the actions of groups of people after tragedies, such as weather catastrophes. I have yet to see some atheist group make the news in their help...maybe the media is just suppressing that.
Sector 8023 is stuck on Ground Hog day.
"I will wait for the truth to find me but I will never leave it to you." - Versant
Phinehas
Media observer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron