Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 5:46 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Heads up creationists...we don't have parents, only storks!
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 1 of 15 (17162)
09-11-2002 9:09 AM


I found this disturbing "scientific" evidence that humans do not reproduce. The evidence is so solid I would rank it as equal to the evidence for creationism....I can hear the price of stocks in condom and birth control companies crashing down!
***************************************

Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory
of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in
the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour
of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught
in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth.
Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This
can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the
theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately
nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a
newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of
sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where
sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive
correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are
decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific
methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the
stork.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 11:36 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 15 (17167)
09-11-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mammuthus
09-11-2002 9:09 AM


Nice try. A for effort. F for content.

You can't compare apples and oranges and come up with a valid conclusion. This is utter foolishness and hardly even worth wasting time on except that Mammuthus seems to actually believe his argument is valid.

My answer to this foolishness is that Mammuthus is using the word science in two different ways and expecting us foolish people to fall for his trick.

The birth of a child is scientific truth that has been first of all seen millions of times over, thoroughly researched, and that research has been repeatedly demonstrated in front of all of our eyes. This truth has been unequivocally established by research and experimentations using Normal or Operational science. Operational Science is science which deals with REPEATABLE OBSERVABLE processes in the PRESENT.

Mammethus would like to have his silly people believe that Creationists are so anti-science that they refuse to accept this type of scientific truth that has been repeatedly tested and observed in the lab. This is of course a bunch of hooey. ( I like that word.)
What kind of fools does he take his readers for? I hope you have seen through his ploy. It is an insult to our intelligence.

No true creationist would deny the validity of Normal Operational science. This kind of science has helped us better understand our world and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, curing of diseases, and even to putting men on the moon. Creationists have been very involved and made great contributions in this type of science since science began. In fact, precisely because they believe in a God who designed the Universe with order and design, they are better equipped to look for that order(scientific laws) and design in things. The proof of that is that so many great scientists of the past were Christians and Creationists.

However, when it comes to evolution, we are not talking about Normal Operational Science. Evolution fits under what is better referred to as Origins Science or historical science, which cannot be repeated and tested and observed. Origins science or historical science, helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past. We need to make a distinction here between the two or we'll end up believing silly arguments like what Mammethus is trying to snow us with.

When we come to Origins science, to evolution, we enter the realm of speculation. No one was there to actually observe what happened as Mammethus seems to infer from the kind of comparison he is making. There is no way around that fact. The past in that sense is unobservable and unrepeatable. Origins science has more to do with the law of cause and effect Eeverything that has a beginning has a cause and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. Where is the scientific error in that way of thinking?) But, in the naturalistic worldview, there is no room for a material intelligent designer, so all that is left for the materialist is to appeal to a non-material designer for life and try and make the facts fit the theory.
Of course, Creationists will invoke the miraculous here because of our worldview, but that is no different from the irrational adherance to the materialistic philosophy of life that agnostics, atheists, materialists, etc. do.

We creationists don't believe that the laws that govern the universe are necessarily the same laws that made the universe, but evolutionists assume this to be the case. This is another a priori assumption that both sides make.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati illustrates this point in the following example:
"The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through silly assertions such as (what Mammethus is saying) the following by Levitt (as quoted by Lerner):
"Evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton."
However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.
To explain further: THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THE OPERATION OF A COMPUTER ARE NOT THOSE THAT MADE THE COMPUTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Lerner's(Mammethus's) anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyse a computer's workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead.

Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.

CONVERSELY, THE FACT THAT THE CODING MACHINERY WORKS ACCORDING TO THE REPRODUCIBLE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY WERE SUFFICIENT TO BUILD SUCH A SYSTEM FROM A PRIMORDIAL SOUP."

No further comment.

Sorry, Mammethus, I allowed myself to get sidetracked from our other debate by this one. I'll be back.
Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 9:09 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-11-2002 1:18 PM Tokyojim has responded
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 8:52 PM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 5:12 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 10-12-2002 12:27 PM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 15 (17174)
09-11-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tokyojim
09-11-2002 11:36 AM


This is also how missionaries sound to us as well.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

(Funny thing is is that I thought of posting this to you BEFORE I read your profile.)

Your misuse of science to try and prove Creationism sounds just like this stork account to us.

Also, I see that you're yet another creationist who likes to mis-use probability theory as well.

The odds against winning the big lottery are higher than life forming on its own, but people do win the lottery and life is here. When you come down to it the odds really are just 50/50. Either it happens or it doesn't.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 11:36 AM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 09-11-2002 3:19 PM nos482 has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 7:18 PM nos482 has responded
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 6:20 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 15 (17180)
09-11-2002 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nos482
09-11-2002 1:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
This is also how missionaries sound to us as well.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv


Oh wow! I saw this years ago and lost the link. Many thanks!

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-11-2002 1:18 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 15 (17194)
09-11-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nos482
09-11-2002 1:18 PM


Oh shoot, now everyone knows I'm a missionary. I am so embarrassed!!!

I don't care if that is how creationists sound to you. The obvious misuse of the word science to try and dupe the poor and unsuspecting is the problem in this account.

Regards, TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-11-2002 1:18 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 6:23 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded
 Message 12 by nos482, posted 09-12-2002 8:23 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 7 of 15 (17207)
09-11-2002 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tokyojim
09-11-2002 11:36 AM


Dear Tokyojim,

Mammuthus is the master of fallacies, as I already pointed out in my responses to his letters. Now, he tries to bemuse the site by faulty analogies. It is some sort of elusive debating tactic, I guess.

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 11:36 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 5:20 AM peter borger has responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 15 (17231)
09-12-2002 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tokyojim
09-11-2002 11:36 AM


You are anti-storkist...well...we storkists will fight to get the stork theory of reproduction into the schools to give a balanced view of this controversial "just a theory".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tokyojim:
[B]Nice try. A for effort. F for content.

You can't compare apples and oranges and come up with a valid conclusion. This is utter foolishness and hardly even worth wasting time on except that Mammuthus seems to actually believe his argument is valid.
*****************************

I believe that this is the exact arguements creationists use...glad to see you observed what nonsense it is.

My answer to this foolishness is that Mammuthus is using the word science in two different ways and expecting us foolish people to fall for his trick.
*************************************

OK Tokyo...define science and the principles that underlie the scientific method..

The birth of a child is scientific truth that has been first of all seen millions of times over, thoroughly researched, and that research has been repeatedly demonstrated in front of all of our eyes.
*************************************************

Oh really...so you have seen thousands of births demonstrated in front of your eyes? What is a scientific truth. You can only infer from what others have observed (indirect test). You just described evolution as well by the way.

This truth has been unequivocally established by research and experimentations using Normal or Operational science. Operational Science is science which deals with REPEATABLE OBSERVABLE processes in the PRESENT.
**********************************************+

So a baby born yesterday does not count? Define your term. What is Normal science...you are handwaving like a storkist...could to see you converting

Mammethus would like to have his silly people believe that Creationists are so anti-science that they refuse to accept this type of scientific truth that has been repeatedly tested and observed in the lab.
*****************************************

My silly people? No thanks..they are all yours. Have you ever actually read and primary literature on evolution...
Please define each of the following and provide references for
selection, genetic drift, neutral theory, Fisher-Wright, evolution for that matter

Also, lease explain the "theory" of gravity and its supporting evidence.

This is of course a bunch of hooey. ( I like that word.)
What kind of fools does he take his readers for? I hope you have seen through his ploy. It is an insult to our intelligence.
*******************************************************
I think storkism is very revealing regarding creationist intelligence.

No true creationist would deny the validity of Normal Operational science.
***************************************

No true creationist knows how science works in the first place.

This kind of science has helped us better understand our world and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, curing of diseases, and even to putting men on the moon.
***************************************

Give 10 examples with references from biology. Your vague answers are handwaving.

Creationists have been very involved and made great contributions in this type of science since science began. In fact, precisely because they believe in a God who designed the Universe with order and design, they are better equipped to look for that order(scientific laws) and design in things. The proof of that is that so many great scientists of the past were Christians and Creationists.
**********************************************

Name 10 famous creationist biologists from the 20th or 21st century. there sure are a lot of great non-christian and atheist scientists to. Darwin was a christian but was at least wise enough not to take the bible literally. You really don't know what you are talking about.

However, when it comes to evolution, we are not talking about Normal Operational Science. Evolution fits under what is better referred to as Origins Science or historical science, which cannot be repeated and tested and observed. Origins science or historical science, helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past. We need to make a distinction here between the two or we'll end up believing silly arguments like what Mammethus is trying to snow us with.
*********************************

Why is storkism sillier than creationism...you have not rebutted a single point in my original post.

When we come to Origins science, to evolution, we enter the realm of speculation.
*******************************************

Oh, and creationism is NOT speculation? How gravity works is speculation to or do you think you can float around at will?

No one was there to actually observe what happened as Mammethus seems to infer from the kind of comparison he is making. There is no way around that fact. The past in that sense is unobservable and unrepeatable.
************************************************

Nobody was around to see what I ate for breakfast this morning either...do you then conclude I never eat breakfast? By this logic then the bible is totally false and should not be taught since after all, nobody alive today actually saw anything that happened.

Origins science has more to do with the law of cause and effect Eeverything that has a beginning has a cause and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past. Where is the scientific error in that way of thinking?)
*****************************************

Because the statement is false...complex systems can be formed without intelligence.

But, in the naturalistic worldview, there is no room for a material intelligent designer, so all that is left for the materialist is to appeal to a non-material designer for life and try and make the facts fit the theory.
****************************************

Sounds like creationism...except that there is not thoery..no testable hypothesis, and now data.

Of course, Creationists will invoke the miraculous here because of our worldview, but that is no different from the irrational adherance to the materialistic philosophy of life that agnostics, atheists, materialists, etc. do.
*******************************************************+

Ah..so you only believe in your worldview because you have to tick off agnostics, materialists, and atheists....your beliefs must be very strong.

We creationists don't believe that the laws that govern the universe are necessarily the same laws that made the universe, but evolutionists assume this to be the case. This is another a priori assumption that both sides make.
*********************************************

Boy...the air is really blowing from all your handwaving.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati illustrates this point in the following example:
"The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through silly assertions such as (what Mammethus is saying) the following by Levitt (as quoted by Lerner):
"Evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton."
However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.
******************************************

....again you are talking out of your posterior. Please provide references to the retractions of all the papers that do show this.
Besides, there are information decreasing changes as well i.e. chimps have a gene that we don't have...
: Varki A.
Loss of N-glycolylneuraminic acid in humans: Mechanisms, consequences, and implications for hominid evolution.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001;Suppl 33:54-69.

Again...you don't even know the science you are criticizing.

To explain further: THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THE OPERATION OF A COMPUTER ARE NOT THOSE THAT MADE THE COMPUTER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Lerner's(Mammethus's) anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyse a computer's workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead.
***********************************

Ah...since your argument is crap you turn to misrepresenting my position...just like a good storkist..oops..meant creationist...how does it follow that I reject studying electron motion through semi-conductors in terms of natural laws because a computer is a stupid analogy with the origin of life?

Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.

CONVERSELY, THE FACT THAT THE CODING MACHINERY WORKS ACCORDING TO THE REPRODUCIBLE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY WERE SUFFICIENT TO BUILD SUCH A SYSTEM FROM A PRIMORDIAL SOUP."
******************************************

Which reproducible laws of chemistry dictate that DNA could not come from a "primordial soup"? Provide them with references please.

No further comment.
******************************

Glad to hear it...all donations to the storkist society of America can be deposited in a fund to get Hovind out of jail for beating up his tenants so that he can convert to storkism and spread the word!

Sorry, Mammethus, I allowed myself to get sidetracked from our other debate by this one. I'll be back.
******************************

Looking forward to our other debate.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 11:36 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 15 (17232)
09-12-2002 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by peter borger
09-11-2002 8:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Tokyojim,

Mammuthus is the master of fallacies, as I already pointed out in my responses to his letters. Now, he tries to bemuse the site by faulty analogies. It is some sort of elusive debating tactic, I guess.

best wishes,
Peter


Ah...so you think I am the master young jedi
Actually you have only pointed out that you don't know much about mutation, selection, or evolution in responses to my letters.
If my analogy is faulty then rebutt each point...

And if anyone uses elusive debating tactics it is you....
To this day you have failed to provide
1) your alternative theory to evolution
2) how it is a testable hypothesis
3) supporting data from multiple disciplines

the reason being...I don't think you can.

You and Tokyojim are probably irritated with storkism because it reflects all the false logic you and other creationists use over and over and over.

From every post you or tokyojim have ever made, you should both be jumping to push the theory of storkism into the science classrooms worldwide...

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 09-11-2002 8:52 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 10:36 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 10 of 15 (17233)
09-12-2002 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nos482
09-11-2002 1:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
This is also how missionaries sound to us as well.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

(Funny thing is is that I thought of posting this to you BEFORE I read your profile.)

Your misuse of science to try and prove Creationism sounds just like this stork account to us.

Also, I see that you're yet another creationist who likes to mis-use probability theory as well.

The odds against winning the big lottery are higher than life forming on its own, but people do win the lottery and life is here. When you come down to it the odds really are just 50/50. Either it happens or it doesn't.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]


LOL!!! Fantastic link nos482!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-11-2002 1:18 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 15 (17234)
09-12-2002 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tokyojim
09-11-2002 7:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
Oh shoot, now everyone knows I'm a missionary. I am so embarrassed!!!

I don't care if that is how creationists sound to you. The obvious misuse of the word science to try and dupe the poor and unsuspecting is the problem in this account.

Regards, TJ


or like you, the obvious misuse of mythology to dupe the uneducated into giving up their freedom and money to your organization.

Again..define science and the principles that underly the scientific method...from your reply to my stork post it is clear you have absolutely no concept of how science works....
...it is almost frightening how well the stork theory of reproduction matches creationist logic...you and Peter Borger are in denial of that fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 7:18 PM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 15 (17243)
09-12-2002 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tokyojim
09-11-2002 7:18 PM


Originally posted by Tokyojim:

Oh shoot, now everyone knows I'm a missionary. I am so embarrassed!!!

I don't care if that is how creationists sound to you. The obvious misuse of the word science to try and dupe the poor and unsuspecting is the problem in this account.

Regards, TJ

"word" science? Yes, your continuing mis-use of science to mislead others is a problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 7:18 PM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5775 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 15 (17490)
09-15-2002 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
09-12-2002 5:20 AM


Dear mammuthus,

As mentioned before, I will address a new theory.

However, this theory does not include the origin, since it cannot be addresses by science. Why not? Because of the principle of genetic uncertainty. This concept has recently been introduced into scientific thinking (Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477.), and holds that we are not able to know the origin of (redundant) genes. We observe a similar idea in abiogenesis that has been relocated extraterrestrial. Apparently human science is unable to address these questions. So, there is a lot of space left for creation.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 09-12-2002 5:20 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 09-16-2002 4:25 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4585 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 14 of 15 (17508)
09-16-2002 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
09-15-2002 10:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mammuthus,

As mentioned before, I will address a new theory.

However, this theory does not include the origin, since it cannot be addresses by science. Why not? Because of the principle of genetic uncertainty. This concept has recently been introduced into scientific thinking (Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477.), and holds that we are not able to know the origin of (redundant) genes. We observe a similar idea in abiogenesis that has been relocated extraterrestrial. Apparently human science is unable to address these questions. So, there is a lot of space left for creation.

Best wishes,
Peter


Dear Peter,
I am actually not asking you to address abiogenesis at all. Evolution does not address this issue either. While I disagree that one cannot study abiogenesis, I do not consider it part of the theory of evolution. The debate we and others have on this board is regarding evolution except in the origins forum. So the hypothesis of yours I am interested in hearing is that regarding an alternative to the theory of evolution. We can debate origins to if you wish but I am more interested in evolution.

cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 10:36 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 15 (19730)
10-12-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tokyojim
09-11-2002 11:36 AM



[QUOTE][B]pushing electrons around instead.

Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc[/QUOTE]

[/B]

To capitalize on the boldness this thread engenders instead this reasoning only makes it to the capital analogy provided one also ALLOW no matter the consequence that truth be told that genes ARE thinkable as logic circuits. I can not think this speculative way as I can speculate for then I would be admitting that the difference of a brain of a fish and frog is simply an AND gate.

Even though I could follow up the divisions the gender of the thread sexualizes I think there is more continiuty to not DISSED it.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tokyojim, posted 09-11-2002 11:36 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019