Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 3:16 AM
19 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
21Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 166 of 303 (242946)
09-13-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:46 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen

We know that gravity will be the same tomorrow because we know the universe operates by laws and not whim. And this is because most of Western empirical science started from the Bible's recognition of a law-bound Nature made by a rational orderly God. We may not know exactly WHAT gravity is but as long as we can measure it and predict it we have a testable science. We'd never have had a science of any great value without the revelation of the God who runs things by Law. Without that faith in the lawful orderly behavior of the physical world everything would be in doubt.

You're getting rediculous. You don't need to have a concept of God to understand that if you drop something, it's going to fall every time. Computer science has nothing to do with God. Flight has nothing to do with God - most of your peers at the time of the Wright brothers' flight said that "if God had meant man to fly, we would have wings." Modern chemistry had its roots in alchemy, a practice fundamentalists would likely have called witchcraft and heresy. TO say that all science comes as a revelation from God is completely rediculous and false.

And you're using a double standard. You will allow for changes in the laws of physics in the past to account for Biblical inerrancy like the Flood, but you admit that uniformism is true today.

Bring this up in an appropriate topic if you see it happening. Off-topic here.
-AdminBen

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:32 PM


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32229
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 167 of 303 (242947)
09-13-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DBlevins
09-13-2005 11:00 AM


Re: I don't buy it
But I do feel the same way The Literalist feels -- give me a few billion to take on the evolution paradigm and I'll work hard at it. I'll comb the Christian schools and churches for the smartest most science-oriented geek type kids who are also genuine literalist Bible believers, and I'll find the best science teachers to groom them and we'll set up labs and field work and a reading load that should rival any scientific establishment in the world. THEN we'll start to see some progress in this debate.

I just wanted to point out that this has basically already happened historically. Catastrophism was the name of the game at one time. We had people gathering data and making observations based on that paradigm. We can imagine them running around looking at the geology around them, thinking "Wow, that flood was awesome. The bible says it happened; now let’s find the evidence for it." They assumed that the flood happened, much like you do. Some went around thinking; wouldn't this be great to glorify God, by understanding his creation. They then went around gathering evidence and debating how the world could appear the way it appeared to them. They proposed hypotheses, and scratched their heads. They came across problems with their previous view of the world. Issues in their observations and data came up, which made supporting a strictly catastrophist viewpoint untenable.

Yeah, like unconformities and the fossil sequence. Neither of those things should have had the power they had to unseat the Bible. There are other interpretations possible. And this is not a matter of evidence, this is purely a matter of interpretation.

The geology of the world just didn’t want to support their notions of what happened. They were able to use their brains to tease out theories and use their eyes to observe how things were being formed then. They could see beaches at work, sandbars change, rivers erode. While they couldn’t see mountains forming, there were active volcanoes they could study. They noticed patterns, similarities between rocks in differing locations, and clues in rocks that point to processes at work today. Fossils were a big hit. They began to question the idea that the earth was static and unchanging, an idea they got from the bible.

Interestingly those very same clues are used very profitably by creationists. There is nothing in them that demands the OE interpretation. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that says the world is static and unchanging. They simply hadn't worked out the implications of the Fall and the Flood which imply massive and violent changes in the physical universe. Creationists are starting to do this now. The earlier Christians abandoned the Bible in favor of their fallen scientific imaginations when they should have gone back to the Bible to rethink their naive misreading of it.

Because they could not observe how everything formed they had to propose theories to ask how some things might have happened. Certain rocks types cannot be observed to be in the process of forming. They may no longer be forming, forming somewhere we can not observe, or they are in the process of forming but this is taking so long it can not be discerned. We only have a limited lifespan after all. They came to hold a more rational viewpoint on the processes that mold and create the land we see.

No, they came to hold a particular interpretation, but there are other interpretations possible and creationists have found some and continue to look for them.

They began to realize, the processes we see today must have been the processes that happened yesterday, and will be the processes we will see tomorrow.

I believe this is axiomatic based on the Biblical revelation of a lawful universe made by a Law giving God, that it came out of Christian Biblical presuppositions. Whitehead attributed the scientific method to the thinking of medieval monks who were steeped in Christian assumptions.

But just because the processes of the universe are predictable does not mean that there weren't EVENTS that changed things. And this is a problem creationists have with the uniformitarianist supposition.

They continued to work together to uncover more knowledge and strengthen or throw away old ideas. All throughout this process they tested their hypotheses and theories, or someone tested it for them.

This needs to be pinned down to particulars sometime because OE and the ToE rest not on testable hypotheses but on interpretations and imaginative scenarios and plausibilities alone. The preponderance of the evidence itself does not incline toward those interpretations.

All of this present science we have today has been built upon the observations, data, tests and retests and theories of a multitude of people working to expand our knowledge of the world we live in, throughout time. Science works because it isn’t exclusionary. Anyone can do it if they have the inclination. All it requires is hard work, basic intelligence, a common methodology, and honesty. It takes hard work to find and read what others have proposed, to go around observing the tops of mountains, or working in the lab. Most humans have the basic intelligence required. A common methodology is needed for others to understand and test your ideas. If you are not honest to yourself and others, your ideas are likely to be invalid or untestable.

Kinda sounds like what Freud called the Family Romance, science style, but I won't go there. I don't think it is honest of scientists to label anything with the interpretative baggage of evolutionism. Instead of calling something an x-millions of years old descendant of such and such, it should be called by its actual physical characteristics. THAT would be honest.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 12:10 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:00 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15237
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 168 of 303 (242950)
09-13-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:37 AM


Re: No Catch 22
Do you understand that your opponents do NOT agree with your presuppositions ?

Do you understand that if they DID agree with your presupposiitons they would also agree that hte FLood happened, that the Earth is young etc. ?

Do you understand that if you want your presuppositions to be accepted then it is your responsibility to argue FOR them ? By refusing to do so you may place yourself at a disadvantage, but one that is entirely of your own making.

quote:

In any case my presupposition is that the Bible is God's word, that it is to be read as written, including Genesis, and that therefore the Flood did happen, and if these assumptions are excluded from debate about these very questions, this is as good as denying YECs the right to hold them, and that's stacking the deck, and that makes debate impossible. And I mean REALLY impossible, not just difficult. All the complaints against YEC methods here are fundamentally about our believing these things.

THat's complete rubbish. Your presuppositions are not excluded from the debate - they are part of what is being debated. That is why they cannot be used as arguments IN the debate. You are not being denied the right to hold your views - your demands are tantamount to denying your opponents the right to hold their views. Te deck is not stacked against you - you are demanding that the deck should be stacked in your favour. Debate is not impossible - but it would be if your demands were accepted.

As I've said there is NO demand that science trumps all else - the science forums are limited to scientific arguments but - even there - you are not required to personally beleive a conclusion simply because it is scientific. As I said the science forums are for arguing which view the empirical evidence supports.

Essentially your precondition for a "real" debate is that your opponents should agree to surrender without a fight. Can't you understand that omitting such a condition is hardly stacking the deck against you ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:06 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:24 PM PaulK has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 169 of 303 (242954)
09-13-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen

Obviously we are miscommunicating and should end this conversation.

I agree that we are miscommunicating. But it isn't as simple as ending the conversation, if that means you will continue to post offensive statements.

Let me try to make my point another way:


Here are three statements that I might make, if pretending to be Faith:

Scientists are making choices that I see as going against the Word of God.

Scientists are making choices that go against the Word of God.

Scientists are choosing to go against the Word of God.

The first of those is a statement about the behavior of scientists, and is presumably correct.

The second is also a statement about the behavior of scientists. It is a statement that I believe to be wrong, but that I would nevertheless understand as communicating your opinion.

The third is a statement about the intentions of scientists, and is both false and offensive.

I am asking you to choose wording that comments on the behavior of scientists, and does not make false and offensive allegations about their intentions.

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 170 of 303 (242975)
09-13-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
09-13-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
there is only one bear Kind, and the koala and the panda are types that got bottlenecked somewhere

ROFL

Here we go again. Failing on the facts. By the way did you read my last post? Message 131

Big difference between a koala and a panda. Koala is a marsupial, panda is a placental.

Don't worry though. This is a common creationist mistake. Simple innocent ignorance. Kind of like how most creationists will put the tasmanian wolf and an artic wolf in the same kind. Gotta love the awesome power of kinds!


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:56 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 2:37 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 3:09 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:49 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 171 of 303 (242990)
09-13-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Jazzns
09-13-2005 1:44 PM


Those crazy Kinds
Don't count your victory yet, I once saw Kent Hovind in this corner, and he argued his way out quite easily. This is basically what he said:

We don't know what kinds are, we can have our ideas, but we can't know for sure any more than you can define species [he was talking to a biologist that was trying to establish what constitutes a seperate species of woodpecker]...for all I know the whale and the fish are the same kind.

There you go, from the king of crazy creationists himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 1:44 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 3:03 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6708
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 172 of 303 (243000)
09-13-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Modulous
09-13-2005 2:37 PM


This is priceless.
quote:
This is basically what [Ken Hovind] said:

...For all I know the whale and the fish are the same kind.


Ha ha ha ha. And he wonders why even the main creationist groups don't take him seriously.

I remember that Niles Eldredge in his book The Monkey Business remarks that he suspects that creationists would be happy to put all the known species in a single "kind" as long as humans remain a separate distinct "kind".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 2:37 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 173 of 303 (243001)
09-13-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
09-13-2005 12:20 PM


Re: No Catch 22
The idea that certan debates should have preconditions of the sort you suggest is not unreasonable - if it is stated upfront - but it can't be what Faith means.

Dude, check out post 151 and the top of 163. How is this not exactly what you said is "not unreasonable"?

For a start Faith doesn't restrict herself to threads with such conditions. And if it isn't stated upfron hten Faith has no right to impose it on others.

I agree 100%. But up until now, we've forced any debate into the science forums, where NO presuppositions would occur. Do you think that any thread which had such a presupposition would get promoted into the Science forums? Hell no. There's just no place to put them.

That's why I've suggested creating a forum where such presuppositions are stated up front.

So it can't be what Faith means in her claim that the deck is stacked against her. Her comments only make sense if she means that she wants her belief that "God said X" to be accepted as a valid arguemnt for X.

It's like you're trying to force words into her mouth. Even if this is what she felt before, she's stated twice on this thread that it's not the direction she wants to go now. Why ignore that in favor of making your own interpretations of past events?

PaulK to Faith writes:

Your presuppositions are not excluded from the debate - they are part of what is being debated. That is why they cannot be used as arguments IN the debate.

What happened to making presuppositions as being "not unreasonable" ? What's the point of making a presupposition if it's questioned?

You've never heard an argument starting with the statement "ASSUME THAT X IS TRUE." ? That means, don't question the truth of X.

Essentially your precondition for a "real" debate is that your opponents should agree to surrender without a fight. Can't you understand that omitting such a condition is hardly stacking the deck against you ?

Yes it is. By refusing to allow a precondition, you're not allowing any person, YEC or not, to ask the question "Does the known observations of our world show evidence of a global flood?" Forget if it came from a "Bible" book, if Faith had a dream about it, or a bottle found in an ocean suggested such a thing. When you don't allow presuppositions, you don't allow explorative questions.

You can find the question not interesting, or not worth asking. That means, don't participate in the debate. But not allowing somebody to ask a question about interpreting data is "stacking the deck against them" in my view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 12:20 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 3:31 PM Ben! has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6708
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 174 of 303 (243003)
09-13-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Jazzns
09-13-2005 1:44 PM


Re: Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
quote:
Big difference between a koala and a panda. Koala is a marsupial, panda is a placental.

I believe that it was Robert Byers who, a long time ago on this board, was trying to argue that all the Australian animals are just normal placentals that microevolved their pouches and other distinctive marsupial traits due to a common environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 1:44 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 3:35 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 175 of 303 (243005)
09-13-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DBlevins
09-13-2005 11:00 AM


Re: I don't buy it
It takes hard work to find and read what others have proposed, to go around observing the tops of mountains, or working in the lab. Most humans have the basic intelligence required. A common methodology is needed for others to understand and test your ideas. If you are not honest to yourself and others, your ideas are likely to be invalid or untestable.

I agree, and that's kind of the point of this thread. To find a way of debate where YECs can focus on the data, do investigations, and see truly what the state of the evidence is.

I think there's a good chance it leads to better methodology. Let YEC run it's course through the data. If the current data can't support YEC or a flood, a YEC will be DRIVEN to search for new data (just as you described). I think it would be great to have YECs involved in field work. People who have an internal motivation to do research turn out to be really hard working, in my experience. And if the current data CAN support YEC or a flood... then we should all be aware of that interpretation.

I believe if we open up a place where YECs are allowed to make presuppositions and to examine the data by forming alternative hypotheses, there's a better chance that better understanding and examination of the facts will happen. When all debates degrade into arguing about presuppositions, no progress can be made. The data is going to speak one way or another. The point is to open up a way for that to happen.

The only other option is to kick YECs out, to have no place to have interactive discussion, and to allow the culture of YECs who are not well educated in science to develop theories in isolation. I'd rather promote education in emprical methods by exposing YECs to data, and to let them try to work through the data themselves. In an interactive debate environment, if we structure it well, it will be impossible to run from any evidence. Either an interpretation works with the evidence or it doesn't.

I think it's at least worth a try. Certainly what we have going on here doesn't work.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I think it illustrates the benefit of exposing people to raw data. People want to get this stuff right. Even if the data opposes them it may not lead them to different conclusions, but it would lead them to search harder for supporting evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:00 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 1:00 PM Ben! has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 176 of 303 (243006)
09-13-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:07 PM


Re: I don't buy it
Faith,

Let's try and steer this discussion as a discussion about methods, not a discussion about observations, data, or whatnot. If the thread gets away from the main point, it's just going to be a huge mess.

I'm in the middle of trying to draw it back to some semblence of order.

Thanks,
Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15237
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 177 of 303 (243007)
09-13-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:06 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Message 151 agrees with your statement - and 163 contradicts it.

If all Faith wanted was a few threads where YEC views weren't challenged - where that was part of the rules set up beforehand then she couldn't argue that the rules were "stacked" against her. If she hooses to participate in threads without such rules - as she has - then she could have no complaint under your intepretation.

Her complaint that debate is impossible under the current rules would also make no sense. How could asking for threads where there is no debate on the subject of YEC make debate possible ? And if it would then why isn't she proposing such threads, instead jumping on to other threads with no such rule and then compaining that the ruels are rigged against her ?

Her complaints ONLY make sense if she means that she wants to use her YEC beliefs as an argument while being exempted from supporting those beliefs with reason or evidence.

You also manage to confuse the idea of allowing SOME threads where the YEC view is not challenged (for the purposes of working out YEC responses to the evidence) with the idea that YEC beliefs should be accepted as a valid argument. I do not insist that every thread should deal directly with the main debate but it would be completely wrong to simply allow YECs to shut down debate in the name of "fairness".

I'm afrad that by mixing material from two posts without considering the context you are really confusing the issues. Do you really believe that unless we accept the YEC view that the Bible is the literal word of God and that their interpretation is the correct one we cannot set up individual threads where YEC is accepted for the sake of argument or for the purposes of the topic ? Because that is what you are saying.w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:06 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:47 PM PaulK has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 178 of 303 (243008)
09-13-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Chiroptera
09-13-2005 3:09 PM


Re: Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
Which is flaming retarded.

The best you could get is to say that all mammals on the ark were marsupial and the placentals microevolved out of them which is "more" in line the evidence. Although going from a pouch to a placenta in just a few 1000 years is so unfathomably rediculous to begin with that the two propositions are just about equal in terms of their inanity.

But the point is just that even with regards to their own theories YECs simply fail right out of the gate with the facts. They don't know them. They don't bother to know them. It is exceedingly clear the more I get involved in the debate the more I feel that they do not CARE to know them.

That is why YECism is not empirical investigation and can never be. That is why it shouldn't matter if Faith goes on and on about her resolute idea that her YECism should be a debate presumtion. I say why not; and I'll put money that in less than 10 posts there is going to be a disagreement with the facts and the whole exercise gets blown out of the water just like it always does.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 3:09 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 303 (243009)
09-13-2005 3:39 PM


Off Topic
A lot of you are WAY off topic here. Don't make assertions without tying them back to the original topic. If somebody makes an off-topic assertion that you want to reply to, find another thread (or open a new thread) to address it. Invite the poster to respond to you there.

It's just not that hard.

I started marking topics that were off topic, but there's simply too many to address. Let's start thinking about these things before posting. You can't discuss every issue in every thread, you just get a mess.

Please take better care of this before posting.

Thanks.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 4:03 PM AdminBen has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 180 of 303 (243012)
09-13-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
09-13-2005 3:31 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I'm sorry if I wasn't careful and mixed ideas. It's simple:

Have one place where YEC interpretation of the bible can be challenged (is this not "The Bible: Acurracy and Inerracy" or "Bible Study" ?)

Have another place where YEC interpretation of the Bible can be taken as a presupposition, and see if the existing data can be fit with that.

I'm sorry for being confusing. I really don't see this to be a difficult issue. It's even independent of what Faith's intentions or beliefs are. If we want YECs here, and we want to subject YECs to dealing with evidence, I think this division is more constructive than forcing YECs to go into a science forum. Questioning science at the level YECs are asking to question it simply doesn't fit into our idea of debate in science forums. YECs need room to explore and to face the evidence themselves.

That's not to say all YECs need it. I'm sure some YECs can debate, and want to debate, straight science. But there's definitely a clear population that need such a place. I think turning them away is a disservice to everybody.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 3:31 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 09-13-2005 4:01 PM Ben! has responded
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 4:17 PM Ben! has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019