Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 312 (477645)
08-05-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 3:32 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
Do you want to address any other evidence presented or do you concede that you cannot argue with it and your semantics is all you have to cling to?
We all know that he'll cling to the semantics and refuse to argue the evidence presented, because, well.... that's what trolls do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 3:32 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 312 (477650)
08-05-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by NosyNed
08-05-2008 4:08 PM


Re: Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
The video that was sited to AOKid days and days ago supplies the kind of evidence that is available.
He has never referred to it.
He did in Message 102
quote:
I did. Did you? I laughed about 3/4's of the way through. At the beginning the author makes an emphatic statement that "abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution". They are two separate theories. Then he developes a new definition of life. And then he invokes evolution and natural selection.
What a joke! You see abiogenesis in any form doesn't work without evolution. Because it uses imaginary mystical life forms.
I believe in angels. You believe in "primordial life". You just read a different Bible than me. It's all philosophical faith. This video is especially.
A pretty shitty reply that avoids the point.
We also have Message 107 where he calls the video a strawman
quote:
Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. 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. We use it everyday to save lives on this earth. Let's teach it.
Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable. The envioronment is unknown, the chemical reactions are unknown, and the organization of the chemicals is unknown. It is a philosophical faith. It is quite interesting, but not science, and should therefore be removed from the classrooms.
What 'tard this troll is!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2008 4:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 312 (477651)
08-05-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 4:03 PM


Re: Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
Good reference, dokukaeru...
But I can see the reply now:
quote:
See! It does take an intellegent designer for abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:03 PM dokukaeru has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 312 (477653)
08-05-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 4:19 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
Your argument ad absurtum is a red herring strawman that relies on faith and shouldn't be taught in schools!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:19 PM dokukaeru has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 312 (477707)
08-06-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Blue Jay
08-06-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
I think the kid thinks that the observation of living organisms comming from other living organisms somehow falsifies abiogenesis. I don't think he was refering to the M-U experiment.
I'm not for sure though. And either way, he's a complete 'tard for saying that abiogenesis has been falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Blue Jay, posted 08-06-2008 5:32 PM Blue Jay has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 312 (478069)
08-11-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by AlphaOmegakid
08-11-2008 3:00 PM


Re: Pigs flying over China!
coyote writes:
There is actually more evidence for pigs flying over China than there is for most creationist claims:
Yes this is the kind of credibility that is represented in this forum.
So, you're unable to refute?

And by the way, your critique of the video was super shitty. You were the one doing the equivocating and you basically just hand waved it away.
But since you're more interested in arguing like a troll than actually learning something, I won't waste my time explaining it to you.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-11-2008 3:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 312 (478071)
08-11-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Blue Jay
08-11-2008 3:22 PM


Re: Pigs flying over China!
I have been straightforward and honest with you, admitting to you when I made mistakes, changing my arguments to your satisfaction, apologizing when my wordings or assumptions were poor, and repenting when I wrote something inappropriate. Yet, all you seem capable of returning to me is self-righteous "forgiveness" for a swear word and mockery for an inability to understand your miserable interpretation of the workings of logic and science, with a simultaneous inability and/or unwillingness to respond to any of the arguments placed before you. I understand your arguments just fine: I am rejecting them, because they are stupid and wrong. And you are simply calling me stupid because I disagree.
Its called being a troll.
In addition, I would like you to take a look at message #197,
That link don't work...
Its best to use:
[msg=-197]
which becomes:
Message 197 (but that only works for messages within the same thread)
If you leave out the negative sign, it looks like:
Message 197

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2008 3:22 PM Blue Jay has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 312 (478169)
08-12-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 1:24 PM


I have stated in the past, and will state here again that the hypothesisi of abiogenesis (that life can comes from non-living matter) has been falsified. It was falsified with Pasteur by experiment and direct observation.
Wrong. Pasteur falsfied spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.
Sponatneous generation is the emergence of fully formed organisms. Abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life itself.
It remains falsified today by countless experiments and observation. In fact, every single experiment within the field of origin of life confirms that life does not come from non-living matter.
Yes, life does not spotaneously generate. But abiogenesis is totally different from that. It is about the emergence of life, itself, not fully formed living organisms. Now you are the one who is doing the equivocating.
"life" as in a living organisms, does not come from non-living matter. But "life" as in the property that living organisms have, could very well have come from non-living matter.
I assumed you meant the very first lifeform on this earth. With that assumption, I declared that the LoB is silent. LoB say that all life comes from prexisting life. It is silent about the first life from which life on this planet came. But it is not silent that it must have come from a pre-existing life. Read those two statements closely. They do not conflict.
They certainly do conflict. There can be no such thing as the "first" life if the LoB is sound. The "first" life would have had no life to come from.
Also, as you personally have argued, the LoB says ALL life, so therefore this must include the first life. The only possible way that the LoB is sound is if life has always existed.
The BBT is similar. To have the Big Bang in the "beginning" there had to be either an enormous source of energy to create the matter, or there had to be an enormous amount of matter present before the BB. The BBT is silent on this issue, but it is not silent that the universe was created from the BB.
Obviously, you know very little about BBT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 1:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 312 (478177)
08-12-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
08-12-2008 3:14 PM


You keep claiming this lame argument so back it up.
What makes it lame? That it proves you wrong?
Cite for me a historical/scientific document declaring the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
I don't have time to look it up.
Just read wikipedia:
wiki on Louis Pasteur:
quote:
He is also credited with dispelling the theory of spontaneous generation with his experiment employing chicken broth and a goose neck flask.
wiki on Spontaneous_generation
quote:
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain, maggots spontaneously appear in meat, or moderlieschens and eels are produced by mud in ephemeral ponds.
Now, notice that it is the classical notion of abiogenesis. This is very very different from the current notion of abiogenesis.
From the section on Pasteur
quote:
By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other scientists discovered the theory of Biogenesis by demonstrating that living organisms do not arise spontaneously from non-living matter.
See right there. It doesn't say "life", it says "living organisms". You're the one doing the equivocating when you say that the LoB is talking about just "life".
I have cited documents referring to the hypothesis that life can come from non-living matter which is referred to as abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was the evidence/observation/phenomena that supported the theory of abiogenesis.
But you're talking about the classical notion of abiogenesis here. It was the same as spontaneous generation.
Now a days, we have a whole different abiogenesis that has nothing to do with spontaneous generation.
The LoB has no affect on current theories of abiogenesis.
Also while you are at it, provide a scientific document that says abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life.
I don't feel like digging for articles and the wiki is so much faster.
Ths is from the section on current models of abiogenesis. Which I've already shown you inthis thread:
quote:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
Now, you're right that abiogenesis, the classical model of spotaneous generation, should not be taught in schools. But the current model of abiogenesis is scientifically sound so far. And ith the advancements we are making it is only going to get beter.
The problem though, is all the equivocating that you're doing. When others are talking about the current model of abiogenesis, you are talking about the classical model of spontaneous generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-12-2008 3:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 312 (478327)
08-14-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid
08-14-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Again you prove you are just a one liner
CS then erroneously cited the wiki article on endogenous retroviruses. I assume he did a cursory reading like you to see that these viruses do not immediately kill. But they eventually do. Endogenous retoviruses are bad news. They are agents of death. Just because the death is not immediate doesn't mean that the virus is still not a "poison" or "toxin" to the cells/organism.
You're just defining "agent of death" in a way that includes all viruses. Its a meaningless definition. According to it, even humans would be considered "agents of death".
You be saying just as much with the claim that all viruses are "servants of shit".
If the virus does not immediately kill, and the host is allowed to reproduce, then the virus is not an "agent of death" by any meaningful definition. That the host eventually dies doesn't matter because everything dies eventually, with or without a virus.

As far as the topic of this thread:
How are you ever going to reconcile that the Law of Biogenesis requires that life existed forever when the Universe shows us that at some point in the past there was no life at all?
If all life comes from life, then the first lifeform could never have arrose because it wouldn't have had a lifeform to come from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 9:37 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 12:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 312 (478341)
08-14-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by AlphaOmegakid
08-14-2008 12:12 PM


The trump card comes out
With creationism this is not a problem. In the beginning God... God was alive... the scriptures over and over again claim that God is responsible for life.
But we're not dscussing creationism. And this is a science thread.
So I guess your answer is: "I cannot reconcile the LoB with the observations we have without invoking God."
You have created a false analogy.
I didn't even create an analogy at all
There had to be something "before" the Big Bang.
And there you show your misunderstanding of BBT. There is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. It is the beginning of time, itself.
You must have either a source of energy or matter. You cannot have a sigularity without a gravity source. That source would be infinite. That is infinite power. That certainly parallels the descriptions of God. If God caused what you say nature caused (the BB) then we have a source for everything.
Even if I grant you God as the infinite power, this still doesn't reconcile the problem of the LoB saying that living organism have to have existed forever. We know that at a point in the past there were no living organisms.
You see, in the past 100 years or so, the definition of the word nature had a different meaning that it does today. In the past, there could be a supernatural entity by definition. The current definition of nature is infinite. Therefore there can't be anything supernatural. Nature is omnipresent. It is everywhere in the universe. Normally that attribute would be reserved for God. Nature is all powerful. All the power in the universe is part of nature. That attribute would normally be reserved for God. Nature created the heavens and the earth. That attribute would normally reserved for God. Nature created life. That attribute would normally be reserved for God. Nature is all "knowing". All the intelligence in the universe came from nature. That attribute would normally be reserved for God. There is no descriptive words for God that naturalism hasn't already usurped in modern definitions. From my perspective man has just repackaged nature as a god. That's the end result of philosophical naturalism.
Again, it doesn't matter if it was nature or God. Since there was no life at some point and then there was life after that, the LoB is wrong in saying that all life must come from life. Whether God or nature did it doesn't matter.
You say there wasn't any life in the universe before the BB. But you can't say that there wasn't an infinite creative source of power before the BB. Because there was. You call it Nature. I call it God. The evidence is the same for both of us.
I didn't say that there wasn't any life in the universe before the BB. There was a point in time in the universe, after the BB, where there wasn't any life. Hell, there weren't even atoms.
I believe that infinite source of power is God. Part of His power is life. That life pre-existed the universe. You have recognized this scientifically. Now you just have to recognize this mentally.
But at some point in the Universe, there couldn't have been living organisms like the ones the LoB is talking about. Even if God did it, he couldn't have created the first living organism from another living organism. It wouldn't have been the first one if there was one before it.
The LoB couldn't have been talking about God as a living organism that life arrose from. And even if it was, then what living organism did God come from? If he didn't come from a living organism then the LoB is still wrong in saying that all living organism come from pre-existing ones, because God would be the exception to the rule.
Also, you term "forever" is relative. That is "theory of relativity" In an ininite source of gravitation ever existed, time would be stopped. Literally. That's physics. So there was no time before the BB or before BC (Biblical Creation). Literally. That's physics, and scripture.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You're just making up bullshit up now.
So that's my reconciliation of the existense of life before time. It is consistent with science and the scripture.
Actually, you failed miserably.
What is your reconciliation of an infintie gravitation source before time and the BB?
"Before" indicates a timeframe. Before "time" means a timeframe when there was no timeframe. Your question is nonsensical.
You've already expressed your faith in the creative power of chemicals without any evidence.
So, you don't know what faith is either?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 12:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 312 (478456)
08-15-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 3:06 PM


Re: In Summation
And yes, I have been called a troll. But trolls don’t make legitimate arguments. They make one liner inflammatory comments like doku and often CS does. They don’t defend their arguments like CS saying that “he doesn’t have time to look things up”. That is trollish behavior. I appreciate that you don’t completely agree with CS on this matter. And I assure you that my arguments are sincere as you detect.
Okay, if you have been sincere then I'm sorry for calling you a troll. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I realize that you not really a troll, you're just an idiot.
All the while you've been talking about abiogenesis, you've been talking about spontaneous generation. Meanwhile, your opponents have been talking about the current theories on abiogenesis (the emergence of life, itself, instead of living organisms).
I took your equivocation and conflation of the word abiogenesis to be diliberate trolling because I was assuming that you weren't that dumb.
Turns out, I was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 3:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 4:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 312 (478487)
08-15-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 4:08 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
Talk about idiots. People who believe that there are theories on abiogenesis are indeed idiots. They don't exist and you can't name one. It's like believing in fairies I guess. But of course, you do believe in the nature fairy of strong emergence.
Okay; Right here. Now I know you're not an idiot. You know what you are doing. You ARE a troll.
Honestly though, your equivocation skilz are impressive.
If there really are no theories on abiogenesis, then what is it that you are opposing they teach in schools?
From the OP:
quote:
I'm a firm believer in teaching science in schools, and not teaching non-science matters which are religious. How can we justify teaching abiogenetic science which is full of faith and little evidence and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?
What is this "abiogenetic science" that you're referring too?
It seems that you believe that there are theories on abiogenesis. So according to you're own argument:
quote:
People who believe that there are theories on abiogenesis are indeed idiots.
You're an idiot?
I don't believe you. I honestly think you are trolling.
They don't exist and you can't name one {theories on abiogenesis}
Strawman. Of course I cannot name one theory of abiogenesis. From the wiki article I've linked to twice in this thread:
quote:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
But you not really talking about that version abiogenesis.
You're talking about the old version of abiogenesis that was synonymous with spontaneous generation. The one that has been falsified. You even use the falsification of spontaneous generation as an argument against abiogenesis.
But the “abiogenesis science” that they are teaching in science classes today, the one you say shouldn’t be taught, is not the same abiogenesis that is synonymous with spontaneous generation.
Enter your equivocation.
You try to argue that the “most currently accepted models” on abiogenesis are “full of faith and little evidence”, but your arguments for that are based those against “spontaneous generation”.
I don’t believe that your idiocy has lead you to believe that the LoB, which falsifies spontaneous generation, falsifies the abiogenesis science that you don’t want in the classroom, troll.
Now, you have exposed your motive for this behavior when you mentioned God. The abiogenesis science that you oppose poses a problem for you faith. Your ultimate goal is to delegitimize the abiogenesis science to an equal level of your beliefs, which are based on faith. That is a shame to Christianity, IMHO, as they are based on lies.
The funny thing is, that anyone who knows anything about the science behind both spontaneous generation and the current models of abiogenesis, me for example, knows that the former is not a falsification of the latter.
But your arguments, which rely on equivocation of abiogenesis (by conflating spontaneous generation with the current models on abiogenesis) are clever. I’m not convinced that you are actually believing your own arguments, and thus you are lying. I don’t think that you are that stupid. You know what you are doing. I have correctly identified you as a troll.
Shame on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 4:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-16-2008 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 312 (478672)
08-19-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 10:27 AM


Re: In Summation
bluejay writes:
The implications include a period of time in the past when “life” (of whichever definition) could not exist.
Your implications are logic. Your logic is based on whichever definition of life you choose.
We don't have to get down to the gnat's ass on the definition of life though. There was a point in time in our universe when even ATOMS didn't exist. No matter the definition of life, it has to be made of atoms. No atoms = no life, no matter the definition of life you want to use.
You are just plain wrong that we have to redefine things.
What you do have is life wasn't here and now it is. That's data. The rest in definition and logic. And your definitions, I believe are equivocations, because they involve redefining words without the evidentiary support to do so. No DATA. Your logic is then based on these redefinitions. That logic is fallacious without the evidentiary support for the redefinition of "life", "growth", "reproduction", "metabolism", "evolution", and "natural selection."
But we don't have to redefine "life" to know that at some point in the past, when there were no atoms, it was impossible for life to exist (by any definition).
On the other hand, you have the law of biogenesis which has uncountable amounts of data to support it. Observation after observation. It can be verified in the lab, on the farm, in the hospital, in the schools, and everywhere on this earth.
You're wrong.
Yes, we have observations of life comming from life. But no, we don't have observations that life cannot come from non-lie.
Seeing life come from life doesn't meant that it cannot come from non-life.
Again, you're just plain wrong.
Many in this forum have argued that this law doesn't exist and it is vitually meaningless.
Well that's because the Law says, literally, that "spontaneous generation is a dream". It disn't say that ALL life comes from life like you think it did, it says that life comes from an egg.
from wiki:
quote:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimre" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
This is why I have argued from the beginning that abiogenesis has no evidence.
But the abiogenesis you are talking about is not the same as spntaneous generation. There was nothing spontaneous about it at all.
It was a gradual emergence of life, itself. That is very different from modern organisms spontaneously arrising from non-life.
But we've been over this already.
Why can you not realize that the LoB says nothing against current theories on abiogenesis?
I think its because abiogenesis present a problem for you religion so you want to discredit it so that it is not better than your religion.
It just makes out to look like an idiot though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 10:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Fosdick, posted 08-19-2008 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 312 (478680)
08-19-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 12:55 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
The current so called hypotheses of the origin of life all fall under the falsified hypothesis of abiogenesis which states that life can come from non living matter. The slow gradual emergence of life from complex chemicals is life coming from non-life.
No, its not. You're equivocating the term "life" here.
The slow gradual emergence of life, itself, is not the same as life, modern organism, coming from non-life.
This is your bigest misunderstanding in this thread.
The falsification of abiogenesis, aka "spontaneous generation", does not falsifiy the current models of abiogenesis which are gradual emergence of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 12:55 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