AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   Open Discussions (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Old Testament Creationism (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23243)

aiki-jujutsuka 12-24-2013 10:14 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Karl Arant wrote: (Post 332968)

Much of the "cosmology" that Ueshiba claimed knowledge of, was directly taken from his Omoto Kyo religion which is/was a very peculiar combination of Jewish Old Testament creationism ( an utterly and verifiable false myth) along with native Shinto creation mythologies (also utterly and verifiable false). As a result, you get a very peculiar, completely ridiculous and utterly fictitious story indeed.

Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

lbb 12-25-2013 10:28 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333613)
Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

This wasn't my claim, but do you not accept the evidence of carbon-dating and the fossil record as having more weight than the legend that the earth (or the universe, depending on your view) was created 4000 years ago?

aiki-jujutsuka 12-25-2013 09:26 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Mary Malmros wrote: (Post 333618)
This wasn't my claim, but do you not accept the evidence of carbon-dating and the fossil record as having more weight than the legend that the earth (or the universe, depending on your view) was created 4000 years ago?

Carbon-dating doesn`t give accurate readings of the age of the earth because of the rapidity of the rate of decay in Carbon 14. Due to the rate of the half-life (5,736 years) there would be no C-14 after about 50,000 years. Also plants discriminate against C-14 and do not absorb as much of it thus plant fossils do not give accurate readings and then there is the fact that the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, the Industrial Revolution for example produced a massive amount of C-12 through the burning of fossil fuels, which depleted the amount of C-14. Due to the fact that the earth`s magnetic field is weakening, more C-14 is being produced now. These all have effects on the measurement of C-14 in things.

The fossil record has not proven evolution or long age theories of the earth either. The horse and whale evolutionary fossil chain was falsified and are not accurate. There have been no "fossil chains" found showing the gradual evolutionary development of different animal species. In fact there are many anomalies that are evidence against the millions of years evolutionary time frame such as the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found with DNA, red blood cells and soft tissue still intact, which should have decayed long ago if they were millions of years old. Animals and birds have been found alongside dinosaur fossils in the geological strata even though they are meant to have evolved millions of years after the dinosaurs and then there are so-called "living fossils" - animals that are alive today that bear a strong similarity (i.e. no anatomical variations or mutations) with fossils found of the same type of creature, such as the salamander, duck-billed platypus, crocodiles and squirrels. The Cambrien Explosion is also evidence that the millions of years, evolutionary time frame is incorrect. No primitive fossil forms of the animals have been found in the layers below and no advanced fossil forms have been found in the layers above. The Cambrian Explosion shows fully formed, complex fossil forms - where did they come from? Some evolutionists have even invented the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" to try and explain how fossil forms could be found fully developed without the evolutionary chain. But this is complete conjecture and a "rescuing device" used by evolutionary scientists to preserve their world view.

Then there is the nature of fossilization itself - fossilization requires a rapid, catastrophic process in order for the body to be preserved - a slow process would not preserve everything such as feathers, skin, webbing, scales etc. Fossilization can also occur incredibly rapidly, depending on the size and porosity of the object. The Flood as recorded in Genesis is a much better explanation for the Fossil Record as it was indeed a rapid and catestrophic event and would explain why mammels and birds are found alongside dinosaurs, why fossils are found ontop of mountains, the Cambrian Explosion and why we have fossils in the first place.

The problem with the whole "legend" of Genesis is that this is based on your worldview. Evolution and Deep time is completely coherent in an atheistic worldview, because atheism needs to explain the origin of life naturalistically without divine intervention or supernatural processes. No science is done with neutrality. Everybody has presuppositions. Once you accept that science should be done within a naturalistic (atheistic) paradigm then you begin to interpret the data as supporting evolution and deep time. When evidence is presented against the theory of evolution or deep time, that evidence is dismissed through "rescuing devices", where you apply conjecture to rationalize away the evidence in order to preserve your worldview. Thus when someone claims to be a creationist or to practice creationist science they are rejected and dismissed as "religious zealots or fundamentalists" not scientists or are criticized for not doing "true science" because they practice science within a Christian worldview.

One of the biggest misconceptions about the creation account in Genesis is that it is myth. There are many Christians who now accept this as well. But, the genre of literature Genesis falls under is historical narrative not myth. Some claim that the creation account in the Bible is a refutation of Babylonian myths, which the Israelites came across centuries later while in exile in Babylon. But this theory is fallacious. The style of Genesis 1 & 2 is historical narrative, not Hebrew poetry like the Psalms (which has specific generic structures that Genesis 1 & 2 lack). The chronological markers of the days and nights are written in Hebraic historical narrative much like others places in the Bible which use the same generic structures such as Numbers. Secondly, the Babylonian creation myth is not so much a creation myth as it is a myth about their gods. The emphasis is on the war for supremacy between their many deities and gods, not how the earth and humanity was formed. It bears no similarity to Genesis 1 & 2.

Hope my answers have been clear and thought-provoking :) .

aiki-jujutsuka 12-26-2013 06:59 PM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
I just want to add, I did not intentionally hijack the former discussion in the spiritual section, but if anyone would like to continue discussing this topic then I would be more than happy to oblige. :)

RonRagusa 12-26-2013 09:29 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333641)
Carbon-dating doesn`t give accurate readings of the age of the earth because of the rapidity of the rate of decay in Carbon 14. Due to the rate of the half-life (5,736 years) there would be no C-14 after about 50,000 years. Also plants discriminate against C-14 and do not absorb as much of it thus plant fossils do not give accurate readings and then there is the fact that the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, the Industrial Revolution for example produced a massive amount of C-12 through the burning of fossil fuels, which depleted the amount of C-14. Due to the fact that the earth`s magnetic field is weakening, more C-14 is being produced now. These all have effects on the measurement of C-14 in things.

Radiometric dating has long since added other isotopes with much longer half lives than C-14. An introduction to radiometric dating can be found here.

Ron

aiki-jujutsuka 12-26-2013 10:58 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ron Ragusa wrote: (Post 333704)
Radiometric dating has long since added other isotopes with much longer half lives than C-14. An introduction to radiometric dating can be found here.

Ron

Thank you Ron, I was aware of other radiometric dating methods, however, I was responding to Mary`s question regarding carbon-dating specifically. Different isotopes give different ages and there is inconsistency between the results depending on whether you are using potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium etc. There are also examples where they have been known to be wrong, such as at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. Isotope concentrations are not dates, they are just used to derive dates from. However, even this requires several assumptions such as the rate of decay is constant and the systems were closed and isolated so no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. They are not irrefutable proof of millions of years.

Demetrio Cereijo 12-27-2013 07:43 AM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Ewen,

You taking exception to the claim of Old Testament Creationism being an utterly and verifiably false myth but letting pass similar statement regarding Shinto creation tale seems weird to me.

aiki-jujutsuka 12-27-2013 08:01 AM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: (Post 333713)
Ewen,

You taking exception to the claim of Old Testament Creationism being an utterly and verifiably false myth but letting pass similar statement regarding Shinto creation tale seems weird to me.

I am not a believer of Shinto and so it is not my place to defend it. As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us. However, I did not want to openly criticise another`s religion.

Carsten Möllering 12-27-2013 08:52 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333641)
... the genre of literature Genesis falls under is historical narrative not myth.

An etiological text is neither a myth nor is it historiogaphy in a modern, post-Enlightenment sense.
Hermeneutically it is important to recognize the context of a certain text: Historical, linguistic, religio-historical. If you don't explore into that you won't hear, what the text was meant to say, but you will only confirm your preunderstanding.

lbb 12-27-2013 09:01 AM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333714)
I am not a believer of Shinto and so it is not my place to defend it. As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us. However, I did not want to openly criticise another`s religion.

Well, that was really my question, which you didn't need twenty paragraphs to answer. When the Christian bible tells you the world was created 4000 years ago, and the evidence of the physical world around you contradicts that, which do you consider to be the truth? You've answered that, and there is no basis for further discussion, as you will not be persuaded by scientific evidence or logic. You will merely claim that it doesn't exist.

"They write books that contradict the rocks, then claim that I created the books and the rocks are lies."

Demetrio Cereijo 12-27-2013 09:18 AM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333714)
As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us.

How this is related to what really happened regarding the developement of the universe or the origins and evolution on life in this planet escapes me. Maybe is my Roman Catholic upbringing that allows me to find scientific knowledge and religious belief as compatible.

Carsten Möllering 12-27-2013 01:04 PM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: (Post 333718)
Maybe is my Roman Catholic upbringing that allows me ...

Works also fine for me, being Lutheran. ;)

Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333714)
As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and His special revelation to us.

Sharing this same belief nevertheless we Christians often don't share the same understanding of certain texts of the bible. So I would appreciate very much if you would make clear, that you are speaking only for yourself, giving your own personal opinions, which do not represent a common Christian view.

mathewjgano 12-27-2013 04:29 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333641)
Carbon-dating doesn`t give accurate readings of the age of the earth because of the rapidity of the rate of decay in Carbon 14. Due to the rate of the half-life (5,736 years) there would be no C-14 after about 50,000 years.

How do you rationalize the application of radiometric dating?
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Quote:

actionbioscience wrote:
•Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

Quote:

Ewen wrote:
The Flood as recorded in Genesis is a much better explanation for the Fossil Record as it was indeed a rapid and catestrophic event and would explain why mammels and birds are found alongside dinosaurs, why fossils are found ontop of mountains, the Cambrian Explosion and why we have fossils in the first place.

Not all dinosaurs went extinct; and this might seem to explain why at least birds are found along side other dinosaurs. http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-...-are-dinosaurs

Quote:

Ewen wrote:
The problem with the whole "legend" of Genesis is that this is based on your worldview. Evolution and Deep time is completely coherent in an atheistic worldview, because atheism needs to explain the origin of life naturalistically without divine intervention or supernatural processes. One of the biggest misconceptions about the creation account in Genesis is that it is myth.

The biggest misconception about myth is that it isn't historical in nature. When I took classical history, this was one of the first lessons I was taught. This isn't to say anything about the accuracy of any given history/myth.

aiki-jujutsuka 12-27-2013 08:48 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Carsten Möllering wrote: (Post 333716)
An etiological text is neither a myth nor is it historiogaphy in a modern, post-Enlightenment sense.
Hermeneutically it is important to recognize the context of a certain text: Historical, linguistic, religio-historical. If you don't explore into that you won't hear, what the text was meant to say, but you will only confirm your preunderstanding.

Carsten, you make a very good point, it is important hermeneutically to put the passage/chapter into context. How then does the rest of Scripture interpret Genesis 1? It interprets it factually with a straight forward understanding of six literal days.

Quote:

Well, that was really my question, which you didn't need twenty paragraphs to answer. When the Christian bible tells you the world was created 4000 years ago, and the evidence of the physical world around you contradicts that, which do you consider to be the truth? You've answered that, and there is no basis for further discussion, as you will not be persuaded by scientific evidence or logic. You will merely claim that it doesn't exist.
I find this a rather strange thing to say, considering I asked in the first place for the evidence that Genesis 1`s creation account was a verifiable myth. If I just ignore science then why did I ask for evidence? Both Creationists and Evolutionists accept there is a fossil record, natural selection within species, the fields of geology, microbiology etc. It is how they interpret the data that creates the distinction, not that one believes the evidence and the other does not.

Quote:

How this is related to what really happened regarding the developement of the universe or the origins and evolution on life in this planet escapes me. Maybe is my Roman Catholic upbringing that allows me to find scientific knowledge and religious belief as compatible.
Genesis 1 teaches God made the earth and all life on it in 6 days. Evolutionary science teaches life evolved on earth over millions of years. They both make claims about the origin of life. However, evolution is origins science, not empirical science. Empirical science is where you make observations and test hypothesese through experimentation. You cannot observe macro-evolution taking place because it takes millions of years as the theory goes. Basically it comes down to your beliefs - did God create the world as written in the Bible or not? If not you must find another explanation. Evolutionary science`s starting point is not neutrality, it`s naturalism/atheism. As a Christian I have no problem with the compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious belief. Just because I do not believe in evolution does not make me anti-science.

Quote:

Sharing this same belief nevertheless we Christians often don't share the same understanding of certain texts of the bible. So I would appreciate very much if you would make clear, that you are speaking only for yourself, giving your own personal opinions, which do not represent a common Christian view.
Yes Christians have different interpretations of some passages and I speak for myself here...or rather Christian creationists. Please feel free to state your particular understanding of Genesis 1 and why you have chosen this particular interpretation. :)

Quote:

Not all dinosaurs went extinct; and this might seem to explain why at least birds are found along side other dinosaurs.
There have been dinosaur fossils found with the remains of birds within their stomachs that were only partially digested, allowing researchers to identify the species of bird within them. Birds are thought to have descended from the Theropod family of dinosaurs, however, their biotype could not sustain flight anatomically even given millions of years of evolution. Then there is the fact that Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx (feathered dinosaur ancestors of birds) are “dated” at 125 million years old, while Confuciusornis (a beaked bird) is "dated" at 135 million years old - 10 million years older than its supposed ancestors.

Tore Eriksson 12-27-2013 10:16 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333641)
In fact there are many anomalies that are evidence against the millions of years evolutionary time frame such as the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found with DNA, red blood cells and soft tissue still intact, which should have decayed long ago if they were millions of years old.

I saw that movie to. I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a documentary... ;)

Sure, there are reports of people detecting traces of collagen in T. rex fossils. Now scientists are faced with anomalous data - either T. rex went extinct much later than previously thought (theory A), or collagen in fossilized bones is degraded more slowly than expected (theory B).

These theories can be compared to other scientific evidence. Fossil records shows strong evidence that T. rex did get extinct quite a long time ago, putting a dent in theory A. However, there is not much data on the decay rate of million-year old collagen in fossilized bones that can be used to falsify theory B. Ergo, theory B is considered to be more plausible.

Here is a quote from the scientific paper where the collagen is described (emphasis added):

Quote:

A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen α1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity). The small group of peptide sequence data reported here support phylogenetic hypotheses suggesting that T. rex is most closely related to birds among living organisms whose collagen sequence is present in protein databases (24--26).
Happy new year!

aiki-jujutsuka 12-28-2013 12:29 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Tore Eriksson wrote: (Post 333740)
I saw that movie to. I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a documentary... ;)

Sure, there are reports of people detecting traces of collagen in T. rex fossils. Now scientists are faced with anomalous data - either T. rex went extinct much later than previously thought (theory A), or collagen in fossilized bones is degraded more slowly than expected (theory B).

These theories can be compared to other scientific evidence. Fossil records shows strong evidence that T. rex did get extinct quite a long time ago, putting a dent in theory A. However, there is not much data on the decay rate of million-year old collagen in fossilized bones that can be used to falsify theory B. Ergo, theory B is considered to be more plausible.

Here is a quote from the scientific paper where the collagen is described (emphasis added):

Happy new year!

But it is not just collagen it is also DNA, which cannot have survived tens of millions of years;

Quote:

However, even under the best preservation conditions at --5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand' after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80--85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.
Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society

Even if the Theory B hypothesis of collagen decay rates is correct, the decay rate may still be much shorter than needed for the evolutionary time frame. As for T-Rexs evolving into birds, mutation does not add the type of information necessary to create entirely new species.

Aikibu 12-28-2013 02:09 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333613)
Please could you provide evidence that Old Testament Creationism is an utterly and verifiably false myth. If it`s as verifiably false as you claim then this should not be a problem.

A classic case of Petitio Principii aka "Begging the Question"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Example (Quote)-

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

Any attempt to refute Scientific Theory is not by itself proof of the validity of ones own argument.

William Hazen

Demetrio Cereijo 12-28-2013 04:55 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333739)
Genesis 1 teaches God made the earth and all life on it in 6 days. Evolutionary science teaches life evolved on earth over millions of years. They both make claims about the origin of life.

No. Evolution Theory is about especiation mechanisms, not about biopoesis.

Quote:

As a Christian I have no problem with the compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious belief. Just because I do not believe in evolution does not make me anti-science.
Let's see: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

Quote:

Yes Christians have different interpretations of some passages and I speak for myself here...or rather Christian creationists. Please feel free to state your particular understanding of Genesis 1
Gen. 1: A tale primitive cattle herders could understand.

aiki-jujutsuka 12-28-2013 07:20 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: (Post 333750)
No. Evolution Theory is about especiation mechanisms, not about biopoesis.

Let's see: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

Gen. 1: A tale primitive cattle herders could understand.

Darwin`s famous work published in 1859 was the "Origin of Species". So yes evolution does make claims about the origins of life, particularly human life, even if it cannot explain how life formed in the first place. Genesis says God made Man in His image, Darwinian biology says humanity evolved from apes. Thus both the Bible and Evolution make claims about the origin of human life.

But thank you for confirming that evolution is a theory and not fact, and for implicitly recognising evolution`s limitations as an explanatory framework for life. If we cannot explain naturalistically how life first formed and as we now have far more information about the complexity of even a single cell and how incredibly improbable abiogenesis is, then surely consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable?

Did the earth stop as in Joshua? Let me reply with a question of my own, where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?

As for your low opinion of Genesis 1, if that is your worldview then that`s fine, just don`t state it as fact.

Walter Martindale 12-28-2013 07:55 AM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
I'm not sufficiently schooled in logical argument but ...

If one god exists, then any number of gods must also be possible. If there are no other gods than "my" (and I don't have the delusion that there are any gods, hence the quotation marks) god, then which "my" god is it? That of the ancient Greeks? Ancient Romans? Viking gods? Raven (native American)? Ancient Egyptians? Judaeo Christian? Muslim? et cetera...

My understanding of all this "god" stuff is that it's human beings, trying to explain things that they don't understand yet, so instead of actually trying to find out about "things" (e.g., scientific study), they wave their arms around and say "it must have been (the/a/my) god(s)"

However, there's no arguing with the fully indoctrinated, as they're thoroughly trained at countering with "here's where that evidence is wrong and is refuted by this passage in that religious tract"

Fun to read, though.

Demetrio Cereijo 12-28-2013 09:16 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: (Post 333752)
Darwin`s famous work published in 1859 was the "Origin of Species". So yes evolution does make claims about the origins of life, particularly human life, even if it cannot explain how life formed in the first place. Genesis says God made Man in His image, Darwinian biology says humanity evolved from apes. Thus both the Bible and Evolution make claims about the origin of human life.

Changing the goalposts?

Quote:

But thank you for confirming that evolution is a theory
Of course is a theory... do you need a dictionary?

Quote:

If we cannot explain naturalistically how life first formed and as we now have far more information about the complexity of even a single cell and how incredibly improbable abiogenesis is, then surely consideration of alternative explanations is not unreasonable?
Therefore aliens

Quote:

Let me reply with a question of my own, where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?
Irrelevant. Ask to the question I made to you: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

Quote:

As for your low opinion of Genesis 1, if that is your worldview then that`s fine, just don`t state it as fact.
It is a hypothesis.

Demetrio Cereijo 12-28-2013 09:32 AM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Quote:

Tore Eriksson wrote: (Post 333740)
I saw that movie to. I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a documentary... ;)

What about 'The Flintstones'?

Keith Larman 12-28-2013 10:02 AM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Actually I'd say the argument offered is more along the lines of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This usually leads to attempts to shift the burden of proof. Unfortunately, it is still a fallacious form of argumentation and does little to advance any particular idea. Unless, of course, you have taken a "leap of faith" and believe even in face of the absence of any sort of rigorous evidence.

As a guy who managed to get a degree in religious studies as an atheist, let me point out that these arguments have gone on for all time. Starting with whether the sun god really exists and whether the spirits of the crops are truly happy with the sacrifice. At this point one normally has to bring up Russell's teapot argument and recognize that some will believe what they believe. They are entitled to that but logic and proof are simply outside the discussion. We're talking about things outside of reality (and I mean that sincerely as supernatural beings) and as such are simply immune to proof but also immune to criticism by their very definition.

Carry on...

Demetrio Cereijo 12-28-2013 02:02 PM

Re: Empty Space, Soo and the The Word
 
Edit.
Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: (Post 333756)
Irrelevant. Ask to the question I made to you: Do you believe the Earth stopped on its tracks as told in Joshua 10, 12-14?

Where I wrote 'ask to' should be 'answer'.

Bernd Lehnen 12-28-2013 02:04 PM

Re: Old Testament Creationism
 
Oh My:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/monste...tations_of_beo


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.