Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bait And Switch (Intuition, Part Deux)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Once upon a time people thought that the sun revolved around the earth because this was intuitive. They were wrong. Once upon a time people thought that the moon revolved around the earth because it was intuitive. They were right. Therefore, intuition can’t be trusted.

Good enough. Evidence eventually confirmed the truth in both cases.

Then along came neo-Darwinism in the 20th century. Intuition and the simple mathematics of combinatorics suggest that random errors and throwing out stuff that doesn’t work can’t account for highly complex information-processing machinery and the information it processes in biological systems. There is no evidence, hard science, or mathematical analysis that can give any credibility to the proposed power of the Darwinian mechanism in this regard.

Intuition suggests that step-by-tiny-step Darwinian gradualism could not have happened, because the intermediates would not be viable. A lizard with proto-feathers on its forelimbs would be a lousy aviator and an equally incompetent runner. We find no such creatures in the fossil record, for obvious reasons. We find long periods of stasis, and the emergence of fully developed creatures with entirely new and innovative capabilities.

So, the Darwinian argument essentially goes as follows: Because human intuition is sometimes wrong, we can ignore intuition, basic reasoning, historical evidence, and the lack of empirical evidence — but only in the case of the claims of the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism.

This is classic bait-and-switch con-artistry: Intuition can be wrong, therefore evidence, the lack thereof, and logic can be ignored or assumed to be wrong as well.

Comments
Adel:
I say not designed on the basis of lack of evidence.
If evidence is a requirement (and it should be) then you have no alternative.
I also say that if you must hypothesize a designer, you cannot evade the implications. Otherwise, you are not doing science.
To argue that A implies B, and I don't like B, therefore A is false, is not scientific. To argue that A possibly, might imply B, etc, is even less so. I do not evade the implications. I remind you again that the implications are not evidence. You seem convinced otherwise, which opens the door to all sorts of "scientific" conclusions based on our preferences and opinions. If water boiled at 100 degrees, it could burn my hand. Ouch! Therefore, water does not boil at 100 degrees. Your quote and follow-up are irrelevant and, dare I say, pompous. You make a prior assumption that science will one day find evidence supporting a specific conclusion, and anyone who disagrees or waits for the evidence is underestimating science? What? The prospect of life appearing in a chemical accident is too fantastic and contrary to all available evidence to be taken seriously. When you try to declare the impossible inevitable, speculation and extrapolation don't cut it. If you want me to believe in perpetual motion machines or accidental life, show me the money. The rest is bluffing.ScottAndrews
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Either a thing was designed or it was not. We determine that by the evidence, not by the implications.
I say not designed on the basis of lack of evidence. I also say that if you must hypothesize a designer, you cannot evade the implications. Otherwise, you are not doing science. (A hypothesis that leads nowhere lacks utility.) Speaking of science, I leave you with the following excerpt from a letter to Science by Christoff Koch, of CalTech: "August Comte, father of positivism, wrote in 1835 that we shall never know what stars are made of (A. Comte, Cours de Philosophie Positive (1830–1842)). A few decades later, the chemical composition of stars was deduced by spectral analysis of their light (G. R. Kirchhoff, R. Bunsen, Ann. Phys. (1860); p. 110, 160)." Do not underestimate science. It has repeatedly confounded philosophy and theology.Adel DiBagno
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Adel, Your reasoning is absolutely fallacious:
It is the arbitrariness of the notion of special creation that is problematic. Once you start believing stuff like that, where does it end? With special creation of each baramin? With deliberate generation of mutations, which might otherwise seem spontaneous and random, in the present time?
Either a thing was designed or it was not. We determine that by the evidence, not by the implications. A thing is neither true nor false because of what it might or might not lead to. (For example, some might argue that if we evolved from lower animals, then our morality is arbitrary. It's true, but that's not evidence against such descent.) So perhaps we can leave behind such fallacious reasoning. I will not address omnipotence or any religion's belief about God. If you think they are relevant, please consider reading more about ID. I am intrigued by new arguments, new challenges to my point of view. Questioning the testability of ID is neither. I'm not saying it's not a valid question, but the question, as-is, is better answered by the available material.ScottAndrews
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews, Thank you for continuing this discussion. If there is no reason to think that anyone is throwing off scientific experiments from time to time, then there is no reason to think that anyone interfered with the history of the universe to create life as a discrete act. It is the arbitrariness of the notion of special creation that is problematic. Once you start believing stuff like that, where does it end? With special creation of each baramin? With deliberate generation of mutations, which might otherwise seem spontaneous and random, in the present time? On the other hand, if your "anyone" is omnipotent, there is nothing that would prevent him from creating the universe at the Big Bang complete with all of the elements and conditions to generate life without further intervention. If one could rule out that possibility, then the scientific pursuit of those elements and conditions would be an irrational endeavor. I would add that believers in the Judeo-Christian creator (who is, I surmise, the one you have in mind) behave in ways that refute your claim that the creator is aloof from current history. They pray for the creator to intervene on their behalf, and they thank him when things turn out well for them. "Thank God!"
But your logic really fails when you reason that such an implication is, in itself, evidence.
Not evidence, an objection.
As for your questions about testability, see the FAQ and glossary.
It would be a kindness if you would tell me directly in your own words.Adel DiBagno
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Adel, You said you had a problem with a designer because said designer might be able to act arbitrarily at other times, making science more difficult. Thus you suggest that the implications of a designer make a designer less likely. The implication you suggest is real, although, as I said, there's no reason to think that anyone is throwing off scientific experiments. Planes don't really fly, the designer was holding them up, and then they crash. But your logic really fails when you reason that such an implication is, in itself, evidence. As for your questions about testability, see the FAQ and glossary.ScottAndrews
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
I don't reject your hypothesis, I only ask how it can be tested. And how would you know what implications I might or might not like?Adel DiBagno
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Adel: If someone or something (or more than one of such) had the ability to create life, you point out that they could continue to create, and continue to act, and they're busy interfering with scientific experiments everywhere. That's right, water doesn't really boil at 100 degrees, that's just a designer playing a trick on us. And based on this logic, you think that life randomly occurring in a chemical accident is somehow less nonsensical. As I've said, such a thing is too ridiculous to believe without solid evidence, by which I mean a detailed, repeatable account or a time lapse video. I honestly wonder if you ever stop to think what a preposterous event you're proposing. If you believe such a thing, how can you chide anyone for believing in miracles? Is there anything you believe can't happen by accident? You've already surrendered your connection with reality. What's more, you're openly rejecting a hypothesis because you don't like its implications. That's good science.ScottAndrews
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews @366:
What we do have is a rather solid inference on the one hand, and a spectacular something-from-nothing fantasy on the other.
I agree. I would, of course, put the shoe on the opposite foot from your intention. A problem I see with your willful miracle-maker hypothesis is that an entity with such miracle-working powers would necessarily be entirely unconstrained from acting arbitrarily at any time in the remote past or the recent past or in the present. Can't base any science, which depends on some consistency in our interactions with the environment, on that hypothesis. Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse. Meanwhile, the science that you reject will continue to stumble along making testable hypotheses about the origin of life and its evolution. Whatever is learned from the results of those tests is a contribution to a time machine.Adel DiBagno
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Diffaxial: You get the last word. Thanks for the dialogue.StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
That's my response to yours @ 369, which I did not read quite carefully enough before responding.Diffaxial
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Of course. We each spend a lifetime, literally starting from birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings and navigating the social landscape of others’ motives and intentions (we are adapted to do so) – as well as engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes over time. As a consequence we are quite adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from unguided physical events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives. BTW, you will notice that the above immersion and resulting adeptness represents experience with human beings, their actions, and products. “Intelligent agency” supplies unnecessary conceptual baggage, obviously planted by the baggage handler to support the unwarranted generalization that is certain to follow. We accomplish these effortless classifications (natural versus non-natural) without reference to or help from this additional conceptual baggage.Diffaxial
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
----Diffaxial: “Intelligent agency” supplies unnecessary conceptual baggage, obviously planted by the baggage handler to support the unwarranted generalization that is certain to follow. We accomplish these effortless classifications (natural versus non-natural) without reference to or help from this additional conceptual baggage." You just acknowledged that we can draw inferences to "intelligent agency"; now you are telling me that intelligent agency supplies unnecessary conceptual baggage. After over a hundred posts, you finally acknowledge that humans can draw inferences about intelligent agency and then promptly disavow the affirmation. Are you for real?StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
If you observe what appears to be design in an ancient hunters spear, can you reasonably conclude that the formation was caused by an intelligent agency and was not likely the result of wind, water, erosion, or some other natural cause? … Can you, if provided with sufficient evidence, observe an alleged crime scene, conclude that the recent disordered arrangement of furnture did not occur as a result of a natural cause, and therefore could best be explained by an intelligent agency? ----Diffaxial: "Of course." If we agree that one can draw inferences about intelligent agency apart from natural causes, then we have nothing to fuss about. We can build on that foundation at another time. ---"Your notion that it follows from my position that I must answer otherwise is absurd." Based your past writings, I had no reason to believe that you think one can draw an inference to agent causes apart from natural causes.StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
BTW, you will notice that the above immersion and resulting adeptness represents experience with human beings, their actions, and products. "Intelligent agency" supplies unnecessary conceptual baggage, obviously planted by the baggage handler to support the unwarranted generalization that is certain to follow. We accomplish these effortless classifications (natural versus non-natural) without reference to or help from this additional conceptual baggage.Diffaxial
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Let’s put it to the test: If you observe what appears to be design in an ancient hunters spear, can you reasonably conclude that the formation was caused by an intelligent agency and was not likely the result of wind, water, erosion, or some other natural cause? ... Can you, if provided with sufficient evidence, observe an alleged crime scene, conclude that the recent disordered arrangement of furnture did not occur as a result of a natural cause, and therefore could best be explained by an intelligent agency?
Of course. We each spend a lifetime, literally starting from birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings and navigating the social landscape of others' motives and intentions (we are adapted to do so) - as well as engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes over time. As a consequence we are quite adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from unguided physical events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives. Your notion that it follows from my position that I must answer otherwise is absurd.Diffaxial
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
StephenB:
To be sure, I can’t conceive of them asking, “Whatever do you mean by injecting this artificial distincion of yours between intelligent causes and natural causes?” Or “Please define homicide in such a way that I can be sure that it is something other than a physical act of nature.”
I can't conceive of them asking that either. The terms "natural cause" and "acts of nature", especially in the context of forensics, typically refer to causes apart from humans, so the distinction is built into the terms. Contrast that usage with what you claim to be the ID definition:
By definition, ID defines “natural” to mean either law or chance, which means that, in that context, intelligence cannot be natural.
Note that this statement is true only if intelligence falls outside of law and chance, by definition or by empirical fact. Absent that definition or empirical fact, intelligence could certainly be natural, according to ID's metaphysical usage of the term.
Or, “I have serious doubts that we can provide an empirical test for establishing the presence of a blood thirsty killer?”
What has any ID opponent said that would imply the inability to establish homicide?R0b
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
---Diffaxial: "Stephen, here’s a flat fact: I have repeatedly advanced as valid the distinction between the actions of humans and natural events." Let's put it to the test: If you observe what appears to be design in an ancient hunters spear, can you reasonably conclude that the formation was caused by an intelligent agency and was not likely the result of wind, water, erosion, or some other natural cause? ---"I’ve stated that these differing sorts of causation belong in different categories, the conventional categories of natural vs. artificial. I have defined the categories. I’ve stated (in the last passage quoted above) that vandals and tornados may be placed “without difficulty” into these differing causal categories – IOW, that the use of the categories is not difficult." Can you, if provided with sufficient evidence, observe an alleged crime scene, conclude that the recent disordered arrangement of furnture did not occur as a result of a natural cause, and therefore could best be explained by an intelligent agency?StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 352:
If you observe what appears to be design in an ancient hunters spear, can you reasonably conclude that the formation was caused by an intelligent agency and was not likely the result of wind, water, erosion, etc. Of course you can. Diffaxial says no, you may not. For him, the spear was constructed by natural causes and until we can prove that agency causes are different from natural causes, we may not posit that agency causes are different from natural cause.
Stephen, you got me there. Its right there in black and white. I've repeatedly denied that that no distinction can be drawn between the artificial and the natural, between human actions and natural events: Like here:
Similarly, we conventionally refer to artifacts of human contrivance as “artificial” rather than “natural,” a useful distinction...to say that human intelligence is a natural (and cultural) phenomenon no more renders meaningless the conventional “natural – artificial” distinction than does the absence of the rules of chess from the Ohio Revised Code vitiate the rules of chess.
And here:
It does not follow from the above that the ordinary distinction between “natural” and “artificial” objects has been lost. It is a useful distinction that reliably denotes the fact that natural objects (in the conventional sense) have a very different sort of history than do human artifacts.
And here:
Similarly, the sense in in which I use “natural” when I state that “human agency has natural (and cultural) origins” has a different scope and applicability than is intended when one employs the word “natural” to distinguish objects/events that are not of human devising from those that are.
And here:
Indeed above I repeated “nowhere do I claim that human agency and intelligence... don’t exist or are illusions.
And here:
I’ve used the word in two ways. The first conforms to ordinary parlance: my dictionary tells me that “natural” is defined as “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by human kind.” This stands in distinction to objects that are in fact made or caused by human kind, e.g. artifacts such as buildings. This scheme of categorization applies without difficulty to the examples you cite – say the derangements caused by a vandal versus those caused by a tornado.
Stephen, here's a flat fact: I have repeatedly advanced as valid the distinction between the actions of humans and natural events. I've stated that these differing sorts of causation belong in different categories, the conventional categories of natural vs. artificial. I have defined the categories. I've stated (in the last passage quoted above) that vandals and tornados may be placed "without difficulty" into these differing causal categories - IOW, that the use of the categories is not difficult. Nevertheless, you robotically attribute to me claims such as "a tornado’s destructive winds should be placed in the same category of causes as a burglar’s disruption." Above, Biped called me a liar for accurately paraphrasing him. I don't know what to do with this.Diffaxial
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Adel @363: Given that we're discussing events that occurred in the distant past, there are no empirical tests. If nothing less will do, than we can only wait for the invention of the time machine and leave a big question mark until then. What we do have is a rather solid inference on the one hand, and a spectacular something-from-nothing fantasy on the other. The latter is so fantastic, so contradictory of known reality, that nothing but the time machine or a duplication of the accident would suffice. The only thing more unbelievable than a miracle is an accidental miracle.ScottAndrews
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
----"StephenB, if you’re talking about the ransacked living room, I have no problem inferring a burglar. I just don’t know of any empirical test to show that the burglar is an agent according to your definition of the term. (To be honest, I have much bigger problems with the posited law/chance/agency trichotomy than empirical testability, but we’ll start with that.) Your questions are valid and deserve attention, however they are, from my perspective, second order questions. I can't get intellectual assent to the first order question, namely, that one can legitimately/meaningfully speak of intellectual agency as a distinct cause apart from law and chance. In any case, I don't think that forensic scientists would struggle with the definition of these terms when they seek to discover whether someone died by natural causes or was murdered by an [intelligent] agent. To be sure, I can't conceive of them asking, "Whatever do you mean by injecting this artificial distincion of yours between intelligent causes and natural causes?" Or "Please define homicide in such a way that I can be sure that it is something other than a physical act of nature." Or, "I have serious doubts that we can provide an empirical test for establishing the presence of a blood thirsty killer?" Would you buy any of that?StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
StephenB, if you're talking about the ransacked living room, I have no problem inferring a burglar. I just don't know of any empirical test to show that the burglar is an agent according to your definition of the term. (To be honest, I have much bigger problems with the posited law/chance/agency trichotomy than empirical testability, but we'll start with that.)R0b
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
---Rob: "Who is this Diffaxial guy, and where is he posting." OK, humor me. Using the concrete examples that I cited, explain to me why the inferences to intelligent agency apart from natural causes are unjustified. Tell me how the conclusion of agency [in each specific instance] is imbedded in the hyposthesis, which is another way of saying that an inference wasn't really made at all.StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Scott @359: Thanks for the nod. My point is that having formed the hypothesis that intelligence has created life, etc., one is at a blind alley, because there is no way to test the hypothesis empirically (theoretical calculations don't cut it). If I am in error, and there is an empirical test, please advise.Adel DiBagno
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
I for one, am willing to accept StephenB's definition of agency as the set-theoretic complement of law+chance. (Have I accurately represented your proposed definition, StephenB? If not, I'll accept whatever corrections you offer.) Plato and Dembski would certainly approve, although there are some ID proponents who presumably would not. So, when you say, "The concept of law/chance/agency is comprehensible and testable," I assume you mean at least that 1) All three concepts are coherent and sufficiently well defined for empirical testing. 2) Agency, which by your definition is separate from law and chance, is empirically demonstrable. Have I interpreted you correctly? If so, may I ask where the protocols and results of these tests are published? Empirical support for libertarian free will is a very exciting development.R0b
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
StephenB:
He thinks that the burglar can be classified as just one more in a series of natural causes, not substantially different from any other natural cause. That is obvious nonsense.
That certainly is nonsense. Human behaviors such as intelligent burglary are recognizably distinct from other known phenomena. In fact, we often classify human-caused effects as "artificial", in contrast to other effects that we label "natural". (Not to be confused with the metaphysical sense of the latter term.) Diffaxial is crazy to say otherwise.
But diffaxial insists that you must prove they are different before you may hypothesize that they are. Nonsense.
Yes, it's utter nonsense to say that something must be proved before it can be hypothesized. Diffaxial is off his rocker.
If you observe what appears to be design in an ancient hunters spear, can you reasonably conclude that the formation was caused by an intelligent agency and was not likely the result of wind, water, erosion, etc. Of course you can. Diffaxial says no, you may not.
It's a good thing that Diffaxial isn't an archeologist. Thinking that obviously human-made spears are just as likely formed by wind, water, erosion, etc. as by humans is the height of insanity.
For him, the spear was constructed by natural causes and until we can prove that agency causes are different from natural causes, we may not posit that agency causes are different from natural cause. Still more nonsense.
Absolutely. It's just plain loony to say that you have to prove something before you can posit it. Who is this Diffaxial guy, and where is he posting?R0b
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Good grief, Adel, you're looking for the argument where it's not there. I suppose I have done it as well.
Once ID has fulfilled its purpose
My point is that the purpose of ID is to determine if something was caused by intelligence. If the result is positive, then if someone wants to argue that the causing intelligence was itself natural, ID has no response. Its focus is narrow, and it examines only the observed artifact. It reveals only one attribute of the designer, and that is intelligence. Within the scope of the immediate discussion, I think that is quite neutral.ScottAndrews
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Once ID has fulfilled its purpose and determined the necessity of an intelligent cause, it becomes neutral as to the cause or properties of that intelligence.
"...fulfilled its purpose..." And what might that purpose be? According to you the goal of the whole exercise was to become "neutral" with respect to further investigation. ID looks like a blind alley.Adel DiBagno
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 353:
It is not a claim; it is a definition. The difference is only everything. I define a unicorn as a horse with a horn coming out of its forehead. Did I claim that unicorns exist?
So, upon stating the following:
You will notice that he used the phrase “willful act,” which, again, must be characterized as “agency,” and cannot, therefore be a natural phenomenon. Nature, defined exclusively as law and chance, leaves no room for the willful act of an intelligent agent acting on and influencing nature.
You weren't making a claim. You weren't claiming "agency cannot therefore be a natural phenomenon." You weren't claiming "Nature leaves no room for the act of an intelligent agent." No claims there. Nope. (To anyone who buys that: I've got a genuine unicorn for sale, low mileage, cheap.)Diffaxial
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
StephenB: Perhaps when ID is boiled down to its essence, the distinctions don't even matter. Let's say that it's proven conclusively (which I believe it has been) that the bacterial flagellum required intelligent design to exist. Someone or something intelligent had to willfully and deliberately plan it and implement that plan. That's all that ID says. Having demonstrated that, someone could dispute the terminology and say that specific intelligence was still, in a sense, natural, and so the the intelligent design was really artificial. But in that context, such an argument falls flat because it makes no sense, and it also doesn't matter. Once ID has fulfilled its purpose and determined the necessity of an intelligent cause, it becomes neutral as to the cause or properties of that intelligence.ScottAndrews
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
---Scott: "We can’t agree to distinguish between natural and deliberate in reality." It is not a question of agreeing on anything. ID doesn't need anyone to agree with its definitions. The idea that everyone must agree with IDs terms in order for ID to legitimately do science is tyrannical. The concept of law/chance/agency is comprehensible and testable; that is all that is necessary. Plato conceived this formulation 2500 years ago in his "Laws," and I assure you he was not confused about the meaning of words and concepts. To say, then, as Darwinists do, that we may only hypothesize about two of these three constructs, or that we must prove the existence of agency apart from law/chance before we can hypothesize about agency apart from law/chance is patently ridiculous.StephenB
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply