Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 7:45 PM
339 online now:
Coragyps, halibut, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,821 Year: 25,427/21,208 Month: 1,054/2,338 Week: 175/450 Day: 47/52 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 151 of 219 (640671)
11-11-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Larni
11-03-2011 1:04 PM


Re: is my rock design
So now you need to supply some physical evidence for design.

Well not to be cruel or abusive but you don't seem to understand evidence or argumentation

Larni, if I use physical properties (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE), to demonstrate order, law and purpose, then that is all the physical evidence I need to establish such a valid argument, correct?. If I correctly evaluate the order, complex order and obvious purpose, I need no other evidence to know that design is present, even without the presence of a designer

The argument is valid, because the physical evidence warrants design

What other physical evidence do I need?

Design being true could have a probalility of being zero. The more evidence you can provide to support design being true (e.g. a test to identify when something is designed and when it isn't [the purpose of this thread]) the more we have to accept the probability is approaching '1'.

Again with respect, you don't understand argumentation. There is no such thing as More Evidence for the design argument to be true.

Example, you could provide no more evidence that your car was NOT designed, because you were not there for its creation. However that is not necessary because its organization provides all the evidence necessary to know it was designed

The design argument does not need to know, who, when, where or why for it to be valid

So from a logical standpoint, show why and how you need more evidence to know it was designed

Your opinion does not count as evidence

IOWs, it is not possible for design to NOT exist. IOWs there is no probability that design is not present or valid

If you don't believe me. provide any physical biological property that does not exhibit design at its core

As yet we have no test for what is designed and what is not (hence this thread) so we can't currently say that 'things being designed' is anythning more than wishful thinking.

You have no test because you do not understand what constitutes evidence and your argumentation skills are invalid, faulty and inaccurate

If you don't believe please demonstrate with more physical evidence that your particular car was NOT designed. Show me the specific people, place and time, in Real Time, that it was designed and by who

Have fun

You fellas will get this after while, I promise you

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 1:04 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Larni, posted 11-12-2011 2:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Larni, posted 11-16-2011 8:29 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 163 by Admin, posted 11-16-2011 9:11 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 152 of 219 (640680)
11-11-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:27 PM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


So why are you so afraid to apply these three (presumably measurable) criteria to any specific object?

Fear has nothing to do with simple logic. If we were to break down the rock we could easily see the order and structure in the molecular structure of the rock itself to know it was designed

If we take the process that formed the rock, break down those individual process that contain both order and law, then it is easy to see the rock was designed

There are, of course, several different processes which form rock; you may want to refer to Dr Adequate's Introduction To Geology.


Is there order and law in the rocks basic structure?

With regard to crystalline structure, some geologic processes produce more order (e.g., large uniform crystals such as quartz) than other geologic processes (e.g., amorphous glasses such as obsidian). So, as far as crystalline structure is concerned, do igneous rocks composed of quartz show more evidence of design than igneous rocks composed of obsidian?


Does the process that formed the rock show order, law and purpose?

Suppose that a given sedimentary rock was produced by the slow orderly accumulation of water-deposited particles over hundreds of thousands of years, producing a very orderly banded appearance. Another sedimentary-type rock laid down over a span of a single year by a chaotic flood-like disaster is less likely to show as much regularity.

The first sedimentary rock exhibits some evidence of design, having been produced by an orderly process. The second sedimentary rock exhibits virtually no evidence of design, having been produced by a disordered lawless supernaturally-caused global flood. Can we conclude, then, that the first sedimentary rock was designed, and the supernaturally-flood-produced sedimentary rock was not designed?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2011 6:07 PM DWIII has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:18 AM DWIII has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 153 of 219 (640682)
11-11-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by DWIII
11-11-2011 4:16 PM


Is this rock designed?

Is this "designed" and how can you tell?

What consistent rule do you have for determining "design" from "non-design?"

Or, like the Supreme Court Justice, do you just know it when you see it?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by DWIII, posted 11-11-2011 4:16 PM DWIII has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 154 of 219 (640754)
11-12-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:54 PM


Re: is my rock design
Poor, deluded Dawn.

You have neither the wit, guile, spelling or grammar to be cruel to me.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(4)
Message 155 of 219 (640889)
11-14-2011 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:42 PM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:

It only matters if order law and purpose are present

Dawn, a few posts ago you mentioned organization, function and purpose. Now you've shifted your position to order, law and purpose. You are not moving goal posts, are you? Because if you are, I predict you'll get short shrift from a lot of people here. Most of them do not take kindly to this kind of tactic.

Let me put my argument this way: I completely agree with you that we see organization, function and purpose (I'll stick with your original goal posts) in living nature. I would even go so far as to call it 'design' in a certain sense of the word. The sense of 'design' I'm talking about is the same as when we would speak of how wind and water had 'sculpted' a rock into a peculiar shape. It is very important to keep this in mind when we talk about design. So I would, for example, not hesitate to say that an eye was 'designed' for vision, in the 'sculpted' sense of 'design'.

So who designed it all? Well, before I go into that, let me say that I think it's a loaded question. It presumes that design can only originate from an intelligent entity, a person who plans it all in advance, and who has certain goals in mind. I think that's not the case when we are dealing with life. To find out what happened we should ask which kinds of process could possibly have designed - 'sculpted' - life. So we should ask "who or what designed it all?" One candidate would indeed be a process involving an intelligent designer, but that's by no means tho only possibility.

The process of evolution is another way of 'sculpting' life into its myriad forms. It does so by trying lots of variations and remorselessly selecting only the best improvements, simply by having too many individual organisms for the environment to sustain them all. Under those circumstances significantly more will survive and procreate, who have what it takes to do so. They're the ones who pass on their winning variations. The comparison with the sculpting of a rock by wind and water is an apt metaphor, if only because of the comparable time scales.

So, we see organization, function and purpose in nature. But is it evidence of planned design by an intelligent designer? Or is it evidence of relentless 'sculpting' by mindless natural processes? Modern science has found many, many clues that support the latter, and none that compels us to assume the former.

Edited by Parasomnium, : Post testing


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:42 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2011 11:05 AM Parasomnium has responded
 Message 160 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:45 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 157 of 219 (641016)
11-15-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Parasomnium
11-14-2011 2:13 AM


Re: is my rock design
Sorry for the lateness of these responses, I promise you I am not trying to avoid any questions or arguments. My computer is on the fritz and other obligations are weighing down

Ive finished a response to DWIII's latest post and just saw Para's.

Ill try to get them done as quickly as possible

Thanks again

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Parasomnium, posted 11-14-2011 2:13 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Parasomnium, posted 11-15-2011 12:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 158 of 219 (641024)
11-15-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2011 11:05 AM


Re: is my rock design
There's no rush, Dawn, feel free to take your time. It's better to think a little longer about one's responses and write them with care, than to rush them off and regret them afterwards.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2011 11:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 159 of 219 (641070)
11-16-2011 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by DWIII
11-11-2011 4:16 PM


Re: is my rock design
With regard to crystalline structure, some geologic processes produce more order (e.g., large uniform crystals such as quartz) than other geologic processes (e.g., amorphous glasses such as obsidian). So, as far as crystalline structure is concerned, do igneous rocks composed of quartz show more evidence of design than igneous rocks composed of obsidian?

I find it interesting that you can recognize complex and simple order but not design. What is the criteria that you use to recognize and define order? How do you come to that conclusion

As I read your post I see you havent been here that long, as such are unfamiliar with what I am actually arguing.

perhaps you could explain why it would help the argument, if certain biological properties exhibit more or less design, if all of them have the same basic substructure, ( atoms, molecules, cells) that exhibit the same order, overall for all existence

These all have the same, ordered, harmounious and consistent sub-structure, which exhibit incredible design, wouldnt you agree

Even if one could find, what one considers relative design in nature, this point is secondary to the consistent ordered and harmounious natue of all things, especially at thier basic structure

So as far as crystaline structures are concerned, igneous rock composed of quartz are all the same at thier substructure and are ordered designed and created by the same process, regardless, if one can see more or less design, in its finished product. Wouldnt you agree?

Suppose that a given sedimentary rock was produced by the slow orderly accumulation of water-deposited particles over hundreds of thousands of years, producing a very orderly banded appearance. Another sedimentary-type rock laid down over a span of a single year by a chaotic flood-like disaster is less likely to show as much regularity

Would'nt you agree that the substructure of any or all the processes you describe are exacally the same, regardless of any relative design in its finished product

Wouldnt you agree that in any of the processes you describe, we are still going to find destailed order and purpose, regardeless of our conclusions of how the process was formed?

How the process took place is secondary to overwhelming display of order itself, which actually formulates the design argument. Our conclusions of whor or why are not necessary for the argumnent to be valid, correct?

The first sedimentary rock exhibits some evidence of design, having been produced by an orderly process. The second sedimentary rock exhibits virtually no evidence of design, having been produced by a disordered lawless supernaturally-caused global flood. Can we conclude, then, that the first sedimentary rock was designed, and the supernaturally-flood-produced sedimentary rock was not designed?

When you can produce any example in biological processes that do not exhibit, consistent, ordered and harmonious structure, especially at thier core, then you can speak to the question of outward, relative design.

The rock/s you speak of were first formed at thier substructure, where the process is not questionalble or relative

Again, can you provide any biological process that is NOT both ordered and the same at its substructure

When you can do this, then you you may have a place to start to demonstrate that biological processes are random or chaotic

If the finished or outward processes dont convince you of order, purpose and eventually design, then look deeper at thier substructure, which is always consistent

One must however remove all of the overwhelming evidence of law and order in nature, before he actually has any kind of real impact on removing the argument of design

For now and as always it stands as an overwhelming task to anyone to remove the force of its argument

Assuming that complex order does not exist, is not the same as demonstrating it

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by DWIII, posted 11-11-2011 4:16 PM DWIII has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by DWIII, posted 11-18-2011 11:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 160 of 219 (641071)
11-16-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Parasomnium
11-14-2011 2:13 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn, a few posts ago you mentioned organization, function and purpose. Now you've shifted your position to order, law and purpose. You are not moving goal posts, are you? Because if you are, I predict you'll get short shrift from a lot of people here. Most of them do not take kindly to this kind of tactic.

Im not seeing any real difference in these words, but if it makes you feel better Ill try and use the same words in the future

Let me put my argument this way: I completely agree with you that we see organization, function and purpose (I'll stick with your original goal posts) in living nature. I would even go so far as to call it 'design' in a certain sense of the word. The sense of 'design' I'm talking about is the same as when we would speak of how wind and water had 'sculpted' a rock into a peculiar shape. It is very important to keep this in mind when we talk about design. So I would, for example, not hesitate to say that an eye was 'designed' for vision, in the 'sculpted' sense of 'design'.

Unfortunately this definition of design ignores complex order, which is present in both detailed substructures and may finished complex processes. Your definiton is to loose to be taken seriously

So who designed it all? Well, before I go into that, let me say that I think it's a loaded question. It presumes that design can only originate from an intelligent entity, a person who plans it all in advance, and who has certain goals in mind. I think that's not the case when we are dealing with life. To find out what happened we should ask which kinds of process could possibly have designed - 'sculpted' - life. So we should ask "who or what designed it all?" One candidate would indeed be a process involving an intelligent designer, but that's by no means tho only possibility.

I agree. However, who or what is not necessary to make the argument valid or the process demonstratable

The process of evolution is another way of 'sculpting' life into its myriad forms. It does so by trying lots of variations and remorselessly selecting only the best improvements, simply by having too many individual organisms for the environment to sustain them all. Under those circumstances significantly more will survive and procreate, who have what it takes to do so. They're the ones who pass on their winning variations. The comparison with the sculpting of a rock by wind and water is an apt metaphor, if only because of the comparable time scales.

Unfortunately the process you describe doesnt start far enough back. the basic element of the universe or life had a beginning, all of which at its core, still has complex order, evenin the smallest elements

Who or what is not necessary for the design argument to be both valid and acceptable as a scientific demonstration of design

So, we see organization, function and purpose in nature. But is it evidence of planned design by an intelligent designer? Or is it evidence of relentless 'sculpting' by mindless natural processes? Modern science has found many, many clues that support the latter, and none that compels us to assume the former.

Yes it is evidence of an intelligent designer, especially at its core. If all of this happened in the blink of an eye (no pun intended), you would still have those denying that it was the product of an intelligent designer

Only the complex order is necessary for the argument to be valid and demonstratable

Modern science has ignored the overwhelming evidence of complex order, because it assumes that life anywhere, especially in its beginning could actually get started itself

Since neither of us were there to witness the event, evidence falls to what is demonstratable in physical and logical form.

You assume by your above statement that you have a definate answer for that beginning, but ofcourse you do not and that is the point of and how evidence works, atleast in these instances, correct?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Parasomnium, posted 11-14-2011 2:13 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Panda, posted 11-16-2011 8:31 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 161 of 219 (641073)
11-16-2011 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:54 PM


Re: is my rock design
Larni, if I use physical properties (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE), to demonstrate order, law and purpose,

Looked through this thread and the thread where you first wrote you order, law and purpose idea and I have yet to see any evidence that you have presented that could support this idea.

Please could you link me to where you use physical evidence to demonstrate that order, law and purpose can be used to infer design.

DWIII writes:

The first sedimentary rock exhibits some evidence of design, having been produced by an orderly process. The second sedimentary rock exhibits virtually no evidence of design, having been produced by a disordered lawless supernaturally-caused global flood. Can we conclude, then, that the first sedimentary rock was designed, and the supernaturally-flood-produced sedimentary rock was not designed?

Why won't you just answer the question, Dawn.

You won't because you can't.

Since neither of us were there to witness the event, evidence falls to what is demonstratable in physical and logical form.

You have done neither.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 10:31 AM Larni has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 162 of 219 (641074)
11-16-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dawn Bertot
11-16-2011 7:45 AM


Re: is my rock design
DB writes:

Im not seeing any real difference in these words

You can use Google to find out what words actually mean.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 163 of 219 (641079)
11-16-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:54 PM


Re: is my rock design
Hi Dawn,

Dawn Bertot writes:

Larni, if I use physical properties (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE), to demonstrate order, law and purpose...

You had the opportunity to discuss your ideas about "order, law and purpose" in the Intelligent Design vs. Real Science and Does ID follow the scientific method? threads. We will not be discussing them again in this thread, so please stop posting here. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 6:56 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 164 of 219 (641164)
11-17-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Larni
11-16-2011 8:29 AM


Re: is my rock design
Larni you should have atleast made an attempt at responding to my arguments, you look foolish in front of your veiwers

When all else fails and the opponents wont or cant respond to simple set out argument, questions and queries, have the admin buddies boot them off

So much for debate

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Larni, posted 11-16-2011 8:29 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Larni, posted 11-17-2011 10:48 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 165 of 219 (641165)
11-17-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 10:31 AM


Re: is my rock design
So now we are down to me being stupid and not understanding and me being a bully and getting my 'admin buddies' to wade in.

Well done.

Back to to my question from Message 161:

Why won't you just answer the question, Dawn?

You won't because you can't.

You have ran away from me before, Dawn: gonna run again?

ABE: I've just realised that you are accusing me of getting my admin buddies to boot you off!

The idea that I hold sway over admins here is laughable and insulting to all concerned.

I would like you to retract your comment and offer apologies to all concerned: that kind of baseless acusation is beneath you, Dawn.

ABE: after reading admins post I'll retract my demand for evidence as s/he is no longer able participate in this thread.

I still want an apology for the suggestion of malfeanse.

Edited by Larni, : splellink

Edited by Larni, : righteos indignation, after the fact.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 10:31 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Admin, posted 11-17-2011 10:49 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 7:00 PM Larni has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 166 of 219 (641167)
11-17-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Larni
11-17-2011 10:48 AM


Re: is my rock design
I asked Dawn to stop participating in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Larni, posted 11-17-2011 10:48 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017