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.

 

Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

These are POLYMERIZATIONS from MONOMERS forming HYDROGEN bonds in WATER.




Why don't you go into your world-class laboratory and try it. It just might work!


edit on 24-1-2021 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




A hydrogen fuel cell and a mitochondrion have the same reaction equation to create energy. It uses a split membrane of H2 and O2 to create water and energy. Our mitochondria are like hydrogen fuel cells. Neither of them can come to be by random chance. They are intricately precise machines.


We will mark this day in history as a day when you got something right. The difference is the catalysts. Hydrogen fuel cells use platinum or cobalt with a quinone to clean up the mess.

The "random chance" thing is bs. There are all kinds of structure which self assemble into energy producing products. You wouldn't be alive if self assembly wasn't a fact.




posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

These are POLYMERIZATIONS from MONOMERS forming HYDROGEN bonds in WATER.




Why don't you go into your world-class laboratory and try it. It just might work!



Been done in plenty of labs but i guess if you deny science you wouldnt now that would you?


science.sciencemag.org...

Here this is fun here is a lab that will do it for you you can order what you want.

www.creative-proteomics.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

There are dozens of articles which include monomeric nucleotide and amino acid polymerization reactions in water. It's no mystery. And it's common sense. Up to 60% of the human body is composed of water. The planet is 68% water. Water is the substrate for most organic reactions. Cooperton's knowledge of biochemistry is minus zero (irrational number).

I posted about a half dozen articles some time ago. Totally ignored. It's the willful ignorance of a crackpot cultist.

P.S. He's never been in a lab. Has absolutely no idea how chemistry works.


edit on 24-1-2021 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

These are POLYMERIZATIONS from MONOMERS forming HYDROGEN bonds in WATER.


Lol. This is not dehydration synthesis (nucleotide polymerization), it is a hydrogen bond. Hydrogen bonds do not create the primary structure chain sequence, they only hold two pairs of helices together.

Again, you're looking for primary structure nucleotide polymerization. It is where a nucleotide through dehydration synthesis bonds to another nucleotide.


Your life could be a lot easier and honest if you could admit when youre wrong. Nucleotide chains do no self-polymerize. Since they cannot do this, there could not have been the creation of RNA or DNA sequences by random chance.


originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr


I posted about a half dozen articles some time ago. Totally ignored.


No I read every one of them. None of them had an instance of nucleotides self-polymerizing. Each time you present an irrelevant article it is exposing your ignorance.



originally posted by: dragonridr

Been done in plenty of labs but i guess if you deny science you wouldnt now that would you?


science.sciencemag.org...


Nowhere in this article do nucleotides or amino acids self-polymerize. You guys have to understand... if someone discovered that nucleotides or amino acids could self-polymerize they would probably get the nobel prize. You're not gonna find a hidden gem in some science blog. Nucleotide self-polymerization does not happen, and thats why abiogenesis is impossible.


edit on 24-1-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Once again you dont know what your talking about. Seems like you would be tired of being wrong.


Here i will help you start reading this paper.


pubs.acs.org...

Heres self assembly using hydrogen which was in in earths early atmoshphere.

pubs.rsc.org...#!divAbstract

This is fun explains how meteors contain just what we need namely amino acids.

www.space.com...

Heres another paper on something you say is well impossible

www.nature.com...

See we know it can occur at this point the problem is we dont know if it is the way it occured because in science it isnt enough to say it could have happened. This may work for your evidence but as far as science the fact it may have occurred a certain way isnt enough.

So give up on the impossible thing its not and i will help you here ok. How do we know this occurred well we dont. How do we know god created life again we dont. Unless of course you have some proof that he did. unfortunatly it seems like your ony proof involves trying to show science doesnt have the answer. Just because science doesnt know something doesnt mean god did it.



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Once again you dont know what your talking about.


Once again, you don't know what you're* talking about.





pubs.acs.org...


Not close. They use polymerase as the catalyst. Remember, polymerase proteins would not be present because amino acids cannot self-polymerize. If you wish to prove your point you have to find an article where amino acids polymerize without a catalyst.



Heres self assembly using hydrogen which was in in earths early atmoshphere.


Hydrogen bonds require nitrogen, oxygen, or fluoride in order to be classified as a hydrogen bond. Ironically, gaseous hydrogen does not hydrogen bond, which shows you don't know what you're talking about. Hydrogen bonds occur due to the dipole differences caused by highly electronegative elements like N, O, and F being covalently bonded to H. H2 gas therefore doesn't classify under the category of hydrogen bonding.

A polymerization bond of nucleotide or amino acid monomers is called dehydration synthesis, not a hydrogen bond. Water is one of the products of this reaction, which according to kinetic laws makes the rate of reaction highly unfavorable in water. That's why water will decompose proteins if they are not protected properly.

The reason this must be the case is because living organisms cannot have random amino acids bonding to their proteins, because if they did it would ruin its structure and function. Therefore, proteins decay in water, they do not polymerize. You and phantom should stop wasting your time trying to find an article that proves otherwise.

This is why I said earlier... if there was proof that amino acids and nucleotides could self-polymerize their dehydration synthesis bonds in water, it would be huge news and they'd likely receive a nobel prize if it were repeatable in a lab. Without the proof of this possibility, abiogenesis theory is total garbage. This is because You need something Intelligent to code the human genetic code.


This is fun explains how meteors contain just what we need namely amino acids.

www.space.com...


It seems much much more likely that these meteors were deposited with amino acids after colliding with life on earth. Considering that the melting point of amino acids is about 200-300 degrees celsius, the meteor would not have maintained any organic material after passing through the atmosphere because it would have melted off. This shows that it was deposited with amino acids after making impact with the earth. You have to look for answers on your own and don't blindly believe sci-fi blogs as dogma



Just because science doesnt know something doesnt mean god did it.


Intelligent life is more likely to have come from an Intelligent source rather than unintelligent random chance. Especially given there are signs of intelligible design from the micro to macro levels, it is far, far more likely that all we see is sourced in something Intelligent rather than random chance.
edit on 24-1-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Cooperton and Neoholographic, can I ask you, is the Earth a sphere or is it flat? Genuine question to you both.

I know that Neo believes that we were seeded by aliens, and Coop does not, but I'm wondering if there is consensus elsewhere?



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I noticed you ignored this im done arguing with you your a dishonest troll!!!


www.nature.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Cooperton and Neoholographic, can I ask you, is the Earth a sphere or is it flat? Genuine question to you both.


I think by necessity for our theories to work, it must have some sort of quantum nature. I would think its a sort of 4D hypersphere. The reason I think so is because I have seen evidence that there is flatness to it (i.e. the pictures where you can see landscapes, cities, and mountains that should be too far to be visible if it were a physical curve), yet it is also circumnavigable and has a spherical coordinate system as well as the celestial sphere. With Einstein's theory there is a spherical resolution to the equations which could account for both observations... It is 3-Dimensionally flat, but 4D it curves around on itself and forms a sort of hypersphere. I am open to whatever pure empirical data insists upon.


This guy made a good video explaining such a possibility




I know that Neo believes that we were seeded by aliens, and Coop does not, but I'm wondering if there is consensus elsewhere?


I think 'seeded by aliens' is essentially the same as seeded by a higher dimensional Consciousness so in that sense I would agree. I consider that Transcendental Always-Existent Being from which we come as God who came and revealed himself in human form uninhibited as Jesus.

edit on 24-1-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

I noticed you ignored this im done arguing with you your a dishonest troll!!!


www.nature.com...


haha but no comment on the other things I mentioned?

Regardless, the paper you thought had me backed up against a corner is actually just describing the formation of a nucleotide, not nucleotides polymerizing.

I'm sorry to ruin your faith in the mutant ape theory, but it is simply not possible.



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Changing your storyline to present an inaccurate misleadingly phrased red herring to distract from your initial claim about nucleotides forming spontaneously on earth ('made on the early earth', as you put it, by means of spontaneous generation) to avoid acknowledging you were wrong about it being "easy" or that they "naturally" form chains, isn't going to help you out here.

So we know the Early earth was express shipped nucleotides.

Ah, so now we supposedy 'know' stuff again, apparently. Even though I already quoted Shapiro who admitted that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.

I can't take those who find some carbon atoms or sugar molecules in a rock and claim they have found the components of a cake as if it's somehow significant in a discussion about a naturalistic origin of said cake and the accompanying recipe, seriously either.

Too bad I can't get you to either realize (in the somewhat unlikely event it is not deliberate and you are unaware, which doesn't seem to be the case to me) or acknowledge that you have no intention whatsoever to be honest (or reasonable for that matter) about these subjects, honest with yourself or with others in your commentary.

One should probably also mention that meteorites that have already been lying on earth for a while (these are the meteorites often studied in regards to organic molecules or supposed precursors, or otherwise, such as in the case of moon rocks, are studied on earth with all the contamination and handling issues that come along with that), are invalid to use for the interpretation and claim that whatever organic or precursor material is found in them was already present before it landed on earth (or was studied on earth and there contaminated with biological material, explaining the presence of said material). And claims about meteorites that are so far away that any truly reliable confirmation of the presence of certain materials is not available, where claims regarding the presence of certain materials deemed relevant to organic chemistry, are based on rather dubious interpretation and speculation alone, are an even bigger bad joke (and often reminiscent of the 'cake'-illustration to me again, the one I mentioned earlier, especially when the claims are about some type of sugar molecule or water, where they usually don't mention the need for liquid water rather than speculations about frozen water supposedly having been present in the past; thinking of the speculative claims I've heard concerning Mars now mostly, which even if true, are still reminiscent of the cake-illustration, only worse, you're even further away from an actual cake, or life with frozen water as compared to the sugar molecules I referred to in my cake-illustration).

“The special conditions on earth resulting from its ideal size, element composition, and nearly circular orbit at a perfect distance from a long-lived star, the sun, made possible the accumulation of water on the earth’s surface. It is difficult even to imagine the origin of life without water.”—Integrated Principles of Zoology, Sixth Edition.

Besides an atmosphere with just the right mixture of gases, water in its normal liquid form​—lots of it—​is essential for physical life. Of all the planets, earth is unique in this respect. The enormous volume of the oceans is the basis for the rain cycle, which makes plant growth possible. The oceans also prevent extreme temperature fluctuation.

Without the oceans another cycle​—the oxygen and carbon-dioxide cycle—​would fail. Oxygen is used by animal life, carbon dioxide by plant life. The oceans absorb and release billions of tons of carbon dioxide as needed to keep the supply balanced at all times. Of course, the oceans are also a source of abundant mineral and animal wealth.​—Deuteronomy 33:19.

Water is a unique, almost “miraculous” fluid. It has the greatest solvent power of any liquid. For this reason it can store the chemical compounds needed to support plant life. Water penetrates the soil and dissolves the life-sustaining chemicals found there. It then carries these nutrients as it circulates to the various parts of the plants. (Isaiah 55:10) Water is the primary constituent of blood that carries life-giving nourishment to human and animal body cells. Our bodies are, in fact, about 70 percent water.

Remarkable, too, is the fact that water remains liquid under a wide range of normal temperatures. If it evaporated faster, rain could not stay on or in the ground to dissolve the minerals and transport these to the plants. Vegetation would lose its moisture too rapidly, and large areas would become desert land. If the boiling point of water were much lower than it is now, there would be the danger that our blood would boil when we were exposed to the hot sun. If water froze or solidified too readily, rainfall would be negligible and plants would die.

Additionally, water expands slightly on becoming ice, therefore floating instead of sinking to the bottom. This prevents lakes and other large bodies of water from freezing solid, with consequent damage to life. This property of expansion plays a part in soil making, for water runs into cracks and crevices in rocks, then expands as it freezes, breaking the rocks into fine, tillable soil​—all of this without man having to be concerned about it.

How does it happen that, of all liquids, there is so much of this valuable water on earth? Surely it did not just happen. Its provision must be the work of a Master Architect​—one who really cares for his living creation on earth.

THE EVIDENCE IS UNMISTAKABLE

Truly, the person who takes a penetrating look at the visible evidence around him can see that there must be a supremely intelligent Personality, a Master Designer and Creator. Though this benevolent Designer cannot be seen with natural eyes, “his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.”​—Romans 1:20.

Some demand to see God before they will believe that he exists. But does it make sense to expect to see the One who created all these marvelous things that I've discussed so far including the biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery and information processing discussed in more detail in the videos (all the videos, including those about nucleotides)? We can hardly bear to look directly at the sun, and certainly would be blinded and burned up if some of the larger suns were as close to earth as ours is. Then, what brilliance the Creator of these suns would display if he should reveal himself to human eyes! To Moses, who asked to see His glory, God replied: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”​—Exodus 33:20.

However, if we use our powers of reason, we can see, in creation, an expression of unlimited power and control. Chance or blind forces cannot exercise purposeful control, or establish any laws. Law and control are evidences of the invisible qualities of a Master Architect. Also, the care with which the universe (including our solar system and planet earth) is put together, providing every good thing for the life of humankind, indicates great love and great concern. These are traits that can belong only to an intelligent and compassionate personality.

Life Does Have a Purpose
edit on 24-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr

I posted about a half dozen articles some time ago. Totally ignored.


originally posted by: cooperton

No I read every one of them. None of them had an instance of nucleotides self-polymerizing. Each time you present an irrelevant article it is exposing your ignorance.

You probably need to start noticing the clues that this is deliberate, rather than ignorance. It's an act, she's pretending not to know that she's misleading people by posting these articles as massive red herrings and fuel to fight straw men for those who have already been conditioned to want to argue against these straw men (interpreting whatever you say as whatever they want to hear to fit into these straw men*).

*: here's another clue or sign of that:

originally posted by: dragonridr

Been done in plenty of labs but i guess if you deny science you wouldnt now that would you?

As if that was your argument, that it hasn't been done in labs (and what is "it"? No longer clear there, cause what you were referring to is no longer addressed, now "it" is whatever is in the articles posted by dragonridr or Phantom or whatever is in their imagination or what they feel like interpreting as "nucleotides self-polymerizing" or self-assembly, no longer what you were talking about when you used that term).
edit on 24-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2021 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

These are POLYMERIZATIONS from MONOMERS forming HYDROGEN bonds in WATER.


originally posted by: cooperton

Lol. This is not dehydration synthesis (nucleotide polymerization), it is a hydrogen bond. Hydrogen bonds do not create the primary structure chain sequence, they only hold two pairs of helices together.

And all that after I had already mentioned the subject of the wrong type of polymerization (reaction) vs the right kind that you need to form a chain of only nucleotides that eventually can become or be appropiately described as a strand of RNA functional for life's processes.

As I mentioned earlier in response to your claim and belief that nucleotides "would naturally create chains it's what they do." (on a prebiotic earth with no cell membranes or biomolecular machinery to catalyze the specific and right kind* of polymerization reaction around, as implied by the way you described that in the context of what you said and were responding to. ...
...
*: the right kind to form a "chain" of nucleotides as per your claim, not something else ... that would screw up the project of developing a chain of only nucleotides, as might happen in an actual natural environment ..., not your imaginary environment where you conveniently don't consider other types of polymerization reactions that would take place in an actual natural environment ...

And again a couple of comments later (between brackets is new):

originally posted by: whereislogic

... key points after 9:40 (most notably 11:32 regarding the "water-problem" and what I earlier mentioned regarding the wrong type of reactions that would interfere with whatever step is being described in the storyline of chemical evolution [in this case that would be the spontaneous formation of chains of nucleotides; in dragonridr's 'put DNA's ingredients in a box, shaken not sturred' story, that would be the supposedly 'spontaneous' formation of strands of DNA and more steps (considering the rest of his commentary).] ...)

Those videos also contain further inconvenient details about the wrong type of (polymerization) reactions one can get in a natural prebiotic environment that would interfere with the formation of a polymer of only nucleotides that could eventually become a strand of RNA in such a way that it actually can be useful in life's processes, and not have the wrong shape or the links at the wrong places or the wrong handedness of the nucleotides in question also causing the wrong shape for functionality in life's processes. At 5:28 - 5:45 something important is mentioned about the attachment sites that comes back into play concerning basically most of what's mentioned after 8:01, but most specifically regarding the wrong type of linkage, bonding, synthesis or polymerization reaction at 10:15 - 11:11 concerning nucleotide synthesis but with later repercussions on any sort of possible formation of the right type of chain of nucleotides that could potentially form RNA or DNA which starts at 13:37 (key points at 15:42 - 16:23, 17:15 - all the way to the end of part 2 almost).

They'll just continue to post comments as if they are unaware of these inconvenient details and as if they can just ignore them in their supposed presentation of evidence proving us wrong in what we say or how we say it. When they are conveniently re-defining and being unclear about what it actually takes to get the right kind of polymerization reaction for that what they just claimed or described to be even possible, let alone that it happened that way or is the way they initially stated it (as in dragonridr's claims regarding what nucleotides "naturally" do, supposedly, as if that's a fact, that's the way it is supposedly, that's how it was stated).

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

... This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

"capitalizing on the ambiguity of language", like interpreting certain inappropiate things as "self-polymerization" or "self-assembly" (in a particular invalid context or otherwise, such as interpreting what Phantom423 shared as "self-polymerization" or as "nucleotides self-polymerizing" in the context of what cooperton was talking about concerning the formation of a chain of nucleotides that consists of more than the 2 nucleotides depicted in Phantom423's picture; that's not the same type of chain cooperton was talking about when he was talking about "nucleotides self-polymerizing" now was he? Even though the context of that term was obvious it was just ignored to provide evidence for something else that is then interpreted as applying to only the term or only part of the term that was mentioned, taken out of its original context and elaboration what the other was actually talking about. Classic straw man fallacy in the form of a red herring with a little bait-and-switch thrown in there as well I think*).

*: if cooperton used different terminology than the one I quoted above prior to Phantom423 then that's besides the point, whatever Phantom423 shared concerning the topic of polymerization, was interpreted and implied to refer to whatever cooperton was talking about concerning the topic of polymerization of nucleotides, and it wasn't the same thing, worse than mixing apples and oranges, as per the meaning of that expression, not literally mixing apples and oranges in some fruitbasket or something.
edit on 25-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2021 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
*: if cooperton used different terminology than the one I quoted above prior to Phantom423 then that's besides the point, whatever Phantom423 shared concerning the topic of polymerization, was interpreted and implied to refer to whatever cooperton was talking about concerning the topic of polymerization of nucleotides, and it wasn't the same thing, worse than mixing apples and oranges, as per the meaning of that expression, not literally mixing apples and oranges in some fruitbasket or something.

The man in the video below describes the behaviour as "Erect straw man arguments, and then bait-and-switch, equivocate, conflate notions, pathologically and dishonestly, throw red herrings, make wild leaps, make shallow arguments, cherry-pick data conveniently, ...", well you get the picture:

Sometimes it feels like it's almost some kind of checklist that the philosophical naturalist on ATS is going through to make sure he/she has covered all his/her bases in terms of propagandistic trickery and misleading and cunning fallacies (not obvious to everyone, and carefully obscured by means of vagueness, short comments that leave out inconvenient details, and other means I'm not going to go into now beyond the ones I already mentioned).

Cause...

"Propaganda...it works! B***"

Would be a more appropiate phrase to describe what they're actually using when they use or adore the phrase (or when it strokes their ego and nurtures their arrogance and intellectual superiority complex, appeals to their pride and affects them as a reverse appeal to their pride playing on their fear of seeming stupid or "anti-science" as the types below like to put it):

Although I don't like using the last word, hence the ***. Another classic play on the emotions, well discussed in the article about propaganda I linked earlier, you can immediately see the emotional response in the audience.

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

Source: manipulation of information, same as before, 1st page

edit on 25-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2021 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: dragonridr

Life Does Have a Purpose

From that link:

IS THERE A MASTER ARCHITECT WITH A PURPOSE?

Our viewpoint on the origin of things can have a far stronger influence on the way we look at life, and on our attitude toward those around us, than many people realize. Uncertainty as to whether there is a universal Creator can make us uncertain about any definite purpose to life. It can also make us doubtful about what our true obligations are toward other humans. What happens then? Well, if we are unsure we just have to pattern our lives according to whatever each of us thinks best. That means our having no clear standard of right and wrong, no real sense of responsibility toward other people. It is not hard to see how many problems this could bring and how damaging it could be to the enjoyment of life.

Including how it could affect the manner in which some people converse or engage others in this subforum particularly, and how they reason and argue (whether they feel any obligation to be honest with themselves or others for example, or how they feel about using ad hominems, appeals to pride, fear and other ways of playing on the emotions or repeating arguments and phrases that have been phrased for that effect, i.e. propagandistic phrases and naturalistic dogmas spouted as religious mantras, including the ones that conflate, equivocate, bait-and-switch, etc. philosophical naturalism with science and methodological naturalism with "the scientific method"; or how they respond with behaviour such as psychological projection and the Isaiah 5:20,21 thingy if someone dares to point out their behaviour and trickery, or the propagandistic nature or style of their way of reasoning and arguing, regardless if it's deliberate).

On another note, can anyone here come up with another term for "the Isaiah 5:20, 21 thingy" that I'm using to refer to this behaviour:

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!


It bears some resemblance to the concept in the field of psychology referred to as "psychological projection" but it's more than that. Psychological projection would be included in the above description, as would the concept of an "intellectual superiority complex" (verse 21).
edit on 25-1-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join