Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2017 4:36 PM
360 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,406 Year: 19,012/21,208 Month: 1,771/3,111 Week: 566/707 Day: 30/112 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
Stile
Member
Posts: 2924
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 91 of 186 (788647)
08-03-2016 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
08-02-2016 3:56 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:

Did it ever occur to you that this intelligence does not want us to find any evidence?

Yes.
Many things occur to me.

Perhaps the current evidence is leading us to an incorrect conclusion. It's happened many times with science. As soon as new information comes along, and the evidence points somewhere else, then the conclusion changes to match the evidence.

But that still doesn't change what the current evidence says.

It also occurs to me that an intelligence that does not want to be found looks eerily similar to an intelligence that doesn't exist while some people would really like Him to.

Following the evidence is about keeping an open mind.
Remembering that everything we "know" we only know based on the *current* evidence. And new information can always overturn or change things.

That doesn't stop us from making progress based on the current evidence.
That doesn't stop the best-track-record-humans-have-ever-had-for-being-correct-about-things coming from basing ideas on current evidence.

It's just part of learning, moving forward, accepting when you're wrong and understanding the interesting relationship between following evidence vs. what reality actually is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 3:56 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13315
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 92 of 186 (788665)
08-03-2016 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
08-02-2016 6:51 PM


Re: Faith & Evidence.
Phat writes:

If you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the Dead and confess it with your mouth you will be saved. Its just that simple.

As for any critics, I have seen people transformed by simply doing just that.|

My evidence is based on the transformation in others which I saw.


So, for the umpteenth time, why is it that so many people claim to be "transformed" but only others who claim to be transformed can see the transformation?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 6:51 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 08-03-2016 4:06 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9493
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 93 of 186 (788684)
08-03-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ringo
08-03-2016 12:36 PM


Re: Faith & Evidence.
So, for the umpteenth time, why is it that so many people claim to be "transformed" but only others who claim to be transformed can see the transformation?
You bring up a good point. While it is true that many Biblical Christians claim that once saved always saved...and that only members of the club are special...the fact is that if someone-anyone-is transformed than everyone can see the change and the difference---not just Christians.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 08-03-2016 12:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 08-03-2016 5:08 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 08-04-2016 11:56 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4878
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 94 of 186 (788689)
08-03-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
08-03-2016 4:06 PM


Re: Faith & Evidence.
Phat writes:

the fact is that if someone-anyone-is transformed than everyone can see the change and the difference---not just Christians.

Well that much is true, they change from being average blokes into irrational, delusional, smug tossers that can't have a conversation about football without introducing a metaphor from the bible.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 08-03-2016 4:06 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 95 of 186 (788730)
08-04-2016 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
08-02-2016 1:14 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

The fact that every time we look for evidence of an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for our existence we do not find any.

Being unable to find evidence of an-intelligence-that-is-ultimately-responsible-for-the-fact-that-we-exist is itself evidence that an intelligence is not ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist.

Find some evidence leading to your belief, and it would then, necessarily, take a belief to lead to an atheistic conclusion.
Without that evidence, it is not a necessity for one to have faith to reach an atheistic conclusion. One can follow the evidence.

There is all sorts of evidence. Paley wasnít completely wrong. Life exists. You exist. You are able to reason. You are able to make moral decisions. Science has found order in our existence. However the best that science can do is to understand the processes that have resulted in things being the way they are. They donít tell us why they processes came into existence, but through human intelligence we have been able to understand those processes. It is reasonable to conclude then that there was an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for them.
You discount the evidence and draw another conclusion.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 1:14 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 11:36 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 96 of 186 (788735)
08-04-2016 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 2:08 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Cat Sci writes:

Every instance of intelligence that we are aware of stems from a brain. As far as we know, there were no brains before they evolved on Earth. Ergo, an intelligence cannot be responsible for the fact that we exist.
If God is responsible, then what we refer to as "intelligence" can't be what he's got.


So your basic assumption is that if you arenít aware of something it canít exist. Have you ever seen a thought? You can see the result of thought but you canít see the thought itself even though it exists so you canít possibly postulate that thought didnít exist before brains. A thought itself isnít physical.

All you can say is that brains are able to produce thought and exhibit intelligence, but you canít possibly know that thought canít come from elsewhere as well.
For that matter, what is a brain made of? As I understand things a brain is ultimately made up of mindless and likely dimensionless particles that have somehow combined to be able to produce intelligence and yet you conclude that it all happened by chance without any intelligent input. Personally I canít muster up that degree of faith.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2016 11:45 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2924
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 97 of 186 (788749)
08-04-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by GDR
08-04-2016 10:11 AM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:

You discount the evidence and draw another conclusion.

No, I don't. What you're talking about is not evidence-of-an-intelligence-behind-the-universe.

Life exists. You exist. You are able to reason. You are able to make moral decisions. Science has found order in our existence.

These are facts.
This is not evidence-that-an-intelligence-is-behind-the-universe.
This is not evidence-that-no-intelligence-is-behind-the-universe.

These are simply facts that are compatible with both conclusions.
They are also compatible with the conclusion that we were all created yesterday, or that we're brains in jars, or that a non-intelligent unicorn is ultimately responsible for our existence.

However the best that science can do is to understand the processes that have resulted in things being the way they are. They donít tell us why they processes came into existence, but through human intelligence we have been able to understand those processes. It is reasonable to conclude then that there was an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for them.

It is not reasonable to conclude an intelligence is ultimately responsible based on the facts you've listed.
It just sounds like something you are personally hoping for.

Human intelligence has been able to understand many, many processes and never found any hint that there is some other-intelligence behind any of it. They simply find more processes. Even when the ones looking are hoping for any sign of intelligence.

Yes, there may be an intelligence at the end-of-the-line. But there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. And the more processes we understand, with no sign of any other-intelligence... is more evidence that no other-intelligence exists.

A man is dead.
A gun is found.
This is evidence that a man was shot to death.

This is not evidence that Jim shot the man.
This is not evidence that any person shot the man.
This is not evidence that any intelligence shot the man.

You are jumping to "an intelligence did it" without evidence.
Maybe Jim did do it... but the evidence (as listed here) does not say such a thing. You need more information.
Maybe some other intelligence did it... but the evidence (as listed here) does not say such a thing. You need more information.

At least in my example we know that Jim's exist. We know that other people exist and can shoot guns. In your argument... we do not know that intelligences-outside-the-universe can exist. We do not know that even upon existing they are capable of being ultimately responsible for universes.

You are not only jumping the gun, you are jumping a lot of guns.

GDR writes:

There is all sorts of evidence.

All you have to do is list a single piece of evidence for an intelligence-being-responsible-for-the-universe.

You haven't even been able to list a single piece of evidence for an-intelligence-external-to-our-universe-existing-at-all, regardless of whether or not they created, or are ultimately responsible for our universe.

Simply wanting an answer to a question does not give credence to hoping for an answer and saying it's a valid conclusion.

Facts simply compatible with a conclusion are not evidence of that conclusion.
Parking my car at the mall is not evidence that I'm getting a haircut.
You need more information to paint the picture you're hoping for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 10:11 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 12:02 PM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11540
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 98 of 186 (788751)
08-04-2016 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by GDR
08-04-2016 10:26 AM


Re: Topic Remix
So your basic assumption is that if you arenít aware of something it canít exist.

Not can't, but doesn't. Probably. It's a logical induction.

You can see the result of thought but you canít see the thought itself even though it exists so you canít possibly postulate that thought didnít exist before brains.

Sure I can:

Every thought that we are aware of has come from a brain.
We are aware of exactly zero thoughts that have not come about from a brain.
Ergo, without brains there are no thoughts.

All you can say is that brains are able to produce thought and exhibit intelligence, but you canít possibly know that thought canít come from elsewhere as well.

Well sure, its an induction not a deduction. Regardless, it stands.

The claim is not that it is impossible, the claim is that it just isn't.

Flying pigs aren't impossible, they just don't exist.
Thoughts-without-brains aren't impossible, they just don't exist.

yet you conclude that it all happened by chance without any intelligent input.

Without intelligent input, yes. By chance, no.

Selective pressures from the environment remove chance.

Personally I canít muster up that degree of faith.

I don't have any faith in it, it is simply a probable conclusion.

ABE:

In Message 100 you wrote:

...it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that life is the result of intelligence.

...

The evidence is not conclusive but I contend that it is highly suggestive.

I'm with you until you pinpoint it on being intelligence. That's something that things with brains have.

Whatever the bigger thing that life is the result of, it cannot be intelligence as we know it.

Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 10:26 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13315
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 99 of 186 (788757)
08-04-2016 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
08-03-2016 4:06 PM


Re: Faith & Evidence.
Phat writes:

...the fact is that if someone-anyone-is transformed than everyone can see the change and the difference---not just Christians.


I'm saying it doesn't happen.

It's the same as Christians claiming that the good works come automatically when you're "saved". They don't. More often than not, the only transformation is a lot of new excuses for not doing the works.

We need to transform ourselves, not rely on some alien entity to do it for us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 08-03-2016 4:06 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 100 of 186 (788758)
08-04-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
08-04-2016 11:36 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Stile writes:

These are facts.
This is not evidence-that-an-intelligence-is-behind-the-universe.
This is not evidence-that-no-intelligence-is-behind-the-universe.

These are simply facts that are compatible with both conclusions.
They are also compatible with the conclusion that we were all created yesterday, or that we're brains in jars, or that a non-intelligent unicorn is ultimately responsible for our existence.


If you had awoken after being asleep for 1000 years and saw something as complex as an airplane going by you might think that there were aliens involved or come to some other conclusion but you would think it likely took some form of intelligence to put it there.
I suppose you could also conclude that somehow the airplane was just the result of a chance combination of particles. Life is far more complex than that airplane so although we are unable to perceive the designer with our 5 senses it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that life is the result of intelligence. Our existence of our universe as we perceive it is evidence in the same way that the airplane is evidence.

Stile writes:

It is not reasonable to conclude an intelligence is ultimately responsible based on the facts you've listed.
It just sounds like something you are personally hoping for.
Human intelligence has been able to understand many, many processes and never found any hint that there is some other-intelligence behind any of it. They simply find more processes. Even when the ones looking are hoping for any sign of intelligence.

Yes, there may be an intelligence at the end-of-the-line. But there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. And the more processes we understand, with no sign of any other-intelligence... is more evidence that no other-intelligence exists.

A man is dead.
A gun is found.
This is evidence that a man was shot to death.

This is not evidence that Jim shot the man.
This is not evidence that any person shot the man.
This is not evidence that any intelligence shot the man.

You are jumping to "an intelligence did it" without evidence.
Maybe Jim did do it... but the evidence (as listed here) does not say such a thing. You need more information.
Maybe some other intelligence did it... but the evidence (as listed here) does not say such a thing. You need more information.

At least in my example we know that Jim's exist. We know that other people exist and can shoot guns. In your argument... we do not know that intelligences-outside-the-universe can exist. We do not know that even upon existing they are capable of being ultimately responsible for universes.

You are not only jumping the gun, you are jumping a lot of guns.

I am not making an argument for the idea that Jim, Frank, Bill or any specific deity created the universe. I am simply arguing for the idea that what we do know points towards there being an intelligence that is responsible for it.

The evidence is not conclusive but I contend that it is highly suggestive.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 11:36 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 12:29 PM GDR has responded
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 08-04-2016 3:18 PM GDR has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4878
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 101 of 186 (788761)
08-04-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
08-04-2016 12:02 PM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:

The evidence is not conclusive but I contend that it is highly suggestive.

My young nephew just showed me a brand new, shiny £1 coin.
His tooth fell out, so he put it under his pillow and the next morning the tooth was gone and a £1 coin was there instead. His mother told him that it was the tooth fairy. It was his third tooth.

So what are we to make of this?

We have stacks of physical evidence - teeth, coins and a repeated test generating the same outcome.

We have a strong hypothesis in the story his mother gave him. What's more, if he compares notes with his friends and any other adult, he gets told the same thing. It's very "highly suggestive" of a correct conclusion. And yet it's 100% wrong.

The thing that's missing is the total absence of any evidence at all for the tooth fairy herself.

Got it?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 12:02 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 1:41 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(2)
Message 102 of 186 (788766)
08-04-2016 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tangle
08-04-2016 12:29 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

My young nephew just showed me a brand new, shiny £1 coin.
His tooth fell out, so he put it under his pillow and the next morning the tooth was gone and a £1 coin was there instead. His mother told him that it was the tooth fairy. It was his third tooth.

So what are we to make of this?

We have stacks of physical evidence - teeth, coins and a repeated test generating the same outcome.

We have a strong hypothesis in the story his mother gave him. What's more, if he compares notes with his friends and any other adult, he gets told the same thing. It's very "highly suggestive" of a correct conclusion. And yet it's 100% wrong.

The thing that's missing is the total absence of any evidence at all for the tooth fairy herself.

Got it?

That doesn't address the point at all. The coin appeared there as a result of an intelligence, namely Mom. Atheism is in effect arguing for the idea that the coin just appeared as a result of particles rearranging themselves into the coin by random chance.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 12:29 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 1:58 PM GDR has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4878
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 103 of 186 (788770)
08-04-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by GDR
08-04-2016 1:41 PM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:

That doesn't address the point at all. The coin appeared there as a result of an intelligence, namely Mom.

It does address the point - you just missed it.

If you wish to conclude an agent, you must have evidence of the agent.

The agent may be your Christian god or Zeus. It may be aliens or it may be a natural process. You have no evidence for your particular choice.

It's not relevant what others believe or don't believe; you have no evidence for your tooth fairy.

The atheist's claim is quite different, I don't want to get into the agnostic v atheist thing again but an atheists says that we don't know, so to ascribe it to an un-evidenced agent would be random and most probably wrong (because it's a matter of birth chance which agent you believe in).

We go further and say that the evidence that we do have does not support the existence of any agent. Ergo, the agent most probably doesn't exist. It's not a faith or a belief in anything, it's a conclusion from evidence and from lack of evidence.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 1:41 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 6:43 PM Tangle has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2924
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 104 of 186 (788777)
08-04-2016 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
08-04-2016 12:02 PM


Re: Topic Remix
GDR writes:

If you had awoken after being asleep for 1000 years and saw something as complex as an airplane going by you might think that there were aliens involved or come to some other conclusion but you would think it likely took some form of intelligence to put it there.

I totally agree.
If we remove a bunch of our knowledge, and a bunch of the information that we have, and restrict our information to a few things... then that information can reasonably lead us to think that an intelligence is involved. That would be based on the evidence.

But we do have that knowledge, and we do have that information.

Based on the knowledge and information that we do have... it is not "based on the evidence" to conclude that an intelligence is ultimately behind the universe.

Life is far more complex than that airplane so although we are unable to perceive the designer with our 5 senses it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that life is the result of intelligence.

But those two are not connected.

I agree that life is far more complex than an airplane.
However, we know that complexity does not have to come from intelligent sources.

We have identified (and created ourselves) many, many non-intelligent sources that create things that are much more complex than airplanes.

Snowflakes are created non-intelligently, they are complex (I would say, not-as-complex-as-an-airplane, but still complex).
Crystals are created non-intelligently, they are complex.
Comets, planets and stars are created non-intelligently, they are complex (much more complex than an airplane).
We have programmed non-intelligent software models that create solutions to problems so complex that we can't even figure out how they work! But they work...

So, we know of many complex things that we understand took intelligence to design them.
We also know of many complex things that we understand did not take intelligence to design them.

I agree that if we ignore the information about knowing how non-intelligent processes can create complex things... than it would be reasonable to conclude that an intelligence is behind the complex creation of our universe and existence.

However, if we look at all the information we have, then it is very UNreasonable to conclude that intelligent-agents are behind the creation of our universe when we know for a fact that non-intelligent processes are quite capable of creating complex things all the time.

Therefore, the fact that life is complex is not evidence that an intelligent being is involved.

Otherwise, the fact that I parked at the mall would be evidence that I am, indeed, going to get a haircut. Are you sure you want to call that "reasonable?"

Edited by Stile, : Had to correct a really confusion sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 12:02 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 6:54 PM Stile has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 105 of 186 (788794)
08-04-2016 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tangle
08-04-2016 1:58 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Tangle writes:

It does address the point - you just missed it.

If you wish to conclude an agent, you must have evidence of the agent.

The agent may be your Christian god or Zeus. It may be aliens or it may be a natural process. You have no evidence for your particular choice.

I am only arguing here for the existence of any intelligent agent and not a specific one. I do believe that there is evidence for the validity of the Christian faith but that isn't the argument I'm making.

Tangle writes:

We go further and say that the evidence that we do have does not support the existence of any agent. Ergo, the agent most probably doesn't exist. It's not a faith or a belief in anything, it's a conclusion from evidence and from lack of evidence.

What is the evidence that you talk about. You can come up with numerous processes such as evolution to explain how life arose but if there is anything that smacks of intelligence it is the evolutionary process.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2016 1:58 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2016 3:11 AM GDR has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017