Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does immunity disprove the fall?
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 31 of 66 (353806)
10-03-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by AnswersInGenitals
10-02-2006 5:29 PM


Re: no it does not disprove the Fall,
But this is the whole story of creation told (twice) in less than a page. Just because details are in short supply, are we to understand that there were no details to provide? The exact path that A & E used to exit the garden is not named or described. Are we to understand that they just floated out? Exactly what foods Adam was to farm and what implements he was to use are not described or named. Are we to understand that...I just don't know what to understand if the absence of a detail means that the detail was truly absent. I could list hundreds of details that are not explicitly described in the text but that we know must have been in evidence at the time. Also, we know that man, after death, does not return to 'dust'; maggot feces perhaps, but not actual dust. So we know that we are expected to use our rational minds to fill in the blanks. That's all I'm trying to do.
you have to consider who this story was written for, when the authors wrote it, if you want to, some people don't want to.
a lot of the detail was added, since being a mythical story to explain the world around them a lot of things were not written down, since most stories change and warp and relate to who the teller is talking to.
a lot of the things we hear about this story arn't even in it, like the apple and so forth, its only called a "fruit".
i figure the authors thought of it as a fig
the book has two stories because people believed both at different times, it was after all a commity edited text
dust would be figurtive of going back to the earth, as he was considered made from the earth as the animals were
just to add, i would think that adam and eve were just the same as us, if they existed, since why would they be any different?
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-02-2006 5:29 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 66 (353812)
10-03-2006 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
10-02-2006 7:59 PM


Faith,
This concept lends strong support to the belief that when god created Adam and Eve with free will, he knew that the fall was inevitable, that he in fact planned for it.
Yes, of course. God is omniscient and omnipotent. He would have planned for all contingencies down to the last moment on earth.
Why would an omniscient god need to plan for contingencies?!
If he's all-knowing then he knew man would screw up, he knew the fall would happen. He knew it couldn't be any other way, or the notion that god is omniscient is falsified. The logical corollary of an omniscient god is that he knew he was making men flawed, & the fall is falsified. How can man "fall" further in god's view, when he knew they were made fallen?
But this raises another point, why not start with the "fall" already in effect? Why go through the motions of setting someone up in a situation that they have to fail in (the forbidden fruit)?
Mark
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 10-02-2006 7:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-03-2006 5:42 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 6:03 PM mark24 has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 66 (353819)
10-03-2006 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
10-03-2006 4:50 AM


Why would an omniscient god need to plan for contingencies?! If he's all-knowing then he knew man would screw up
But he is also omnipotent so that he is able to make himself forget something for a short (short by god's standard) period of time and thus be surprised by man's perfidy. He just has to be careful to not make himself forget that he's omnipotent and can later make himself remember what he had made himself forget. For example, if god wants to do a crossword puzzle, he just makes himself forget that he already knows the answers and has a jolly good time of it (unless its a New York Times crossword puzzle, which even god can't complete). He then makes himself remember and checks his answers. Also, being all-knowing, he knows he can remember anything he doesn't know any time he wants to, as long as he hasn't used his powers to make himself permanently forget what he made himself temporarily forget to remember. Being god is really neat. I'd still rather be Captain Midnight. But that's just me.
Regards, AnInGe
ABE, have we gotten off the topic of immunity, or is just my imagination?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : Because the voices told me to!
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 10-03-2006 4:50 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 11:41 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 34 of 66 (353880)
10-03-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by AnswersInGenitals
10-03-2006 5:42 AM


AIG writes:
But he is also omnipotent so that he is able to make himself forget something for a short (short by god's standard) period of time and thus be surprised by man's perfidy.
This is perhaps the best excuse I have ever heard for this particular dilemma. I find it ironic that it's coming from you.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-03-2006 5:42 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 35 of 66 (353918)
10-03-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taz
10-03-2006 1:48 AM


gasby writes:
the story also says that man would have dominion over all creatures.
That "dominion" would include immunity to any disease-causing creatures.
What we now know as imperfect and perfect parasites were also created then but probably had diffferent purposes or functions.
On what do you base that probability calculation?
I suspect that only after the fall did the parasites turn on mankind.
On what do you base that suspicion?
I don't think there is any place in genesis that give us a frame of reference in regard to A and E's time in Eden.
That's what I said. As far as we know, they might only have been there hours or days before they were expelled - no time for their internal parasites, etc. to kill them. Therefore, no reason to assume a magical "change" in parasites or bacteria at the "fall".
As far as we know, if they had not been expelled from the garden, they would still have been subjected to the same diseases and parasites. For all we know, they might have gained immunity because of the "fall".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 1:48 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 3:17 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 66 (353936)
10-03-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
10-03-2006 1:41 PM


Ringo writes:
That "dominion" would include immunity to any disease-causing creatures.
I'm getting frustrated by the apparent misreading of what I said. Let me make it clear. There was no disease in the garden. There were parasites and pathogens, but they didn't cause disease.
On what do you base that probability calculation?
I believe I said...
quote:
What we now know as imperfect and perfect parasites were also created then but probably had diffferent purposes or functions.
I used the word "probably" in the context of common sense perception. Again, you are certainly persistent at misreading what I said and it is getting frustrating.
On what do you base that suspicion?
Well, obviously god created every living creature before the fall and obviously there was no disease back then. Obviously, after the fall those creatures would have still been present but there was disease.
That's what I said. As far as we know, they might only have been there hours or days before they were expelled - no time for their internal parasites, etc. to kill them. Therefore, no reason to assume a magical "change" in parasites or bacteria at the "fall".
One could say that as far as we know they could have been in the garden for a lot longer than that. You can't assume something and then call it fact.
And yes, there is reason to assume that the parasites changed after the fall. Again, obviously they were present before the fall and they didn't cause any disease. Obviously, they were still present after the fall but they started to cause disease.
As far as we know, if they had not been expelled from the garden, they would still have been subjected to the same diseases and parasites. For all we know, they might have gained immunity because of the "fall".
Your "as far as we know"s are nothing but conjecture, if that. But let me turn it around. As far as we know, A and E could have been in Eden for 5 million years. Again, there is no hint in genesis to suggest either way.
And why would they gain immunity because of the fall? Remember that the creationist conception on this is that things can only get worse after the fall, not get better, because of deterioration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 1:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 5:38 PM Taz has replied
 Message 38 by Sonne, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 PM Taz has replied
 Message 48 by RickJB, posted 10-04-2006 3:52 AM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 37 of 66 (353975)
10-03-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
10-03-2006 3:17 PM


gasby writes:
Let me make it clear. There was no disease in the garden. There were parasites and pathogens, but they didn't cause disease.
You have made it clear that that's what you think, but you haven't said anything to back it up. Tell us why you think they didn't cause diseases before the "fall".
... obviously god created every living creature before the fall and obviously there was no disease back then. Obviously, after the fall those creatures would have still been present but there was disease.
It isn't "obvious" at all. Tell us why you think it's obvious.
One could say that as far as we know they could have been in the garden for a lot longer than that. You can't assume something and then call it fact.
I didn't call it a fact. I said that you can't assume that Adam and Eve didn't have diseases before the "fall". They might have had non-fatal diseases. Or they might have had diseases that didn't manifest themselves - by sheer coincidence - until after the "fall".
And yes, there is reason to assume that the parasites changed after the fall.
Then tell us what the reason is. Don't just say "it's obvious".
As far as we know, A and E could have been in Eden for 5 million years.
No.
quote:
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
And that was after Cain and Abel were born and grew up. They could not have been in the garden much more than 100 years, max.
quote:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
So the time spent in the garden was less than 15% of his lifetime - the equivalent of less than ten years in today's lifespans. It is entirely possible that Adam and Eve had long-term diseaes that they contracted before the "fall".
Remember that the creationist conception on this is that things can only get worse after the fall, not get better, because of deterioration.
It may have escaped your notice, but I'm not arguing from the creationist viewpoint. If you'll read some of my posts in other threads, you'll learn that I don't believe for a split second that a "fall" ever occured, or that there has been any "deterioration".
I have been trying to say that the fact of disease certainly does not support the fantasy of a "fall". As for immunity "disproving" it, I'm not sure.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 3:17 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 8:01 PM ringo has replied

  
Sonne
Member (Idle past 5929 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 38 of 66 (353978)
10-03-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
10-03-2006 3:17 PM


Gasby writes:
Let me make it clear. There was no disease in the garden. There were parasites and pathogens, but they didn't cause disease.
If this is so then these 'parasites and pathogens' ate what and (in particular viruses) reproduced how? Did anything die before the fall? If not, then in the case of bacteria A&E may have had some strong competition for space in the garden.
And why would they gain immunity because of the fall? Remember that the creationist conception on this is that things can only get worse after the fall, not get better, because of deterioration.
What do you mean by this? That A&E were given immunity because of the fall, to protect them? Or that they evolved immunity? If the fall was a punishment then this seems a bit strange to endow them with such an amazing defence mechanism. Regardless, it's certainly doing a great job at keeping up with the supposed 'deterioration'.
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 3:17 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 8:13 PM Sonne has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 66 (353984)
10-03-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
10-03-2006 4:50 AM


If he's all-knowing then he knew man would screw up, he knew the fall would happen. He knew it couldn't be any other way, or the notion that god is omniscient is falsified. The logical corollary of an omniscient god is that he knew he was making men flawed, & the fall is falsified. How can man "fall" further in god's view, when he knew they were made fallen?
He did not make men flawed but perfect, and with free will. This is the consistent error so many of you commit. It is not a flaw to have free will and therefore the nearly inevitable ability to disobey God, but it is only inevitable because we are creatures. So many here will insist that this is a flaw against all argument, so I don't argue it often, but I strongly disagree with that idea.
But this raises another point, why not start with the "fall" already in effect? Why go through the motions of setting someone up in a situation that they have to fail in (the forbidden fruit)?
It is impossible to start with the Fall in place since it is the result of the action of disobedience. The Fall was simply what eventually happens to a creature given free will. We cannot resist disobeying at some point. God's plan still gives us a choice -- to choose His method of salvation or not, so that it is still up to us. In the end only those who really want God will have Him, and God will have people who truly love Him and worship Him.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 10-03-2006 4:50 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-03-2006 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 66 (353994)
10-03-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
10-03-2006 6:03 PM


Faith writes:
He did not make men flawed but perfect, and with free will.
A necessary contradiction in terms! If having free will enables man to make those decisions that will render him flawed, than a man with free will cannot be perfect. If god created man perfect he created him unable to initiate actions that would render him flawed! No wheedle words you might propose can escape this absolute fact. When god gave man free will, rendering him imperfect, he has to have known the inevitable outcome. God is not some mad scientist pouring a bunch of whatever into a test tube without any notion of what might emerge. He is god. He knows with complete certainty the totality of the consequences of all his actions. To suggest otherwise is to deny and reject the supremacy of god over the universe of his creation. Faith, you are dancing very close to the precipice of blasphemy that could cast you into the darkness of eternal retribution. I fear greatly for you soul.
To AdminPD: Sorry. I saw you warning only after I hit the 'Submit' button. I will try to stay on topic (my topic, actually) for the rest of the thread. My flawed.
Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 6:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 66 (354002)
10-03-2006 6:55 PM


Topic Detour?
I'm just wondering. When a thread gets a dense series of 'Off Topic" warnings as this one has, maybe it indicates that we've exhausted all that can reasonably said on said topic, or that a more interesting and immediate subject has arisen. Would it really be all that bad if we let the thread make a small diversion, or even jump onto a new track, it that suits the participants (all under the guidance of the mod, of course?)

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 66 (354013)
10-03-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ringo
10-03-2006 5:38 PM


Ringo writes:
Tell us why you think they didn't cause diseases before the "fall".
(1) God created everything.
(2) There was no mention of disease before the fall.
(3) There was mention of disease after the fall.
(1) and (2) ==> parasites were there but they didn't cause disease
(1) and (3) ==> parasites were there and they did cause disease
It isn't "obvious" at all. Tell us why you think it's obvious.
(1) God created everything.
(2) There was no mention of disease before the fall.
(3) There was mention of disease after the fall.
(1) and (2) ==> parasites were there but they didn't cause disease
(1) and (3) ==> parasites were there and they did cause disease
I said that you can't assume that Adam and Eve didn't have diseases before the "fall".
Yes, I can.
quote:
Gen 1 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
quote:
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
quote:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground”everything that has the breath of life in it”I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
In other words, orinally man was created to "rule" over all living creatures. Rule implies dominate. If god intended for man to rule/dominate over all living creatures, why would it allowed certain living creatures to cause suffering onto the man?
Then tell us what the reason is. Don't just say "it's obvious".
(1) God created everything.
(2) There was no mention of disease before the fall.
(3) There was mention of disease after the fall.
(1) and (2) ==> parasites were there but they didn't cause disease
(1) and (3) ==> parasites were there and they did cause disease
And that was after Cain and Abel were born and grew up. They could not have been in the garden much more than 100 years, max.
There you go, 100 years. I find it hard to believe that if there was disease that the disease didn't manifest itself in a 100 years time.
So the time spent in the garden was less than 15% of his lifetime - the equivalent of less than ten years in today's lifespans. It is entirely possible that Adam and Eve had long-term diseaes that they contracted before the "fall".
Like I said, god created man to rule over all others, originally at least. Why would certain creatures, then, be allowed to cause suffering onto man?
It may have escaped your notice, but I'm not arguing from the creationist viewpoint. If you'll read some of my posts in other threads, you'll learn that I don't believe for a split second that a "fall" ever occured, or that there has been any "deterioration".
Neither of us believe for a split second that the fall ever occurred. But if we are going to assume certain things, like the event of the fall, we can't start inserting whatever we wanted.
Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 5:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 8:31 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 43 of 66 (354017)
10-03-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Sonne
10-03-2006 5:46 PM


kakariki writes:
If this is so then these 'parasites and pathogens' ate what and (in particular viruses) reproduced how?
parasites can sometimes exist without causing harm to their hosts. These are perfect parasites. Pathogens don't "eat" in the conventional sense. They reproduce by infesting our cells. Again, not all of them cause harm to their hosts.
Remember that there is a distinct difference between these parasites and the disease that they can cause. You can't automatically equate parasite with disease.
If not, then in the case of bacteria A&E may have had some strong competition for space in the garden.
The overwhelming majority of bacteria are completely harmless to us.
That A&E were given immunity because of the fall, to protect them?
Not at all. This is a shady area because we don't know either way whether they were given their immune systems before or after the fall. What we do know for certain is that they did have their immune systems AFTER the fall. We can't say whether they had immune systems or not BEFORE the fall because there is nothing we can base on.
Or that they evolved immunity?
Nope.
If the fall was a punishment then this seems a bit strange to endow them with such an amazing defence mechanism.
You're kidding, right?
Imagine that you are an evil king who enjoys watching people suffer. You've caught 200 enemy combatants and you want to see them suffer as much as possible. Are you going to just kill them with a single sword blow or are you going to slowly torture them to death?
Sometimes, the ultimate punishment isn't immediate death. I can think off the top of my head a hundred things worse than immediate death, and one of them is suffering for years with a disease because the immune system is fighting the disease just enough to keep you alive but it can't get rid of the disease overall.
Regardless, it's certainly doing a great job at keeping up with the supposed 'deterioration'.
Actually, no. Our immune system ain't any better or stronger than our ancestors'. The only difference is we live in a much cleaner environment than before and we are made more aware of the sanitation techniques that keep us from regularly contracting debilitating diseases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Sonne, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 PM Sonne has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Sonne, posted 10-04-2006 6:42 PM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 44 of 66 (354020)
10-03-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
10-03-2006 8:01 PM


gasby writes:
There was no mention of disease before the fall.
A lot of things weren't mentioned before the "fall". Africa wasn't mentioned. Do you assume that it just popped up out of the ocean after the "fall"?
You'll have to do a lot better than say "it wasn't mentioned" to prove it didn't exist.
If god intended for man to rule/dominate over all living creatures, why would it allowed certain living creatures to cause suffering onto the man?
Do you see anywhere in the "fall" story where it says man was to lose any of his dominion over the animals?
But if we are going to assume certain things, like the event of the fall....
But we are not assuming the event of the fall. The question is: Does immunity disprove the fall?
... we can't start inserting whatever we wanted.
Exactly. We can't start assuming that there were no diseases before the "fall".
Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.
Edited by Ringo, : Punktuation.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 8:01 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 11:37 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 66 (354049)
10-03-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
10-03-2006 8:31 PM


Ringo writes:
You'll have to do a lot better than say "it wasn't mentioned" to prove it didn't exist.
Uh... from a logical point of view it is you who has to prove that it existed. Don't you remember the you-can't-prove-a-negative part of logic?
A lot of things weren't mentioned before the "fall". Africa wasn't mentioned. Do you assume that it just popped up out of the ocean after the "fall"?
Genesis says...
quote:
Genesis 1 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Here, at least the continents are implied. There is absolutely no implication whatsoever of disease... unless of course we are going to start assuming that invisible pink unicorns exist until someone can prove their nonexistence...
Do you see anywhere in the "fall" story where it says man was to lose any of his dominion over the animals?
Yes.
quote:
Genesis 3 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
In other words, they didn't have to work for food before. Now, they do. Sounds like somebody just lost at least partial control of the world around him.
quote:
Exactly. We can't start assuming that there were no diseases before the "fall".
I am simply starting from a negative and will change my view when YOU can present some evidence that indicate disease before the fall, unless of course we can start assuming the existence of invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, psychics, and every crackpot supernatural creatures out there until I can effectively somehow prove their nonexistence.
Ringo, I'm fully aware of how logic works and what the logical fallacies are, so don't try to pull my leg again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 10-03-2006 8:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:30 AM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024