Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 121 of 327 (503343)
03-17-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Taq
03-17-2009 4:00 PM


Re: Light and the dark
riVeRraT writes:
Both Taq, and lyx2no are trying to debate here that the design of our bodies is imperfect because bad things can happen to us. That insinuates that a perfect design would not allow anything bad to happen to us. (that is also a subjective view, not an objective one)
Taq writes:
That's correct. That is the objective definition of perfect. Any and all actions do not have a bad outcome.
That is in no way the objective definition of a perfectly designed human. It is your subjective opinion, and nothing more.
It would seem rather obvious that a lack of energy resulting in us freezing to death would be a bad thing. Do you really think that we couldn't figure this out without freezing to death?
That is 100% correct. There are, and have been many of millions of people who had to learn things the hard way, sometimes resulting in death. I learned many things in my life the hard way.
Again, good, and bad are subjective views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 4:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 03-18-2009 12:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 327 (503344)
03-17-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by onifre
03-17-2009 4:39 PM


onfire writes:
But we would also have to include any and all god(s)/metaphysical entities; science disproves none of them.
Yes, we are free to worship anything we want to, and believe in anything we want to. Believing in nothing, is still a belief.
How do you know that that particular book is the right one?
I'll re-ask, how do you connect the subjective notion of design to specifically Christianity and Jesus, and not Islam and Allah, or Hindu and Shiva, etc?
How did you decide "Christianity"?
You read the book, go through life, and then decide for yourself. For some time I believed just for the sake of believing. Then I had an awakening, and I believe it was from God. In other religions, you do not have the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the means by which God communicates with us. I thought it was bullshit until I felt it. Ever since that day, I have felt it for the last 6 years. One second after I felt it, my whole life changed, objectively, and subjectively. Many of the words in the bible now made sense to me.
There is no way to prove it to anyone. I can only take that feeling I had, the love that I felt, and continue to feel, and then share it with others. I cannot bring people to God, or punish people for not believing in Him. God brings you to Him, not the other way around. All I can do is what I think He is asking of me. Of course my physical body questions it, and there is always doubt, but so far, I have no reall good reason to stop believing. If I did stop believing, I would have to have my head examined because of what I have been experiencing these last 6 years.
It's very confusing, and it's hard for me to sum it up in a few words in a forum. That is what the bible is for. I see people take what is there and use it for bad. I see people get confused by it. I see religion get it wrong on many occasion. I have a reputation in my church for ruining the imaginary party sometimes, and bringing people back down to earth.
Oh, and I wanted to tell you, that when I look at a bacteria flagellum, I see something that looks designed. There is an attempt to explain the evolution of it. But there are obvious pieces of the puzzle missing.
I also think it is a possibility that we were designed to evolve, with RNA being like blueprints and all, who knows. Either way, it is beyond amazing all the life that is here on earth, and how ever it came to be is mind boggling. To think it is just random, could be considered crazy thinking as well. Intelligent life from random events, and stuff that just happens to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 03-17-2009 4:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Phage0070, posted 03-18-2009 1:13 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 125 by RCS, posted 03-18-2009 2:07 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 148 by onifre, posted 03-27-2009 9:35 PM riVeRraT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 123 of 327 (503346)
03-17-2009 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Light and the dark
Both Taq, and lyx2no are trying to debate here that the design of our bodies is imperfect because bad things can happen to us.
This certainly isn't my argument. I only require something to be engineered to meet its function. A thimble need only keep me from pricking my finger while not interfering with my making a stitch. I do not require it to protect me from 50Mt nuclear blasts. I categorize extinguishment in a 50Mt nuclear blasts as a bad thing yet still give the thimble a pass. I don't see drowning in ones own vomit as a function of human existence, yet we are well designed for it. Far from perfect.
Now, I know that this example is over the top, but you have made that necessary by your continual confusion of the subject in an analogy with the subject of the analogy.
Again, Rock stars drowning on their own vomit is a poor example, because the Rock star was probably overdosing on drugs, and the designer gave us enough info to know that we shouldn't be overdosing on drugs.
Actually, the rock star was fictitious, so the likelihood of his being on drugs is low. I used that example because it's pointed. I thought you'd be able to see through the particulars and grasp the concept, but no; so, let me rephrase my statement:
[The creator] is either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves infants drowning in their own vomit.
So, tell me, what was the evil, little infant doing to deserve its fate?
lyx2no, in msg 109, writes:
Firstly, this presupposes there is a creator.
Isn't that what you are doing by claiming the designer has made bad designs?
In the same way I presuppose that there are intergers, "p" and "q", such that (p/q)2 = 2, yes. But you're using your presupposition as a necessary element in a syllogism without first establishing its truth.
I've hidden a line of argument here because I miss read your post and unwittingly constructed a straw man. I don't agree with the point you made, but you've got enough on your plate.
riVeRrat, in msg 115, writes:
LOL, but then we would have not been able to enjoy food, or taking a breath of fresh air.
Currently, I do not enjoy the abilities to soar through the clouds or to taste lava. I do not consider these as short comings of human design. A propensity toward aortic dissection is another matter.
The god consistent with the physical evidence is a god who hasn't or can't remedy a number of questionable designs. You choose to believe he hasn't remedied them. That our questions are impertinent. That our free will would somehow be diminished if we weren't free to drown in our own vomit. That we couldn't understand good without evil. These excuses you make for him don't impress me as showing him in a good light.
I choose to believe he can't. That our questions are rhetorical. Only a deceptive, disinterested, or nonexistent god is consistent with the evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't exist or that he wants me to believe that he doesn't exist.
Who am I to question?
Sorry for this being such a jumble. It's been hectic of late yes, I know kid hectic does not compare to grown-up hectic, and I hate using it as an excuse, but I've not the time to make a proper thesis of it.
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct errors made in haste.

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 116 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 12:49 PM lyx2no has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 327 (503348)
03-18-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:34 PM


quote:
For some time I believed just for the sake of believing.
Personally convincing experiences hold no room for discussion, but it is this starting point that interests me. For a while you say that you believed not because convincing evidence for its truth was presented, but simply for the sake of believing. I suspect that you generally apply more discernment to accepting ideas in your daily life otherwise you would be in an institution, so what special circumstances caused you to waive such requirements in this case?
If there were no special circumstances, then during this time if I told you that God does not exist would you have believed me with the same fervor that you believed he did exist? Why or why not?
quote:
Oh, and I wanted to tell you, that when I look at a bacteria flagellum, I see something that looks designed.
Others will tell you that just because you don't know about the missing pieces of the puzzle does not mean that they do not exist. I am unconcerned with that particular thread though, I am more interested in this: How do you know that it looks designed?
By saying that it looks designed you are implying that there are things that are *not* designed and naturally occurring, and that you can distinguish the designed stuff from the undesigned. Give us an example of something that is undesigned and explain to me your criteria for determining between the two.
Humans are extremely good at detecting patterns. It is one of the things that makes us so intelligent but it is both a blessing and a curse; by being so intelligent we have the extra horsepower to keep finding patterns where none exist. We can see pictures in clouds, inkblots, or games of chance. Seeing patterns and attributing design to them is something that has always been a problem for humans. This is what I think you are experiencing; you have no intelligent limits on your capacity to detect patterns, probably due to a limited knowledge of the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 1:04 PM Phage0070 has replied

RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 125 of 327 (503349)
03-18-2009 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:34 PM


It's very confusing, and it's hard for me to sum it up in a few words in a forum. That is what the bible is for. I see people take what is there and use it for bad. I see people get confused by it. I see religion get it wrong on many occasion. I have a reputation in my church for ruining the imaginary party sometimes, and bringing people back down to earth.
Confusion is apparent, I mean your confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 12:53 PM RCS has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 126 of 327 (503382)
03-18-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:17 PM


Re: Light and the dark
That is in no way the objective definition of a perfectly designed human. It is your subjective opinion, and nothing more.
And you happen to have an objective definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:17 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 12:49 PM Taq has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 127 of 327 (503476)
03-19-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by lyx2no
03-17-2009 11:49 PM


Re: Light and the dark
lyx2no writes:
This certainly isn't my argument. I only require something to be engineered to meet its function.
Well this is my whole point. I am also sorry if I got your argument wrong.
You have stated a few things. All referring to "bad design". But you have not stated what our function should be. I am debating that we cannot know our function, or God's intended function for our bodies. Therefor it is impossible to contemplate whether our design is bad or not.
So what is our function?
So, tell me, what was the evil, little infant doing to deserve its fate?
Why is the infant evil? That is a prejudice statement right there.
Again, if we do not know the function, how do we determine that the infant's death is bad?
For someone with absolutely no faith, and only believes in worldly things, the death would appear to be bad.
I choose to believe he can't. That our questions are rhetorical. Only a deceptive, disinterested, or nonexistent god is consistent with the evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't exist or that he wants me to believe that he doesn't exist.
Who am I to question?
That is really what it all comes down to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 03-17-2009 11:49 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by lyx2no, posted 03-19-2009 3:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 128 of 327 (503477)
03-19-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Taq
03-18-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Light and the dark
Taq writes:
And you happen to have an objective definition?
No, that's my point. No one does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 03-18-2009 12:59 PM Taq has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 129 of 327 (503478)
03-19-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RCS
03-18-2009 2:07 AM


RCS writes:
Confusion is apparent, I mean your confusion.
Everyone on this board is confused. If you don't admit it, you are a liar. Only thing with you accusing me, as apposed to me admitting it, is that you mean it as an insult. A sure sign that someone is scared and confused. If you have to resort to insults, and illogical arguments, then you shouldn't be participating.
It is also in the forum rules, that if you make an accusation, you need to back it up. But to understand the bible completely, you need to have first read it, and studied it, and then read through this whole forum, and my 5000+ posts to fully understand my confusion. Then get back to us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RCS, posted 03-18-2009 2:07 AM RCS has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 130 of 327 (503479)
03-19-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Phage0070
03-18-2009 1:13 AM


Phage0070 writes:
If there were no special circumstances, then during this time if I told you that God does not exist would you have believed me with the same fervor that you believed he did exist? Why or why not?
I may have expressed that to generally, my believing for the sake of believing. Let me clarify. But it is off-topic, so sorry for that.
For the first 25 years of my life, I did not know what to believe. I knew that the Catholic religion by which I was raised was full of crap, but thought that there was a possibility of a creator. As you sit around with your friends as a teenager, and ponder it, maybe stoned at the time, you all think it is a possibility, just not the one that religion presents. In other words, we all have our own personal god.
I think that is the first step in having a relationship with God.
Then on the birth of my first child, I started to read the bible. I thought that all of the things that Jesus said (the red letters) made perfect sense to me. He also tells us to believe by faith. So I did. I claimed I believed, and I didn't make any real changes in my life. I only asked God to reveal Himself to me.
Then 13 years after that, I believe God did reveal a small part of Himself to me, and forever my life is changed (or tweaked).
I just want to believe in God, and "keep it real". I understand what Jesus teaches us. I don't always follow it, but I try. There is always much to learn.
By saying that it looks designed you are implying that there are things that are *not* designed and naturally occurring,
I did not imply that. In the same post, I stated that RNA was like a blue print.
This is what I think you are experiencing; you have no intelligent limits on your capacity to detect patterns, probably due to a limited knowledge of the subject.
Maybe, but I haven't said anything too outrageous. No more outrageous than saying everything is random.
You could be calling something random (life) because of our limited perception on life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Phage0070, posted 03-18-2009 1:13 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Phage0070, posted 03-19-2009 3:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 327 (503495)
03-19-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
03-19-2009 1:04 PM


quote:
I think that is the first step in having a relationship with God.
I disagree. I think that is humans, ignorant of natural processes but possessing a pattern-seeking mind, making up explanations for things beyond their understanding. It is the modern world's equivalent of filling in the edges of the map with "Here be monsters" and fanciful illustrations. Depending on the mapmaker's knowledge the monsters are drawn closer, over areas where a more knowledgeable mapmaker would fill in with known area. We are arguing to stop drawing the monsters altogether; you are unable to tell where your knowledge ends and flights of fancy begin.
quote:
I thought that all of the things that Jesus said (the red letters) made perfect sense to me. He also tells us to believe by faith. So I did.
There is a difference between wisdom, trust, and faith. Allow me to explain in the form of a parable:
Once there was a flock of sheep. They lived in a plentiful grassy plain at the base of a mountain; on three sides they were bordered by a dark forest in which lived terrible wolves, but on the fourth there was a rocky outcropping jutting high above the rolling hills of the plain. On this outcropping stood a single majestic tree, shading the top.
A sheep was born named Adam, and as he grew his mother taught him the ways of the flock. It was explained that the main danger Adam would experience in his life was the wolves that lived in the forest. They were known to steal out from the forest at all times of the day or night, and snatch sheep away to certain death. The rolling hills of the plain obscured their movement, but nevertheless the sheep all grazed with their heads down for they had a protector.
On the top of the rocky outcropping, the mother explained, there lived a mighty Ram. This ram would watch over the flock from his perch day and night, and because of the height he could see every part of the rolling plains. When he saw a wolf he would call out and warn the flock of the danger, and if they heeded his call without question they would be saved.
The little sheep Adam grew up with the wisdom of his mother's teachings, and he trusted his mother. However he was troubled as he grew older. Among the sheep he spoke to few ever claimed to have seen the Ram at all; some explained that he was hidden by the shade of the tree, while those that claimed to have seen him rarely agreed in their accounts. In thanks for the Ram's protection the sheep gathered the most succulent shoots of grass and laid them at the base of the outcropping, for none of the sheep could climb to the top like the mighty Ram. Adam saw that the offerings were never eaten, and was troubled. In his travels around the plain he had spoken to many sheep that lamented the loss of their friends to wolves; a few claimed to have heard a warning from the Ram but for most their friends were simply killed without intervention. To Adam it looked as though the wolves moved without check and took sheep as they saw fit, and he was greatly troubled.
Once Adam returned from his travels he came to the grassy hollow where he was raised, but his mother was not there. She had been taken by wolves; there was no warning.
Adam grazed with his head down.
---
Adam recognized the wisdom of his mother and trusted her before he set off on his travels. After he had learned about the plains, he grazed with his head down through faith. Belief without evidence, or with evidence to the contrary, is what faith is all about.
My point is that just because someone is wise does not means that they are infallible. It is quite a leap to go from recognizing the wisdom behind "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to believing them when they say they can fly, or rise from the dead. Was there a ram at the top of the outcropping? If you were a sheep, what would you do?
quote:
I did not imply that. In the same post, I stated that RNA was like a blue print.
I think you have missed the crux of the question, perhaps intentionally. By stating that something, anything, is designed you are inherently implying that you are capable of distinguishing that aspect in the observed something. It does not matter if you are talking about humans or the RNA that predated them. Do you claim to be able to determine that something is designed despite having never observed something naturally occurring? If so how is your judgment in this matter different from arbitrarily coming to a conclusion?
quote:
Maybe, but I haven't said anything too outrageous. No more outrageous than saying everything is random.
Again, I disagree. First of all my position is not that everything is random, on the contrary that is closer to your position. Science suggests that every effect that we observe has a quantifiable cause, and our explanations of natural processes including our origin are based on that premise. Chemicals didn't just randomly decide to come together to form life, they came together because of the fundamental nature of their structure. Evolution is not fueled by pure chaos, rather it is natural variability being filtered according to the viability of the organism. Your viewpoint states rather that everything was created "just because" and that the plan of the creator is unknowable and unpredictable; in other words, random.
I also disagree when you claim to have not said anything "too outrageous". You believe in an undetectable, omnipotent, omniscient being that created everything the way it is but purposefully withheld evidence of its existence from humanity. Despite this withholding of evidence it expects us to believe fully or face eternal punishment, and yet is benevolent. You also believe unquestioningly in accounts of events that the entirety of your, and all other reliably recorded experiences suggest to be wholly impossible. Frankly I think you would be hard-pressed to say something more outrageous, and it is only by the disciplined nature of this board's patrons that you are not dismissed as a loon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 1:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 03-21-2009 12:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 132 of 327 (503500)
03-19-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by riVeRraT
03-19-2009 12:49 PM


Don't Defy Deny
You have stated a few things. All referring to "bad design". But you have not stated what our function should be.
I’ve little onus to define what our function is within the scope of the argument I’m making. I may need to support my argument that drowning in vomit is not part of our function if push comes to shove, but I can’t see it going that far.
I am debating that we cannot know our function, or God's intended function for our bodies. Therefor it is impossible to contemplate whether our design is bad or not.
So what is our function?
Actually, I’ve got the easier argument here. Personally, I believe my function is to be a propagator of genetic material. Under a design scenario, the contradictions inherent in that theory would be that I’m 4.72 feet tall, 176 lbs., having coke bottle glasses, facial vitiligo (It’s hard enough on me that I act white, but I’m turning white as well. Joy!) and tonsure. I will disperse genetic material, to be sure, but the chance of my ever doing so under conditions suitable to propagation are next to nil. Without the presumption of design I don’t have to explain away these apparent design flaws: it’s just the luck of the draw.
Why is the infant evil? That is a prejudice statement right there.
Your argument pertaining to the rock star was an (nonjudgmental) appeal to personal responsibility.
Again, if we do not know the function, how do we determine that the infant's death is bad?
For someone with absolutely no faith, and only believes in worldly things, the death would appear to be bad.
I happen to believe that people are autotelic. The infant’s death is bad because it’s not likely the course it would have selected give its druthers.
lyx2no writes:
I choose to believe he can't. That our questions are rhetorical. Only a deceptive, disinterested, or nonexistent god is consistent with the evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't exist or that he wants me to believe that he doesn't exist.
Who am I to question?
That is really what it all comes down to.
Then why do you defy Him? Accept the teachings of The Lord and deny His existence.

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 127 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 12:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 03-21-2009 12:10 PM lyx2no has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 133 of 327 (503552)
03-20-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by lyx2no
03-13-2009 8:53 PM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
lyx2no writes:
People can't breath while swallowing. This is not a difficult problem to resolve. Especially since there are models for its resolution in many other creatures. If a mere human can recognize this why couldn't the creator? It's either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves rock stars drowning in their own vomit.
i would have thought that our nose is a pretty good resolution seeing it enables us to breath whilst chewing our food.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 8:53 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2009 7:41 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 134 of 327 (503553)
03-20-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Taq
03-17-2009 10:42 AM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
Taq writes:
Why not have separate breathing and eating holes? That would be a better design.
there are two separate holes for eating and breathing
in the back of the throat is the pharynx (used both for the swallowing of food and for breathing) and to prevent food and drink from entering your airways, a small movable lid known as the epiglottis blocks the entrance when you swallow.
pretty nifty use of space if you ask me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 10:42 AM Taq has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 327 (503555)
03-20-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Peg
03-20-2009 7:21 AM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
i would have thought that our nose is a pretty good resolution seeing it enables us to breath whilst chewing our food.
But not while swallowing it, which is why lyx2no actually said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:47 AM Dr Adequate 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