Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 1:23 PM
430 online now:
Coyote, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 424 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,941 Year: 27,547/21,208 Month: 1,460/1,714 Week: 303/365 Day: 30/42 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 181 of 251 (654819)
03-04-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:46 PM


Re: Analogies
Then, just as an opposition to me, messages 127 and 128 showed writings that clearly combine them.

Well, no. That's not accurate. I suspect you didn't even bother to read the cited paper (Ledberg 1952):

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/BBABFJ.pdf

which really is your loss, since it's one of the seminal papers in the biosciences, incredibly influential though you might not realize it without collegiate-level coursework in biology. The paper doesn't even mention "abiogenesis", and it's about nothing but new traits arising in bacteria as a result of random mutation. The paper elegantly proves every element of that case - that the traits are novel, that they arise by random, and that they are heritable (which, we now know, is the result of mutations in DNA.)

Taq, of course, is doing nothing but using your rhetorical conflation of evolution and abiogenesis against you - if, as you contend, they're truly one and the same, than any evidence for evolution must also prove a material origin of life. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Nobody's posted any writings that "clearly combine them", and it's hardly a trick by evolutionists to attempt to turn one's own faulty reasoning against them. It's a standard rhetorical technique that you yourself have employed.

You and 26 (count em, 26) other evolutionist posters have taken no exception to that combination whatsoever.

There was nothing to take exception to because no combination was made. You've simply failed, as usual, to understand any of the points being made against you. Completely and utterly failed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:04 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 251 (654820)
03-04-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:51 PM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word ďinvalidatedĒ really is?

If I hold up the King of Spades, and you refer to it as the Ace of Hearts, that doesn't make those words "subjective" and "meaningless", it just makes you a liar. Sadly, human speech is not limited to what is unambiguous and objective - that's a requirement we must voluntarily adhere to if we expect to be judged as truthtellers. But that doesn't seem to be your priority.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:51 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 183 of 251 (654821)
03-04-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:43 PM


Re: Analogies
Because it hasnít been hauled into court like ID has.

Sorry, no idea what you mean. Or what it has to do with atheism having different meanings. Or what it has to do with my initial point.

ID has been ruled by courts to only mean one thing - religion.

Because that's what the evidence put before the court showed.

The scientific community keeps it out of the public scientific realm based on that ruling.

No. It's kept out of public schools based on that ruling.


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 178 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 184 of 251 (654822)
03-04-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:46 PM


Topic? Anything?
Itís a short list, but itís not the ďzeroĒ that evolutionists constantly claim. ID proponents are constantly accused of ďdishonestyĒ when they ask questions and express doubt about evolutionist claims. Opinions arenít necessarily dishonesty, but misrepresentations like this about ďzeroĒ peer-reviewed papers is. Not accusing you personally, but thatís happened in this thread. Canít keep straight who says what when I have many opponents.

Do any of them talk about Evolution = Abiogenesis? If not they are meaningless in this thread. Do you have anything to show that Evolution = Abiogenesis?

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16176
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 185 of 251 (654823)
03-04-2012 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:46 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

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.

Message 127 and Message 128 were explaining why combining abiogenesis and evolution is a bad idea and makes no sense. I think you must have misunderstood something.

The resurrection and the ascension are two different things. The sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plains are two different things. The immaculate conception and the virgin birth are two different things. The Father, the Son and the holy ghost are three different things (and one thing, too, but we won't get into that). What is so hard about understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5165
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 186 of 251 (654839)
03-05-2012 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:46 PM


Re: Analogies
We're off topic but your statement that:
Nothing in ID could ever come close to the power of Darwinís book

....is quite a give away. You are complaining ID can never beat Darwin's ideas but then also implying that the powerful argument is nevertheless wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is because:

It was intellectual fulfillment for atheism, thatís what the selling point was.

Which is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But, as I say, we're off topic but if you'd like to say why you think this is true in another thread, no doubt it would attract some interest.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19231
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 187 of 251 (654880)
03-05-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:51 PM


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

So how are all those conspiracy theories working out for you?

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 ďdelusionalĒ by a strong presence of a one-sided worldview are largely meaningless?

Yes, obviously it is a part of the vast atheist conspiracy. They must have done the faking after all. Not content with taking over science, they are now intent on taking over politics, Obama is not really a muslim but an swedish socialist atheist agent, secretly "turned" by his grandmother, working to force religion back into homes and churches ...

Cognitive Dissonance predicts that the first reaction to information that contracts your pet beliefs is denial and the second is to attempt to discredit the source of the information in order to imply that the evidence is untrustworthy. Congratulations on reaching this level.

The next step for those attempting to hold onto their delusions is to see vast conspiracies trying to force false information on you.

This includes your conspiracy theory regarding atheists taking over science and plotting to take over the world by their imposition of teaching science.

Itís not left unanswered because everyone has a worldview. Promotion/justification of a personís worldview is a significant part of most humans personal interest, whether theyíre 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 itís not always done directly, it can be done by IMPLICATION. Many/most people who take in interest in science choose to imply atheism.

Including the signers of the clergy project?

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 ďinvalidatedĒ really is?

Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?

Or are you confused about spontaneous generation and the work of Pasteur ... ?

For the second time in this thread, the original form of life on earth has been compared to a parent. I canít waste time on some of this stuff.

And that would be because you continue to conflate and confuse common descent with origins. The term common ancestor applies to all levels of descent from parents, species from genera, genera from families, etc etc etc.

Simply stated the concept of common descent states that related groups of organisms share a common ancestor, and this is born out by cladistic analysis of homologous traits.

The term "common ancestor" is not a synonym for an original population of life.

Thatís your worldview. Curiously, reality is in no way dependent on your personal worldview.

Correct, but the less one needs to deny and ignore the objective evidence of reality the closer that world view to reality it is likely to be. One either assumes that objective evidence represents actual reality or one takes the slippery slope to assuming that all is illusion.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : add

Edited by RAZD, : mre

Edited by RAZD, : image

Edited by RAZD, : turned


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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:51 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 188 of 251 (654999)
03-06-2012 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by marc9000
03-02-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Analogies
No.

Then you are separating the theory of evolution from abiogenesis. I think this thread is done now. Even creationists understand that they are separate things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:38 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 189 of 251 (655000)
03-06-2012 12:02 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.

Do you accept a single theory in science? Atomic theory? Germ theory? If you do, please tell us which theory this is and then explain how it is less atheistic than the theory of evolution.

A non active God is right next to a non existent God.

Then the theory of evolution is hardly your only problem. You are going up against all of Science now. Your God-of-the-Gaps will only shrink and shrink over time as we find more and more natural explanations.


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 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(4)
Message 190 of 251 (655001)
03-06-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by marc9000
03-04-2012 8:46 PM


Re: Analogies
Most of scienceís millions of papers came about with millions in research money from public grants. ID doesnít have that luxury Ė itís been called religion and blocked from public funding by the courts.

The Discovery Institute has a multi-million dollar budget. They have plenty of money to fund ID research. Do they? Nope. Why? Because there is nothing to research. ID is a belief, not science. Therefore, there can be no scientific research. The DI knows this. Why haven't you figured this out?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:27 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 191 of 251 (655072)
03-06-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by marc9000
02-28-2012 9:09 PM


Re: Analogies
As you can see by the two messages before yours (127 & 128)t he evolutionists have been very confusing about those two separate phenomena in this thread alone. I wonder if the threads starter will respond to that?

It is only confusing because it results in a conclusion you don't like. If, as you claim, evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same then all I need to do to evidence abiogenesis is to show that evolution occurs. That is what those papers demonstrated, the evolution of new traits through random mutation which, according to your logic, is abiogenesis. Therefore, the observation of novel traits coming about through random mutation IS abiogenesis, according to you.

Of course, you could just admit that evolution and abiogenesis are separate mechanisms. I also doubt that the OP is coming back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 9:09 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:30 PM Taq has responded

  
marc9000
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 192 of 251 (655229)
03-08-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
03-04-2012 8:55 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

Then, just as an opposition to me, messages 127 and 128 showed writings that clearly combine them.

Well, no. That's not accurate. I suspect you didn't even bother to read the cited paper (Ledberg 1952):

I glanced over it, mainly the summary. But I was going by what Taq said about it. From message 127;

quote:
Fine then. Let's blend them into the same thing. Abiogenesis and evolution are now the same. I don't think you will like this result, however.

So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:


which really is your loss, since it's one of the seminal papers in the biosciences, incredibly influential though you might not realize it without collegiate-level coursework in biology.

Youíre right about that, I donít even understand many of the terms used.

The paper doesn't even mention "abiogenesis", and it's about nothing but new traits arising in bacteria as a result of random mutation.

In taking a few guesses about what some terms mean, you seem to be right about that. TAQ WAS THE ONE WHO DECLARED IT TO BE ABOUT ABIOGENESIS. Why didnít you correct him? Why did he even post that? Why was he dishonest about it being about abiogensis? Why are you trying to cover for him?

The paper elegantly proves every element of that case - that the traits are novel, that they arise by random, and that they are heritable (which, we now know, is the result of mutations in DNA.)

So thatís yet another paper about evolution, and has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis. What did it have to do with this thread?

Taq, of course, is doing nothing but using your rhetorical conflation of evolution and abiogenesis against you - if, as you contend, they're truly one and the same, than any evidence for evolution must also prove a material origin of life.

But that paper wasnít really about abiogenesis like he said it was, because abiogenesis is about LIFE FROM NON-LIFE.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Nobody's posted any writings that "clearly combine them", and it's hardly a trick by evolutionists to attempt to turn one's own faulty reasoning against them. It's a standard rhetorical technique that you yourself have employed.

I myself have employed? Iíve never intentionally labeled something falsely, gotten 6 green dots for it, and had at least 6 others try to cover for me.

marc9000 writes:

You and 26 (count em, 26) other evolutionist posters have taken no exception to that combination whatsoever.

There was nothing to take exception to because no combination was made.

Letís look at the words he used one more time;

quote:
So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:

You've simply failed, as usual, to understand any of the points being made against you. Completely and utterly failed.

Iím probably a little slow when it comes to fully comprehending the heights of atheist mocking, sarcasm, dancing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2012 8:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Panda, posted 03-08-2012 8:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 193 of 251 (655231)
03-08-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
03-04-2012 9:27 PM


Re: Analogies
Message 127 and Message 128 were explaining why combining abiogenesis and evolution is a bad idea and makes no sense. I think you must have misunderstood something.

I donít understand a lot of the terms in that paper. But I do understand that one poster told me it was about abiogenesis, and another told me it was not. How am I supposed to know which one of them is right?

The resurrection and the ascension are two different things. The sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plains are two different things. The immaculate conception and the virgin birth are two different things. The Father, the Son and the holy ghost are three different things (and one thing, too, but we won't get into that). What is so hard about understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things?

I think youíve hit on something big Ė abiogenesis and evolution have a comparable relationship as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, yet one God. Itís a relationship that isnít fully understood by even the most knowledgeable Bible scholars. Abiogenesis and evolution Ė two subjects, separated sometimes by naturalists, combined sometimes by naturalists. That flip flopping relationship isnít fully understood by Bible scholars (or about anyone else) either.

What is so hard about understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things?

Because they are both about naturalistic increases in order and complexity, both with no purposeful guidance, over long periods of time. As I have been informed in this thread, Darwin himself showed a separation in them. But it was Darwinís bulldog, Thomas Huxley, who coined the term abiogenesis, someone who was profoundly interested in evolution. Hereís a quote from Huxley;

quote:
ÖI should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.

He used the term "evolution" in describing abiogenesis. In the several decades following Huxleyís origination of the term, no was showing a separation of it and evolution, even through the 1920ís, 1930ís, 1940ís, etc. It was thought that a complete theory, similar to evolution, would be discovered for abiogenesis very soon. What Darwin said about their separation was forgotten about. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that that discovery may be more of a challenge than anyone in science was previously thinking. Recent discoveries of the past few decades have set it back even more. Thatís what has inspired the most recent efforts to separate them. Yet, in the writings of Huxley (and Iím sure, others) in that time period, as well as in some science textbooks even today, there are some implications that there are similarities. Itís a miracle!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 9:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 194 of 251 (655232)
03-08-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

TAQ WAS THE ONE WHO DECLARED IT TO BE ABOUT ABIOGENESIS. Why didnít you correct him? Why did he even post that? Why was he dishonest about it being about abiogensis? Why are you trying to cover for him?


And why are you unable to comprehend simple English?

taq writes:

Fine then. Let's blend them into the same thing. Abiogenesis and evolution are now the same. I don't think you will like this result, however.

So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:


This is Taq showing you what the consequences of merging abiogenesis and evolution are.
He is not saying that they should be merged; he is merely describing what would happen if they were.

This is not an advanced conversational technique.
But for some reason it goes completely over your head.

No wonder you are having trouble understanding the Theory of Evolution - it is written in English.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


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 192 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:04 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 195 of 251 (655233)
03-08-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
03-05-2012 10:29 AM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
So how are all those conspiracy theories working out for you?

Reasonably well. Morality is decreasing in the U.S., more and more students are forming atheist groups, churches are closing, debt is increasing, etc. And there are enough concerned people who arenít completely swallowing all the rhetoric about how innocent evolution instruction is to keep bringing up the subject of ID in education, in several state legislatures.

Howís your conspiracy theory doing? You know, the one where explorations of design in biology amount to nothing but a public establishment of religion?

Cognitive Dissonance predicts that the first reaction to information that contracts your pet beliefs is denial and the second is to attempt to discredit the source of the information in order to imply that the evidence is untrustworthy. Congratulations on reaching this level.

If youíll google the name of Michael Behe, or "Darwinís Black Box", youíll find out who was actually first to reach that level.

The next step for those attempting to hold onto their delusions is to see vast conspiracies trying to force false information on you.

Like you do with ID?

This includes your conspiracy theory regarding atheists taking over science and plotting to take over the world by their imposition of teaching science.

Like you believe ID is a plot to establish religion in the U.S.?

marc9000 writes:

Itís not left unanswered because everyone has a worldview. Promotion/justification of a personís worldview is a significant part of most humans personal interest, whether theyíre 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 itís not always done directly, it can be done by IMPLICATION. Many/most people who take in interest in science choose to imply atheism.

Including the signers of the clergy project?

Yes, it includes everyone. Maybe the clergy signers enjoy watching evolutionists/atheists run to them everytime they have trouble in a debate.

marc9000 writes:

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 ďinvalidatedĒ really is?

Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?

Itís not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of ďtheoryĒ yet. Itís only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.

marc9000 writes:

For the second time in this thread, the original form of life on earth has been compared to a parent. I canít waste time on some of this stuff.

And that would be because you continue to conflate and confuse common descent with origins. The term common ancestor applies to all levels of descent from parents, species from genera, genera from families, etc etc etc.

It is a basic in evolution to claim that all life on earth has ONE common ancestor.

Simply stated the concept of common descent states that related groups of organisms share a common ancestor, and this is born out by cladistic analysis of homologous traits.

The term "common ancestor" is not a synonym for an original population of life.

It is, concerning discussions of evolution.

quote:
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed

(bolded mine) Thatís from ĎOrigin of Speciesí, and itís stilll the centerpiece of the TOE. Youíre the first one Iíve ever seen try to dance away from it.

Correct, but the less one needs to deny and ignore the objective evidence of reality the closer that world view to reality it is likely to be. One either assumes that objective evidence represents actual reality or one takes the slippery slope to assuming that all is illusion.

Science isnít the only source of objective evidence. Some people consider written history to be more trustworthy than scientific theories, if the two happen to clash, as more and more scientific theories seem to do with written history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2012 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by caffeine, posted 03-09-2012 5:09 AM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 7:45 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017