The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps

_{Barry Arrington

August 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Now that was easy. Does it say anything about the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?

Comments

Dr Bot, This is precisely a test case to see whether the point that on abundant test cases where we do directly know the cause, and where FSCI shows itself an actually reliable index, we will be willing to accept the induction on inference to best explanation anchored in that body of evidence. So far it seems the answer from Dr Liddle is no, and your answer also is clearly no. That is sad. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

But it now seems that not even a 196 ASCII character copyright notice in a known language, using a known code, will be enough to point to design for the sort of objectors we are dealing with.
Unbelievable! KF, what is the point of using your explanatory filter to detect design in an artifact that has a human readable copyright notice embedded in it, by a person who stated publicly that the artifact was designed and that he encoded said copyright notice in it? I thought the whole point of the EF was in identifying design in objects of unknown provenance where no knowledge of the designer was required. If we see an object containing a copyright notice we don't need to apply the EF because there is a label on the object that says THIS WAS DESIGNED!!! But this, of course, misses the whole point. The copyright notice is an example of something that could be indistinguishable from random junk to an entity with no knowledge of humans or their language. So it is an example of where a design inference could only be made with prior knowledge of the designer. That doesn't mean you can't make a design inference from other features of an object, just that this is a really terribly example for ID advocates to use.DrBot_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

PS: Please try to remember, the design inference does not offer itself as a universal decoding machine able to detect any and all cases of design. Just the opposite, it is seeking to identify empirically tested and reliable signs that point to cases that cannot reasonably be assigned to non-design; which is why the per aspect explanatory filter has TWO successive defaults, necessity and chance. But it now seems that not even a 196 ASCII character copyright notice in a known language, using a known code, will be enough to point to design for the sort of objectors we are dealing with. That needs to be put on record. PPS: pardon butterfingers this morning: track!kairosfocus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Dr BOT: Pardon, but distractive. We are precisely not in a case where the copyright notice or some other sign cannot be read. If it or another similar sign pointing to intelligence were not present, there would be no issue of an inference to design. I gave this as a WLOG concrete case to move the discussion back on tract, the logic of what Barry put in the OP. the determination not to get back on track is what is telling the astute onlooker that something is very wrong indeed with the position being taken by objectors. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

p.s. BA, fabulous argument, simple, to the point, and I would have said impossible to misunderstand but after perusing comments by the usual suspects, I give too much credit, apparently...tgpeeler_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

forests @ 2 "if indeed the universe is eternal" But we know the universe is not eternal. Reason tells us it is not and the universe itself "tells" us it is not by means of the laws of thermodynamics. Imagine a car (universe) sitting in the parking lot and it is running (entropy). We are standing there, and I ask you: "Who started the car?" You say nobody started it. It's always been running. I would say, nonsense, somebody had to start it. If it has "always" been running it would have exhausted its fuel supply by now and would not be running. But it is running. Therefore it has NOT always been running. Therefore, someone started it. The analogy holds for the universe. Energy is neither being created or destroyed. That means there is a finite amount of it. That means entropy has a limit, somewhere, that eventually will be reached. And then the universe will be dead. But it's not dead. Therefore the limit has not been reached. Therefore the universe furnaces (stars) have not been burning forever. They STARTED burning at some point. This omits considerations of design (the car for moving or maybe just for burning gasoline) and the universe for life, but it should clearly illustrate that the universe is not infinite. Another way, it seems, that we would know that the universe is finite, is that we can count things in it. We can measure things in it. We can measure things about it (albeit imperfectly, perhaps). By definition the universe is not finite.tgpeeler_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, your objection to Barry's argument boils down in it's essence to the following: John could never infer that the organism was designed without knowing various things about Craig Venter. You must say that it is not possible for John to infer design in the absence of specific knowledge about the designer, Craig Venter. So John may have watched a television show showing how aliens designed a similar organism, and that might have led him to infer design for this organism, but that is not possible, you say. You say he must posses certain facts about the actual designer.Mung_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

...so arguing that you wouldn’t find garbage in a designed artifact is a non starter.
But is it really garbage if it's there to serve a purpose? And is that another way of saying you may be able to detect design, but you can never detect non-design?Mung_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

What you are really arguing is that not even if we find something like a coded in copyright notice, would you be willing to accept that this is a reasonable sign that points to design. Let us look:
If the whole of human civilization were destroyed - every trace wiped from existence - except for one of ventures engineered organisms - the encoded copyright notice would look like random junk and there would be no way to determine otherwise because any understanding of its function (even recognizing it as serving a purpose) relies on having knowledge of humans and how the English language might be encoded into DNA. That's the point EL is trying to get across.DrBot_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

KF, If you found this string in a piece of computer code (where it, on analysis, didn't seem to do anything functional) could you tell which bit is my name and which is garbage: 010223040dff02010001deadbeefff01070 d0d1a01070303010105030f040e03ff040 a0effeffdfeebaeddff003010010703030 f040e00f040e00f040e00f040e00f040e0 0223040dff0201000101070d0d1a010703 03011a0dff0201070d0d1a01070303010d ff02 Please tell me which one is which - and remember, designers sometimes fill spare memory with garbage to confound attempts at back engineering so arguing that you wouldn't find garbage in a designed artifact is a non starter.DrBot_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

OK, kf, I'll back off :) On reflection I agree the point is tangential, and doesn't seem to be getting across, anyway. So I'll say my last word on the subject of the OP, which is that I don't think "who designed the designer?" is anyone's best argument.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle. Pardon, but the assertions just made are manifestly false. Once on signs there is warrant to infer that an object X is designed, that is a credibly established datum. Whether Y, a candidate designer is or is not contingent and perhaps an object of design in turn is strictly irrelevant to the warrant for X. What you are really arguing is that not even if we find something like a coded in copyright notice, would you be willing to accept that this is a reasonable sign that points to design. Let us look:
Copyright Craig Ventor and Associates, USA and International, 2020. No duplication without permission. Protected by various International treaties. It is a Federal violation to remove this notice.
That's a 196 ASCII character string, well past the 72 character threshold. That is well past any reasonable threshold beyond which on CSI we would have good reason to infer design. So, the above rejection is quite an admission on your part, and not to your credit. By that standard, I am within my rights to treat he just above post as so much lucky noise and disregard it as anything of substance pointing to a real designer. In short, you are here plainly wandering into the territory of selective hyperskepticism. Which is self referentially absurd. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

I'm not avoiding Barry's argument at all. I'm saying that his argument rests on false premises - the premise that you could infer a designer from examining one of Venter's genomes, without any other clue. And if you nonetheless did decide that there was a designer, and you happened to be correct, you'd be no more correct than a child who randomly answers a math question and is occasionally correct. Being correct tells you nothing unless you got there by valid inference. But if what Barry is saying is inferring design is possible, I quite agree. And I gave an example of how a future geneticist might infer design from one of Venter's genomes - not from decoding his name in the first instance but by noting the jump across lineages.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: It is now quite obvious thsat the real agenda here is to avoid addressing barry's atrgument. To do so, you have decided to attack step 2 by a series of deiversions. When you hav e been presented with reasonable solutions, at the latest level a proposed copyright notice in code, following what Venter is already doing, you now want to raise essentialy English Grammar objections. Have you ever done Kellogg type sentence diagrams of more sophisticated linguistic parsing tree analyses? If so, you will know that a noun -- just as a pronoun -- is readily detectable in the structure of a coded sentence. But that is beside the point, the point is that we have a reasonable procedure in Barry's OP:
Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild. Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer. Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter. Now that was easy. Does it say anything about our the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?
Okay, it is quite plain where the matter is ont eh merits. For 2 simply read the copyright notice, and ask what are the odds that something like that should appear by chance. All John needs is to know that by the structure Venter would be a noun. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
What I am asking is how, in the absense of ANY information about the designer you would spot that the a string of nucleotides contained a name?
Why is that even relevant to the argument put forth in the OP?Mung_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

kf: my point is made with your post withing the square brackets. It is easy enough to decode something if you know what you are looking for. What I am asking is how, in the absense of ANY information about the designer you would spot that the a string of nucleotides contained a name? In other words, take that string of nucleotides with Craig Venter's name in it, and say how you would distinguish it from any other randomly generated string without benefit of any knowledge regarding the designer. And it's actually completely on point wrt the OP, as it demonstrates just how a design inference made on the basis of non-functional code depends on at least a reasonably detailed hypothesis concerning attributes of the designer. To put the problem more generally: how would you distinguish between a randomly generated string and one with a coded message without knowing anything about the sender of the message?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: What are the odds that we would find in a genome a code for the name of a certain scientist, based on the protein AA names? This is FSCI, with some reasonable threshold of complexity. And the ability to see the text written in the genome code, is telling on all sorts of levels. [We can here read assume for the sake of the OP that the code segment reads, "Copyright Craig Ventor and Associates, USA and International, 2020. No duplication without permission. Protected by various International treaties. It is a Federal violation to remove this notice." Or the like. Then, let us come back form this tangent and address the point in the OP. ] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Dr. Liddle, please consider: "Partly there is profound misunderstanding, partly there is culpable misrepresentation."Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

kf:
It should be patent that Barry’s proposed step 2 in his scenario is entirely feasible, and the imagined retort that you have to know — or know about — the designer before you can recognise that design was there, patently fails, as we have a known point that complex c0ded information is a characteristic sign of intelligence, as we have known since the days of the Rosetta stone and before.
kf, it seems to me that the straw man is Barry's. Yes, I agree with you that there is complex coded information in the cell. It's the Craig Venter thing that makes no sense - we know there is coded information in the cell, because we can see that DNA sequences, for instance, result in specific effects in the cell. And, as you know, obviously, biologists posit that it got there by Darwinian mechanisms. The Craig Venter thing is a complete distraction. The bit of the genome that has Craig Venter's name on it presumably does nothing at all (goodness knows what it might do if were actually read as a gene). So without knowing something about Craig Venter you couldn't even infer that it contained information, let alone that it was designed. Except, interestingly, for one thing, which actually supports the Darwinian case, not yours: a future geneticist, trying to make a phylogeny from genetically engineered products of Venter's lab might be sorely puzzled by the appearance, across what otherwise appear to be lineages, of a particular section of apparently functionless genetic material. Clear evidence of horizontal transfer, but with no apparent mechanism. At that point our future investigator might smell a rat - could it be that ancient humans were capable of intelligent genetic engeneering? And, with that hypothesis, they might manage to decode Venter's name, and correlated it with some ancient texts (perhaps Mung's newspaper ads). In other words, it would be the departure from nested hierarchies that would give the clue that something other than straightforward Darwinian processes was going on.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Pardon, but I think I need to be fairly direct. Your latest exchange above is inadvertently, and sadly, revealing. A complex coded pattern is detected, indeed it is based on a known fact. And, your objection is:
how do we know that Craig Venter’s name is incorporated into his life forms? (Assuming of course, that we do not know anything about Craig Venter, including the fact that he, and creatures like him, exist) . . . . you know nothing about Craig Venter – whether he has a name, whether he writes things in an alphabet, and, if he does, what alphabet he uses, etc. IF we knew, as we do, that Craig Venter is/was a human genetic engineer who speaks English, which is an alphabetic language system, then conceivably, we might infer that there was a message in the coding sequence, and, given our knowledge of his personality, what it might be. If we knew nothing of about that, we would not only have no clue as to what sequences were “special”, we wouldn’t even know where to start looking.
Now, onlookers, all of this is in response to Barry's comment:
Step 1: Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild. Step 2: Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer. Step 3: John’s design inference is obviously correct. Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter. Now that was easy. Does it say anything about our the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?
To which your initial objection was:
Barry, you missed out a bit – how is Step 2 accomplished?
And of course, my initial reaction was:
Have you forgotten that Venter actually signs his name explicitly into his designed life forms? Step 2 is trivial.
Dr Liddle, you have here played a distractive tangent game and strawman caricature argument that is all too revealing. It should be patent that Barry's proposed step 2 in his scenario is entirely feasible, and the imagined retort that you have to know -- or know about -- the designer before you can recognise that design was there, patently fails, as we have a known point that complex c0ded information is a characteristic sign of intelligence, as we have known since the days of the Rosetta stone and before. Remember, onlookers, we ALREADY are capable of scanning genomes. So, Barry's step 2 is quite obviously feasible. And furthermore, the point of the argument is that -- with detection in hand -- the inference to design of the particular entity is legitimate, even if we may want to have onward debates on who designed Mr Venter. That is the who designed the designer objection is a fallacy of irrelevance, in context one plainly intended by Dawkins to cloud the real issue by appealing to the poisonous atmosphere he and ilk have significantly contributed to creating. The tangential exercise above therefore comes across as a rhetoric of distraction and strawmanisation tactic rather than any serious response to a serious enough issue. Please, do better than this. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

F/N: Mung nails it :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

kf
Dr Liddle: Snap!
Of my trap, I think, kf :)
He has used a code [based on the letters used in our names for the various chemicals involved], and we may infer that the future scientist reads the code.
You don't see the problem?
The design inference then is on the likelihood of the DNA coding for such a special sequence, in a code and language, which we may assume by then is comparable to ancient Egyptian for us. GEM of TKI
OK: how do you know it is "a special sequence"? Remember, that you know nothing about Craig Venter - whether he has a name, whether he writes things in an alphabet, and, if he does, what alphabet he uses, etc. IF we knew, as we do, that Craig Venter is/was a human genetic engineer who speaks English, which is an alphabetic language system, then conceivably, we might infer that there was a message in the coding sequence, and, given our knowledge of his personality, what it might be. If we knew nothing of about that, we would not only have no clue as to what sequences were "special", we wouldn't even know where to start looking.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

how do we know that Craig Venter’s name is incorporated into his life forms? He took out a full page ad in numerous newspapers across the country?Mung_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Snap! He has used a code [based on the letters used in our names for the various chemicals involved], and we may infer that the future scientist reads the code. The design inference then is on the likelihood of the DNA coding for such a special sequence, in a code and language, which we may assume by then is comparable to ancient Egyptian for us. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

No, I hadn't forgotten, kf. So keep going - how do we know that Craig Venter's name is incorporated into his life forms? (Assuming of course, that we do not know anything about Craig Venter, including the fact that he, and creatures like him, exist).Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus (58), You are quite right, of course. Venter does add markers to his designed organisms. Which is one reason why many of us have a real problem with the ID view that you can't determine who or what the designer is - if you do enough investigation then you can identify the designer. In the case of Venter's organisms, you can read the coded message. The real issue is not with Barry's 3 steps - it's the lack of the fourth step that's the problem (Step 4 being "carry out invetsigations to determine who the designer is").Grunty_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Have you forgotten that Venter actually signs his name explicitly into his designed life forms? Step 2 is trivial. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

PS: And, that the living should ultimately come from a cosmos that is contingent and fine tuned, thus pointing to a Necessary Being that is living in a very real and meaningful sense of that term is not a contradiction or an absurdity, nor is this a particularly religious appeal or a science stopper etc. You will observe that this chain of inference is not a priori, nor is it based on an appeal to any religious tradition or scripture etc. The logic -- if you would follow it (you have found one excuse or another to duck and dodge repeatedly) -- is that contingent beings have necessary causal factors and that there are beings that do not have such causal factors. The onward worldviews inference is that on the evidence of a contingent cosmos and a fine tuned contingent cosmos, the underlying best candidate to be the necessary being is purposeful, powerful and creative. In Plato's terms, is self-moved and ensouled, thus living. There, patently, is no contradiction or absurdity in inferring that life and cosmos from ultimate necessary being that is living and active.kairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

FG: Pardon a direct response: why is it that you are being so patently evasive of the specific underlying answer to the issues you raise? If sustained, that suggests that you are only here to try to score talking points, instead of engage in genuine and serious discussion. You have on your plate, from several possible angles, a significant -- and BTW longstanding -- alternative to your:
1. Can he apply his argument to first life, and show that it does not lead to the logical contradiction that first life was created by something that was alive itself?
Quick first answer, so long as the possibility of a necessary being is on the table, and so long as a possible necessary being is purposeful, and capable of designing and implementing a fine-tuned cosmos in which C-chemistry cell based intelligent life is possible, then there is no implication of the living coming from the non living. Second answer, as the issue we are looking at is first life in our solar system, and particularly on our planet, the onward origin of the designers of that first life are irrelevant to answering the specific question: where did biological life on earth -- with all the CSI/FSCI in it that in our experience is a reliable sign of design -- come from. And, BTW, that is the basic point Barry was making. If we have clear signs of design in the heart of cell based life, we should treat them seriously, instead of playing at rhetorical games and a priori impositions of evolutionary materialist thinking. Your second question, pardon me, is more of an accusation -- and an unwarranted one -- than a question:
2. If he doesn’t want to do this, why not?
Barry has pointed out the immateriality of your inferences, repeatedly. In reply you are insinuating that he is trying to dodge issues. That's not Cricket. When I took up your issues, first in response to NR then in specific response to you, you found a lame excuse to duck away from addressing the issue of contingent and necessary beings. That's not Cricket, either. The obvious implication is that you are not serious, if you keep on commenting like that. Please, stop. go do the experiment with the matchstick, and come back on the issue of contingency and necessary causal factors as constraints on contingent beings. In particular, reflect on the concept that that which has a beginning has a cause and that which may cease from being has a cause. Then, by way of contrast, address the issue of whether you can find any place or time or circumstances in a logically and physically possible world where the truth in the expression 2 + 3 = 5 would not hold. In short, that truth is an example of a necessary being. Then, go look at the implications that our observed cosmos is credibly contingent and fine-tuned for C-chemistry cell based life. Then, think about what a purposing, creative necessary being that has no beginning and can have no end, would be, if not ALIVE in a very meaningful and widely understood sense of the term. (After all, for just one example, the phrase The Living God has been around in our civilisation for thousands of years.) If you don't like an example from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, why not look at Plato in The Laws Bk X. Focus on the clip:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Barry, you missed out a bit - how is Step 2 accomplished?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply