Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:50 AM
26 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, RAZD (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,137 Year: 5,174/19,786 Month: 1,296/873 Week: 192/460 Day: 8/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   the source of life
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 31 of 211 (495721)
01-24-2009 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Annafan
01-23-2009 5:31 AM


thanks for the comment
Hi, I appreciate the esteemed reply. First, I would like to bring to surface that the asset of this thread is that 'organic life coming from non life' or, if it is OK, 'spontaneous generation', has never been observed or documented as evidence. Evolutionists suggestions may indeed hold weight in Evolutionary science, but in universal science, only observable facts may be subject to validation. same goes with Creation.

Secondly, I respect your resourceful application of the geologic column, however, I would like to note that it is commonly believed by Creationists, like myself, that the geologic column is entirely speculation. Allow me to brief;

Charles Lyell's book (wrote in 1833, before Darwin's "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life") "principles of geology", where the geologic column originated, elaborates on the geologic column being layers in the earth that hold testament to Evolutionary science. He claims The layers of earth were formed by millions of years of Climate change, erosion, erratic weather patterns, etc. He had no way of knowing that!

He construed layers in the earth, which can form rather quickly (it's true, consider a lake, or something where erosion or water is involved, heavier rocks and solid earth goes to the bottom, dirt and lighter soils to the top, eh?) with Evolutionary/Atheistic standpoint of 'old earth' philosophy.

As well, the bones and fossils he found during his high budget excavations were in obvious assortments and duly categorized. Meaning, he found the bones in common groups and obviously in different layers. Showing, of course, different time zones, but assumed the number of years.

His belief that the earth is millions of years old and presumption of Evolution, combined with natural forming layers in the earth and random assortment of bones and fossils in the earth created the geologic column. Note: Charles lyell is not identified as the contingency for physical science. I discredit his work for my health.

As to suggest believing in 'abiogenesis' or life originally coming from non living matter or energy into the primordial soup into the amoebae, that's fine. amino acids and nucleic acids into proteins and conjoining with polymers and a "spark" to begin reproduction, it can be explained, but it cannot be observed or accounted for. Beyond that, it is trivial to say more.

Finally, when I say "observable universe", I mean, "observable universe". I am aware of polar ice caps on moons and planets that arise interests of "maybe there was life on this planet" or "maybe there will be life on that moon". I have uncovered the veil of monotonous circular reasoning in the realm of Evolution, i understand that i will convince no one. I rest upon the principle of providential generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Annafan, posted 01-23-2009 5:31 AM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 3:43 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 01-24-2009 3:56 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 9:36 AM homunculus has responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 32 of 211 (495722)
01-24-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Huntard
01-23-2009 5:48 AM


Re: Wrong way round
Does it matter? The earth came first so i suspect you are right. doesn't change a thing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2009 5:48 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 3:44 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 33 of 211 (495724)
01-24-2009 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
01-23-2009 6:03 AM


mr. jack
First, bacteria would constitute organic life. I'm not aware of any such bacteria in the 'observable universe', outside of earth.

Concerning, "how we would know if a protein of replicating amino acids existed in known space?"

We wouldn't, until it began to adapt and change to fit the environment extremities and continue reproducing into visible colonies of organisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 01-23-2009 6:03 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Jack, posted 01-27-2009 10:21 AM homunculus has not yet responded
 Message 136 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2009 12:38 PM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 34 of 211 (495725)
01-24-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:30 AM


Re: thanks for the comment
First, I would like to bring to surface that the asset of this thread is that 'organic life coming from non life' or, if it is OK, 'spontaneous generation', has never been observed or documented as evidence. Evolutionists suggestions may indeed hold weight in Evolutionary science, but in universal science, only observable facts may be subject to validation. same goes with Creation.

As has been pointed out to you, evolution is not claiming life came from non life, evolution doesn't say anything about where life came from. Evolution IS real science, creationism is not.

Secondly, I respect your resourceful application of the geologic column, however, I would like to note that it is commonly believed by Creationists, like myself, that the geologic column is entirely speculation.

Of course, but as with most things concerning science, you're wrong.

Allow me to brief;

Charles Lyell's book (wrote in 1833, before Darwin's "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life") "principles of geology", where the geologic column originated, elaborates on the geologic column being layers in the earth that hold testament to Evolutionary science.


So, even before evolution was even there, this book tried to support it? Do you not see the complete ridiculousness of that claim?

He claims The layers of earth were formed by millions of years of Climate change, erosion, erratic weather patterns, etc. He had no way of knowing that!

I think he did, further, ALL the tests done since have confirmed this.

He construed layers in the earth, which can form rather quickly (it's true, consider a lake, or something where erosion or water is involved, heavier rocks and solid earth goes to the bottom, dirt and lighter soils to the top, eh?) with Evolutionary/Atheistic standpoint of 'old earth' philosophy.

Even before evolution even existed? Could he see the future? Further, atheism also has nothing to do with science.

As well, the bones and fossils he found during his high budget excavations were in obvious assortments and duly categorized. Meaning, he found the bones in common groups and obviously in different layers. Showing, of course, different time zones, but assumed the number of years.

And all fossils found since confirm his findings.

His belief that the earth is millions of years old and presumption of Evolution, combined with natural forming layers in the earth and random assortment of bones and fossils in the earth created the geologic column.

Again, evolution before it even existed, please homunculus, this is starting to make you look not too bright on this subject.

Note: Charles lyell is not identified as the contingency for physical science. I discredit his work for my health.

You might, the vast majority of scientists accept the basics it taught, and have continued to develop it over the years since the publication.

As to suggest believing in 'abiogenesis' or life originally coming from non living matter or energy into the primordial soup into the amoebae, that's fine. amino acids and nucleic acids into proteins and conjoining with polymers and a "spark" to begin reproduction, it can be explained, but it cannot be observed or accounted for. Beyond that, it is trivial to say more.

Perhaps not yet. What's your point? Where did the original life come from if not from other living things?

Finally, when I say "observable universe", I mean, "observable universe". I am aware of polar ice caps on moons and planets that arise interests of "maybe there was life on this planet" or "maybe there will be life on that moon". I have uncovered the veil of monotonous circular reasoning in the realm of Evolution, i understand that i will convince no one. I rest upon the principle of providential generation.

And again you show you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with there being life outside this planet.

And again, I ask you, how big is the observable universe?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:30 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 8:34 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 35 of 211 (495726)
01-24-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:33 AM


Re: Wrong way round
Does it matter? The earth came first so i suspect you are right. doesn't change a thing.

If the Earth came first, then how can life NOT perfectly ft the circumstances in which the Earth resides? If it didn't we wouldn't be here today, now would we?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:33 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 36 of 211 (495727)
01-24-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:30 AM


Another Ubermensch
homunculus writes:

Secondly, I respect your resourceful application of the geologic column, however, I would like to note that it is commonly believed by Creationists, like myself, that the geologic column is entirely speculation. Allow me to brief;

Charles Lyell's book (wrote in 1833, before Darwin's "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life") "principles of geology", where the geologic column originated, elaborates on the geologic column being layers in the earth that hold testament to Evolutionary science. He claims The layers of earth were formed by millions of years of Climate change, erosion, erratic weather patterns, etc. He had no way of knowing that!

He construed layers in the earth, which can form rather quickly (it's true, consider a lake, or something where erosion or water is involved, heavier rocks and solid earth goes to the bottom, dirt and lighter soils to the top, eh?) with Evolutionary/Atheistic standpoint of 'old earth' philosophy.

As well, the bones and fossils he found during his high budget excavations were in obvious assortments and duly categorized. Meaning, he found the bones in common groups and obviously in different layers. Showing, of course, different time zones, but assumed the number of years.

His belief that the earth is millions of years old and presumption of Evolution, combined with natural forming layers in the earth and random assortment of bones and fossils in the earth created the geologic column. Note: Charles lyell is not identified as the contingency for physical science. I discredit his work for my health.

I am not quite sure that your personal denial of all accumulated knowledge of all geosciences throughout history is on topic. However if you would like to start a new topic concerning your apparent claim to know more about the physical properties of the earth than all other humans, past or present, I'm sure it can be accommodated.

Generally I wait for a few weeks until after all the pros have taken most the meat away. I like to dine on the marrow.

Edited by anglagard, : add the qualifier 'apparent'


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:30 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 8:59 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 37 of 211 (495728)
01-24-2009 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Granny Magda
01-23-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Woah! Slow Down That Rush to Judgement!
Concerning, again, Earth's previous "special chemical environment" that was capable of producing life, It is a suggestion that helps to explain but, again, there is nothing substantial about this presupposed environment. It really is a speculation.

Since the lord created the physical universe, that would suggest he created science. Under that supposition, we could have been placed in an infinite number of scenario's that resulted in existence. As well, It would have been possible for the lord to have fused polymers with proteins of amino acids and prokaryotes, but even that process is presupposed in Evolutionary science.

Concerning the word "organic": I have taken note that Organic is used referring to 'living' things in common speech. I'm not sure as to the empirical foundations to which this word was used as rule, but, webster's and wikipedia offer stances.

Webster's source; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic

Wikipedia's source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic

The only confusion in this word's usage is the application of fundamental life. reference to Wiki's organic matter or material. "Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism; is capable of decay, or the product of decay; or is composed of organic compounds. The definition of organic matter varies upon the subject it is being used for." (Like Evolutionary science/abiogenisis where it incorporates inanimate material.)

I would like to add that Evolutionary science, no matter how pleasant, cannot inherently dictate a terminologies application.

The original definition of "organic" chemistry came from the misconception that organic compounds were always related to life processes. However, organic molecules can be produced by processes not involving life. Life as we know it also depends on inorganic chemistry. For example, many enzymes rely on transition metals such as iron and copper; and materials such as shells, teeth and bones are part organic, part inorganic in composition. Apart from elemental carbon, only certain classes of carbon compounds (such as oxides, carbonates, and carbides) are conventionally considered inorganic. Biochemistry deals mainly with the natural chemistry of biomolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids, and sugars.

I'm really glad they went through the trouble to remind us that they are sure of themselves.

Concerning methane on mars, yea, and there are methane on lots of other planets and moons.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Granny Magda, posted 01-23-2009 8:50 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2009 5:19 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 01-24-2009 7:32 AM homunculus has responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 38 of 211 (495731)
01-24-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by homunculus
01-24-2009 4:27 AM


Woah!
homunculus writes:

there is nothing substantial about this presupposed environment. It really is a speculation.

This is your evo crushing argument? You nearly made me fall out of my chair given that you went and said this right after:

Since the lord created the physical universe, that would suggest he created science

Take it slow, when you get it you may laugh as hard as I did.

From message 25 writes:

Since there is no other life in 'observable space', we can safely assume that, according to evolution, spontaneous generation would've had to have taken place due to earth's global specific environs.

1- We didn't even have the technology to see extra-solar planets a few decades ago and your ready to declare the universe empty of all life? That doesn't make much sense if you actually try thinking about it does it?

2- If you read up on what evolution actually says you will quickly discover it has nothing to do with spontaneous generation. So when you think about that for a quick second it doesn't make much sense either.

3- Earths "global specific environs" have been found to be quite different in the past, they are also quite different depending on the seasons, and are remarkably different at various locations at the same time. Think of conditions at a thermal vent at the bottom of the ocean and ask if that is the same "specific environ" as the Sahara or the amazon rain forest. There is no specific environment so, personally, I wouldn't play that card either.

Perhaps you need to re-think your position a tiny bit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 4:27 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 9:26 AM Vacate has not yet responded

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 39 of 211 (495732)
01-24-2009 5:28 AM


coming up for air!
It did not take me long to realize that I am amidst my Evolutionists friends, once I received the first reply. I appreciate your support in this forum and look forward to learning a great deal. Before moving on, I would like to assess a couple of points.

1) Concerning the "1 mile to burn/1 mile to freeze".
Upon reading my reason for edit, you'll learn that I, haphazardly, threw that in there as a thin 'ILLUSTRATION' (not that I didn't already mention that in the assert "figurative to illustrate") to give an idea of how, I believe, small and feeble this world is, on a astronomical level and how unstable our biosphere is. But to appease the crowd, it is edited out.

2) Concerning the "puddle of water" and the "supportive replies". That puddle of water thing is a really poor way of saying I'm solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities.
While it is obviously true I believe in creation, it is not true that that is the only option I permitted.

quote:
1) Earths global positioning, bio climatic temperatures and atmosphere allows life window of opportune growth and generation.

2) Through continuous adaptation and 'evolution' life became fitted for survival on the planet and continued to regenerate and means of infestation. or

3) Meaningful providence; we were placed here by design for a super natural reasoning.


Finally, I understand the lot of you don't dig creation, that's fine. But I would request, for what it's worth, consideration for what I'm saying. I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2009 5:41 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 43 by lyx2no, posted 01-24-2009 6:25 AM homunculus has responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 40 of 211 (495735)
01-24-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by homunculus
01-24-2009 5:28 AM


Re: coming up for air!
I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.

Given that we haven't even found all the species on this planet yet, and barely have the technology to hope for finding life on other planets it is hardly suprising that we haven't another example to point at currently. Though you seem to consider that the final answer I consider your view to be strictly speculation (and a discredit to all those who are looking)

Also you seem to have ignored the fact that any form of "life" that was to spontaneously arrise in our current environment would almost immediatley be consumed by life that is currently occupying that environment. I consider that to be stacking the deck in your favor. I am sure any scientist in the field would agree that life spontaneously arrising in todays competition is hardly likely, and even less likely to be witnessed. Now imagine a world without life and it becomes possible, but your likely going to respond that we can't witness it. Nice way to win a debate but it doesn't mean such an event didn't happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 5:28 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 9:55 AM Vacate has not yet responded

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 41 of 211 (495743)
01-24-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
01-23-2009 5:04 PM


Re: -Law of Providence-
First, thank you for remaining civil in this debate friendly forum without use of immature language.

It is true that once upon a time, concerning the physical realm, life had not existed. Point being, I believe, god then interceded and created life. If "spontaneous generation" does not satisfy, then perhaps we can call it, "autopoiesis" and "allopoiesis". autopoiesis being self creating, as you say. allopoisis being to create, as I say, referring to god of course. Better point that out now before there are six different replies telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2009 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 42 of 211 (495744)
01-24-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by lyx2no
01-23-2009 9:38 PM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
Here is where I decide to go out on a limb and say that I understand that the idea of god turns your stomachs, but something tells me that until i say, "there is no god, there is only evolution" you people will continue to fling feces at me. Sorry, I still say the only thing we have seen is life producing life. Don't forget everything having a source.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by lyx2no, posted 01-23-2009 9:38 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 01-24-2009 6:25 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 6:32 AM homunculus has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2825 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 43 of 211 (495746)
01-24-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by homunculus
01-24-2009 5:28 AM


You Need Air All Right.
1 - 3% atmospheric CO2 on your planet. It's no wonder your thinking is askew. Have you ever tried thinking in English. All those fancy words, this coming from a guy who likes fancy word BTW, are not you friends. It's not the size of the word that gives it meaning.

That puddle of water thing is a really poor way of saying I'm solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities.

"That puddle of water thing" isn't about you; therefore, it is a poor way of saying "…[you're] solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities." so you've gotten one right on a technicality. Don't let it go to your head.

The puddle is about how life fits it environment not the environment fitting life. Have you ever noticed that there are no gaps between the edge of a puddle and the hole that it is in. That is not because the hole is malleable but because the puddle is. No matter what hole the puddle is put into, it will form itself to the hole. The same is true for life. It will adapt itself to the environment it is in without leaving gaps at the edges. If the extreme temperatures of an environment are 0°C and 100°C, life will adapt to fit that range. You'll find no life there that can not tolerate that range, nor life that can tolerate long periods of time much outside of that range (nothing that live comfortably at 100°C is going to drop dead at exactly 101°C).

Finally, I understand the lot of you don't dig creation, that's fine.

I'm glad that's fine. Is it another one of your rulings? (per message 25… "I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required") But it's your elephant whether a scientist digs — unless he's in of these digging type of sciences — a hypothesis or not; if it is indicated it is indicated; If not, not.

But I would request, for what it's worth, consideration for what I'm saying.

I request that you consider what it is you are saying.

I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.

I have never seen a single person taking a poop. I expect you all to explode any minute now.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 5:28 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:17 AM lyx2no has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 44 of 211 (495747)
01-24-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by homunculus
01-24-2009 6:20 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
Don't forget everything having a source.

Really, and what is your evidence for this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 6:20 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:23 AM Brian has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 211 (495749)
01-24-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by homunculus
01-24-2009 6:20 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
Hey Homunculus.

Here is where I decide to go out on a limb and say that I understand that the idea of god turns your stomachs, but something tells me that until i say, "there is no god, there is only evolution" you people will continue to fling feces at me.

I for one don't care if you believe in god or not. I only point out where you are wrong in your assumptions. If something I say isn't clear, or you want more explanation, just ask, and I will be happy to provide it. The reason my answers are short, is because I don't want to go through the trouble of making a big great explanative post, only to have the one it is addressed to saying "Nuh-Uh, you're wrong". I've got better things to do with my time. I will concede the point we don't know how the first life arose. So, if you want, you can say god did that, I don't care. However, this has nothing to do wih evolution, as so far you've been saying. Evolution is the development of life, not the origin.

Sorry, I still say the only thing we have seen is life producing life. Don't forget everything having a source.

Yes, but life must have come from "non-life" ulltimately. How else could it have gotten started? If god poofed it into existence, it still came from nothing.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 6:20 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:55 AM Huntard has responded

    
Prev12
3
456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019