Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Three models for the origin of the universe
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 41 (101536)
04-21-2004 10:29 AM


There are basically three different models that describe the origin of the universe, the YEC-model, the OEC-model and the atheistic model.
  1. YEC-model (Young Earth Creationism):
    The universe was created by God approximately 6000 years ago within 6 (24 hour) days.
  2. OEC-model (Old Earth Creationism):
    The universe was created by God, but not necessarily within 6 (24 hour) days and not necessarily 6000 years ago.
  3. Atheistic model:
    The universe came into existence through chance and/or natural events.
Proposition
Science can NOT make a distinction between these three models. No conceivable event could favour/verify/falsify one of them and not the others. Thus each of these have equal scientific status.
If you disagree, please mention events or experiments that could make a distinction between the three.
Please note that I only want to discuss the proposition, not which model you think is correct, or anything else. If you want to discuss something else in this post, send me an e-mail and maybe I'll start another thread on that specific topic.
I hope to get interesting replies; I'm always open for well-founded criticism and am certainly willing to reconsider/revise my viewpoints.
Greets Stellatic
This message has been edited by Stellatic, 05-19-2004 03:50 AM

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2004 6:51 AM Stellatic has replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-19-2004 2:34 PM Stellatic has replied
 Message 19 by bob_gray, posted 06-02-2004 8:33 PM Stellatic has replied
 Message 28 by coffee_addict, posted 06-09-2004 7:48 PM Stellatic has replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 41 (109211)
05-19-2004 5:44 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 41 (109216)
05-19-2004 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stellatic
04-21-2004 10:29 AM


It seems to me that you are conflatign two different issues.
1) Ultimate causation. I will grant that this is outside science because for for any natural explanation proposed it is always possible to propose that God lies behind it.
2) The actual course of events. This is not outside of science.
To deal with an actual example consider the issue of the age of the Earth. Now it is certainly not the case that an old Earth could not be refuted by evidence. Indeed in your original version of this post you proposed two lines of evidence that you thought might possibly show that the solar system was young.
So there is concievable evidence that would refute an actual old-Earth creationist view. If your second model is irrefutable it is because it is not an OEC view - it takes no position on age. AN OEC view that actually stated that the Earth was old would be refutable.
Now we move to the YEC view. Only Omphalist versions of YEC which propose that God created an Earth that appears if it were old cannot be refuted by the evidence. However this is a minority view because it is theologically very questionable - there is no plausible reason for God to act in such a way other than an intentional act of deception (consider the radiometric dating evidence - there is no reason why the ages produced should be consistent with an old Earth - all rocks could show the same age or ages could be random).
Even if it is assumed that there is a single reason that would explain all the evidence of age, that would make omphalist YEC less scientific than any old-Earth view becuase it requires that extra assumption. If - as seems more likely in the context of oyur post - a YEC view that allows for individual pieces of evidence to either support a young or an old Earth is taken then the YEC view becomes scientifically vacuous on the age of the Earth. It literally has no scientific relevance. The proposition that this has "equal scientific status" with old Earth views then is clearly false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stellatic, posted 04-21-2004 10:29 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Stellatic, posted 05-22-2004 10:57 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 41 (109284)
05-19-2004 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stellatic
04-21-2004 10:29 AM


Model 3
does not have to be Atheistic. A universe that came into being through chance/or natural events does not preclude GOD. There can be the GOD that is the trigger mechanism that initiates the big bang and then all else simply moves forward through chance/or natural events.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stellatic, posted 04-21-2004 10:29 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Stellatic, posted 05-22-2004 11:16 AM jar has not replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 41 (109883)
05-22-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
05-19-2004 6:51 AM


Hi PaulK,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm sorry, but I really didn't want to discuss your second issue, the actual course of events. I didn't mean three models for the history of the universe; I really meant the origin, the event at t=0 or ultimate causation, as you put it.
I'm glad to read that you basically agree with me on my proposition, however I disagree with your reasoning why. You say that you can't make a distinction between them, because if the atheistic model proposes a natural explanation, the creationistic model just has to add a proposition that says: `God created this proposed natural phenomenon that made the universe come into existence'. So for every atheistic model there exists a creationistic model that makes the same predictions. Of course this is in fact possible, but in this case I wouldn't grant the models equal scientific status. I think the extra proposition would decrease the scientific status of the creationistic model.
My reasoning for equal scientific status is not that God could be behind the natural events of the atheistic model, but that from our point of view, there is no way to distinguish between a universe that came into existence through natural or supernatural events.
I'm really sorry that it wasn't quite clear what I wanted to discuss, because due to my vagueness most of your writings were just a waste of your time. Nevertheless I found it very interesting and I have to restrain myself from responding to the second part of your post. Maybe I'll start a discussion on these matters later, I'm afraid I haven't got enough time to start another thread about it now.
greets Stellatic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2004 6:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2004 2:08 PM Stellatic has replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 41 (109885)
05-22-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
05-19-2004 2:34 PM


Hi jar,
jar writes:
Model 3 does not have to be Atheistic. A universe that came into being through chance/or natural events does not preclude GOD.
That's right. In principle there could be a God that came into being together with the universe or existed before that time, but did not create the universe. Atheistic is probably not the best word, but I had to give it some name, right?
jar writes:
There can be the GOD that is the trigger mechanism that initiates the big bang and then all else simply moves forward through chance/or natural events.
Sure, but that would be Model 2, wouldn't it? The fact that after creation the universe follows natural laws (at least most of the time), explains why physics is so useful. Besides, if God created the universe, he obviously designed the laws of physics, so in a way still controls the universe.
Greets Stellatic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-19-2004 2:34 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 41 (109897)
05-22-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Stellatic
05-22-2004 10:57 AM


But the only distinction between Young Earhh and Old Earth creationism IS the course of events. Are you seriously asking for a way to tell that one is true and the other is false without considering the differences between them ?
As to your second point it really isn't different from what I said. Substituting God for a viable natural mechanism still has the same problems and even if we accepted that there was some prior cause that we did not know, the assumption that it was a God would be such overkill that parsimony would favour a natural cause. There is never any need to assign a proposed cause any capabilities beyond those needed for the explanatory role it plays.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Stellatic, posted 05-22-2004 10:57 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stellatic, posted 05-25-2004 7:43 AM PaulK has replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 41 (110353)
05-25-2004 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
05-22-2004 2:08 PM


Hi PaulK,
PaulK writes:
But the only distinction between Young Earth and Old Earth creationism IS the course of events.
I disagree. YEC and OEC differ in their statement at what point in time the universe was created. They do not necessarily have to propose a different course of events. If the universe was created some 6000 years ago, it is still possible to calculate further back to find out what the universe would look like if it already existed at that time. You would expect (but even this is not necessarily true) that at some point this calculating back doesn't make much sense anymore and basically we end up at such a point: a spacetime singularity at what usually is called the Big Bang.
Click image for full size version
PaulK writes:
As to your second point it really isn't different from what I said. Substituting God for a viable natural mechanism still has the same problems...
It really is different from what you said and I'm not substituting Gods for viable natural mechanisms. I understand now that you tend to the atheistic model, because it seems to me that your idea of substitution is dominated by your prejudices. An equally prejudiced creationist would probably say something like: "Those atheists are just substituting a natural mechanism for a viable God". I'm trying to leave all my prejudices behind in order to `develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue'.
I was just saying that from our viewpoint, there is no way to distinguish between a universe that came into being through natural events or a universe that was made by God. The above picture illustrates this: the history of the universe after it came into being is the same for all three models.
PaulK writes:
... and even if we accepted that there was some prior cause that we did not know, ...
'prior cause'? I'm sorry, but what do you mean? A prior cause to the ultimate cause? A prior cause to a natural mechanism? A prior cause to God?
PaulK writes:
... the assumption that it was a God would be such overkill that parsimony would favour a natural cause. There is never any need to assign a proposed cause any capabilities beyond those needed for the explanatory role it plays.
I didn't assign any capabilities to this God beyond creating the universe. But if this God could create a universe, there probably wouldn't be many things he couldn't do, would there? Anyway, all other properties of God do not matter in this thread; the creationists models include models with Gods that just create universes and do nothing afterwards.
Greets Stellatic
This message has been edited by Admin, 05-25-2004 08:00 AM

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2004 2:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2004 9:39 AM Stellatic has replied
 Message 17 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-25-2004 1:52 PM Stellatic has replied
 Message 26 by bob_gray, posted 06-09-2004 4:35 PM Stellatic has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 41 (110367)
05-25-2004 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stellatic
05-25-2004 7:43 AM


Well I'm afraid that you're still wrong.
Aside from the fact that the creation date itself is part of the course of events, there are also the events which accumulate over time (e.g. radioactive decay) and the formation of the Earth's geology. OEC's can largely accept mainstream accounts of Earth history. It is only the history of life where OECs significantly differ from the mainstream.
On the second point I am not being prejudiced at all - I am simply pointing out how science operates. If we have a viable natural mechanism to explain an event it is certainly unscientific to attribute it to a God instead.
And no, I did not mean causes prior to the "ultimate cause" (whih would be self-contradictory), I mean causes prior to those known or inferred by us.
If you are going to insert God into a chain of causation it must be either in place of another cause or prior to the entire chain. Where else is there ?
And finally by using the words "God" and "He" you *are* attributing capabilities beyond those needed to generate our universe to your proposed cause. We don't need to assume a personified cause with all the capabilities that assumes at all. But if we do not then we are just left with a natural cause instead of a God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stellatic, posted 05-25-2004 7:43 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stellatic, posted 06-02-2004 7:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 17 of 41 (110425)
05-25-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stellatic
05-25-2004 7:43 AM


Stellatic writes:
I disagree. YEC and OEC differ in their statement at what point in time the universe was created. They do not necessarily have to propose a different course of events. If the universe was created some 6000 years ago, it is still possible to calculate further back to find out what the universe would look like if it already existed at that time. You would expect (but even this is not necessarily true) that at some point this calculating back doesn't make much sense anymore and basically we end up at such a point: a spacetime singularity at what usually is called the Big Bang.
What you seem to be proposing is the idea that the universe could've been created with apparent age. In which case, yeah... there'd be no way of determining a difference between models (1), (2) and (3).
But the idea that the universe was created with an apparent age is not a valid scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be tested.
What test could you possibly device that would differentiate a 6000 year old earth created with an apparent age of 4.5 billion years from a world that really is 4.5 billion years old? (you yourself admit that there is none)
If we were to allow such a hypothesis to be seriously considered then we'd also have to seriously consider the possiblity of Last Thursdayism - the idea that the Universe was created with apparent age, last thursday.
So if you view models (1) and (2) as both being based on creation with apparent age, then the difference between (1), (2) and (3) is that(3) requires that you believe in what you can observe, while (1) and (2) require that you don't believe in what you can observe.
(3) would be a valid scientific hypothesis, (1) and (2) would not.

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stellatic, posted 05-25-2004 7:43 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 5:03 AM Maxwell's Demon has not replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 41 (112346)
06-02-2004 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
05-25-2004 9:39 AM


Hi PaulK,
PaulK writes:
the fact that the creation date itself is part of the course of events
Funny, in your first post you said I was conflating two different issues (ultimate cause / course of events) and now you're saying they are in fact one! It basically depends on whether you take the course of events to be the open interval 0 < t or the closed interval 0 <= t. In your first post you chose the open interval and I would prefer this definition; in this case the course of events is completely unrelated to this discussion.
I don't understand why you keep on bringing it up. In order to not ending up discussing the history of the universe, I defined the three models as general as possible. They only differ in their statements concerning the origin of the universe.
PaulK writes:
If we have a viable natural mechanism to explain an event it is certainly unscientific to attribute it to a God instead.
I'm still able to turn it into a prejudiced creationist's phrase without any obvious lacks in his reasoning as compared to yours: "If we have a viable God to explain an event it is certainly unscientific to attribute it to a natural mechanism instead."
By using 'viable' you are somehow assuming that this natural mechanism could be tested, verified and falsified. If this is what you mean by 'viable', I'd like to say some things about it. In this case it surely would be a scientific model, but merely because it was assumed to be beforehand. If the atheistic model would be: "The universe came into existence through chance and/or natural mechanisms and these natural mechanisms are assumed to be 'viable' (i.e. testable, verifiable, falsifiable and thus scientific).", yes, it would be scientific, but I don't think it counts. If you say a natural mechanism is testable, then you have to give an example of an experimental test that can be carried out. As far as I'm concerned, there are no such testable natural mechanisms for the origin of the universe. If there are, I'd like to hear about them.
PaulK writes:
I mean causes prior to those known or inferred by us.
That is the meaning that seemed most logically to me, but in this case, what do you mean by:
PaulK writes:
even if we accepted that there was some prior cause that we did not know
It seems to me that either the latter half is by definition true (we don't know the causes prior to those that are known to us) so that we just have to accept it, or that you are taking into account the possibility of no cause at all, which I would find rather interesting and would like to go into in more detail.
PaulK writes:
We don't need to assume a personified cause...
Ah, that's what you mean by capabilities. Yes, I guess you are right then: that would be an assumption. But would the cause 'God without being a person' then be a natural mechanism? Isn't it true that by being a natural mechanism, additional capabilities are also assigned to the ultimate cause? Saying the ultimate cause was a natural mechanism is something else than saying there was an ultimate cause. I think by saying it was a natural mechanism, it is assumed that this mechanism would continuously produce infinitely many universes, except when by creating one universe the parameters of this mechanism are changed in a way that ends the process.
But before we're going deep into the discussion how many assumptions would be involved by each of the models, let's take a step back and think about what it would mean if one of the models involved more or more complex assumptions. In Message 14 you said:
PaulK writes:
parsimony would favour a natural cause.
You are saying that the model with the smallest set of assumptions would be the one parsimony would favour, but the question was whether science could favour one of them, not whether parsimony could favour one of them. If we're going to ask parsimony, then why not the credibility, the popularity, the simplicity, the complexity or even the beauty of the model? It appears that in your opinion the model parsimony would favour is the model science would favour too. It sounds reasonable, but do you have a reason for this opinion? That would interest me, so please explain.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2004 9:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2004 12:29 PM Stellatic has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 19 of 41 (112503)
06-02-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stellatic
04-21-2004 10:29 AM


Why stop at 3?
I would agree with your statement that "Science can NOT make a distinction between these three models". The first two are matters of religion and not of science. How could science possibly hope to address questions about something for which there exists not one shred of evidence, nor is there likely to ever be short of divine intervention? For this reason I would have to disagree with your conclusion, the first two models are not science at all.
I do have a follow up question. You did say you weren't entertaining any so feel free to disregard it.
I'm not sure why you decided these were the only three "viable" models. I know I have seen others. In fact just yesterday I saw one from Custard here:
http://EvC Forum: If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it? -->EvC Forum: If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?
The question is: If I included the link above as #4 and Kent’s Last Thursdayism as #5 on your list isn't your proposition still just as valid/invalid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stellatic, posted 04-21-2004 10:29 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 5:08 AM bob_gray has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 41 (112766)
06-04-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stellatic
06-02-2004 7:21 AM


I am afraid you are talking complete nonsense. The formation of the Earth is an event and when it happened is part of the course of events. Even if that were no the case OEC's do NOT assume that the Earth just hung about unchanging up until 6,000-10,000 years ago - they accept that many things happened prior to that time.
And none of this mentions ultimate causes at all - so your suggestion that I was making the same error as you is an obvious absurdity. Just as it is absurd to drag up irrelevencies like the distinction between closed and open intervals.
But then again if you DIDN'T want to discuss the history of the universe then you should clearly have excluded the YEC position because it differs radically from the others on that very point. You haven't even stated how YEC's and OEC's differ on the origin on any point other than when it happened ! But that point and what follows from it ARE the history of the universe - that IS the primary disagreement between OECs and YECs in the scientific arena. It is clear that you did not "carefully" choose your positions to avoid discussion of the history of the universe at all.
On to your prejudiced creationist. He can make the assertion but he would be talking rubbish. Whereas I would still be making an entirely correct statement. Then of course you have to drag up irrelevancies like whether we have a conplete natrual explanation for the origin of the universe - when I never claimewd that we did nor is it relevant to the point I was making.
If you want to put God into the history of the Universe then EITHER God has to be placed as a prior cause to those we know of OR God has to be substituted for one of the causes we do know of. Neither is scientific. And your prejuidiced creationist who wants to rewrite the scientific method to give results he likes can't change that.
And science includes parsimony as one of its criteria - so all else being equal "pasimony favours" means that "science favours". So if you want to insist on an intelligent cause you need to argue specifically for an *intelligent* cause. And if you want to argue for an infinitely powerful cause then you are out of luck. Parsimony will never let you arge for more power than is required to produce the results you are attempting to account for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stellatic, posted 06-02-2004 7:21 AM Stellatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Stellatic, posted 06-09-2004 4:53 AM PaulK has replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 41 (113768)
06-09-2004 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
06-04-2004 12:29 PM


I'm sorry
Hi PaulK,
Reading your post, I got the idea that you were a bit pissed-off. I'm really sorry if I pissed you of, I didn't intend to do this. I can give an answer to your last reply, if you still want this. Otherwise I will let it rest for a while.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2004 12:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 1:50 PM Stellatic has replied

  
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 41 (113771)
06-09-2004 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Maxwell's Demon
05-25-2004 1:52 PM


Hi Kent,
No, I'm not proposing apparent age, at least not in the sense that certain things have been created on purpose in such a way that it looks to have a certain age in every possible way, but is in fact younger. Although this certainly is a possibility and it's OK for anyone to believe this, we will not take this possibility into account. Not because it's impossible, but because it's untestable by definition. It would be different if the model would explain that there are good reasons for it to be created in that way, but an entity that by definition exactly mimics another non-existent entity for no good reason is not testable, so unscientific. It certainly could be true, but it has no value for science. If science would have to take these kind of things into account (including Last Thursdayism, did you invent this yourself? Very funny !), the only conclusion science could draw would be: "Cogito ergo sum" (Descartes).
What I meant was, that when you're using one dating method, you shouldn't be surprised to get an age higher than the age of the universe, because you don't know what the situation was at the beginning of the universe. If on the other hand, several dating methods result in the same age, that would be a coincidence, which would tend to falsify theories that have no explanation for this.
But anyway, your post set me thinking and I do agree with you on some points. PaulK also pointed out to me that there are events that could favour or disfavour the YEC-model. In fact I realize now that I gave some examples of them in my original post, so my proposition was actually a bit ill-considered.
As for the geological dating issue, the YEC-model needs, in order to earn scientific status with model (2) and (3), to do one of the following:
  1. Disprove the consistency of ages of rocks determined with geological dating.
    I've seen some YECs try to do this, but most of them ended up with conspiracy theories like "Those evolutionists only publish the consistent results to hide the inconsistencies in the ages of rocks". I don't think this is the way. When you want to check the consistency of geological dating, you have to date some rocks with several methods yourself and, this is the most important thing, do it without any expectations. Popper says about this: "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.". ( Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13. ) I know this is true from my own experience !
  2. Design its own model for geological dating that shows the same consistency but results in lower ages.
    I think, though I'm not an expert in geology, it will be possible to design such a theory by just taking a different set of assumptions. It will take some time to work this out of course and since I'm not really a YEC myself I don't feel any tendency to try. I will take a look if someone else did.
If they have done one of these two things, I might grant them even a higher scientific status, as long as the earth's decaying magnetic field and the Oort cloud are not solved issues to me. Whether they will or not, it follows now that my proposition is false, there are conceivable events that could grant model (1) higher or lower scientific status. I'm a bit anxious to say this, because no YEC joined this discussion which is a bit unfair. Anyway, as long as no YEC joins and disagrees with us, I will revise my proposition:
Proposition
Science can NOT make a distinction between model (2) and model (3). No conceivable event could favour/verify/falsify one of them and not the other one. Thus both have equal scientific status.
Greets Stellatic

"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-25-2004 1:52 PM Maxwell's Demon 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