It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107189 Jan 13, 2013
Judaism is not talking about some fictional state but making the world a nicer place. Not because you want to reap some award later.
Lately though their is a small group of reform jews that would kind of like the experience of the rocket-whoosh (forgot the term...uhh)taken away/up rising.

It almost makes you create a ride in a hottub on the fair.
And it is decidedly weird since we are talking about after-dead events, coming from the mind of a bloke on an island with several chips on his shoulders and a wild imagination.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107190 Jan 13, 2013
Just to conclude.
Recall: married to a nazi and anti-semitic.
In 1865, at the age of 20, Nietzsche wrote to his sister, Elisabeth Nietzsche, who was deeply religious, a letter regarding his loss of faith. This letter ended with a following sentence:

"Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..."[53]

---
Nietzsche must have rethought what 'religious' meant given all the book burning and violence, is my guesstimate.
This reminds me of some churchfather that wrote that heaven was filled with bliss because they would look down upon the people below being tortured.
Thanks but no thanks.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107191 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say mad hatters look more like thoses that make many hero posts of self gratification but can't stay on topic and go forward. Many like you fall apart, change topic like lunatics, and then devolve into babbling idiots. eg, the evodribble above.
Mark deludes himself about the true motivations of Charles Dawson strictly as a result of his personal mission to defame the ToE. You have not seen me adopt any similar self-gratifying emotional dementia concerning the fake Christian artifacts.

After your proposals concerning the "deteriorating genome", extinct aquatic reptilian becoming cetaceans, 300 MYO deposition layers from Noah's Flood, 290 myo whale bones of Michigan, etc. have been read, researched and either verified or invalidated, the sane individual would agree that it is time to move on. The lunatic will continue to babble, dribble, rale and froth.

There is nothing "heroic" in displaying exasperation with lunatics.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107192 Jan 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>From your very own link!
"Charles Dawson gave British palaeontology what it had craved for so long: A British ancestor; a missing link from the home counties."
Like I said, he gave them what they didn't have, but really wanted.
"CRACK!!! IT'S OUTTA HERE!!!"
Again, you read into it what you want to see. I've said all along that Great Britain wanted glory, and that Dawson was providing that. this sentence accurately states that BRITISH paleontology wanted a BRITISH ancestor, a missing link from the HOME COUNTIES.

RELIGION!!! CRACK WITHOUT THE COCAINE!!!
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107193 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I made an analogy. It is a straw. I see you grasping for them all the time.
I don't feel the need to operate under any definition you or those like you dictate, I am just well aware of the mentality of those like you.
There is no irony in using a human example to explain a natural process. Since we are humans, it has become a conventional method of conveying information and offering new ways to think. It is because humans are fruitful in providing these types of analogies that some have been fooled into believing that they are meaningful evidence of supreme being or designer.
You are just pissed that you are so transparent and obsessive that I was able to predict in advance that you or another moron like you would jump when I used a simple tool. Isn't it interesting that I can use one simple tool, to get a response from another simple tool.
From Webster's Online (simple tool),

irony
2a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning

The literal meaning of the words you used evoked an intelligent process. That description was used to elucidate an unintelligent process.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107194 Jan 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
At core lies the bible, but i can't understand that they have to twist facts so as to circumvent a simple: I don't know. Or to admit that the facts do not point to just one conclusion or that they are not overwhelming.
I never heard one say:..."hey you've got a point there."
I would say that to some the bible IS their cultural identity, holdall and origin including the spiritual and proper understanding and interpretation of the philosophy involved, but that does not go for christians and their mangled translation that we are discussing here.
I.o.w. we are not even discussing the actual wording and meaning, otherwise it would not go that wrong.
Though i have posted some excerpts at times from extrreme orthodox jews, that are thus almost christian in comparison.
(But one can always throw a plum or olive's size in the discussion to get on track again. ;)
I never understood their rationale. Extreme protectiveness?
Hey MAAT, good to see you back. I think you are onto something. Their identity as a Christian and as a person is so wrapped up in one or another translation of the Bible, that any challenge to it shocks them to the core.

I too don't recall reading a post where any person claiming or apparently religious made such a statement, "hey you've got a point there." It is their way or the highway. According to them that highway is to Hell. Once they have established that position, they close all the doors and won't listen to anyone. You see it here all the time. The great irony is in watching them use very un-Christian methods to support their Christian views.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107195 Jan 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
From Webster's Online (simple tool),
irony
2a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
The literal meaning of the words you used evoked an intelligent process. That description was used to elucidate an unintelligent process.
Obviously, I really struck a nerve in you. That does my heart good. At least you got up off your lazy ass and found some data to try and support you position. That in itself is refreshing and ironic.

It may evoke an intelligent process in you, but to me and any rational person, it was an analogy to convey an idea in terms that were more understanable. Your bias has lead you to see things that aren't there. In writing that analogy, I was careful how I worded it to avoid misinterpretation. I knew that you or your ilk would jump on it like it was made out of ham. I am telling you, it was an analogy and the only intelligent design was my own, which is not proof of an intelligent designer. But you keep clicking your slippers together Dorothy. Who knows what might happen.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107196 Jan 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's how you feel, why the fuss to get Icthy reclassified as a mammal?
DER!
<quoted text>
You've gotta be kidding.*This*(above) is the best you can come up with?
(Review) "The Great Sea-Serpent, first published by A. C. Oudemans in 1892, is a foundational text in cryptozoology."
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Sea-Serpent-C-Oud...
CRYPTOZOOLOGY.
What's next? A treatise about jackalopes?
'Nuf said.
Checking your link to "The Great Sea Serpent", we find the following on pg 317:
"I would invite the intention of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geologists, to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited by the vertebrae .... ".
(and)
"...I would inquire whether these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptilian; and, again whether they are not rather marsupial than placential?"
A SINGLE discription. From a book about (snicker) "Cryptozoology".
You said there are 80 species of Ichthys. Find one with a picture of a blow-hole located at the top of the skull. A DRAWING even from a reputable website. I've looked, and cannot find one.
<quoted text>
Well SURE....it's clearly not as good as the biblical "kind".[\SARCASM]
<quoted text>
Yup. No argument there.
<quoted text>
Of course Ichthy looked like a dolphin...on the surface, anyway......a bit. Covergent Evolution.
<quoted text>
...four subclasses (of reptile) were:
1 ~ Anapsida – no fenestrae – cotylosaurs and Chelonia (turtles and relatives)
2 ~ Synapsida – one low fenestra – pelycosaurs and therapsids (the 'mammal-like reptiles')
3 ~ Euryapsida – one high fenestra (above the postorbital and squamosal)– protorosaurs (small, early lizard-like reptiles) and the marine sauropterygians and ichthyosaurs, the latter called Parapsida in Osborn's work.
4 ~ Diapsida – two fenestrae – most reptiles, including lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and pterosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
<quoted text>
And Dinosaurs. Dont forget dinosaurs
<quoted text>
Then by all means submit a paper to Nature for its consideration, making sure to use as your reference "The Great Sea Serpent".
I'm sure those reviewing your work could use a chuckle.
..AND SO DO WHALES AND HUMANS HAVE ONE FENESTRA. High or low it is NOT TWO. 2 fenestra is a reptilian trait. So which species has one and a half?

These are all reconstructed to evolutionary paradigms any way. A crocodile has nostrils because it is not fully aquatic. Ichy was fully aquatic, gave live birth at sea, and even in evolutionary terms it makes not sense to select for a dud that's going to drown.

A mammal at this date, no matter what name you give it, supports creation and not evolution.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107197 Jan 13, 2013
Further to KONG....

You can scratch around as much as you like, the point being you cannot disagree that whales also have one fenestra as does Ichy as well as a plethora of cetacean traits as well as no more reptilian traits than cetaceans, it does not matter what article I present that calls its 'NOSTRIL' a blow hole. It is also a mammal.

Like Indohyus and many other evo clades, Ichy is a mosaic of creatures thrown into some bundle because confusion suits evolutionists and they can draw of multiple species and a conglomeration of traits that could tie whles to being a direct human ancestor if they needed to.

You continually miss the point Kong. I have made 2 claims around this point of 6. Number 3 being the fossils evidence better aligns with creationism than evolution. Secondly evolutionists do not have credible fossil evidence for their claims, particularly around aves and cetacean, which are the only two evolutionary taxa that do not align with Genesis creation.

Therefore whale bones inconsistently dated in Michigan are still in a geographic area that rose above the sea 290mya, Cetacean showing up 245mya in ichy is also support. Modern aves showing up at 212mya is better support for creation than the misrepresentation evos have. Also modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is support for a creationist paradigm and better support for creationism than having to invent mythical theropods and having descendants showing up before their ancestors.

I also have tetrapods footprints dated to 395mya demonstrating pads, another mammalian trait.

Mammals in and around this time is support for the Genesis account of creation and should falsify evolution but is saved by whatever hand waving ignorance evos can dream up with their story telling and a GOOFF card.(Get Out Of a Falsification for Free eg convergent evolution)

It is very hard for creationists to get their work past the evolutionary mutt watchdogs that let rubbish get published much of which is falsified with consistency. eg junk dna, human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, whale evolution taking 15my and now 4mya, etc etc etc etc etc. The publishing and peer review process has about as much merit as using a crystal ball that occasionally gets it right but mostly gets it WRONG!. This statement is supported by peer reviewed papers that attest to this charge which I have presented.

That is one reason why I say this....

Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist, even they have no idea what they are talking about with their background noise of confusion.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#107198 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
Debating evolutionists are fruitless for they are blind to the truth but still we debat. Debating creationists are also fruitless because they have the truth. If i die and I was wrong thats it but if an atheist dies and was wrong what then?
If you're right and heaven exists and if I'm right and you're not God your comment isn't worth the pixels it's printed on.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#107199 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Further to KONG....
You can scratch around as much as you like, the point being you cannot disagree that whales also have one fenestra as does Ichy as well as a plethora of cetacean traits as well as no more reptilian traits than cetaceans, it does not matter what article I present that calls its 'NOSTRIL' a blow hole. It is also a mammal.
Like Indohyus and many other evo clades, Ichy is a mosaic of creatures thrown into some bundle because confusion suits evolutionists and they can draw of multiple species and a conglomeration of traits that could tie whles to being a direct human ancestor if they needed to.
You continually miss the point Kong. I have made 2 claims around this point of 6. Number 3 being the fossils evidence better aligns with creationism than evolution. Secondly evolutionists do not have credible fossil evidence for their claims, particularly around aves and cetacean, which are the only two evolutionary taxa that do not align with Genesis creation.
Therefore whale bones inconsistently dated in Michigan are still in a geographic area that rose above the sea 290mya, Cetacean showing up 245mya in ichy is also support. Modern aves showing up at 212mya is better support for creation than the misrepresentation evos have. Also modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is support for a creationist paradigm and better support for creationism than having to invent mythical theropods and having descendants showing up before their ancestors.
I also have tetrapods footprints dated to 395mya demonstrating pads, another mammalian trait.
Mammals in and around this time is support for the Genesis account of creation and should falsify evolution but is saved by whatever hand waving ignorance evos can dream up with their story telling and a GOOFF card.(Get Out Of a Falsification for Free eg convergent evolution)
It is very hard for creationists to get their work past the evolutionary mutt watchdogs that let rubbish get published much of which is falsified with consistency. eg junk dna, human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, whale evolution taking 15my and now 4mya, etc etc etc etc etc. The publishing and peer review process has about as much merit as using a crystal ball that occasionally gets it right but mostly gets it WRONG!. This statement is supported by peer reviewed papers that attest to this charge which I have presented.
That is one reason why I say this....
Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist, even they have no idea what they are talking about with their background noise of confusion.
Creationist work isn't published because creationists don't do any work.

ICR's five year plan to do some work is now ten years behind schedule. They've now taken to stonewalling for Jesus. That, as we all know, is end stage fundimentitis.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107200 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Further to KONG....

You can scratch around as much as you like, the point being you cannot disagree that whales also have one fenestra as does Ichy as well as a plethora of cetacean traits as well as no more reptilian traits than cetaceans, it does not matter what article I present that calls its 'NOSTRIL' a blow hole. It is also a mammal.

Like Indohyus and many other evo clades, Ichy is a mosaic of creatures thrown into some bundle because confusion suits evolutionists and they can draw of multiple species and a conglomeration of traits that could tie whles to being a direct human ancestor if they needed to.

You continually miss the point Kong. I have made 2 claims around this point of 6. Number 3 being the fossils evidence better aligns with creationism than evolution. Secondly evolutionists do not have credible fossil evidence for their claims, particularly around aves and cetacean, which are the only two evolutionary taxa that do not align with Genesis creation.

Therefore whale bones inconsistently dated in Michigan are still in a geographic area that rose above the sea 290mya, Cetacean showing up 245mya in ichy is also support. Modern aves showing up at 212mya is better support for creation than the misrepresentation evos have. Also modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is support for a creationist paradigm and better support for creationism than having to invent mythical theropods and having descendants showing up before their ancestors.

I also have tetrapods footprints dated to 395mya demonstrating pads, another mammalian trait.

Mammals in and around this time is support for the Genesis account of creation and should falsify evolution but is saved by whatever hand waving ignorance evos can dream up with their story telling and a GOOFF card.(Get Out Of a Falsification for Free eg convergent evolution)

It is very hard for creationists to get their work past the evolutionary mutt watchdogs that let rubbish get published much of which is falsified with consistency. eg junk dna, human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, whale evolution taking 15my and now 4mya, etc etc etc etc etc. The publishing and peer review process has about as much merit as using a crystal ball that occasionally gets it right but mostly gets it WRONG!. This statement is supported by peer reviewed papers that attest to this charge which I have presented.

That is one reason why I say this....

Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist, even they have no idea what they are talking about with their background noise of confusion.
Too bad the entire scientiic community disagrees with you, Maz.

If I were you, I would learn to live with disappointment.
Learn to li

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107201 Jan 13, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're right and heaven exists and if I'm right and you're not God your comment isn't worth the pixels it's printed on.
Oh so now you lot can NOT defend this mess you call evolutionary science, but you will have a squark at philosophy. How brainless of you! That is not the creo/evolution debate. Rather that aside, which science is not able to speak to at all for or against, detour is about an atheist showing their desperation and scientific inability.

If atheists are right we'll all die and that will be that. If I am right I get to say "I told you so!". Therefore I am ahead anyway. That is, of course, unless you want to argue one of us may come back as a pig!!

It seems your comment was not worth the pixels it was printed on.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107202 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Further to KONG....
You can scratch around as much as you like, the point being you cannot disagree that whales also have one fenestra as does Ichy as well as a plethora of cetacean traits as well as no more reptilian traits than cetaceans, it does not matter what article I present that calls its 'NOSTRIL' a blow hole. It is also a mammal.
Like Indohyus and many other evo clades, Ichy is a mosaic of creatures thrown into some bundle because confusion suits evolutionists and they can draw of multiple species and a conglomeration of traits that could tie whles to being a direct human ancestor if they needed to.
You continually miss the point Kong. I have made 2 claims around this point of 6. Number 3 being the fossils evidence better aligns with creationism than evolution. Secondly evolutionists do not have credible fossil evidence for their claims, particularly around aves and cetacean, which are the only two evolutionary taxa that do not align with Genesis creation.
Therefore whale bones inconsistently dated in Michigan are still in a geographic area that rose above the sea 290mya, Cetacean showing up 245mya in ichy is also support. Modern aves showing up at 212mya is better support for creation than the misrepresentation evos have. Also modern bird footprints dated to 212mya is support for a creationist paradigm and better support for creationism than having to invent mythical theropods and having descendants showing up before their ancestors.
I also have tetrapods footprints dated to 395mya demonstrating pads, another mammalian trait.
Mammals in and around this time is support for the Genesis account of creation and should falsify evolution but is saved by whatever hand waving ignorance evos can dream up with their story telling and a GOOFF card.(Get Out Of a Falsification for Free eg convergent evolution)
It is very hard for creationists to get their work past the evolutionary mutt watchdogs that let rubbish get published much of which is falsified with consistency. eg junk dna, human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, whale evolution taking 15my and now 4mya, etc etc etc etc etc. The publishing and peer review process has about as much merit as using a crystal ball that occasionally gets it right but mostly gets it WRONG!. This statement is supported by peer reviewed papers that attest to this charge which I have presented.
That is one reason why I say this....
Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist, even they have no idea what they are talking about with their background noise of confusion.
You post and believe it, even when you have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you suffer from transferrence among other things.

How come ichthyosaurs tails don't look or work like the whales you claim they are?

More egg and blue waffles for you face madame?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107203 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now you lot can NOT defend this mess you call evolutionary science, but you will have a squark at philosophy. How brainless of you! That is not the creo/evolution debate. Rather that aside, which science is not able to speak to at all for or against, detour is about an atheist showing their desperation and scientific inability.
If atheists are right we'll all die and that will be that. If I am right I get to say "I told you so!". Therefore I am ahead anyway. That is, of course, unless you want to argue one of us may come back as a pig!!
It seems your comment was not worth the pixels it was printed on.
Let me translate this from gibberish to English.

Rant, rant, rant. I want to say "I told you so" because I am a little person inside. Rant, rant, rant. Name calling, rant, rant, rant. Name calling, name calling, rant, name calling, rant.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107204 Jan 13, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationist work isn't published because creationists don't do any work.
ICR's five year plan to do some work is now ten years behind schedule. They've now taken to stonewalling for Jesus. That, as we all know, is end stage fundimentitis.
Actually even without showing an extensive list I can quate Joun Sandord a YEC that has over 40 published papers. This is the usual evo line that goes for pages showing how stupid and ignorant evos are.

Although we do have some published work and our own process of peer review your crystal ball does not appear to have done you lot of evos much good.

That is why evos feel the need to justify their existence on threads such as these by chasing their tail.

Why don't you put some research, science and thinking into responding to my post above re mammal and cetacean data that supports my or your paradigm. Answer: You either have no idea and are one of those ducks that quack without knowledge. OR.. You are gobsmacked and know nothing I present could possbly be worse than over 150 years of evo twoddle. Which is it?

Can't talk science Hey? Good. I love dummies and space wasters joining the thread. They have come and gone.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107205 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually even without showing an extensive list I can quate Joun Sandord a YEC that has over 40 published papers. This is the usual evo line that goes for pages showing how stupid and ignorant evos are.
Although we do have some published work and our own process of peer review your crystal ball does not appear to have done you lot of evos much good.
That is why evos feel the need to justify their existence on threads such as these by chasing their tail.
Why don't you put some research, science and thinking into responding to my post above re mammal and cetacean data that supports my or your paradigm. Answer: You either have no idea and are one of those ducks that quack without knowledge. OR.. You are gobsmacked and know nothing I present could possbly be worse than over 150 years of evo twoddle. Which is it?
Can't talk science Hey? Good. I love dummies and space wasters joining the thread. They have come and gone.
I am still having difficulty with my gibberish to English translation, but I think you mean Jon Sandford. Again, you are being misleading (lying). Those papers are all mainstream science papers not dealing with intelligent design and I believe most if not all were published long before he embraced ID. You sure do like to LIE for JESUS Maz. He must be so proud of you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107206 Jan 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad the entire scientiic community disagrees with you, Maz.
If I were you, I would learn to live with disappointment.
Learn to li
Too bad this is a forum and "they said so" does not cut it.

All evos go the way you have, though I must say at least with a good shove you finally focused and persisted to some degree and did much better than most of the gaggle here eg Dan. Now we creos are going to have to put up with a Lama. So thanks for your input!!!!!

Creos can defend their position. TOE is not based on the solid foundations evolutionists would like the world to believe it is.

In the end when any point is debated to its conslusion it is easy to see that the data better aligns with creationism than evolution, even though it is most likely flawed. What few facts there are support creationism. eg mammals and cetacean creatures are better placed for creos and your line up is false as discussed, Aves are an evo mess and now rely on mythical theropods. I have had some of these out with you, Kong.

What does it mean? It means that the basis for the thread topic is at the very least 'sustained' if not 'substantiated', to some credible degree. Cool!!!!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107207 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am still having difficulty with my gibberish to English translation, but I think you mean Jon Sandford. Again, you are being misleading (lying). Those papers are all mainstream science papers not dealing with intelligent design and I believe most if not all were published long before he embraced ID. You sure do like to LIE for JESUS Maz. He must be so proud of you.
Well I admit sometimes I have to make obvious points over again that any non half wit should be able to understand and as if I am talking to geese. How else would evolutionists understand even the obvious?

Again thankyou for providing yet another example of a clueless and useless evolutionist reduced to ridicules, appears to be most of you right now.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107208 Jan 13, 2013
Maz, when are you going to start to defend the creationist paradigm?

We are waiting. So far all you have done is to misinterpret a few papers and to quote debunked creationists.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min SobieskiSavedEurope 126,461
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 24 min Kong_ 175,398
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 1 hr Al the Scot 991
More Theories to Disprove Creation 2 hr shasha_m 24
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr Liam R 810
Ohio one step closer to allowing creationism in... 12 hr Chimney1 213
How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup (Sep '09) Nov 20 hpcaban 143

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE