Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8751 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2017 9:51 AM
104 online now:
bluegenes, Coragyps, Coyote, Davidjay, edge, Tangle, xongsmith (7 members, 97 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,084 Year: 13,690/21,208 Month: 3,172/3,605 Week: 514/933 Day: 12/40 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 211 of 251 (655315)
03-09-2012 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:30 PM


Re: Analogies
No, because evolution starts with life, nothing can evolve unless it’s already living. Abiogenesis starts with non life, what makes it similar to evolution is that it occurs (to its faithful) over long periods of time, increasing in complexity, by undirected, naturalistic processes.

That makes Abiogenesis similar to Geology as well where simple chemicals result in complex arrangements of sediments over long periods of time through undirected naturalistic processes. It is the same as crystal formation where complex arrangements of molecules develop slowly over time through undirected and naturalistic processes.

Do you agree or not agree that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate processes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 212 of 251 (655316)
03-09-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion, so that makes it less atheistic than evolution.

Then you accept evolution because it can be directly observed and practically applied. We can even directly apply common ancestry between humans and apes. By comparing genomes through the lens of common ancestry we can look for possible candidates for disease genes and human specific adaptations. A little algorith called SIFTER is based on evolutionary mechanisms and it accurately predicts protein function from amino acid sequence in 96% of cases. That is an EXTREMELY useful tool.

The only reason that scientific theories can be used against religion is that the religion is based on denying the evidence that supports these theories. It is NOT the fault of science that you have your religious beliefs contradict reality. That is your fault. You are the only one to blame. There is a way to fix this situation. Follow the evidence. Don't ignore it. There are millions of christians who fully accept evolution, and I am sure if abiogenesis were supported by mountains of evidence they would accept that as well.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 858
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 213 of 251 (655579)
03-11-2012 3:41 PM


Summary
To avoid evolutionist cut-ins, I won’t attempt to respond to 6 messages individually. Since this is my summary, I can make my final points best if I take them somewhat out of order. It’s most efficient to conclude with message 205.
________________________________________

MESSAGE 200

crashfrog writes:

marc9000 writes:

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.

By your definition of "abiogenesis" ("evolution"), it must be. That, of course, is the point - it's a reducto ad absurdum of your position, because it's absurd to describe a paper about how bacteria evolve the capacity to metabolize new food sources by mutation as lending much support to abiogenesis. But, again, your position that evolution and abiogenesis refer to the exact same thing logically necessitates that you treat the Ledberg paper as proof of "abiogenesis."

In a quick glance of a paper that I have little interest in, (since this discussion we’re having is largely philosophical) I saw terms like “agar media”, “velveteen yardage”, “autoclaves”, “auxoheterotrophics”, “dense inoculas”, etc. I didn’t/don’t know or care if these terms are exclusive to abiogenesis or not. I assumed maybe they were, because I foolishly believed the lie I was told.

Taq doesn't think the Ledberg paper is about abiogenesis, and neither do the rest of us, because evolution and abiogenesis are two very separate things such that support for one doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the other. (Practically, of course, different fields of science do very much inform each other.)

I understand now – one evolutionist lied, and a dozen others winked and nodded.

marc9000 writes:

Why didn’t you correct him?

Well, I guess because I'm smarter than you, or I read more closely than you do, and therefore I didn't make the same boneheaded mistake you made in completely missing his point.

So in science, points can sometimes be made by telling lies?

That’s largely where the creation v evolution debate is today. Evolutionists are so far removed from morality and truth that they think nothing of playing this type of game – referencing something with big fancy words, lying about what it means, watching a dozen other like minded evolutionists trip and fall all over themselves to cover for them, then ridiculing any creationist that is surprised that he’s not dealing with honest people. I’ve been discussing creation v evolution (on this forum and one other) for about 10 years now. I must say I’m amazed by this new low by evolutionists, though it’s probably not new. I’ve probably just been missing it for that long.
____________________________________________

MESSAGE 211

Taq writes:

That makes Abiogenesis similar to Geology as well where simple chemicals result in complex arrangements of sediments over long periods of time through undirected naturalistic processes. It is the same as crystal formation where complex arrangements of molecules develop slowly over time through undirected and naturalistic processes.

I agree, that doesn’t clash with my views at all.

Do you agree or not agree that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate processes?

No – abiogenesis would have a slightly closer relationship with evolution than it would with things like geology, because both abiogenesis and evolution concern biology / living things. Another important reason they're not separate is that they both provide intellectual fulfillment for atheism.
___________________________________________

MESSAGE 212

Taq writes:

Then you accept evolution because it can be directly observed and practically applied.

Depending on how evolution is defined, yes. Change over time, within kinds.

We can even directly apply common ancestry between humans and apes. By comparing genomes through the lens of common ancestry we can look for possible candidates for disease genes and human specific adaptations. A little algorith called oi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010045 -->SIFTER is based on evolutionary mechanisms and it accurately predicts protein function from amino acid sequence in 96% of cases. That is an EXTREMELY useful tool.
And I’d bet looking at it through the lens of a common designer would produce the same result.

The only reason that scientific theories can be used against religion is that the religion is based on denying the evidence that supports these theories. It is NOT the fault of science that you have your religious beliefs contradict reality. That is your fault. You are the only one to blame. There is a way to fix this situation. Follow the evidence. Don't ignore it. There are millions of christians who fully accept evolution, and I am sure if abiogenesis were supported by mountains of evidence they would accept that as well.

I don’t think it’s because the religion is based on denial, I think it’s because some scientists tweak the evidence to make it appear to contradict religion. After all, a Noble prize winning scientist, Steven Weinberg, said that science should be used to “weaken the hold of religion”. He appeared to receive no criticism whatsoever from the scientific community for that statement.
___________________________________________-

MESSAGE 210

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

It's not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of "theory" yet. It's only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.

Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?

You can call it back-peddling if you want, but I’m sure not chasing you and your goalpost moving for miles and miles. It’s common knowledge that there is nowhere near a complete theory on how life can naturalistically originate. One of the other evolutionists here could easily explain that to you. But they won’t.
____________________________________________

MESSAGE 206

Percy writes:

So if atheists began using Newton's three laws of motion as a philosophical weapon against religion, you'd become reluctant to accept them, too?

I wouldn’t have a problem with the three laws, I’d just have a problem with what the atheists were saying about them /how the atheists were using them.

Einstein's theory of relativity is often used as the basis for arguments against creationist views on cosmology, so are you going to reject relativity?

No, I’d reject (question) those who use it that way.

The overall point that EvC tries to make is that creationists do not use evidence as their criteria for deciding which theories to accept, and all you're doing is confirming that in spades.

Evolutionist pots calling creationist kettles black is also confirmed in this thread. “Evidence” is always carried, presented, proclaimed by imperfect humans. Creationists use evidence the same as anyone else, they just don’t always trust those who present evidence. Geologists could go on a complete, thorough examination of gravesites, rocks and soil in the states of Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, etc. and claim to produce mounds of evidence that the civil war never happened. I wouldn’t believe them. I’d acknowledge their evidence, and agree with them that it means something, but not necessarily what they claim it means.
___________________________________________

MESSAGE 205

Percy writes:

Hi Marc,
Since we have to use English to describe how you're misunderstanding English, I don't think this can ever be accomplished.

I do have problems with terms like velveteen yardage”, “autoclaves”, “auxoheterotrophics”, “dense inoculas”, and those terms are largely irrelevant to philosophical discussions such as these. If you disagree let me know, and I’ll start watching for evolutionists to display the slightest bit of knowledge of mathematics, and other terms that are in the book “Darwin’s Black Box”. There are lots of English words there that evolutionists show no knowledge of.

But I guess if abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, then since there's micro and macro-evolution there must also be micro and macro-abiogenesis.

Not necessarily, but you’ve just largely made my entire point, so this will be a good place to summarize, and finish up. On many places on the internet, and well as forums such as these, the terms “micro” and “macro” are brought up almost exclusively by creationists, to distinquish between changes within kinds, and the (more philosophical) changes necessary for all life on earth to have one common ancestor. And it’s evolutionists who say there is no difference between them, that they are completely useless terms. That evolution works exactly the same way, there is no distinction between micro and macro. Now that you thought those terms could suit the evolutionist in this particular discussion , I see you’re glad to bring them up. It’s a perfect example of the slipperyness of evolution, the presto-changos that are so common among evolutionists.

Actually, abiogenesis would have nothing to do with micro or macro, since it’s simply a theoretical beginning of ONE life form from non life, without concerning anything near the complexities of the diversity of life that evolution is involved with. But it would still share the change over time concerning biology that evolution also has.

There you go, now you can go around announcing that not only did Taq agree that abiogenesis and evolution are the same, providing a paper as a reference, now Percy is saying so to. And sarcasm and other rhetorical devices can just keep flying right over your head.

All I’ll go around saying is that Taq linked a paper on evolution in message 127, and called it a paper on abiogeneis. It may be considered sarcasm by some worldviews, it may be considered “recucto ad absurdum” by some worldviews, it may be considered a cute and fun thing to do by the atheist worldview, but any honest worldview will consider what it actually is, a LIE. I’ll go around saying that one evolutionist LIED, and about a dozen other evolutionists winked and nodded. As I said, I’ve been posting in creationist v evolutionist forums for a decade, and it amazed even me. This is my final message in this thread. I’ll probably continue to check the “proposed new topics” forum from time to time to see what new stuff gets promoted, just to see if there are any more questions I can answer to everyone’s satisfaction.


Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 03-11-2012 4:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 4:58 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 03-12-2012 5:14 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15631
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 214 of 251 (655583)
03-11-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000
03-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Summary
Wow! I never knew denial and misconstrual could be a lifestyle choice!

It would be fine if you understood but disagreed, but you're leaving while still understanding very little.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2012 3:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 215 of 251 (655593)
03-11-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000
03-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Summary too
The essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution is simple:

Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not.

Evolution involves biological processes, abiogenesis does not.

They cannot be the same thing nor can one be a subset of the other.

The rest of the post is filled with misunderstanding and misrepresentation, such as:

Message 210

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

It's not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of "theory" yet. It's only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.

Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?

You can call it back-peddling if you want, but I’m sure not chasing you and your goalpost moving for miles and miles. It’s common knowledge that there is nowhere near a complete theory on how life can naturalistically originate. One of the other evolutionists here could easily explain that to you. But they won’t.

The full dialogue is:

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 “invalidated” 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?

It’s not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of “theory” yet. It’s only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.

Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?[/qs]

And yes, changing from a position that abiogenesis was invalidated to it is just an hypothesis is back-peddling, at high speed.

Nobody here has claimed that abiogenesis is demonstrated and has reached the level of theory, but that is different than saying it is invalidated.

Meanwhile the additional assertion of moving goal-posts is not substantiated. Typical.

Enjoy.


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 213 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2012 3:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 6:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 216 of 251 (655600)
03-11-2012 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by RAZD
03-11-2012 4:58 PM


Re: Summary too
RAZD writes:

Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not.

Evolution involves biological processes, abiogenesis does not.

They cannot be the same thing nor can one be a subset of the other.


Surely chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?

Wiki: A biological process is a process of a living organism. Biological processes are made up of any number of chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation.
Wiki: A chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by somebody. Such a chemical process commonly involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

Although I agree that abiogenesis and evolution are different areas of research, I do not see how your statement supports that.

Abiogenesis is "No life" to "Life".
Evolution is "Life" to "Different life".
This seems to me to be a clear enough difference for all but the most delusional.


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 215 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 4:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 9:14 PM Panda has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 217 of 251 (655614)
03-11-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Panda
03-11-2012 6:53 PM


Re: Summary too
Hi Panda

Surely chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?

There are clearly processes in abiogenesis that are different from processes in evolution, for instance population dynamics is not a chemical process, it is a biological process and it affects evolution.

That there may be some processes in common does not rule out processes that are exclusive to the two sciences.

Enjoy.


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 216 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 6:53 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:03 PM RAZD has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 218 of 251 (655617)
03-11-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by RAZD
03-11-2012 9:14 PM


Re: Summary too
RAZD writes:

Panda writes:

Surely chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?


There are clearly processes in abiogenesis that are different from processes in evolution, for instance population dynamics is not a chemical process, it is a biological process and it affects evolution.

I agree.
But that does not negate the fact that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes.

RAZD writes:

That there may be some processes in common does not rule out processes that are exclusive to the two sciences.


I agree. But that is not what you originally said.

"Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."
This is simply incorrect.
Evolution does involve chemical processes.

Your explanation of "the essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution" is faulty.


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 217 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 9:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 10:23 PM Panda has responded
 Message 223 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2012 3:39 AM Panda has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 219 of 251 (655618)
03-11-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Panda
03-11-2012 10:03 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Hi Panda,

But that does not negate the fact that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes.

Would you not agree that there is a majority of chemical processes that are not biological and have nothing to do with biology?

I agree. But that is not what you originally said.

"Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."
This is simply incorrect.
Evolution does involve chemical processes.

Your explanation of "the essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution" is faulty.

Biology uses some chemical reactions.

Abiogenesis involves purely chemical processes, evolution does not.

You get the nit-picker award, happy?

Enjoy.


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 218 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:03 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 220 of 251 (655619)
03-11-2012 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by RAZD
03-11-2012 10:23 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
RAZD writes:

Panda writes:

But that does not negate the fact that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes.


Would you not agree that there is a majority of chemical processes that are not biological and have nothing to do with biology?

Would you not agree that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?

RAZD writes:

You get the nit-picker award, happy?


You would rather be wrong than be corrected?
Or are you just upset at having to hand over your nit-picker award?

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 219 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 10:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2012 11:19 PM Panda has responded
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2012 9:56 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9548
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 221 of 251 (655620)
03-11-2012 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Panda
03-11-2012 10:37 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
Would you not agree that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?

In order to answer no to your question, I would only need to identify a single chemical process that was not also a biological process. I chose for my example of a chemical process that is not also a biological process the formation of xenon dioxide by way of hydrolysis of xenon tetrafluoride.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:37 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 11:46 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 222 of 251 (655621)
03-11-2012 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by NoNukes
03-11-2012 11:19 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
NoNukes writes:

In order to answer no to your question, I would only need to identify a single chemical process that was not also a biological process. I chose for my example of a chemical process that is not also a biological process the formation of xenon dioxide by way of hydrolysis of xenon tetrafluoride.


It is a shame that RAZD was too busy sulking to actually address my question (even though I asked it twice).
I think I agree with your answer.

What is your opinion of RAZD's claim that "Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."?


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 221 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2012 11:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2012 8:41 AM Panda has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 223 of 251 (655623)
03-12-2012 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Panda
03-11-2012 10:03 PM


No Chemistry Without Life?
Panda writes:

But that does not negate the fact that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes.

*blink* in what context?

I guess the daughter best change her fall schedule, since according to you, inorganic chemistry does not exist independent of life, only organic chemistry exists.

I think you may want to rephrase this response.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 10:03 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Panda, posted 03-12-2012 7:05 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 224 of 251 (655625)
03-12-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by anglagard
03-12-2012 3:39 AM


Re: No Chemistry Without Life?
anglagard writes:

I think you may want to rephrase this response.


Yes. NoNukes successfully explained my mistake in Message 221.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by anglagard, posted 03-12-2012 3:39 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9548
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 225 of 251 (655629)
03-12-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Panda
03-11-2012 11:46 PM


Re: Summary too nitter natter noo
What is your opinion of RAZD's claim that "Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."?

Evolution includes process that result in changes in DNA molecules. How is that not chemistry?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Panda, posted 03-11-2012 11:46 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Panda, posted 03-12-2012 8:50 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017