The Fundamental(ist) Republican problem with science - Page 2 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » The Fundamental(ist) Republican problem with science


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

 
Sponsor:
Lionheart Virtual Estate - Experience the Difference!
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2012, 04:23 AM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Nibb Tardis's Avatar
Gore
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,568
SL Join Date: 2004
Business: primOptic eyewear
If we were intelligently designed, we wouldn't have useless stuff like man nipples, the coccyx or the appendix.
Nibb Tardis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 04:35 AM   #27 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nibb Tardis View Post
If we were intelligently designed, we wouldn't have useless stuff like man nipples, the coccyx or the appendix.


Quote:
] the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;[6] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments — which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[2] Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[2]
Coccyx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quote:
Loren G. Martin, a professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, argues that the appendix has a function in fetuses and adults.[10] Endocrine cells have been found in the appendix of 11-week-old fetuses that contribute to "biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms." In adults, Martin argues that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ. The appendix is experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system. Zahid[11] suggests that it plays a role in both manufacturing hormones in fetal development as well as functioning to "train" the immune system, exposing the body to antigens so that it can produce antibodies. He notes that doctors in the last decade have stopped removing the appendix during other surgical procedures as a routine precaution, because it can be successfully transplanted into the urinary tract to rebuild a sphincter muscle and reconstruct a functional bladder.
Vermiform appendix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Nipples of both males and females are one of the erogenous zones, which are generally stimulated by hands or by mouth during foreplay, which leads to sexual arousal.[6]
Nipple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 04:47 AM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,163
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
Anyway, you missed the part where in intelligent design you don't drop things around randomly.
Wrong.

To test whether an object is designed, you try to figure out how much how much of it actually serves the presumed purpose. So the universe's degree of habitability is a good indicator for its degree of 'design'.

A natural rock arch for example isn't designed as a bridge because much of the material doesn't actually have a structural function and its maximum load bearing capacity isn't very high. In a designed bridge on the other hand, every part has a function.

The same principle applies to a universe designed for humans. If ID was correct and this universe had been designed for (human) life, it would actually resemble something like Minecraft: an infinite plane, a few hundred meters deep with some airspace above the ground, where all the resources you need can be found by cutting down plants and digging in the dirt. No space = no cataclysmic cosmic events, no plate tectonics = no tsunamis/volcanoes etc, the sun and the moon are just lights in the ceiling etc.

The fact that most of the universe actually is a) unreachable and b) deadly shows that it wasn't designed for life.

Quote:
I'm not for the anthropic principle, so there is no point discussing this. I just don't think cosmogonic constants are varying from one universe to another just to please atheists.
Nope, it's actually the creationists who came up with that idea, the argument goes like this:

"Omega-Lambda is 0.7! It could be any other number and if it was, we wouldn't exist, therefore God!"

...to which my response would look like this:

"Dude, the only reason why you can pull such improbable probabilities out of your rectum is because you happen to use the set of 'real numbers' to represent the cosmological constant, which by definition happens to be infinite. But this is not how probability calculation works."


But I'm not talking about alternative universes anyway, my point was simply the absurdity of believers clinging to a vague idea of the universe's existence being in some vague way "against all odds" (even though they don't actually know the odds) and then subsequently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of this universe is absolutely lethal to them.
__________________
"V Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy."
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 04:53 AM   #29 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
The fact that most of the universe actually is a) unreachable and b) deadly shows that it wasn't designed for life.
"Actually" is the key word.

My answer is this:




Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
A natural rock arch for example isn't designed as a bridge because much of the material doesn't actually have a structural function and its maximum load bearing capacity isn't very high. In a designed bridge on the other hand, every part has a function.
This part I agree with, somewhat. Anyway I'm not defending the idea that universe has been designed for human life.

Last edited by Twisted Pharaoh; 01-23-2012 at 04:59 AM.
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:08 AM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,163
My Mood:
You missed the point.

If you were to design the human skeleton and needed to connect some tendons and muscles with it, or were to try to figure out a way to enable humans to sit comfortably, the result would be a distinct lack of tail bones because you'd come up with a better alternative.

The same thing goes for appendices: if humans need an organ for training their immune system, you would just give them one designed for that specific task instead of recycling vestigial organs for that purpose.

And almost any part of the body could be an erogenous zone - why would it have to be vestigial lactiferous gland that is prone to infections?
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:19 AM   #31 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
You missed the point.
Nope, the word was "useless".
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Groaned:
Old 01-23-2012, 05:34 AM   #32 (permalink)
Millitant Atheist
 
Ishina's Avatar
MotoXexual
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
Nope, the word was "useless".
You're playing semantics.

"Any change in function, which can be effected by insensibly small steps, is within the power of natural selection; so that an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose. Or an organ might be retained for one alone of its former functions. An organ, when rendered useless, may well be variable, for its variations cannot be checked by natural selection. At whatever period of life disuse or selection reduces an organ, and this will generally be when the being has come to maturity and to its full powers of action, the principle of inheritance at corresponding ages will reproduce the organ in its reduced state at the same age, and consequently will seldom affect or reduce it in the embryo. Thus we can understand the greater relative size of rudimentary organs in the embryo, and their lesser relative size in the adult. But if each step of the process of reduction were to be inherited, not at the corresponding age, but at an extremely early period of life (as we have good reason to believe to be possible) the rudimentary part would tend to be wholly lost, and we should have a case of complete abortion. The principle, also, of economy, explained in a former chapter, by which the materials forming any part or structure, if not useful to the possessor, will be saved as far as is possible, will probably often come into play; and this will tend to cause the entire obliteration of a rudimentary organ."
- Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter 13
__________________

Ishina is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Agreed:
Old 01-23-2012, 05:44 AM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,163
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
"Actually" is the key word.
Most of the universe is completely unaccessible to us, and even if we could reach the farthest galaxies at some point in the future, that wouldn't change the fact that they've just been sitting there for billions of years. And if you expose a human being to the vacuums of space, he/she will be simultaneously be cooked/suffocated/frozen to death in a matter of seconds. There's simply no discussion about the appropriateness of the word "actually".

Quote:
My answer is this:

I'm sure you could respond without being deliberately mysterious in your answers.

But yeah, those are violin parts and I notice a remarkable lack of 'tree' around them.



It's the same problem again: trees aren't designed for making violins just like the universe isn't designed for producing life. If they were, violins would grow on them like fruit - instead, manufacturing music instruments requires a lot of human knowledge and manual skill.

Quote:
This part I agree with, somewhat. Anyway I'm not defending the idea that universe has been designed for human life.
Yes, you were: when faced with the idea that the vast majority of the universe simply doesn't seem to have a 'pro-(human)-life' purpose, you countered by suggesting that in fact it does (even though you drastically reduced the size of the universe in the process): "But we still need the seas for survival, since they recycle our CO2, along with the forests."

Last edited by detrius; 01-23-2012 at 06:50 AM.
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:51 AM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,163
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
Nope, the word was "useless".
As Ish said: you're playing semantics.

The point was that nature creates hodgepodge makeshift solutions for problems that result in heaps of genetic clutter in our DNA, vestigial organs and cascading consequences. This is the antithesis of the kind of 'design' that requires a creative agent behind it.
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 01-23-2012, 05:52 AM   #35 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
Yes, you were: when faced with the idea that the vast majority of the universe simply doesn't seem to have a 'pro-(human)-life' purpose, you countered by suggesting that in fact it does (even though you drastically reduced the size of the universe in the process): "But we still need the seas for survival, since they recycle our CO2, along with the forests."
/yawn

Saying that we NEED something is not saying that something has been DESIGNED for us.
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 05:53 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
As Ish said: you're playing semantics.
.
I'm not commenting what Ishina says. When she'll start speaking with sincerity I'll reconsider my position.
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:08 AM   #37 (permalink)
Millitant Atheist
 
Ishina's Avatar
MotoXexual
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,212
... said the guy playing the semantics game.
Ishina is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 01-23-2012, 06:29 AM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
detrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,163
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
/yawn
I could slap you down for this display of arrogant, snobbish, self-righteous attitude in the same manner you used to respond to Ish in the previous post:

"If you're not interested in a sincere discussion, there's no point in continuing it."

In fact, nothing Ish said in this thread was anywhere close to this kind of My-Head-Is-Stuck-Up-My-Own-Ass-And-I-Like-It attitude you're showing off with that "yawn".

Quote:
Saying that we NEED something is not saying that something has been DESIGNED for us.
More semantics.

I argued that the anthropic principle is debunked by the fact that the majority of the universe is not suited for higher lifeforms to which you responded by implying that those parts might simply be a part of the design that is necessary to satisfy some vague needs of above mentioned life. That is a defense of Intelligent Design.

(And it is a defense that completely ignores that a) a competent designer would simply eliminate those needs in the first place and b) doesn't address the existence of things like cosmologial voids - there's nothing in there, so what could we possibly need that for?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
I'm not commenting what Ishina says. When she'll start speaking with sincerity I'll reconsider my position.
There was nothing insincere in Ish's post, you're just fishing for excuses to exit an inconvenient discussion.

Last edited by detrius; 01-23-2012 at 07:12 AM.
detrius is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Groaned:
1 User Agreed:
Old 01-23-2012, 07:59 AM   #39 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
I
More semantics.
You are interpreting what I'm saying with other words and you are calling that semantics.

Quote:
I argued that the anthropic principle is debunked by the fact that the majority of the universe is not suited for higher lifeforms to which you responded by implying that those parts might simply be a part of the design that is necessary to satisfy some vague needs of above mentioned life. That is a defense of Intelligent Design.
I never said such thing, I just mentioned the fact that water was not useless, and I don't care about the anthropic principle, is that clear?
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 10:12 AM   #40 (permalink)
Provincial Sharia-slun
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 6,540
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Pharaoh View Post
...everything I ever posted...
lolwut?
__________________
"I am not more than a lossy Human being, and think that we all are equals..." - Wasted Engineer


U.S. Only
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
1 User Disagreed:
Old 01-23-2012, 10:36 AM   #41 (permalink)
E=mc^(OMG)/wtf

*SLU Supporter*
 
Cindy Claveau's Avatar
Edited
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 32,556
My Mood:
SL Join Date: May, 2005
Client: Firestorm
Blog Entries: 16

Awards: 2
Special Achievement in Thread Titling Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
As Ish said: you're playing semantics.

The point was that nature creates hodgepodge makeshift solutions for problems that result in heaps of genetic clutter in our DNA, vestigial organs and cascading consequences. This is the antithesis of the kind of 'design' that requires a creative agent behind it.
It bears adding that organic structures which may not have any apparent purpose at the moment may, in fact, have previously been useful under different environmental circumstances or will be useful under future environmental changes.

This is part of the resounding debunk delivered on Behe's "black box" nonsense - things which appear to be ideally "designed" at the moment and which aid an organism in survival may not have had the same function before environmental changes. There is no black box and nature is not a static, unchanging thing. And nothing can be considered in isolation from its environment.
__________________
"I'm not a Quaker and this is not a Quaker based forum. " - SalStrange
Cindy Claveau is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 10:36 AM   #42 (permalink)
Is eating your shoes.
 
Naiki's Avatar
Nom
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,168
Business: Blue Moons
Science is wrong.

Quote:
Q: How do Pastafarians believe our world was created?
A: We believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists today, but for reasons unknown made it appear that the universe is billions of years old (instead of thousands) and that life evolved into its current state (rather than created in its current form). Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.
I shall even cite sources.

About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

That makes my post valid.

Naiki is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Likes This:
Old 01-23-2012, 11:14 AM   #43 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Twisted Pharaoh's Avatar
Along with Athena, move also your hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,977
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Yesterday
Quote:
Originally Posted by detrius View Post
I argued that the anthropic principle is debunked by the fact that the majority of the universe is not suited for higher lifeforms to which you responded by implying that those parts might simply be a part of the design that is necessary to satisfy some vague needs of above mentioned life. That is a defense of Intelligent Design.
anthropic principle is one thing, intelligent design is another thing, fine tuned universe is a third thing.

When you mix two of those in the same sentence all you are creating is confusion. So learn to use the right words then you can lecture others about semantics.

So, seriously it is impossible to debate with you because you don't use the proper terms. You are on the "scientific" side, you should be a little more serious.

I'm not defending anything I just noted that what was called "useless" had a use. That's what you get for using the wrong words.

I also mentioned that if you drop someone randomly on Earth they have more chance of dying than living. I still fail to see where this is a defense of ID, except the part about the utility of water, which you are using against me.

So what do you want? To win the discussion? Okay you win. I don't care.

If you want to debate seriously then be serious and when someone makes a proposition take it for what it is and not what you expect/think/want it to be.
Twisted Pharaoh is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Groaned:
1 User Laughed:
Old 01-24-2012, 12:50 AM   #44 (permalink)
fractal networker
 
infiniview Merit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: seattle
Posts: 1,305
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 4-27-06
Business: Texture Arts
Did you know that there are over 100 trillion cells in the human body? And you can actually fit a proportionately scaled down universe into just one of them?

I think that is really cool.
__________________
Texture Arts Headquarters

http://slurl.com/secondlife/puea/126/10/60/
infiniview Merit is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
1 User Likes This:
Old 01-24-2012, 12:20 PM   #45 (permalink)
sounds vaguely familiar
 
Artemis Fate's Avatar
Refreshingly Unconcerned With the Vulgar Exigencies of Veracity
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,813
SL Join Date: October 24, 2003
Business: Ko Industries
The problem with Intelligent Design and creationism is pretty much always: Who designed the designer?
Artemis Fate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 12:50 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
veritas, bonitas, pulchritudo, sanctitas
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 7,858
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 12/24/2003
Send a message via AIM to Beau Perkins Send a message via Yahoo to Beau Perkins
I still fail to understand how science and belief in a creator contradict each other. That requires a weak faith in my eyes.

This is why I believe God looks something like this.

Beau Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Likes This:
Old 01-24-2012, 12:50 PM   #47 (permalink)
Persistent Participant
 
Kaimi Kyomoon's Avatar
Kaw-EE-mee
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Earth, Early 21st century
Posts: 2,761
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Fate View Post
The problem with Intelligent Design and creationism is pretty much always: Who designed the designer?
Wrapping my mind around a being with no beginning or end is like wrapping my mind around a universe that either is or is not infinite. I can't do it.
Kaimi Kyomoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 12:56 PM   #48 (permalink)
Banned
veritas, bonitas, pulchritudo, sanctitas
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 7,858
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 12/24/2003
Send a message via AIM to Beau Perkins Send a message via Yahoo to Beau Perkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Fate View Post
The problem with Intelligent Design and creationism is pretty much always: Who designed the designer?
Nothing. What ever God is, he was, is and always will be. One has to grasp an existence outside of time.

I choose to believe there are no physics in the spirit realm. It is a dimension that never changes. There is no such thing as nothing, because even where we see nothing there is a realm which makes that place even exist in the first place.

Edit to add - WHat is outside the universe? Science says it is always expanding,right? So what is there outside that next inch it is going to expand into? If there is nothing there, how can it expand?

My head just exploded on my desk.
Beau Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 01-24-2012, 01:21 PM   #49 (permalink)
is a pussy.
 
Hypatia Callisto's Avatar
Laughs and sneers in LOLCat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,120
My Mood:
SL Join Date: February 8, 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Perkins View Post
Nothing. What ever God is, he was, is and always will be. One has to grasp an existence outside of time.

I choose to believe there are no physics in the spirit realm. It is a dimension that never changes. There is no such thing as nothing, because even where we see nothing there is a realm which makes that place even exist in the first place.

Edit to add - WHat is outside the universe? Science says it is always expanding,right? So what is there outside that next inch it is going to expand into? If there is nothing there, how can it expand?

My head just exploded on my desk.
I need a shrug button... seriously, this post only bears a lack of scientific understanding of just how complex physics is.

The vacuum (that nothing you talk about) isn't empty!

Vacuum state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Light created from a vacuum: Casimir effect observed in superconducting circuit

Quote:
ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2011) — Scientists at Chalmers have succeeded in creating light from vacuum -- observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum.

The results have been published in the journal Nature.

The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles.

There are two general theological positions - that science is or is not compatible with theology.

I think it is compatible, and many other theologians believe the same.
__________________
"To begin with," said the Cat, "a dog's not mad. You grant that?"

"I suppose so," said Alice.

"Well, then," the Cat went on, "you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."

"I call it purring, not growling," said Alice.

"Call it what you like," said the Cat.
Hypatia Callisto is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
2 Users Agreed:
Old 01-24-2012, 01:22 PM   #50 (permalink)
E=mc^(OMG)/wtf

*SLU Supporter*
 
Cindy Claveau's Avatar
Edited
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 32,556
My Mood:
SL Join Date: May, 2005
Client: Firestorm
Blog Entries: 16

Awards: 2
Special Achievement in Thread Titling Thread Title of the Week 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Perkins View Post
I still fail to understand how science and belief in a creator contradict each other.
It all depends on one's views. Science definitely contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible and that's where so many fundies get upset.

Because they think some superstitious mystics 2,000 years ago could have outlined any fact-based scenario for the origins of the cosmos. Hell, they didn't even know about dinosaurs or genes back then.

Whether one wants to posit a God who thought up the brilliant device of Evolution, or chooses (like me) to think it makes divine intervention irrelevant, it doesn't matter. Evolution is a fact and denying it only tells us that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
Cindy Claveau is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On