It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which came first dinosaur or the egg

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


originally posted by: whereislogic
I'm arguing from what we know is possible (using inductive reasoning on established facts). You're arguing from fantasy and wishful opinions about what is supposedly possible.


Did you forget this? I'm still trying to figure out why you consider your opinion fact based and mine fantasy. You never explained it. You just keep going off on these tirade tangents every time I ask you.

You are the one that claimed your conclusions were based on facts via inductive reasoning. I was merely asking you to back that up and you've been weaving and dodging ever since. If what you said in the quote above is true, surely you could have easily explained it by now, but your refusal to do so speaks volumes.

Your arguments are all over the place, I have no clue what your points even are. Here's a hint, stop using parentheses in every single sentence, finish one thought before proceeding to the next. I have not heard you make any inductive conclusion based on facts as of yet. You have only stated your opinion, but won't admit it's opinion.




posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Yes, for some people I might as well be talking a foreign language. But I knew it wasn't my fault when I read the responses I got when asking the simple question on ATS:

Has anyone figured out yet whether or not it's rational to believe that 1+1=2?

Or just bringing up that fact and asking similar questions about it; sometimes related to the synonyms for the words "fact" and "factual", one of which being "absolute", another "certain" or "correct, without error". I've not been able to get a straight honest answer or response, it's possible to keep it really short, simple, logical and reasonable; it's actually the easiest assist to do so, yet apparently still not easy enough when people want to promote the agnostic philosophy of vagueness and their re-definition of the verb "believe" and the word "belief/faith" to what I recognize to be blind faith or blind belief, what they are describing; as parrotted from presentations I've seen from the most popular philosophers such as Dawkins and Hitchens. It would be nice to run into more comments that speak the same language as me; not a comment from someone like EDMC^2 who I would expect it from and hasn't commented for a while. But I'm always looking for the best ones, where are they? Which forum is my best chance? Just thinking out loud here.
edit on 22-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
The more I explain myself (as I've done so far), the more you call it a rant or "going off on these tirade tangents", or cherry-pick things you can more easily twist before responding to your twist; which often has to conform to some argumental pathway or routine you have been taught, one that is commonly seen in presentations from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, the same routine. Or demand of me to use a different format for my commentary while launching one accusation after another (most of them false, or otherwise irrelevant). Why don't you explain first some more details about for example "something very simple" which I asked before? Why should I have to do everything exactly the way you want and demand when you simply ignore or twist it when I satisfy any or any part of your endless demands, only to bring up new complaints and further demands, so if I don't continue satisfying all of them, you get the opportunity of complaining about me dodging a question or something? Now I'm not allowed to use parantheses as much anymore? It's always something. You're way too busy with me personally than with any of the details I've discussed regarding for example eggs in this thread (in response to your claims regarding egg evolution). I think I'll have a look if someone has responded concerning the details of the chromosome #2 fusion myth yet but I'm afraid it'll be more of the same in the other thread.

Ah, the same as before, eerie silence (I wonder what killed this forum anyway). No logical reasonable comments about those details so far, just like when I first linked the video, when I did get lots of replies and back and forth commentary, yet all of it doing the things I described above rather than discuss the facts and details brought up in the video and later in my own words by me...as per yet another request and complaint about something not being good enough for many of the posters here, some of whom take no issue with people posting videos that tickle their ears instead of containing well established facts that would shatter their fantasies if people think it through logically and are willing to be reasonable about them; which usually isn't the case anyway, so little shattering going on. Both the lure and snare of La La Land/Fantasia is strong on ATS, it's difficult to break free from or resist going in deeper. If you don't count the political forums, perhaps "alien" is the most popular word (or at least you can find people discussing aliens in the busiest threads). That subforum alone has the most posts after "Breaking Alternative News".
edit on 22-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

LOL, another rant that didn't answer the question! You keep saying that I'm focusing on you, but that is simply not true. I am focusing on the heart of the argument, which is the logic you are using to suggest design. I have asked you several times to explain your inductive reasoning and instead of answering a very simple question, you keep throwing baseless accusations at me and changing the subject.

If you aren't sure what somebody means by a certain word, just ASK THEM. No need to go off on rants accusing people of vague language and twisting words. You do realize that you are accusing me of focusing on you personally, when your entire last post was directly at me, rather than the argument.


Why don't you explain first some more details about for example "something very simple" which I asked before?


I was listing alternatives to design, because you seem to think design is proven when there are other possibilities. I will be happy to break this down in more detail as soon as you list your inductive premise and conclusion. I'm tired of having a one way conversation. If you can't answer my inquiry I will consider it the equivalent of you conceding the argument.
edit on 8 22 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Well, how's that game working out for ye? I hope you at least gain something from it. Like someone paying you to do this. At least Dawkins and that clique are increasing both the contents of their bankaccounts as well as their social status (how people look up to them, which can be very flattering and ego-stroking).

Here's one of my many previous explanations about how I apply inductive reasoning to a particular subject that you ignore to continue your false accusations that I'm not answering you (and possibly will dismiss because it doesn't fulfill your requirements and format that you added later in true moving the goalpost style):


I don't support the term ID cause it allows people to capitalize on the ambiguity of language much better as they try to obscure the process of designing and creating (processes possible to be observed and tested every day), logical requirements (by induction as well as the meaning and proper honest use of language) when one is observing the functional and "purposeful arrangement of parts" (quoting from the Oxford dictionary regarding the definition for "design", which the proper and honest use of language should remind people requires the process of designing as much as a creation requires the process of creating, otherwise the words are not properly used in a conversation and some dishonesty and self-delusion may be going on and the earlier mentioned propaganda-techniques of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, twisting logic, playing on the emotions, etc.).


I've said more about it in our previous conversation in the thread from EDMC^2 about "creation". But I guess all of that still counts as a refusal to respond in your book cause it isn't tickling your ears (following your preferred format and lay-out). However, the following I've quoted many times as well (not sure if I did in this thread as well, but I did in the other I just mentioned). The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...

Demonstrating that your format is not a requirement to apply inductive reasoning.

Established fact: design = "the purposeful arrangement of parts"
(as a short definition of an established reality/fact)

Conclusion as well as a fact/certainty/reality itself (Newton explained how this works, not gonna quote again hoping at least someone will understand by now how to learn or become aware of facts and know that you're being rational about accepting it as a fact/reality):

Whenever I am observing "the purposeful arrangement of parts" I am observing the fact/reality of a design.

Can anyone live with that format? Doubtful when it's still not tickling your ears. It's really simple. The rest I already said about a design requiring the process of designing. Likewise, the designing process has logical requirements such as a specific type and level of intelligence, knowledge (or level of technological advancement) related to the design in question, for someone or something to be able to execute said process (foresight, purpose, will, a number of other requirements come into play as well that the laws of nature, natural processes or Mother Nature do not have).

Inductive reasoning is sometimes also referred to as common sense (at least I've seen it happen), sticking your head in the sand usually don't make the realities/facts go away. It does make people pretend realities/facts are actually illusions and "just the appearance of design" (quoting Dawkins from his book "The Blind Watchmaker", the worst analogy I've heard of natural processes or Mother Nature):

edit on 22-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: whereislogic
I will be happy to break this down in more detail as soon as you list your inductive premise and conclusion. I'm tired of having a one way conversation. If you can't answer my inquiry I will consider it the equivalent of you conceding the argument.


Quoting myself from earlier before you said the above and because certain patterns are quite predictable and familiar:

..., which sounds no different to me than anyone claiming the existence of a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster but he'll get back to me with the actual evidence for these claims later. Good luck with that.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...


Science uses both types of logic, but primarily DEDUCTIVE reasoning to form conclusions. Inductive is used mostly to come up with new hypotheses that start with broad generalizations of an observation and works its way down to the specific details. Deductive is where you start with a specific piece of evidence and run tests to form a conclusion on what that evidence shows in the big picture. Each has its purpose in science, but running tests and experiments is absolutely deductive reasoning, and proves things. Inductive gives probabilities assuming the premise is factual, which leads me to the next point.

You haven't used any established facts. You stated an opinion about having a "purposeful arrangement of parts". The problem is you can't prove anything was arranged purposefully. Sure, it serves a function, but that alone does not prove that it was intentionally designed.



Established fact: design = "the purposeful arrangement of parts"
(as a short definition of an established reality/fact)

Conclusion as well as a fact/certainty/reality itself (Newton explained how this works, not gonna quote again hoping at least someone will understand by now how to learn or become aware of facts and know that you're being rational about accepting it as a fact/reality):


So your only established "fact" is your shortened definition of the word design? Sorry, but that's not how it works. You need a premise and a conclusion not just a definition of a word and an appeal to authority fallacy. What does the definition of design prove about actual design in the cell? Where is the objective link between the two? Tons of things have an arrangements of parts. Whether it was done on purpose, is the part where your logic falters because you are assuming that is the case. Design requires intention, not just an arrangement of parts with a function.

And before you try to argue that purpose and function are the same:


pur·pose
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee"
synonyms: motive, motivation, grounds, cause, occasion, reason, point, basis, justification
"the purpose of his visit"
- intention, aim, object, objective, goal, end, plan, scheme, target; ambition, aspiration
"their purpose was to subvert the economy"
- advantage, benefit, good, use, value, merit, worth, profit; informalmileage, percentage
"I cannot see any purpose in it"


Purpose, as you are using it, requires intention, just like design. How can you prove this?

Nobody is relying on ambiguity of language here except you. Without equivocation, your entire conclusion falls apart.
edit on 8 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Don't worry, I won't debate the meaning of these words with you.

2 Timothy 2:14:

Keep reminding them of these things, instructing them before God not to fight about words, something of no usefulness at all because it harms* those listening. [* = Or “destroys; overturns.”]

1 Timothy 6:4:

he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions,

The purpose of the entire system of machinery in living organisms is the preservation and continuation of life (similar to the biomolecular machinery that makes and makes up eggs). Within that system, there are individual and specialized machines and codes all with their own purpose that together make up the whole and contribute to the larger purpose for this system of machinery. For example, the purpose of the machine called the "ATP-synthase machine" is to synthasize ATP, the fuel of the cell which other machines run on. This purpose for the ATP-synthase machine has been discovered and established by study and research, it is now considered a well known fact. Nobody asked for proof of the motivation or intention (of a designer; which you didn't spell out but implied) before including it in biology curriculums. But I guess because someone can have an opinion about these facts, that devalues the reliability of these facts? Cause you keep on bringing up opinions as if that's somehow going to change the fact that a design is the purposeful arrangement of parts (and you could say more about it than just that), and the fact that the ATP-synthase has a purpose that has already been discovered and well established, for which it has the appropiate functional arrangement of parts for that specific purpose, i.e. a purposeful arrangement of parts for the purpose of ATP synthasis (ATP production from ADP).

Notice how the word "purpose" is used in the questions on the webpage below (why don't they have to jump through your hoops when daring to use that word? If there's no factual/certain/conclusive answer to these questions, why ask them of your students as if they should learn these facts rather than just opinions?):
Cellular Energetics at University of Virginia - StudyBlue:
Notice the phrase "intended function" (you already indicated that "intended" is a synonym for "purposeful") at 1:55 in the video below, from another educational institution teaching cell biology (no problem when they use it right? But oh boy if I start quoting the Oxford dictionary on the word "design", then there are things I must prove first and it's just going to be an opinion anyway; the purpose or "intended function" for biomolecular machinery in general or ATP-synthase specifically has already been proven beyond any doubt for me by those working in this field of science, for them as well):

edit on 24-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: ssenerawa

Like I mentioned, the egg most likely started as something very simple, like a thin layer around the fetus that was beneficial because it protected it from harm.


repeating myself:

It would also be helpful to get some details and specifics of "something very simple" to evaluate. Something like it's pink, looks like a horse, 1 horn. That would already be more information to evaluate whether the story might be true. It still wouldn't be logical or reasonable evidence for the existence of this "something very simple" though, but it would help in a search for evidence.
...
Why don't you explain first some more details about for example "something very simple" which I asked before?

I think I elaborated enough on the way I think about these subjects, how about you doing me the same courtesy? What is your justification or rationalization for positing "something very simple" as the "most likely" scenario/storyline other than your desire to believe, promote and express an evolutionary storyline (and make that sound more plausible to a biased or indoctrinated hearer, otherwise it doesn't fit as well in the story)?

How about we start with a name for this mythological organism that has a fetus with a thin layer around it that somehow makes you think of eggs (or evolutionary precursors to eggs). Oh, if you feel like it (probably not), I would also be interested in your rationalization of using the word "simple" and the word "fetus" in that one sentence the way you did. Unicellular yeast cells have been around for a long time, they have less parts or components than a fetus, or any thin layer of complete and specialized interconnecting cells around it (also note that the ATP-Synthase machine is just 1 of many types of machines that are present in all living cells, including yeast cells or cells in a supposed "thin layer", it itself in my opinion isn't even simple let alone "very simple"; do you have any logical reasons for me to consider that might sway that opinion?). Every dot in the video from where you can see a line is a machine that is interdependent on machines to where the lines are going regarding it's intended function or purpose of the preservation and continuation of life in the larger system of machinery (that means the other machines also have to exist for it to function properly for this purpose):

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? - Origin of Life
The video below gives me some useful clues as to why you are positing "something very simple" in your "most likely" storyline at 9:17, perhaps it can do the same for others. It is about the supposed evolution of the eye but the marketing techniques used are the same, no need to watch beyond 13 minutes or so, the rest of the video is a bit crappy anyway:

edit on 24-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Your comment about egg evolution also reminds me of what David Berlinski said in the first 32 seconds of this video, as before, the rest can be crappy or have a crappy effect on someone's mind (the way some things are phrased regarding the word "science", "hypotheses" and "we don't know" or "nobody knows", don't want to get into more details again, cause I'm only sharing for the first 32 seconds anyway). I would replace "Darwinian theory" with "evolutionary philosophies" (or myths, such as your story about "something very simple"; once upon a time there was most likely "something very simple"; how dare someone say anything about the agnostic philosophy of vagueness):

edit on 24-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Your argument relies on the equivocation fallacy, when you suggest purpose requires intention, but then using it in your argument to show function rather than intention. The 2 concepts are not directly connected. You accuse me of ambiguity, yet I have been extremely specific and precise. You are muddying the waters by using 2 definitions of the same word as equal in your argument when they are clearly not.

Also, your blind denial of evolution does not make it wrong. Fossils have been found that clearly show the earliest organisms were much more simple than the majority of today's. It's not that hard of a concept, but if you are going to ignore science, then yeah, there is no possible way to reason with you.

Please stop posting the same you tube videos over and over. They don't prove anything and aren't getting us anywhere. None of them prove intentional design. Please focus on the conversation, which is the 3 points that I outline in the post directly below this one.

I have fossils to back my opinion that life started much more simple than it is today. You have nothing to back design except your personal belief that the functionality is intentional. Yet according to you, I'm the one that bases his opinion on fantasy and you have based it on inductive logic of facts.


edit on 8 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

This should make it more simple for you and help you understand where the logic falters in 3 simple points.

1. You are arguing that cells were intentionally designed.

2. Your only substantiation for this point is that scientists observe functionality in cells.

3. There is no objective verifiable link between observing functionality and intentional design (parts being arranged purposefully).

It's that simple.

You still haven't listed your conclusion or premise based on establish facts. You listed a made up definition of design that can't be found anywhere and equated 2 different meanings of the word purpose.

My guess is that you will ignore my points above and go off on another tirade about me being critical about word meanings. Sorry, bud, but in the English language words have multiple meanings and they aren't always equal. You need to demonstrate intention rather than function and use the proper terminology or you don't have an argument.


edit on 8 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
2 Timothy 2:14:

Keep reminding them of these things, instructing them before God not to fight about words, something of no usefulness at all because it harms* those listening. [* = Or “destroys; overturns.”]

1 Timothy 6:4:

he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions,


Who is arguing based on fantasy and wishful thinking again? Using the English language properly is kind of important if you are trying to make a point. Back when those verses were written, language was much more simplistic. You didn't have as many words. There wasn't a huge variety with language as there is today. Understanding words is extremely important and it's laughable that you'd try to dismiss that with a translated primitive bible verse. Now it makes sense why you hate talking about word meanings or using words properly.

Unfortunately, it does matter in reality, when you are attempting to prove something, logically. Again, if you are merely offering your opinion, I have no problem with that.
edit on 8 25 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for the reply, btw what's your opinion regarding the op I never saw it



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Thanks for replying Also I didn't see yours, I'd like to know what you guys are debating
edit on 28-8-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

Thanks for replying Also I didn't see yours, I'd like to know what you guys are debating


I dropped my 2 cents on the OP a while back, it has probably been lost amid the arguing.

I believe "whereislogic" is trying to defend the view that cell complexity (the inner workings of DNA) is enough to prove that DNA was designed intentionally. I'm still not 100% sure on this because he refuses to lay out his premise and conclusion for what he refers to as "deductive logic based on fact" and makes it very difficult to understand. I have a feeling he won't be back.


edit on 8 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Many people don’t realize it, but Darwin did not solve, or even attempt to solve, the question of the origin of the first life. He was trying to explain how you got new forms of life from simpler forms. In the 19th century, this was a question very few scientists addressed.

The standard theory in the 20th century was proposed by a Russian scientist named Alexander Oparin who envisioned a complex series of chemical reactions that gradually increased the complexity of the chemistry involved, eventually producing life as we know it. That was the standard theory, but it started to unravel in 1953 with the discovery of the structure of DNA and its information-bearing properties, and with everything we were learning about proteins “information processing centers” in the cell, the way the proteins were processing the information on the DNA. Oparin tried to adjust his theory to account for these new discoveries, but by the mid-60s it was pretty much a lost cause.

Ever since, people have been trying to come up with something to replace it, and there really has been nothing that has been satisfactory. The theories have a common problem: They can’t explain the origin of the information in DNA and RNA. There are other problems as well



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

We now know that what runs the show in biology is what we call digital information or digital code. This was first discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. In 1957, Crick had an insight which he called The Sequence Hypothesis, and it was the idea that along the spine of the DNA molecule there were four chemicals that functioned just like alphabetic characters in a written language or digital characters in a machine code.

The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery, because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper. If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process.

So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points decisively back to a prior intelligence.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
The DNA molecule is literally encoding information into alphabetic or digital form. And that’s a hugely significant discovery, because what we know from experience is that information always comes from an intelligence, whether we’re talking about hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or a headline in a newspaper. If we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process.

So the discovery that DNA codes information in a digital form points decisively back to a prior intelligence.


No, it actually does not point decisively to a prior intelligence, otherwise there would be scientific studies that conclude this via testable predictions. Unfortunately there are none possible for a DNA designer, and the origin of life has never been observed, so there is nothing to even compare it to. You also cannot rule out DNA evolving from a much simpler ancient RNA molecule and increasing in complexity over the past 4 billion years while life as a whole did the same thing. Think of how exponentially more complex a human is, than the first single celled organism. Now apply that logic to RNA/DNA.

The fact that known codes and software come from humans is irrelevant. Humans did not create DNA, and a higher "mind" or intelligence has never been observed or demonstrated in any way. There are possibilities, many of which have been shown via experiment in the lab (ie DNA self assembly, a few aiobgenesis experiments, amino acid creation, etc).

Asking about the origin of information is a bit silly because human brains have also evolved slowly over time, increasing in cranial capacity over the past 3+ million years. The origin of information started with the first brain to evolve in an organism, which started as a simpler neural network.

Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with folks having that opinion, but to suggest it is a scientific fact or that there is no other way to explain the complexity of the cell, is flat out illogical, there are numerous possibilities. There is no direct objective verifiable link between the code in DNA and a creator. I'm not saying the idea is wrong, just that it's not the only possibility.
edit on 8 30 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

No, it actually does not point decisively to a prior intelligence


Code indicates a coder. Machines indicate a machinist. Blueprints indicate an architect. Systems indicate an engineer.

You really have to dig your head in the sand to not get the hint.



Asking about the origin of information is a bit silly because human brains have also evolved slowly over time, increasing in cranial capacity over the past 3+ million years. The origin of information started with the first brain to evolve in an organism, which started as a simpler neural network.


The logistics of evolving neural systems through the proposed mechanisms of the theory are a logical impossibility.

1) How could a DNA mutation lead to an increase in neural tissue involving neurons and their required support cells?
2) How could this same mutation also orchestrate the organization of these hypothetical new neurons and support cells during embryonic development?
3) How, also, could this same mutation increase cranial capacity to allow for the increase in brain size?

With one of the above missing, the mutation is lethal at worst and erroneous at best. There is absolutely no observations that would support the possibility of such a magnificent morphological change from a single DNA mutation. There are around 100 billion neurons in the brain and around 1 trillion glial cells in the brain all working in an intricate and interdependent manner which is adaptable and self-healing and can perpetuate without failing for over 100 years - how the hell could this evolve, according to your perverse theory? Wake up. You are not defending science, you are defending an out-dated material reductionist logical fallacy and misleading others down the same path of ignorance.
edit on 30-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join