Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

It's official: ID really is creationism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's official: ID really is creationism

    Since the founding of the ID movement, evolutionists have been saying it is really creationism, and IDists have been at pains to deny it. Finally the IDists are coming out of the closet, as it were:
    Originally posted by David Klinghoffer
    What's very helpful about this interview with Stephen Meyer, conducted by John Ankerberg, is that Steve details the four, not two, possible world-views: materialism, theism, deism and pantheism. ... Only theism, of course, allows for a source of design that is "transcendent, intelligent, and active in history," and that is exactly what the evidence demands.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04...tur084971.html
    My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

  • #2
    Oh
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
      Since the founding of the ID movement, evolutionists have been saying it is really creationism, and IDists have been at pains to deny it. Finally the IDists are coming out of the closet, as it were:

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04...tur084971.html
      IMO, there is a key difference. "Creationism" refers to particular creation stories, and thus makes (some) testable predictions. Unfortunately for YEC and Flood Geology those predictions have been falsified. (Deep Time, the complexity of the astronomical and geologic records, genetic and other evidence of common descent.)

      ID on the other hand makes no testable predictions, at least that I have seen, so is in principle not falsifiable, thus not science but philosophy. ID uses sciencey terms but hasn't made a testable prediction or even gets off the ground since it has no consistent definition of "intelligence" other than some anthropomorphic form.

      Just my two cents.

      K54

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
        Since the founding of the ID movement, evolutionists have been saying it is really creationism, and IDists have been at pains to deny it. Finally the IDists are coming out of the closet, as it were:

        http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04...tur084971.html
        As Leonard Krishtalka, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Director of the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, once quipped: "Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This view is strongly supported when one reads what the leaders of the movement tend to say to friendly audiences. For instance:

        Philip E. Johnson (the father of the Intelligent Design movement):
        "This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy."

        "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."

        "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

        "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.”


        William Dembski:
        "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

        "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."

        "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

        The Wedge Document:[1]
        Governing Goals ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

        Then there is the book "Of Pandas and People," which was designed to be a school textbook that promoted Intelligent Design. It was originally written as a strictly creationist tract with the original title being "Creation Biology" and was only slightly altered to get around the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard which declared it unconstitutional to teach creationism in classrooms. For instance, the passage
        "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

        was changed to read
        "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

        Essentially the words "creation" and "creator" were merely replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent agency" respectively leaving the definition essentially unchanged. Nearly 150 similar systematic substitutions are readily found throughout "Pandas."

        In fact, one instance is so obvious thanks to the editor accidentally leaving a linguistic "transitional" form or "missing link" when they sloppily failed to replace all of the word "creationists" when they pasted in “design proponent,” resulting in the infamous hybrid “cdesign proponentists”:
        “The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

        As a final note about the book, one of its co-authors, Percival Davis, later acknowledged in a November 1994 interview with the Wall Street Journal, that religious concerns underlay the writing of it, saying: "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it."



        Now to be fair, not all of the advocates of Intelligent Design are creationists. What's more some of the largest creationist groups and their spokespersons have given ID a lukewarm reception at best.

        Henry Morris, one of the founders of modern YEC movement expresses his dissatisfaction when he writes in "Design is not Enough”:
        "Any discussion of a young earth, 6-day creation, a world-wide flood and other biblical records of history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of ‘intelligent design’ as a ‘wedge’ to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel they hope ... It is obvious that neither, ‘intelligent design’ nor ‘irreducible complexity’ nor any other such euphemism for creation will suffice to separate a thorough-going Darwinian naturalist from his atheistic religion, in favor of God and special creation."

        Still it appears that Morris sees ID and irreducible complexity are mere euphemisms for creation and watered down versions of creationism.

        John Morris, Henry's son, who inherited the role of leader of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) after the latter's passing, takes a more hard-line approach:
        “ICR very much appreciates the work of Johnson, Behe, and Berlinski, but we recognize that without biblical creationism they fall short of a God-pleasing mark. Any form of old-earth thinking, theistic evolution, or progressive creation is so similar to secular evolution that their defense is ultimately a waste of time."

        More recently John Whitcomb, who co-wrote the Bible of the YEC movement with Henry Morris ("The Genesis Flood"), characterized ID as "vastly insufficient" and Carl Wieland, Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (CMI), declared that it lacks a "coherent philosophical framework" and ignores the "story of the past.” Wieland was also upset with ID’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the biblical God," which he worries might result in ID’s leading "to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions." Still Wieland has refered to some supporters of ID as "Genesis-believing fellow travelers."

        Lastly, David Klinghoffer, a Senior Fellow at the Discover Institute, has stated that “whatever else may be said for or against ID, it's clearly at odds with a literal reading of the Bible.”











        1. Put out by the Discovery Institute, the primary organization backing ID. Although initially dismissed by the Discovery Institute as merely an "urban legend" pushed by "Darwinist Paranoia," one of its co-founders, Stephen C. Meyer, eventually admitted that they were indeed the source of the document.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          I could add quite a bit more to this since I wrote this after further research and will add this to the original. The additional material is in red:

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          As Leonard Krishtalka, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Director of the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, once quipped: "Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This view is strongly supported when one reads what the leaders of the movement tend to say to friendly audiences. For instance:

          Philip E. Johnson (the father of the Intelligent Design movement):
          "This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy."

          "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."

          "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

          "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.”


          William Dembski:
          "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

          "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."

          "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

          The Wedge Document:[1]
          Governing Goals ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

          Then there is the book "Of Pandas and People," which was designed to be a school textbook that promoted Intelligent Design. It was originally written as a strictly creationist tract with the original title being "Creation Biology" and was only slightly altered to get around the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard which declared it unconstitutional to teach creationism in classrooms. For instance, the passage
          "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

          was changed to read
          "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

          Essentially the words "creation" and "creator" were merely replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent agency" respectively leaving the definition essentially unchanged. Nearly 150 similar systematic substitutions are readily found throughout "Pandas."

          In fact, one instance is so obvious thanks to the editor accidentally leaving a linguistic "transitional" form or "missing link" when they sloppily failed to replace all of the word "creationists" when they pasted in “design proponent,” resulting in the infamous hybrid “cdesign proponentists”:
          “The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

          As a final note about the book, one of its co-authors, Percival Davis, later acknowledged in a November 1994 interview with the Wall Street Journal, that religious concerns underlay the writing of it, saying: "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it."

          There are the statements of other leading advocates of ID worth considering here such as those by the Discovery Institute's spokesperson Casey Luskin who spends a lot of time running about insisting that Intelligent Design is not Creationism or religion but pure science. Yet upon occasion the mask slips such as when he attacks the anti-ID book "What’s Your Dangerous Idea?" as being "an anti-religious polemic" written by atheists. That's a funny criticism for defending a scientific proposal.

          Luskin has said and written many other things that serve to undercut his claims. For example, from the first line of the conclusion of a paper that Luskin co-authored called "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover:
          "The opinion in Kitzmiller is a misguided attempt on the part of a federal judge to settle controversies over science and religion that properly belong to practicing scientists and religious groups respectively.

          So according to Luskin, the Kitzmiller case was all about "controversies over science and religion." And here I thought he said ID wasn't religiously based.

          Luskin is also the sole author of "Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools" published in Journal of Church & State in 2005 (exactly where one would expect someone to argue the case that ID is science). His abstract is as follows (bolding added):
          Reviews several laws to assess the ability to present creation science, intelligent design theory or scientific criticisms of evolution in public school districts in the U.S. which have various teaching viewpoints. Restrictions faced by the teaching of creation science; Background on the Lemon test, a judicial vehicle used by the U.S. courts to determine the constitutionality of teaching creation science; Nature of intelligent design theory.

          Um... This does not exactly help his case that Intelligent Design is not a form of creationism.

          Finally, on Luskin's biography provided by the Discovery Institute it says that he "is co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit helping students to investigate evolution by starting "IDEA Clubs" on college and high school campuses across the country." Yet according to the IDEA Center website "IDEA Center Leadership" (which would naturally include their co-founder, who is still listed on their Board of Directors and acts as the organizations Secretary) "believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible" although they try to hide behind a disclaimer clause saying that it is "because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory."

          Similarly, a comment from Discovery Institute Vice President John West also seems to acknowledge the religious nature of ID when he declared that allowing schools to criticize ID is "tantamount to state endorsement of an anti-religious view."

          Another prominent ID spokesperson, Stephen Meyer, the director at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is on record saying that the "designer" is God and that sub-optimal designs along with deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent design, but rather were the result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden.




          Now to be fair, not all of the advocates of Intelligent Design are creationists or "cdesign proponentsists" (David Berlinski is an agnostic). What's more some of the largest creationist groups and their spokespersons have given ID a lukewarm reception at best.

          Henry Morris, one of the founders of modern YEC movement expresses his dissatisfaction when he writes in "Design is not Enough”:
          "Any discussion of a young earth, 6-day creation, a world-wide flood and other biblical records of history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of ‘intelligent design’ as a ‘wedge’ to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel they hope ... It is obvious that neither, ‘intelligent design’ nor ‘irreducible complexity’ nor any other such euphemism for creation will suffice to separate a thorough-going Darwinian naturalist from his atheistic religion, in favor of God and special creation."

          Still it appears that Morris sees ID and irreducible complexity are mere euphemisms for creation and watered down versions of creationism.

          John Morris, Henry's son, who inherited the role of leader of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) after the latter's passing, takes a more hard-line approach:
          “ICR very much appreciates the work of Johnson, Behe, and Berlinski, but we recognize that without biblical creationism they fall short of a God-pleasing mark. Any form of old-earth thinking, theistic evolution, or progressive creation is so similar to secular evolution that their defense is ultimately a waste of time."

          More recently John Whitcomb, who co-wrote the Bible of the YEC movement with Henry Morris ("The Genesis Flood"), characterized ID as "vastly insufficient" and Carl Wieland, Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (CMI), declared that it lacks a "coherent philosophical framework" and ignores the "story of the past.” Wieland was also upset with ID’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the biblical God," which he worries might result in ID’s leading "to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions." Still Wieland has refered to some supporters of ID as "Genesis-believing fellow travelers."

          Lastly, David Klinghoffer, a Senior Fellow at the Discover Institute, has stated that “whatever else may be said for or against ID, it's clearly at odds with a literal reading of the Bible.”











          1. Put out by the Discovery Institute, the primary organization backing ID. Although initially dismissed by the Discovery Institute as merely an "urban legend" pushed by "Darwinist Paranoia," one of its co-founders, Stephen C. Meyer, eventually admitted that they were indeed the source of the document.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            I could add quite a bit more to this since I wrote this after further research and will add this to the original. The additional material is in red:
            I recall that Barbara Forrest is the authority on the origins and evolution of ID. Wasn't she the one who discovered the cdesign proponentsists example?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by phank View Post
              I recall that Barbara Forrest is the authority on the origins and evolution of ID. Wasn't she the one who discovered the cdesign proponentsists example?
              I know that she was the one that brought it up at Kitzmiller but I have no idea of whether or not she discovered it.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Nick Matzke discovered it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  While it's highly unlikely, a part of me can't help but wonder if the "cdesign proponentsists" thing wasn't actually put in there on purpose as an "easter egg" of sorts.
                  "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                  — Alfred North Whitehead

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                    Since the founding of the ID movement, evolutionists have been saying it is really creationism, and IDists have been at pains to deny it. Finally the IDists are coming out of the closet, as it were:

                    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04...tur084971.html
                    Every time -- I mean, EVERY SINGLE TIME -- that you people parrot this claim you demonstrate one of two things: (1) you are as ignorant as the day is long or, (2) you are intellectually dishonest even longer than that. Of course, I am referring to the way that 'ID' and 'Creationism' are generally defined, not some ad hoc definition.

                    The worst part of it all is that you refuse to listen. IOW, you willingly choose to (1) remain ignorant or, (2) remain dishonest. That is a sad testimony to your inner self.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Every time -- I mean, EVERY SINGLE TIME -- that you people parrot this claim you demonstrate one of two things: (1) you are as ignorant as the day is long or, (2) you are intellectually dishonest even longer than that. Of course, I am referring to the way that 'ID' and 'Creationism' are generally defined, not some ad hoc definition.

                      The worst part of it all is that you refuse to listen. IOW, you willingly choose to (1) remain ignorant or, (2) remain dishonest. That is a sad testimony to your inner self.

                      Jorge

                      Jorge stock excuse no. 2


                      1) You're drunk / high on drugs
                      2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
                      3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
                      4) This assertion is true because I said so
                      5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
                      6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Every time -- I mean, EVERY SINGLE TIME -- that you people parrot this claim you demonstrate one of two things: (1) you are as ignorant as the day is long or, (2) you are intellectually dishonest even longer than that. Of course, I am referring to the way that 'ID' and 'Creationism' are generally defined, not some ad hoc definition.

                        The worst part of it all is that you refuse to listen. IOW, you willingly choose to (1) remain ignorant or, (2) remain dishonest. That is a sad testimony to your inner self.

                        Jorge
                        Can you give a scientific hypothesis for ID that's forged in defined terms and that's falsifiable?

                        Thanks!

                        K54

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Every time -- I mean, EVERY SINGLE TIME -- that you people parrot this claim you demonstrate one of two things: (1) you are as ignorant as the day is long or, (2) you are intellectually dishonest even longer than that. Of course, I am referring to the way that 'ID' and 'Creationism' are generally defined, not some ad hoc definition.

                          The worst part of it all is that you refuse to listen. IOW, you willingly choose to (1) remain ignorant or, (2) remain dishonest. That is a sad testimony to your inner self.

                          Jorge

                          Jorge- on the old TWEB I believe we went through a rather long series of posts on one of the Pillars of ID 'science', Dembski's attempt at formalizing the idea of Specified Complexity in the paper:

                          Specification:
                          The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence


                          It didn't hold up then and it still doesn't. ([s]BTW - I would not swear it was you I debated, but I think it was, yet if it was you it was one of the few times you actually tried to engage[/s]*) Nevertheless, there is at the current time no robust formulation of the concepts 'ID' wants to call science. They just aren't 'there yet'. There is not harm in admitting that if one is interested in honestly formulating a new branch of research, if one sees potential in the concepts. Many new ideas take a good deal of time and work to grow to the point they become accepted and robust.

                          In fact, your response above highlights how unscientific, how motiviated by issues over knowledge you are. A real endeavor in the field of knowledge wants to find its place legitimately by crossing it's t's and dotting it's 'i's. Ideologically driven concepts and ideas want acceptance outside those legitimate tests, they want their place because they are what the driver 'believes' is correct, not what they can 'show' is correct.

                          I applaud Dembski for trying. But nobody gets a pass. If it has merit, someday it will also have substance. Until then, try a little 'honesty' and 'humility'. Meals you've spent most of your life fasting from it seems.


                          Jim

                          ETA: *I actually have an archive of this discussion. It was Jorge.

                          ??? TWEB doesn't support strikethrough??? I thought I had seen that before. Tried BB code and html representations
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-03-2014, 12:16 PM.
                          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Jorge- on the old TWEB I believe we went through a rather long series of posts on one of the Pillars of ID 'science', Dembski's attempt at formalizing the idea of Specified Complexity in the paper:

                            Specification:
                            The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence


                            It didn't hold up then and it still doesn't. ([s]BTW - I would not swear it was you I debated, but I think it was, yet if it was you it was one of the few times you actually tried to engage[/s]*) Nevertheless, there is at the current time no robust formulation of the concepts 'ID' wants to call science. They just aren't 'there yet'. There is not harm in admitting that if one is interested in honestly formulating a new branch of research, if one sees potential in the concepts. Many new ideas take a good deal of time and work to grow to the point they become accepted and robust.

                            In fact, your response above highlights how unscientific, how motiviated by issues over knowledge you are. A real endeavor in the field of knowledge wants to find its place legitimately by crossing it's t's and dotting it's 'i's. Ideologically driven concepts and ideas want acceptance outside those legitimate tests, they want their place because they are what the driver 'believes' is correct, not what they can 'show' is correct.

                            I applaud Dembski for trying. But nobody gets a pass. If it has merit, someday it will also have substance. Until then, try a little 'honesty' and 'humility'. Meals you've spent most of your life fasting from it seems.


                            Jim

                            ETA: *I actually have an archive of this discussion. It was Jorge.

                            ??? TWEB doesn't support strikethrough??? I thought I had seen that before. Tried BB code and html representations
                            It did before the crash. A lot of functions aren't really available right now.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post

                              Jorge stock excuse no. 2




                              Hey, Dumbo, if it's the truth (and it is) then it's not an excuse.
                              Didn't you learn ANYTHING AT ALL while growing up?
                              Don't bother to answer that - the answer's obvious.

                              Jorge

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              28 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X