Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 256 of 300 (289897)
02-23-2006 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Chiroptera
02-06-2006 12:12 PM


Re: No creator, but science
No, it cannot be demonstrated. Here you make inference out of some information. The inference is certain processes cannot and will not occur without a Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Chiroptera, posted 02-06-2006 12:12 PM Chiroptera has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 257 of 300 (289898)
02-23-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Percy
02-12-2006 7:31 PM


Re: No creator, but science
You are right on your explanation of the genetic information and alleles. Once again, we go to the basics. For any mutation ot occur there has to be a functional living cell. Now, where did the cell come from? Not by self assembly of amino acids. Protein synthesis does not occur. It must be directed and regulated. Chemical evolution does not occur. Therefore cell does not come into existence. If there is no cell, then there is no mutation. Our general question is How did the original functional living cell come into existence?
Mutation itself is a well organised and fully directed process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 02-12-2006 7:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Percy, posted 02-24-2006 9:25 AM inkorrekt has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 258 of 300 (289903)
02-23-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by inkorrekt
02-23-2006 7:55 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Well, that is a load of misinformation.
However, from my observations, you won't accept the correct information anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:55 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 10:51 PM ramoss has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 259 of 300 (290023)
02-24-2006 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by inkorrekt
02-23-2006 7:51 PM


Re: God is God, is God ,is God
inkorrekt writes:
If God created everything, then God was not created. Otherwise, God becomes one of the creations which has no power to create. God was never created. But, He always existed. This is hard for me to understand.But, this makes lot of sense to me. Who am I to question my creator?
This makes a lot of sense from a religious standpoint, but it appears to present problems from a scientific perspective. You were replying to the opening post, and one of the problems I see with that post, from the point of view of ID proponents, is that it assumes the designer is God.
One of the fundamental premises of ID is that we do not know, and indeed cannot know, who the designer is. This premise is also unscientific, since true science would not rule out a priori what can and cannot be known. Examples of science ruling things out would be relativity, which holds that matter and energy cannot exceed the speed of light, and quantum mechanics, which requires a tradeoff between knowledge of momentum and position. These principles are well established by both theory and experiment.
So if ID is going to rule out knowledge of the designer, it has to justify it.
Naturally, ID cannot by any means concede that the designer is God, for two primary reasons, though there are undoubtedly many others. First, the connection to evangelical Christianity's concern about evolution are already a matter of very lengthy public record, and so the obvious conclusion that ID proposes God as the designer for religious rather than scientific reasons.
Second, there is insufficient scientific evidence of God. He is not, at this time, a scientific phenomena or force that can be scientifically advanced as responsible for any observations, and there is a lack of any theoretical foundation for his existence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:51 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 260 of 300 (290029)
02-24-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by inkorrekt
02-23-2006 7:55 PM


Re: No creator, but science
I agree with Ramoss that your post is largely incorrect, it might help to point out why.
inkorrekt writes:
Millions of mutations were carried out on Drosophila Melanogaster. So far they have never identified one useful mutant.
Though I cannot be sure, this could quite possibly be true. Perhaps someone here knows and can fill us in.
Randomness cannot produce any order.
Though this is by no means always true, I think most people would agree with this in the context of evolution, but no one claimed that randomness, by itself, produces improvements. More on this later.
Biological evolution does not occur without chemicals. Chemical evolution cannot occur.
This is a good first sentence for a paragraph presenting the arguments for why chemical evolution isn't possible, but appearing by itself it is just a bare assertion with no supporting argument or evidence.
Therefore biological evolution is impossible.
Because your starting premise was unsupported, your conclusion is undemonstrated.
The actual process of evolution, whether chemical or genetic, is not just randomness. It is randomness and selection. The selection process is carried out by the environment. In the evolution of living organisms the environment prevents those least suited for that environment from surviving to reproduce, thereby reducing in frequency of occurrence their particular genes and allele combinations. Chance favorable mutations and allele combinations carry forward and spread throughout populations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:55 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 261 of 300 (290034)
02-24-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by inkorrekt
02-23-2006 8:03 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Hi Inkorrekt,
Would you like some help with the dBCodes for quoting? Let me know. They're fairly easy to use.
inkorrekt writes:
Percy writes:
How do you determine whether something "cannot self assemble or self synthesize"?
This is plain and simple. We have all built some models. What happens when we buy them from the store? They are all well packed. We bring them home, follow the instructions and put different components in the proper place. They do not self assemble themselves. This is asimple analogy. Even the basic components of a model do not self assemble.
It's important to carefully define terms. When you said that "whatever cannot self assemble or self synthesize is the work of an intelligent designer", what did you mean by "self assemble" and "self synthesize"? If you meant that if you put the raw materials for something like proteins in a beaker and left them alone and waited for them to self assemble into proteins, then I'm pretty sure that's not what the origins of life community means by "self asembly". Just as the complex organic molecules of the Miller/Urey experiment were not formed by pouring raw materials into a beaker and letting them sit, self assembly processes are not expected to be spontaneous. We don't know how the original replicator came about, but on the early earth there were a huge variety of temperatures, environments, chemicals, compounds and elements, all cycling away year after year for hundreds of millions of years across the entire planet.
But about assembling a model, are you sure that's the correct analogy? One has to take care when arguing by analogy - you have to be certain the analogy is valid, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case here. The parts of a model airplane do not behave at all like the raw materials of proteins.
A better analogy, still not one that applies to protein formation, but better in the sense that it shows how randomness can lead to order, is to dump a lot of tennis balls into a large box. The tennis balls won't be packed very tightly. Now shake the box vigourously back and forth for a few minutes, and when you're done you'll find that the tennis balls have packed themselves into an orderly array.
In other words, you must chose carefully when arguing by analogy. There is nothing in your model analogy that argues against protein formation. Independent of who is correct about protein self-assembly, the absence of any self assembly capability in toy models is not a relevant consideration.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 8:03 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 262 of 300 (290035)
02-24-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by inkorrekt
02-23-2006 8:15 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Hi Inkorrekt,
I think we've actually reached a conclusion we both agree upon. I was replying to this from your Message 239:
Inkorrekt in Message 239 writes:
Anything new requires intelligence. Ingenuity and creation requires some one who has the capability of design.
I replied with the example of mutations, and you've just replied:
You are right on your explanation of the genetic information and alleles.
So you now agree that there are at least some things new that do not require intelligence. Do I have that right?
Mutation itself is a well organised and fully directed process.
Why do you call mutations "well organized"? The most common modifier of mutation is "random", as in "random mutation". While there are such things as mutational hot spots in genomes, for the most part mutations are random both in their occurrence and their effect.
And what do you mean by "fully directed process"? Do you mean the IDer directs the process of mutation?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 8:15 PM inkorrekt has not replied

JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 263 of 300 (301910)
04-07-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


ID
Creator Created?
bkelly
Dear Mr. Bkelly,
I started reading your string and just had to through in my two cense.
At the end of your first string you ask,
Bkelly writes:
So which is it? Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?
I do believe you have over looked one possibility. According to Creationist, an Intelligent1a,b Designer1,a,b,2,3,4,5 designed this Universe1,2a,b.
The Universe1,2a,b came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. To be precise, the dimensions (Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time), particles, and energy that make up the universe1,2a,b came into existence at the beginning (The Big Bang). Now if you accept that there was a ”causal agent’ (Setting the Universe in to motion) that ”Causal Agent’, by definition, existed outside of, and separate from the universe.
By saying “the Creator1,2 had to have a creator1,2” if “the creation had a Creator1,2 ” is a fallacy of thinking inside your four dimensional box. You are applying the laws that govern this universe1,2a,b (and everything in this universe1,2a,b) to an Entity that clearly exists and operates outside of our universe1,2a,b.
By understanding that the Creator1,2 exists, and operates both inside and outside of our four dimensional universe1,2a,b (I.E. The Creator1,2 operates in 4+ dimensions and, as such, is not bound by the laws of this universe1,2a,b) you can begin to understand that the Creator1,2 in not bound by the law that ”if it exists it had to have a causal agent’. That law is a function of the restraints of the dimensions that we exist in (inside of this universe1,2a,b).
I exist in the dimensions of Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time. Everything that exists in, and is a part of this universe1,2a,b has a causal agent (something that caused it to exist). If it is of sufficient organization and complexity I can say, with certainty, that it required an intelligence1a,b to design1,a,b,2,3,4,5 it. The universe1,2a,b has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an Intelligent1a,b Designer1a,b,2,3,4,5. If you go to my string about Design (Message 103 of 138 08-22-2004 12:52 AM) you’ll see how I come to the conclusion that the universe1,2a,b had an Intelligent1a,b Designer1a,b,2,3,4,5.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When speaking on various subjects the one problem I have the most is the ever-changing way people use, and misuse, words. So, for this discussion I used these words with the following definitions. (Definition are take from Dictionary.com)
Universe:
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
Intelligent:
noun
1
a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria
(Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)
Design:
v. de”signed, de”sign”ing, de”signs
v. tr.
1.
a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
b. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
v. intr.
1. To make or execute plans.
2. To have a goal or purpose in mind.
3. To create designs.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
Creator:
n.
1. One that creates: the creator of a new television series; a born creator of trouble.
2. Creator God. Used with the.
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 04-11-2006 04:32 AM

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Parasomnium, posted 04-07-2006 10:05 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 265 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 10:33 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 266 by Parasomnium, posted 04-07-2006 10:37 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 264 of 300 (301911)
04-07-2006 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by JRTjr
04-07-2006 9:58 AM


The Colours Are Blinding Me!
Please do something about that colour, it's hurting my eyes and I can hardly read what it says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by JRTjr, posted 04-07-2006 9:58 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by JRTjr, posted 04-11-2006 4:58 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 265 of 300 (301920)
04-07-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by JRTjr
04-07-2006 9:58 AM


Interesting post. A few issues with it though:
The Universe (as defined above) came into existence some four-point smoothing billion years ago.
The first issue is unrelated to your point, but I thought it worth raising. The universe as it was defined either came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago or 4.x billion years ago or 2-5 million years ago.
. That law is a function of the restraints of the dimensions that we exist in (inside of this universe).
I exist in the dimensions of Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time. Everything that exists in, and is a part of this universe has a causer agent (something that caused it to exist). If it is of sufficient organization and complexity I can say, with certainty, that it required an intelligence to design it. The universe has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an Intelligent Designer
The central problems lie here. You say that something that comes to exist within the universe must have a causer agent, and then apply this rule to the universe itself despite the fact that the universe is emphatically not within the universe. Another potential problem comes from the idea that complex/organized things have intelligent designers behind them. This is not necessarily the case.
Further, whilst the universe could be, at this time, quite organised/complex, its not very organised or complex. It seems to be quite basic from another perspective, most of it is entirely empty with relatively small, local collections of stuff spread about, interacting with one another. Certainly, if we look at the universe from a different time perspective it may well be seen as a uniform collection of energy. As such, whether or not the universe has any measure of complexity at any given moment is entirely relative to the observor as well as the metric used to define complexity (something you left undefined).

A final point: bkelly has not been on the forums this side of 2006 - so you probably won't get a reply from them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by JRTjr, posted 04-07-2006 9:58 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by JRTjr, posted 04-11-2006 6:01 AM Modulous has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 266 of 300 (301924)
04-07-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by JRTjr
04-07-2006 9:58 AM


The Uncaused Universe
jrtjr1 writes:
{When speaking on various subjects the one problem I have the most is the ever-changing way people use, and misuse, words.}
You quote a number of definitions for each of the five terms you want defined. For instance, there are three definitions for 'universe' and no less than nine for 'design'. But you forgot to tell us which ones you are going to use. You in fact make the very mistake you complain about, i.e. not being clear in your terms. (Well, to be fair, you came half-way.)
if you accept that there was a ”causal agent’ (Setting the Universe in to motion) that ”Causal Agent’, by definition, existed outside of, and separate from the universe.
Why should we need to accept that there was a causal agent? Why can't the universe be uncaused? After all, your causal agent is uncaused, as you assert further on, and you justify this by saying that this causal agent is not bound by the law of causality because it exists outside the universe. Well, there's one other thing that necessarily exist outside the universe, and that's the universe itself. So, by your reasoning, the universe as a whole is not bound by the law of causality either. And if that is true, then there is no need for a creator.
{added by edit: I see that Modulous has made my points before me. Well done, Modulous, it's nice to see one's thoughts confirmed.}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Apr-2006 03:41 PM

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by JRTjr, posted 04-07-2006 9:58 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 267 of 300 (303103)
04-11-2006 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Parasomnium
04-07-2006 10:05 AM


Re: The Colours Are Blinding Me!
Dear Parasomnium,
Sorry for the colors, I like thing to stand out, I’ll try to tone it down.
As far as the ”Definitions’ go, I only put in the definitions that applied to the words as I used them in the posting, however, I went back and annotated them.
Parasomnium writes:
Why should we need to accept that there was a causal agent? Why can't the universe be uncaused?
I’m sorry, I said that “If you accept”; I did not state that you ”Had’ to accept it. That’s the funny thing about free will, you don’t have to accept the facts. However, it has been my experience that ignoring the face leads to great trouble.
You make a vary good point, Thank you. You and Modulous both state something to the effect of
quote:
just because everything that exists in this universe had a causal agent, this in no way effects whether or not the universe itself needs a causal agent”.
This would be a logical argument if the reason ”everything that exists in this universe had a causal agent’ had to do with something that is in this universe. The problem, however, is that the reason ”everything that exists in this universe had a causal agent’ is because the universe has Space-Time as apart of its fabric. (I.E. Space-Time is a part of what makes up this universe)
As I stated before “the dimensions (Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time), particles, and energy that make up the universe came into existence at the beginning (The Big Bang).” Space-Time does not simply exist in this universe, it is a part of what makes up this universe; and it is Space-Time that dictates that this universe, and everything in it, must have a beginning and therefore a beginner (I.E. causal agent).

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Parasomnium, posted 04-07-2006 10:05 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by cavediver, posted 04-11-2006 5:54 AM JRTjr has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 268 of 300 (303107)
04-11-2006 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by JRTjr
04-11-2006 4:58 AM


Re: The Colours Are Blinding Me!
As I stated before “the dimensions (Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time), particles, and energy that make up the universe came into existence at the beginning (The Big Bang).”
No, they did not come into existence at the Big Bang. For that to happen you would need a state of non-existence and a state of existence and some transition between those two states. Nothing like this is suggested by the Big Bang. There is simply existence.
Space-Time does not simply exist in this universe, it is a part of what makes up this universe
True
it is Space-Time that dictates that this universe, and everything in it, must have a beginning and therefore a beginner (I.E. causal agent).
The "beginning" as you call it is simply one "end" of the universe. It needs a causal agent as much or as little as any other point in space-time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by JRTjr, posted 04-11-2006 4:58 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by JRTjr, posted 04-11-2006 6:30 AM cavediver has replied

JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 269 of 300 (303109)
04-11-2006 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Modulous
04-07-2006 10:33 AM


The Universe
Dear Modulous,
You’re right about the age of the universe; I was think of the age of the universe and typed in the approximant age of the Earth. My apologies, I made the correction.
As far as the Universe not being complex, I’m not trying to be mean here, however you may want to read up on the little science has been able to deduce from the heavens. Every time we delve into her mysteries, the Universe turns out to be far more complex then we ever thought possible. Same thing with Cellular-Biology, forty years a go we though cells were simple, we now know that they are vary complex factories of Nano-Machines.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2006 10:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2006 7:58 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 270 of 300 (303111)
04-11-2006 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by cavediver
04-11-2006 5:54 AM


Re: The Colours Are Blinding Me!
Dear Cavediver,
You state
quote:
No, they (1) did not come into existence at the Big Bang. For that to happen you would need a state of non-existence and a state of existence and some transition between those two states. Nothing like this is suggested by the Big Bang. There is simply existence.
Sorry, but even Stephen Hawking seams to disagree with you on that one.
Space-time theorem of general relativity30
A mathematical theorem developed by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in 1970 establishes that if the universe contains mass, and if its dynamics are governed by general relativity, then time itself must be finite and must have been created when the universe was created.31 It proves there must exist a CAUSE responsible for bringing the universe into existence, a cause that exists and operates “transcendently,” outside and independent of matter, energy, and all cosmic space-time dimensions.
Taken from
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
1 Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time, particles, and energy

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by cavediver, posted 04-11-2006 5:54 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by cavediver, posted 04-11-2006 7:25 AM JRTjr has seen this message but 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