 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 02:43 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: No need to go to all that trouble. It should be a simple thing. Jack Flash had said that evolution is a fact. I reminded him that good scientific theory requires facts to be validated via empirical evidence. So I asked him when he had ever observed a particular species "evolving" into another species.
And I provided you with links to a website giving you exactly what you asked for, cited and referenced.
And yet you didn't. But you still have a chance to make the case that you did. What specifically in the link which you selectively googled do you think indicates that any human being on earth has ever observed another human being, or the human race collectively evolving into a higher species?
Actually, I'll admit I did begin with a more difficult task for Jack to validate his claim. I assumed that he accepted as "fact" that humans evolved from lower species, so I asked him when he had empiricaly observed a human evolving from a lower species.
Which you either know is a ridiculous, nonsensical question (if you know anything about evolution) or you don't realise is a ridiculous, nonsensical question (if you don't know anything about evolution).
Either way, it's a ridiculous, nonsensical question on a par with me demanding to know when you actually saw Jesus wearing cushioned insoles...
That would be a very reasonable demand if I had claimed that it is a FACT that Jesus wore cushioned insoles. Or failing that, I should be able to tell you about someone somewhere at some time who DID see Jesus wearing cushioned insoles. It's amazing how often you make my point for me.
I then lowered the bar to fruit flies. Naturally, he never replied. Maybe he was busy evolving.
Or maybe he knew that the links I had already provided went into extensive detail about fruit fly speciation.
I'm going with my explanation.
Something which you would have known if you'd bothered to look at it.
Looked at it. Nothing at all about anyone observing a fruit fly evoving into a higher species, while said new state survived an altered environmemnt, leaving its descendants to extinction. That's the theory of evolution. No one has ever seen it occur. Much less has anyone seen yet another claim of the theory validated, i.e. a human having evolved into its state from a lower one.
And this is why I brought up the Alpha Centauran gravity factor. You seem to be under the impression that "empirical evidence = saw with my own eyes". You have a science degree, Stiggy; you know that's bullshit as well as I do.
Empirical evidence by necessity must be empirically verified. We can empirically verify the fact that all matter creates a gravitational field. We can empirically verify it with our own eyes. Not only that, we can mathematically universalize the relationship between matter and it gravitational field and test its validity on every piece of matter in the universe. We can do nothing remotely similar with the alleged evolution of modern man from Cro-Magnon.
I deleted the hogwash about how the legal system allows circumstantial evidence, since we are talking about science. Science allows circumstantial evidence only to bolster a theory. And the alleged circumstantial evidence involved with evolution is full of thousands and millions of years of fossil gaps, which evoutionary scientists conveniently (and non-empirically) claim is due to a less fossil-friendly environments during said gaps.
Circumstantial evidence cannot be used to proclaim fact, as Jack Flash from Waco tried.
Last edited on Fri Aug 7th, 2009 02:50 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 02:49 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Anybody here capable of telling me how evolution was empirically observed? I see you all have a talent for googling shit favorable to your own position and then cutting and pasting the web address from whence it came, and posting it up with little blue words. Is that to show how far you've all evolved from a kindergarten child with a bottle of paste and some light little scissors?
I've told you several times. The fact that you have some kind of bizarre aversion to reading links is your problem, not mine. If you want to insist on people telling you complicated stuff, cross-referenced with primary sources, in their own words, go be a high school teacher.
For here, I'm not paraphrasing extensively researched and well-cited documents simply to keep you from clicking your fucking mouse button, Stiggy.
The links are there. Read the stuff to your heart's content. Or not.
But if you refuse to, don't come back complaining that nobody will give you the information/evidence you're after, because it's been given to you time and time again - you're simply too lazy to read it.
You keep telling me to read your links. I keep reading them. I keep asking you to tell me what empirical observations have validated the theory of evolution. You answer with links which do nothing of the kind. And then you refuse to tell me just what you're claiming in your cherry-picked links actually DOES verify its alleged factuality with empirical verification.
Look, you're the guy who brought up Jesus' cushioned insoles. If I have a "Divine Insole Theory" which I claim is fact, I'd better be able to back it up with SOMEONE, SOMWHERE, who at SOME TIME actually saw Jesus wearing cushioned insoles.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 04:14 am |
|
And yet you didn't
And yet I did. For some reason, you keep missing it. You really want me to post the links again? Why? So you can once more whine about me posting links instead of paraphrasing?
But you still have a chance to make the case that you did. What specifically in the link which you selectively googled do you think indicates that any human being on earth has ever observed another human being, or the human race collectively evolving into a higher species?
Can you fit in your house with all those strawmen? I have repeatedly stated that no human on Earth has ever watched another human being or the human species evolve into a higher species.
I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that this is a ludicrous thing to demand, as it has taken place over millions of years.
I have, however, pointed you to articles demonstrating that evolution has been observed in fast-breeding species such as fruit flies and bacteria, and that there is fossil record, genetic and other evidence that this evolution has also occurred in humanity.
You are the one who keeps insisting on me showing you TV footage or somesuch of ramapithecines turning into a Cro-Magnon...
So how about you focus on what my argument is (that evolution is a fact and a theory) instead of focusing on what you think my argument is (that we can observe humans evolving from another species).
That would be a very reasonable demand if I had claimed that it is a FACT that Jesus wore cushioned insoles. Or failing that, I should be able to tell you about someone somewhere at some time who DID see Jesus wearing cushioned insoles. It's amazing how often you make my point for me.
And your request would be reasonable if I had claimed that someone had watched proto-humans evolving into humans. Speaking of making each others' points, you seem to have completely missed mine and made it at the same time - very clever. The "divine insole" concept was a deliberately ridiculous concept off the top of my head that illustrated exactly what you're doing: making a demand that I prove something I've never claimed, and every time I try to get you to back up to what I have claimed, to bleat on about me avoiding proving this thing I never claimed again.
I'm going with my explanation.
Yeah, that's hardly surprising, since anything other than your soundbyte "maybe he was busy evolving" rhetoric would require you to acknowledge that you're demanding proof of something nobody has claimed.
Looked at it. Nothing at all about anyone observing a fruit fly evoving into a higher species,
And there's your problem. You don't have a clue what evolution is about, or you wouldn't even consider using a term like "higher species". What's a "higher species", Stiggy?
while said new state survived an altered environmemnt, leaving its descendants to extinction. That's the theory of evolution.
No it's not. I think we're onto the problem, here: you don't have the first clue what the theory of evolution is about.
No one has ever seen it occur.
Yes they have. While I won't paraphrase, let me quote you the very first point in one of the pages I've linked to several times:
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
Now, I fully expect you to stamp your feet and block your ears again and claim that evolution has never been observed, but you're making about as much sense as someone claiming nobody has ever landed on the Moon.
Much less has anyone seen yet another claim of the theory validated, i.e. a human having evolved into its state from a lower one.
What the hell is this "lower state" and "higher state" trash you keep using? I'll tell you what it is, actually: it's evidence that your evolutionary knowledge has been gleaned from creationist writings, not biology.
Empirical evidence by necessity must be empirically verified. We can empirically verify the fact that all matter creates a gravitational field.
No we can't. We can empirically verify that all matter that we can see creates a gravitational field. We can also make a reasonable assumption that matter elsewhere in the universe will behave the same as matter on Earth, just as we can empirically verify by observation that evolution occurs in fast-breeding species such as fruit flies and bacteria, and make a reasonable assumption that slower-breeding species follow the same rules and therefore also evolve.
We can empirically verify it with our own eyes
Just as we can empirically verify, with our own eyes (and have done so), that fruit flies, bacteria and other fast-breeding species evolve.
Not only that, we can mathematically universalize the relationship between matter and it gravitational field and test its validity on every piece of matter in the universe.
Working under the assumption that matter elsewhere behaves the same as matter on Earth.
We can do nothing remotely similar with the alleged evolution of modern man from Cro-Magnon
Just as a point of interest, Cro-Magnon is considered to be modern man - at least, what is referred to as early modern human. They were virtually identical to modern Europeans.
Besides which, we do precisely what you're arguing for the evolution of Cro-Magnon from earlier forms. We observe speciation in fast-breeding species, we develop a theory as to why this occurs, and then we test what we see now to reach a not-unreasonable conclusion that humans have evolved like those other species.
The key here is not about human evolution, which is the point you keep missing. The key is that non-human evolution has been observed. My contention is that, in light of this fact, it is no more outrageous to extrapolate evolution from fast-breeders to slow-breeders than it is to extrapolate gravity from Earth to Alpha Centauri A.
I deleted the hogwash about how the legal system allows circumstantial evidence, since we are talking about science. Science allows circumstantial evidence only to bolster a theory. And the alleged circumstantial evidence involved with evolution is full of thousands and millions of years of fossil gaps, which evoutionary scientists conveniently (and non-emopirically) claim is due to a less fossil-friendly environments during said gaps.
Ooh, look: shall I quote you point #3 from that same link? That would be the "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" article I linked to earlier in the thread and quoted earlier in this post.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
Circumstantial evidence cannot be used to proclaim fact, as Jack Flash from Waco tried.
Observed speciation isn't "circumstantial evidence", Stiggy. It's happened. It's real. We've watched it. I've linked you to the articles citing it. Denying it is being a Moon-landing hoax conspiracy theorist.
Still waiting for all those "scores" of rebuttals of the TalkOrigins articles, by the way...
____________________
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 04:17 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: Anybody here capable of telling me how evolution was empirically observed? I see you all have a talent for googling shit favorable to your own position and then cutting and pasting the web address from whence it came, and posting it up with little blue words. Is that to show how far you've all evolved from a kindergarten child with a bottle of paste and some light little scissors?
I've told you several times. The fact that you have some kind of bizarre aversion to reading links is your problem, not mine. If you want to insist on people telling you complicated stuff, cross-referenced with primary sources, in their own words, go be a high school teacher.
For here, I'm not paraphrasing extensively researched and well-cited documents simply to keep you from clicking your fucking mouse button, Stiggy.
The links are there. Read the stuff to your heart's content. Or not.
But if you refuse to, don't come back complaining that nobody will give you the information/evidence you're after, because it's been given to you time and time again - you're simply too lazy to read it.
You keep telling me to read your links. I keep reading them. I keep asking you to tell me what empirical observations have validated the theory of evolution. You answer with links which do nothing of the kind. And then you refuse to tell me just what you're claiming in your cherry-picked links actually DOES verify its alleged factuality with empirical verification.
Look, you're the guy who brought up Jesus' cushioned insoles. If I have a "Divine Insole Theory" which I claim is fact, I'd better be able to back it up with SOMEONE, SOMWHERE, who at SOME TIME actually saw Jesus wearing cushioned insoles.
How many times is enough?
Here you are again, Stiggy
See the heading at the top of the article: "Observed Instances of Speciation"?
Is that clear enough (incidentally, it hasn't changed since the last time I linked to it...)?
____________________
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 04:25 am |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Now, you can continue to flaunt your ignorance on this subject or you can take the opportunity to learn something.
It's all up to you.
Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?
What, again??
-- A2SG, people, we really need a less one-sided betting pool here.....
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 01:18 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: And yet you didn't
And yet I did.
But you didn't, as is easily evident from this conversation:
Aldaron wrote: No need to go to all that trouble. It should be a simple thing. Jack Flash had said that evolution is a fact. I reminded him that good scientific theory requires facts to be validated via empirical evidence. So I asked him when he had ever observed a particular species "evolving" into another species.
And I provided you with links to a website giving you exactly what you asked for, cited and referenced.
See? And of course it's pretty easy to prove that nothing in your link answers "exactly what (I) asked for," which was when Jack Flash had actually observed a particular species evolving. In fact, your link does not even mention Jack Flash.
For some reason, you keep missing it.
That "some reason" being that it's not there???
You really want me to post the links again?
No. That's the last thing I want. I told you what I wanted.
But you still have a chance to make the case that you did. What specifically in the link which you selectively googled do you think indicates that any human being on earth has ever observed another human being, or the human race collectively evolving into a higher species?
Can you fit in your house with all those strawmen?
Sorry, I'm not interested in what you might unobjectively lablel straw. What I am interested in is whether or not you can answer this question:
"What specifically in the link which you selectively googled do you think indicates that any human being on earth has ever observed another human being, or the human race collectively evolving into a higher species?"
I have repeatedly stated that no human on Earth has ever watched another human being or the human species evolve into a higher species.
Therefore you have indirectly repeatedly stated that Jack Flash has no means whereby he can validate what he claims is a fact: EVOLUTION. It has never been empirically observed, while in the act of occurring.
I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that this is a ludicrous thing to demand,
Nope. Nothing ludicrous about the scientific method. If someone claims that A is a fact, it is the antithesis of ludicrousness to demand (although I prefer the "requesting" that I did) that said someone provide evidence of an empirical nature for A, i.e. evidence of someone somewhere actually OBSERVING A occurring.
as it has taken place over millions of years.
Then how can it be empirically observed? No one lives that long to do the observing. Is Jack Flash The Ancient of Days? Was he around to observe his own ancestors evolving before even he himself had a chance to evolve? Talk about ludicrous.
I have, however, pointed you to articles demonstrating that evolution has been observed in fast-breeding species such as fruit flies and bacteria,
But you haven't. Not even your links have. They merely point out that random mutations occur. I already knew that, whether we're talking about fruit flies or other species.
and that there is fossil record,
Sorry. No one has ever observed species X making fossil Y millions of years ago.
You are the one who keeps insisting on me showing you TV footage or somesuch of ramapithecines turning into a Cro-Magnon...
Yeah, that would be me. There is no TV footage, there is no testimony from an actual person, there is no empirical evidence at all that man has ever evolved from any lower species.
So how about you focus on what my argument is (that evolution is a fact and a theory)
I am. In fact the former (it being an alleged fact) is exactly what I am focusing on.
instead of focusing on what you think my argument is
I'm focusing on Jack Flash's lack of even attempting an argument to support his claim that evolution is a fact.
That would be a very reasonable demand if I had claimed that it is a FACT that Jesus wore cushioned insoles. Or failing that, I should be able to tell you about someone somewhere at some time who DID see Jesus wearing cushioned insoles. It's amazing how often you make my point for me.
And your request would be reasonable if I had claimed that someone had watched proto-humans evolving into humans.
My request was never directed toward you. Time for a refresher course on this thread.
(1). Jack Flash claimed that evolution was a fact.
(2). I pointed out to him that facts can only be known as facts if empirically observed.
(3). I therefore asked him when or if he or anyone else had ever observed a human being either involving from or into a different species.
(4). Jack failed to provide an answer; didn't even try.
(5). You jumped in to tell me that evolution cannot be empirically observed, but merely deduced from what YOU deem to be circumstantial evidence.
(6). You therefore seem to be implicitly agreeing with me that Jack Flash from Waco cannot back up his claim.
Neverthless, I find the allegedly strong circumstantial evidence to be extremely weak. So we both agree it is a theory, not a fact. It is a theory that you subscribe to, and one that I do not.
Speaking of making each others' points, you seem to have completely missed mine and made it at the same time - very clever. The "divine insole" concept was a deliberately ridiculous concept off the top of my head that illustrated exactly what you're doing: making a demand that I prove something I've never claimed,
Then you therefore picked an obviously unapt (and inept) analogy for this particular case, since Jack Flash definitely DID claim that evolution is a fact.
I'm going with my explanation.
Yeah, that's hardly surprising, since anything other than your soundbyte "maybe he was busy evolving" rhetoric would require you to acknowledge that you're demanding proof of something nobody has claimed.
Nope. I guess you forgot. Jack Flash most definitely DID claim that evolution is a fact.
Looked at it. Nothing at all about anyone observing a fruit fly evoving into a higher species,
And there's your problem. You don't have a clue what evolution is about, or you wouldn't even consider using a term like "higher species".
Sorry. That won't work. Higher species allegedly survive the altered environment in a superior manner to which their ancestors (of a slightly lower species) are able. This is fundamental to understanding the theory of evolution (in layman's terms it is called "survival of the fittest"). I had somehow assumed that you were aware of this.
What's a "higher species", Stiggy?
One that survives an environment which its alleged lower speciated ancestor cannot.
while said new state survived an altered environmemnt, leaving its descendants to extinction. That's the theory of evolution.
No it's not.
And yet is is. It might be best to familiarize yourself with the fundamentals of whatver you attempt to champion.
I think we're onto the problem, here: you don't have the first clue what the theory of evolution is about.
And yet I am obviously more familiar with it than you, as we can see from the conversation right above.
No one has ever seen it occur.
Yes they have.
And yet they obviously have not. As you yourself said, this alleged process takes millions of years. No one can empirically observe any event that takes more time than their lifespan to observe.
While I won't paraphrase, let me quote you the very first point in one of the pages I've linked to several times:
Thank God!! Finally.
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed.
All you've presented thus far is the fact that random mutations occur in species. I already knew that. But obviously evolution has never been observed, unless you'd like to maintain that scientists have actually observed one of these random mutations continuing on in the aforementioned altered environment, continuing to reproduce and populate the planet, while its ancestral species bit the dust via extinction.
Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes.
Wrong. Empirical evidence is limited in precisely that way.
Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.
Where? You act as though evolutionary scientists did not back into their allegedly convenient easy fitting. If you begin with what you are trying to prove and make it axiomatic, you can fit nearly anything. It's as though I made the claim that I have "observed" a 1966 Chevy Nova evolving into a 2008 Mazda Tribute, by studying the "fossil records" of old junk cars and seeing similarities; progressive similarities which prove the evolutionary connection between the two.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow.
Look. We haven't even observed a mesohippus abruptly (or otherwise) evolve into the modern day horse.
This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that.
Yeah, I know. It "proposes" that such occurances are much more infinetesimal, and yet they have no empirical observations to back that up either.
Much less has anyone seen yet another claim of the theory validated, i.e. a human having evolved into its state from a lower one.
What the hell is this "lower state" and "higher state" trash you keep using?
I'm surprised that you are so ignorant of the theory that you espouse. Google "survival of the fittest" and get back with me. Or maybe you don't consider the modern day horse as being in a higher state than the mesohippus.
Empirical evidence by necessity must be empirically verified. We can empirically verify the fact that all matter creates a gravitational field.
No we can't.
And yet we can. Not only can we empirically verify the attraction of the moon toward the earth, we can produce a mathematical model to exhibit this attraction in a PRECISE manner. Nothing remotely close to that can occur with the alleged "observation" of higher speciation.
We can empirically verify that all matter that we can see creates a gravitational field.
Exactly. And nothing even remotely similar can be done with evolutionary theory.
We can empirically verify it with our own eyes
Just as we can empirically verify, with our own eyes (and have done so), that fruit flies, bacteria and other fast-breeding species evolve.
No we can't. We can only observe that these species (like most species) occasionally produce random mutations. We obviously cannot observe these random mutations continuing to populate the earth and reproduce with one another, while their ancestral descendants go extinct.
Incidentally, were you around to observe the mesohippus evolving into a modern day horse?
Not only that, we can mathematically universalize the relationship between matter and it gravitational field and test its validity on every piece of matter in the universe.
Working under the assumption that matter elsewhere behaves the same as matter on Earth.
An assumption, which unlike evolution can actually be verifed with every single piece of matter in the universe.
I deleted the hogwash about how the legal system allows circumstantial evidence, since we are talking about science. Science allows circumstantial evidence only to bolster a theory. And the alleged circumstantial evidence involved with evolution is full of thousands and millions of years of fossil gaps, which evoutionary scientists conveniently (and non-emopirically) claim is due to a less fossil-friendly environments during said gaps.
Ooh, look: shall I quote you point #3 from that same link?
You shall indeed if you wish. I doubt it will help though. We'll see.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.
OK. So I guess this apologist for evolutionary theory that you quote must believe that there are transitional fossils twixt the mesohippus and the horse of today. Are there? I mean, if evolutionary theory claims that these speciation changes occur through time and that therefore the transition is gradual, where are all the intermediate fossils between the mesohippus and the horse? Why do we not find fossils for the thousands of intermediate stages? Let me guess. Those links are "missing" because the very change in the environment more conducive to the alleged surviving species is substantial enough to preclude fossils being produced in those time frames.
If that is the case, you need to coordinate this theory with geologists who can prove this allegedly less fossil-friendly altered environment. I haven't seen that.
Here's all you have on that:
The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable.
How convenient. Maybe he's claiming that the fact that certain "predicted" fossils cannot be found is PROOF that the environment at the time was not friendly to fossils. Sounds extremely unscientific and speculative.
Last edited on Sat Aug 8th, 2009 01:54 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 01:24 am |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Now, you can continue to flaunt your ignorance on this subject or you can take the opportunity to learn something.
It's all up to you.
Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?
What, again??
Amazing. You have evolved into Kreskin. And like Kreskin, you do seem to get shit really wrong, Wrong-Way.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 04:16 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Now, you can continue to flaunt your ignorance on this subject or you can take the opportunity to learn something.
It's all up to you.
Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?
What, again??
Amazing. You have evolved into Kreskin. And like Kreskin, you do seem to get shit really wrong, Wrong-Way.
Not at all.
I predicted you'd continue to remain ignorant about what evolution really is and how it really works, and you have.
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb with that prediction, mind you...
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Now, you can continue to flaunt your ignorance on this subject or you can take the opportunity to learn something.
It's all up to you.
Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?
What, again??
Amazing. You have evolved into Kreskin. And like Kreskin, you do seem to get shit really wrong, Wrong-Way.
Not at all.
I predicted you'd continue to remain ignorant about.....
When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 02:49 pm |
|
I've snipped all the back and forth, which consists of you insisting that I'm not providing you with any evidence, despite the fact I've done so in every single post. The fact that you don't recognise the evidence when it's shoved under your nose is very telling...
My request was never directed toward you. Time for a refresher course on this thread.
(1). Jack Flash claimed that evolution was a fact.
For a start, he said it was "pretty much" a fact. I'm the one that's gone further and said it IS a fact. At least try and remember who is arguing what, Stiggy.
(2). I pointed out to him that facts can only be known as facts if empirically observed.
And I pointed out to you that this is an absurd position to take, as it means that it's not a fact that Alpha Centauri A has gravity, since we can't empirically observe it. We can only observe effects, and then extrapolate.
(3). I therefore asked him when or if he or anyone else had ever observed a human being either involving from or into a different species.
And this is where you keep falling on your face. This is why I have repeatedly pointed out to you that evolution has been observed in fast-breeding species. You keep coming back to human evolution, no matter how many times you've been told that since nobody has a lifespan of a million years, they can't have watched it occur in humans.
(4). Jack failed to provide an answer; didn't even try.
Yeah, he's smarter than me. He obviously realised that when Stiggy is arguing that 2+2=5 that there is precious little point in arguing with him.
(5). You jumped in to tell me that evolution cannot be empirically observed, but merely deduced from what YOU deem to be circumstantial evidence.
What UTTER FUCKING BULLSHIT!!
Where - please point out ANYWHERE I have said that "evolution cannot be empirically observerd".
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, Stiggy, how many times have I directed you to articles with titles like "Observed Instances of Speciation"?? I have said time and time and time again that evolution HAS been empirically observed. I have show you the articles citing references to this in labs and in nature. I have repeatedly explained that the DIRECT OBSERVATION of evolution in fast-breeding species can be extrapolated to human evolution.
You are the one who keeps trying to drag this back to human evolution.
Let me make this clear, since it seems you've missed it the last 47 times anyone has said it:
NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT ANYONE HAS OBSERVED A PROTO-HUMAN SPECIES EVOLVING INTO MODERN HUMANS
Got it, Stiggy? Are we clear? The above is talking about HUMAN EVOLUTION.
Now, if you can manage to wrap your head around the idea that OTHER species evolve too, and that the evolution and speciation of OTHER species is what Jack, me and anyone else with a clue about biology is referring to when we talk about OBSERVED EVOLUTION AND SPECIATION, we might be able to get somewhere.
Clear? Can we drop your strawman "You haven't observed anything evolving into humans" bullshit now, since you're the ONLY person insisting on it?
(6). You therefore seem to be implicitly agreeing with me that Jack Flash from Waco cannot back up his claim.
You therefore SEEM to be completely off the fucking map, since you couldn't be more wrong.
Let me rephrase your little chronology, please.
(1). Jack Flash claimed that evolution was "pretty much" a fact.
(2). Stiggy pointed out to him that facts can only be known as facts if empirically observed, a standard he holds to with evolutionary theory, but not, say, gravitation theory.
(3). Stiggy therefore asked him when or if he or anyone else had ever observed a human being either involving from or into a different species, which is odd, because nobody, anywhere, made such a claim.
(4). Jack failed to provide an answer; didn't even try. Not really a big surprise there, since neither he nor anyone else claimed that anyone had observed a human being evolving from a different species.
(5). Aldaron jumped in to tell Stiggy that HUMAN evolution cannot be empirically observed, but can be deduced by extrapolating the OBSERVED EVOLUTION IN NON-HUMAN SPECIES.
(6). Aldaron therefore seems to be explicitly thinking that Stiggy doesn't have the first clue about A) evolutionary theory and B) what Jack Flash actually said.
Neverthless, I find the allegedly strong circumstantial evidence to be extremely weak. So we both agree it is a theory, not a fact. It is a theory that you subscribe to, and one that I do not.
No, we agree on no such thing, and I really don't have a clue how you managed to come to this conclusion. I said at the start and still say that it is a theory AND a fact.
That evolution occurs is a fact. It has been observed in numerous species. Anyone with a left mouse-button can follow the links I've provided several times to see this. If you, Stiggy, can't be bothered doing this, well I wish there was a "*shrug*" emoticon.
The collection of concepts that explain how evolution occurs is the theory part; it's also the part that makes predictions about it, predictions which have so far held up under the most rigorous scrutiny in the scientific world.
Gravitation is both a fact and a theory. That gravity exists is a fact, and the collection of concepts that explain how it works are the theory. You know this, seeing as how you have a physics degree. You know that it is entirely possible for something to be both. Yet for some reason you discount mountains of evidence, both direct and indirect, and throw out the word "theory" as if it is some half-baked notion that Joe Citizen has about the synchronisation of traffic lights.
But seriously this time, Stiggy, have the last word. I really don't care. You've been yanking my chain for the whole thread, and I've stupidly tried to present an argument...very dopey, I know, since you have consistently refused to listen to what I've said, to the extent that in your last post you have my position completely bass ackwards. I don't know how you could reach this conclusion without being an illiterate moron, and I don't think you're that, so I can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.
Bottom line: I agree 100% with Jack Flash and go further - evolution isn't "pretty much" a fact, it IS a fact, a fact as solid as gravity and with as much OBSERVED evidence to support it. Nobody has claimed, ANYWHERE, to have watched humans evolve, so your repeated attempts to make us demonstrate observed HUMAN EVOLUTION, as opposed to EVOLUTION, is simply a strawman (Hint: the term "evolution" doesn't have to refer to "human evolution", no matter how much you keep trying to make it so)
But it will be interesting to see all those "scores" of sites refuting the TalkOrigins articles when you get around to posting them...
____________________
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 04:49 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: I've snipped all the back and forth, which consists of you insisting that I'm not providing you with any evidence, despite the fact I've done so in every single post. The fact that you don't recognise the evidence when it's shoved under your nose is very telling...
I think you're wasting your time. 
It seems clear to me that Stiggy does not have the intelligence to understand complex thought, and he is not interested in expanding his knowledge. I think the term would be "intellectually challenged." Maybe he doesn't want to believe in evolution because he was left out.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 10:21 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: I've snipped all the back and forth, which consists of you insisting that I'm not providing you with any evidence, despite the fact I've done so in every single post.
The evidence you keep providing me is not evidence that is based on (a). eyewitness accounts of the process being declared as fact, having actually occured, nor (b), any scientifically and EXACT way of measuring the validity of that which is deduced from the evidence, as we have with the FACT that matter creates gravity.
My request was never directed toward you. Time for a refresher course on this thread.
(1). Jack Flash claimed that evolution was a fact.
For a start, he said it was "pretty much" a fact. I'm the one that's gone further and said it IS a fact.
Good. Then henceforth I will direct my remarks to you. That way Jack can continue to stay on the sideline and mutter remarks about how unintelligent he thinks I am. In fact, maybe Wrong-Way and he can can get a side argument going: Stiggy: Dumbass or Showman (or dumbass showman?).
(2). I pointed out to him that facts can only be known as facts if empirically observed.
And I pointed out to you that this is an absurd position to take, as it means that it's not a fact that Alpha Centauri A has gravity, since we can't empirically observe it.
Wrong. Don't even try. Not only can we empirically observe matter from Alpha Centauri bend electromagnetic energy within its spaital domain, we can even mathematically validate the universality of its attraction. To pretend that scientists can do anything even remotely similar in their attempts to validate the alleged fact that fossil A must of necessity have been produced from a species of life that has an ancestral relationship to the species of life that produced fossil B, is an absolutely impossible sale to anyone with the ability to reason.
(3). I therefore asked him when or if he or anyone else had ever observed a human being either involving from or into a different species.
And this is where you keep falling on your face.
If I'm falling on my face, it is only a gesture of empathy to be on your level.
This is why I have repeatedly pointed out to you that evolution has been observed in fast-breeding species.
No. You have only presented evidence that random mutations occur. You have nothing evidentiary at all to support a belief that the newly randomly mutated species has any propensity at all to ultimately produce species that have greater physical or mental capacities (as we see with man's alleged ascent from the ape). Thus your "evidence" is not evidence for the factuality of evolutionary theory.
You keep coming back to human evolution, no matter how many times you've been told that since nobody has a lifespan of a million years, they can't have watched it occur in humans.
Exactly! Accept that. That is a fact. And once you accept it, you should see the absurdity of speaking with any certainty about the origin of man, which surely you don't think Jack excluded form his declaration of fact.
And missing links are not EVIDENCE of less fossil friendly environments, unless evolution is presupposed. They're just missing.
(5). You jumped in to tell me that evolution cannot be empirically observed, but merely deduced from what YOU deem to be circumstantial evidence.
What UTTER FUCKING BULLSHIT!!
Ah calm down, Butto.., I mean declin. I'm talking about the origin of man, not your mama.
Where - please point out ANYWHERE I have said that "evolution cannot be empirically observerd".
Over and over. In fact you just got through telling me that:
"You keep coming back to human evolution, no matter how many times you've been told that since nobody has a lifespan of a million years, they can't have watched it occur in humans."
Surely you don't want to make the case that when one speaks of evolution, they are not including the evolution of man.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ,
...whatever that could possibly mean.....
Stiggy, how many times have I directed you to articles with titles like "Observed Instances of Speciation"??
Over and over and over and over. And I keep reading them. Why? They never answer my question as to how a theory can be declared a fact without empirical verification. If someone wants to tell me that it is a fact that my ancestors were not only apes, but even further back protoplasmic slime, I'm gonna need something a little more substantial than laboratory observations of minute fruit fly alterations, as well as speculations as, for example, why there are so may missing fossils between all the intermediate speciation that is postulated to have occured between mesohippus and modern horse.
To declare it a fact that I or anyone am a direct desecdent of small cellular organisms is not only arrogant as hell, but ignorant as well. That's not a good combination.
Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 01:26 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 8th, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:
The evidence you keep providing me is not evidence that is based on (a). eyewitness accounts of the process being declared as fact, having actually occured, nor (b), any scientifically and EXACT way of measuring the validity of that which is deduced from the evidence, as we have with the FACT that matter creates gravity.
You're an idiot stiggy. At first I thought you were just pretending, but now I realize that you really are stupid.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 01:36 am |
|
JackFlash wrote: You're an idiot stiggy.
I think you meant, "you're an idiot, stiggy." Or were you trying to differentiate me from other more intelligent stiggies you've known in your time?
At first I thought you were just pretending
So at first you thought I was just pretending to be an an idiot stiggy, as opposed to what.... pretending to be an albino stiggy? A harelipped stiggy? A hunchback stiggy?
Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 01:36 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:03 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: JackFlash wrote: You're an idiot stiggy.
I think you meant, "you're an idiot, stiggy." Or were you trying to differentiate me from other more intelligent stiggies you've known in your time?
At first I thought you were just pretending
So at first you thought I was just pretending to be an an idiot stiggy, as opposed to what.... pretending to be an albino stiggy? A harelipped stiggy? A hunchback stiggy?
Absolutely shocking. You're right. Here is the corrected version of the text:
You are an IDIOT, Stiggy.
I hope this meets with your standards for English composition. I surely would not want people to leave this thread thinking that there is a plethora of Stiggies infesting the earth. Society would fall into the depths of despair and life as we know it would end. We could even devolve back to the sea.
What a horrible thought, more than one Stiggy, that is. I'm not concerned about devolution, I'm already getting old and would only make it back to the monkey stage anyway.
Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:13 pm by JackFlash
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
Stiggy's argument against evolution was so powerful that I considered switching to the Intelligent Design side of the isle. BUT, there is a huge problem with that theory, too. When God created Adam, there was no one there to witness the event; and Adam admits that he was asleep when Eve arrived.
At first I was confused, then I remembered my basic science class and a third option. I am now a firm believer in the FACT that all of the earth's creatures arrived here by Spontaneous Generation. I did some extensive googling and I can now prove that Spontaneous Generation is a fact. People have had the evidence on their lips and bumper stickers for years, Shit Happens. How many times have you heard someone say, I just turned around and it was there. These are your "eye-witness" accounts. I, personally, have seen Spontaneous Generation in dog shit. One day there is a pile of dog shit and a few days later there are all sorts of bugs crawling out of it.....That is the personal observation that you require, Stiggy.
Now we can break for lunch and watch a pile of dog shit to see what comes out of it next. I love it when we solve the mysteries of the world.
And this is all possible due to Stiggy's relentless efforts to keep us on the true path of science, personal observation. This also solves the age old question about the tree falling in the woods. There can be no sound if no one is there to hear it.
Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 06:23 pm by JackFlash
|
WingedBeast
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 9th, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: JackFlash wrote: You're an idiot stiggy.
I think you meant, "you're an idiot, stiggy." Or were you trying to differentiate me from other more intelligent stiggies you've known in your time?
At first I thought you were just pretending
So at first you thought I was just pretending to be an an idiot stiggy, as opposed to what.... pretending to be an albino stiggy? A harelipped stiggy? A hunchback stiggy?
Stiggy, this is another example of you being that "dis" word you hate so much. Common, Stiggy, can you once have a debate on the topic of the debate rather than a debate on your interpretation on what someone else said in that debate?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 01:21 am |
|
JackFlash wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: JackFlash wrote: You're an idiot stiggy.
I think you meant, "you're an idiot, stiggy." Or were you trying to differentiate me from other more intelligent stiggies you've known in your time?
At first I thought you were just pretending
So at first you thought I was just pretending to be an an idiot stiggy, as opposed to what.... pretending to be an albino stiggy? A harelipped stiggy? A hunchback stiggy?
Absolutely shocking. You're right. Here is the corrected version of the text:
You are an IDIOT, Stiggy.
So it took an alleged idiot (me) to correct you?? What does that make you? Idiot is even lower on the Stanford-Binet scale than moron or imbecile. What clinical name does that leave us for you, Jack Flash from Waco? Brain-dead??
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 01:37 am |
|
JackFlash wrote: Stiggy's argument against evolution was so powerful that I considered switching to the Intelligent Design side of the isle. BUT, there is a huge problem with that theory, too.
You mean other than the fact that I never proclaimed or touted it?
I am now a firm believer in the FACT that all of the earth's creatures arrived here by Spontaneous Generation.
Then you're still an idiot. You have no more empirical proof for that alleged fact than you do for the alleged fact of evolution.
I did some extensive googling and I can now prove that Spontaneous Generation is a fact.
You will be no more successful using google to prove the origin of man via spontaneous generation than declin was in using google to prove evolution.
Truth through goggling just isn't my thing.
I, personally, have seen Spontaneous Generation in dog shit.
Well, I'm quite proud of you for that.
One day there is a pile of dog shit and a few days later there are all sorts of bugs crawling out of it.....
Ever thought of cleaning it up when it first occurs? That would prevent the bug problem.
That is the personal observation that you require, Stiggy.
For what? What are you talking about? I need some kind of "personal observation" of your own particular pile of dog shit that you were too lazy to clean up before bugs began to form? Why would I need to see that? I have no interest in your slovenliness. That might be a concern of the citizens of Waco, but not me.
Now we can break for lunch and watch a pile of dog shit to see what comes out of it next.
Why? Are you hoping your pile of dog shit will evolve into a higher form of dog shit? Maybe the new improved dog shit will be able to weather the newly altered environment, so that it is equipped with an ability NOT to turn that off-white color, and instead stay refreshingly brown for ages and ages.
Last edited on Mon Aug 10th, 2009 02:27 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 01:39 am |
|
WingedBeast wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: JackFlash wrote: You're an idiot stiggy.
I think you meant, "you're an idiot, stiggy." Or were you trying to differentiate me from other more intelligent stiggies you've known in your time?
At first I thought you were just pretending
So at first you thought I was just pretending to be an an idiot stiggy, as opposed to what.... pretending to be an albino stiggy? A harelipped stiggy? A hunchback stiggy?
Stiggy, this is another example of you being that "dis" word you hate so much.
Dis word? Which word? And why are you all of a sudden typing with a Brooklyn accent?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Current time is 04:48 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
|
