Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Definition Shell Game
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 46 (53704)
09-03-2003 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 12:39 PM


That's funny...then why are there still some fundies (who should be your best buddies) still believing it themselves?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 12:39 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 17 of 46 (53710)
09-03-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 12:39 PM


You're right, peoples long before us had figured out that the Earth was not flat. However, the point I was making (despite the fact that there are still some out there who believe the Earth is flat as Mammathus pointed out) and indeed, the largest portion of my previous post was devoted to it (you chose to refute only a brief statment of my previous post), was that for some time the worldview that those who believed in the Bible espoused was one that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
If you find the fact that the "Evolutionists" of the past included abiogenesis in their definition of what constitutes Evolution and now have removed it from their definition to be "an illusion" then does it not follow that the change from a strident belief by many that the Sun revolved around the Earth based on Biblical evidence to one that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun also belies an illusion of some sort? Or is it simply natural for things such as this to grow and change and adapt themselves when new information is presented?
Just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 12:39 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:07 PM docpotato has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 46 (53713)
09-03-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 12:34 PM


Hi Fred!
...the equivocation of the term evolution is the greatest of the illusions invoked by evolutionists...
Evolutionists are not trying to run away from consideration of abiogenesis by removing it from the definition of evolution. Abiogenesis was never part of the definition of evolution. It is certainly an obvious implication, and it was certainly part of Darwin's world view and of mine and of many others who accept evolution, but evolution and abiogenesis are two different concepts. One is descent with modification through natural selection, and we have a pretty good idea of the genetics behind it, and the other is the origin of life, of which we have a variety of educated guesses but not much else.
That they are two different topics is why Darwin's book was called The Origin of Species and not The Origin of Life. Even Creationism requires they be considered separately, since one branch of Creationism holds that God created the first life, but that evolution took over after that. You can prove to yourself that they are separate issues by considering that if you somehow proved abiogenesis impossible, you still would have accomplished nothing toward proving evolution (descent with modification through natural selection) impossible.
Rather than avoiding abiogenesis, the topic is so important to biology, and to the Creation/Evolution debate, that this board has an entire forum devoted to discussion of abiogenesis called Origin of Life.
It's a mystery to me why you believe abiogenesis was ever part of the definition of evolution. I don't know how this confusion ever arose in your mind, and I'm sorry if some uncareful definitions of evolution have contributed to your confusion, but the change in definitions you think has happened never took place.
I'd like to encourage you to avoid implying that something shady is going on, whether it's this topic or any other. If you can point out where views on evolution or abiogenesis are flawed or wrong then you're encouraged to do so, but to imply that it is for base motives causes resentment and makes discussion difficult. In particular I'd like to request that you avoid accusing evolutionists of engaging in illusions. By refraining from volatile comments designed to provoke you'll be making productive dialogue more likely, and the job of the moderators will be much easier. Please see rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines about respectful behavior.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 12:34 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 19 of 46 (53716)
09-03-2003 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by docpotato
09-03-2003 1:40 PM


quote:
was that for some time the worldview that those who believed in the Bible espoused was one that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
This is also misleading. Most of Galileo’s problems were due to resistance from the academic community. Only later did the Roman church become involved. Why is it evolutionists conveniently forget this fact? Just like then, today's churches have compromised with the scientific community and have fallen into their error (an error with greater ramifications than the errors of the church in Galileo's time).
quote:
If you find the fact that the "Evolutionists" of the past included abiogenesis in their definition of what constitutes Evolution and now have removed it from their definition to be "an illusion"
You are missing the key point. This is only a small part of the greater illusion I mentioned to Percy, which is the oft-used illusion that micro-evolution proves large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by docpotato, posted 09-03-2003 1:40 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-03-2003 2:30 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 27 by docpotato, posted 09-03-2003 8:07 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 36 by truthlover, posted 09-04-2003 9:55 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 46 (53717)
09-03-2003 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 2:07 PM


quote:
This is also misleading. Most of Galileo’s problems were due to resistance from the academic community. Only later did the Roman church become involved. Why is it evolutionists conveniently forget this fact?
Possibly because the academic community wasn't threatening to execute him for heresy?
quote:
Just like then, today's churches have compromised with the scientific community and have fallen into their error (an error with greater ramifications than the errors of the church in Galileo's time).
They made him recant on threat of death. Is that your idea of compromise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:07 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 21 of 46 (53719)
09-03-2003 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
09-03-2003 1:54 PM


quote:
Evolutionists are not trying to run away from consideration of abiogenesis by removing it from the definition of evolution.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this is only a small part of a greater problem and is not the thrust of my complaint.
quote:
It's a mystery to me why you believe abiogenesis was ever part of the definition of evolution. I don't know how this confusion ever arose in your mind, and I'm sorry if some uncareful definitions of evolution have contributed to your confusion, but the change in definitions you think has happened never took place.
Do you agree or disagree that the general public understands the word 'evolution' to mean "all life arose via naturalistic processes"? I do agree this is not worth dwelling on, the thrust of our debate involves the debate of origins which includes both evolution and abiogenesis. My primary reason to bring up this particular point is because evolutionists often try to divorce the two, and the reason IMO is because of the incredible difficulty in dealing with abiogenesis.
quote:
In particular I'd like to request that you avoid accusing evolutionists of engaging in illusions.
I think the problem is that the inherent nature of this debate requires a certain level of "heat", perceived or otherwise, that should be allowed. I could just as easily object that calling someone "confused", as I have been called many times in this thread, is an unjustified accusation. But I don't feel that it is done with malice so I have no problem with it. I just think you all are confused about thinking I'm confused!
I certainly don't use the word illusion with malice. IF I did I would understand your concern. One variation of the definition is: 2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) :
I truly believe all evidences for evolution resemble an illusion - things are not as they appear, causing misinterpretation of the facts by the target audience. I am not claiming it is a willful, intentional deception by evolutionists in general.
Nevertheless, if you want me to stop referring to the evolutionary evidences as "illusions" let me know and I'll stop. But I think you are "confused" on my intent. Just keep in mind that just about anything an evolutionist says is objectional to a creationist, and vica versa. It's the nature of this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-03-2003 1:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MrHambre, posted 09-03-2003 3:43 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 09-03-2003 3:45 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 24 by Rei, posted 09-03-2003 3:51 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 46 (53725)
09-03-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 2:44 PM


quote:
Do you agree or disagree that the general public understands the word 'evolution' to mean "all life arose via naturalistic processes"?
I think the 'naturalistic' part is the one you object to, as if any other processes could be responsible for natural phenomena. Do 'naturalistic' processes operate at all in nature? Or just not where creationists deny their abilities?
quote:
My primary reason to bring up this particular point is because evolutionists often try to divorce the two, and the reason IMO is because of the incredible difficulty in dealing with abiogenesis.
Percy is right in saying that even if you could disprove abiogenesis, you still wouldn't cast doubt upon descent with modification, i.e. evolution. And if everything in evolution is an illusion, why would we evolutionists have any more difficulty waving away the problems with abiogenesis as we do with evolution?
quote:
I truly believe all evidences for evolution resemble an illusion - things are not as they appear, causing misinterpretation of the facts by the target audience. I am not claiming it is a willful, intentional deception by evolutionists in general.
This constitutes the entire creationist objection to evolutionary theory: the mere belief that it is an illusion. The creationist claims there's no evidence, but when presented with evidence he claims the 'materialist bias' is blinding us against the real meaning of this evidence.
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:44 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 46 (53726)
09-03-2003 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 2:44 PM


Hi Fred,
Do you agree or disagree that the general public understands the word 'evolution' to mean "all life arose via naturalistic processes"?
If you want to argue that the public's understanding of evolution is confused you'll get no argument from me. Polls reveal that more than 80% of the US public rejects a completely naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life.
My primary reason to bring up this particular point is because evolutionists often try to divorce the two, and the reason IMO is because of the incredible difficulty in dealing with abiogenesis.
You said this already. What is it about the explanation that they are two different concepts that is difficult for you to accept? One is descent with modification through natural selection, the other is something different that we can pretty much only conjecture about. There is no perceived embarrassment or difficulty regarding abiogenesis within biology. There's practically no evidence still around from life's origin over 3 billion years ago, and that's not biologist's fault, so what's to be embarrassed about? I'm sure all the evolutionists here would love to discuss abiogenesis with you, and there's a whole forum devoted to the subject, so nobody is shirking the subject out of fear or embarrassment. Your perception that evolutionists are somehow embarrassed or fearful or hiding something about abiogenesis is as strange and mysterious as your belief that it was somehow part of the theory of evolution.
You know, this would make as much sense as if I believed that the resurrection included the ascension, and then I accused Christians of trying something underhanded by trying to separate the two because of the difficulties involved with the ascension. Christians would look at me like I had two heads. "Where," they would ask, "did you ever get the idea that the ascension was ever part of the resurrection? And why would we feel there are any particular difficulties involving the ascension?" Evolutionists are looking at you like you've got two heads, Fred. I'm sorry you picked up this misconception, but within biological circles there is no confusion about the two, and there never was.
Regarding your use of the word illusion, feel free to use it if you like. The forum guidelines are not dictatorial rules. They're guidelines. Follow most of them most of the time and everything'll be fine. It is the goal and spirit of the guidelines that is important. They were put in place to help productive debate. As long as someone is engaging in productive debate then the forum guidelines don't really matter very much. But when most of a topic is being spent on off-topic issues then a moderator has to step in and try to sort things out, and the only fair way to do that is to apply the forum guidelines that everyone agrees to when they register. So if you can call evolution an illusion without riling everybody up to the point where productive debate becomes impossible, then go right ahead. But if you can't do that then expect moderator intervention.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:44 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 5:34 PM Percy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 24 of 46 (53727)
09-03-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 2:44 PM


Reply
Fred,
1) In response to your line about Darwin recanting, you should learn the background to this story. Excerpted from "The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea" by Ronald W. Clark:
Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."
With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."
2) Abiogenesis vs. evolution
Many people believe in evolution but not abiogenesis. For example, my parents. When two elements of science deal with completely different phenomina, it is *generally* considered good form to separate them, even if they are applicable together. For example, physics and electronics are inseparable when trying to make an automobile, but they follow completely different sets of rules. Evolution works on adaptive inherited changes, while abiogenesis does not (and is more closely related to chemistry). Thus, since they follow completely different laws and rules, it does a disservice to science to lump them together, just as it would to lump electronics and physics together.
To take this further, to actually lump evolution and abiogenesis together, you would have to go all the way down to individual chemical reactions, and weigh the processes which cause these reactions. This is akin to studying electronics with quantum theory. Yes, everything that goes on in a computer circuit can be explained by quantum theory, with incredible precision. However, the problem becomes unbearably difficult - essentially unsolvable - because of the scale. Furthermore, you lose the ability to see the wonderful overall "average" trends, such as V=IR.
This is why science is heavily categorized. The same holds true in, for example, developing software, or a car - you design each part to handle as accurately as possible a specific set of requirements. In science, the "requirements" are every single piece of observable data, and science creates theories to fit the data as accurately as possible, so that it can then be applied for things that are useful to society. To try study everything with one science branch would be like trying to build a car out of a single part.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:44 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 5:40 PM Rei has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 25 of 46 (53736)
09-03-2003 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
09-03-2003 3:45 PM


quote:
What is it about the explanation that they are two different concepts that is difficult for you to accept?
I am not disputing that there are differences. But they are so intertwined that the great majority of people attribute the meaning of evolution to encapsulate both as described by Kerkut. Regardless of whether or not you agree the definition of the word has evolved, perhaps you can see that at the very least the meaning of the word has evolved (as is the case with many words in the English language).
quote:
There is no perceived embarrassment or difficulty regarding abiogenesis within biology.
Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll again reiterate that my focus in the article was on the equivocation of evolution as it pertains to the extrapolation from microevolution to molecules-to-man evolution.
quote:
So if you can call evolution an illusion without riling everybody up to the point where productive debate becomes impossible, then go right ahead. But if you can't do that then expect moderator intervention.
That is reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 09-03-2003 3:45 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 09-04-2003 3:45 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 26 of 46 (53738)
09-03-2003 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rei
09-03-2003 3:51 PM


Darwin was a Harry Krishna (sic)
quote:
In response to your line about Darwin recanting
Rei, I’m aware of the Darwin recanting myth, but I can see why you would think I wasn’t since you are probably not aware of the context of my exchange with Mammuthus. In another thread Mammuthus claimed Darwin was a Christian, I claimed he wasn’t, DocPotato provides a Darwin quote supporting my claim, and I ribbed Mammuthus with a sarcastic reference to the Darwin recanting myth (hence the smiley face by my comment).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rei, posted 09-03-2003 3:51 PM Rei has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 27 of 46 (53765)
09-03-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 2:07 PM


quote:
This is also misleading. Most of Galileo’s problems were due to resistance from the academic community. Only later did the Roman church become involved.
Regardless of the academic community, this WAS a church belief that the sun revolved around the Earth. So much so that, as another has pointed out, they threatened to execute those who disputed this belief.
This has, to my knowledge, changed. So if the Evolution definition shell game, by your definition or implication, is that Evolutionists have changed the definition of what constitutes Evolution to exclude abiogenesis wherein it once contained the notion of abiogenesis, is it not then consistent to call this flip-flopping on the part of Christianity in regard to the makeup of our solar system (not to mention the universe) the Christian Cosmology Shell Game?
quote:
You are missing the key point. This is only a small part of the greater illusion I mentioned to Percy, which is the oft-used illusion that micro-evolution proves large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution.
I apologize for missing the key point (and belaboring the non-key point above! ). From your original message it appeared that you were stating that because at one time in the past Evolutionists had included abiogenesis in their definition of Evolution, it meant that they persisted in this belief today. If I am mistaken that this was your intent, then I apologize again. I would love to debate the key point further, but I really don't have the breadth of knowledge that some others on this board have in regard to evolution so I won't waste everyone's time by offering redundant and dangerously uninformed arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:07 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 09-03-2003 11:25 PM docpotato has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 6:13 AM docpotato has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 28 of 46 (53790)
09-03-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 12:45 PM


Fred Williams writes:
... as far as what Darwin believed, just because he did not offer a just-so story of abiogenesis does not mean it was not part of his overall paradigm of life arising via naturalistically processes.
Perhaps. And if so, it speaks volumes about his integrity as a scientist. No evidence = No theory. But his theory of evolution was not a "just-so story." It was the best way he could find to explain the evidence before him.
Regarding the loss of his faith in creationism he writes:
quote:
"... disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. ... The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted, even for a single second that my conslusion was correct. ... The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. ... Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." page 87
"My theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind; in the details." pg. 162
Darwin was neither saint nor demon. He was just this guy who did the best he could with what lay before him. Please note that he was happy with his beliefs until the evidence contradicted them. That is my personal experience also, and that of many on this board. So please understand that you may often be in discussion with those who were once where you stand today. If we are impatient with you at times, please consider the possibility that we are reminded of a previous life which we might like to forget, but cannot.
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 12:45 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 29 of 46 (53797)
09-03-2003 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by docpotato
09-03-2003 8:07 PM


docpotato writes:
Regardless of the academic community, this WAS a church belief that the sun revolved around the Earth. So much so that, as another has pointed out, they threatened to execute those who disputed this belief.
Quite right. Not sure where you got that but there is a page on my website which mentions it. Heaven and Nature
This has, to my knowledge, changed. So if the Evolution definition shell game, by your definition or implication, is that Evolutionists have changed the definition of what constitutes Evolution to exclude abiogenesis wherein it once contained the notion of abiogenesis, is it not then consistent to call this flip-flopping on the part of Christianity in regard to the makeup of our solar system (not to mention the universe) the Christian Cosmology Shell Game?
Astute observation doc! In fact creationism has redefined its terms, wishing to forget the war on Copernicus (which it lost) and moving on to attack evolution (an attempt to save face?). And as Darwin's autobiography makes clear, it was not he who confused evolution with abiogenesis (if indeed any scientist ever did).
BTW - Fred seems to be confusing the two of us. Oh well, Doctr's are all alike, aren't they?
db
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by docpotato, posted 09-03-2003 8:07 PM docpotato has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 30 of 46 (53803)
09-04-2003 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 5:34 PM


quote:
I am not disputing that there are differences. But they are so intertwined that the great majority of people attribute the meaning of evolution to encapsulate both as described by Kerkut. Regardless of whether or not you agree the definition of the word has evolved, perhaps you can see that at the very least the meaning of the word has evolved (as is the case with many words in the English language).
However, we are arguing about the science of the theory of evolution and not what the general public percieves. The scientific community does not have this confusion of terms regardless of the quote from Kerkut. I have been to lots of evolution meetings and have never seen a lecture on abiogenesis..those who study it are a different crowd..usually biochemists who deal with conditions for the synthesis of amino acids and theory on potential replicators such as the RNA versus DNA first models.
On a different subject, I am not entirely sure why Fred is getting Admin warnings at this point....the debate seems to be pretty calm so far.
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 5:34 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024