|
Author
|
Topic: Investigation of Biblical science errors
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Well, let's look at those claims.
First, the best estimate I have been able to come up with is that Daniel was written somewhere around 605-536 B.C. Let's see how Daniels does as a History source. First, the Medes and Persian, Babylon and Greece were all pretty well established empires when it was written. Afterall, Daniel was written over a hundred years after the Iliad. So I am not surprised that it mentions what were world powers at the time. I did not find the mention though of Rome in either 2, 7 or 8. Perhaps you can point it out? PG No one is saying that there is not historical references in the Bible. There most certainly are. But there are also many glaring Historical errors. Time after time things are mentioned as historical references which simply did not happen. Some examples are the flood, the battle at Jerico (if it did happen it did not happen when the Bible says), the Exodus (if it happened it was certainly several orders of magnitude smaller than the myth), the story of Moses in Egypt and on and on. Sure there is some history in the Bible, but like the Iliad and many other stories from the period, it takes external corroboration to seperate the truth from the fiction.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 8:59 AM | | PecosGeorge has not replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5926 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
Re: Why
PcosGeorge
If no science, how about some history: I would point out that this topic is dealing with science in the bible not history. However,why do you not open up a new topic dealing strictly with the historical accuracy of the bible and see if you can debate it there?
You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-13-2004 8:59 AM | | PecosGeorge has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 48 of 138 (114927)
06-13-2004 10:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
06-13-2004 9:02 AM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
holmes writes: I want you to explain how my post did this. I did not single out any post as an example, yours included.
holmes writes: I went on to suggest that your argument actually seems to provide more support for other ancient religions which had better (or more similarities to science with their) creation myths. How should we judge them then? I would suppose that you could judge them with the same degree of ductility and incredulity with which you may desire to view any ancient religious writing. It is not for me to adjudicate the level of approbation you may tender any writing, religious or otherwise. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by Silent H, posted 06-13-2004 9:02 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by Silent H, posted 06-14-2004 6:50 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5838 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 49 of 138 (114999)
06-14-2004 6:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by DarkStar
06-13-2004 10:55 PM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
I did not single out any post as an example, yours included. You said the latest posts. Not some of the latest post, or a few of the latest posts. Mine was in the last 4 posts critical of your position. I guess I was assuming that would put me in the latest posts category. I guess if you are going to criticize posts so thoroughly, and USE THEM TO SAY YOUR POINT WAS PROVEN, you should make clear who you are criticizing, and explain why the others which disprove your point have not been addressed.
It is not for me to adjudicate the level of approbation you may tender any writing, religious or otherwise. So you feel there is no objective criteria on which to judge the scientific merits of creation myths? That seems to be opposite of the stand you have taken in previous posts. By the way I am not going to ignore the fact that you dodged the hymen question. That is a complete error which science will never suddenly find to be true, unless one day evolution or scientists create "first sex detector" breakaway hymens. Does the fact that the Bible holds old wives tales true when constructing its laws have no implications for its actual scientific content?
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 10:55 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 12:12 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 50 of 138 (115013)
06-14-2004 8:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
06-13-2004 2:19 AM
|
|
This is just like when scientists confirm something "our mothers already know". Journalists love those stories; they eat that folksy shit up. But the fact that the conventional motherly wisdom - mothers, after all, not being a bunch of dummies - occasionally hits it big isn't evidence that getting pregnant puts you on the phone with God. Why would scientific accuracies in the Bible be any more meaningful?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2004 2:19 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 51 of 138 (115059)
06-14-2004 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Silent H
06-14-2004 6:50 AM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
In message #31 you partially quote my statement in message #25, stopping in mid-sentence, and then offer the following;
holmes writes: Okey doke. While you're at it I'd like you to explain how science will confirm that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth. It is well known that the Bible not only suggests this, but that the Xian church fought to stop heliocentric theory because it was incongruous with those writings. While you offer no substantiation for the above statements, (not to imply that you could not do so if you really desired to emphasize that this is true), you then move outside the realm of my initial point by offering the following;
And moving on from space, I have had a longstanding question that no Xian has ever adequately answered... In a portion of the Bible which discusses marriage "laws", it states that a groom may accuse his wife of not being a virgin on their wedding night. If he is right then he gets a divorce and she gets stoned to death. I can understand how someone, while executing a superficial reading of my posts, can lead themselves to believe that I have sanctioned a position that is in reality, nearly opposite of my initial claim. I have edited the quote in message #25 as follows:
darkstar writes: I will, however, eventually dig up a bible and offer other scriptures that are used to support the idea that science has, or eventually will, confirm much of what the bible has to say about our planet and the heavens, but understand, I have stated already that the bible is not a science book and anyone who thinks they can use it as such is fooling themselves and no one else. I find it telling that you would quote me in such a lazy manner, not only stopping in mid-sentence but then completely ignoring my point about those who would choose to use the bible as a science book.
holmes writes: You said the latest posts. Not some of the latest post, or a few of the latest posts. I have edited message #36 for your pleasure. Feel better now? Then.....
holmes writes: I went on to suggest that your argument actually seems to provide more support for other ancient religions which had better (or more similarities to science with their) creation myths. How should we judge them then? To which I replied;
I would suppose that you could judge them with the same degree of ductility and incredulity with which you may desire to view any ancient religious writing. It is not for me to adjudicate the level of approbation you may tender any writing, religious or otherwise. I am quite sure that the above statement is a complete clarification of my position regarding the responsible party when an opinion or position is held about any writings. But still you wrote;
holmes writes: So you feel there is no objective criteria on which to judge the scientific merits of creation myths? That seems to be opposite of the stand you have taken in previous posts. I suppose I will have to accept the fact that you find it difficult to understand that expressed thoughts and ideas must be kept intact in order to avoid a cognitive dissonance from developing within the structure and context of any given discourse. You seem to prefer quotes removed from their context in order to support your position. Of course there is always a possibility that objective criterion may be employed, but I have not seen it demonstrated by many thus far. I find no fault in those who choose to believe in god, or random chance, or natural selection, etc., etc., etc., with the exception being those individuals who practice prejudicial exclusion of opposing thought and ideas that is based solely upon their conviction that error holds no place in their personal ideology. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by Silent H, posted 06-14-2004 6:50 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Silent H, posted 06-14-2004 1:56 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5838 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 52 of 138 (115088)
06-14-2004 1:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 12:12 PM
|
|
Sorry to create a false illusion. I sometimes clip a longer quote, using the first portion to let you know what part I am addressing of a post, and NOT to suggest that was all that was said. If I missed the point of any of your posts then I apologize. I do get that you say people shouldn't use the Bible as a science book, but there is a vast distance between THAT (which suggests it doesn't list all truths), and admitting it also includes grievous ERRORS. Given that the Bible not only doesn't have enough details to be used as a science book, but that it also contains ERRORS, seems to undercut a belief that the knowledge contained within is heavensent. It also tends to make one skeptical for holding out that any particular thing which it says may turn out to be scientific fact at some point in the future.
I am quite sure that the above statement is a complete clarification of my position regarding the responsible party when an opinion or position is held about any writings. Well you are wrong. It seems that if you make arguments regarding positive correlations between Biblical passages and scientific discoveries, you are arguing that there is some form of objective criteria with which to judge its truth. If not, what are you arguing? What is the point of making statements regarding Bible passages that describe similar phenomena to what science has discovered? If this is what you are arguing, then my question holds enough weight that you can toss off a "I can't tell you how to judge something" answer. How would YOU assess a creation mythos that does a better job, or is more consistent, with scientific discoveries? If that has no impact on you, then why not?
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 12:12 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 53 of 138 (115093)
06-14-2004 2:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by sidelined
06-13-2004 6:28 AM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
sidelined writes: We are not predisposed DarkStar but neither are we awed by references that are in no way scientific. No one here has given even a remotely plausible example of how the bible has any scientific value whatsoever. We have pointed out time and again that they are in fact in error. I am of the belief that you are indeed predisposed, and the above statement seems to confirm that belief. I find it difficult to fathom the idea that you have not been exposed to a plethora of examples of scientific references in the bible and yet you hold firm to the notion that the bible cannot have "any scientific value whatsoever" because "no one here has given even a remotely plausible example".
sidelined writes: We are not closed minded but neither are we gullible. As has been pointed out you have yet to present a valid arguement that actually is on the mark.We haven't even begun to apply the same level of demands upon your 'evidence' as science is subjected to constantly. Such statements as you offered in your post positively reveal the accuracy of my point, which for purposes of clarification, will be posted here with those accurate references pointed out.
DarkStar writes: Some of these latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point that nothing in the bible that is shown to a determined non-believer will ever be able to convince them that there are indeed references to scientific realities that science has only recently uncovered and found to be true. The reason for this, as I have always stated, is that they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science. It does not matter what they are shown, as they have already pre-manufactored in their unbelieving mind an excuse for not accepting anything that is presented to them, regardless of the obvious references, which are clearly visible to the well educated, open-minded individual. They keep their mind closed at all times, and at all costs, to the possibility of any valid statements in the bible when it comes to science. These same individuals will claim that they are not so disposed, and that if they are shown any real evidence of biblical accuracy concerning science, that they will willingly accept such evidence but the reality is that they never will, they never can, due to their pertinacious attitude, coupled with their aversion to the possibility of the bible being true. I have always, and shall always, approach every aspect of life with my mind opened to new possibilities. That it why I can easily validate the biblical references to scientific realities, without automatically having to validate any religious belief in and of itself. Now if the bible is true, and I most surely am not stating here that it is, it would be a most interesting thing to have a conversation with the late Dr. Carl Sagan who said;
"You have to know the past to understand the present." and.....
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries." Cosmos p.333 and.....
Quotes From A Pale Blue Dot..... "It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." "But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." "Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." Carl Sagan 1934-1996 I have spent countless hours being fascinated by Dr. Carl Sagan. He is sorely missed. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 6:28 AM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 2:38 PM | | DarkStar has replied | | | Message 56 by sidelined, posted 06-14-2004 6:27 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 54 of 138 (115097)
06-14-2004 2:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 2:10 PM
|
|
But still no information given.
DarkStar The topic is the investigation of Biblical Science errors. So far you have not refuted any of the scientific errors that have been introduced. It is easy to alledge some vast conspiricy, some predispostion on the part of the participants. But to support such an assertion, you must show some logical or rational structure. You cannot simply say "Nah-nah-nah. You're wrong and I'm right". The issue is not whether or not there is any science in the Bible, the issue is that there is so many errors in what passes for science in the Bible that it is an unreliable source. Science, to be of any value, must increase knowledge. It must provide a way to understand what was previously unclear. It must more adequately explain observations than the previously held theory. If you know of examples from the Bible that can do that, please present them.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 2:10 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 4:14 PM | | jar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 55 of 138 (115126)
06-14-2004 4:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
06-14-2004 2:38 PM
|
|
Re: But still no information given.
jar writes: So far you have not refuted any of the scientific errors that have been introduced. So far I have not seen any scientific errors introduced with any semblance of clarity or reference, which would be required if one has any expectation of receiving an honest and thoughtful response. jar writes: The issue is not whether or not there is any science in the Bible, the issue is that there is so many errors in what passes for science in the Bible that it is an unreliable source. That statement must be viewed as dealing primarily with individual perceptions of what constitutes science and therefore can not be considered a valid statement. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 2:38 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:28 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5926 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 56 of 138 (115161)
06-14-2004 6:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 2:10 PM
|
|
Re: Exactly as I predicted!
DarkStar
I find it difficult to fathom the idea that you have not been exposed to a plethora of examples of scientific references in the bible LOL where do you get that idea? I have had many examples given me over the years and none of them held up under scrutiny and in fact were not always wrong in their statements but the excerpts used were twisted into gibberish or they were claimed to demonstrate things that were not even remotely related or the person making the claim was in error of the actual scientific understanding. Perhaps you have one you could show that we could debate upon?
they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science. Again,sir, I am not pre-disposed.Instead of attacking character traits you have no evidence for how about presenting an actual science fact from the bible that you are aware of and defend your position.
These same individuals will claim that they are not so disposed, and that if they are shown any real evidence of biblical accuracy concerning science, that they will willingly accept such evidence but the reality is that they never will, they never can, due to their pertinacious attitude, coupled with their aversion to the possibility of the bible being true You make a bold statement sir would you care to show us an example and back it up with a bible excerpt that is scientifically accurate or willy ou merely leave it to be a statement of opinion.? After all it is easy to be brave from a distance.LOL I am aware of Carl Sagan and since I have always been smitten by the night sky so I too felt loss with the passing of Sagan.He also had a wonderful sense of the need to apply sceptism and in the book The Demon Haunted World {subtitle: science as a candle in the dark} he introduced a Bullshit detector.It goes as follows.
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? The second one Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view Is what I propose we do.Will you give us your example and back it up?
You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 2:10 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 57 of 138 (115162)
06-14-2004 6:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 4:14 PM
|
|
Perhaps you can start with those refernced in
these posts.
Message 1Message 13Message 22Message 31 I'll add a few more. Why is there the story of a Flood that never happened, a Creation myth that has every thing wrong and a desciption of an ship that could never have floated?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 4:14 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 10:41 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 58 of 138 (115205)
06-14-2004 10:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
06-14-2004 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: Perhaps you can start with those refernced in
jar writes: these posts. Message 1 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) I saw two incomplete references. No reference point was given for either of them. Please supply those for me. Thanks. jar writes: Message 13 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) Well I don't read the bible much but even I was able to see the error in your interpretation. Lateral air flow continually causes winds to blow both north and south. Perhaps you should have waited for crashfrog's illustrations in Message 19 which clearly confirm the referenced passage in the bible. jar writes: Message 22 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) Did you even bother to check these out for yourself? No, obviously not. You expect me to do so when it is quite obvious that you did not do so yourself or you would not have even considered them. I think Sidelined is either jerking your chain or he never bothered to check them out either. "Daniel 4:11" is about a dream daniel was told, and in reference to "Matthew 24:29", Sidelined errs in his thinking again. The moon does indeed give off light. It may be a reflected light but it is light nevertheless. And as for "Mark 13:24,25", this is obviously speaking about asteroids. Did you or Sidelined even bother to check out the Greek? Obviously not or you would have known this already. jar writes: Message 31 (Thread Investigation of Biblical science errors in Forum Is It Science?) Another meaningless post. Holmes too neglected to supply reference points, and I have already reponded to him in Message 51, asking him to supply the reference material for his statement. Holmes writes: Okey doke. While you're at it I'd like you to explain how science will confirm that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth. It is well known that the Bible not only suggests this, but that the Xian church fought to stop heliocentric theory because it was incongruous with those writings. I believe this was originally posted in Message 31 and as yet I have noticed no offering by him of that material. Regarding the hymen issue, this is hardly a scientific reference. Let Holmes give me the biblical reference where this practice was commanded by their god and I will reconsider this issue. Holmes made several assertions in his post, not one of which contained any sort of reference point other than the generic "remember this is the bible talking" mantra. I suggest that the three of you forget about expecting me to look up any more biblical scientific references for you because it is quite obvious that none of you was willing to perform even the slightest bit of investigative research, which you fully expected me to do, and when I complied I find out that you three, and most likely crashfrog as well, would rather waste peoples time then do your homework. Do not attempt to waste my time again. You will be ignored! Jeers (color edited to assist reading) This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-18-2004 09:02 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:28 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 2:39 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5926 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 59 of 138 (115223)
06-14-2004 11:45 PM
|
|
|
Do you suppose anyone will ever stick around and actually debate the supposed science in the bible instead of pulling a hissy fit and excuse themselves into non-participation? Oh,well,why does that not surprise me? It is far easier to whine and skip away in merry ignorance than debate and be forced to think.
You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 3:02 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 60 of 138 (115262)
06-15-2004 2:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 10:41 PM
|
|
and most likely crashfrog as well, would rather waste peoples time then do your homework. Didn't I agree with you that there was science in the Bible? Because I'm pretty sure I did, in two separate posts. Well, whatever. I can recognize a hasty retreat when I read one. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-15-2004 01:39 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 10:41 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 5:09 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2