Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 121 of 511 (771732)
10-29-2015 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
10-27-2015 12:28 PM


Re: A Modern Ressurection
Wow I missed a lot! Bleh. I have become swamped with midterms and so many responses to make I'll do my best to catch up.
Straggler writes:
Stick with the scenario as it actually happened. It's a real situation. It doesn't require your hypothetical additions.
Sure, as long as you recognize that it is not an accurate comparison to the resurrection.
We have the absence of a body and some eyewitness testimony. We now also have a written record of the events.
Does the notion that my cat has been resurrected qualify as an as evidenced proposition? Or not? Can you explain your answer.
I would propose that no, it is not adequately evidenced at this point in time. Children have been shown to be developmentally less able than adults to separate reality from fantasy, so a case really couldnt be made.
Again, considering that nobody in the story of the resurrection were children, this isn't an accurate comparison so it would be fallacious to draw conclusions about the resurrection from it.
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2015 12:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2015 6:25 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 122 of 511 (771733)
10-29-2015 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
10-27-2015 1:35 PM


Re: Correcting Raphael's many errors. Part 1
PaulK writes:
As I pointed out you do not have any significant amount of physical evidence for the accuracy of the Gospels. This also addresses your false accusation of a misquote
Again, this was not my argument. My argument was that we have a lot of physical evidence for the legitimacy of the NT in comparison with how much real evidence with have for other historical people/documents. This is the same argument I have been pointing back to.
Let us note that some of those are philosophers more than historians. The others, as I said are judged on our knowledge of them, their sources and their methods. so to accuse me of evading the issue is false.
This is true. However, for example, the wide majority of the scholarly community accepts that Socrates did indeed exist, even though we have absolutely nothing original from him, only the things Plato said about him. My point is that the evidence is the same, and a certain element of faith must be employed in both cases.
False. I refuse to uncritically accept them, and therefore treat them like other historical documents.
Then you must be willing to say that you can't possible know one way or the other, just like we can't possibly know one way or the other with most of the other writers I've mentioned. It is a personal faith issue.
I don't say it. That IS purely your imagination.
That you have ignored my answer does not mean that I am evading the question
No, you have demonstrated that there is no good evidence for. We have yet to discuss the evidence against.
I won't respond to each of these, but in a general sense, your argument thus fas has appeared to be one based on a logical fallacy, an appeal to the facts that:
1) While we have many manuscripts of the NT, they are copies, so this is no indication that the originals were accurate stories
2) We don't know for sure Mark's sources, therefore because of the extraordinary claims it probably isn't reliable
Both appeals to ignorance. But neither logically necessarily follow. Just because we don't know for sure does not prove that they are not trustworthy. If it was that easy the debate would be settled, and as far as I know, it's not.
I have indeed provided evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and offered the best explanation for the rapid spreading and growth of the early Christian church. You have not offered an alternative argument for how this could have happened.
Unfortunately for you my argument is based on what we do know.
If you wish to claim otherwise, it is up to you to produce evidence. can you reliably identify the sources used by Mark? Can you give reasons to show that they are reliable, that the author of Mark was a good historian ? This is the sort of thing you should have been producing from the start. Ask yourself why you ignored that to rely on spurious arguments instead.
I recognize that your entire counter argument is the ambiguity surrounding the source(s) of Mark, however this is still an appeal to ignorance. I am comfortable admitting that we have hypotheses based on what we know, and a couple different cases for the authorship of Mark can be made, but we are not 100% sure. Personally I believe that John Mark, the traveling companion of both Paul and Peter compiled the book of Mark, with his largest source probably being the stories Peter told him personally. There is evidence for this.
(The Biblical scholar Tim Henderson does a great job explaining this in his blog here,, and another great source is Mark Roberts Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (2007). )
I hope I do not appear to be avoiding going into the details about the authorship by posting a link; I am not trying to dismiss your argument. I can post some of the information here if it is easier. However I believe the conclusion is still the same: We have good reason to believe that Johnmark the companion of Paul/Peter is the one who penned Mark. It is TRUE that we cannot prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that his sources were absolutely historically perfect, but at best all we can conclude is we don't know for sure. So again, we cannot make a judgement about something we don't know. This leaves you and I both at the same place, having to choose what we will believe.
Regards!
- Raph
(PS: Will try to finish up responding later tonight or perhaps in the next couple days or so)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2015 1:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2015 9:28 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 123 of 511 (771734)
10-29-2015 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
10-28-2015 10:44 AM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:
Working in industry where the survival of a company depends on refining methods and procedures is actually science at work.
Working with grants,...
Around 50% of the income the organisation I work for do come from grants. I work in economic geology.
ICANT writes:
... agendas have to be met and appeased to keep the grants coming.
Actually, the company I work for only has one agenda. To deliver the most reliable product to our customers. Mining companies, exploration companies, Governments, scientific organisations, chicken farmers, etc.
ICANT writes:
Keeping the grants coming is the most important thing.
Not for the organisation I work for. For us delivering the most reliable products is the most important thing. Then the income from mining companies and governments and chicken farmers, etc. just flows in and we get paid more! And we get more grants, too!
ICANT writes:
True science has to take a backseat to the most important thing.
True science, hey? It seems like you think that the science works like religions do...you read a favourite book and believe it must be true...science doesn't work like that.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 10:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:17 PM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 124 of 511 (771735)
10-29-2015 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
10-28-2015 11:32 AM


Re: ICANT, Meet ICANT
ICANT writes:
The universe is expanding. which rules out a static universe.
The Big Bang Theory requires the universe having a beginning to exist.
Stephen Hawking made the following statement concerning the universe.
"No divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed."
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
You lost the argument the moment you tried an argument from authority, an authority who doesn't agree with you, ICANT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 11:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:49 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 125 of 511 (771739)
10-29-2015 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
10-29-2015 2:31 AM


Re: ICANT,
Sorry, I couldn't help laughing at this one.
ICANT writes:
I would like to see an experiment that produced anything out of nothing.
Me too! I'd love to see Angelina Jolie being poofed into existence!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 2:31 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 4:56 PM Pressie has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 126 of 511 (771746)
10-29-2015 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Raphael
10-29-2015 6:15 AM


Re: Correcting Raphael's many errors. Part 1
quote:
Again, this was not my argument. My argument was that we have a lot of physical evidence for the legitimacy of the NT in comparison with how much real evidence with have for other historical people/documents. This is the same argument I have been pointing back to.
So this is some argument for some unspecified "legitimacy" that still allows for the Gospels to be too unreliable to serve as useful evidence for the resurrection? Isn't that a complete waste of time?
quote:
This is true. However, for example, the wide majority of the scholarly community accepts that Socrates did indeed exist, even though we have absolutely nothing original from him, only the things Plato said about him. My point is that the evidence is the same, and a certain element of faith must be employed in both cases.
And yet we have more evidence for the existence of Sicrates than just Plato - references from other contemporaries. And, of course, we aren,t arguing about the existence of Jesus.
Instead of wasting time you may assume that I accept the Gospels as Christian documents from the latter part of the 1st Century, although with some additions, and that Jesus existed, was crucified and died.
quote:
Then you must be willing to say that you can't possible know one way or the other, just like we can't possibly know one way or the other with most of the other writers I've mentioned. It is a personal faith issue.
I prefer evidence to personal faith. if your case boils down to personal faith we may end it here.
quote:
won't respond to each of these, but in a general sense, your argument thus fas has appeared to be one based on a logical fallacy, an appeal to the facts that:
1) While we have many manuscripts of the NT, they are copies, so this is no indication that the originals were accurate stories
2) We don't know for sure Mark's sources, therefore because of the extraordinary claims it probably isn't reliable
Both appeals to ignorance. But neither logically necessarily follow. Just because we don't know for sure does not prove that they are not trustworthy. If it was that easy the debate would be settled, and as far as I know, it's not.
More accurately the evidence you have produced contributes little to your case, and you haven't produced evidence that would contribute to your case. From this it follows that you haven't made much of a case. That's not an argument from ignorance.
Again your "argument from ignorance" is a figment of your imagination. I have not yet argued for the untrustworthiness of the Gospels.
quote:
I have indeed provided evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and offered the best explanation for the rapid spreading and growth of the early Christian church. You have not offered an alternative argument for how this could have happened.
I'd say that the truth of the resurrection is almost irrelevant. We see Paul preaching about it, but the only evidence offered is a list of Jesus sightings - even the empty tomb story is completely absent. The only sighting described in any detail is Paul's own visionary experience. Even if the resurrection story was important - and you haven't even shown that - there seems little need for there to be an actual resurrection. And I'm not even suggesting a fraud like the Book of Mormon (although Joseph Smith did a better job of providing evidence, even for his lies)
I would suggest that Christianity succeeded more because of the appeal of the teachings, gifted preachers, the attractions of the communal life and other factors which would apply whether there was a real ressurection or not.
quote:
I recognize that your entire counter argument is the ambiguity surrounding the source(s) of Mark, however this is still an appeal to ignorance. I am comfortable admitting that we have hypotheses based on what we know, and a couple different cases for the authorship of Mark can be made, but we are not 100% sure. Personally I believe that John Mark, the traveling companion of both Paul and Peter compiled the book of Mark, with his largest source probably being the stories Peter told him personally. There is evidence for this.
I'm willing to accept that Mark was at least in part - perhaps largely - based on things the author heard from Peter. You yourself claimed the Gospel writers compiled sources so presumably he had others. And let us also note that Papias - the major source for the identification - says that the Gospel got at least some events out of order (there you are - evidence of unreliability). But that still doesn't get us very far. Also note that Peter was not a witness to the events of concern in this discussion, and we can't reliably identify him as the source for those. So, a small start towards making a case - but still far short, and very, very late.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Raphael, posted 10-29-2015 6:15 AM Raphael has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 127 of 511 (771755)
10-29-2015 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by ICANT
10-28-2015 4:29 PM


Re: God
ICANT writes:
OK you ruled out there being a supernatural power, supplying the energy to supply the energy and mass to produce the universe.
I didn't rule it out. You did, when you said, "The pure energy that became the mass of the universe had to come from somewhere. It can not produce it's self." You said that God can not produce Himself.
ICANT writes:
I believe and have stated that the supernatural power has to be outside of the universe and would be required to be eternal.
That's a completely meaningless statement.
ICANT writes:
Only if that entity was inside the universe would it be subject to the laws of the universe. But that entity had to establish the rules the universe is subject too.
And by the some logic, there would have to be something outside that entity to establish the rules that that entity is subject to. It's turtles all the way down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2015 4:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 5:36 PM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 128 of 511 (771766)
10-29-2015 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Pressie
10-29-2015 6:30 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes:
Around 50% of the income the organisation I work for do come from grants. I work in economic geology.
Who supplies the grants?
Pressie writes:
Actually, the company I work for only has one agenda. To deliver the most reliable product to our customers. Mining companies, exploration companies, Governments, scientific organisations, chicken farmers, etc.
If the company you work for produces the most reliable product to the customers why do they need grants?
Pressie writes:
Not for the organisation I work for. For us delivering the most reliable products is the most important thing. Then the income from mining companies and governments and chicken farmers, etc. just flows in and we get paid more! And we get more grants, too!
Again why does the company you work for need grants?
Pressie writes:
True science, hey? It seems like you think that the science works like religions do...you read a favourite book and believe it must be true...science doesn't work like that.
I think true science and true religion work in similar ways.
They both are to seek the truth and when the truth is found they will agree. If not one, or both is wrong.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 10-29-2015 6:30 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Pressie, posted 10-30-2015 6:51 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 129 of 511 (771767)
10-29-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
10-29-2015 2:31 AM


Re: ICANT,
So you agree that an appeal to Dr. Hawking's authority is pointless, since the two of you are diametrically opposed on the very issues on which you cite him for support.
Got anything else?
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 2:31 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 5:06 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 130 of 511 (771768)
10-29-2015 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Pressie
10-29-2015 6:43 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes:
You lost the argument the moment you tried an argument from authority, an authority who doesn't agree with you, ICANT.
How was I trying an argument from authority?
I simply stated what Stephen Hawking said.
I did not argue his point either way, I just accepted what he said.
If you disagree with what he said present your arguments to the contrary.
Pressie writes:
"No divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed."
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
It would have been nice if you had given the source of these comments.
Since you did not I will give them for you. They come from his book The Grand Design, which was written years after his lecture. I haven't had the opportunity to read the entire book yet but I will. I do know from the quotes you use he is bound and determined to prove that there is no need for a God in creation.
Now to the quotes you provided.
quote:
"No divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed."
Hawking created imaginary time in which his instanton could pop into existence and produce a universe just like the one we live in. The problem is he did not supply a source for whatever existed that the instanton appeared in. There is no research, are even good argumentation to support either. In fact one of his best buddies didn't think much of his idea.
His assertion does not make his words a fact.
quote:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
There can be no gravity in non existence.
From nothing comes nothing. No existence = no universe.
Maybe you know of an experiment where spontaneous creation took place. If you do I would like to read about it.
The universe exists because it exists. The question is how did the universe begin to exist. Hawking has presented 0 evidence to support his assertions.
Even in these quotes he is still stating the universe had a beginning to exist. He is just trying to get the job done without an outside supernatural power.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Pressie, posted 10-29-2015 6:43 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by kbertsche, posted 10-30-2015 12:20 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 131 of 511 (771769)
10-29-2015 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Pressie
10-29-2015 7:25 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes:
Me too! I'd love to see Angelina Jolie being poofed into existence!
She already exists so what would her poofing into your presence prove about spontaneous creation.
You are completely willing to accept as fact that the universe poofed into existence, from an absence of existence.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Pressie, posted 10-29-2015 7:25 AM Pressie has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 132 of 511 (771770)
10-29-2015 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Omnivorous
10-29-2015 4:24 PM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Omnivorous,
Omnivorous writes:
So you agree that an appeal to Dr. Hawking's authority is pointless, since the two of you are diametrically opposed on the very issues on which you cite him for support.
Got anything else?
Hawking is not all knowing and therefore is not infallible.
I am not all knowing and therefore I am not infallible.
I thought you believed in the Big Bang Theory, am I wrong?
1. An expanding universe rules out a static universe which has lasted eternally into the past.
2. The universe does exist today.
3. Since the universe does exist and has not existed eternally into the past it had to have a beginning to exist.
Which one of these statements false?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 4:24 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2015 5:35 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2015 5:36 PM ICANT has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 133 of 511 (771772)
10-29-2015 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
10-29-2015 5:06 PM


Re: ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Hawking is not all knowing and therefore is not infallible.
I am not all knowing and therefore I am not infallible.
Good. We can cut out Dr. Hawking as the middleman (since he's useless to your argument).
ICANT writes:
I thought you believed in the Big Bang Theory, am I wrong?
Yes, in several ways.
I don't "believe" in any theory. That's way-you're-wrong number one.
I do think the BB theory is the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. Unlike you, I understand that the math breaks down at T=0, and the theory cannot say anything valid about it--most especially, it cannot reveal the state of affairs prior to T=0, and it doesn't point to energy requirements from outside the universe.
That's way-you're-wrong number 2.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 5:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 5:42 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 511 (771773)
10-29-2015 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
10-29-2015 5:06 PM


Re: ICANT,
I thought you believed in the Big Bang Theory, am I wrong?
1. An expanding universe rules out a static universe which has lasted eternally into the past.
2. The universe does exist today.
3. Since the universe does exist and has not existed eternally into the past it had to have a beginning to exist.
Which one of these statements false?
I've explained this to you numerous times but you refuse to acknowledge understanding of anything that contradicts your argument.
#3 is false because it has false implications. "Beginning to exist" implies a point in time where the Universe does not exist.
According to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe exist at all points in time. There is no point in time for the Universe to begin to exist from.
The catch is that the amount of time in the past direction is finite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 5:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2015 6:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 135 of 511 (771774)
10-29-2015 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ringo
10-29-2015 11:57 AM


Re: God
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
I didn't rule it out. You did, when you said, "The pure energy that became the mass of the universe had to come from somewhere. It can not produce it's self." You said that God can not produce Himself.
If you are going to quote me get your quote right.
ICANT writes:
OK you ruled out there being a supernatural power, supplying the energy to supply the energy and mass to produce the universe.
The supernatural power supplied the energy that supplied the energy and mass to produce the universe.
I did not say any thing about the supernatural power not being able to produce the supernatural power. The supernatural power would have to be an eternal entity with no beginning and no end. Remember the law energy and mass can not be created.
I said the mass and energy that produced the universe could not produce itself. That would be the same as Brian Greene's branes and Steven Hawking's instanton. Energy and mass produced out of non existence.
ringo writes:
ICANT writes:
I believe and have stated that the supernatural power has to be outside of the universe and would be required to be eternal.
That's a completely meaningless statement.
I suppose you have a better explanation of how the energy and mass could begin to exist from non existence.
ringo writes:
ICANT writes:
Only if that entity was inside the universe would it be subject to the laws of the universe. But that entity had to establish the rules the universe is subject too.
And by the some logic, there would have to be something outside that entity to establish the rules that that entity is subject to. It's turtles all the way down.
If you were not dead serious your statement would be laughable. You actually believe your garbage.
You could prove me wrong by presenting a mechanism whereby the universe could begin to exist out of non existence.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 10-29-2015 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 10-30-2015 11:45 AM ICANT 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