Apes Is People Too

_{Barry Arrington

April 21, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Story here.

For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal “people” in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus — a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.

The bag of chemicals we call “ape” is in principle no different from the bag of chemicals we call “human.” Justice Douglas famously wanted to extend rights to rocks and streams. This is where materialist reasoning must lead.

Here’s an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?

Comments

Seversky, You really irk me. @1 you declare your understanding of Christian doctrine as "... that we could do with it whatever we liked." pertaining to man's dominion over the earth. You are intent on presenting the blackest, meanest reading you can possibly muster when you know full well that reading wildly misrepresents mainstream Christian understanding of what man's dominion entails. You demonstrate that in the final paragraph of your follow-up @7 where, when you double-down, you admit that you know there are some of the Christian community that believe otherwise. You are fully aware, as well, that Christian doctrine strongly encourages righteous behavior all the while recognizing that "none are found righteous, no, not one." It follows that man's dominion was intended to be executed righteously and not in anyway we like. Unrighteous exercise of man's dominion, directly resulting from mankind's lack of righteousness, is not in accord with Christian doctrine but is expected in the Christian understanding of mankind's behavior in the present era. Your anti-Christian bigotry is shining forth boldly and proudly. If you were "to be fair," you would have been more circumspect and considered more of Christian doctrine and found it wise to keep your bigoted opinion to yourself. StephenSteRusJon_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

As well, as if that was not ‘spooky’ enough, information, not material, is found to be foundational to the universe itself:
“it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.” – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf Quantum physics just got less complicated – Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,”,,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html
Finding both life, and the universe itself, to be 'information theoretic' in their basis, and finding humans, among all creatures on earth, to uniquely possess the ability to understand, communicate, and create information, is certainly very strong support for the Christian belief that we humans were made in the image of God. It is hard to imagine what a more convincing proof that we are made in the 'image of God' might look like. I guess a more convincing proof could be if God became a man, died on a cross, and rose from the dead, so as to prove He was God. But who has ever heard of such a thing as God becoming a mere man so as to save us from death? :)
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video https://vimeo.com/97156784 Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Verses and Music:
Philippians 2: 6-11 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc
bornagain77_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Thus genetic similarity is not as good a benchmark for inferring relationships as Darwinists had presupposed. Moreover, it is found that King and Wilson were correct in their hunch that genomic regulatory systems between chimps and humans would be found to be very different. The regulatory regions of the genomes between chimps and humans are found to be ‘orders of magnitude’ different:
“Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.” Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve? SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-and-science-in-conflict/
Moreover, if that was not bad enough for Darwinists, mutations to the developmental gene regulatory networks are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’:
A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013 Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome. If Darwinism were a normal science, instead of a faith based belief system for atheists, this finding would count as a solid falsification. Another 'monkey wrench' in cladograms of Darwinists is that, anatomically, we are now found to be closer to pigs than to chimps.
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
Now to be sure, the Darwinist who put forward the idea that a pig/chimp hybrid produced humans was roundly condemned by other Darwinists. But the funny thing in all that condemnation from other Darwinists is that none of the other Darwinists who condemned his ‘heretical’ idea were able to refute his ‘pimp hybrid’ hypothesis with any real empirical evidence to the contrary:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
Does anyone truly think that think that pigs, kangaroos, or dolphins, ought to be grouped anywhere near chimps as our next of kin on the imaginary cladograms of Darwinists? Thus, that pretty much renders cladograms useless as far as rigorous science is concerned. Another place where ‘orders of magnitude’ differences are found between humans, chimps, (and all other animals), is in the ‘image of God’ that is uniquely inherent to man.
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic, that is found to be foundational to life itself:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer – video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU
bornagain77_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

A few days ago a Darwinist claimed that,,,
“Homo is also another genus of ape.”
Which was surprising news to me since, as far as I knew, humans and apes are not just in separate genera but also in separate families:
In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning: “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).” King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems. David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163 Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975 Of note: In biology, a genus (plural: genera) is a taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms. In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family.
The Darwinist went on to inform me that the classification that King and Wilson used was from 40 years ago and that Darwinists had now 'monkeyed' with cladistic analysis and that humans are now reclassified as apes. (I guess it is 'official' since a Darwinist did the reclassifying :) ) The 'reclassification' did not surprise me one bit since, in regards to being a true science, cladistic analysis has much to be desired as a true science since it presupposes universal common descent as true before a single line is drawn on a sheet of paper (i.e. it presupposes its conclusion into its premises): I did not know much about cladistics until Nick Matzke tried to use Cladistics, (i.e. imaginary lines drawn on paper inferring relationships that never existed), to refute Meyer’s book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’. David Berlinski, in typical Berlinski wit and style, solidly refuted Matzke’s supposed solid refutation.
A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that “phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever.”8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Of note: “In biology, cladistics (originally called phylogenetic systematics) is a taxonomical technique for arranging organisms according to how they branch in the evolutionary tree of life.” per Rational Wiki
Stephen Meyer himself also addressed Matzke’s use of Cladistics to try to support Darwinism and clearly shows, for the lay person, why it fails to upset the argument for ID:
Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer’s Argument for Intelligent Design Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4 Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k
As any fair minded person can see, cladistic analysis has much to be desired as to being a rigorous science. Moreover, contrary to what the Darwinist believed to be true, the known differences between apes and humans have been growing larger, not smaller, over the last 40 years. So if anything, the original classification that had humans classified not just in separate genera but also in separate families should have been reinforced not weakened. For instance, the supposed 99% similarity between chimps and humans, that King and Wilson originally came up with, has now been found to be a fallacious number. Jeffrey Tomkins did a comprehensive genomic comparison and arrived ar a 70% figure instead of a 99% figure:
The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – video https://vimeo.com/95287522 Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
Moreover, unexpected genetic similarity is found in radically different species, such as dolphins and kangaroos:
Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”,,, http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,” http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118
bornagain77_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Seversky: FTR, you are citing the operator of a hate and slander site and web vandal. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Only thing worse than a Humanist is a Secular Humanist. Apex predator maiming the souls of others. Bad very bad.ppolish_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Hunter/Gatherer is part of the Materialist narrative. So is nature being red in tooth and claw. And the term "Humanist". Humanist lol.ppolish_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Actually, over at AtBC, The Whole Truth (credit where credit's due) saved me the trouble of finding the relevant passages from the OT:
Genesis 1:26 ESV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
and
Genesis 1:28 ESV: And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
I have had Christians argue that these verses mean 'absolute authority over' although, to be fair, others have contended that something like 'stewardship' is what is actually implied. It seems to turn on what is meant by 'dominion' here. Perhaps the English word means something more absolute than the Greek or Hebrew originals.Seversky_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Hunting in Atheist Sweden is very popular. http://www.huntinginsweden.com/hunting-in-sweden.html Beastiality is popular there too. Scary place to be a critter yikes. http://www.conservapedia.com/Bestiality_and_Swedenppolish_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Seversky @1 I realize your comment was probably not made all that seriously, but it does show a complete misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. I do suspect that some of the incredibly wrong stuff you say here is motivated by a strong dislike for Christianity. Is that true?JDH_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel."Andre_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Seversky, as usual, gets things wrong. It is certainly not the Christian doctrine that the natural world is here *exclusively* for our benefit--though it is here in part for our benefit--and that we can therefore do with it whatever we like. That charge was made against Christianity starting in the 1950s, but careful studies of both the Bible and the tradition have since shown that the charge is based on a gross oversimplification of Christian teaching about nature, based on a few out-of-context Biblical passages.Timaeus_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky:
I thought Christian doctrine held that the natural world was put here for our benefit, that we could do with it whatever we liked.
You shouldn't think as there isn't anything in the Christian doctrine that sez we can do with it whatever we like.Joe_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

I thought Christian doctrine held that the natural world was put here for our benefit, that we could do with it whatever we liked. So there's nothing wrong with killing an old giraffe and having your picture taken smiling alongside the corpse or being proud of having shot dead a whole range of animals just to demonstrate your prowess as a hunter and with rifle and bow.Seversky_{April 21, 2015
April
04
Apr
21
21
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply