Heresy Against the Church of Darwin Must be Stamped Out!

_{Barry Arrington

March 12, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Tomás de Torquemada (1420 – 1498) was the first Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. Steven Pinker has appointed himself as the Grand Inquisitor of the Church of Saint Charles the Bearded.

As reported in these pages (see here and here), atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False has caused quite a stir. The New Republic reports that Pinker has taken to cyberspace to stir up the Darwinist mob against Nagel. Every whiff of heresy against the true faith must be ruthlessly stamped out. Torquemada had his Auto-da-fé. Pinker has his Twitter account.

Irony alert. We can be certain that Pinker is horrified by and wholly condemns Torquemada’s efforts to persecute and silence perceived heretics from the Christian faith. Yet he does not hesitate to strike at the slightest whiff of heresy against his secular faith.

Comments

BA77:
Do you believe in sight without physical eyes?
I do. In fact, how many different words in NT Greek are translated "see."Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

Mapou, your view appears self-contradictory. Of God is physical, why is there any need for a spiritual "realm." p.s. "God is Spirit."Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Mapou @49:
The way I see it, there are two realms, the physical and the spiritual. The first can be created or destroyed and can change. The the second, by contrast, can neither be created nor destroyed and neither can it change.
I disagree. Scripture speaks of a new world. Also, when people are born again what are they born into?Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

What is it that we are conscious of? Assuming we retain consciousness after death, what then are we conscious of?Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Mapou: All I know is that both knower and the known must exist and the two are opposites by definition. If the knower is spiritual, then the known is necessarily physical and vice versa.
I’m not sure I follow. Let’s assume the knower is spiritual. We can know our sensations, thoughts, math, believes, desires etc. So those are part of the ‘known', right? Are you saying that sensations, thoughts etc. are necessarily physical in order for a spiritual knower to consciously know them?Box_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

but, like most analytic philosophers of his generation, he probably doesn’t think that anything written before he started grad school is worth reading.
I hear that's how Kant felt as well. ;)Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Murray: You have asserted that “the known” can only be “brain states”. This is not a necessary logial premise nor is it a necessary logical conclusion. It is simply an assertion, on your part, that “brain states” are the only way a “known” can exist for the knower. OK, I agree that "brain states" may not be the correct choice of words. Maybe "special physical states" is better. All I know is that both knower and the known must exist and the two are opposites by definition. If the knower is spiritual, then the known is necessarily physical and vice versa. So in order to be conscious, a spirit needs to interact with some type of physical matter. You may disagree, of course, in which case you will have to provide counter arguments.Mapou_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Mapau, You see, you went farther than just your logical argument - which I agree with. Consciousness requires a knower and a known in complimentary existence. However, you went beyond that, to this:
The known consists of certain brain states and the knower is the spirit. There is no way to have consciousness without the two together.
You have asserted that "the known" can only be "brain states". This is not a necessary logial premise nor is it a necessary logical conclusion. It is simply an assertion, on your part, that "brain states" are the only way a "known" can exist for the knower. I have no need to provide an argument against what is no more than a bald assertion on your part - unless, of course, you can support your assertion that only "brain states" can be known by the knower.William J Murray_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Mapau: I'm not arguing against the logical requirement; I'm arguing that the logical requirement doesn't necessarily require a physical brain.William J Murray_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Mapou All I know is that, before anybody can convince me of the possibility of consciousness without a body, (...)
Maybe you are right. How about the possibility of a spiritual body? Doesn't that solve the problem? :)Box_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Murray: Unfortunately, this is the very foundation of a priori biases. Note that after saying you don’t believe in the proposition, you wave away evidence with sweeping dismissals and condescension – the very same habit that plagues materialists that “don’t believe in any of that stuff.” There is, IMO, overwhelming evidence available that consciousness survives death. I provided reasoned arguments for my stance. You apparently dismissed them as being irrelevant. But that's not my problem if you choose to erect your own mental block. All I know is that, before anybody can convince me of the possibility of consciousness without a body, he or she would first need to provide a logical argument against my contention that consciousness requires a knower and a known and that the two are complementary opposites. Anything else is hand waving, from my perspective.Mapou_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Finally someone mentioned Anthony Flew. If Nagel was older they would have leveled the same “Alzheimer’s” charge. If you are very smart and a Philosopher you are welcome in the ND club, as long as you agree with everything they claim.
Nagel isn't that much younger than Flew was when There Is a God was published. The difference is that Flew's entire epistemology was grounded in a pretty demanding evidentialism, whereas Nagel has always been the sort of philosopher for whom intuitions counted for more than theories. (At one point -- I think this is from the introduction to his Mortal Questions -- Nagel says that if a theory conflicts with some deeply held intuition, then it's more likely that the theory is wrong than that the intuition is false. I was shocked when I read that.) Flew came to think that intelligent design (indeed, deism) was probably true because of the evidence with which he was confronted. In particular, he came to think that there is probably no purely materialistic theory to abiogenesis. Nagel, on the other hand, just doesn't see how materialism could be true -- it conflicts with his intuitions about the very nature of consciousness and value. My main source of perplexity about the whole Nagel thing is this: what he says in Mind and Cosmos is fully consistent with the anti-reductionist arguments he developed in the 1970s that made him famous. It's not as if there's been any change of heart or moment of conversion. So the 'outrage' looks under-motivated, to say the least. What I believe has happened is that Nagel's book is being reviewed by scientists and by philosophers of science, rather than by philosophers of mind. (I find it interesting that the one review I've come across by a philosopher of mind, Alva Noe, is considerably more charitable than the others have been.)Kantian Naturalist_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Finally someone mentioned Anthony Flew. If Nagel was older they would have leveled the same "Alzheimer's" charge. If you are very smart and a Philosopher you are welcome in the ND club, as long as you agree with everything they claim.smordecai_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Mapou said:
I am sorry but I don’t believe in any of that stuff.
Unfortunately, this is the very foundation of a priori biases. Note that after saying you don't believe in the proposition, you wave away evidence with sweeping dismissals and condescension - the very same habit that plagues materialists that "don't believe in any of that stuff." There is, IMO, overwhelming evidence available that consciousness survives death.William J Murray_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Mapou, as far as the integrity of NDE evidence is concerned, I think Dr. Egnor nailed it:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The Extremely 'Monitored' Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560
The following is on par with Pam Reynolds Near Death Experience. In the following video, Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a pioneer of cardiac surgery, tells stories of two patients who came back to life after being declared dead, and what they told him.
Famous Cardiac Surgeon’s Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08 Dr. Jeffrey Long: Just how strong is the evidence for a afterlife? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffrey Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627
Mapou, methinks you need a paradigm shift :)bornagain77_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

BA77 @63 I am sorry but I don't believe in any of that stuff. Those NDE experiments suffer from what is known as confirmation bias and wishful interpretations. The adult brain is highly complex and can play tricks on people. It is possible that the spirit, in leaving the brain, might try to attach itself to other brains and might be conscious of things other than what's in the original brain. But that would still require a brain.Mapou_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Bur alas Mapou, the 'spirit/soul' of man is conscious without a material/temporal brain,,, A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htmbornagain77_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

BA77 @57: Do you believe in sight without physical eyes? Yes, of course. Seeing is not made possible by the eye. The eye is just a window. Seeing is accomplished by the visual cortex. During experiments that use electrical probes to directly stimulate the visual cortex of blind subjects, they reported seeing flashes of colors. But there is no need for such experiments to conclude that we can see without our eyes. When we dream, we see images with our eyes closed. I believe it takes two things for consciousness to exist, a knower and a known. The knower cannot be known and the known cannot know. The logic of this is undeniable, in my opinion. The known consists of certain brain states and the knower is the spirit. There is no way to have consciousness without the two together.Mapou_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

In re: Eric Anderson @ 52
The practical result of all of this is that it is extremely common in the press, in books, in popular discussions, and occasionally even in scientific papers to conflate an evolutionary/Darwininan storyline with materialism, and it is a bit challenging to have to constantly remind people that the former does not necessarily entail the latter.
I would have said "extremely frustrating and quite boring" instead of "a bit challenging," but apart from that difference in emphasis, we're in agreement on this particular point.Kantian Naturalist_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Eric, In my view: Humans souls, the pure "observer" in each of us, is an aspect or particle of god enshrouded (so to speak) in mind and body. God doesn't "create souls"; God is the source of soul, or the eternal home of soul, just as the ocean is the source of the wave. Each wave is identifiable, but it is still part of the ocean. I consider consciousness and soul to be two different things, in this sense: when you ask me when human consciousness is created, my answer is "at all times", because consciousness is what occurs when the soul uses mind to interpret or process both observations and its own creative will, or choosing that which it focuses its observation on. So, in this respect, I agree with Mapou that without mind, there is no "consciousness" that corresponds to human consciousness. There may be something that would more accurately correspond to what we call "the subconscious". But I think that perspective of god is immune to understanding by individualized observers within god. Where I differ in opinion from Mapou is that I don't think that human consciousness is obliterated at death. I think that it is the conscious observer that creates vehicles (a body of some sort) for its activities, and that upon death we simply assume a different kind of vehicle in a different kind of world - what we call the spiritual world. I think soul is the ghost in the machine; universal mind is the operating system we all share (logical principles, objective good, mathematics, etc); individual mind is software that runs on the operating system; and the body (and world it operates in) is, essentially, a holographic representation of self and other generated by the software (or collective software) acting in the universal body of god (psychoplasm). That's the best way I can currently describe my view on "consciousness".William J Murray_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

corrected link: Case for the Existence of the Soul - (Argument from Divisibility) - JP Moreland, PhD- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SJ4_ZC0xpM&feature=player_detailpage#t=2304sbornagain77_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

As well, it is interesting to point out how utterly absurd the naturalist's position becomes if pressed to explain 'traits of consciousness':
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism: Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html
bornagain77_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Mapou as to:
I do not believe in consciousness without a physical brain. So, in my opinion, if NDE is true, it must be due to some kind of interaction with the brain.
Do you believe in sight without physical eyes? One of the more fascinating branches of Near Death Studies have been the studies of people who were born blind who have had NDE’s, who could see for the first time in their life during their NDE. This simply has no explanation within the materialistic framework, whereas, in the theistic framework, this is expected:
Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/ Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1997-16-101-147-1.pdf "How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art…. Was the Eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?" - Sir Isaac Newton
Moreover, if the consciousness (mind) of a person were merely the result of extremely complex processes of the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed a 'person' should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a 'person', as they were before, but that is not the case. The ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment:
Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies - Dr. Ben Carson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994585/ Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' Lives: Excerpt: "We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: "Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One - May 2007 Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,, Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman says. Of course, the operation has its downside: "You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost," Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole Are Humans merely Turing Machines? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cvQeiN7DqBC0Z3PG6wo5N5qbsGGI3YliVBKwf7yJ_RU/edit
Note:
Case for the Existence of the Soul - JP Moreland, PhD - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7SJ4_ZC0xpM#t=277s
bornagain77_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

Eric @55: I dunno, sounds pretty suspicious to me. Also, seems to contradict the NDE experiences BA77 keeps telling us about. Also, seems to contradict your first statement about consciousness always existing. That is unless you meant it had always existed before now, but will cease to exist when I die (lose my body)? But in that case why would something that existed before I was born cease to exist when I die? I misspoke earlier, which explains the confusion. I should have said that the spirit (the knower) exists always, not consciousness. Consciousness is really a process that is experienced only when the spirit is interacting with its physical counterpart in the brain. I can't talk much about NDE because I don't know much about it. I do not believe in consciousness without a physical brain. So, in my opinion, if NDE is true, it must be due to some kind of interaction with the brain.Mapou_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Mapou @51:
Unless someone has the power to resurrect your brain or entire body and cause your spirit to re-inhabit it, this is it. Eternal unconscious oblivion. Kind of sad to think about.
I dunno, sounds pretty suspicious to me. Also, seems to contradict the NDE experiences BA77 keeps telling us about. Also, seems to contradict your first statement about consciousness always existing. That is unless you meant it had always existed before now, but will cease to exist when I die (lose my body)? But in that case why would something that existed before I was born cease to exist when I die? Not sure this is all quite fitting together . . .Eric Anderson_{March 12, 2013
March
03
Mar
12
12
2013
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

KN Science is easy here is how it works.... What causes what? What did I observe and can I repeat it? That is it......Andre_{March 12, 2013
March
03
Mar
12
12
2013
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Eric @51: So it sounds like you would argue that consciousness is, in some sense at least, an eternal reality, something that always existed and will always exist. Yes, in some sense. The caveat is that time makes sense only in the physical realm where things can change. The physical realm does have a beginning and so does everything in it. According to Isaiah, the Yahweh deity of the old testament claimed that there was no greater god than Yahweh before he showed up and there will be none greater after. This implies that he has a physical beginning. After all, he calls himself, the ancient of days. But are you suggesting that when I lose my physical body I also lose my consciousness, Certainly. Unless someone has the power to resurrect your brain or entire body and cause your spirit to re-inhabit it, this is it. Eternal unconscious oblivion. Kind of sad to think about. or are you suggesting that my soul/spirit body is also in some sense composed of matter? The human spirit is made of something but it is certainly not physical matter. We established this by virtue of the duality of consciousness. I would call spiritual matter the opposite of physical matter. However, not all spirits are conscious. I believe that there must be all kinds of spirits that fulfill all sorts of functions vital to the meaning and properties of physical matter.Mapou_{March 12, 2013
March
03
Mar
12
12
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

KN @42:
I had only the first and second senses in mind — the third sense is not, in my view, a proper part of evolutionary theory, since materialism is a metaphysical view. While there are materialists who are enthusiastic supporters of evolutionary theory — Dawkins being the most notorious — I see materialism as a separate issue.
You are right that they can be logically separated -- and should be. The difficulty keeping them apart seems to come from two camps: (i) the committed materialists who look to evolutionary theory as their creation-origins narrative to support their a priori conviction that there is nothing beyond the physical and the material; and (ii) the convinced evolutionists who (mistakenly) think that a purely natural origins story proves there is nothing beyond the physical and the material. There is of course a larger practical and social dimension. Namely, the fact that essentially all mainstream religious traditions have a creation-origins narrative that tells of the conscious activity of a creator. To the extent a purely natural and material origins story is correct, it can thus be seen to be in direct conflict with the traditional creation-origins narratives. You are right, that a purely natural and material origins story does not prove that the natural and the material is all there is. But as a practical matter for many people (on either side of the aisle) such a naturalistic story would largely put the creator out of a job, so to speak, or at least relegate the creator to a seemingly irrelevant, distant, uninvolved entity. So perhaps I should add a third camp that has trouble keeping them separate: (iii) the skeptics of evolution/Darwinism who (mistakenly) think that a purely natural origins story proves there is nothing beyond the physical and the material. The practical result of all of this is that it is extremely common in the press, in books, in popular discussions, and occasionally even in scientific papers to conflate an evolutionary/Darwininan storyline with materialism, and it is a bit challenging to have to constantly remind people that the former does not necessarily entail the latter. All that said, I agree with you that it is important to keep evolutionary theory/Darwinism distinct from materialism and we should continue to do so.Eric Anderson_{March 12, 2013
March
03
Mar
12
12
2013
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Mapou @49: Thanks for your thoughts.
The way I see it, there are two realms, the physical and the spiritual. The first can be created or destroyed and can change. The the second, by contrast, can neither be created nor destroyed and neither can it change.
So it sounds like you would argue that consciousness is, in some sense at least, an eternal reality, something that always existed and will always exist.
So, to return to the first question, am I saying that God must have a physical body? Absolutely. And the same is true for all conscious entities.
We've had some fun discussions on this issue before on this site. :) But are you suggesting that when I lose my physical body I also lose my consciousness, or are you suggesting that my soul/spirit body is also in some sense composed of matter?Eric Anderson_{March 12, 2013
March
03
Mar
12
12
2013
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

WJM @47:
What did God have available at the time to make individuated consciousness out of? What did god have available to make anything out of? Unless something other than god existed, there was only one “thing” at hand.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that our individual human consciousness was created at the same time the universe was? If it was later, there would be plenty of stuff for it to be made of (as well as all the other stuff we don't know about) . . .Eric Anderson_{March 12, 2013
March
03
Mar
12
12
2013
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply