Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 7:58 AM
448 online now:
caffeine, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 443 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,073 Year: 6,679/21,208 Month: 2,440/2,634 Week: 103/525 Day: 18/60 Hour: 6/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
subbie
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 166 of 251 (654685)
03-02-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:18 PM


Re: Analogies
Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "atheism." If you simply mean in the absence of any supernatural entity, you are correct. That is in effect the meaning of methodological naturalism; investigations and explanations attempt to describe the natural world without appealing to any supernatural entities.

If instead you mean disbelieving in gods, then you are wrong. Science makes no claims about any supernatural entities because such entities are not amenable to scientific examination.

So, the ToE makes no claims or assumptions of any sort about any gods. It simply attempts to describe the natural world without appealing to any supernatural input.

The parts that are more lacking than others in the evidentiary support are there for a reason.

Yes, and the reason is that they are mysteries that haven't yet been solved. Science is still working on them.

They come up short on evidence, but someone (or group) WANTS them to be there. A conclusion is drawn first, then evidence is used to work backwards to that conclusion.

And you of course have evidence of these people (or groups), right?

Of course, IDists are accused of doing that,

Because that's what the evidence shows. If you're unclear about this, Google "cdesign proponentist" for one piece of our evidence. Now, where's yours?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:18 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:45 PM subbie has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 167 of 251 (654686)
03-02-2012 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Taq
02-29-2012 11:42 AM


Re: Analogies
For evolution, it doesn't matter how that first life came about. We are following the EVIDENCE which leads to the conclusion that all life shares a common ancestral pool of genes. That is simply what the evidence shows. Nothing in atheism requires a single common ancestral pool. In fact, someone could find a rare species in some deep ocean vent that does not share the same genetic features as all other life and it would fit just fine with atheism. It would also fit just fine with evolution in that evolution does not require a single common ancestor for all life.

Wow, I’ve seen somewhere on the net the statement that “evolution” is a slippery word. Now it’s reached new slipperyness – I’ve never seen a claim that it can dance its way out of the common ancestor, until now. I wonder how that would do in court?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 02-29-2012 11:42 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 168 of 251 (654688)
03-02-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Taq
02-29-2012 11:46 AM


Re: Analogies
Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.

No. And obviously most of the scientific community doesn't either, or it would be big news, and this thread wouldn't have been started.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 02-29-2012 11:46 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:56 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 169 of 251 (654689)
03-02-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
02-29-2012 6:25 PM


Re: Marc9000's Box
You're not influential enough yet. Get yourself a job as a judge, or get elected for some political office. You might get some pleasant surprises!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-29-2012 6:25 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(4)
Message 170 of 251 (654690)
03-02-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:27 PM


Re: Analogies
It only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.

Not true.

There's nothing logically inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution and the possibility of multiple lines of completely independent phylogenies. The reason for the scientific theory of a single common ancestor is that that is what the evidence shows. If we somewhere were to find new evidence of a life that came from a difference ancestor, one that was silicon-based for example, that new evidence would be added to our knowledge base and new theories would emerge from that information.

Scientists don't care whether all life came from a common ancestor or not. Science simply came to that conclusion because that's what the evidence says. Change the evidence and the conclusion will change.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 171 of 251 (654691)
03-02-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by subbie
03-02-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Analogies
I guess that depends on what you mean by "atheism."

Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!

Yes, and the reason is that they are mysteries that haven't yet been solved. Science is still working on them.

So science can do anything, if given enough time? Humans aren't that perfect.

And you of course have evidence of these people (or groups), right?

Of course, but that's probably another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:32 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 172 of 251 (654693)
03-02-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:45 PM


Re: Analogies
Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!

Like many words, it means different things to different people. I'm rather perplexed that you reached adulthood without understanding this simple truth. I'm not perplexed that you had no substantive reply to the meat of my point.

So science can do anything, if given enough time?

I certainly don't think so. First, science is limited to explanations for natural phenomena. It can't define justice, or beauty, or truth. Second, while science has shown that it is the best process invented by humans for learning about the natural world, that doesn't mean it doesn't make mistakes. But it does try to correct them. It also doesn't mean that it can answer all questions about the natural world. But it tries. I make no predictions about its ultimate success (which might justify your curious response), but I'd put my money on it over any other process in existence today.

Of course, but that's probably another thread.

Ah, yes. The ultimate cop out.

I gave you one piece of my evidence. I'm sure nobody would begrudge you providing a little bit of yours. If it turns into something substantial, we can always break out another thread.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:45 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:43 PM subbie has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12391
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 173 of 251 (654696)
03-02-2012 9:15 PM


Moderator Warning
EvC Forum thrives when discussions are informed and productive. That can only happen when both sides are making a sincere attempt to both understand one another and make themselves understood.

I'm closing this thread for one hour to make sure this message is seen. When I reopen the thread I'll probably call it a night, but in the morning I'll be issuing 24-hour timeouts to anyone who isn't working damn hard at making this a rewarding and productive discussion. I don't care how horrible the evolutionists or the creationists or the IDists are, make it work or you'll be twiddling your thumbs for the next 24 hours.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4413
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 174 of 251 (654711)
03-03-2012 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

Here's a list of some "nonexistant" peer reviewed publications by ID proponents. Were you not aware that any of this existed? I haven't noticed any excitement by anyone in the scientific community.

Thanks for that - the Discovery Institute web site isn't a place I normally visit for science comment but a change is as good as a rest as my grandad says.

It's a pretty short list isn't it? They are very pleased that 2011 marked the 50th publication, not just of original research for ID but anything they could find anywhere that seemed to support the idea. But that's fair enough I suppose, in the end it would only take one document with the power of Darwin's original book - which incidentally, wasn't peer reviewed - to make a real contribution.

The problem you have is that if you listed the peer reviewed papers for the ToE in the same way, it would quite literally be several million going back over a century. In order to overturn that amount of confirming evidence, ID has to do its own original research and also make it bomb proof. So far nothing they have come up with is good enough, it's all been refuted pretty quickly and simply.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM Tangle has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5702
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 175 of 251 (654722)
03-03-2012 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
Here's a list of some "nonexistant" peer reviewed publications by ID proponents. Were you not aware that any of this existed? I haven't noticed any excitement by anyone in the scientific community.

This is actually kind of funny. Let look at the journals that these "peer reviewed" articles were published in and the articles themselves.

The first is by a surgeon and published in a very obscure journal.
Here is a pretty scathing takedown of this article. You do realize that publication does not make it true or even accepted by the scientific community don't you?

Now lets look at Bio-Complexity. Not a real objective "journal". Gee, it is the publication of the Biologic Institute. The Biologic Institute is an arm of the Discovery Institute. Enough said. Do the research yourself.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 03-03-2012 9:49 AM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12391
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 176 of 251 (654723)
03-03-2012 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Theodoric
03-03-2012 9:41 AM


Re: Analogies
Please take it down a notch. Just the facts, drop the snark.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2012 9:41 AM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 177 of 251 (654729)
03-03-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:11 PM


the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
Hi marc9000,

You’re making it too complicated, it’s really quite simple. For ID, the designer is a big deal. For evolution, the common ancestor is a big deal. Both big deals can be shelved, and study about their existence (or actions) can be shelved. Both can, or neither can.

Except that the pattern of descent from common ancestors is testable and observable. We don't need to hypothesize a single original common ancestor to talk about common descent from common ancestors in the fossil record or the DNA record, nor do we need to hypothesize a single original common ancestor to see how the pattern of descent forms a nested hierarcy of clades within clades.

Not teaching about the formation of nested hierarchies of clades within clades would be a serious major omission in the study of evolution, like teaching math without addition.

Message 162:Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism. All I ever hear is that the mere existence of theistic evolutionists disproves that. It doesn’t, especially since theistic evolutionists clearly agree with atheists on just about everything. ...

But clearly NOT on a non-existent god. Naturalism in evolution is the secular\agnostic study of life according to either purely natural laws or created natural laws: there is no test that can distinguish one from the other without having examples of both. The theistic evolutionist recognizes this as much as the atheists recognize this: science is the tentative explanation of things according to what we see around us, as we see it, whether it is a purely natural universe or a created one. We can't test for one versus the other so this particular question is left unanswered.

Message 163: The whole of science has clearly proven that when it’s presented with something from ID that is completely non religious, it does not get excited, it gets ANGRY. Because that’s exactly what it did when the book ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ came out. Evolution being challenged by a new thought concept called irreducible complexity did nothing but make them angry.

No, they invalidated it and then were understandably dissappointed (though not surprised) that this invalidated hypothesis was not discarded by a group claiming to do science rather than theology. One can get understandably dissappointed in people that continue to hold a false belief (such as belief in a flat earth or a young earth, as examples of such delusions).

quote:
de•lu•sion -noun
1.
    a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

The clinical aspect, delusion3 of being deluded depends on how firmly one maintains a belief in the face of invalidating evidence, while delusion1b,2 are curable via education and presentation of the invalidating evidence to an open mind.

If you've been told by a source you respect that President Obama was not born in the US and you believe it then you have been deluded and being shown the birth certificate would be enough to cure this. If you came to the conclusion by yourself that President Obama was not born in the US then you have a false opinion, and being shown the birth certificate should be enough to cure this. If you continue to believe that President Obama was not born in the US after being shown the birth certificate then you are delusional.

Message 164: It (ToE) only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.

Nope, it works at any level of a tree of life, whether there is a single tree rooted in a single species, a single tree rooted in multiple cross-breeding species (horizontal transfer in single cell life), multiple trees arising from multiple sources that developed independently from DNA replication systems, or multiple trees due to creation of original species.

(1) The process of Evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This does not depend on where one is in a tree of life.

(2) The process of Divergent Speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

Neither does this depend on where one is in a tree of life.

(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of (micro) evolution, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Nor does this depend on where one is in a tree of life, or how much life is being studied at any one time. If one is studying the process of divergent speciation occurring in the Blackcaps in europe (An example of speciation in action?) and the formation of the clade of blackcaps with the new species, one does not need to look further than the common ancestor Blackcaps.

Message 167: Wow, I’ve seen somewhere on the net the statement that “evolution” is a slippery word. Now it’s reached new slipperyness – I’ve never seen a claim that it can dance its way out of the common ancestor, until now. I wonder how that would do in court

The judge could look at you blankly for even asking the question. You have a common ancestor with your siblings, and your birth is in no way dependent on whether the tree of life had one origin or many or on how many different trees are involved. Common descent is accepted in creationist circles, and is a necessary element of special creation and descent from created kinds, so the only real argument is where the tree/s started, not on their existence or the manner in which they form.

Message 171: Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!

Perhaps, rather than a "slippery slope" occurring on every topic you disagree with, you are seeing the inevitability of the conclusion that you have been holding false opinions and beliefs.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : tweaked

Edited by RAZD, : added a bit


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:11 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 178 of 251 (654816)
03-04-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by subbie
03-02-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!

Like many words, it means different things to different people. I'm rather perplexed that you reached adulthood without understanding this simple truth.

Because it hasn’t been hauled into court like ID has. ID has been ruled by courts to only mean one thing - religion. The scientific community keeps it out of the public scientific realm based on that ruling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:59 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by subbie, posted 03-04-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 179 of 251 (654817)
03-04-2012 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Tangle
03-03-2012 5:12 AM


Re: Analogies
It's a pretty short list isn't it? They are very pleased that 2011 marked the 50th publication, not just of original research for ID but anything they could find anywhere that seemed to support the idea.

It’s a short list, but it’s not the “zero” that evolutionists constantly claim. ID proponents are constantly accused of “dishonesty” when they ask questions and express doubt about evolutionist claims. Opinions aren’t necessarily dishonesty, but misrepresentations like this about “zero” peer-reviewed papers is. Not accusing you personally, but that’s happened in this thread. Can’t keep straight who says what when I have many opponents.

But that's fair enough I suppose, in the end it would only take one document with the power of Darwin's original book - which incidentally, wasn't peer reviewed - to make a real contribution.

Nothing in ID could ever come close to the power of Darwin’s book. It sold out on its first day, even though there’s little question that most of those who bought it find change over time in biology to be about as exciting as watching paint dry. It was intellectual fulfillment for atheism, that’s what the selling point was.

The problem you have is that if you listed the peer reviewed papers for the ToE in the same way, it would quite literally be several million going back over a century. In order to overturn that amount of confirming evidence, ID has to do its own original research and also make it bomb proof. So far nothing they have come up with is good enough, it's all been refuted pretty quickly and simply.

Most of science’s millions of papers came about with millions in research money from public grants. ID doesn’t have that luxury – it’s been called religion and blocked from public funding by the courts.

In noting messages 173 & 176, I’m about to summarize and finish up. An important question for you as the thread starter however. Your opener, and many of the following messages by others, attempted to show a clear distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. Then, just as an opposition to me, messages 127 and 128 showed writings that clearly combine them. You and 26 (count em, 26) other evolutionist posters have taken no exception to that combination whatsoever. Is that really how easy it is for evolutionists to bend and shape their arguments to maintain their opposition to open inquiry?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2012 5:12 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2012 8:55 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 184 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2012 9:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 9:27 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 03-05-2012 3:50 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 12:05 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 818
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 180 of 251 (654818)
03-04-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
03-03-2012 11:51 AM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
But clearly NOT on a non-existent god. Naturalism in evolution is the secular\agnostic study of life according to either purely natural laws or created natural laws: there is no test that can distinguish one from the other without having examples of both. The theistic evolutionist recognizes this as much as the atheists recognize this: science is the tentative explanation of things according to what we see around us, as we see it, whether it is a purely natural universe or a created one. We can't test for one versus the other so this particular question is left unanswered.

It’s not left unanswered because everyone has a worldview. Promotion/justification of a person’s worldview is a significant part of most humans personal interest, whether they’re religious or non religious. A desire to make oneself look good, or to sway others to adapt, is a (some would say unfortunate) part of human nature. And it’s not always done directly, it can be done by IMPLICATION. Many/most people who take in interest in science choose to imply atheism.

No, they invalidated it and then were understandably dissappointed (though not surprised) that this invalidated hypothesis was not discarded by a group claiming to do science rather than theology. One can get understandably dissappointed in people that continue to hold a false belief (such as belief in a flat earth or a young earth, as examples of such delusions).

Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word “invalidated” really is?

If you've been told by a source you respect that President Obama was not born in the US and you believe it then you have been deluded and being shown the birth certificate would be enough to cure this. If you came to the conclusion by yourself that President Obama was not born in the US then you have a false opinion, and being shown the birth certificate should be enough to cure this. If you continue to believe that President Obama was not born in the US after being shown the birth certificate then you are delusional.

How about if, considering the time lapses and dragging out the process of producing the birth certificate was, there is opinion/evidence that the birth certificate was FAKED? See how accusations of “delusional” by a strong presence of a one-sided worldview are largely meaningless?

marc9000 writes:

Wow, I’ve seen somewhere on the net the statement that “evolution” is a slippery word. Now it’s reached new slipperyness – I’ve never seen a claim that it can dance its way out of the common ancestor, until now. I wonder how that would do in court.

The judge could look at you blankly for even asking the question. You have a common ancestor with your siblings, and your birth is in no way dependent on whether the tree of life had one origin or many or on how many different trees are involved.

For the second time in this thread, the original form of life on earth has been compared to a parent. I can’t waste time on some of this stuff.

Perhaps, rather than a "slippery slope" occurring on every topic you disagree with, you are seeing the inevitability of the conclusion that you have been holding false opinions and beliefs.

That’s your worldview. Curiously, reality is in no way dependent on your personal worldview.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2012 11:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2012 10:29 AM marc9000 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017