Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60335 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
More BS above and not a shred of substantiation nor an appropriate articulated refute.
Well done!
My opinion of you being an empty vessel of mindless rhetoric has been substantiated.
You just proved his point.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60336 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
You are woffling with vaguary. What do you mean?
I understand the underlying assumptions of algorithmic magic for both sides of the debate. How about you?
The way evos refute creos is by providing research presented as empirical when it is not empirical evidence at all.
All the evo woffle around junk dna is just one example of it.
Just how valid would you suggest all the algorithmic magic presented as empirical evidence for 98% junk dna was?
That is the platform from which you are sprooking off your mouth from. It is a baseless and mindless stream of woffle with absolutely no foundation at all.
Here is somethinjg else you may be interested in on beneficial mutations accumulating to produce overwhelmingly negative effects re epitasis.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Feel free to refute the substance of these articles with more than your opinion.
Not a problem. The second solves the first. Also reducing the rate of adaptation does not prevent evolution unless it adversely affects the reproductive rate to the point of population declination, a result which is NOT supported in either of the papers described. Uh... you DID know that there are BILLIONS of species currently on planet Earth whose population is INCREASING, yes (that's including humans too)? Also the alternative you propose also DECIMATES all life on Earth, and yet here you are saying that evolution can only lead to extinction therefore evolution "must" be wrong. Ergo creationist hypocrisy raises its ugly head yet again.
MazHere wrote:
These articles that are published and peer reviewed do not support an organisms unlimited ability to adapt. Rather they imply huge cost and restrictions around variation on the back of accumulating beneficial mutations, as if evos actually know what a beneficial mutation is in the first place.
Actually we do. And they were provided. You didn't address them back then, you sure haven't even bothered now. So what did you do?

Oh yes. You went and found some papers on evolution, ignored the fact that even the writers themselves did not and do not support your assertions (quote-mining is lying) then mixed in a little Young Earth apologetics in the form of Sanford's genetic entropy which was debunked many years ago, then you pressed the post button with the firm intent of ignoring any subsequent rebuttals anyway.

As usual.
MazHere wrote:
Now let's see what baseless and unsupported reply I get back, if any. Evos tend to scurry away when the going gets tough or offer some opinuionate woffle based on "I beleive because researchers that are continually wrong said so". eg my assertions re junk dna. That is about the best you lot appear to be able to provide here.
And yet if that were true you should have no trouble addressing our posts in a rational coherent manner. Is that what happens? Nope. You just shout "WOFFLE!" then move the goalposts onto some other subject and hope than no-one would notice. In the meantime evolution was demonstrated at least as far back as February, but more than likely it was even way before then.

So far not one of you has even made an attempt on it yet. Then once you get past that we can talk ERV's. And for once maybe just ONE of you could explain exactly what the "scientific theory" of creationism is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60337 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Evos have had nothing to say at all about junk dna.
That's because you ignored inconvenient posts.
MazHere wrote:
Creationists can actually make predictions around non coding dna and vestigial organs. There will be none if mankind was created rahter than evolved.
Chicken-teeth. They aren't normally expressed in chickens because the DNA is non-coding.
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionists cannot not make a prediction around dna. It is that simple. Refute that with evidence and more than your humble and uneducated opinion. They can't.
I can:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
MazHere wrote:
Do we now why you can't? Because creos can support their view and evos are left walking up the garden path of evasion along with all their evolutionary cohorts here.
Except you've never once been able to support Goddidit with magic. If you can then tell us how that passes the scientific method.
MazHere wrote:
80% of the genome is now known to be functional and is validating creationist predictions.
Already pointed out function is not the problem here. The DNA inheritance pattern is. Only evolution explains it.
MazHere wrote:
Here is the published and peer reviewed research.
Since they do not support your conclusions you are quotemining.
MazHere wrote:
Here is a paper written by evolutionists including one from the Max Plank Institute in Germany. This paper speaks to the myth of 1%. This paper supports my view that indeed evolutionists have no credible method of dna comparison. Evo results are fictiously biased. Rather evolutionary researchers ignore all differences then zero in on some tiny bit of sequence and start applying their preconcieved assumptions and algorithmic magic.So evos suggest man is closely related to a chimp because they are 1% similar or 80% different. Make up your mind.
Already explained. They are comparing larger datasets of DNA groups, hence the different measurement method. A VERY simple pure base-by-base comparison shows humans and chimps are closest match. Even other creationists don't dispute this, but instead appealing to "common design", which is really taking the predictions made by evolution after the fact.
MazHere wrote:
Hence TOE is not a science it is a philosophy trying to be a science and failing miserably it seems. Evos just refuse to see it. Its a matter of unfounded pride. Others here believe in some form of dribble yet will ridicule others.
The majority of you evos be you theist or atheist are as closed minded as any religious bigot has a right to be.
Now I guarantee you that you will come back with a woffly reply or none at all, as opposed to a view I provide backed by research data given a creationist interpretation.
Alternatively you are welcome to call the evolutionary researchers quoted above idiots if you like. We may have some point of agreeance on that.
Your baseless opinions are irrelevant. Your absurd claims are constantly rebutted which in turn are subsequently not addressed. And you always avoid the hypocrisy of your own alternative which guarantees you cannot ever win any debate, as your alternative is non-falsifiable and internally contradictory.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60338 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And still nothing more than woffle and not a word based on science to be seen. You are a backyard evo that can only baaaa like a sheep.
Projection.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60339 Nov 23, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Space detritus.
Would you agree that the forces that created agate stones also created the earth?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60340 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
This is still on the table...Concede you evos if you have no redress that is appropriate.
Evos have had nothing to say at all about junk dna still.
Repeating a debunked fallacy only makes you a liar. Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60341 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if this is your opinion you should be able to demonstrte for all where and what I actually misrepresented.
These researchers still accept TOE. The point I am making is that it is all woffle and not empirical evidence at all. If all this woffle was empirical evidence it would not change like the wind and refute itself on a regular basis.
Ah, so evolutionary biology is wrong except when YOU reference their papers written by unreliable evolutionary biologists when they DO actually get things right but what they write doesn't actually support evolution but really supports Goddidit with magic.
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionary research is one of the few fields of work where one can be consistently worng and not get fired.
Yeah, that's so unfair! They're always wrong but keep coming up with results! DAMMIT!

How's that protein function prediction going using your "creation hypothesis"? Still at 0% accuracy? Let us know when you finally reach 96%. Or instead you could just link to the relevant field and say that even though it's evolutionary biologists doing all the work operating under the "assumption" of evolution what they're really doing is proving that Goddidit with magic but they're just too dumb to realize it.

See, it's much smarter to be a creationist and sit on your fat azz and then take all the credit for evolutionary biology and just call it Godmagic.

Yup, that approach at least convinces the stupid.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Data is provided, but just how valid is it? Further to that any data can be interpreted based on a predefined assumption.
TOE is not a science. It is a faith and you have faith in these boofheads that change their mind all the time.
You have many words but you cannot articulate an appropriate refute backed by research. You can quack and that appears to be about it.
Triple strength Projectors in place at creationism central.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60342 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Suck eggs. You are one of the boofheads have no clue about what is or isn't a creationist site.
"let's just say"..What now are you still unclear what is or isn't a creationist site even though you can open the links and look for yourself. Don't you know how to open links either?
Your ignorance supports the fact that you have no idea about recent advances in evolutionary theory. It is that simple. It is like I am trying to have a debate with a 12 year old.
Tell us again how biological science supports decimating all life on Earth multiple times and being fixed by Godmagic.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60343 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet if that were true you should have no trouble addressing our posts in a rational coherent manner. Is that what happens? Nope. You just shout "WOFFLE!" then move the goalposts onto some other subject and hope than no-one would notice. In the meantime evolution was demonstrated at least as far back as February, but more than likely it was even way before then.
So far not one of you has even made an attempt on it yet. Then once you get past that we can talk ERV's. And for once maybe just ONE of you could explain exactly what the "scientific theory" of creationism is.
Now another 3rd page of woffle with not a whiff of scientific backing to be seen to refute my assertions.

You keep saying you or others have provided a substantive reply. Then requote it. I dare you. You have provided nothing more than woffle. Woffle for the purpose of my point means no substantive refute backed by research to the suggestion that your evidence for evolution that is related to non coding dna, vestigial organs, organisms limitless ability to adapt is flawed.

Your opinion and bla mazhere is wrong is not evidence for anything. You have not provided any evidence nor argument that challenges anything I have said so far.

The fact is recent research supports the opposite of initial evolutionary claims, which so happens to align with general creationist long standing predictions.

How do you know the latest flavour of the month means anything at all? Is it because you have mountains of it? You can throw out all biology books older than 10 years as they are outdated. That is how stable TOE is.

It is funny how when I am accused of providing no support for my view I can immediately repost or requote previous posts that show you up to be the desperate liar that you are.

However when it comes to you, you just speak to empty words. Such is your desperation on obvious state of denial.

See?? Dah!!!

Junk dna the fantasy of desperate evos
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...
Here is the published and peer reviewed research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...
Here is the pay per view, peer reviewed and published paper that the previous article speaks to.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...

Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.

Creationists can and on the above points of evidence suggest the research favours their predictions and turns evolutionary theory into a myth of change and unfalsifiability.

Hence TOE is not a science it is a philosophy trying to be a science and failing miserably it seems. Evos just refuse to see it. Its a matter of unfounded pride.

If there is anything you have provided worth requoting then requote it or stop playing games of evasion and suck it up. You loose by default if nothing else.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60344 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
SubdutionZone is a champ due to amounts of post and nothing to do with content. He has absolutely no idea except to mimick others words he likely cannot comprehend himself.
Here is a message to Subduction Zone.....
The work on epitasis I have presented actually supports other research on genetic entropy by John C Sanford.
Actually Sanford is a reality-denying Young Earther. His apologetics destroys all life. His problem is that reality contradicts his assertions, and he deliberately ignores taking natural selection into account when making his proclamations. If his BS was right he should have no problem calculating the date that genetic entropy reaches critical mass leading to the declination of the biological population. His problem is that the populations of many species (including humans) are actually increasing in population and genetic diversity. Also as a Genesis and "Flood" proponent his claims are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of those scenarios.
MazHere wrote:
Of course evos, that have some clue, will point to a swathe of blather that refutes Sanford. Of course evos use their own assumption as a refute and tis is and always has been circular. This new research actually refutes the refute to Sanfords work and turns previous refutes into mindless blather.
Except it's already been addressed, as has your dishonesty in quotemining other people's work. You can't fling poo at a science then at the same time claim that very same science supports you. So to translate what you just said you really mean you can offer no counter to our rebuttals and will engage in Gish Gallop.
MazHere wrote:
My prediction is that I will get more woffle and generalizations with not a shred of research in support and no articulated reply, meaning my points are made and sustained.
... actually meaning you will ignore rebuttals completely without addressing them.

This thread has been going over a year and you're still doing that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60346 Nov 23, 2012
BTW, ervs are ghosts that you are chasing in supposed junk dna.

Ervs are found by algorithmic magic based on a tiny sequence that is purported to be similar to viral sequences but in fact, just like the rest of the genome, are vastly different.

I am happy to take on ervs, not problem.

Go! State your case...

Let's see just ewhat you know before I start posting links to support myself on this topic of ghost chasing.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60347 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Sanford is a reality-denying Young Earther. His apologetics destroys all life. His problem is that reality contradicts his assertions, and he deliberately ignores taking natural selection into account when making his proclamations. If his BS was right he should have no problem calculating the date that genetic entropy reaches critical mass leading to the declination of the biological population. His problem is that the populations of many species (including humans) are actually increasing in population and genetic diversity. Also as a Genesis and "Flood" proponent his claims are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of those scenarios.
<quoted text>
Except it's already been addressed, as has your dishonesty in quotemining other people's work. You can't fling poo at a science then at the same time claim that very same science supports you. So to translate what you just said you really mean you can offer no counter to our rebuttals and will engage in Gish Gallop.
<quoted text>
... actually meaning you will ignore rebuttals completely without addressing them.
This thread has been going over a year and you're still doing that.
You absolutely have no idea what supporting your view looks like, do you?

I say the research supports Sanford and have explained why.

You come back with a load of woffle about Gish. I don't give a stuff about Gish. I can run my own race.

This is why you lot of evos are gobsmacked. If you can't prattle some prewritten response to the usual creationist lines you are totally lost like Alice in Wonderland.

You are lost and are gobsmacked and unable to mount any substantive reply and never ever have.

.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60348 Nov 23, 2012
Agate stones are said to be from 200 to 400 million years old according to scientist. These stones have been found in Kentucky that have distinct pictures of native American Indians after they were cut in half. The Creator of the earth foreknew about the Indians. I personally think scientist have their timelines wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60349 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
So now this bright spark is suggesting the onus is not evolutionists to support their view. is that the case? There is a Goose award going on offer here?
The obvious point being that for evolution to be true based on all your woffle around beneficial mutations they have been acumulating for billions of years. Yet this predictive modelling is suggesting a decline in fitness, not an increase in fitness.
So let's see what they ACTUALLY said shall we?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

"The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto MORE FIT BACKGROUNDS. These three alleles all REDUCED MORPHOLOGICAL DEFECTS caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs EFFECTIVELY PREDICTED" (that's evolution science baby) "the interactions between them." (emphasis mine)

In other words the particular benefits of these loci were reduced overall when introduced into a focus already of a robust nature. It's like someone with $25 being given three $5 notes and someone else with $150 getting three $10 notes. The latter still feels a benefit but not as much as the first guy does. In other words the more fit something gets the less NOTICEABLE benefit from further successful adaptations. Note the BENEFITS occurring WITHOUT any declines in fitness, and also the LACK of creationist predictions and complete and utter lack of invisible Jewmagic.
MazHere wrote:
However the point is, this is again NOT what evolutionists expected to find. This is common place.
Unexpected things can happen all the time. But as you said, the important thing is whether or not they falsify evolution. If they don't, then evolution remains unaffected. Sure, new research and discoveries can throw up a few surprises. But if evolution is not falsified then we don't have a problem. Now once you find a gross violation of nested hierarchies and explain how creationism can account for them (without resorting to taking the credit for evolutionary resarch) then do let us know.
MazHere wrote:
Creos do nort have to invent ridiculous scenarios becuase generally the findings speak for themselves in supporting a creationist paradigm.
The results on this research into epitasis is exactly what creationists expect to find.
Actually no it isn't. The reason being that merely falsifying evolution does NOT provide POSITIVE support for your position in any way whatsoever. Also your own position REQUIRES evolution, to such an extent that it far outstrips any real viable evolution rate. This paradox leads what you call "TEH FALL" to run in the completely OPPOSITE direction to Genesis and Noah's Flood. Leading you to (literally) invoke invisible Jewmagic to rescue your baseless suppositions. Rather than resolving your inherent lack of intellectual integrity you prefer to focus on taking evolutionary research out of context and spamming it back on the forum.

You're batting zero for zero so far Maz.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#60350 Nov 23, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Agate stones are said to be from 200 to 400 million years old according to scientist. These stones have been found in Kentucky that have distinct pictures of native American Indians after they were cut in half. The Creator of the earth foreknew about the Indians. I personally think scientist have their timelines wrong.
HOLY CRAP....Your insane as heck. Please get mental help fast.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60351 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now another 3rd page of woffle with not a whiff of scientific backing to be seen to refute my assertions.
You keep saying you or others have provided a substantive reply. Then requote it. I dare you. You have provided nothing more than woffle. Woffle for the purpose of my point means no substantive refute backed by research to the suggestion that your evidence for evolution that is related to non coding dna, vestigial organs, organisms limitless ability to adapt is flawed.
Your opinion and bla mazhere is wrong is not evidence for anything. You have not provided any evidence nor argument that challenges anything I have said so far.
The fact is recent research supports the opposite of initial evolutionary claims, which so happens to align with general creationist long standing predictions.
How do you know the latest flavour of the month means anything at all? Is it because you have mountains of it? You can throw out all biology books older than 10 years as they are outdated. That is how stable TOE is.
It is funny how when I am accused of providing no support for my view I can immediately repost or requote previous posts that show you up to be the desperate liar that you are.
However when it comes to you, you just speak to empty words. Such is your desperation on obvious state of denial.
See?? Dah!!!
Junk dna the fantasy of desperate evos
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-human-e...
Here is the published and peer reviewed research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/fra...
Here is the pay per view, peer reviewed and published paper that the previous article speaks to.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/18...
Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.
Creationists can and on the above points of evidence suggest the research favours their predictions and turns evolutionary theory into a myth of change and unfalsifiability.
Hence TOE is not a science it is a philosophy trying to be a science and failing miserably it seems. Evos just refuse to see it. Its a matter of unfounded pride.
If there is anything you have provided worth requoting then requote it or stop playing games of evasion and suck it up. You loose by default if nothing else.
Come on Dude you and many here like kitten & subductionzone have really big attitudes but have provided stuff all to support yourselves.

When evos get pinned they scurry off down the path to evasion and want to evade the point by using strategies such as changing the topic or posing non related questions, often of a philosophical smoke screen. Hence they can go around in circles for years and say absolutely nothing of substance.

Can you evos make any scientifically based predictions around dna or not?

I said creationists predict that NO dna will be totally functionless. Evos have gone from 2% to 80% functionality.

Who would any of you evos like to put your credibility on the line to be requoted in time that one day 100% of the genome will be known to have function? I say it will. Do disagree if you suggest this mere 20% left will remain support for TOE and stand the test of time.

OR, do you wish to withdraw all claims that non coding dna informs support for TOE at all?

OR just keep playing games of evasion, whereby creationists hold the upper hand here on this forum.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60352 Nov 23, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Years ago I owned a house on an alley by a church. They would park in alley and acually park onto my grass,my yard ,my property. I put up a fence so they couldnt. One day one of these good church people hit my fence and had the nerve to try and sue me. LOL typical vile religous freaks. Then this church a few years later wanted to expand. they wanted to buy my land. I said no. Within 6 months I had a court order forceing me to sell my land do to some BS building code crap. RELIGION FORCED GOVERNMENT TO FORCE ME OUT OF MY HOME.
Yeah, that would piss me off! Was there any easements on your property for them to leverage?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60353 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
It is funny how when I am accused of providing no support for my view I can immediately repost or requote previous posts that show you up to be the desperate liar that you are.
However when it comes to you, you just speak to empty words. Such is your desperation on obvious state of denial.[/QUTOE]

Oh, that must be why you ignored most of my post.(shrug)

[QUOTE who="MazHere"]
Are there any predictions that TOE can make around non coding dna and comparative similarity? The answer is NO.
Can and done. Can you do anything but copy-paste yourself over and over?
MazHere wrote:
Creationists can and on the above points of evidence suggest the research favours their predictions and turns evolutionary theory into a myth of change and unfalsifiability.
Potential falsifications of evolution were posted by me earlier today. Keep skipping, skippy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60354 Nov 23, 2012
MazHere wrote:
BTW, ervs are ghosts that you are chasing in supposed junk dna.
If they were junk they would not be referred to as ERV's.
MazHere wrote:
Ervs are found by algorithmic magic based on a tiny sequence that is purported to be similar to viral sequences but in fact, just like the rest of the genome, are vastly different.
To what?
MazHere wrote:
I am happy to take on ervs, not problem.
Go! State your case...
Let's see just ewhat you know before I start posting links to support myself on this topic of ghost chasing.
But would you actually address them or simply misrepresent evolutionary research like all the rest of the time?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60355 Nov 23, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's see what they ACTUALLY said shall we?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
"The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto MORE FIT BACKGROUNDS. These three alleles all REDUCED MORPHOLOGICAL DEFECTS caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs EFFECTIVELY PREDICTED" (that's evolution science baby) "the interactions between them." (emphasis mine)
In other words the particular benefits of these loci were reduced overall when introduced into a focus already of a robust nature. It's like someone with $25 being given three $5 notes and someone else with $150 getting three $10 notes. The latter still feels a benefit but not as much as the first guy does. In other words the more fit something gets the less NOTICEABLE benefit from further successful adaptations. Note the BENEFITS occurring WITHOUT any declines in fitness, and also the LACK of creationist predictions and complete and utter lack of invisible Jewmagic.
<quoted text>
Listen here to me you are woffling agian.

What is it that you do not understand about this.

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.

It is self explanatary. Then you go on with some woffle about many that has absolutley nothing to do with the research.

Do you understand it all?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 min Nattitude 5,648
"BEWARE of ISIS!" 7 min Grace Nerissa 37
Things Not To Say In Bed (Oct '11) 8 min Mike Allen 2,563
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 22 min Senior-Bush 20,633
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 23 min AmyFaith 5,022
What Could Be Striking,...? 25 min ---Word Woman--- 3
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 30 min Bill 288
Woman Adds 3rd Breast to Make Herself 'Unattrac... 34 min Grace Nerissa 16
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Tom2Tone 147,054
Reporter Quits in Vulgar Fashion 2 hr Xstain Fumblement... 7
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••