Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In
Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Lib Threads--FSM can be discussed here.
December 5, 2005
4:57 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm stayin out of this one!

December 5, 2005
10:08 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think you are with me mamabear. It is not that science and religion can't coexist. But really, it has been people motivated by "religion" who have steeped on the toes of science, and not the other way around. Witness the Galileo trial. And those are the kind people I have scorn for. I don't have scorn for decent folks who happen to be religious. The Dalai Lama, for example--real sweet guy.

Eve, you are truly a blessed child of HIS noodly appendage.

December 5, 2005
10:21 pm
Avatar
D dog
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

WD -

I don't even want to participate in this cyber confab, as it is Monday and I am oh so tired. But, damn -

LOL! ROFL!

Pastafarian?

Oh, thank you so much for a fantastic laugh.

Ahhh. Need a cigarette now.

All hail the noodly appendage.

:o)

December 6, 2005
3:38 pm
Avatar
mamabear
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Worried Dad,

Life is a spectrum is it not? With people spanning from one end to the other?

One of the people I look up to the most, and have admired the most was my college chemistry teacher. She was a sceintist, and a wonderful, practicing, loving Christian lady too. I learned much from her about science progressing and coexisting with faith, as eve commented on.

To me, science shows that there is a God.

December 7, 2005
8:16 am
Avatar
eve
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If it were so easy to prove that God exists (scientifically or philosophically) there wouldn't be a whole bunch of philosophers and theologist discussing about just this.

If you can prove it, there is no need for belief, or is there?

December 7, 2005
8:48 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

As I have said before, I am a man with strong spiritual imperatives. But I am not a man of faith. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not make me that way, nor does he require it of me.

He made me a strongly intuitive man of reason.

It is unreasonable to expect science to prove the existence of God, and it has not even come close to doing so. It may be possible to do so, and as I said, I have put some work into that problem, by means of physics and math. It's a harder problem than you might think. The closest I have gotten is a fairly convincing (to me) quasi-proof that something like "God" is not impossible. Give me credit for trying.

But this thread is not about whether or not science supports the existence of God.

This thread is largely about Pastafarianism and how it is just as worthy of being taught in science classes as any other theory of Intelligent Design.

December 7, 2005
9:04 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

mamabear
On 3-Dec-05 you said to WD

"LOL. I cannot in my wildest dreams think that you actually believe in FSM.

It is a pile of dung and you know it. You do not really believe it, you are just using humor as a way to express your belief that science and religion should be kept seperate and that is fine by me."

I am devastated by you calling my secretly held beliefs a "pile of dung". I have been keeping every Friday sacred as a Holy day of Abnegation as any a true believer of FSM would. Though, for fear of persecution I have been keeping my religious beliefs to myself. But now you have goaded me into 'coming out'.

In fact I can prove that FSM exists. It says so in the Holy Babble. I know that every word in the Holy Babble is true in every word of its Creed. Why? Because it says so clearly in writing in the Holy Babble.

It is also true because in the the Holy Babble it distinctly says the Holy Babble was inspired by the omniscient, omnipotent and unconditionally loving Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself - may His Holy Tomato Source be praised.

Therefore the FSM is undisputably the true creator of the world. The Holy Babble says that also in its sacred scriptures.

May WD be praised for his wonderful missionary work in trying to save the souls of the poor lost non-FSMites.

If they chant three hundred times using the strands of the sacred spaggetti threaded through pierced M&Ms the name of our blessed FSM they might still be saved - including even Mamabear. But I not sure that FSM will forgive her blasphemy - "a pile of dung" indeed!

I've never felt so hurt and outraged by such a blatant attack on my most sacredly held beliefs!

What do you think WD? Can we give her a 'divine dispensation' or a 'plenary indulgence' if she repents her ways and begs FSM for forgiveness? Of course we might have to get FSM's paddle out and teach her the love of FSM with a little bit of sacred coercion.

December 7, 2005
1:03 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, I leave condemnation and forgiveness in matter like these to the FSM--after all, I am only mortal flesh and blood, not semolina.

Forunately the FSM is a merciful and forgiving Spaghetti Monster.

December 7, 2005
5:19 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Wd.

Very wise words, indeed.

I know that at this very trying time when we are under attack, those blessed words from the Holy Babble, the font of all wisdom and absolute truth, must spring to mind.

In the Book of Spinach, Verse 2: 5 it says:"In the end times will come, false prophets and purveyors of falshoods and insults. Despite all sound arguments to the contrary, let not the words of these sad, lost rational thinking souls deflect you from our truths. Yea though you walk in the trough of the cabbage patch fear no accursed insecticide or dung piles. For the beetroots will savor the manure whilst the dung beetle goes without." Amen. This further proves that the Holy Babble words are true. Mamabear is denigrating us as was so accurately prophecizes by our Holy Book in the direct quote above. Isn't it amazing.

Oh ... how beautiful, I'm in ecstacy reading them yet again. Such depth, such clarity of meaning.

WD, you further said:

"... I am only mortal flesh and blood, not semolina."

As you very well know, in the Book of Carob, Verse 78:7 it says: "He who partaketh in the libations and of the squelchings of the holy semolina in My Name shalt never have an empty stomach. For he shalt knoweth the Kingdom of Havin'. He that eateth my flying spaggetti trailings and drinketh my tomato sauce shalt have the eternal laugh. He that denyeth me before the mighty FSM, it were better that he never had roots"

Did you have that verse in mind? I hope you haven't got that dreaded non-vegetarian version of our Holy Babble where that accursed breakaway sect changed the FSM inspired translation of the word 'xzaqyutb' from semolina to sausage.

It just makes me go blomongie all over when I read these words.

When all the evidence is to the contrary keep the faith, my dear brother, in our Holy Babble - its truths are eternal and the Goats of Hail shall not prevail against it.

Alleluia! We have the one and only true faith - all others are wrong: are going to Hail, where there shall be woppings and kneadings of their leaves.

December 7, 2005
8:31 pm
Avatar
D dog
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

LOL LOL LOL!

ROFL!!!

Oh, stop - I'm going to soil myself!

This is better than Life of Brian!

December 7, 2005
8:40 pm
Avatar
mamabear
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Whatever!~laughing~

Think what you want. Mock me and my faith if you want. I have a sense of humor too. I can see the humor and I can read between the lines.

I am not mad at all but I have nothing to say to your silliness.

Love,
Mamabear

P.S. Tez, the Bible is not unknown to you obviously.

December 8, 2005
2:28 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

mamabear.

Whilst no expert, I have a reasonable off the top of my head knowledge of the Bible. I cannot quote book, page, verse, paragraph numbers. But I can find in my Good News version what I need to find when I need it.

Now back to the theme of this thread.

WD and I feel compelled to get our message on the effects of the irrational thinking and the blinkered vision of fundamentalist Christians on others in some way.

I think that WD's way is brilliant. It makes a powerful point in a very humorous way by demonstrating how absurd Christianity looks from the outside to a mind that has not been brainwashed into believing blindly in the absolute veracity of each and every word in a self proclaiming, self-authenticating book called the Bible.

Somehow straight rational argument just doesn't work.

The scales have fallen from mine eyes and I see as a non-Christian or as a non-any-ist sees fundamentalist Christian quoting and pronouncements.

Joyce Meyer's TV shows make me possitively ill. People like her and other evangelizing, money making, fear mongering, hot shots give Christ another black eye every time without even realizing it.

If Christ were to walk the streets today, I would invite him to stay at my home for as long as he liked. I am sure that we would spend many fascinating hours together.

But as for his most high profile and most vocal exponents today, now that's another story.

Good for you WD!

December 8, 2005
3:44 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

MamaBear,

I really appreciate your ability to be a good sport and your sense of humor. And have I ever tested you. Oh yeah, you have had the full-color WD treatment and you have comported yourself as a lady and a scholar. I respect that. I mean really respect that.

So I really want you to hear me that I have not intended to "mock" you or your faith.

And, after the testing I have put you through, I can confidently defend you as a serious and well intended person possessed of good moral and spiritual integrity.

Know that I am a "Christ-One." That means that I have an abiding admiration for the teachings of Jesus. And it also means that I stand up for the teachings of Jesus when less-respectful people claim things in HIS name that he would not agree with. Based on your assessement of what some people wrote at the FSM website, I tend to think of you as Christ One, too. People who are facile and glib about being "Christians" are a dime a dozen. People who actually "get it" are rarer.

I am convinced that Jesus would agree that we all work too hard, and ought to take Fridays off, and enjoy Pasta in all of its forms,and that for those of us who want it, in the kingdom of heaven, there shall be monstrous mountains of pasta, volcanoes of beer to wash it down with, and vats of precious oil suitable for annointing our feet, or for sauteeing our noodles.

Tez:

I don't mind irrational, wrroneous beliefs....I am full of them myself. I don't even mind fundamentalist religion...usually...I just want the most misguided among them to not harm or impair me or my loved ones, or screw things up in a major way....

And Mamabear is not one of those people. We can trust her, I am sure of it.

December 8, 2005
4:09 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

WD:

"And Mamabear is not one of those people. We can trust her, I am sure of it."

I will take your word for that O Great PooBear and Head Banana of our Great Religion, the Pastafarians.

You think that we might have a convert?

December 22, 2005
12:49 am
Avatar
mamaleh
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Interesting thoughts here.

There was a point I'd like to share.
The statement 'evolution is just a theory...'comes up often.

The word theory in everday usage,everyday people means 'a guess,speculation etc.'
With that in mind folks just dismiss the whole idea.

And that is incorrect.

In the world of science/academics theories are explanations based on fact.Supported by evidence.Observing,testing,verifying.

The theory,such as evolution is supported from many kinds of data.From genetics,ancient fossils,biology and other scientific domains.

So evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Creationism is not science at all.
There is no empirical data for this claim.
It's based soley on faith in the supernatural.

So when someone says 'it's just a theory'I try to explain how this has 2 usages.

mamaleh

December 24, 2005
2:47 am
Avatar
hopeinhim
Lake Stevens, WA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think when people refer to evolution as a theory they are looking at it scientifically.

When people talk about creationism they are talking about belief and faith - total trust without question.

I think the 2 can co-exsist - how DID God do it? I am in awe at the beauty of nature and the vastness of creatures.

December 24, 2005
5:20 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

mamaleh,

Actually, evolution is not as well grounded in science as you might think. Here are several problems with evolution:

1. Variations in species have never been observed that add genetic information to the organism. Yet this would be necessary in order for creatures to evolve into higher life forms, like from amoeba to fish.

2. Under evolutionary theory, we should all be blind! The human eye consists of something like 37 complex parts, each one of which is necessary for the eye to function. Yet evolution calls for gradual change and growth -- one generation might have only 1 of those parts; some generations down the line would have 2; some more generations later would have 3; etc. But any number of parts less than 37 would yield a non-working eye with no evolutionary advantage, and so it would have been discarded immediately. In other words, the human eye had to have appeared all at once, or not at all. And it is too complex to have appeared all at once according to evolution.

3. Evolutionary theory predicts that there would be gradual changes between species as one-celled organisms evolved into worms, then to trilobites, then to fish, etc. We should have found lots of fossils of half-fish, half-amphibian; half-amphibian, half-reptile, and so forth, with gradual, lengthy transitions between these forms. But the fossil record doesn't show this. Instead, it shows a tendency toward the sudden appearance of a huge number of new species, such as occured in the Cambrian, Permian, Triassic, and at the end of the Cretaceous Period, when the dinosaurs died out and mammals suddenly exploded on the scene. This points more toward creationism than evolution.

There IS scientific evidence that supports creationism. You see, evolutionary theory requires the earth to be very old (billions of years) in order to give today's organisms time to complete their lengthy, gradual evolution from single-celled organisms. If we could show that the earth is not that old, that would be strong support for creationism, as it would render the probability of evolution to have created today's organisms to essentially zero. I've read of such evidence, but I don't remember it now. I'll look it up.

December 24, 2005
7:43 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Seeker...

Spoken like a true physicist.

Well, this really belongs on the evolutionary theory thread, but….

Let me take a crack at your list here.

1. he idea that for evolution to produce “higher life forms” requires the addition of genetic material is false. There are many “lower” organisms that have a lot more DNA than humans do. Lillies, for example.

Next, while multicelluar organisms certainly have more genes than do unicellular organism, that is not really true when you compare animals to animals. The differences between a mouse and a human are not because a human has a larger, richer and more complex genetic makeup than a mouse. In fact we pretty much share all the same genes. But the order of expression of those genes, the “fine tuning” are what make one embryo grow into Mickey Mouse, and the other to grow up to be President of the United States.

And of course lawyers are almost completely human at the genetic level at least.

Finally, the addition of genetic information happens all the time. Odds are that your children will have more genetic information than you do.

Mutation can take several forms: point mutations, deletions, duplications, insertions, and horizontal migration, DNA replication is not a perfect process. Sometimes, when a cell divides, a piece of DNA that reads “ABCDEF” will be incorrectly duplicated and the new sequence will read “ABCABCABCDEF.” Entire genes can be duplicated. Those “extra” genes are then subject to mutation and natural selection. An example of that is the gene for globin. We have two different kinds of hemoglobin, and they are produced by two very similar, genes. The difference is that one kind, called “fetal hemoglobin,” is turned off after we are born, leaving only adult hemoglobin being produced.

Another way that DNA can be added or inserted into our genome is by means of “selfish DNA” that is already there. It turns out that some gene sequences have at their beginning and end, little bits that are instructions for “duplicate everything between these two points and insert it somewhere else.” These “jumping genes” produce copies of themselves that then are subject to mutation and natural selection.

Another way that DNA can be added to a genome is by “horizontal transmission.” Bacteria make a habit of that. Bacteria have little pieces of “parasitic” DNA in them called plasmids. Those plasmids “earn their keep” by carrying genes for antibiotic resistance and so forth. Bacteria swap them, and get new genes in the process. Sometimes a plasmid can integrate itself into the main bacterial chromosome.

The same thing happens with us. Quite a bit of our DNA did not originate with us, but is actually the result of viral infections. Some viruses can integrate their DNA into the DNA of their host. That DNA is then subject to mutation and natural selection. Humans have many, many “fossil viruses” built right into our DNA.

December 24, 2005
8:01 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It is also true that sometimes tiny changes to "pattern forming" or "homeotic" genes can lead to radical changes in body form in just a single generation. It can cause an insect to give birth to offspring that have wings where legs used to be, for example, or legs where anttennae used to be.

One last note on the idea that evolution always means adding new genes, making something more complex...

Sometimes evolution means taking away genetic functions.

For example, frogs, which do not have teeth are thought to have evolved from more primitive amphibians that did have teeh. Those amphibians are represented in the fossil record. Modern frogs still do have the genes required for making teeth, though--but the "on/off" switch has been mutated permanently to the "off" position. But you can take a frog's jaw and culture it under the right conditions, and voila, you have teeth grwoing out of a frog's jaw.

Another example would be whales. Modern whales, which do not have legs, are thought to have evolved from hippopatomus like animals that did have legs. Whales have no use for hips or legs, but But whales do still have the genes required to make hips and legs--but the "off/on" switch has been mutated to the "off" position. Occasionally, though, a whale is born whose "on/off" swtich for legs is mutated back to the on position, and you will find a whale with small hind legs, which are not helpful to the animal, and in fact impair its ability to swim, feed and mate. If I were designing a whale, I would leave out the genes for legs. But that's just me.

December 24, 2005
8:09 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

2. Now let's look at eyes.

It is not that each "part" of the eye would have been added sequentially. In fact each part does confers some different bit of functionality.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.

According to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

In the Animal Kingdom there are many different types of eyes and the human eye isn't even the best one. For example, Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. Also, our retinas are "inside out" and light must actually pass through layers of ceels before getting to the photosensitive part of the retina.

If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Frankly plagiarized from:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolut.....11_01.html

December 24, 2005
8:20 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A list of articles about the evolution of the eye here...

ANd interesting experiment demonstrating that genes controllign eye formation are similar in humans, mice and also flies! In fact, they were able to make flies with mouse genes--the mouse eye genes were able to control the formation of fly eyes. Wierd.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/s.....he_eye.htm

December 24, 2005
8:43 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

3. Certainly the fossil record is not complete. But it is more complete for some animal types than others. There is a pretty good record of transitional types from fish to early tetrapod (4 legs), and from amphibian to reptile for example.

And actually, evolutionary theory does NOT predict that changes will always occur slowly. Instead, it predicts cycles of "punctuated equilibrium." When a new lineage emerges, especially when an ecological niche has been emptied, as happened with the dinosaurs, we expect evolution to proceed at a faster rate.

We still are not really talking "sudden" here either. We are talking about time spans of 50 million years or more. That's a heck of a long time.

December 24, 2005
9:04 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

As far as the age of the earth goes, radiometric dating of rocks from the eart, from the moon and also meterorites indicate that all of those rocks were formed around 4.5 billion years ago.

December 25, 2005
1:07 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

WD,

Well, you've apparently kept up with this stuff better than I have. It's been a few years since I last got into this subject. I can't even begin to refute what you've said.

However, scientific evidence, which I do not believe necessarily favors evolution over creation, is not the main reason I don't believe in evolution. Here are the main reasons I don't believe it:

1. Evolution too easily leads to anarchy in spirit and a survival of the fittest mentality, as shown by this quote from Charles Darwin: {A man who has no assured and no present belief in the existence of a personal God or a future existence with retribution and rewards, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.}

2. Evolution teaches that this world has no meaning and therefore frees men to pursue power over others and sexual activities without moral restraint. Consider this quote from Aldous Huxley, who said this about evolution: {I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. . . . For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.}

December 25, 2005
2:15 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

seekerw,

I appreciate that you are a moral person who wants humankind to live with honor and dignity. I want that too.

But "believing in evolution" is not the same as believing in a moral or spiritual ideology. It is more like believing that you are your mother's child. It really means “I believe that I had a mother and that she had a mother, and that she had a mother….”

And “believing in evolution” does not preclude belief in God, morality, or spiritual practice. It does not even preclude belief in the divinity of Jesus.

Have you ever heard the expression “blood is thicker than water?” How about “We are all brothers in God’s eyes, in God’s way?”

One of my favorite quotes is from Chief Sealth, who gave his name to my home city of Seattle: “The Earth does not belong to us; we belong to the Earth.”

There is a value, a belief at the core of most every spiritual system and religion that says that all life and all creation are related, connected, part of a great whole. There are many ways to express that idea. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity frame it as the universe being a creation of the Father, with all of us being HIS children. Other religions see God as the MOTHER. Other spiritual systems see God as being something that is greater than the mere human conception of father or mother. But all of those systems describe, in one way or another, the oneness of it all.

It turns out that astrophysics and math support that idea. And amazingly, so does the science of biology. I feel that I ought to treat people decently because they are my “brothers and sisters,” in God’s way. But not just in an abstract sense: I can prove that I am related to all of mankind by means of DNA-based paternity testing. But I also believe that I have a responsibility towards all life and the ecosystems that we share. Because I am also the “brother” of all life. And I can prove that by means of DNA-based paternity testing.

To my way of thinking, belief in evolution does not support the idea that we ought to assume a “dog-eat-dog/survival of the fittest” value system. Instead, science supports the idea that we are all brothers and sisters, even those of us who are not human, and that we would be wise to act accordingly.

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
28
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111134
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38716
Posts: 714574
Newest Members:
kojuyu, NathanielClark, avoid_up, Amin99, Difors, guest_alexander
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information