Cambrian Explosion

caravelair · Mar 3, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
There is evidence in the pre-Cambrian that contradicts this?

not from the precambrian, but from the fossil record as a whole. the fact is, we find no grasses or fruit bearing trees until much later than the cambrian. does this falsify the order in genesis, where these plants come first? if not, what evidence could we possibly ever find that would? be specific. and if you can't think of anything specific, then how can you consider this falsifiable?

This is also true in Science. If it is in the past and we can't know it, then is it a testable predicition?

i did not say we can't know the past, i think we can know things about it. what i meant was that your assertion was that we can't know whether or not the early state of the earth was liquid or not. so if we can't know, then doesn't that mean the prediction that it was liquid, is not a falsifiable prediction?

We have evidence of them coming much later, but in truth we have nothing in evidence of the pre-Cambrian period. This period of time was pre-cambrian.

consider grasses: not only do we not find them in the precambrian, or the cambrian... we do not find them in ANY sediments older than about 70 million years. to me, this fact clearly suggests that they did not exist until then. what does it suggest to you? if this doesn't falsifly the claim that grasses have existed since the precambrian, what evidence could possibly ever falsify this claim? please be very specific.

In the same way Scientists do. It has been argued on this very forum that although there is little evidence of transitionals in the pre-cambrian due to the soft bodies....etc.. Science is always claiming that evidence is lost in the past. Paleontology is faced with this all the time. We allow that, so you are using a double standard.

i am not using a double standard, and here's why: perhaps evolution's predictions about the precambrian are not falsifiable. i'll grant that for arguments sake. even if this is true, evolution also makes predictictions about what we can find in every subsequent time period, including the present. so even if the predictions about the precambrian are not falsifiable, there still exist many many other predictions of evolution that ARE falsifiable. remember my nested hierarchy example? a horse with birds wings would falsify common descent. this is a very specific example. can you give me an example, as specific as this, that would falsify your theory?

Which could be said for ToE as well then.

how so? the twin nested hierarchy example... the horse with wings falsifies it. there is no way you can reinterpret anything to change that. you find pegasus, that's it for common descent. no reinterpretations would save it.

See above

what am i supposed to be seeing? i asked you for a specific example of some evidence we could find that you think would falsify the claim that plants like grasses and fruit bearing trees have existed since the precambrian. i don't see where you gave an example. please provide a specific example.

Oncedeceived · Mar 6, 2006

caravelair said:
not from the precambrian, but from the fossil record as a whole. the fact is, we find no grasses or fruit bearing trees until much later than the cambrian. does this falsify the order in genesis, where these plants come first? if not, what evidence could we possibly ever find that would? be specific. and if you can't think of anything specific, then how can you consider this falsifiable?

In my hypothesis, this time period has to be precambrian, due to the cambrian (life swarming in the seas) is the cambrian era. Now we know that there are few fossils that date precambrian and none for the very beginning of life on earth.

Due to the fact that there is no fossil evidence, does that falsify ToE?

i did not say we can't know the past, i think we can know things about it. what i meant was that your assertion was that we can't know whether or not the early state of the earth was liquid or not. so if we can't know, then doesn't that mean the prediction that it was liquid, is not a falsifiable prediction?

We can know that it was liquid. The paper that I cited presented evidence of it.

consider grasses: not only do we not find them in the precambrian, or the cambrian... we do not find them in ANY sediments older than about 70 million years. to me, this fact clearly suggests that they did not exist until then.

So do you feel that because there are no fossil evidences of the gradual life forms that were precursors for the Cambrian that they didn't exist until then?

what does it suggest to you? if this doesn't falsifly the claim that grasses have existed since the precambrian, what evidence could possibly ever falsify this claim? please be very specific.

Can you tell me why, it is perfectly acceptable to claim precusors for the Cambrian without evidence which ToE stands on but if I do the same you call foul?

i am not using a double standard, and here's why: perhaps evolution's predictions about the precambrian are not falsifiable. i'll grant that for arguments sake. even if this is true, evolution also makes predictictions about what we can find in every subsequent time period, including the present. so even if the predictions about the precambrian are not falsifiable, there still exist many many other predictions of evolution that ARE falsifiable.

This is also true for my hypothesis. The order is predicted in Genesis and the fossil record supports that.

remember my nested hierarchy example? a horse with birds wings would falsify common descent. this is a very specific example. can you give me an example, as specific as this, that would falsify your theory?

I think that something as dramatic as a horse with birds wings is not necessary. There are some anomilies in the nested hierarchy that could possibly be considered plausible in questioning the concept.

Like I said, if we didn't find fossils where there was an abundance of fossils that emerged in the sea in sequence to the other order given in Genesis. If we didn't see birds before mammals, mammals prior to mankind.

how so? the twin nested hierarchy example... the horse with wings falsifies it. there is no way you can reinterpret anything to change that. you find pegasus, that's it for common descent. no reinterpretations would save it.

I am going to come back to this. Please remind me if I forget. I am working full time this week and have only a 1/2 an hour in the morning and very little time in the evening to post.

what am i supposed to be seeing? i asked you for a specific example of some evidence we could find that you think would falsify the claim that plants like grasses and fruit bearing trees have existed since the precambrian. i don't see where you gave an example. please provide a specific example.

If fossil evidence from that period of time was found and it was void of such.

Loudmouth · Mar 6, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
Due to the fact that there is no fossil evidence, does that falsify ToE?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence where the fossil record is concerned. Nothing in the ToE or current geology requires that every species be fossilized to the extent that their discovery is guaranteed from a cursory exploration of fossil bearing strata. IOW, the ToE predicts that precursors of Cambrian life existed during the Pre-Cambrian, but the ToE nor geologic theories do not require that they be fossilized, that those fossils are easy to find, or that those fossils survive until the present.

This is also true for my hypothesis. The order is predicted in Genesis and the fossil record supports that.

Genesis 1 has whales appearing before terrestrial mammals. The fossil record has the opposite.

I think that something as dramatic as a horse with birds wings is not necessary. There are some anomilies in the nested hierarchy that could possibly be considered plausible in questioning the concept.

Such as?

Like I said, if we didn't find fossils where there was an abundance of fossils that emerged in the sea in sequence to the other order given in Genesis. If we didn't see birds before mammals, mammals prior to mankind.

We find an abundance of hard bodied fossils, but an interesting lack of soft bodied fossils. It is a question of fossilization as well as existence.

caravelair · Mar 6, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
In my hypothesis, this time period has to be precambrian, due to the cambrian (life swarming in the seas) is the cambrian era.

your hypothesis is about the precambrian, but that doesn't mean we can ignore evidence from other time periods. you claim that grasses existed in the precambrian, but your claim also means that they existed in every subsequent time period as well. this is a 3.5 billion year time period, and we don't find any grasses until less than 100 million years ago. this clearly suggests that grasses did not exist in the previous time periods. and if it doesn't, then i can't imagine what possible evidence we could find that WOULD prove they didn't exist in the precambrian. can you? if so, please tell me.

Now we know that there are few fossils that date precambrian and none for the very beginning of life on earth.

Due to the fact that there is no fossil evidence, does that falsify ToE?

given that we know the fossil record from this time period is very incomplete (to say the least), i can't think of anything we have found that would falsify a prediction of evolution.

your prediction about grasses, on the other hand, is that they have existed in every time period from the precambrian onwards, so we do not just have the precambrian to look at, we also have every subsequent time period, which gives us a whole lot more to look at, and a much greater chance of finding what we are looking for.

So do you feel that because there are no fossil evidences of the gradual life forms that were precursors for the Cambrian that they didn't exist until then?

but we do have some precursors to the cambrian period. obviously we won't have them all, given that the fossil record from this era is staggeringly incomplete. fortunately, the rest of history provides us a lot more to look at, and that's where your comparison does not match up.

Can you tell me why, it is perfectly acceptable to claim precusors for the Cambrian without evidence which ToE stands on but if I do the same you call foul?

first of all, why are you answering my question with a question? i asked you for a specific example of evidence that would falsify your claim that grasses have existed since the precambrian. you have not provided this. please do.

secondly, we have found some precursors to the cambrian in the precambrian. on the other hand, we have not found any grasses, or any modern species whatsoever, and we do not find grasses until a little less than 3.5 billion years later.

This is also true for my hypothesis.

how can it be true if you cannot provide a single example of evidence that would falsify your hypothesis?

The order is predicted in Genesis and the fossil record supports that.

how does the fossil record support your claim that grasses have existed for 3.5 billion years?

I think that something as dramatic as a horse with birds wings is not necessary.

but it certainly falsifies common descent, doesn't it? now why can't you provide me with a specific example of something we would find that would falsify your hypothesis?

Like I said, if we didn't find fossils where there was an abundance of fossils that emerged in the sea in sequence to the other order given in Genesis.

this is not a specific example. i want something SPECIFIC. a specific thing we could find, not some vague "if we found something that falsified my prediction". that is not specific. i want to know what that thing is.

are you saying that IF we had an abundance of fossils from the precambrian then you might be able to falsify your hypothesis? cause we don't and we never will, so if that's what you're saying, then your hypothesis must not be falsifiable.

futhermore, we HAVE found an abundance of fossils older than 100 million years, and there is no a single blade of grass among them.

If we didn't see birds before mammals,

we DON'T see birds before mammals. of course, you can always claim that birds existed earlier, and we simply haven't found the fossils of them yet, like you are doing with the grass example.

If fossil evidence from that period of time was found and it was void of such.

what do you mean? fossil evidence HAS been found from the precambrian, and it IS void of grasses, as is every subsequent time period until less than 100mil years ago.

i asked you for a specific example of something we could find, and you have not been able to provide one. please do, or admit that you can't.

Oncedeceived · Mar 6, 2006

Loudmouth said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence where the fossil record is concerned.

I could say the same.

Nothing in the ToE or current geology requires that every species be fossilized to the extent that their discovery is guaranteed from a cursory exploration of fossil bearing strata.

Is it not considered probable that there were precursors and that it is in fact necessary for there to be so for the ToE to be true?

IOW, the ToE predicts that precursors of Cambrian life existed during the Pre-Cambrian, but the ToE nor geologic theories do not require that they be fossilized, that those fossils are easy to find, or that those fossils survive until the present.

The whole concept of ToE is decent from a common ancestor, which rests of course upon the fact that there must be life forms prior to the cambrian to decent from. It is a very necessary part of the whole scenerio of ToE. Now granted we can take other areas of study to determine whether the theory stands up to the available evidence which is what I am doing as well.

Genesis 1 has whales appearing before terrestrial mammals. The fossil record has the opposite.

Actually that Whales were interpreted by translators is what is incorrect. The Torah states:

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, which then was translated to whales.

Such as?

Some new data in Genome studies.

We find an abundance of hard bodied fossils, but an interesting lack of soft bodied fossils. It is a question of fossilization as well as existence.

Not in the precambrian we don't.

Loudmouth · Mar 6, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
Is it not considered probable that there were precursors and that it is in fact necessary for there to be so for the ToE to be true?

Yes, it is required that these precursors existed. However, nowhere in the ToE do I see that it is required that these precursors be fossilized, those fossils found after a very cursory inspection of fossil bearing strata, or that these sediments survive the hundreds of millions of years to the present day.

The whole concept of ToE is decent from a common ancestor, which rests of course upon the fact that there must be life forms prior to the cambrian to decent from. It is a very necessary part of the whole scenerio of ToE. Now granted we can take other areas of study to determine whether the theory stands up to the available evidence which is what I am doing as well.

All I am saying is that fossilization is not guaranteed, nor is the discovery of every fossil species in the ground right now. Here at CF, us evolutionists used to say "why don't we find grasses in the same layer as dinosaurs?" Well, guess what? They have found grass in the same layer with dinosaurs, and that was in 2005. More discoveries are made every year.

Actually that Whales were interpreted by translators is what is incorrect. The Torah states:

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, which then was translated to whales.

You forgot the rest of the verse (NIV):

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Last I checked, the water teems with obligate aquatic mammals.

Some new data in Genome studies.

Why be so coy? Do you have any specifics?

LM: We find an abundance of hard bodied fossils, but an interesting lack of soft bodied fossils. It is a question of fossilization as well as existence.

OD: Not in the precambrian we don't.

Precisely. So the explosion of fossils in the Cambrian may be biased by the fact that hard bodied species first appear in the Cambrian. The lack of fossilized precursors is due to the fact that soft bodied organisms do not fossilize as easily as hard bodied organisms.

Apos · Mar 7, 2006

It's worth noting that, yes, we DO find all sorts of fossils in the precambrian. They may nto be anywhere near as common, but we've found such things as pre-cambrian chordates. It's hard if not impossible to argue that Cambrian life simply appeared out of nowhere without any precusors. And it's getting increasingly so.

Oncedeceived · Mar 8, 2006

caravelair said:
your hypothesis is about the precambrian, but that doesn't mean we can ignore evidence from other time periods. you claim that grasses existed in the precambrian, but your claim also means that they existed in every subsequent time period as well. this is a 3.5 billion year time period, and we don't find any grasses until less than 100 million years ago. this clearly suggests that grasses did not exist in the previous time periods. and if it doesn't, then i can't imagine what possible evidence we could find that WOULD prove they didn't exist in the precambrian. can you? if so, please tell me.

First of all, I have given some scenerios where the possibility is there that they happened. I have already stated that they are not supported by the evidence. I have given a reasonable explanation for my hypothesis, but that is all. That being said, it is not unusual at all for fossil evidence to be absent and then find a fossil that substanciates a claim. One fossil can be all it takes, yet you are claiming that if grasses did exist that there should be grasses in subsequent time periods. That is not necessary. Grasses could have been present but due to the rarity of the fossil record and the fact that plants and grasses are not easily fossilised we may not have found them. It is not unusual at all to have stretches of time with no fossilization of organisms that are considered to have lived during a early period. In fact, it was once considered that plants didn't exist until 100 million years ago and now we have evidence that it was 700 million years ago. That is a big gap.

given that we know the fossil record from this time period is very incomplete (to say the least), i can't think of anything we have found that would falsify a prediction of evolution.

Which has been my point and you continue to argue against it.

your prediction about grasses, on the other hand, is that they have existed in every time period from the precambrian onwards, so we do not just have the precambrian to look at, we also have every subsequent time period, which gives us a whole lot more to look at, and a much greater chance of finding what we are looking for.

That is a strawman. It is perfectly possible that they could have existed in the earlier time period, been destroyed or even still existed and due to rarity of fossilization remain unkown.

but we do have some precursors to the cambrian period. obviously we won't have them all, given that the fossil record from this era is staggeringly incomplete. fortunately, the rest of history provides us a lot more to look at, and that's where your comparison does not match up.

Again, you use the "staggeringly incomplete" fossil record to support your opinion but claim I can't when explaining mine.

first of all, why are you answering my question with a question? i asked you for a specific example of evidence that would falsify your claim that grasses have existed since the precambrian. you have not provided this. please do.

First of all, I gave examples of possibility. A specific example of evidence to falsifiy my claim would be to find fossil evidence of a cow prior to life beginning in the sea. Or to find a human fossil prior to life in the seas or birds.

secondly, we have found some precursors to the cambrian in the precambrian. on the other hand, we have not found any grasses, or any modern species whatsoever, and we do not find grasses until a little less than 3.5 billion years later.

True, which is what I stated over and over. I am saying only that there is possibility of them existing. Which there is.

how can it be true if you cannot provide a single example of evidence that would falsify your hypothesis?

I just did.

how does the fossil record support your claim that grasses have existed for 3.5 billion years?

I never claimed it did.

this is not a specific example. i want something SPECIFIC. a specific thing we could find, not some vague "if we found something that falsified my prediction". that is not specific. i want to know what that thing is.

See above.

are you saying that IF we had an abundance of fossils from the precambrian then you might be able to falsify your hypothesis? cause we don't and we never will, so if that's what you're saying, then your hypothesis must not be falsifiable.

My hypothesis does not rest entirely on this verse. Other verses are supported by evidence. Could be falsified just as ToE is later on as well.

futhermore, we HAVE found an abundance of fossils older than 100 million years, and there is no a single blade of grass among them.

True, and we have not found a single fossil for some of the Cambrian precurors either but they later existed and are claimed to have existed in the precambrian.

we DON'T see birds before mammals. of course, you can always claim that birds existed earlier, and we simply haven't found the fossils of them yet, like you are doing with the grass example.

They were before the mammals listed in the verses is what I was referring to. Sorry I should have clarified.

what do you mean? fossil evidence HAS been found from the precambrian, and it IS void of grasses, as is every subsequent time period until less than 100mil years ago.

Discussed above.

i asked you for a specific example of something we could find, and you have not been able to provide one. please do, or admit that you can't

See above.

Oncedeceived · Mar 8, 2006

Loudmouth said:
Yes, it is required that these precursors existed. However, nowhere in the ToE do I see that it is required that these precursors be fossilized, those fossils found after a very cursory inspection of fossil bearing strata, or that these sediments survive the hundreds of millions of years to the present day.

So why demand it of Creationism?

All I am saying is that fossilization is not guaranteed, nor is the discovery of every fossil species in the ground right now. Here at CF, us evolutionists used to say "why don't we find grasses in the same layer as dinosaurs?" Well, guess what? They have found grass in the same layer with dinosaurs, and that was in 2005. More discoveries are made every year.

Exactly, that is my point.

You forgot the rest of the verse (NIV):

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Last I checked, the water teems with obligate aquatic mammals.

The Hebrew text does not state whales. Sea Creatures were translated to whales because they didn't have a better idea of what was meant by sea creatures.

Why be so coy? Do you have any specifics?

It would take us in a whole different discussion.

Precisely. So the explosion of fossils in the Cambrian may be biased by the fact that hard bodied species first appear in the Cambrian. The lack of fossilized precursors is due to the fact that soft bodied organisms do not fossilize as easily as hard bodied organisms.

Which is my point as well.

Oncedeceived · Mar 8, 2006

Apos said:
It's worth noting that, yes, we DO find all sorts of fossils in the precambrian. They may nto be anywhere near as common, but we've found such things as pre-cambrian chordates. It's hard if not impossible to argue that Cambrian life simply appeared out of nowhere without any precusors. And it's getting increasingly so.

I never claimed that Cambrian life simply appeared out of nowhere without precusors.

Jet Black · Mar 8, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
First of all, I gave examples of possibility. A specific example of evidence to falsifiy my claim would be to find fossil evidence of a cow prior to life beginning in the sea. Or to find a human fossil prior to life in the seas or birds.

can you think of any examples that would actually distinguish your model from the evolutionary model though? All those things would falsify evolution as well, and would only be found if the Bible was wrong, but some other deistic religion was correct.

Tomk80 · Mar 8, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
The Hebrew text does not state whales. Sea Creatures were translated to whales because they didn't have a better idea of what was meant by sea creatures.

But Loudmouth didn't say that the Hebrew text stated whales. He said that the Hebrew text stated that 'every creature with which the water teems' includes whales. How does that sentence not include whales or other marine mammals?

Jet Black · Mar 8, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
What data do we have that suggests the earth did not form before the sun, please provide it.

the quantity of Hydrogen and Helium in the Sun allow us to date it to 4.55 billion years. the concentrations of certain elements in meteorites allow us to date them to about 4.55 billion years. the elements in the moon allow us to date it to about 4.55 billion years. the concentrations of elements in the moon and earth suggest that the formation of the former was a result of a collision of a large object with the latter (though in a sense, the earth did not exist at this time - both the earth and the moon were formed as a result of a collision between two objects that now make up the earth and the moon). All the evidence demonstrates that the Sun was not formed hundreds of millions to a billion or so years after the earth. The moon was not formed after the earth, since both were formed from two older objects, the collision of which formed the Earth and moon - (in that sense they were formed at the same time) and this collision certainly did not happen after the formation of life.

what about all the lights in the firmament by the way, that would be the stars I suppose. how do you work that one again? that they were not visible from the earth'S surface (although they existed well before the earth)

Loudmouth · Mar 8, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
So why demand it of Creationism?

I'm not. However, the evidence in hand, including a pretty good transitional sequence for whales, puts them after the evolution of terrestrial mammals.

Until new evidence comes to light the only conclusion that can be draw is that whales came after terrestrial mammals, and most terrestrial vertebrates for that matter.

The Hebrew text does not state whales. Sea Creatures were translated to whales because they didn't have a better idea of what was meant by sea creatures.

The Hebrew text states "everything teeming in the waters". How do you exclude whales from this group?

Oncedeceived · Mar 9, 2006

Jet Black said:
the quantity of Hydrogen and Helium in the Sun allow us to date it to 4.55 billion years. the concentrations of certain elements in meteorites allow us to date them to about 4.55 billion years. the elements in the moon allow us to date it to about 4.55 billion years. the concentrations of elements in the moon and earth suggest that the formation of the former was a result of a collision of a large object with the latter (though in a sense, the earth did not exist at this time - both the earth and the moon were formed as a result of a collision between two objects that now make up the earth and the moon). All the evidence demonstrates that the Sun was not formed hundreds of millions to a billion or so years after the earth. The moon was not formed after the earth, since both were formed from two older objects, the collision of which formed the Earth and moon - (in that sense they were formed at the same time) and this collision certainly did not happen after the formation of life.

Hi Jet, long time no see. Good to see you here again.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_making_010815-1.html

what about all the lights in the firmament by the way, that would be the stars I suppose. how do you work that one again? that they were not visible from the earth'S surface (although they existed well before the earth)[/quote]
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P} And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

As you can see this verse comes before the creation of the earth and moon.

Oncedeceived · Mar 9, 2006

Jet Black said:
can you think of any examples that would actually distinguish your model from the evolutionary model though? All those things would falsify evolution as well, and would only be found if the Bible was wrong, but some other deistic religion was correct.

I am not getting your reasoning here. Why must the model be distinguished from evolution and why wrong if so? I am not grasping your problem here.

Oncedeceived · Mar 9, 2006

Tomk80 said:
But Loudmouth didn't say that the Hebrew text stated whales. He said that the Hebrew text stated that 'every creature with which the water teems' includes whales. How does that sentence not include whales or other marine mammals?

He stated:
Genesis 1 has whales appearing before terrestrial mammals. The fossil record has the opposite.

It would not include whales if whales were not in the water at the time now would it. The verse states:

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters ,

Now as you can see, it does not include the names of living creatures at all. The word Tanninim (I think I spelled it correctly) had no exact translation and has been translated as whales, sea creatures, snakes, and even dragons. The Hebrew translation of the Hebrew though uses sea creatures and I think I would be more inclined to their own translation.

Oncedeceived · Mar 9, 2006

Loudmouth said:
I'm not. However, the evidence in hand, including a pretty good transitional sequence for whales, puts them after the evolution of terrestrial mammals.

It doesn't matter as I have argued, the meaning of the Hebrew word in the verse when translated from Hebrew translators is sea creatures and not whales. So your point is groundless.

The Hebrew text states "everything teeming in the waters". How do you exclude whales from this group?

Because they were not in the waters yet.

Jet Black · Mar 9, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters ,

there is a difference in the translations there, the former translation had:

'every creature with which the water teems'

now one would take that as being every creature with which the water teems at the time of writing, and that would include whales. however yours does not have every, just swarm with swarms of living creatures.

Jet Black · Mar 9, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
I am not getting your reasoning here. Why must the model be distinguished from evolution and why wrong if so? I am not grasping your problem here.

I'm just asking, are there any that would distinguish your model from evolution? nothing more than that, or do you think that evolution is totally compatible, and that no evidence for evolution would contradict the creationist model?

Cambrian Explosion

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Titleless

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency