Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 82 of 150 (452193)
01-29-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jazzns
01-29-2008 5:11 PM


Re: breathe deeply girl and slow down
I am hiding? Who else posts more than me from the ID side?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 5:11 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2008 6:18 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 88 of 150 (452289)
01-29-2008 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
01-29-2008 9:19 PM


Re: off-topic imo
Percy, you are not keeping up as IDers are doing research and are publishing. Maybe when some of the current threads die down, we can discuss it on a new thread. I realize, like those that erroneously claimed all but 8 phyla evolved after 500 million years, that there is a predisposition among evos here just to take each other's word for it, but it's quite easy to cite a number of papers either about ID or favorable to ID in discussing topics related to ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 9:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 8:43 AM randman has not replied
 Message 104 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 12:06 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 150 (452292)
01-29-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminNosy
01-29-2008 7:58 PM


Re: the applicability of the law to science
If Constitutional law is acceptable, I'll comment more on that.....but need to take a little more time earning a living than just posting. One thing I want to make sure I do is avoid over-posting in an addictive manner.
For those that want a preview, as I stated in the other thread, I do not believe an originalist interpretation of the 1st amendment bans a generic acknowledgement or even public worship of the Creator or God. Nor did George Washington evidently judging by his most famous inaugural address.
What I do think the 1st amendment bans is to try to limit such religious expression with the caveat that no one church can be favored. The way it is interpreted now is to enshrine secular ideology as the de facto national ideology and religion and so we are turning the intent of the 1st amendment on it's head. Religious expression and thought was suppossed to be protected, not hindered, by the 1st amendment. The interpretation in more modern times has been to gut the meaning of the first amendment as a means to restrict and attack religious expression in education and the public arena, and that's deeply, fundamentally anti-liberty and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminNosy, posted 01-29-2008 7:58 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 90 of 150 (452301)
01-30-2008 12:32 AM


a general reply
why I think ID will eventually be taught in schools and the law overturned...
1. Any scientific theory that must rely on the law to maintain it's dominance is on very weak ground. We saw that with the Scopes trial and creationism and now we are seeing it with evolutionism. The very fact evos used the law at Dover to seek to silence their critics is a death-knell in the long run, imo.
2. ID is a much broader concept than just biology. It's basically a reassertion of teleology into science. Secular scientists hate the concept but whether it's math or physics or biology, I think the idea is obtaining increasing merit as more facts are discovered and we move away from a strictly materialist understanding of the universe. In fact, if you believe God exists, then you probably believe in teleology because you believe the Creator purposed the universe into existence. It will become increasingly apparent there is a contradiction in maintaining there is no purpose to the universe and so cannot be considered as a valid scientific idea and belief God exists in any form at all, whether the Christian God, a New Age concept of God, or another religion, or Deism or whatever.
3. This brings me to another salient point, imo. We live in a republic which by definition contains a democratic element. It is highly unlikely that 48% or more of the population can doubt Darwinism and politicians and judges can get away with telling that portion of the public they don't have the right their children be taught a teleological and ID view of reality and the origin of life in public schools which they fund. After awhile, it will become increasingly untenable and appear unfair and discriminatory to deny and restrict ID on religious or rather anti-religious grounds claiming such ideas have no place in science.
4. Moreover, the fact something like 98% of the public believes in God, even the vast majority of those accepting Darwinism, will make it such that denying God's existence, as the evo view of science denying teleology and the idea God purposed man into existence, will eventually as the public is more aware of the debate make arguments that any idea of purpose and God within science as unacceptable an untenable idea, and over time, judges and politicians will realize they are denying the will of the people. In other words, even if evos maintain some victory in excluding ID from biology for awhile, they will not succeed in maintaining that victory in excluding the idea of God from science and eventually that will affect biology as well.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2008 12:38 AM randman has not replied
 Message 92 by DrJones*, posted 01-30-2008 1:08 AM randman has not replied
 Message 93 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 1:18 AM randman has replied
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 1:35 AM randman has not replied
 Message 101 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2008 9:36 AM randman has not replied
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 01-30-2008 11:24 AM randman has not replied
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 1:18 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 150 (452343)
01-30-2008 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Vacate
01-30-2008 1:18 AM


Re: a general reply
the difference is evos argue against ID a priori....it's not just they are saying there is a lack of evidence. Evos are saying it's not within the scope of science, and that won't hold forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 1:18 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2008 4:58 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 106 of 150 (452489)
01-30-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluegenes
01-30-2008 1:18 PM


Re: a general reply
Religions characteristically rely on the indoctrination of children to perpetuate themselves, which is why I.D. aims at the classrooms, and claims, like other forms of creationism, that the evidence based science taught at present is indoctrination.
The irony of this comment is rich considering it is evolution that is taught via indoctrination and ID that looks at the totality of the data and arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 1:18 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 5:01 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 150 (452490)
01-30-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by molbiogirl
01-30-2008 12:06 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Here's a few for starters.
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302
Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.
Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.
Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self -Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lnnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lnnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that”if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
I think they list where the articles have been published.
Edit to add this one:
. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist yvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gdel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gdel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gdel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”
You guys can claim IDers don't publish and don't publish ID concepts, but it's just not true. Edit again to add a few more.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
W.-E. Lnnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
Lnnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)
Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985). (HTML)
Maybe on a different thread someone can show me the seminal papers establishing Darwinism.....do evos do any research and publication or have they ever on the basic claims and assumption of Darwinism?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 12:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 3:11 PM randman has replied
 Message 109 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 3:18 PM randman has not replied
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 3:49 PM randman has replied
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 4:31 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 110 of 150 (452503)
01-30-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
01-30-2008 3:11 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
you don't like the papers....big surprise there. Point is they are publishing, contrary to the claims by evos here on this site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 3:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 3:28 PM randman has not replied
 Message 112 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 3:29 PM randman has not replied
 Message 115 by Jazzns, posted 01-30-2008 4:15 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 122 of 150 (452589)
01-30-2008 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Trixie
01-30-2008 7:08 PM


rape?
an answer on rape?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:08 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:35 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 123 of 150 (452590)
01-30-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
01-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
natural selection is not exclusive evidence of Darwinian evolution, nor imo is it evidence at all since it works against increasing genetic diversity and so against macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 4:31 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2008 10:59 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 126 of 150 (452677)
01-31-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
01-30-2008 3:49 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
I listed something like 16, by no means exhaustive. Imo, you have not discounted them and the ones you do blast seem to be based on either bashing the publication or saying a mistake is made or that it was in a book. Qualifying the differences between books and peer-review and peer-edited is fine. Just saying because evos don't like it that something was published doesn't cut it imo.
Moreover, you don't address all of the articles. Here is another one by the way.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
The author clearly believes his article adds to the case for Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 3:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2008 1:58 AM randman has not replied
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 9:14 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 127 of 150 (452690)
01-31-2008 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Trixie
01-30-2008 7:35 PM


what a horrible signature line
As far as the Lemon test, you may be surprised to hear a majority of Supreme court justices have questioned it's validity. No case has come before them to overturn it, but I would not be surprised to see it thrown out.
But for this thread and my views, I think you are not appreciating my comments on being an originalist in interpreting the Constitution. Case law does not trump the Constitution. I don't accept the living document view of the Constitution and neither do many judges and politicians. We will see who prevails over time, but if you guys nominate Hillary, it may well be we do for the next 8 yrs...
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Trixie, posted 01-30-2008 7:35 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2008 8:35 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 131 of 150 (452774)
01-31-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Percy
01-31-2008 9:14 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
It may be the author's opinion that his research supports ID, but how are scientists going to know this if he only points it out at ID websites instead of in the paper itself?
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers, though it seems that is happening nonetheless. I think what happened at the Smithsonian is ample evidence and example of such a witchhunt, and incidentally, the media and Congressional review came to the same conclusion. I realize you guys will disagree, but it's worth noting a lot of people that are not creationists or IDers agree it was a witchunt and wrong.
You know when the NYTs agrees with randman and other conservatives, that it's pretty doggone likely the case for persecution rather than objectivity is very strong.
Anyway, I think you realize a paper can be favorable to ID discussing one of it's tenets or discounting Darwinism without having to explicitly use the term, Intelligent Design, which would just create (to try to inject some humor here) the usual pavlovian response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 9:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 10:39 AM randman has replied
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 01-31-2008 10:44 AM randman has replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 11:08 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 133 of 150 (452787)
01-31-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jazzns
01-31-2008 10:39 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Soundly rejected by a judge in District court....doesn't mean all that much and if you guys understood that District courts rule all the time contrary to one another, you'd realize that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 10:39 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2008 10:45 AM randman has not replied
 Message 136 by Trixie, posted 01-31-2008 11:07 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 138 of 150 (452809)
01-31-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rahvin
01-31-2008 10:44 AM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
It's not an extraordinary claim. In fact, the more extraordinary claim is Darwinism and the evidence isn't there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 01-31-2008 10:44 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Rahvin, posted 01-31-2008 11:19 AM randman has not replied
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 01-31-2008 11:26 AM randman has not replied
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2008 11:57 AM randman has not replied
 Message 144 by Trixie, posted 01-31-2008 6:56 PM randman 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