A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Actually MN is a conspiracy of the illuMiNati and the freeMasoNs.David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Hi Kellogg, I've already linked to the deVries story, but alas - this is a prime example of the ID camp not listening when evidence is shoved in front of their faces. Stephen B will continue to argue that MN is a Darwinist conspiracy until he is blue in the face.RDK_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I seem to be wrong on the origins: as I understand it, the term "methodological naturalism" was coined by the Christian scholar De Vries (of Wheaton College) in 1983. My apologies. I'll have to dig up my Johnson to comment on his equivocations. (As a rhetoric scholar, I admire them!)David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "On the contrary, I think that, if the term is recent, the practice of MN is not." That is because you are avoiding the meaning of the word "practice," which consists of one group of scientists mandating the methods of another group of scientists. I guess you missed that part. Also, @198, you wrote, "It [MN] came about as a response to routine abuses of the term naturalism by creationists and early IDers such as Phillip Johnson. The term emerged to clarify and counter a deliberate ambiguity (it is in such clever uses of language, rather than in his handling of evidence, that Johnson’s legal training comes through)." I have asked you to explain that remark and, so far, you have not been forthcoming. Will you please tell us how Philip Johnson used his legal training to create confusion about the word "naturalism." Please be specific.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg, What is your position on Newton's alchemy? I am tempted to call it non-MN but scientific, and a significant result for science, for all that it was a negative result.Nakashima_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, Radio waves, and I would submit, the particle/wave duality on quantum physics. The former was considered, initially, to have been supernatural, it would have been folly to rule it out on those grounds, and that is precisely the point, we may make errors on what is natural or supernatural because our designations are arbitrary. The latter, in my opinion, could still be considered supernatural.Clive Hayden_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

---kairosfocus: "PS: Steve, it’s a joint deal, and GP deserves credit too . . . Agreed. Thanks for the fraternal correction.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, The big bang is a scientific conclusion that violates methodological naturalism, because it cannot be explained to have been caused by natural explanations, because nature didn't exist at the time.William J. Murray_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

I'm curious: the view of the ID supporters seems to be that "methodological naturalism" is a recent invention. On the contrary, I think that, if the term is recent, the practice of MN is not. But if a non-naturalist methodology was part of science until recently, can anybody point me to a conclusion reached by science other than ID itself in the several hundred years of scientific inquiry preceding this recent restriction? I would think that, if MN is such recent vintage, non-naturalist conclusions would be abundant in the earlier scientific record. I don't mean simply that a scientist was a believer in God. I mean a scientific conclusion other than ID that violates methodological naturalism. Where are they?David Kellogg_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

lamarck said: "Barbara thinks science must find physical causes and as well as effects. Science must only observe physical EFFECTS and can infer any CAUSE." This is the essence of the debate!!!! There is no cause that the materialist invokes that ID will not also invoke. But ID is willing to expand the range of causes for physical effects. I have made a couple claims about the bankruptcy of methodological naturalism before. Namely, If someone supports ID then they can do any experiment that the materialist would do and be completely consistent with their beliefs about how the world operates. And in nearly all cases the conclusions or inferences from the findings will be similar to the anti ID scientist. However, the range of possible conclusions will consist of a larger data set that completely incloses the data set of the materialist conclusions. So the ID supporter will expand the possible explanations for a phenomenon and not have to wear the metaphysical strait jacket of methodological naturalism. Secondly, the ID supporter may look at an expanded set of experiments or inquiries than the materialist would look at. This set of inquiries will completely contain the materialist set of enquiries. Thus, ID expands science and does not contract science as we hear from the (Robots for Darwin) RFD's who populate this site and their masters who seem to be running the science establishment. It is the current science establishment that is curtailing the domain of science. Not ID. So it is Barbara Forrest and all who defend her here who are the Luddites So maybe we should rename the anti ID people here LFD's or Luddites for Darwin.jerry_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Mr Kairosfocus, yes, Mr Joseph had already posted a link to that story previously in this thread, and it has been discussed. I was bringing this story because that story had already been brought up. It is exactly that birds and dinos shares this lung structure that has argued for dinos being warm blooded and active, like modern birds. Peter Ward, in his book Out Of Thin Air, also argues that low oxyegen levels at that time meant that theropods could maintain activity levels higher than their competitors as a result of this, which contributed greatly to their dominance.Nakashima_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Here's an interesting quote: There are only two ways that you can live. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle. I believe in the latter. Albert Einsteinbornagain77_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

PS: Steve, it's a joint deal, and GP deserves credit too . . .kairosfocus_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

nakashima-San: This may be of interest to you, on the avian lung and bird-dino relationships as suggested: _______________________ It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the OSU experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales. Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level [that is, the single direction airflow lung, with counter-/cross- flow of blood]. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse. "This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight." However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs . . . "[O]ne of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link. "A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," Ruben said . . . . "We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later." ["Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links," ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009). Note, link and emphases added.] ______________________ In short, things usually are not a simple as mnews announcements often suggest. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

I have a fun news link too. Locusts have evolved both male-on-male locust (what's a polite word?) "mounting" and a defense against it. The implications are interesting to ponder.ScottAndrews_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

DATCG: Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for weighing in with your excellent remarks. I have been admiring your posts for quite a while. Also, I note that kairosfocus co-authored the FAQ section on MN and was responsible for many of the remarks that you cited.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

DATCG 1] You will find the discussion in 227 in the weak argument correctives, nos 17 - 20. (Hint to Mr Burnett and friends . . .) 2] Could you contact me through the contact as found in the always linked web page through my handle in the LH column?] Thanks GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

More bird-dino news: New evidence on relationship of bird and theropod fingersNakashima_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Scott Andrews:
“BTW I’m not disputing that a monist and a dualist would draw differing personal conclusions from ID.
StephenB:
Well, then, we have no dispute.
Having agreed that ID is strictly neutral as to both monism and dualism and that the latter two are distinctly separate from the former, we do not.ScottAndrews_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

There is no conflict between “methodological naturalism” and nature itself as long as methodological naturalism is defined to mean that a wall is maintained between ontology and science. But that’s just what Barbara Forrest does not do. She does not study nature for nature’s sake. She studies it to draw certain conclusions about the nature of being. The study of nature for nature’s sake is flourishing. The seemingly lowly cell, for example, provides an almost limitless opportunity for investigation and description. But Barb and her allies are not interested in the rather humble avocation of describing the wonders of the cell. They aspire to be philosophers, and this requires them to add an ontological gloss to science. Barb has a choice. Either she can seek her bliss in the humble but exhilarating labor of obtaining accurate knowledge of nature for nature’s sake—or she can attempt to make herself seem like a philosopher by clinging to the ontological proposition known as “naturalism.” She can puff herself up, but not without losing the very purity she espouses.allanius_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I hope you don't mind me repeating some of your good comments regarding the hypocrisy of the scientific community today. The finely tuned chisel you keep hammering the wall with is making cracks, otherwise, the thought police would not be here to string up emergency barbwire. Irregardless of all the "sages" on the other side saying the wall is to keep out the bad guys, it was built to keep people surrounded from freedom on the outside. Kinda familiar territory repeating itself intellectually here.
"...the US National Academy of Sciences declared: In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others."
The detection of design in DNA code can be reproduced, tested, verified and checked by independents. Microsoft today is treating Biological entities as Programs in their latest research for Formal Methods of Molecular Biology. The only thing lacking here is perception, or the admittance of worldviews. The other side perceives blind madness, our side sees order among the chaos, machinery and code. This has been true since Newton and long before. Having committed to the path of blindness, it is little surprise to find dry macular degeneratoin set in. It changes vision slowly over time. I suggest NAS Darwinist take a lesson from the failed predictions of JunkDNA or SETI's perceived ability to detect intelligence in the COSMOS. You continue...
From NAS... "If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10. Emphases added.]" The resort to loaded language should cue us that there is more than mere objective science going on here!
Here, here!
Moreover, the claim or assumption that all such intelligences “must” in the end trace to chance and/or necessity acting within a materialistic cosmos is a debatable philosophical view on the remote and unobserved past history of our cosmos.
An excellent point.
It is not at all an established scientific “fact” on the level of the direct, repeatable observations that have led us to the conclusion that Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun.
Bingo! Teaching FACTS like these to children are good science education. Not at all like the guessing games forced on them about possible evolutionary fairy tales.
In short, the NAS would have been better advised to study the contrast: natural vs artificial (or, intelligent) causes, than to issue loaded language over natural vs supernatural ones
Exactly, thank you Stephen for clarifying the stacked deck against reasonable educated dissent. So, why is SETI accepted by the government, in our classrooms? ID can infer Design, just as SETI can infer possible ETs in the COSMOS exist. I think ID's case is stronger than SETI, because IDist have the Code to experiment with in house. SETI is searching for a needle in a universal haystack. Yet, they are accepted and people like Forrest do not complain. The "we are NOT ALONE crowd" of SETI are welcome. Yet, one possible outcome of SETI - Ancient Earth Designers may not be welcome. Why is it NASA a public funded entity can accept SETI, but not Design in DNA? It is a) hypocritical, b) double-standard, c) politically motivated, and d) religiously motivated by atheist to prevent any and all dissent from their antiquated views on biology. What are they so fearful of in their minds? Are they such weak individuals? Why not fear ET? Maybe ET will blast earth away, or come and rule over earth like a King forcing our children to believe dinosaurs once ruled the universe. Hmmmmm... Maybe these same fearful people doubt SETI will ever find a thing, so is not a threat to their cherished dogma? But ID has recognized real evidence that topples old traditions? That the ID research will be more productive than the current outdated Darwinian paradigm and make more intellectual sense in the future? That rather than blind searches of random sequences, it is best to look for Design features in the Code of Life? If they fear the implications, that is not a good reason to stop the advancement of science.DATCG_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Re: SETI and Barbara Forrest. I wonder if Forrest ever contributed, attended, or participated in any SETI events, conferences, education, etc. A quick looks shows she was at a conference: the Association for Politics and Life Sciences. Appears to be a one-sided hate fest. I see SETI was in participation, but no one from ID was at the conference. Forrest was concerned about ID finding Design in DNA CODE, but not about SETI finding intelligent ETs. Interesting, I wonder if she travels around the nation complaining and wailing about SETI?DATCG_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB, "Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule”..." Yes it is. "In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific." So, the Center for SETI(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is non-scientific according to NAS definitions. Yet, their standards are allowed in classrooms around our nation and supported by government funded institutions like NASA and public universities. SETI Education A quote from the above link... "Evolution is the core theme of Voyages Through Time; it provides the tools and strategies for science teachers to effectively manage social controversy, while teaching about evolution." This is hilarious. So, on one hand they are exclusively teaching an unguided, undesigned evolution, yet on the other they search for little green men. The hypocrisy and double-standards run deep in space and science.DATCG_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san, Advice received, ponder I will. ;) J?nin toiro. Kampai!DATCG_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Echidna, "Can somebody tell me how to study something that is non-material?" The laws of heat, fission, gravity; all laws which underlie continued order in nature, are studied. These non-material laws exist and we measure and predict the laws through observation of matter and energy. Also the non-material laws underlying organism function and form, which allow for CSI. There too laws are discovered, measured and predicted through observation of matter and energy. Matter and energy on their own cannot create laws. The law of attraction could as easily be the law of repulsion. Any absolute law on the order of the physical sciences must be arbitrary by necessity.lamarck_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

More on failed public education systems since atheist, the ACLU and people like Forrest reign supreme over our nations education systems... Academic Fraud plus Dumb and Dumber article snippets from Walter Williams, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University
Writing for the National Association of Scholars, professor Thomas C. Reeves documents what is no less than academic fraud in his article "The Happy Classroom: Grade Inflation Works." From 1991 to 2007, in public institutions, the average grade point average (GPA) rose, on a four-point scale, from 2.93 to 3.11. In private schools, the average GPA climbed from 3.09 to 3.30. Put within a historical perspective, in the 1930s, the average GPA was 2.35 (about a C-plus); whereby now it's a B-plus. Academic fraud is rife at many of the nation's most prestigious and costliest universities. At Brown University, two-thirds of all letter grades given are A's. At Harvard, 50 percent of all grades were either A or A- (up from 22 percent in 1966); 91 percent of seniors graduated with honors. The Boston Globe called Harvard's grading practices "the laughing stock of the Ivy League." Eighty percent of the grades given at the University of Illinois are A's and B's. Fifty percent of students at Columbia University are on the Dean's list. At Stanford University, where F grades used to be banned, only 6 percent of student grades were as low as a C.
I remember when the Deans list was an honor given to the few rewarded for hard work, not a give away for the masses.
Some college administrators will tell us that the higher grades merely reflect higher-quality students. Balderdash! SAT scores have been in decline for four decades, and at least a third of entering freshmen must enroll in a remedial course either in math, writing or reading, which indicates academic fraud at the high-school level.
No doubt they can tell you that dino-bird evolution is true and dinos went extinct 65myrs ago. Great, how will that help them to discover algorithms for programmatic molecular biology projects?
A recent survey of more than 30,000 first-year students revealed that nearly half spent more hours drinking than studying. Another survey found that a third of students expected B's just for attending class, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the assigned reading.
Well, well, well... the liberal agenda of drink, party, toke and be blessed for doing nothing is rampant in our universities. Go figure our nation is turning into one big handout now. It explains how certain issues are over some Harvard students pay grade. A slight diversion, This Just in...
Give me, give me. Give me a grade, give me a beer, give me free this, free that. Give me a Deans list. Give me a bong. Give me cocaine. Give me the Whitehouse. If you do I'll change the world. I'll give you everything. I'll give you happiness and a warm home filled with generalities and cliches. I'll stop the tides from rising and global "warming." Just give me your vote and I'll give you your dreams. Hollywood dreams, where Comics decide our policies and actors give you solace of a fairy tale ending. Mmmmhmmmm, we can all live like gods, trust me, take a bite. Your eyes will be opened.
Meanwhile, back to reality... The educational problems are the direct result of the failed policies instituted by ACLU-loving education administrators and faux liberals. That tout government intervention at all levels of decision making. Taking away power from parents at the local levels and forcing students to attend failed schools. More quotes from Prof. Williams... Dumbest Generation Getting Dumber
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international comparison of 15-year-olds conducted by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that measures applied learning and problem-solving ability. In 2006, U.S. students ranked 25th of 30 advanced nations in math and 24th in science.
This should not be surprising. Afterall, they must be indoctrinated into fiction and failures of shoddy scientific work, along with other politically correct dogma, of one-sided faux liberal education. Instead of practical science applications, logic, open freedom of debate on unsolved issues, and problem solving skills in order to succeed in life, they must remember dinos were extinct at a certain time because somehow the powers in control all thought it happened to be the "correct answer." Yet now, that trivial information is useless.
McKinsey & Company, in releasing its report "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America's Schools" (April 2009) said, "Several other facts paint a worrisome picture. First, the longer American children are in school, the worse they perform compared to their international peers.
Must I repeat for Lenoxus, atheist, ACLU and Forrest, et al., living in bubbles? "... the longer American children are in school, the worse they perform compared to their international peers." It is madness that parents who turn their children over to this failed system end up with trained monkeys regurgitating evolutionary doctrine unable to question or problem solve for themselves. They end up with dumber children, faux grades, lazy attitudes, goverment take care of me MTV wannabes, and wonder why we continue to lose ground to foreign competition.
In recent cross-country comparisons of fourth grade reading, math, and science, US students scored in the top quarter or top half of advanced nations. By age 15 these rankings drop to the bottom half. In other words, American students are farthest behind just as they are about to enter higher education or the workforce." That's a sobering thought. The longer kids are in school and the more money we spend on them, the further behind they get.
"Sobering thought" indeed and it proves my point that the education system is a failure largely led by lemmings who'll believe and follow any orders the atheistic ACLU evolutionist leaders give out. People like Forrest should shut up about being some kind of crusader for one lofty view and begin to look at the Big Bird picture she is missing. Our children are losing the battle with competition internationally not because the Creationist side won, but because her side won the battle long ago. We are going to be a nation of Dodo birds in the next generation. Only the immigrants who come to our shores will take advantage of higher education. And as reported, even some of our highest academic institutions today are a farce at many levels. So please, no more condescending lectures on how I or anyone does not understand how science works. IDist, Creationist, dissenters of Darwin work and succeed at the highest levels in science. They work in aeronautical engineering, space research, laser technology, physics, NASA, systems biology, math, nano technology, genetics, medicine, and every other conceivable complex field. The ACLU and Forrest academics are failing. They do not inspire, they close doors, they limit debate, they refuse ethical dissent, and they intimidate or force out any view they consider heretical to atheism. Far from being liberals, they act like fascists. They do not enhance our childrens minds, they darken them with trivial, useless and false facts.DATCG_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

----Echidna Levy: "Please see this comment where the origin of the term is explained to you (again). https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-189115" Your misguided research has led you down a rabbit trail. I corrected the individual that you think corrected me. ----"Given that you have been corrected on this and links/references provided, why do you continue to repeat your version as truth?" Given that I have written the truth at 227, why did you ignore it and pretend that is was not written? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? What is it about that post that you do not understand. I will be happy to explain it to you.StephenB_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

Clive, don't you have any response to my post at 184? I thought you wanted a dicussion?Echidna.Levy_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

Can somebody tell me how to study something that is non-material? Lot of talk about this "boundary" but can anybody give a single, simple example of such? Please don't say "the mind" unless you have proof. I might respond with "the bind" which is like the mind but with one letter different and make of "katoms". If you give me the "mind" as an example of a non-material thing that can be studied then you'll have to explain to me how the existence of "the bind" can be proven or disproven. And then we can move onto invisible unicorns.Echidna.Levy_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
Let me simply it as much as I can. Methodological naturalism is an arbitrarily established rule which requires the scientist to study nature “as if nature is all there is.” No such limitation has ever been imposed in the history of science. The “rule” is only 25 years old, and was codified at exactly the same time ID became known. Did you know that?
..
Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate.
Please see this comment where the origin of the term is explained to you (again). https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/complex-speciation-of-humans-and-chimpanzees/#comment-189115 Given that you have been corrected on this and links/references provided, why do you continue to repeat your version as truth?Echidna.Levy_{June 18, 2009
June
06
Jun
18
18
2009
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply