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.

 

The Ignorance of Creationists

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Now you're just trying to troll...

If evolution described creation, you first had to prove the existence of a creator. Because without a creator no creation is possible. We have ZERO evidence for a creator...so your whole "evolution describes creation" is a weird claim.


Evolution and Creation is synonymous.

I don't have to prove to you the creator, I already did before many times.

This is about Evolution, and whether Evolution can be part of creation, I said yes it can. Do you disagree?

Do you think Evolution can't be part of creation? Do you think everything that was created have to be created as it is? and never change?

Maybe you should examine the things we created and compare. You have the ability to compare for a reason mate.
edit on 25-11-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

Nice post as always, SD. Starred.

I was pointing out that madnessinmysoul's characterization of the ignorance of creationists is based on actual experience, not on intellectual arrogance or presumption. This thread is inspired by recent creationist posts in several other threads in the O&C Forum.

Agreed that evolution is a scientific topic and should be discussed in the Science forum. Unfortunately, creationists see it differently. The author of the post I quoted earlier is also on record describing evolution as pseudoscience. Such is the level of--not ignorance, really, but deliberate disinformation--with which we are dealing.

As for the forum itself, I believe its original purpose was to entertain discussion on the conspiracy (and it is a real conspiracy) to institute the teaching of creationism and 'intelligent design' in American school science classes. It has mutated into something different--a forum in which people who accept the scientific validity of evolution argue their case with people who prefer a religious or mythological account of the origins of life and the universe. I don't really need to remind you of this, but some others here may need the history lesson.

Of course we don't know how the universe originated, or how life began. However, we--and by 'we' I mean humanity as a whole, irrespective of the beliefs of individuals--do know that the creation accounts supplied in the Bible and the myths of other cultures are incorrect. We so-called 'evolutionists' are simply denying ignorance--not to mention premeditated lies--on ATS.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

I don't have to prove to you the creator, I already did before many times.



Riiiiiight, care to quote that proof, because I can't remember


And no, they're not synonymos because that would imply evolution requires a creator...and we have no evidence to support that claim. And you know it!


edit on 25-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Riiiiiight, care to quote that proof, because I can't remember


And no, they're not synonymos because that would imply evolution requires a creator...and we have no evidence to support that claim. And you know it!


edit on 25-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Are we gonna have that same discussion again?

Please don't waste my time.

I have asked you before, Do you think Evolution can't be part of creation? Do you think everything that was created have to be created as it is? and never change?





Researchers at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., have successfully programmed a computer to simulate the evolutionary process in a population of simple robots. The computer tested each successive generation of primitive robots to distinguish which could crawl the farthest. Then, the program itself refined the robots' design, replicating the process of adaptation intrinsic to evolution.

electronicdesign.com...

The above of from 2000, imagine what we are capable of now.

and

We are examples of creators, so examine what you can do, and compare it to the world

edit on 25-11-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
"What's the difference between the process of evolution in a computer and the process of evolution outside the computer? The entities that are being evolved are made of different stuff, but the process is identical.... These abstract computer processes make it possible to pose and answer questions about evolution that are not answerable if all one has to work with is the fossil record and fruit flies". — Christopher G. Langton



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   


Symbolic languages are not just limited to human communication. Every living thing uses symbolic language to communicate information. How? In the form of genetic words written in the languages of DNA and protein. If you are interested in the details, just look in any basic biology textbook, and you will find that the language of DNA is made up of words. Each of these words is given an arbitrary meaning by a codebook called the "Genetic Code." Proteins are also "written" using letters in a chemical alphabet called amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids just as there are 26 different letters in the English alphabet. Different arrangements of these letters in proteins spell out protein words, which are given an arbitrary meaning or function by the cell that makes them. Just as in any other symbolic language, there is no inherent meaning for a given protein outside of the how the cell defines it. For example, the protein called "insulin" is a signal to some cells in the human body to uptake sugar (glucose) from the blood stream. The insulin protein (Bovine Insulin) is made up of two protein words that are linked together. One of these words is 21 letters (amino acids) in length. The other word is 30 letters in length.1 There is nothing special about these words in and of themselves that tells a cell that it needs to uptake sugar. So, how does the cell “know” what to do when it comes in contact with insulin? The cell recognizes insulin. But how does the cell recognize insulin? The cell has a specific receptor protein that senses insulin like a lock recognizes a key. Then, just like when a key turns a lock, this insulin receptor sends a signal to the cell that tells it to uptake sugar. In other words, this lock is linked to an underlying system of function. The key that it recognizes is the insulin key, but this recognition is arbitrary. The same function could in fact be set up to recognize any other protein "word" or "words." The fact that it recognizes insulin is strictly arbitrary, just as in any other symbolic language. The insulin molecule is simply a symbolic representation of an idea or a function that the cell recognizes.

www.detectingdesign.com...

Great read.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well, thanksgiving wasn't a religious holiday anyway.

Whereas 'Christmas' always was. Only trouble is--gee whiz!--it wasn't always Christian.

Christmas is the celebration of the winter solstice, a pagan celebration throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere. The Romans called it Saturnalia--itself an artificial festival grafted onto the older solstice celebration. Sources for this fact include the Talmud.

When I see Christians making pigs of themselves every December in the time-honoured Saturnalian fashion, it warms my Godless heart. And, of course, I join in with enthusiasm.

Did you know that condom makers report their highest sales during Christmas week? Fact.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Scientist creating robots that can replicate (and only replicate when given base materials) and recreate a bit of evolution as a model doesn't mean evolution was created by a creator.

You're making a HUUUUUUUGE mental leap of faith here, and if that is your "proof"...then I'm sorry to say, it's not. It's not because scientific method would never accept a leap of faith like that as proof.

You are essentially claiming that just because we can create stuff, we must have been created too. That's not proof, that's BELIEF!


edit on 25-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


In any case, 'sorry' for the interruption.

For this relief, as the guard said in Hamlet, much thanks.

 

Creationists Are Not As Ignorant As They Appear

And if we are done with the cock-and-bull stories at last, I should like to make a small yet contentious observation. In this thread we are discussing the proposed ignorance of creationists. This has been interpreted by some creationists--dusty1 and BluJay specifically, and many others by implication--as an attack on the intelligence of creationists. Leaving aside that such a misapprehension is itself pretty stupid, I should like to point out that much of the time, creationists are neither ignorant nor stupid. They are simply cunning.

Has anyone noticed that when creationists are presented with a fact that destroys their claims, they invariably ignore it, or return with some semantic distortion that muddies the waters of debate and thereby clouds the issue? This is not stupid or, indeed, ignorant behaviour. It is cunning, and it displays a fine understanding of the manipulation of communications media in political public relations.

Second, the repetition ad nauseum of debunked arguments. This certainly isn't evidence of ignorance; it is evidence of ignoring inconvenient facts in order to repeat the same lies over and over again. It looks stupid and stubborn to someone who knows better, but among undecided and genuinely ignorant onlookers to the debate, it acts as a kind of brainwashing. That, in fact, is its purpose.

Such behaviour isn't ignorant or stupid, it's very clever--Goebbelsian, in fact. I used to work in advertising and public relations, and I can recognize the techniques of my former trade when they are deployed. These people--some of them, anyway--are not here to convince educated people that evolution and science are in error; they are leveraging this forum to spread their own Gospel According to Ignorance, and they are doing it rather intelligently.

As for the scientific ignorance of creationists, it's real enough, but what do you expect? What motive can they possibly have to familiarize themselves with knowledge they already know is destructive to their beliefs?



edit on 25/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I don't have to prove to you the creator, I already did before many times.



C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S !

You are officially the first human being ever to prove the existence of God (or a creator, if you insist on splitting hairs)

Even Thomas Aquinus couldn't do it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here the greatest philosophical mind of this or any other century!

Take a bow, Oozyism!


edit on 25/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thanks old friend, and I agree with what you stated.


This thread is inspired by recent creationist posts in several other threads in the O&C Forum.


I think this is the source of my confusion ... it has become apparent that this thread was an exercise in catharsis for the OP stemming from accumulated frustration borne of other discussions. When threads are based on such premise the negativity, anger, exasperation, and aggression, show through and really only trigger a like response from those one disagrees with, no matter the topic but especially one such as this one.

My natural predisposition is to defend the right of those with whom I disagree with to disagree with me. So when I sense aggression, especially from those with whom I may in large part share a point of view, I try to mediate the sentiments ... not solely out of some altruistic virtue, but simply because I know that it will be I who will down the line suffer the consequences. The more insults and generalized labels are cast, the more entrenchment it perpetuates and the more it will beget the same disposition from the 'other side.' That is the greatest obstacle to authentic discourse imho ... being that there are many others, calling a group of folks ignorant is not helping.

This discussion has gone on on ATS for a long time ... being personally surprised, vexed, and affected by the creationist disposition can only be based on uncalibrated expectations. Quite frankly I don't even know why anyone who's been on ATS for more than a couple of months bothers anymore. I notice that you take a lot of extended breaks.


Cheers!


edit on 25 Nov 2010 by schrodingers dog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
This is a free country and people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. No one is king over the other. Isn't that a bummer for those ot the leftist "educated" class who think they are royality. They are not even in control over what one another think and believe. Hahahahahahahaha The beauty of America!



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


This is a free country

This is the internet. Madnessinmysoul is from a small European country. I am from a small Asian one. Kailassa is a proud Australian. Isn't modern technology wonderful?


people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe.

'Twas always thus, Sara.


No one is king over the other.

Except Elvis, of course.


Isn't that a bummer for those ot the leftist "educated" class who think they are royality.

So educated people are always leftists? Or is that simply another myth believed by uneducated right-wingers?

I'm pretty educated. I'm not a leftist. I am a liberal. Perhaps you should look up what that word actually means, instead of automatically accepting your pastor's definition, or Sarah Palin's.


They are not even in control over what one another think and believe.

Oh dear, isn't that a shame!


Hahahahahahahaha! The beauty of America!

America is indeed very beautiful, but why do you find that so funny?


edit on 25/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Originally posted by Astyanax:
In this thread we are discussing the proposed ignorance of creationists. This has been interpreted by some creationists--dusty1 and BluJay specifically, and many others by implication--as an attack on the intelligence of creationists. Leaving aside that such a misapprehension is itself pretty stupid, I should like to point out that much of the time, creationists are neither ignorant nor stupid. They are simply cunning.
[...]
Second, the repetition ad nauseum of debunked arguments. This certainly isn't evidence of ignorance; it is evidence of ignoring inconvenient facts in order to repeat the same lies over and over again. It looks stupid and stubborn to someone who knows better, but among undecided and genuinely ignorant onlookers to the debate, it acts as a kind of brainwashing. That, in fact, is its purpose.
8...]
As for the scientific ignorance of creationists, it's real enough, but what do you expect? What motive can they possibly have to familiarize themselves with knowledge they already know is destructive to their beliefs?

Thank you very much! I never saw it that way and it makes total sense to me.

I have almost no religious people in my milieu or family (thank god
), so facing religious delusion in this scale is a rare pleasure to me. Needles to say I was shocked.

I watched Madnessinmysoul, MrXYZ, Kailassa and others arguing sedulous through this topic, debunking and invalidating over and over again.
Somehow the antagonists wouldnt accept the points, partly by scientific ignorance, partly just by lack of understanding, confusing terms and theories.
It was over my head that people could refuse so vehemently to learn.

Now I get it...
To play by the rules of rational reasoning would lead to dangerous questions, that could shake the construct of belief untill it falls. So rational reasoning is off the menue...

The picture of an alcoholic in denial comes to mind... those guys need an intervention




Originally postet by Madnessinmysoul:

Listen, this thread has gotten a bit sidetracked...the simple fact is that there is a complete and almost proud ignorance of science coming from creationists. They try to speak volumes about science without having even picked up a book on it. How are we supposed to debate science with those who refuse to take part in it?

Yeah, what to do?

If Astyanax point is true, the "hardcore-in-denial"-faction cant be convinced by rational reasoning, since they refuse to play by the rules.

Nevertheless we have to fight religious delusion in the arena of science, cuz thats where we can and will beat it eventually.

Its vital to expose the manner, in which inconvenient facts are ignored in order to repeat the lies, as Astyanax pointed it out.

Those willing to learn will see the brainwashing for what it really is... and like Jesus said "the truth will set them free"

edit on 26-11-2010 by WfknSmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Well, I've been a long time ATS "lurker". I've watched the ATS community go from advocating the truth and together attempting to get to the bottom of things, to "denying ignorance", and now trying to "be civilized while denying ignorance". imo, ATS has now become one big yelling competition with no regard for the truth we were once stumbling upon. Although, I must say, there are a select amount of members who genuinely attempt to get to the bottom of any given topic using careful thought, logic, evidence, and most importantly (imo) reason.
Anyway, lets cut to the chase.
There is a vast amount of topics, events, conspiracies, and ideas to be debated upon in our world, but lets all get real; with some topics there is no debate. Few topics get me more provoked than the topic of religion, any notion of it, and/or any "debate" people may try to entertain regarding it.
jesus christ
, people; we dont even need "science" to disprove religious doctrine. All you need is logic and reason. Look, anyone can believe whatever they want, but as the OP originally pointed out, just because you believe in something does not make it true. You are presented with the choice of either finding the truth in a matter OR not attempting a reasonable search for truth; which usually concludes with a false belief.
Furthermore, I find religion, the ideas of creationism, and most other branches of such thoughts, dangerous and toxic to our world and humanity in general. An enormous amount of immoral, monstrous, and obscene acts have been and still are being committed in the name of religion contrary to 'good' acts committed for it. That is why we should actively oppose and fight religion, NOT let people be absorbed into these horrifying ideas. If we allow the institutions of religion to continue wielding such great power, they will only continue to poison subsequent generations, and the madness will never stop. Why let our fellow brothers and sisters of our world believe in ideas that are based on no facts or evidence what so ever? Forget facts and evidence (science), we can come to almost definitive conclusions about the false idea of there being a boogeyman watching over us by only using our minds. Specifically some simple methods of logic and reason (which is essentially scientific inquiry, anyway). I wont spoon feed it to anyone, either. I could fill pages and pages of philosophical thought from great thinkers throughout the ages. Do your own research. Fortunately in our day and age, we have this nifty little tool called THE INTERNET.
From the countless evidence and logical thought processes disproving god/religion/jesus/ghosts/whatever....one of my favorites is the problem of evil. Another great amusement are people who quote the bible.
Perhaps I am being a bit pretentious since I will not directly point out all of these fallacies and reasons, but I shouldn't have to. Scientific inquiry is natural and cannot be proven false; it is simply a method for discovering the truth, or the closest idea of it. Even if you stubbornly refuse to accept this as truth, you are still essentially using a 'scientific' inquiry (5 senses, reflection, analysis, conclusion) in order to arrive at your beliefs...you're just doing it wrong and you call it faith. We live in such an advanced age, where the internet is spreading to more and more people everyday, where atoms are colliding at almost unimaginable speeds in order to further our understanding of the universe and how we came to be, yet our elected leaders publicly pray to a god and advocate religious doctrine all over the stupid mass media out to the masses; and people wonder why religion is still so popular/powerful/brainwashing with no change is in sight. Use the tools at your fingertips.
I will conclude with this:
Of course we are free to believe what ever we want, as that is our natural right as human beings on this planet. The reason I cause such a fuss about it is because people let religion greatly influence their lives and the lives of their families. Sure, perhaps at times this influence is good, but for the most part, I think false beliefs lead to false truths, and hence wrong actions based on them. This claim is heavily backed by history, and unfortunately is still being affirmed to this day. Mostly religion and the belief in a god is used as a tool for power and fear. This is why it should be strongly opposed and fought against.
Use the rational and logical capabilities of your mind to come to a conclusion, and if perhaps you do not possess the knowledge of various techniques and methods used to logically reason, just google it
. It's that
simple.

EDIT: By the way, start by googling the brilliant Christopher Hitchens for a crash course on why god and religion is completely nonsensical.
edit on 26-11-2010 by MindfulReason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by fallow the light
 


Hey look, yet another personal attack!


Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


you can remedy this by ceasing to waist your time by caring what others believe.


Yeah, that really helped with women's suffrage, racism, slavery, and all sorts of other human evils. Not caring is really going to get ignorance to go away.



it seams to me that you have a superiority complex


Well whoop-dee-do, I don't. I'm quite certain of my position amongst other humans: that of an equal. Sure, I'm better at some things than other people, but I'm incredibly bad at plenty of things.

I'm not even saying I'm superior to creationists, I'm simply more informed on a small group of issues that we happen to discuss a lot. My goal is to actually raise them up to a level of understanding of these issues that is either equal to or greater than my own.



and have to prove others that you are wright and they are wrong.


If I cared about that I'd be correcting your spelling mistakes. I teach EFL over the summers, so it's actually a hard habit to break to not correct spelling and grammar constantly. I make sure not to do this on forums.



whether evo is wright or wrong seems to me, to not be the point of your thread.


Um....obviously. It's not even in the title. I already made two separate threads about the validity of evolution. One in which proofs are presented and another in which people can attempt to falsify it.

The point of this thread is the tenacious ignorance (or possible cunning illusion of ignorance) of science as a whole. Not even evolution, basic things like how more complex atomic structures form (nuclear fusion)



the point to me seems to be that "you" are wright and not evo.


Nope, not at all true. I openly ask people to prove that I'm wrong. I opened up a thread to allow people to prove the creationist/IDist hypothesis and 600+ posts later there has been hardly an attempt in that thread to prove me wrong.

I openly seek to find out where I'm wrong. The only way to know that you're right is to keep checking if you're wrong.



obviously you have a problem with God and or the theory of God.


I don't have a problem with things I don't believe in...
I mean, I disagree with the acts of one Edward Cullen, but I don't have a problem with him.

And God isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.



this is the second thread you have made in the past few weeks, that is an attach on creationism.


Let's see, the titles of the last few threads I've made in the O&C forum:

This one (2 days ago)
Evolution: PROVE IT! (11 days ago)
Evolution: FALSIFY IT! (11 days ago)
Common sense is useless in a discussion of scientific topics. (21 days ago)
"Project Steve" The scientific community has no problem with evolution (37 days ago)
Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT! (57 days ago)

In fact, the last thread I made that attacked creationism was on September 12th......



you seem to be a very intelligent person but it is hard to have any respect for you since you flaunt your intelligence around like a brand new ferrari.


How do I "flaunt" it? By systematically breaking down people's posts? By trying to help people understand science?



“The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.”- Socrates.


Hey look, it's an argument from authority!

I disagree with Socrates.



"if you truly want people to believe that you are wright and they are wrong, admit you have no idea if you are wright but you think that you could be". - me


...I have an idea, but I'm never 100% certain. Which is why I repeatedly check my claims. I recently made two threads in an attempt to let others prove me wrong:
Evolution: FALSIFY IT!: in which those who disagree with evolution could actively seek to disprove it.
Creationist/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!: in which those who believe in creationism/intelligent design were free to attempt to prove it.

Neither thread yielded any fruits.



and one more for good measure

"For every design, there is a Designer" - Albert Einstein


And that isn't an actual quote from Einstein, it's something creationists use to make him into a sock puppet for their points when he was an avowed agnostic.

The fact that I've dealt with creationists repeatedly spoiling the good name of Einstein by lying about his positions means I'm more than ready with quotes from him that are confirmed to refute you.


I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)



It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689


Einstein didn't believe in the necessity of a designer.

And honestly, you're doing nothing but furthering the truth of my OP. Instead of demonstrating scientific knowledge, you attack me by saying I "flaunt" my intellect, that I have a superiority complex, and then you use stock creationist quotes to address something which is not the topic of this thread.

You've clearly looked in my previous threads, go discuss the topics with me there. I keep an open enough mind to know that I may be wrong, but you can't say I am unless you show me I am. And you have to give the same level of open-mindedness to me.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
This is a free country and people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. No one is king over the other. Isn't that a bummer for those ot the leftist "educated" class who think they are royality. They are not even in control over what one another think and believe. Hahahahahahahaha The beauty of America!


And this is what I mean when I'm talking about "dumbing down the citizens". Just look at how biased this person is against education...and why? Because politicians seem to link it to the left/socialists/elite. There's seriously people who distrust education...and then wonder why the US is losing ground against China/India. WAKE UP!!

@Schroedinger's Dog: I fully agree with you that the hardcore fundamentalists can't be convinced by reason. You can show them a 250,000 year old homo sapiens fossil, and they will just look at you with glassy eyes and a serene smile while saying "no it's not, we've only been earth for 6035 years and god is beautiful". You're right in saying arguing with people like that is pointless. But there's a few like Titen who were Christians and then saw reason thanks to people pointing out flaws. I think people like that deserve a chance to learn about true science...whether they accept it or not is out of our hands, but even if one believer accepts reason/logic over belief after reading some of that stuff..I feel I've succeeded.

As Schaeffer said, we can't but ignore the fundamentalists who are too brainwashed, and shouldn't waste our time on them.



And that's a guy from the religious right calling the hardcore fundamentalists "village idiots". Their own people are starting to wake up (albeit slowly).

edit on 26-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


No I just proved that Evolution can be created, you suggested no.

That is why I stated Evolution and Creationism is synonymous


Nice try deflecting.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


People have been believing in GOD for a long time now, and they will continue to, I know that hurts you, but it is OK.

Everyone can play that game



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join