Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 136 of 304 (390516)
03-20-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by AdminQuetzal
03-20-2007 8:14 PM


Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
I do copy that. I guess I do need to read the guide lines.
I was just trying to be a little creative when I made the
'advertisement'. It gets so serious around here.
If you look over the corrispondance sense I became a member
I think you will find that I have been the target of
insults much more than the arrow of. I have listed lots
of evidence of why I think the human body is a an
intelligent design and I'm tired of being accused of
not giving any when all they do is sit around and quote
rhetoric from a book.
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 8:14 PM AdminQuetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 11:00 PM ICdesign has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 137 of 304 (390519)
03-20-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by sidelined
03-20-2007 7:54 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
sidelined writes:
I am asking you to explain why the notion of Id being required for explaining complexity falls apart when we apply the statement to the intelligence itself? Since the purpose of Intelligent design is to offer an explanation for complexity then it must also be able to explain the complexity of the intelligence itself regardless of whether they live outside of time or not.
Why? We design and build computers but what does a computer know about us? I'm afraid that I don't accept your basic premise, at least when you talk about us physically. Spiritually I believe that we do know something about the designer but that isn't part of this discussion.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by sidelined, posted 03-20-2007 7:54 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by sidelined, posted 03-21-2007 12:37 AM GDR has replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 138 of 304 (390528)
03-20-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
03-20-2007 6:34 PM


Re: The "We don't know nuttin'" argument
jar writes:
But those who argue that we cannot make judgments of GOD's competency by looking at critters are just looking for an easy copout. Of course we can make such judgments. If someone claims that the final products we call living things are the direct result of some Intelligent Designer, then it is absolutely right to judge the product in relation to the other intelligent designer we are aware of.
Well, I don't think we can make a final judgement of God's competancy by looking at critters. The human body does not measure up to the standards we ascribe generally to some Designers. That is an issue that has been dealt with in religion already. What was not dealt with was the thought that there was no 'plan' for the flaws.
The post you made about engineering and that experience goes a long way in explaining intelligent design to a new initiate, or at least getting them to think. Is is not without use to make these judgements, and I only responded to the reiteration of the idea flaw = no design because of the (perceived) feeling that this was being presented as something that would be a great stumbling block to ID. From the point of view of a recent 'convert' in creation views, there are simply too many ways around the issue to make it very significant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 03-20-2007 6:34 PM jar has not replied

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 304 (390531)
03-20-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICdesign
03-20-2007 8:47 PM


Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
I will be more than happy to help you set up a Great Debate topic. There are a couple of criteria, however:
1. You need the agreement of the person you wish to debate, in this case Crashfrog, I presume.
2. You need to specify exactly what topic you wish to discuss. One way to do this would be to propose a PNT with an opening discussion.
Let me know what you want to do.
By the way, tu quoque - literally "you too" - is a fallacy we try and suppress on this forum. Simply because someone else acts like a jerk doesn't give you license to act similarly. If you have specific complaints about a particular post/poster, you should take it to the moderation thread listed in my signature block. One (or even more) of the admin personnel will take a look, and take appropriate action if warranted. Although we try, unfortunately we don't always catch every single violation. We rely a lot on members to give us the heads up. We (that's not an imperial "we", that's a generic statement of board intent, from the Big Boss on down) want your stay here to be enjoyable as much as possible.
Please do read the Forum Guidelines. Those are about the only things that admins here will jump on if violated. We literally don't care what your position is - but we do require you to abide by the guidelines.

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson
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
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 136 by ICdesign, posted 03-20-2007 8:47 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 03-21-2007 7:48 PM AdminQuetzal has not replied

    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 5907 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 140 of 304 (390533)
    03-21-2007 12:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 137 by GDR
    03-20-2007 9:19 PM


    Re: Evolution -- God's Design
    GDR
    Why? We design and build computers but what does a computer know about us? I'm afraid that I don't accept your basic premise, at least when you talk about us physically
    A computer does not ask questions relating to us who build them and until they do we cannot know if their postulations makes any sense either.
    However,the concept of Intelligent Design is quite well established sir.
    The roots of it have been traced to Thomas Aquinas who framed it thus
    "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer"
    Now the fact that a designer is also complex means that according to the Intelligent Design postulate this designer must also be intelligently designed since this is the crux of the ID arguement.
    If the arguement cannot explain the complexity of the intelligent designer then it logically fails to withstand critical examination of its claim and is therefore an incorrect assumption.
    The fact that you seek to hand wave away is this. If we adhere to the arguement Aquinas proposed, then the Intelligent designer must also have been intelligently designed and so on ad infinitum. Do you still therefore agree that the arguement is consistent with itself sir?

    ``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between
    reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.''
    - Richard Feynman

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 137 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 9:19 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 141 by GDR, posted 03-21-2007 1:43 AM sidelined has replied
     Message 142 by Woodsy, posted 03-21-2007 6:45 AM sidelined has not replied

    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 6202
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 141 of 304 (390538)
    03-21-2007 1:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 140 by sidelined
    03-21-2007 12:37 AM


    Re: Evolution -- God's Design
    sidelined quoting Aquinas writes:
    "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer"
    Now the fact that a designer is also complex means that according to the Intelligent Design postulate this designer must also be intelligently designed since this is the crux of the ID arguement.
    I understand the logic of your argument so let's use the same argument from another perspective. A computer is a complex design. Therefore the computer requires an intelligent designer namely us. Using your argument then means that we require an intelligent designer.
    The same postulation can be used to show that an intelligent designer is either impossible or necessary. Can we call it a draw?

    Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by sidelined, posted 03-21-2007 12:37 AM sidelined has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 151 by sidelined, posted 03-21-2007 10:09 PM GDR has replied

    Woodsy
    Member (Idle past 3373 days)
    Posts: 301
    From: Burlington, Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2006


    Message 142 of 304 (390567)
    03-21-2007 6:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 140 by sidelined
    03-21-2007 12:37 AM


    Re: Evolution -- God's Design
    The roots of it have been traced to Thomas Aquinas who framed it thus
    "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer"
    Aquinas' statement is clearly foolish; his first premise is unsupported. He was merely trying to justify his superstitions. As one would expect, much has been learned in the long period since he wrote.
    Consider evolution as a counter-example. It is easy to see how the evolutionary algorithm would produce increasing complexity, since changes accumulate with time, and it does so without any intelligence being involved at all. Indeed, it is hard to see how that could be prevented from happening.
    I wish we could free ourselves from the errors of these ancient so-called authorities. They muck up our thinking, especially among the gullible.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by sidelined, posted 03-21-2007 12:37 AM sidelined has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 152 by ICdesign, posted 03-21-2007 10:51 PM Woodsy has not replied

    truthlover
    Member (Idle past 4058 days)
    Posts: 1548
    From: Selmer, TN
    Joined: 02-12-2003


    Message 143 of 304 (390575)
    03-21-2007 8:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by ICdesign
    03-18-2007 8:11 PM


    I know this is from way early in the thread, but...
    Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life? By the way where ARE all the accidents that should be all around us? How come ,for instance,
    we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing?
    As a creationist (of some sort, since I believe in a Creator), my question is, do you really want to know the answer to this question? There were a couple short answers to this given, but these particular questions are pretty easy, the answers are easy to understand, and even I could answer them.
    The answers you got to those questions were pretty short, because no one really believes you want to know the answers to those questions.
    So my question is, do you?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM ICdesign has not replied

    nator
    Member (Idle past 2169 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 144 of 304 (390578)
    03-21-2007 8:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 116 by GDR
    03-20-2007 3:28 PM


    Re: Evolution -- God's Design
    quote:
    I have not said that the creation of the first cell could not have come about by naturalistic evolutionary forces.
    You wrote, in Message #73:
    quote:
    I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell
    This is another way of saying that evolutionary forces could not have created the first cell. Please do not be coy.
    quote:
    I am just saying that there is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
    So what do think Cellular Evolutionary Biologists do all day?
    Twiddle their thumbs?
    Here's a link to a TalkOrigins page which is very well referenced with citations from the professional literature regarding current research in cellular evolution.
    CB010.2: Origin of the first cells
    Perhaps, before making bold claims about what science can or cannot discover in the future, you should familiarize yourself with, I don't know, science?
    quote:
    Complex by human standards.
    OK, then, what is the standard that you are using to judge if something is "too complex" to have been designed by purely naturalistic forces?
    All of these congnitive features are known to have natural, biological origins. Read some Cognitive and or Social Psychology sometime if you are interested in learning about current research.
    quote:
    You claim that they are known. I have read some naturalistic theories about how we came to have consciousness, self awareness and altruism but I have never seen any empirical proof.
    Those theories, GDR, are based upon empirical research. If those theories exist, it is becasue the evidence has led scientists to them. That's how science works.
    But I will back off of my claim just a little, as I stated things a bit strongly when I said that these things are known to have natural origins. I should have said that there is empirical evidence that supports a biological, naturalistic basis for all of those things, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the item.
    Just because we may not currently (or ever) understand the biological basis for a given phenomena does not in any way constitute a logical basis to conclude that an IDer exists.
    quote:
    Dawkins has made claims that we have "memes" but no one has ever found one.
    That's silly.
    "Memes" are an abstract concept, like "morality" or "love".
    Do you expect to "find" "morality" lying around somewhere?
    quote:
    Can you provide a scientific proof that explains why we have consciousness.
    We have only just begun studying conciousness from a naturalistic perspective; literally, the field has only existed for a few decades at most.
    However, there is a lot of evidence, especially now that we have the ability to look inside people's brains and observe activity through the use of MRI scans, that consciousness is natualistically based.
    Read some Dennett.
    quote:
    I can't see where naturalistic theories that can't be tested empirically are any more scientific than saying God did it.
    They can and are tested. Every day.
    Funny how someone who says he is unqualified to comment upon science since he is ignorant of much of it is so comfortable making proclamations about what it can or cannot do.
    quote:
    It may be easily understood but why love exists at all can have either physical or metaphysical explanations but once again it isn't scientific.
    quote:
    I’m not convinced that it is restricted to animals with big brains
    Why? Based upon what evidence do you base this opinion?
    quote:
    but I don’t see it as being germane anyway. As I say, I don’t disagree that animals have consciousness.
    Look, isn't your point in listing all of those things (consciousness, love, morality, etc) and saying that purely naturalistic forces cannot account for them is to support your claim that an IDer must be invoked to account for their existence?
    If you list these things because you believe that there isn't any evidence (I believe that there is evidence) to say they are naturalistic, the logical conclusion is to say, "I don't know".
    Yet, you haven't done that. You have gone beyond logic and used the "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy.
    Edited by nator, : fixed quote boxes

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 3:28 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 145 by GDR, posted 03-21-2007 11:25 AM nator has replied

    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 6202
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 145 of 304 (390624)
    03-21-2007 11:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 144 by nator
    03-21-2007 8:39 AM


    Re: Evolution -- God's Design
    nator writes:
    This is another way of saying that evolutionary forces could not have created the first cell. Please do not be coy.
    Talk about being coy. Here is the entire quote of mine that you are referring to.
    You see the same things and come to a different conclusion. I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell, and although you may come up with a theory of how the first cell was formed I would suggest that there is no empirical method of proving it, just as there is no empirical method of proving my conclusion.
    Where in there have I said that it couldn't have been done that way. I'm just saying that I don't see it having happened that way but that we can't prove it one way or another. It is strictly my opinion and I'm not trying to present it as fact.
    nator writes:
    Here's a link to a TalkOrigins page which is very well referenced with citations from the professional literature regarding current research in cellular evolution.
    OK. Here is a quote from that site.
    Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
    This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible.
    We don't know. T are theories, as I said, but at this pointit has not been solved. Sure, saying that God did it is a God of the Gaps argument. However, saying that it is impossible that it has an IDer behind it is a Science of the Gaps argument. The difference of course is that if you are right you might eventually be proven correct whereas my opinion can never be proven.
    Here is another quote from Talk Origins
    For a claim that is so obviously false, {evolution is atheistic} it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.
    Your link supports my argument. We are left to form our own opinion of whether there is an IDer or not. You have come to one conclusion and I to another.
    nator writes:
    Just because we may not currently (or ever) understand the biological basis for a given phenomena does not in any way constitute a logical basis to conclude that an IDer exists.
    OK, but it doesn't give a logical basis to assume one doesn't exist either.
    nator writes:
    Look, isn't your point in listing all of those things (consciousness, love, morality, etc) and saying that purely naturalistic forces cannot account for them is to support your claim that an IDer must be invoked to account for their existence?
    If you list these things because you believe that there isn't any evidence (I believe that there is evidence) to say they are naturalistic, the logical conclusion is to say, "I don't know".
    Yet, you haven't done that. You have gone beyond logic and used the "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy.
    I agree that I can't know, at least not in the way that we normally use the word to know something. There is no empirical proof. You seem to keep suggesting that because people are researching things like consciousness using scientific techniques means that the we will eventually find an answer. (Science of the Gaps) We may, and we may not.
    In a way though it can eventually become the other side of sidelined's argument. {If an IDer exists then that IDer would require an IDer and so on.} If the first cell was found to have natural origins then where did the stuff come to produce that result? I have opinions, but I do not know what science will or will not eventually be able to find out. Who could have conceived of what we now know of particle physics just a few years back.
    In the end I guess it all comes down to, "why is there something instead of nothing". (Whatever nothing is. )

    Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by nator, posted 03-21-2007 8:39 AM nator has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 158 by nator, posted 03-22-2007 9:01 AM GDR has replied

    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 146 of 304 (390760)
    03-21-2007 7:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 139 by AdminQuetzal
    03-20-2007 11:00 PM


    Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
    AdminQuetzal,
    Thank you for your feedback and offer for assistance. I was
    out of line and had more of the same in my plans. I was
    getting too offended by some of the jeers lobbed in my
    direction. Their is some good wisdom in the guidelines and
    I need to follow them.
    I need to give some thought about a debate and how best to
    pursue my foreward path on this website. I'm very new at
    all this and have a lot to learn about being on the ropes.
    I will be in touch if needed.
    ICDESIGN

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 139 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-20-2007 11:00 PM AdminQuetzal has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2007 8:10 PM ICdesign has replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1466 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 147 of 304 (390764)
    03-21-2007 8:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 146 by ICdesign
    03-21-2007 7:48 PM


    Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
    Can I make a suggestion?
    Assume for a moment that the reason you consider evolution to be flawed is because the way scientists understand evolution is a lot different than the "evolution" you're familiar with. Assume for a moment that sources like creationists, and the Discover channel, and movies and stuff, weren't accurate in showing you what the theory of evolution really is and what it really says.
    Assume all that for a second, and start asking questions. Questions like:
    How do scientists think one kind of organism can evolve from another?
    What are fossils? How are they formed? What do they tell us about the history of life? Why don't we see fossils of one organism changing into another?
    How do new organs and body structures evolve? How does an organism survive with "transitional features"? Why would an organism evolve something like a primitive wing, which doesn't seem to have any purpose until it's fully evolved?
    Why do scientists believe all organisms are ultimately descended from a common ancestor? What evidence do they have for this, and what other explanations could there be?
    It's questions like these that I think you would find most illuminating. Maybe you'd change your mind, or maybe not, but you'd at least begin to understand the science.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 03-21-2007 7:48 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 148 by anastasia, posted 03-21-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has not replied
     Message 150 by ICdesign, posted 03-21-2007 9:54 PM crashfrog has replied

    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5952 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 148 of 304 (390771)
    03-21-2007 8:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 147 by crashfrog
    03-21-2007 8:10 PM


    Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
    Crashfrog writes:
    How do new organs and body structures evolve? How does an organism survive with "transitional features"? Why would an organism evolve something like a primitive wing, which doesn't seem to have any purpose until it's fully evolved?
    Oh, oh, I have a question!
    Actually, how do scientists tell if something is vestigial, or still evolving into something functional?
    A penguin for example has a useful 'wing' but it's not useful for flight. Is it assumed that is no longer needs flight? That we no longer need tails, due to better balance?
    The tails is maybe more obvious. We don't need them now. But if all things are transitioning, they must be adapting to their environs. I am still a bit lost when it comes to adapting and extinction. I assume that some species are not adapting fast enough to meet sudden changes. So, when it comes to transitional features, I understand 'left-over' but not forward looking. Are there creatures which science considers to have useless parts that WILL serve a purpose rather than DID?
    THis is just a curiousity, if it is not on topic you needn't respond.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2007 8:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 149 by kuresu, posted 03-21-2007 8:46 PM anastasia has not replied
     Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2007 11:33 AM anastasia has not replied

    kuresu
    Member (Idle past 2512 days)
    Posts: 2544
    From: boulder, colorado
    Joined: 03-24-2006


    Message 149 of 304 (390773)
    03-21-2007 8:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 148 by anastasia
    03-21-2007 8:38 PM


    Re: ICDESIGN vs. CRASHFROG
    I assume that some species are not adapting fast enough to meet sudden changes.
    those species face extinction. those who end up not adapting quickly enough to meet changing environments, or those who adapt slower than others and find their niche overtaken tend towards extinction.
    Are there creatures which science considers to have useless parts that WILL serve a purpose rather than DID?
    this is something we can't really predict (as far as I know).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 148 by anastasia, posted 03-21-2007 8:38 PM anastasia has not replied

    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 150 of 304 (390789)
    03-21-2007 9:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 147 by crashfrog
    03-21-2007 8:10 PM


    Thanks Crash
    Crash,
    Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful post. I do
    need to learn a lot of things about various aspects
    of evolution- and the suggestions you made are good
    topics to study. I know that a lot of things in the
    science are indeed true and relevent to a limited extent.
    When I made the statement that I will never believe evolution-
    I was refering to macro-evolution or one species crossing
    over into an entirely different species. Can I say at this
    point that I respect you much more than I've been letting on.
    I have checked out some things you talk about with other members
    besides me and I have to admit you seem like one of the most
    articulate members of them all, very smart. Of course being
    smart doesn't make you right. A lot of very smart people of
    the past were proven to be way off in their conclusions.
    I haven't talked much about my relationship with God because
    my main goal is to prove that the human body is an intelligent
    design. I believe that evidence leads to the door step of God
    almighty because He is the only one qualified enough to be that
    genius. I belive the bible when it says His voice is obeyed by
    every atom in the universe.
    Many ask who designed the designer- the thinking goes, if he
    could have a beginning-so could we, and I agree with that.
    He has revealed to us that he is eternal- with no beginning or
    end. I know that is true to the point of staking my life on it
    yet its very hard to put our minds around him having always
    been their with no start.
    Above what any book says- He has revealed Himself to me and
    proven many hundred times over he is very real and everything
    the bible claims. Their are very sound reasons why we see flaws
    in his creation. He told us they are only temporary while
    He works the "kinks" (if you will) out of the system. It seems
    like a long time to us but one day is as a 1000 years to Him
    and a 1000 years as one day.
    Anyway Crash, this is where I stand.
    I apologize for the mean things I have said and I would
    like to start anew and do things the right way OK?
    IC
    Edited by ICDESIGN, : forgot to put 1000 years as one day

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2007 8:10 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2007 11:07 PM ICdesign has replied
     Message 157 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 8:01 AM ICdesign has 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