Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 151 of 312 (477094)
07-30-2008 9:32 AM


Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Yes Yes Everyone's right except AlphaOmegakid.
Life is just chemicals, nothing more. Death is nothing but chemicals, nothing more. Organisms are just chemicals, nothing more! Inorganic compounds are chemicals nothing more!
We've heard a similar argument in the past. Gold is just a chemicqal element. Lead is just a chemical element. They are made up of atoms, nothing more. So let's make gold from lead! You all sound like a bunch of alchemists.
Science is about observability and repeatability. Imagination and philosophical faith even though they have been masked as science many times throughout history, just aren't scientific.
If I am wrong, then will one, just one of you present real scientific data that suggests in any way shape or form that abiogenesis has happened.
And please let's not return to the lame argument that life appeared in the geological column. If it did, then we don know it came from non living matter.
So focus your efforts on anything anywhere.
I am beginning to see how this forum works...Creationists must present evidence to support their arguments. Evo's present nothing but rhetoric. Then they hijack the thread when they are pigeon holed. Then they declare victory! Halelujah praise the nature god!
Now please can we return to the OP and concentrate on why you think abiogenesis is good science and the law of biogenesis is not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2008 10:11 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 153 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 10:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 07-30-2008 10:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 156 by Granny Magda, posted 07-30-2008 10:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 152 of 312 (477098)
07-30-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 9:32 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Observation 1: There is life now
Observation 2: There was no life 13.7 billion years ago
Conclusion: at some point in the last 13.7 billion years life occurred for the first time. By definition it didn't emerge from prior life, ergo abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 9:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 10:19 AM Dr Jack has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 153 of 312 (477099)
07-30-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 9:32 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
AOkid writes:
Imagination and philosophical faith even though they have been masked as science many times throughout history, just aren't scientific.
I assure you, Alpha, it requires no philosophical faith to consider natural explanations for natural phenomena as being by far the most likely, as those are the only sort ever observed, and they can be observed everyday, anywhere.
Tell me, does it take faith to expect unnatural or non-natural explanations for natural phenomena? How often do you observe the non-natural? What is the evidence for the existence of the non-natural?
AOkid writes:
If I am wrong, then will one, just one of you present real scientific data that suggests in any way shape or form that abiogenesis has happened.
Look around you.
And please let's not return to the lame argument that life appeared in the geological column. If it did, then we don know it came from non living matter.
The hypothesis that it came from non-living matter is very strongly supported by the observable fact that it's made from non-living matter. Its atoms and molecules make life collectively, but while doing so, are not alive individually.
I am beginning to see how this forum works...Creationists must present evidence to support their arguments.
Not at all. Many creationists have posted here for years without coming up with a single jot of evidence for creationism. We're accustomed to it, and I'm sure you'll be no exception.
Evo's present nothing but rhetoric.
Really? Have you counted how many new transitional fossils we've presented just this year? Have you read recent threads on Lenski's laboratory work and the mammalian bloodclotting system? You may not agree with it, but we present and present and present, and we'll continue to present, because it's easy to present evidence for reality.
Now please can we return to the OP and concentrate on why you think abiogenesis is good science and the law of biogenesis is not.
Both are. The law of biogenesis is about extant life coming from other life forms, and that appears to be universally true. Its supporters, like Pasteur, never argued that life was eternal, and it has nothing to do with the origins of life, a mistake often made by creationists as they clutch at straws.
Even without the technical backing of experiments carried out over the last 60 years, abiogenesis hypotheses are good science as abiogenesis is the only possible natural explanation* for the life we see around us, and there is at present no evidence supporting the idea of non-natural explanations for anything in the universe, or even for the existence of the non-natural. *(Panspermia just changes the site of the abiogenesis).
You claim to be a logician, so you'll agree with me there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 9:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:02 AM bluegenes has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 154 of 312 (477100)
07-30-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 9:32 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
AOKid writes:
Now please can we return to the OP and concentrate on why you think abiogenesis is good science and the law of biogenesis is not.
Abiogenesis is "good science" only to the extent that we know that biological life did not always exist. Something happened somewhere, maybe once or maybe several times, to bring abiotic chemicals into a biotic arrangement. And scientists DON'T HAVE A CLUE as to how that came about. But scientists are not so gullible as to believe that abiogenesis was directed by a Universal Designer. We don't believe in Designer Fairies, either. We believe in testable hypotheses, empirical evidence, and peer reviews.
As for "the law of biogenesis," I have never heard of any scientist invoking it. "All life comes from other life." What does this law do for science? Why not a "law of chemogenesis"?”all chemicals come from other chemicals. Would that do anything useful for explaining the origin of molecules?
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 9:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 10:40 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 12:13 PM Fosdick has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 155 of 312 (477101)
07-30-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dr Jack
07-30-2008 10:11 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Observation 2 doesn't exist. It is at best an interpretation of some evidence. Interpretation of evidence is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2008 10:11 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2008 10:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 159 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 10:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 156 of 312 (477104)
07-30-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 9:32 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
AKid writes:
Everyone's right except AlphaOmegakid.
I don't know about that, but you're certainly doing a bang up job of being the most wrong.
AKid writes:
If I am wrong, then will one, just one of you present real scientific data that suggests in any way shape or form that abiogenesis has happened.
That's not the point is it though? Your position has (mostly) been that the law of biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis. You have been shown that the interpretation of the LoB that contradicts abiogenesis is not accepted by modern science, so no contradiction exists. Now you want evidence for abiogenesis. I don't think this is what you really want, because you have already been given this kind of evidence and all you could do was express incredulity.
You have admitted that the LoB does not falsify abiogenesis;
AKid, in message 107, writes:
No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life. That's science.
You have had your questions answered. The LoB very often is taught in schools, mostly from a historical perspective. Where it is not taught it is because it is no longer taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Abiogenesis is taught because, despite your remaining unconvinced, the weight of scientific opinion is that abiogenesis is important.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 9:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 157 of 312 (477105)
07-30-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Your inability to grasp the evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist.
Yes, the big bang is not a direct observation but rather deduced from multiple lines of evidence that does not change its status as an observation. All observations are deduced to one extent or another; you assume a ruler is the length it says it is - you assume your microscope merely magnifies. That your geiger counter is measuring something meaningful, and on and on. But here's the thing: it keeps on working. This isn't some tottering tower of dead reckoned plates; throughout the edifice we can cross-check and confirm. Failed assumptions are contradicted by further evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:27 AM Dr Jack has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 158 of 312 (477106)
07-30-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Fosdick
07-30-2008 10:16 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Hoot Mon writes:
And scientists DON'T HAVE A CLUE as to how that came about
You'd be correct to say that scientists don't know how it came about, but not that they don't have a clue. There are reasonable hypotheses, and I read an article recently which indicated that they're getting warm (it was on the 'net, and I'll try and remember where, and dig it out for you in the next 24 hours).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 07-30-2008 10:16 AM Fosdick has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 159 of 312 (477110)
07-30-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Observation 2 doesn't exist. It is at best an interpretation of some evidence. Interpretation of evidence is not evidence.
That's a blatantly ridiculous statement. The suggestion that life did not exist until a certain point in the past completely ignored everything we know about paleontology, biology, geology, models of stellar and planetary formation, and cosmology.
At the very least, you have to admit that if the Big Bang model is accurate, for several million years even the constituent parts of life (elements heavier than Helium and Hydrogen) did not exist in reasonable quantities. This means that by all current scientific models, Observation 2 is a very solid conclusion. In fact, I would sooner expect gravity to suddenly not work tomorrow, or the sun not to rise, as expect that much evidence to be refuted.
And I'd sooner believe that His Holy Noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually did Create the Universe and all life last Thursday than expect you to do the refuting.
Again, the only natural explanation for -> has to be abiogenesis somewhere at some point. That doesn't exclude supernatural Creation by a deity who is somehow not affected by any of this, but this is a science forum, and invoking magical sky-fairies to do your Creation for you is not evidence.
You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God" and "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." Once again, your arguments are logically unsound. You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.
Complain all you like, AOK. It's obvious to any reader that your arguments lack any sort of logical cohesion. It's not a matter of declaring "victory" (although I'd agree that the moment the supernatural is invoked in a science thread without evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural, the person invoking magic loses), it's a matter of trying to get it through your apparently thick skull that the Law of Biogenesis as developed by Pasteur and his contemporaries was never intended to have any relavence to the origins of life. It involves the fact that modern organisms do not spring from the air fully formed like magic, and that sterile conditions can prevent disease because the germs aren't just going to appear out of nowhere. It has nothing to do with whether or not abiogenesis is possible given the right conditions, because the conditions of Pasteur's experiment were in no way favorable for abiogenesis to occur in the first place.
You can't declare something impossible because it has never been observed, AOK. Before the Wright Brothers, nobody had ever observed a functioning flying machine - did that mean human flight was impossible? Before the invention of microscopes, microbes had never been observed - did that mean their existence was impossible?
If you can't see the massive flaw in your argument at this point, I don't know what will. But any readers will easily be able to see that you're not arguing from a point of solid logic, but rather apologetics, desperately grasping at any straws in science that you think might support your pre-existing beliefs. Even if your begin-at-the-conclusion-and-work-backwards methodology had any validity, you still picked a piss-poor angle of attack, as it has been shown repeatedly that the scope of the Law of Biogenesis does not apply in any way to abiogenesis or the origins of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:22 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:57 AM Rahvin has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 160 of 312 (477111)
07-30-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Bluegenes writes:
I assure you, Alpha, it requires no philosophical faith to consider natural explanations for natural phenomena as being by far the most likely, as those are the only sort ever observed, and they can be observed everyday, anywhere.
Thanks Bluegenes you have just agreed with me on the topic of the OP. LoB is a natural explanation for natural phenomena. And like you said it is observed everyday anywhere. Yes, I think he has It!
On the contrary, we have abiogenesis which is a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has never been observed anywhere or at any time. Were not even sure the phenomena has ever existed. The phenomenon only exists in the minds of the believers.
Bluegenes writes:
Tell me, does it take faith to expect unnatural or non-natural explanations for natural phenomena? How often do you observe the non-natural? What is the evidence for the existence of the non-natural?
The answer to your first question is yes. It does require faith to expect unnatural or non-natural or supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. I have never observed the non-natural or the super natural. I don't think there is any physical evidence of the non-natural... Now that we are thruough with that exercise, what makes you think that God is non-natural? The Bible certainly never indicates so. In fact it indicates that God works through nature in every thing He does.
Now back to the suject at hand. Does it require faith to believe in a natural phenomenon that has never been observed and is direct conflict with a well known natural law that has tremendous observability?
Bluegenes writes:
The hypothesis that it came from non-living matter is very strongly supported by the observable fact that it's made from non-living matter. Its atoms and molecules make life collectively, but while doing so, are not alive individually.
I know you don't see this, but you are contradicting yourself. Life is not made up of non-living matter. It is made up of living matter. The moment you break living matter up into non-living components whether atoms, molecules, or multimolecular machines, you have just transformed it from living to dead.
bluegenes writes:
Not at all. Many creationists have posted here for years without coming up with a single jot of evidence for creationism. We're accustomed to it, and I'm sure you'll be no exception.
That's quite a bold claim. I guess it's similar to my claim that not a single poster in these threads has come up with a single jot of evidence for their faith in abiogenesis.
Bluegenes writes:
Really? Have you counted how many new transitional fossils we've presented just this year? Have you read recent threads on Lenski's laboratory work and the mammalian bloodclotting system? You may not agree with it, but we present and present and present, and we'll continue to present, because it's easy to present evidence for reality.
Really, are they all red herring transitionals? Do they evolve from red to blue and back again? In case you haven't realized, we aren't discussing all those matter in this thread.
Bluegenes writes:
Both are. The law of biogenesis is about extant life coming from other life forms, and that appears to be universally true. Its supporters, like Pasteur, never argued that life was eternal, and it has nothing to do with the origins of life, a mistake often made by creationists as they clutch at straws.
Actually the LoB is about all life. All life comes from prexisting living matter. And yes it appears to be universally true. Contrary to your argument the LOB is in direct opposition to abiogenesis. It has been from the start. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. The imaginations of some sort of chemical pathway to life were present in 1870 as cited earlier, however, they were appropriately identified as philosophical faith and not science. The only people not dealling with reality and clutching at straws is people who have bought in to abiogenesis philosophies.
Bluegenes writes:
Even without the technical backing of experiments carried out over the last 60 years, abiogenesis hypotheses are good science as abiogenesis is the only possible natural explanation* for the life we see around us, and there is at present no evidence supporting the idea of non-natural explanations for anything in the universe, or even for the existence of the non-natural. *(Panspermia just changes the site of the abiogenesis).
It is not good science because there is no phenomenon to supoort it. The phenomenon only exists in the mind of the abiogenesist.
Bluegenes writes:
You claim to be a logician, so you'll agree with me there.
Sorry, you've already demonstrated multiple fallacies in this post. Agreement is not granted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 10:14 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 12:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 161 of 312 (477113)
07-30-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 9:12 PM


Re: Merely Miraculous
Hoot Mon writes:
Then abiogenesis had to be even more "miraculous." From soupy molecules to a digital code had to be one heck of an evolutionary trip.
Indeed, one heck of a miraculous trip. We may not know for certain, and may never know for certain, how it all happened, but we are getting closer to identifying some of the baby steps that would be necessary over 10 or 100 or a million years to accomplish.
This is just sooo off-topic. I'll stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 9:12 PM Fosdick has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 162 of 312 (477118)
07-30-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Rahvin writes:
If you can't see the massive flaw in your argument at this point, I don't know what will. But any readers will easily be able to see that you're not arguing from a point of solid logic, but rather apologetics, desperately grasping at any straws in science that you think might support your pre-existing beliefs. Even if your begin-at-the-conclusion-and-work-backwards methodology had any validity, you still picked a piss-poor angle of attack, as it has been shown repeatedly that the scope of the Law of Biogenesis does not apply in any way to abiogenesis or the origins of life.
How am I beginning with a conclusion and working backward? Lob went through a historical process of discovery where it was the minority opinion in the scientific community. Evidence and data confirms the conclusion of LoB. On the other hand, starting with the conclusion and working backwards is exactly what abiogenesis is. The conclusion that life came from non living chemicals has already been made on faith with no, zero, nada, zilch evidence to support it. There is no phenomenon observed that suggests that life came from chemicals. To argue that life is and once was not is evidence for abiogenesis is nothing more than the fallacious use of argumentum ad ignoratium. But that may be appropriate for you.
And then somehow you have the audacity to claim that the scope of LoB is limited. Please, I beg you, provide something more than your ranting please. Please I beg just one of you to provide evidence, data, a paper, or anything that has some credibility other than your own personal words that suggests that the word "all" in "all life" is limited in scope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 10:59 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Blue Jay, posted 07-30-2008 1:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 163 of 312 (477119)
07-30-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Jack
07-30-2008 10:40 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Mr.Jack writes:
Failed assumptions are contradicted by further evidence.
I agree with this part at least. Abiogenesis is a failed assumption. It has been contradicted over and over again. But I also believe in ressurrection, because it obviously keeps coming back to life with no evidentiary support.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Jack, posted 07-30-2008 10:40 AM Dr Jack has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 164 of 312 (477121)
07-30-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Rahvin writes:
You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God"
Even though this is a strawman argument, because it is a total perversion of anything that I have said, you make one interesting mistake.
You call me idiotic (ad hominen) while falsely claiming that I argue "Life exists, ergo God"(strawman). Where the reality is you and others have been over and over again claiming "idiotically" that "Life exists ergo Nature."
What blatant hypocracy and fallaciousness. No wonder people like you are sold on illogical concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 10:59 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 12:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 165 of 312 (477122)
07-30-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Fosdick
07-30-2008 10:16 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Hoot Moon writes:
We don't believe in Designer Fairies, either. We believe in testable hypotheses, empirical evidence, and peer reviews.
But you do believe in the nature designer fairy that organized the chemicals in such a way that may not ever be able to be repeated again. And you don't believe in the hypothesis of Biogenesis, the empirical evidence that supports it, and the peer review that acclaimed it to its current status of a natural law. And you don't believe in the countless confirmations of this law since the 1800's.
Hoot Moon writes:
What does this law do for science?
This question is so argumentum ad ignoratium it is sad. Do you not even realize that the theory of evolution which all of you so admirally defend falls totally apart without LoB. It is used every day in every hospital all around the world to save lives. Our knowlege of germs is based on LoB.
Now to the contrary, what does abiogenesis do for science? Can you name one useful contribution since 1870?
Please keep this faith out of our schools and let real science back in. Don't you just hate these religious zealots?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 07-30-2008 10:16 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Fosdick, posted 07-30-2008 1:09 PM AlphaOmegakid 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