Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 196 of 377 (612963)
04-20-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by kbertsche
04-20-2011 2:33 PM


Dembeski is just trying to palm the pea and con the rubes.
kbertsche writes:
You should know that Dembski's math PhD was related to signal processing, and to the way that SETI looks for signs of intelligence in signals from space. SETI is looking for positive evidence of intelligence. Dembski and others have been trying to apply similar arguments to ID.
Not exactly.
What Dembski and others are doing it to try to convince the rubes the the two searches have some correspondence, which of course is patently absurd.
SETI is looking for entirely natural sources of signals created by a life form similar to us and on approximately the same technological scale.
That is a reasonable if somewhat unlikely search based on the fact that we know with 100% certainty that there is at least one entirely natural life form that has produced and broadcast electronic signals.
What Dembeski is trying to imply is that the SETI effort could also be applied to their search, but that claimed correspondence totally fails examination.
While there is evidence that at least one species of critter has broadcast electronic signals into space, there is NO evidence that there is some designer.
Even if we did find some signs that appeared to be not natural in origin there is absolutely no reason to attribute them to some designer unless and until they present evidence that a designer exists that is comparable to the evidence we have that critters have sent electronic signals into space.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2011 2:33 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 197 of 377 (612965)
04-20-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jon
04-20-2011 12:15 PM


Jon writes:
Nope, they weren't always there, and the processes by which they came about are generally understood and taught within even an introductory physics course. Take at look at the Wikipedia article on the Timeline of the Big Bang. It may have some technical inaccuracies and poor analogies, but it should help you understand some of the basics of the Big Bang.
Those so called "understood processes" are actually \\ideas or hypotheses// put forth to in an attempt to answer the ridiculous question of how something can come from nothing.
These hypothesis aren't even testable, so how then can they even begin to understand them? later on you say that -->
Jon writes:
There's no evidence of anything 'before' the bang; as such, there's no evidence of anything that 'caused' it.
Well...where did these processes come from? after all you admit that \\there's no evidence of anything 'before' the bang; as such, there's no evidence of anything that 'caused' it.//
Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer.
And this remains your personal delusion, one for which you've yet to offer any supporting evidence. Is there any reason at all that science should take your delusion seriously?
anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch.
Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously, we see it happening all around us, the houses, the cars etc. How then should we distinguish design from non-design; are we just gonna say my car is here because it evolved o_O?
water -> plants -> insects & animals
Remove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls.
Fortunately:
a) Evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life itself, and
b) No sane scientist anywhere has suggested that life first evolved before Earth had water
I'm talking about the ecosystem here, not the origin of life...in 'b' you make no sense either, wtf were talking about o.o?...were you attempting to quote mine?
No, only a Creationist who assumes that everything needs a Magic Creating Fairy would ask that.
Your assuming I believe in a magic creating fairy, i do not, unlike evolution which relates wings to falling reptiles. lol
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jon, posted 04-20-2011 12:15 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2011 3:49 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 201 by Jon, posted 04-20-2011 5:07 PM SavageD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 377 (612966)
04-20-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by SavageD
04-20-2011 3:19 PM


anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch.
What do you mean by "come about through chance"? The Theory of Evolution does *NOT* say that any species came about through chance.
See Message 169
for example, a watch.
Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously, we see it happening all around us, the houses, the cars etc. How then should we distinguish design from non-design; are we just gonna say my car is here because it evolved o_O?
Only living things can evolve. The Theory of Evolution can explain every living thing we've ever seen.
We don't have any examples of living things that have been designed.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 3:19 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 199 of 377 (612968)
04-20-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Jon
04-20-2011 3:02 PM


Re: Positive Evidence of Design?
Jon writes:
As I said, they are trying to make positive arguments for design. You are just re-stating a "negative evidence" argument. That's not what they are trying to do.
Could you provide an instance or two of an IDist providing positive evidence of design?
Jon
Like I said, this is what Dembski and others have been trying to do for many years. One of their approaches (related to Dembski's PhD thesis) is to apply information theory to biological and physical systems. You might look at Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by Dembski. His overview of The Intelligent Design Movement might also be useful.
Edited by kbertsche, : bad link

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Jon, posted 04-20-2011 3:02 PM Jon has not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 200 of 377 (612970)
04-20-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
04-20-2011 3:49 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
What do you mean by "come about through chance"? The Theory of Evolution does *NOT* say that any species came about through chance.
Sorry let me re-phrase that:
Anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to arise through chance. for example, a watch.
"The Theory of Evolution does not say that any species came about through chance"....Nor does it attempt to describe how the mechanism used to create these new species arose (e.g dna utilization).
It simply states that these mechanisms are there, so things evolve, or things evolve because these mechanisms are there.
To be more precise: Things evolve because of natural selection, natural selection is there so things evolve...Everything else in the theory is due to chance. This is a tautology
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms that natural selection utilizes arose, it simply ignores that factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance that happens by chance.
Only living things can evolve. The Theory of Evolution can explain every living thing we've ever seen.
We don't have any examples of living things that have been designed.
No we don't, but we have observations / evidence which suggests that living things are possibly a product of design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2011 3:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2011 5:48 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 205 by subbie, posted 04-20-2011 5:57 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 6:20 PM SavageD has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 377 (612971)
04-20-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by SavageD
04-20-2011 3:19 PM


No Evidence for Design
These hypothesis aren't even testable, so how then can they even begin to understand them?
Perhaps you can show how they aren't testable. Many of the Big Bang predictions have been tested and verified (CMBR, for example).
Well...where did these processes come from?
Like I said, that's a meaningless pseudo-philosophical question. There is no evidence for a 'before' the Bang; there is no evidence of a 'where' that the processes could have come from.
anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance.
Except that:
a) No one claims that complex life forms came about by chance, and
b) All evidence indicates that the complex 'structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s)' arose through completely natural processes and not by design
for example, a watch.
The watch is irrelevant. Before watches there were sundials; even designs evolve.
Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously
Those reasons have all been considered, seriously, for hundreds of years. Folk have taken them into account repeatedly. The conclusion? Those reasons don't actually matter; the evidence says there was no designer.
I'm talking about the ecosystem here, not the origin of life...in 'b' you make no sense either, wtf were talking about o.o?...were you attempting to quote mine?
Your argument that life cannot be sustained without water is not a counter argument to evolution, because evolution:
a) Does not concern itself with how life originated, and
b) Does not posit that living things existed on Earth before there was water
And of course, water does not rely on life for its existence. You're just trying to sell a varnished version of the old IC argument; except that the things you mention as IC are clearly not irreducible, as parts of them can exist perfectly fine without the whole.
But, to move this back to the topic: for the sake of this thread, we've all agreed to assume that life was designed. The next task, then, is to figure out how many designers there were.
Do you have any reasons for us assuming one designer over multiples? Back in Message 142, we had this exchange:
quote:
Jon in Message 142:
SavageD writes:
I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life.
But not DNA itself?
I would probably go deeper into this but for now I have to go, I'm quite busy.
Take your time; I'm simply trying to understand your position.
As you seem to have more time on your hands now, perhaps you'd be able to clear that up for me.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 3:19 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 377 (612972)
04-20-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by SavageD
04-20-2011 11:57 AM


Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer.
water -> plants -> insects & animals
Remove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls.
Well, a couple of things to think about.
First, this reasoning fails if you apply it to things that really were designed. Take away the wings or the engine from a plane and it quite literally "falls". Yet plane designers can and will buy in engines designed by someone else altogether.
Second, ecosystems assemble themselves without a designer. We can see this with islands that have been either newly created or swept bare of life by volcanic action. Take Anak Krakatau, for example:
Although Krakatoa submerged after several eruptions, Anak Krakatau resurfaced in 1927. New volcanic activity caused the island to sink again only a few months later. Emerging again in 1930, it has remained above sea level ever since. Despite these incidents, the fertile volcanic ash and soil has resulted in Anak Krakatau being the home to over 500 species of plants and animal life. These animals include butterflies, birds, land mollusks, bats and reptiles.
You'd probably know this if you'd ever taken an interest in ecosystems in themselves rather than as props for a bad argument.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 11:57 AM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 5:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 203 of 377 (612974)
04-20-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
04-20-2011 5:12 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer.
water -> plants -> insects & animals
Remove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls.
Well, a couple of things to think about.
First, this reasoning fails if you apply it to things that really were designed. Take away the wings or the engine from a plane and it quite literally "falls". Yet plane designers can and will buy in engines designed by someone else altogether.
Second, ecosystems assemble themselves without a designer. We can see this with islands that have been either newly created or swept bare of life by volcanic action. Take Anak Krakatau, for example:
Although Krakatoa submerged after several eruptions, Anak Krakatau resurfaced in 1927. New volcanic activity caused the island to sink again only a few months later. Emerging again in 1930, it has remained above sea level ever since. Despite these incidents, the fertile volcanic ash and soil has resulted in Anak Krakatau being the home to over 500 species of plants and animal life. These animals include butterflies, birds, land mollusks, bats and reptiles.
You'd probably know this if you'd ever taken an interest in ecosystems in themselves rather than as props for a bad argument.
On your first point, I'm not certain what you were trying to illustrate but if it is that your saying IC isn't viable.....I'll have to point out that the IC argument isn't for 'every product' of design, only certain ones.
On your second point, you would notice that I specifically said "the ecosystem"...meaning the planets entire ecosystem (on a whole).
If I had said "an ecosystem", it would have made a difference, since I may be referring to a specific island like in your example, so your example does not apply. To be more specific:
water -> plants -> insects & animals
If you remove anyone of these from the planets entire ecological system, life would seize to exist on this planet.
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 5:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 6:45 PM SavageD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 377 (612975)
04-20-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by SavageD
04-20-2011 5:03 PM


Anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to arise through chance.
"Come about through"... "Arrise through"... It doesn't matter, the Theory of Evolution doesn't say it happened by chance. Natural Selection is the non-random component necessary to yield these complexities.
"The Theory of Evolution does not say that any species came about through chance"....Nor does it attempt to describe how the mechanism used to create these new species arose (e.g dna utilization).
It simply states that these mechanisms are there, so things evolve, or things evolve because these mechanisms are there.
There's been a lot of scientific advancement in the realm of "dna utilization", but that stuff is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. Still, using an evolutionary paradigm doesn't mean there's not an attempt to describe how dna utilization arrose. Why don't you start a new thread on that topic? I'm sure a lot of people will show you.
To be more precise: Things evolve because of natural selection, natural selection is there so things evolve...Everything else in the theory is due to chance. This is a tautology
No, that's not even close.
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms that natural selection utilizes arose, it simply ignores that factor.
And cooking thoery doesn't describe farming...
Wait, Why don't you complain about the design theory not describing how life was designed?
From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance that happens by chance.
You're grossly misunderstanding what Natural Selection is. Do you even care to learn about it?
No we don't, but we have observations / evidence which suggests that living things are possibly a product of design.
I suppose, but the design explanation is so inferior to the evolutionary explanation that its not even on the radar. Evolution actually has explanatory power. Design does not.
There's tons of observations in species that would make you think the designer would have had to have been crazy to design it that way, but from an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Evolution wins.
water -> plants -> insects & animals
If you remove anyone of these from the planets entire ecological system, the system will fall apart.
The Earth could exist with just water and no plants or animals.
The Earth could exist with just water and plants, but no animals.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 5:03 PM SavageD has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 205 of 377 (612976)
04-20-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by SavageD
04-20-2011 5:03 PM


"The Theory of Evolution does not say that any species came about through chance"....Nor does it attempt to describe how the mechanism used to create these new species arose (e.g dna utilization).
It simply states that these mechanisms are there, so things evolve, or things evolve because these mechanisms are there.
To be more precise: Things evolve because of natural selection, natural selection is there so things evolve...Everything else in the theory is due to chance. This is a tautology
The ToE is, quite simply, based upon the following observed facts:
1. Organisms compete for limited resources.
2. Organisms that are better equipped to compete in a given environment will tend to leave more of their progeny in the next generation than those that are less well equipped.
3. There will be genetic variation from generation to generation.
4. Some organisms in the next generation will be better equipped to compete for limited resources than others.
Repeat steps 2 through 4.
No tautologies, just a series of facts that have been observed countless times, giving rise to a theory.
Any questions?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 5:03 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 206 of 377 (612977)
04-20-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by SavageD
04-20-2011 5:03 PM


Anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to arise through chance.
This would be true only if design was the only alternative to chance; and we know that it isn't.
It simply states that these mechanisms are there, so things evolve, or things evolve because these mechanisms are there.
To be more precise: Things evolve because of natural selection, natural selection is there so things evolve...Everything else in the theory is due to chance. This is a tautology
In the first place, writing the same thing two different ways may be redundant, but it is not tautological. If I write "My kitten's name is Mittens, and Mittens is the name of my kitten", this does not magically make statements about my kitten's name tautological.
In the second place, the statement that you have written twice in an attempt to magic it into a tautology is not accurate. Things evolve because of mutation and reproduction. Natural selection is the reason why this evolution has an adaptive tendency.
And, on a more general note, if you don't understand natural selection what the heck are you doing trying to discuss evolution? It's a very simple, very basic concept.
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms that natural selection utilizes arose, it simply ignores that factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance that happens by chance.
This paragraph is too vague and meaningless to critique except by pointing out that it is in fact vague and meaningless.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 5:03 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 7:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 207 of 377 (612978)
04-20-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by SavageD
04-20-2011 5:48 PM


On your first point, I'm not certain what you were trying to illustrate ...
My point is that the fact that ecosystems seem to fit together nicely does not necessarily imply a common designer of their components even if those components were designed.
If I had said "an ecosystem", it would have made a difference, since I may be referring to a specific island like in your example, so your example does not apply. To be more specific:
water -> plants -> insects & animals
If you remove anyone of these from the planets entire ecological system, life would seize to exist on this planet.
Not only is this not true, but also I don't see your point in saying it.
If I had said "an ecosystem", it would have made a difference, since I may be referring to a specific island like in your example, so your example does not apply.
It's still suggestive. Every time we see an ecosystem arise, it does so without the intervention of some mysterious "designer".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 5:48 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 7:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 208 of 377 (612980)
04-20-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Dr Adequate
04-20-2011 6:20 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
This would be true only if design was the only alternative to chance; and we know that it isn't.
Oh? what is the alternative to chance? o_O
In the first place, writing the same thing two different ways may be redundant, but it is not tautological. If I write "My kitten's name is Mittens, and Mittens is the name of my kitten", this does not magically make statements about my kitten's name tautological.
Tautologies only apply to reasoning. simply saying your cats name is mittens isn't a problem, saying my cats name is mittens 'because' Mittens is the name of my kitten, is.
In the second place, the statement that you have written twice in an attempt to magic it into a tautology is not accurate. Things evolve because of mutation. Natural selection is the reason why this evolution has an adaptive tendency.
I'll fix it for you:
Things evolve because of mutation. Natural selection is the reason why evolution has an adaptive tendency. Evolution has an adaptive tendency because Natural selection is the reason.
And, on a more general note, if you don't understand natural selection what the heck are you doing trying to discuss evolution? It's a very simple, very basic concept.
This paragraph is too vague and meaningless to critique except by pointing out that it is in fact vague and meaningless.
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance.
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 6:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 7:55 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 213 by subbie, posted 04-20-2011 7:56 PM SavageD has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 209 of 377 (612981)
04-20-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dr Adequate
04-20-2011 6:45 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
SavageD writes:
water -> plants -> insects & animals
If you remove anyone of these from the planets entire ecological system, life would seize to exist on this planet.
Not only is this not true, but also I don't see your point in saying it.
I'm more interested in why is this isnt true?
You don't see the point because your quote mining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 6:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2011 7:43 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 211 by Theodoric, posted 04-20-2011 7:49 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 210 of 377 (612982)
04-20-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by SavageD
04-20-2011 7:37 PM


I'm more interested in why is this isnt true?
Because if you removed all the plants and animals there'd still be bacteria.
You don't see the point because your quote mining.
I don't see the point because you haven't said what it is.
If you removed all life from the planet, it is true that there'd be no life left. But I don't see why this fact should put us in mind of design in particular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 7:37 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024