Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2017 2:49 AM
376 online now:
Dredge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 372 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,986 Year: 13,592/21,208 Month: 3,074/3,605 Week: 416/933 Day: 5/56 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Can the creationist model explain the data?
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


(1)
Message 1 of 31 (808032)
05-07-2017 7:27 PM


Creationists continually claim that their model(s) explain the data just as well or better than evolutionary models. I posted a challenge in Message 353 for creationists to propose a research approach to a simple, real world problem using only a creationist model without including evolutionary principals. The purpose was two-fold; 1) to get creationist to think about how to apply their model to a real problem and 2) to expose how important evolutionary principals are to applied biology.

This was met with rather predictable responses (and no usable solutions). CRR responded in Message 355 with

CRR writes:

There is no need to invoke the theory of evolution for common sense predictions.

Faith responded in Message 358

Faith writes:

I have no reason at all to bring in anything from my model. As CRR said this is a practical matter.

To her credit, Faith does a fairly good job of describing her hypothesis about how evolution proceeds. One such place where she describes her hypothesis is in Message 86. A couple brief excepts from that message that give the gist of her ideas.

Faith writes:

So what I said above is where I ended up about the basic built in genetic system for variation within a Kind. The original pair had to have all the genetic capacity to produce every variation of the Kind that exists today, but also probably a lot of different forms that died in the Flood.

Faith writes:

My main argument since I came to EvC has been that there is a natural barrier to evolution beyond the genome of the Kind, which is that the processes of evolution themselves decrease genetic diversity, so that ultimately wherever evolution is continuing from population to population a point will be reached where no further evolution is possible.

From Message 79

Faith writes:

So remove the mutations and you get "change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to mutation built-in allelic differences and natural selection (or descent with modification)" the definition would be getting closer to the genetic truth.

Here we have her claiming that changes in traits are not due to mutation but are pre-existing in populations and simply spread by recombination.

But this is the comment that really got me thinking about proposing this thread:

Faith writes:

HBD writes:

An alternate model for diversification would need to be put forward. The closest answer to that I have seen is the idea that all the diversity was "built in" to the original pair. But I don't see that model as being compatible with the data and at this point, it is pretty much unworkable.

Too bad because it IS the model for how heritable changes come about within species. I doubt it's the "data" that is the problem. Rather it's the definition that is the problem.

So I thought it would be good to introduce some real data and allow Faith and CRR to use their preferred models to analyze the data.

Below are the amino acid sequences of the mitochondrial ‘cytochrome c subunit II’ protein for 9 species of animals. These sequences were selected from NCBI Genbank and represent a number of taxonomic groups. The sequences below are translated directly from mRNA and do not include introns. They represent the actual protein sequence that is used to make the cytochrome subunit.

Cytochrome c is a protein complex that is involved in the electron transport chain in the mitochondria and has no direct connection to the morphology of the organism. It is highly conserved across a wide range of taxonomic groups and is commonly used in taxonomic and cladistic studies.


* ** *** *********** ******************** ******************* ****** ** **************** * **** *
A MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELSHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
B MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
C MAYPLQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINSPSLTVKTM
D MAYPFQLGFQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
E MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIITLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
F MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
G MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISSMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILILIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
H MAYPFQLGLQDATSPIMEELLHFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIISLMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETVWTILPAIILVLIALPSLRILYMMDEINNPSLTVKTM
I MPYPMQLGFQDATSPIMEELMYFHDHTLMIVFLISSLVLYIIILMLTTKLTHTSTMDAQEVETIWTILPAVILILIALPSLRILYMMDEIYNPYLTVKAM

********* **** * ******** * ** ********* **** * ********* * ****** ********* ** *** ** *****
A GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEVTIRVLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGRCSEIC
B GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
C GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
D GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLSFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMGTRPGLYYGQCSEIC
E GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
F GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTIRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
G GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVILPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
H GHQWYWSYEYTDYEDLNFDSYMIPTQELKPGELRLLEVDNRVVLPMEMTVRMLISSEDVLHSWAVPSLGLKTDAIPGRLNQTTLMAMRPGLYYGQCSEIC
I GHQWYWSYEFTDYENLMFDSYMIPTKDLSPGQLRLLEVDNRIVLPMELPIRMLISSEDVLHAWTMPSLGLKADAIPGRLNQITLTSSRPGVFYGQCSEIC

************ * *** ** *
A GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLSYFEKWSASML
B GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLTYFEKWSASML
C GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLAYFEKWSASML
D GSNHSFMPIVLELVPLVYFEKWSASML
E GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSAVMV
F GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV
G GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV
H GSNHSFMPIVLEMVPLSYFETWSALMV
I GSNHSFMPIVLEMASLKYFEKWSSMMQ


The rows represent individual species and are labeled at the beginning of the row with the species name (ie. species ‘A’). The amino acids are identified using single letters and follow through the rows. Because the protein is 227-aa long, the sequences are interleaved and there is only 100 positions listed per row. The same peptide continues in the subsequent set of rows beginning with the same species identifier. So, the first row of the first set is species ‘A’ and the first row of the second set is a continuation of the sequence for species ‘A’ as is the first row of the third set.

The sequences were aligned using Mega6.0 to make it easier to see the differences. The aligned residues are in columns and if there is an asterisk above the column the amino acid is identical in all sequences for that position. So columns without an asterisk have variation at that position.

Some of the sequences above are closely related and it is widely agreed that they represent group(s) that evolved or ‘microevolved’ from a common ancestor. What we need to identify here is what species are closely related and which species have a ‘barrier’ that indicates they could not have evolved from a common ancestor.

Not only should we identify which species are related and which are distantly related or not related, but we should explain why the data we have indicates the conclusion we come to. Why do we observe these patterns?

Once creationists have had the opportunity to respond and explain their theory, I will use evolutionary theory to analyze the data and describe the patterns in the data. There are plenty more sequences available from Genbank and I can retrieve more sequences from the same groups to examine inter-specific variation and from different groups to examine patterns of intra-specific variation.

Biological Evolution, please

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 11:37 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 31 (808034)
05-08-2017 8:05 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Can the creationist model explain the data? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 31 (808064)
05-08-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by herebedragons
05-07-2017 7:27 PM


HBD, I would really like to see you spell out how your work makes use of your model and couldn't make use of mine, or CRRs or any creationist's, but you can't expect me to deal with that kind of problem. I am always thinking in broad generalities, not specific details and I stick to the facts and problems that best help explain the creationist point of view. I'm not familiar with cytochrome. You have to find a problem that actually takes into account what I think rather than imposing some totally alien problem on me. For all I know, in fact I think it very likely, my model could deal just fine with your problem, but if I'm not familiar with it you're going to get a big fat nothing from me.

Perhaps CRR can work with it, but it isn't really a test of a model, it's ju7st a way to shut us up in the end, whether you intend that or not. A runaround.

I propose that you tell us how YOUR model works with ANYTHING we can comprehend and then you might get some input from me. Spell out the "evolutionary principles" you'd apply to your problem that you think would be a different approach to it than a creationist who understood all that would come up with.

Or, how about just taking ONE "evolutionary principle" and comparing it with ONE "creationist principle" in relation to a SIMPLE problem in biology so I'd have SOME idea what you are talking about.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by herebedragons, posted 05-07-2017 7:27 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:12 PM Faith has responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 755
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 4 of 31 (808068)
05-08-2017 11:43 AM


Mathematical model presented.. Golden Section
Amazing another new thread, promoted instantly.

I must enter in, and bring in a new concept that evolutionists admit they do not have any models for... its called MATH, its also called Science, and its called Set Theory or Set Law, which is LOGIC itself.

So lets be logical and do the math, and study the math models of the template of life to start with, its called the Golden Section. From there all models of creation apply and have been proven to exist mathematically.

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/MathematicsMysteries.html

Otherwise this thread or topic descends into mere semantics, and artists depictions, and science fiction.

IHS

David

TWSAHAPSMINBTHNM

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:49 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 6 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 12:50 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6439
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 5 of 31 (808094)
05-08-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Davidjay
05-08-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Mathematical model presented.. Golden Section
Davidjay writes:

Amazing another new thread, promoted instantly.
I must enter in, and bring in a new concept that evolutionists admit they do not have any models for... its called MATH, its also called Science, and its called Set Theory or Set Law, which is LOGIC itself.

So lets be logical and do the math, and study the math models of the template of life to start with, its called the Golden Section. From there all models of creation apply and have been proven to exist mathematically.

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/MathematicsMysteries.html

Otherwise this thread or topic descends into mere semantics, and artists depictions, and science fiction.

IHS

David

TWSAHAPSMINBTHNM

I see that you didn't even try to address the opening post, and are already trying to change the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Davidjay, posted 05-08-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


(2)
Message 6 of 31 (808095)
05-08-2017 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Davidjay
05-08-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Mathematical model presented.. Golden Section
Amazing another new thread, promoted instantly.

That is because I am capable of drafting a coherent, logical opening post and of then having productive discussions. You are not.

So lets be logical and do the math, and study the math models of the template of life to start with, its called the Golden Section.

Please don't bring your numerology here... you have your own threads for such nonsense.

If you have math that is actually pertinent to this discussion, bring it... but the golden section is totally irrelevant and I am not interested in discussing it or reading about it.

Thanks

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Davidjay, posted 05-08-2017 11:43 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6439
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 7 of 31 (808100)
05-08-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
05-08-2017 11:37 AM


Faith writes:

Perhaps CRR can work with it, but it isn't really a test of a model, it's ju7st a way to shut us up in the end, whether you intend that or not. A runaround.

The test is to see if creationists can make predictions about the data and/or explain the data using their model. So far, creationism has not passed that test.

I propose that you tell us how YOUR model works with ANYTHING we can comprehend and then you might get some input from me.

Your silence would be just fine. It only further proves our point that creationists don't have a model that explains the data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 11:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 31 (808103)
05-08-2017 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taq
05-08-2017 12:56 PM


But of course. It's a setup, which is obvious anyway. Creationist silence gives you victory. How clever.

It's a test of absolutely nothing do with the creationist viewpoint. It should not have been promoted.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:56 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 1:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:21 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6439
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 9 of 31 (808105)
05-08-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:01 PM


Faith writes:

But of course. It's a setup, which is obvious anyway.

How is it a setup?

It's a test of absolutely nothing do with the creationist viewpoint.

You are admitting that biology and genetics has nothing to do with the creationist viewpoint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


(2)
Message 10 of 31 (808108)
05-08-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
05-08-2017 11:37 AM


HBD, I would really like to see you spell out how your work makes use of your model and couldn't make use of mine, or CRRs or any creationist's,

I will... but remember, it is a matter of which explanation works BEST, not just if it can be squeezed to fit.

I am always thinking in broad generalities, not specific details and I stick to the facts and problems that best help explain the creationist point of view.

But its the specific details that should inform the broad generalities, not the other way around. So you have an general idea about how something works, fine. But then you need to examine the specific details and see if they work with your generalities before you can conclude that your generalities are correct.

I'm not familiar with cytochrome.

You don't need to be familiar with cytochrome c in particular, just the mechanisms that cause change. This is stuff that geneticists work with on a regular basis. These principals are foundational to much biological research. This is really basic stuff.

I propose that you tell us how YOUR model works with ANYTHING we can comprehend and then you might get some input from me.

Seriously?

Or, how about just taking ONE "evolutionary principle" and comparing it with ONE "creationist principle" in relation to a SIMPLE problem in biology so I'd have SOME idea what you are talking about.

Ok. How about this: I will use the "evolutionary principle" that genes undergo mutation and these mutations are passed on to subsequent generations and accumulate over generations so that we can compare genes in several species would expect that the most closely related species would have the least amount of accumulated variation between genes and the more distantly related species would have more accumulated variation.

You can use the "creationist principal" that all variation occurs within a species and that variation in morphology is a result of changing allele frequencies and depletion of genetic diversity.

OK. Go.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : removed some what snarky response


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 11:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:22 PM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 11 of 31 (808113)
05-08-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:01 PM


But of course. It's a setup, which is obvious anyway.

How is it a "set up"? Because I know creationists have no clue as to what real data looks like and how scientists deal with real data? I guess in that case, it is a "set up". I know you can't answer this and you will have no answer after I present my analysis either (other than denial). But that's hardly my fault, is it?

Creationist silence gives you victory. How clever.

Not interested in "victory" or your silence. I want you to debate in good faith. If you have no interest in even trying to understand or address this issue, you shouldn't have posted anything at all.

It's a test of absolutely nothing do with the creationist viewpoint.

So your saying that analysis of data has nothing to do with the creationist viewpoint? huh...

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 31 (808114)
05-08-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by herebedragons
05-08-2017 1:12 PM


Well, try it. You have to come up with the problem though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:12 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 31 (808116)
05-08-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by herebedragons
05-08-2017 1:21 PM


I don't think you understand one thing about what creationists are trying to do. You find the approach foreign to your experience and if our different points of view are too different this isn't going to work.

What you are calling "analyses of data" comes from your own very different context HBD, you are imposing conditions on creationists that are very likely irrelevant to what we are trying to do.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:21 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 18 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:30 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 19 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:36 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 14 of 31 (808118)
05-08-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:22 PM


What? I just did. See Message 1.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:27 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 31 (808119)
05-08-2017 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by herebedragons
05-08-2017 1:25 PM


Forget it.

Do your victory dance. I'm out of here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by herebedragons, posted 05-08-2017 1:25 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017