Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 2:16 AM
419 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 415 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,056 Year: 6,662/21,208 Month: 2,423/2,634 Week: 86/525 Day: 1/60 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?
frako
Member
Posts: 2678
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 16 of 55 (662362)
05-15-2012 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 2:19 AM


Re: science approximates reality
And by all accounts the evolutionary theory can not be considered as truth, right?

Neither can the Theory of Gravity
Naither can the Theory that the earth is round
Neither can germ Theory
Neither can any theory


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 2:19 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 17 of 55 (662378)
05-15-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 1:53 AM


Hi again ScottyDouglas,

Thank you again for the admission. Though I seek and many like myself seek the truth. We have not to much concern for physical evidence by your terms which simply is speclative. Or our billion year origin which also is speclative.

So you search for speculative truth and dismiss evidence of reality and the tentative explanations of the objective empirical evidence of reality?

How can you be sure that the layers aged as specified? I understand what you said. But how can you be 100% sure that you are accounting for everything needed for dating?

And once again I refer you to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 -- it appears you have plenty of time to make stuff up in your speculative search for truth, but can't spend the time to read this thread.

Im sure the method results are very effeciant. The issue is not your technique or knowledge of the tests and how to collect them. The available unknown data that could cause much variance is flatout refused and denied.

Then explain the correlations. You do not understand the problem you are facing with your denial of dating effectiveness until you read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and explain the correlations.

Does tons and tons endless amount of facts and evidence make what ever theory it is a truth?

No, never, but it does make it an acceptable approximation of reality. Better than any other explanation known.

What is anything about in this life if you have all the evidence in the world and find no truth?

Who said science is everything about life? You can search for speculative truths beyond the capability of science to know, however if your concepts are in conflict with the objective empirical evidence of reality, it is more likely that you are searching for answers to false concepts than for any truth about reality.

If you believe in god/s, and that god/s created the earth and the universe, then you need to consider that the available objective empirical evidence explains the reality that was so created, and you can study god/s creation directly from the evidence.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


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 9 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 1:53 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 1:01 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 18 of 55 (662379)
05-15-2012 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 2:19 AM


Re: science approximates reality
Hi again ScottyDouglas

I have seen many. How can you be sure 100% that all knowledge is applied to determine age?

Read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and see how accurate dating methods can be. Not 100%, but well over 90%.

Not 100%, but that is not necessary. Even if radiometric dating were only 50% accurate the age of the earth would be billions of years old

Agreed.And by all accounts the evolutionary theory can not be considered as truth, right?

As no scientific theory can be considered as truth, but yes, as a tentative approximation it is the best explanation for all the evidence of the diversity of life on earth as we see it today, in the historical record, in the fossil record and in the genetic record.

Good enough for me to accept as a good working approach to reality.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


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 13 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 2:19 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 19 of 55 (662388)
05-15-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 1:24 AM


Truth:to me: Is the state of being in reality. Validated evidence.

Word salad.
In other words subjective "evidence " is more valid than objective evidence"?

You are defining with more woo terms.
Define "validated evidence".

Science has nothing to do with this "truth" you mention. And amazingly someone else will find a different "truth" than you. Hardly makes it a truth i would think.

Yes I have been shown what is truth by God.

How did this "God" reveal this truth to you? Did anyone else see it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 1:24 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 05-17-2012 10:49 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 45 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-17-2012 6:42 PM Theodoric has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 55 (662391)
05-15-2012 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 1:24 AM


where's the evidence?
You said "Truth:to me: Is the state of being in reality. Validated evidence."

Please present the validated evidence that God showed you as well as the evidence that it really was God that was doing the showing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 1:24 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:50 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 21 of 55 (662392)
05-15-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


source versus content.
ScottyDouglas writes:

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.

Is learning the truth of origin more important?

Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?

What do you mean by "truth of origin"?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9333
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 22 of 55 (662434)
05-15-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

I think there is some grain of truth here, but that such truth points to a strength rather than a weakness of the scientific method.

Science is about uncovering the truth by use of the scientific method. But the scientific method itself requires evidence, and the use of evidence is what assures us that we have found the truth.

What I question is why such a thing should be controversial? Why should the need to question and probe assertions for their truth be an indictment?

I note that in this OP of yours there are a number of assertions, and I'll list a few of them. In the interest of making a point, I'm going to limit my list to those assertions that seem to me to be false.

1.But it [evolution?] out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. (I am not sure what the antecedent for "it" is meant to be, but I cannot come up with one that would make this statement factual.

2. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. (I interpret this to mean that only theories which men like ScottyDouglas can understand are worth improving and collecting evidence on. Presumably this rules out even a possibility that quantum mechanics and general relativity are useful)

3. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age? (I interpret this as an assertion that there cannot be expertise in determining the dates of objects)

4. Since there is no truth to be found inside of science. (No interpretation needed)

5. Is learning the truth of origin more important? Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important? (I take this as a have you stopped beating your wife yet question that falsely asserts that there is a dichotomy between learning the truth and applying the scientific method.)

It seems to me to be fairly obvious that I cannot rely on ScottyDouglas to instruct me on what is truth. I need to be able to check what ScottyDouglas says. In short, I'd like some evidence. (And some logical argument too, but that's for another post).


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 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 1:26 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 23 of 55 (662465)
05-16-2012 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
05-15-2012 2:12 AM


To know truth you must apply all theories and evidence. Even ones that only are explainable in metaphysics or super natural. Science can not include such theories or apply such realities in conclusions. To people who do experience such phenomena feel as it is emperical. The actual term emperical can be different for many. As so science has done alot of good and knowledge. Dating is suspect and no way around it. Even if it is done by such experts who are the highest order of such they themselves are still at speculation.If super natural exist it supercedes any science or physics that we know.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2012 2:12 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 1:21 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 1:28 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2012 8:20 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 24 of 55 (662467)
05-16-2012 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2012 2:40 AM


In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

No. Finding the evidence is important because it makes our conclusions more likely to be the truth, less likely to be false. That's what the collection of the evidence is for.

What if the evidence of truth is uncollectable, which I feel is not true, but what if?

Since there is no truth to be found inside of science ...

There is probably lots. I agree that science has discovered alot that can be considered truth.

But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.

Provisionally considered as truth, yes. It is logical but doesnt make it the truth.

Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?

Of course. This is why we're interested in evidence and creationists are more interested in vacuous rhetoric with no connection to reality.

What if thier reality is not yours? And evidence for them it what you consider evidence? Can you deny expert opinions in that subject?

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?

Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?

Though it is fun to predict alot of things. Gambling for example. But in reality just the odds mean nothing to truth.

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : Correcting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 25 of 55 (662469)
05-16-2012 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
05-15-2012 9:19 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
I experienced God when I was 8 years old. I did not know much about the Bible or really God at all, I heard about Jesus. My dad always has believed in Jesus. Many upon many Prechers and ministers have came from my family. But when I was 8 i knew nothing of any of this. I believed it and accepted it cause they were my family and what I heard but I was 8 I never thought about it that way or questioned it then. I went to a revival when I was 8 with my church it was out of town and while I was there,"I felt God come upon and tell me to ask for forgiveness and allow him to take over my soul. 'I was nervous but I did it and got saved and later baptised. I have been to jail and prisons alot in my youth 16-23. I still do alot wrong but I do alot of good and first and foremost have faith in my God and his word becasue He showed himself to me. I have many spiritual feeling and expaeriences throughout my life not like ghost or hauntings more like emotional and mental revelation. It can come any time and come in many ways and last hours or minutes. It doesnt to me personnally alot but it has and i know others it does that is emperical to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 9:19 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-16-2012 10:09 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 26 of 55 (662471)
05-16-2012 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
05-15-2012 7:31 AM


Razd, I do not deny scientific measures applied to physics. Though there is more to life than physics and anything science can offer. If you have not experienced any as the such I can not show that to you. You must choose which God you wish to reveal himself and actually try to do such.

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:31 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12443
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 27 of 55 (662472)
05-16-2012 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 12:27 AM


quote:

Dating is suspect and no way around

If you were interested in the truth you would need better reasons for your suspicions.

quote:

Even if it is done by such experts who are the highest order of such they themselves are still at speculation.

No, it's more than speculation. It's solid evidence - more solid than anything you've produced.

quote:

If super natural exist it supercedes any science or physics that we know.

While supernatural entities - if any existed - might be capable of mounting such a thorough deception there's no good reason to assume that that is true. In fact if you do assume that that is the case we are left with no way to find the truth at all. If you throw out dating evidence you are left with nothing.

Again, if the truth is difficult to find and verify surely anyone who wants the truth must simply do their best to find it. ANd that means honestly and diligently applying the best methods that we have available. Science does that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:27 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 28 of 55 (662473)
05-16-2012 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
05-15-2012 9:09 PM


"But the scientific method itself requires evidence, and the use of evidence is what assures us that we have found the truth."
WHAT IF THE TRUTH IS OUTSIDE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? WHAT IF PARTS OF FINDING TRUTH REQUIRE MEASURES OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE?

"What I question is why such a thing should be controversial? Why should the need to question and probe assertions for their truth be an indictment? "
IT IS CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT MEASURES ALL THINGS. THERE ARE NONPHYSICAL AND SCIENCE CAN NOT ENTERTAINMENT SUCH PROPOSITION BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL. EVEN WHEN THE PHYSICAL APPEARS IT IS UNKNOWN WHEN OR WHERE. JUST THE PHYSICAL THAT DOES APPEAR DOESNT DEFINE IT ENTIRELY. IT IS OUTSIDE OF KNOWING. THERE SCIENCE IS OUTSIDE OF KNOWING AND THE SEARCH FOR SUCH IS IMPOSSIBLE BUT NOT WRONG. THE ASSERTION AND PORTRAIL OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST THEREIN CLAIMING OR PREDICTING SUCH IS THE PROBLEM. i ALSO KNOW SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST CAN NOT HELP WHO BELIEVES IN SUCH EITHER.

"1.But it [evolution?] out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. (I am not sure what the antecedent for "it" is meant to be, but I cannot come up with one that would make this statement factual."
EVOLUTIONIST. WE AGREE IT IS A CALCULATED PREDICTION.

2. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. (I interpret this to mean that only theories which men like ScottyDouglas can understand are worth improving and collecting evidence on. Presumably this rules out even a possibility that quantum mechanics and general relativity are useful)
SO YOU ASSERT MEN WHO DO NOT KNOW SCIENTIFIC TERMS AND THEORIES AND FACTS THEREOF ARE UNCAPABLE OF KNOWING THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE? SOMEONE WHO NEVER HEARD ANYTHING FOUND INSIDE OF SCIENCE CAN NOT KNOW SUCH THINGS?

3. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age? (I interpret this as an assertion that there cannot be expertise in determining the dates of objects)
NO.IM SURE THERE ARE CLEARLY.AND BECAUSE YOU ARE A EXPERT AND I CAN NOT PROVE BY PHYSICAL MEANS THAT YOU ARE WRONG DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT.IT IS EASY TO COMPREHIND, BILLIONS OF YEARS, MAN RECORDING LIFE 10,000 YEARS, MAN AT THE MOST HAS 10,000 YEARS CAN DATE BILLIONS.WHY 4.3?WHY 10 BILLION YEARS?BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU SEEN IN YOUR MAGIC BALL?THAT IS WHAT SOME GUY IN COLLEGE AND YOUR PROFESSION TAUGHT YOU?NO MAN EVER HAS OR MOST CERTAINLY EVER NOW ALL THAT HAS BEEN ON THIS EARTH.THIS IS WHY SCIENCE CAN NOT COMMIT TO TRUTH BUT ONLY EVIDENCE AND A THEORY THAT REFLECTS SUCH BECAUSE IT CAN NEVER ACHIEVE THE TYPE OF TRUTH WHICH IS BEING DISCUSSED, WHICH IS,"ORIGIN OF LIFE."

"4. Since there is no truth to be found inside of science. (No interpretation needed)"
IM SURE THERE IS. BUT IT IS ASSUMED.

5. Is learning the truth of origin more important? Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important? (I take this as a have you stopped beating your wife yet question that falsely asserts that there is a dichotomy between learning the truth and applying the scientific method.)
NO I ASSERT THAT THERE ARE TRUTHS OUTSIDE OF SCIENCES BOUNDS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:09 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 29 of 55 (662474)
05-16-2012 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 12:27 AM


Wrong again
Dating is suspect and no way around it. Even if it is done by such experts who are the highest order of such they themselves are still at speculation.

That is absolute nonsense.

RAZD has been trying to get you to take a look at his correlations threads, but you haven't gone there, have you? Afraid?

If you had checked those threads you'd know better than to regurgitate fundamentalist nonsense that has long since been shown to be wrong.

Your belief is getting in the way of you actually learning something.

But to relate this directly to the topic: the dating methods we are using are directly tied to empirical evidence, and have been tested against known phenomena as well as against each other, as opposed to the scripture, dogma, revelation and other squishy "evidence" you are relying on.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:27 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 1:55 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 30 of 55 (662476)
05-16-2012 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
05-16-2012 1:21 AM


"If you were interested in the truth you would need better reasons for your suspicions."
IVE READ ALOT OF REASONS WHY THEY ARE AND WHY THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE. IVE READ HOW THEY CALCULATE DATES. THE END RESULT IS, IT IS GUESSES BY THEORY AND MODERN EVIDENCE. SOME HOW YOU THINK THIS IS KNOW ALL BE ALL.

No, it's more than speculation. It's solid evidence - more solid than anything you've produced.
IT IS SPECULATION.WHAT DO I SUPPOSE TO PRODUCE?SCIENCE,EVOLUTION, AND PALENTOLOGY ALL KNOW IT IS SPECULATION.YOU MAT CONDUCT ENORMOUS EVIDENCE AND SOUND THEORIES, IT IS STILL NOT CONSIDERED AS THE TRUTH AND AT BEST JUST A PART OF TRUTH. IT IS A THEORY WITH WELL DOCUMENTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT IS SUSPECTS TRUTH. IT IS STILL SPECULATIVE.

"While supernatural entities - if any existed - might be capable of mounting such a thorough deception there's no good reason to assume that that is true."
WHY WOULD DEITIES NEED TO DECIEVE? AND CLEARLY THE BIBLE SAID EVIL WOULD DECIEVE. I THINK MEN HAVE DECIEVED MAYBE INFLUENCED BY DEITIES BY DEITIES THEMSELVES IDK.

In fact if you do assume that that is the case we are left with no way to find the truth at all. If you throw out dating evidence you are left with nothing."
THIS MOST POSSIBLY IS THE CASE. DATING IS THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE. DARWINISM'S EVOLUTION AND ITS CONTINUAL PERFECTING THEORY ITSELF IS ANOTHER. SUPERNATURAL.
THE MADNESS OF THE DEAD MAKING LIFE. EVOLVED SPECIES OR MEN AND ANIMAL HYBRIDS? I CAN GO ON AND I WILL ANOTHER TIME.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 1:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 2:07 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 2:29 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017