What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
11,185
Reaction score
1,368
Points
170
indent]
abu afak

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`[/indent]
Facts are those persistent things that both sides can use. Such as the Earth is spherical. Even Flattie Hollie was proven wrong in this forum. She had to go to Jimmy for more ammo. In fact, your atheist scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong about how far back flat Earth-ness had been -- The Medieval Flat Earth :abgg2q.jpg:.

Face it. There are no facts in evolution such as descent with modification. Nothing is observable.

What you should do with the evos here is discuss things with them and find OBSERVABLE evidence. Back up your "descent with modification." Then you'd have a better argument. But that takes brain work and you're too dumb for that.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,951
Reaction score
6,030
Points
1,830
Facts are those persistent things that both sides can use. Such as the Earth is spherical. Even Flattie Hollie was proven wrong in this forum. She had to go to Jimmy for more ammo. In fact, your atheist scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong about how far back flat Earth-ness had been -- The Medieval Flat Earth :abgg2q.jpg:.

Face it. There are no facts in evolution such as descent with modification. Nothing is observable.

What you should do with the evos here is discuss things with them and find OBSERVABLE evidence. Back up your "descent with modification." Then you'd have a better argument. But that takes brain work and you're too dumb for that.
^^^^ the dangers of religious extremism.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
1,204
Points
315
Facts are those persistent things that both sides can use. Such as the Earth is spherical. Even Flattie Hollie was proven wrong in this forum. She had to go to Jimmy for more ammo. In fact, your atheist scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong about how far back flat Earth-ness had been -- The Medieval Flat Earth :abgg2q.jpg:.

Face it. There are no facts in evolution such as descent with modification. Nothing is observable.

What you should do with the evos here is discuss things with them and find OBSERVABLE evidence. Back up your "descent with modification." Then you'd have a better argument. But that takes brain work and you're too dumb for that.
Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.

As do Anatomical remnants of our ancestors ON our bodies Now.
Coccyx (where our tails were), The extra Wisdom Teeth (that oft have to be removed and are dangerous but for modern dentistry) from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees.


Evidence for god presented by Bond.
Remains ZERO.

`
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
11,185
Reaction score
1,368
Points
170
Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.

As do Anatomical remnants of our ancestors ON our bodies Now.
Coccyx (where our tails were), The extra Wisdom Teeth (that oft have to be removed and are dangerous but for modern dentistry) from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees.


Evidence for god presented by Bond.
Remains ZERO.

`
>>
Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.<<

My side is the one with fossils as we use C14 dating on them. It shows they are 50,000 years or less as their radiocarbon is still remaining. What about the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils? It is evidence for dinosaurs aren't billions of years old. Same with the design of the information-rich DNA. The DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. That could not have happened by chance as your side assumes.

THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH!!! I also found that the creationists found "evolution" first. It was Alfred Russel Wallace who did it before Darwin, but since he argued for spiritualism, he was ousted by the scientific community of that time (same with atheist science today!) -- Alfred Russel Wallace-co-inventor of Darwinism - creation.com. History has shown Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he wrote, so Darwinism is not talked about much today. If it turned out to be Wallace-ism, then there prolly would be much more of a lively discussion. It was creationist Wallace who wrote the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."

The intelligent people here can laugh you off the forum now as I chalk up another victory with this.

ETA: Read it and weep atheist losers -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16. Wallace also was responsible for plate tectonics and more. Now, that's a great scientist. Not Darwin nor Darwinism. No one quotes his book, On the Origin of Species.
 
Last edited:
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
1,204
Points
315
>>
Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.<<

My side is the one with fossils as we use C14 dating on them. It shows they are 50,000 years or less as their radiocarbon is still remaining. What about the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils? It is evidence for dinosaurs aren't billions of years old. Same with the design of the information-rich DNA. The DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. That could not have happened by chance as your side assumes.

THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH!!! I also found that the creationists found "evolution" first. It was Alfred Russel Wallace who did it before Darwin, but since he argued for spiritualism, he was ousted by the scientific community of that time (same with atheist science today!) -- Alfred Russel Wallace-co-inventor of Darwinism - creation.com. History has shown Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he wrote, so Darwinism is not talked about much today. If it turned out to be Wallace-ism, then there prolly would be much more of a lively discussion. It was creationist Wallace who wrote the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."

The intelligent people here can laugh you off the forum now as I chalk up another victory with this.

ETA: Read it and weep atheist losers -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16. Wallace also was responsible for plate tectonics and more. Now, that's a great scientist. Not Darwin nor Darwinism. No one quotes his book, On the Origin of Species.
What?
this is incoherent and So stupid it's hard to believe.

1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
Other are good to Millions.


Wiki - Radiometric dating
Contents​
1 Fundamentals​
.1 Radioactive decay​
1.2 Decay constant determination​
1.3 Accuracy of radiometric dating​
1.4 Closure temperature​
1.5 The age equation​

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

3 Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer

4 See also​
5 References​
- - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.

4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
Just made stupid other claims.

5. We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc
.
And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.

6. And the kult Kweationist James Bond has posted NO evidence for a god.. ever.
Thousands of posts, No points/Nothing.
He just keeps talking like the raving lunatic/street person he is.


`
 
Last edited:

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
59,578
Reaction score
12,759
Points
2,220
What?
this is incoherent and So stupid it's hard to believe.

1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
Other are good to Millions.


Wiki - Radiometric dating
Contents
1 Fundamentals
1.1 Radioactive decay
1.2 Decay constant determination
1.3 Accuracy of radiometric dating
1.4 Closure temperature
1.5 The age equation

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

3 Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer

4 See also
5 References
- - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.

4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
Just made stupid other claims.

We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc
.
And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.


`
Funny thing is, Bond the fraud will happily rely on carbon dating, when he finds a piece of rock that is dated as 2000 years old and insists it is from Jesus's bidet.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,951
Reaction score
6,030
Points
1,830
>>
Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.<<

My side is the one with fossils as we use C14 dating on them. It shows they are 50,000 years or less as their radiocarbon is still remaining. What about the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils? It is evidence for dinosaurs aren't billions of years old. Same with the design of the information-rich DNA. The DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. That could not have happened by chance as your side assumes.

THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH!!! I also found that the creationists found "evolution" first. It was Alfred Russel Wallace who did it before Darwin, but since he argued for spiritualism, he was ousted by the scientific community of that time (same with atheist science today!) -- Alfred Russel Wallace-co-inventor of Darwinism - creation.com. History has shown Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he wrote, so Darwinism is not talked about much today. If it turned out to be Wallace-ism, then there prolly would be much more of a lively discussion. It was creationist Wallace who wrote the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."

The intelligent people here can laugh you off the forum now as I chalk up another victory with this.

ETA: Read it and weep atheist losers -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16. Wallace also was responsible for plate tectonics and more. Now, that's a great scientist. Not Darwin nor Darwinism. No one quotes his book, On the Origin of Species.
So… you just refuted your earlier rants a insisting on a 6,000 year old planet.

Your winning (or is it whining) about things you dont understand is laughable.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
11,185
Reaction score
1,368
Points
170
What?
this is incoherent and So stupid it's hard to believe.

1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
Other are good to Millions.


Wiki - Radiometric dating
Contents​
1 Fundamentals​
.1 Radioactive decay​
1.2 Decay constant determination​
1.3 Accuracy of radiometric dating​
1.4 Closure temperature​
1.5 The age equation​

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

3 Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer

4 See also​
5 References​
- - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.

4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
Just made stupid other claims.

5. We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc
.
And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.

6. And the kult Kweationist James Bond has posted NO evidence for a god.. ever.
Thousands of posts, No points/Nothing.
He just keeps talking like the raving lunatic/street person he is.


`
You couldn't address the other evidence, so may as well admit defeat already. Darwin and Darwinism were a losing proposition. Otherwise, we would hear a lot more from his book as I stated.

My evidence of the dinosaur fossils and soft tissue are from the Cretaceous limestone, which is allegedly 144 to 65 million years old. It means Darwin, you, and the rest of the muck and yuck have lost. How is it possible for dinosaur fossils supposedly that "old" to have C14 remaining as well as soft tissue?

Anatomical vestiges are easily explained and have been by others in this forum. What parts did YOU explain? Go ahead, Einstein, explain your vestiges and then I can counter.

You have nothing observable for evolution. OTOH, we had Alfred Russel Wallace who founded "evolution" before Darwin and accomplished much more as a scientist. He had some of the best animal collections ever.

I just provided more evidence with creation scientist Alfred Russel Wallace and criticized deGrasse Tyson lol. I'm not sure what Tyson accomplished as you can't even explain what he did.

I would say that I have provided more than enough evidence in my last post as Wallace-ism was BEFORE Darwinism and he said, the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone." LMAO :auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:, you don't even know when you've been whipped like the mongrel that you are.

Basically, your radiometric dating is way off because of your atheistic assumptions. The evidence shows the radioisotope decay does not match to calendar year.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
7,710
Reaction score
2,036
Points
140
Funny thing is, Bond the fraud will happily rely on carbon dating, when he finds a piece of rock that is dated as 2000 years old and insists it is from Jesus's bidet.
You mean the same Jesus who could reportedly walk on water and rise from the dead still needed a bidet to keep his butt from stinking?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
59,578
Reaction score
12,759
Points
2,220
You mean the same Jesus who could reportedly walk on water and rise from the dead still needed a bidet to keep his butt from stinking?
well yeah, you know how your butt stinks. Now imagine having a magical, uber-powerful butt that has been around forever. I imagine he could clear a room pretty quickly, if he didn't stay on it.
 
OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
1,204
Points
315
You couldn't address the other evidence, so may as well admit defeat already. Darwin and Darwinism were a losing proposition. Otherwise, we would hear a lot more from his book as I stated.

My evidence of the dinosaur fossils and soft tissue are from the Cretaceous limestone, which is allegedly 144 to 65 million years old. It means Darwin, you, and the rest of the muck and yuck have lost. How is it possible for dinosaur fossils supposedly that "old" to have C14 remaining as well as soft tissue?

Anatomical vestiges are easily explained and have been by others in this forum. What parts did YOU explain? Go ahead, Einstein, explain your vestiges and then I can counter.

You have nothing observable for evolution. OTOH, we had Alfred Russel Wallace who founded "evolution" before Darwin and accomplished much more as a scientist. He had some of the best animal collections ever.

I just provided more evidence with creation scientist Alfred Russel Wallace and criticized deGrasse Tyson lol. I'm not sure what Tyson accomplished as you can't even explain what he did.

I would say that I have provided more than enough evidence in my last post as Wallace-ism was BEFORE Darwinism and he said, the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone." LMAO :auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:, you don't even know when you've been whipped like the mongrel that you are.

Basically, your radiometric dating is way off because of your atheistic assumptions. The evidence shows the radioisotope decay does not match to calendar year.
Everything you say is Ignorant or Lies.
You conflated/ST!LL CONFATE ALL radiometric dating as Carbon/C14 Dating!!!
You idiot.

You're too stupid to debate, So I only hold your stunning Idiocy/Christian Cult views up for abuse
Thereby showing you know NOTHING.

Russell believed in Evolution of different species, NOT your view.

You have not explained away any of my HARD EVIDENCE, Progressive Fossils over time, and the predictability of it only because of evolution.

You LIED for the umpteenth time in claiming you explained away our anatomical vestiges, just ignored or LIED about it. Your specialty.

You are a Mentally Ill Jesus Cult Freak who needs to be hospitalized if you are not already.

Everyone else with your views knows they have been refuted and STFU.
But you're Insane and DISHONEST.

And again, after app 11 thousand posts, Bond has not posted a shred of Evidence for a god.


`
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
11,185
Reaction score
1,368
Points
170
What?
this is incoherent and So stupid it's hard to believe.

1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
Other are good to Millions.


Wiki - Radiometric dating
Contents​
1 Fundamentals​
.1 Radioactive decay​
1.2 Decay constant determination​
1.3 Accuracy of radiometric dating​
1.4 Closure temperature​
1.5 The age equation​

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

3 Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer

4 See also​
5 References​
- - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.

4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
Just made stupid other claims.

5. We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc
.
And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.

6. And the kult Kweationist James Bond has posted NO evidence for a god.. ever.
Thousands of posts, No points/Nothing.
He just keeps talking like the raving lunatic/street person he is.


`
I win easily because you can't explain anatomical vestiges of which I asked you to explain. I don't mean a cut and paste job.

What I provided was science backs up Genesis in the Bible. This is the science forum and you want evidence of God/gods. You are just trying to troll me and are a walking contradiction. I have to put Hollie and Fort Fun Indiana way above you now. All you do is cut and paste, can't answer diddly, and prolly the biggest hypocrite, You are the worst atheist science guy here, so I can just avoid your dumbest posts. I win by addition by subtraction.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
11,185
Reaction score
1,368
Points
170
So… you just refuted your earlier rants a insisting on a 6,000 year old planet.

Your winning (or is it whining) about things you dont understand is laughable.
I've explained that the 6,000 year old planet was a response by creationists against the billions of years of universe and Earth from 1956. It just took the Biblical chronology of the people listed throughout history and added them up. The age of the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.

abu afak is such a weakling and can't explain elementary evolution like vestigial organs. If he could explain, then he would've realized no organs are without purpose and the atheist scientist who came up with Lamarckism, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was disregarded by the evolutionists. Lamarck also came up with evolution before Darwin which shows why Darwin wasn't much of a scientist.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,951
Reaction score
6,030
Points
1,830
I've explained that the 6,000 year old planet was a response by creationists against the billions of years of universe and Earth from 1956. It just took the Biblical chronology of the people listed throughout history and added them up. The age of the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.

abu afak is such a weakling and can't explain elementary evolution like vestigial organs. If he could explain, then he would've realized no organs are without purpose and the atheist scientist who came up with Lamarckism, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was disregarded by the evolutionists. Lamarck also came up with evolution before Darwin which shows why Darwin wasn't much of a scientist.
It’s funny watching you stutter and mumble as your phony claims collide with the facts.
 

Anomalism

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
4,853
Reaction score
3,116
Points
918
I've explained that the 6,000 year old planet was a response by creationists against the billions of years of universe and Earth from 1956. It just took the Biblical chronology of the people listed throughout history and added them up. The age of the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.

abu afak is such a weakling and can't explain elementary evolution like vestigial organs. If he could explain, then he would've realized no organs are without purpose and the atheist scientist who came up with Lamarckism, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was disregarded by the evolutionists. Lamarck also came up with evolution before Darwin which shows why Darwin wasn't much of a scientist.
I would pay money to watch you debate a scientist in person. We could put it on Youtube.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
11,185
Reaction score
1,368
Points
170
I would pay money to watch you debate a scientist in person. We could put it on Youtube.
Money isn't what you'd be paying with, buy your perfect life spirit. However, this is the S&T section, so that's all I'll say.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top