Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
macqdor

Debunking common skeptical arguments against

111 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

preacherman76
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Pretty sure the big bang is backed up with loads of evidence.

Yeah so what? How did that come about? What happened in the eternity before that?  How do you know that wasn’t a minor drop in the pond, instead of the forming of everything? Can you replicate it in a lab? 

Just seems to me there are folks who hold to certain dogmas just as faith based as any idea ever thought. Then have the arrogance to put down people who believe in things they don’t. Demanding perfect evidence the whole way. It’s hypocritical. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What is interesting is that that the thread purpose has been overlooked as was my review of Winston's commentary.

In another thread posters were asked to come to this thread to discuss the material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
2 hours ago, Timonthy said:

‘Twas a joke my fair sir. 

But there is a bit of a difference between believing thousands of years old fairy tales vs modern theories which at least attempt to have a basis in reality.

I understand why folks think that, I honestly just don’t see it though. I mean we are seriously completely clueless, when you really think about it. 

For all we know we are some kids 5th grade science experiment. Just the fact that we are alive and conscious, to me, says there may be consciousness out there that we can’t even conceive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Yeah so what? How did that come about? What happened in the eternity before that?  How do you know that wasn’t a minor drop in the pond, instead of the forming of everything? Can you replicate it in a lab? 

Just seems to me there are folks who hold to certain dogmas just as faith based as any idea ever thought. Then have the arrogance to put down people who believe in things they don’t. Demanding perfect evidence the whole way. It’s hypocritical. 

 

That's true regarding, that people hold their positions regardless of evidence against it. Happens everywhere in everything. And yes when I see ignorant people arguing for science based ideas that they nothing about it's exactly like religious beliefs. Like it or not no one knows anything about God.

And yes the big bang has been computer modelled in a lab. Because we consider this a singularity we can't see what's beyond it. Maybe God did it, maybe it was chance. The truth nobody knows and anyone saying otherwise is bullpooping you.

Apologises for going off topic.

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I understand why folks think that, I honestly just don’t see it though. I mean we are seriously completely clueless, when you really think about it. 

For all we know we are some kids 5th grade science experiment. Just the fact that we are alive and conscious, to me, says there may be consciousness out there that we can’t even conceive. 

We aren't clueless, only clueless people think that. We have models that accurately account for our reality, both classical and quantum physics have pretty much explained most things we observe. You just got to look at the infrastructure of how we are communicating to see how much we know and understand. We are probably never going to understand everything, for God's sake we can't accurately predict the weather, but given enough data we can make pretty accurate assumptions.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's true regarding thate people hold their positions regardless of evidence against it. Happens everywhere in everything. And yes when I see ignorant people arguing for science based ideas that they nothing about it's exactly like religious beliefs. Like it or not no one knows anything about God.

And yes the big bang has been computer modelled in a lab. Because we consider this a singularity we can't see what's beyond it. Maybe God did it, maybe it was chance the truth nobody knows and anyone saying otherwise is bullpooping you.

Apologises for going off topic.

Well said. The only part I’d disagree with is thinking there is any significance to computer model Big Bang replications. They are based on assumptions as well, and factored in. Computed in. Things we couldn’t possibly really know without knowing the conditions before hand. 

Heck it’s been a while but the last time I looked into it at all the theory says in the beginning there was nothing.  If that is in fact the case everything said after might as well be equivalent to magic fairies sprinkled pixie dust and BANG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, danydandan said:

We aren't clueless, only clueless people think that. We have models that accurately account for our reality, both classical and quantum physics have pretty much explained most things we observe. You just got to look at the infrastructure of how we are communicating to see how much we know and understand. We are probably never going to understand everything, for God's sake we can't accurately predict the weather, but given enough data we can make pretty accurate assumptions.

Of course we are clueless man. We are hurling through space on a part pebble part drop of water, in comparison to the size of only things we have been able to see. Who knows how much bigger things we haven’t seen are? 

We are an insignificant speck who doesn’t have the first idea. 

I highly disagree that quantum physics has explained most thing we have observed. On the contrary, quantum physics has rendered most of what we thought we knew useless, and is making us start over from scratch. 

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Well said. The only part I’d disagree with is thinking there is any significance to computer model Big Bang replications. They are based on assumptions as well, and factored in. Computed in. Things we couldn’t possibly really know without knowing the conditions before hand. 

Heck it’s been a while but the last time I looked into it at all the theory says in the beginning there was nothing.  If that is in fact the case everything said after might as well be equivalent to magic fairies sprinkled pixie dust and BANG. 

I don't think it's necessary to assume anything before inflation, or big bang, because we can't describe it scientifically or mathematically. It might have started from a black hole and due to Hawking radiation and asymmetry our universe materialises, who knows. Point is it doesn't matter, it happened and we can do what Stephen Hawking did with Rodger Penrose and reverse engineer it. Also we have a number of other models that describes it too.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I don't think it's necessary to assume anything before inflation, or big bang, because we can't describe it scientifically or mathematically. It might have started from a black hole and due to Hawking radiation and asymmetry our universe materialises, who knows. Point is it doesn't matter, it happened and we can do what Stephen Hawking did with Rodger Penrose and reverse engineer it. Also we have a number of other models that describes it too.

Ok, but if that’s the case you can’t pretend a computer model has any relevance. How could you possibly have a accurate reliable replication of it without knowing anything regarding what was before it? Which brings me back to my point, it can’t be replicated. 

Using the same standards papas theories are just as valid as anyone else’s. Many here do not hold their own beliefs to the same standards they are demanding here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I’m gonna bounce before the stones start flying by my head lol. Have a good night gentlemen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
50 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Just seems to me there are folks who hold to certain dogmas just as faith based as any idea ever thought. Then have the arrogance to put down people who believe in things they don’t. Demanding perfect evidence the whole way. It’s hypocritical. 

Highly intelligent individuals who dedicate themselves; looking at & studying the available data to put forward a calculated opinion is hardly dogma!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
40 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's true regarding, that people hold their positions regardless of evidence against it. Happens everywhere in everything. And yes when I see ignorant people arguing for science based ideas that they nothing about it's exactly like religious beliefs. Like it or not no one knows anything about God.

And yes the big bang has been computer modelled in a lab. Because we consider this a singularity we can't see what's beyond it. Maybe God did it, maybe it was chance. The truth nobody knows and anyone saying otherwise is bullpooping you.

Apologises for going off topic.

I wouldn’t worry too much about going off topic.

OP’s only agenda on this and other forums is self promotion of his poltergeist and trying to boost his new book sales.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Highly intelligent individuals who dedicate themselves; looking at & studying the available data to put forward a calculated opinion is hardly dogma!! 

Well that really depends on the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Of course we are clueless man. We are hurling through space on a part pebble part drop of water, in comparison to the size of only things we have been able to see. Who knows how much bigger things we haven’t seen are? 

We are an insignificant speck who doesn’t have the first idea. 

I highly disagree that quantum physics has explained most thing we have observed. On the contrary, quantum physics has rendered most of what we thought we knew useless, and is making us start over from scratch. 

I disagree.

I think we are getting closer to another grand unfied theory that might combine relativity and QM.

QM has not rendered what we know, knew useless. It's just away to describe what we are observering and the mathematical proof behind it is quite interesting, quite beautiful and quite frankly difficult as hell. Relativity and QM are fundamentaly different and use different formulations. But both describe things with great accuracy execpt in particular circumstances. Relativity is great at describing gravity or big things, and QM is great at describing the other three forces. Electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces.

The only way we can get around the incompatibly is that spaces isn't infinitely divisible and there is a cut off point to the smallest measured scale. But I won't get into it here. All I'm going to say is both methods describe reality at different scales very accurately.

30 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Ok, but if that’s the case you can’t pretend a computer model has any relevance. How could you possibly have a accurate reliable replication of it without knowing anything regarding what was before it? Which brings me back to my point, it can’t be replicated. 

Using the same standards papas theories are just as valid as anyone else’s. Many here do not hold their own beliefs to the same standards they are demanding here.

The computer model has loads of relevance because it agrees with our mathematical models. But with that being said, it doesn't need to start at a time scale of negative one just, zero because what happens before inflation started is irrelevant. What caused it doesn't matter to the outcome of the model as of now. And yes in putting all the data we know about it is replicated with different programs and the same outcome is observed. Obviously we can't create a universe in a lab.

All theories are not equal due to lack of data or biases.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

Well that really depends on the subject. 

this subject, Sherlock= <<the origins of the universe>> what other subjects were you thinking of? are you trying to be funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)
On 5/13/2018 at 8:37 AM, preacherman76 said:

I highly disagree that quantum physics has explained most thing we have observed. On the contrary, quantum physics has rendered most of what we thought we knew useless, and is making us start over from scratch

Wow.  I didn't think it was quite that bad...  In fact.. my car still runs, my calculator still works, my rulers, measuring tapes, weighscales, etc ad infinitum, all operate exactly the same as they always have.  In fact, absolutely everything in my (admittedly limited) life is still exactly as it was, and I'm not stumbling over a single quantum effect..  Yes, it's true that some quantummy sorta stuff may very subtly affect the design of CPU's in computers and smart phones, but again, does that affect me, or render "most of what we know useless'?

No.

Are you exaggerating a little lot, coz you're getting angry?

Let's face it, *adding* the extra complications of religion or the supernatural to explain stuff that either doesn't exist (or might as well, given lack of evidence), or is perfectly well explained by our ever-expanding understanding, is just silly.  Our culture loves stories, and frankly, our brains can't be trusted - it's very well proven that many of our memories are false or exaggerated.

Ironically, complicating the issues is doing exactly that which you are criticising...

Quote

Just seems to me there are folks who hold to certain dogmas just as faith based as any idea ever thought. Then have the arrogance to put down people who believe in things they don’t. Demanding perfect evidence the whole way. It’s hypocritical. 

Oh, the irony.  Would you not concede, pm, that over the centuries, science has now explained much of what was regarded as 'magic' in the past, eg that lightning is not the anger of the Gods, that the earth revolves around the Sun, that our Sun is just one of billions of stars, etc, etc?

How has that process developed?  By just believing in stuff...? or ...... by looking for observations and evidence, and then coming up with *correct* explanations based on existing knowledge, thus expanding that knowledge.   Science, and to a slightly lesser extent the legal system, works because we *don't* rely on anecdotes, but instead, look for evidence.  If you believe in religions (which one?), or the supernatural, do you not see how you could be seen as the one holding onto dogma (especially given it seems you are claiming you don't need evidence....)?  Don't your own rules apply to you?

If you wish to throw around this line of criticism, you really need to walk the walk...  For me, I can point to the science and evidence for virtually everything in your life - including that computer and network that allows this discussion to continue - it is all tangible, provable, easily evidenced.  Doesn't have to be 'perfect evidence' (whatever that is).. but it does have to be more than a cool story bro.  DECENT evidence is what takes a story to something worthy of investigation, and then science gets interested.

Problem for you is that whether it be ghosts, gods, aliens, spirits, etc, you only have to read all the threads on UM - when it comes to decent evidence, what do we see?

 

Bupkus.

 

And as for quantum effects being adopted by the True Believers as some sort of evidence for any of the stuff they are claiming, the two are so far apart it is ridiculous and completely devoid of logic.  Call me dogmatic, by all means, and then explain the logical connection.  Defeat the dogma with an actual hypothesis - that would be well worthy of a new thread.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Wow.  I didn't think it was quite that bad...  In fact.. my car still runs, my calculator still works, my rulers, measuring tapes, weighscales, etc ad infinitum, all operate exactly the same as they always have.  In fact, absolutely everything in my (admittedly limited) life is still exactly as it was, and I'm not stumbling over a single quantum effect..  Yes, it's true that some quantummy sorta stuff may very subtly affect the design of CPU's in computers and smart phones, but again, does that affect me, or render "most of what we know useless'?

No.

Are you exaggerating a little lot, coz you're getting angry?

I'm not in the slightest bit angry. In fact its almost amusing. If not for the fact that I have my own version of self deception. We all do. Its like we are programed for self deception. So understand, when I say this, I'm not trying to save you from your own. Only you can do that. And even if you did you'd most likely just fall into a whole other version of it. That being said, just because we have been able to put to use a VERY small fraction of things we have observed, in no way means we understand the ramifications of quantum physics, and what it means on the grand scale of things.

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Let's face it, *adding* the extra complications of religion or the supernatural to explain stuff that either doesn't exist (or might as well, given lack of evidence), or is perfectly well explained by our ever-expanding understanding, is just silly.  Our culture loves stories, and frankly, our brains can't be trusted - it's very well proven that many of our memories are false or exaggerated.

Ironically, complicating the issues is doing exactly that which you are criticising...

Oh, the irony.  Would you not concede, pm, that over the centuries, science has now explained much of what was regarded as 'magic' in the past, eg that lightning is not the anger of the Gods, that the earth revolves around the Sun, that our Sun is just one of billions of stars, etc, etc?

How has that process developed?  By just believing in stuff...? or ...... by looking for observations and evidence, and then coming up with *correct* explanations based on existing knowledge, thus expanding that knowledge.   Science, and to a slightly lesser extent the legal system, works because we *don't* rely on anecdotes, but instead, look for evidence.  If you believe in religions (which one?), or the supernatural, do you not see how you could be seen as the one holding onto dogma (especially given it seems you are claiming you don't need evidence....)?  Don't your own rules apply to you?

If you wish to throw around this line of criticism, you really need to walk the walk...  For me, I can point to the science and evidence for virtually everything in your life - including that computer and network that allows this discussion to continue - it is all tangible, provable, easily evidenced.  Doesn't have to be 'perfect evidence' (whatever that is).. but it does have to be more than a cool story bro.  DECENT evidence is what takes a story to something worthy of investigation, and then science gets interested.

Problem for you is that whether it be ghosts, gods, aliens, spirits, etc, you only have to read all the threads on UM - when it comes to decent evidence, what do we see?

 

Bupkus.

 

And as for quantum effects being adopted by the True Believers as some sort of evidence for any of the stuff they are claiming, the two are so far apart it is ridiculous and completely devoid of logic.  Call me dogmatic, by all means, and then explain the logical connection.  Defeat the dogma with an actual hypothesis - that would be well worthy of a new thread.

See that's the thing, yes of course we have seen and even gained some knowledge of our tiny little micro spot in what ever this massive galactic infinity that surrounds us is. However just like that lighting bolt once being a product of an angry God, soon as we were able to see and understand anything, we made up stories. Suddenly we imagined we knew nearly everything about the entire universe. A universe we may never even see more then a micro fraction of. We figured out how old it was, how it originated ect. There is literally nothing to back any of it. Nothing more then faith anyway. Nothing more then stories. It made perfect sense that angry Gods were throwing lighting at the time. The lighting was clearly observed for all to see, and the greatest smartest men among them filled in the blanks. Humanity has carried out this pattern for a long time, and it hasn't ended. Not with the big Idea's anyway. Nor do I suspect it ever will.

BTW I have never said I outright believe in ghosts, gods, aliens, spirits, etc. The only thing among that group that I have put full faith in is a single God, and I have never once pushed that belief on anyone here. Well maybe my first couple years here I might have but that was a long time ago. I'm just not as close minded as some here, nor do I automatically dismiss things because they don't fit my world view. There is MASSIVE amounts of reasons to look further into claims of the paranormal, your self deception wont allow you to look at it. And please don't ask me to lay it all out for you. I have had a few of these experiences. Enough where there is no way I could say there isn't something to it. Heck, just the fact that we have gained consciousness, I would have though, we'd be looking for the possibilities of it everywhere. But no.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Posted (edited)
On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:10 PM, Dejarma said:

this subject, Sherlock= <<the origins of the universe>> what other subjects were you thinking of? are you trying to be funny?

Funny? No. Not at all. If you believe you or anyone else for that matter knows the origins of the universe, it would almost be cause for alarm. Just as much alarm as you feel when someone proclaims they know about the existence of ghosts. 

In both cases we see patterns, and try to make sense of them. Thing is in either case really, we pretend to know a lot more then we do. Observation does not equal understanding. Not in these cases anyway. Heck not in any case really. Even when we have been able to put some of those patterns to use, it in no way means we understand. 

But hey if it makes you feel better to think your world view has it all figured out, have at it. Like I said before we are microscopic specks on a part pepple part drop of water hurling through space. Does it really matter what any of us believes? We are just occupying our time till our inevitable demise. 

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Thing is in either case really, we pretend to know a lot more then we do.

speak for yourself mate! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
7 hours ago, Dejarma said:

speak for yourself mate! 

Oh, my apologies. I never intended to sound as if I was speaking for you. Or that you would agree with me. I was just sharing a actually pretty obvious truth with you. Its why you are angry, cause deep down you know damn well we know nothing about the origin of the universe. All is well though. Its just an observation on my part, to maybe show others who might read this that there are very few if any people who don't believe in things other would call irrational.

Just because you don't believe in anything paranormal, doesn't make it not so. In the same way that just because you think you know the origin of the universe, doesn't make it so. In fact, from my POV that idea is out right ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Yeah.....if it's paranormal, it's quantum physics.:rolleyes:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Funny? No. Not at all. If you believe you or anyone else for that matter knows the origins of the universe, it would almost be cause for alarm. Just as much alarm as you feel when someone proclaims they know about the existence of ghosts. 

Its nothing like that, I have no idea how you can draw such conclusions. Models are based in math, come from observation and offer prediction, and claims can be repeated upon demand. What aspect of the paranormal and superstitious claims your speaking about have that level of reliability providing them with a reason to exist? How can all that information compare to some stuff early philosophers made up trying to get to this point of understanding? 

There are at least 23 models last time I checked, one might be right, all of them might contribute to a greater understanding. We don't know for sure which one if any are, but we can rationalise what is most likely according to what we do know, why would superstitions be at all 'likely' and why would they be better answers than the information gathered  analysed and built into understandable models by the best minds in the planet, who dedicate entire lives to such pursuits? What gives someone with a 'feeling' that a religious based ideal trumps that information? 

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

In both cases we see patterns, and try to make sense of them.

In one case the best minds in the planet and across time collaborate, test and predict events, in the other, we say stuff that feels right according to cultural beliefs passed down. I don't see how you find them comparable. 

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Thing is in either case really, we pretend to know a lot more then we do. Observation does not equal understanding. Not in these cases anyway. Heck not in any case really. Even when we have been able to put some of those patterns to use, it in no way means we understand. 

Then why would superstitious ideals have any validity whatsoever? How are hand me down cultural stories that people who do not study the fields in depth, but correlate personal incidents to vague superstitions that can be bent to almost any situation be a fair comparison? For instance, why would life after death claims be considered valid when we know they are cultural tales, but physics gives a description of what is happening down to an atomic level that defies cultural ideals? What gives the cultural ideal validity in that situation? 

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

But hey if it makes you feel better to think your world view has it all figured out, have at it.

Its not worse to insist religious concepts are valid when the only thing supporting them is a cultural aspect that varies from culture to culture? 

How is that not just convoluting progress of knowledge for no good reason? 

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Like I said before we are microscopic specks on a part pepple part drop of water hurling through space. Does it really matter what any of us believes? We are just occupying our time till our inevitable demise. 

You know before 1925 we thought the Milky Way was the entire universe. Its only bettered our lives to pursue that knowledge and take our first steps into space. How does this growth of knowledge not support the findings that erode religious ideology? And why would we not want to learn what we can? I see that opportunity as a tremendous privilege. Why wl9w in 11th century thinking when we are opening doors we never knew could be opened? Why deny and undermine that amazing feat of our species? What's the advantage of insisting on preserving the rudimentary basics that drove us to this point and denying further progress and knowledge? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Oh, my apologies. I never intended to sound as if I was speaking for you. Or that you would agree with me. I was just sharing a actually pretty obvious truth with you.

You're doing what you claim to abhor right here, claiming an obvious truth when no such thing is described by your view or posting at all. 

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Its why you are angry, cause deep down you know damn well we know nothing about the origin of the universe.

I don't agree, the models we have are based on sound evidence. That it is beyond your understanding doesnt invalidate it. 

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

All is well though. Its just an observation on my part, to maybe show others who might read this that there are very few if any people who don't believe in things other would call irrational.

:huh:

How is insisting a cultural aspect as a real understanding rational?? 

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Just because you don't believe in anything paranormal, doesn't make it not so.

Its nothing to do with a personal view though, that's the point of evidence. Paranormal claims have none. They have flimsy correlations taped haphazardly together to self validate those of that persuasion, if there was more than that, these claims would not be labelled paranormal, they would just be another scientific discovery. 

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

In the same way that just because you think you know the origin of the universe, doesn't make it so. In fact, from my POV that idea is out right ridiculous.

You find the math and findings of the LHC supporting the models downright ridiculous - why is that? How do you feel qualified to find error in these findings and equations? How does a tale of superstition offer greater validity? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yeah.....if it's paranormal, it's quantum physics.:rolleyes:

Yeah cause I even came close to saying that....  

Thinking about it though quantum physics might just make a part of what we call paranormal, into something completely normal. If we ever get that far. I mean those particles that just pop into existence had to come from somewhere. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

Yeah cause I even came close to saying that....  

Thinking about it though quantum physics might just make a part of what we call paranormal, into something completely normal. If we ever get that far. I mean those particles that just pop into existence had to come from somewhere. Right?

Doesn't mean it's paranormal. And saying something like a ghost is due to quantum physics or whatever someones trying to claim is grasping at straws. If they ever find a Casper Particle, I will gladly change my mind. A form of energy that is conscious and reactive, a living form of energy independent of us. Then yes, I will gladly change my view. Same of a legit psychic demonstration than can be repeatedly tested and even trained so that it's proven to factually exist, I will gladly change my mind. Even your precious "astral" projection. Because real proof of those things would mean that I didn't waste 20+ years of my life deluding myself. I have a lot of ego at stake with this stuff. I would love real proof. But sadly none currently exist.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.