It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


SMALL stones being rolled around, yes.
Large ones, No.

As to moving glaciers----how about those round stones where there were no glaciers?

And pray tell, how do glaciers move across more or less LEVEL ground?
The moving glacier theory is illogical.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Have you ever seen an ice cube on your kitchen table when it's melting? Same thing applies to glaciers, there's your answer.......



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You want evidence mad Darwin?

There is evidence all over the world.

Doesn't do much for Noah and his boat load of animals, but does show that there was a huge catastrophe with a lot of water involved. And that the "ice age" came after, not before.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


SMALL stones being rolled around, yes.
Large ones, No.

As to moving glaciers----how about those round stones where there were no glaciers?

And pray tell, how do glaciers move across more or less LEVEL ground?
The moving glacier theory is illogical.


Not illogical...you apparently just don't know the theory



And of course like someone else said, you can test it for yourself by placing an icecube on a level surface...check out how long it won't move.

And this highlights an important thing: Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean A) God did it, or B) you can attack the underlying science without providing evidence.


edit on 25-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You want evidence mad Darwin?


Why yes, I would like to see where the evidence is that he was mad. Maybe a bit disturbed by the implications of his own theory, maybe distraught over the death of his beloved child, but mad?



There is evidence all over the world.


Where would this evidence happen to be? Hiding under a round bolder?



Doesn't do much for Noah and his boat load of animals, but does show that there was a huge catastrophe with a lot of water involved. And that the "ice age" came after, not before.


Um...where is the sedimentary evidence? There would be geologic evidence in the strata, but it is not found. Where is the evidence of a mass extermination of humans and animals alike that a massive flood would entail? We would have genetic evidence based upon how few humans would have survived such an event, but it is not there.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


This is quite simply the most succinct explanation of glacial movement that I've ever heard. It's mind boggling that I'd never heard it explained like that. Or maybe I didn't pay attention or whatever.

I've typically explained it as relating to how ice skates can drift along without moving a muscle as long as their skates are pointed in the right direction....but that just seems too cumbersome now.

A nice shiny star for you.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Um...where is the sedimentary evidence


Um.....you do know that boulders are considered sediments, right?


edit on 25-12-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


How are those boulders evidence of a global flood? I mean, we know that rounded boulders can form without a global flood.

There is no evidence in the geologic strata that would follow the mechanics of how flood sedimentation works. We'd have a unified, global 'flood boundary' similar to how we have the KT boundary in the geologic record.

Oh, and please quote me in full next time, because I bring up a hell of a lot more objections than that.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There would be geologic evidence in the strata, but it is not found. Where is the evidence of a mass extermination of humans and animals alike that a massive flood would entail? We would have genetic evidence based upon how few humans would have survived such an event, but it is not there.


So the point cannot be held up by boulders alone.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




So the point cannot be held up by boulders alone.


I find it interesting that this discussion goes from "no evidence" or "zero evidence" to your above comment.

Those boulders would have to travel a large distance, at great speed. The forces that moved these sediments were incredible.


There is no evidence in the geologic strata that would follow the mechanics of how flood sedimentation works. We'd have a unified, global 'flood boundary' similar to how we have the KT boundary in the geologic record.


So you have researched this?

Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?

A global cataclysm would not be static, but dynamic by it's very nature. A global flood would produce different results in different parts on the earth. The climate and geology would effect the results.

If I took a fire hose to my yard, the water pressure would create different features in different places based on the amount of clay, sand and rock under the topsoil. Not to mention if I did this in the middle of winter vs. summer.

Localized wind, flooding and glaciers would cause erosion and change sedimentation afterward.


Some of what remains is surface planation, sheared mountain tops and seamounts, as well as large round sediments left in the middle of prairies that offer support of a global cataclysm.

More sedimentary and fossil evidence may be found at the lowest point of our planet. Oceanographers have barely scratched the surface of what is in the depths of the ocean.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




So the point cannot be held up by boulders alone.


I find it interesting that this discussion goes from "no evidence" or "zero evidence" to your above comment.


I'm not acknowledging the boulders, they aren't evidence of a global cataclysm. There is still zero evidence. Of course, were the boulders considered possible evidence, it would still not account for the amount of evidence there should be of a global event.



Those boulders would have to travel a large distance, at great speed. The forces that moved these sediments were incredible.


Incredible? Sure, why not. A global flood? Definitely not a requirement.




There is no evidence in the geologic strata that would follow the mechanics of how flood sedimentation works. We'd have a unified, global 'flood boundary' similar to how we have the KT boundary in the geologic record.


So you have researched this?


Why yes, I actually have. I studied up on geology due to constant creationist geology deceptions. Now, I'm not saying you are a deceiver, but you seem to have been deceived.



Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?


No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly. Instead they have studied geology and found that the currently accepted model is the best explanation, that is a model that excludes a global flood.

They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.

I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.



A global cataclysm would not be static, but dynamic by it's very nature. A global flood would produce different results in different parts on the earth. The climate and geology would effect the results.


Except for the fact that it would produce incredibly similar results. Sure, a desert would be affected differently than a mountain range, but all mountain ranges would be affected similarly. We would see similar erosion patterns on the Himalayas, the Alps, the Rockies, the Andes, the Ozarks, etc. We don't.

We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly. It cannot cause sorted layers of sedimentation that have an evolutionarily chronological sorting of fossils.

And again, there would still be a global 'flood layer' that isn't found globally.



If I took a fire hose to my yard, the water pressure would create different features in different places based on the amount of clay, sand and rock under the topsoil. Not to mention if I did this in the middle of winter vs. summer.


Except that this wasn't a hose and there wasn't a nozzle pointed at the ground. Of course, that effect would be made negligible anyway by the tidal forces of a Earth covered in water for a whole year.



Localized wind, flooding and glaciers would cause erosion and change sedimentation afterward.


But wouldn't alter the sedimentation caused by a whole year of a global flood. There would be, at the very least, a modicum of evidence of this event.



Some of what remains is surface planation,


How is that caused by a flood?



sheared mountain tops and seamounts,


Again, how is that caused by a global flood?



as well as large round sediments left in the middle of prairies that offer support of a global cataclysm.


How?

I have to keep asking because I see point A, and I see point Z, but I don't see how you got there.



More sedimentary and fossil evidence may be found at the lowest point of our planet.


No, it wouldn't. The lowest points of our planet would be a big ol' ball of iron. Of course, if you mean the lowest parts of the crust of the Earth...it still wouldn't make sense because of the timescale involved. Why would there be evidence of an event that took place thousands of years ago when the lowest parts of the crust would be hundreds of millions of years old?



Oceanographers have barely scratched the surface of what is in the depths of the ocean.


Oh, that's what you meant? Um...why would the evidence be found at the bottom of the ocean rather than everywhere on the planet?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
is this a topic in which Atheistic Darwinist get to bash Creation theory Theists ?

but that sort of thing does not go on around here right ?

humm when was this topic started ?

can I get in on some of this action ?

gotta love a fair and balanced open-minded discussion !

4 question marks only, anyone care to address ?

oops that's 5 question marks sorry



edit on 12/26/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Nope, this is a thread in which the absurdity and scientific impossibility of the story of Noah's flood is demonstrated. I'm not saying that everyone who accepts the story is an idiot or anything of that sort, I'm simply showing that their belief is incorrect and that they've been misinformed.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


If you have proof a global flood happened share it with people, if you don't have proof show why you think it had happened, it is that simple really... You just came in here to troll of course by coming here trying to pick a fight that is completely off topic, it's alright though you just revealed your true colors...



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
ATTENTION PLEASE

1. Just because you do not agree with a post, does not make it off topic

2. Spamming the Complaint Forum with non relevant complaints does NOT look bad on the person you are complaining on..

3. If this topic upsets you that much, perhaps you should go elsewhere.

Thank you

Semper

ps.. Do NOT respond to this post in thread
edit on 12/26/2010 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I'm not acknowledging the boulders, they aren't evidence of a global cataclysm. There is still zero evidence.



It's a good thing that boulders don't have feelings. They might be offended that the you don't acknowledge them.

You don't have to agree with the evidence.



"Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?"



No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly.


Dogma.

With that statement you lose credibility.

That attitude was the reason J Harlen Bretz and his work were initially discredited.


“By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell’s rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form.

Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes.”[24]

Thus the current scientific consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[32] In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions.

This is also known as the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action.

The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology. [edit] See also


Uniformitarianism



They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.


You already stated that "they" aren't looking.

Erosion would not be uniform.

We already debated the "not enough water" thing.

There is enough water to cover the earth.


I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.



Tex5He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever. 6Thou hadst covered it with the deep, as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains: 7At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away; -- 8The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them; -- 9Thou hast set a bound which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth. t

Psalms 104

The sea floor sinks and the mountains rise.

Sounds like Plate Tectonics to me.

The retreating flood waters create additional formations.


We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly. It cannot cause sorted layers of sedimentation that have an evolutionarily chronological sorting of fossils.






Some of what remains is surface planation,


How is that caused by a flood?


The retreating water created a sheet wash which produced surface planation.




Um...why would the evidence be found at the bottom of the ocean rather than everywhere on the planet?


Retreating flood waters would wash much of the sediment into the ocean.

Whale fossils high in Andes



edit on 26-12-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I'm not acknowledging the boulders, they aren't evidence of a global cataclysm. There is still zero evidence.



It's a good thing that boulders don't have feelings. They might be offended that the you don't acknowledge them.

You don't have to agree with the evidence.


Actually, I do. The whole point of evidence is that it is objective. Could you please provide some sort of argument that shows that a global flood is the best explanation for these boulders?



"Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?"



No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly.


Dogma.


How is acknowledging an entire lack of evidence dogma?



With that statement you lose credibility.


And with quote-mining me you lose credibility. You took a single sentence out of a paragraph and took a single paragraph out of three in response to a statement.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly. Instead they have studied geology and found that the currently accepted model is the best explanation, that is a model that excludes a global flood.

They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.

I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.




That attitude was the reason J Harlen Bretz and his work were initially discredited.


No, the lack of evidence in support of his hypothesis was the reason he was discredited. It was later vindicated by evidence which arose through further study. Science has no compulsion to accept hypotheses in the face of absent evidence confirming their claims.




“By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell’s rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form.

Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes.”[24]

Thus the current scientific consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[32] In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions.

This is also known as the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action.

The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology. [edit] See also


Uniformitarianism


So a quote from wikipedia proves a global flood when it doesn't address the problems of a global flood or assert a global flood?




They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.


You already stated that "they" aren't looking.


No, I stated that they aren't specifically looking to refute an unsupported hypothesis, of course they are looking at all possible geologic evidence. And none of this massive body of evidence points anywhere towards a global flood.



Erosion would not be uniform.


Why? A whole year of a global ocean would demonstrate a relative uniformity, if not a precise uniformity, in erosion patterns on similar landmasses.



We already debated the "not enough water" thing.


And you never provided an answer beyond the area of Earth's surface already covered in water being really deep....so you never explained it. Unless you did, and I missed it.



There is enough water to cover the earth.


No, there's enough water in the oceans to cover the are of land while not covering the areas currently covered with oceans. This also falls apart further because there is no way to deluge the entirety of the landmass in this manner over an entire year without the water tending back towards the lowest places in the system, mainly the massively deep, empty ocean basins.




I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.



Tex5He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever. 6Thou hadst covered it with the deep, as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains: 7At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away; -- 8The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them; -- 9Thou hast set a bound which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth. t

Psalms 104

The sea floor sinks and the mountains rise.


I'm sorry, but that still doesn't account for the water issue. Sea floors sinking? How much? Mountains rising? How much?

I'll let you do the math yourself, because you'd have to have the sea floors at a really shallow depth for your hypothesis to make any sense. If you refuse to, I might take some time out of my busy schedule to do it for you.



Sounds like Plate Tectonics to me.


Doesn't sound like plate tectonics, because that sort of action takes millions of years, it could never happen overnight.



The retreating flood waters create additional formations.


Ok...and how fast did they retreat? Not very quickly, at least according to the Bible story itself. And again, how would they retreat? Did the sea floors suddenly deepen after a year? Where is the evidence of this spontaneous rising of mountains and deepening of seas?




We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly. It cannot cause sorted layers of sedimentation that have an evolutionarily chronological sorting of fossils.





Um...well, that doesn't address the fossil issue, and it doesn't take any factual information relating to how crude oil is formed according to geologic sciences

Cute, but inane.




Some of what remains is surface planation,


How is that caused by a flood?


The retreating water created a sheet wash which produced surface planation.


Or it was produced by glacial movements (which you don't seem to accept), a much more likely and highly supported theory.





Um...why would the evidence be found at the bottom of the ocean rather than everywhere on the planet?


Retreating flood waters would wash much of the sediment into the ocean.


So it wouldn't be found on continental shelves?



Whale fossils high in Andes


From your source (emphasis added)


The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes mountains in the past 15 million years.


Might want to actually read the article before citing it.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
is this a topic in which Atheistic Darwinist get to bash Creation theory Theists ?

No, this is a legitimate discussion topic and no different than all those other countless threads. I hope that we all can discuss this matter without resorting to bashing and insults.


Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifactbut that sort of thing does not go on around here right ?

Usually, when it happens - and yes, I have seen it happen in a lot of threads - the mods step in and do their thing.


Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifacthumm when was this topic started ?

I have no idea why this is important to you, but you can look it up on the first page.


Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifactcan I get in on some of this action ?

Depends, what you mean by "action". You can take part in a civil discussion anytime you feel like you have something to contribute. If, on the other hand, you mean action as in bashing and name calling and plain trolling, see my comment above about the mods stepping in.


Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifactgotta love a fair and balanced open-minded discussion !

Hopefully, we - there is no we - all do, but since I can only speak for myself, I do.


Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact4 question marks only, anyone care to address ? oops that's 5 question marks sorry

I just did! Wish you had something of value to contribute, but hey that's just me being silly.

And to add something on topic: there is scientific evidence for local floods all around the world, but to my knowledge there is no scientific evidence for a global flood where the water would have covered the whole planet.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



And with quote-mining me you lose credibility. You took a single sentence out of a paragraph and took a single paragraph out of three in response to a statement.


You're kidding?

I am not taking you out of context and going off site with your statement. Everybody can scroll up and see your whole comment.

We are supposed to edit the quotes in our posts.






No, the lack of evidence in support of his hypothesis was the reason he was discredited. It was later vindicated by evidence which arose through further study. Science has no compulsion to accept hypotheses in the face of absent evidence confirming their claims.


Are you so naive to believe that just because men are scientists, they can't have a self serving agenda?


The Geological Society of Washington, D.C invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Bretz saw this as an ambush, and referred to the group as six challenging elders. Their intention was to defeat him in a public debate, and thus end the challenge his theories posed to the long standing uniformitarianism dogma

Link






Or it was produced by glacial movements (which you don't seem to accept), a much more likely and highly supported theory.



Planation is a geomorphic process which creates nearly flat surfaces by fluvial (river), eolian (wind) and marine processes. The process is erosional and takes millions of years, and its legacy from the tertiary period (65-2Ma) is present in many of today's landscapes. It has been studied since the 1890's but many fundamental questions remain about this process.

Surface Planation




The February 27, 2010, Chilean tsunami substantially altered the coastal landscape and left a permanent depositional record that may be preserved at many locales along the central coast of Chile. From April 24 to May 2, 2010, a team of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Chilean scientists examined the geological impacts of the tsunami at five sites along a 200-km segment of coast centered on the earthquake epicenter. Significant observations include: (1) substantial tsunami-induced erosion and deposition (±1 m) on the coastal plain; (2) erosion from return flow, inundation scour around the bases of trees, and widespread planation of the land surface;

Link







"The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes mountains in the past 15 million years".



Might want to actually read the article before citing it.


The rising Andes supports my point. The topography was not as extreme before the Flood.

Mountains may have existed before the flood, but not at those heights.

The mountains raised.

You want me to measure them? Let me see, where is my yardstick.....................






We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly
.

So there is no geologic evidence of mass extinction on earth?


sediment image sea bottom image The sediment sample at left shows evidence of mass extinction, says MU geologist Ken MacLeod. Below the unique band in the middle, life was abundant in the form of microfossils (shown above). In the band, which represents the time after a giant meteorite hit Earth, life is much more scarce. Related Links * Department of Geological Sciences * Join Mizzou on Facebook


Deep Sea Impact





edit on 26-12-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
1. How could all the terrestrial animals fit on to one boat?
2. Many animals are not native to the middle east. Marsupials live in Australia. Animals native to south america.
Animals native to North America. Polar bears at the north pole penguins at the south. How did they get from their native environment onto the ark then off of the ark and back to their native environment?
3. All plants would go extinct how did the plants survive?
4.assuming the source of water was fresh it would kill all marine life
5.assuming the source of water was salty it would kill all fresh water life
6.if their were only 8 people left to repopulate the earth what would prevent severe inbreeding from such a limted gene pool.
7. Since there where 2 of each animals all species of animals would be severely inbred
8. Predators would wipe out their prey and starve to death for example the 2 lions would eat the 2 gazelle and then die of starvation. If the plants where not wiped out perhaps the herbivorous could survive once the predotors died of starvation.
9. Where did all the water go



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ELahrairah
 


Given that there's no logical answers to any of your questions, it should be abundantly clear why the flood story is beyond silly. I mean, comon', now we have people telling us the goat herder family back then freeze dried enough food for the animals so it wouldn't take up as much space in the arc...just to make the theory fit, lol.

Or they use "round rocks" as proof because a global flood is obviously the only explanation for round rocks (and the most logical one, lol).
edit on 27-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



new topics




     
    20
    << 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

    log in

    join