Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 76 of 104 (518424)
08-06-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Evidence
Well the christian God can do anything. Technically, He could give me a brand new ferrari in my backyard. Yet he doesn't, even if I pray very, very, very hard and convinced that he will.
The fact that a Ferrari does not appear in my backyard does not prove or disprove the existence God. Same applies for this or that miracle that God doesn't do. (which includes the growing back of limbs)
PS Sorry for any amputees that could be on this forum, I do not mean to offend anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:23 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 77 of 104 (518429)
08-06-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Evidence
What? Good things don't happen to non-christians? Why would you assume being christian has anything to do with anything? Now you know two people that this happened to?
Yeah well after rereading myself I agree it sounds awkward. WHat I was saying is that from my vast sampling of spontaneous cancer remissions (which is only two ...) both were christians, which really doesn't mean anything since my sampling is very small, and so it was more humoristic I guess.
I just spoke to a friend who is a radiologist. He says that though something like this is uncommon it is not rare. Spontaneous remission of cancer is not an unknown phenomenon. Tends to drive docs crazy, because peoeple start proclaiming miracles. He even knows of people that received treatment and then claim that it was some sort of miracle. No sense giving the docs and medicine any credit when you can give it all to god.
Any chance he could tell you the christian/non-christian ratio of the spontaneous cancer remissions ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:13 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:33 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 78 of 104 (518459)
08-06-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
08-06-2009 12:55 AM


I just want to say that two previous persons had already answered my question, and that I did stop and read what they told me ...
I mean, you could also read what others posted so that I don't get three times the same answer. Once is usually enough with me
The problem is when I get to reading a thread, I don't read all the posts then decide which to respond to. I read them one at a time and respond at that time. This is the nature of forums like this. Deal with it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 08-06-2009 12:55 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 08-07-2009 7:00 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 79 of 104 (518460)
08-06-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by slevesque
08-06-2009 1:00 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionnary theory. The belief i na particular God/Gods is of course acquired knowledge though.
Great topic for another thread. The problem is you have no evidence. Just your preconceived ideas from your own indoctrination.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by slevesque, posted 08-06-2009 1:00 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by slevesque, posted 08-07-2009 11:42 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 80 of 104 (518462)
08-06-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by slevesque
08-06-2009 1:30 AM


Re: Evidence
Any chance he could tell you the christian/non-christian ratio of the spontaneous cancer remissions ?
No but their have been studies on the effectiveness of prayer. Or should I say ineffectiveness.
Abstract of original study.
News story
quote:
The prayer of others is widely believed to influence the recovery of patients. To find out if it works, several studies have been carried out with mixed results. But researchers at six academic hospitals across the United States found that the investigations had not followed the best scientific methods. So they carried out their own study on 1,800 patients about to undergo heart bypass surgery, in which clogged arteries are replaced by clean ones removed from the leg. It is the largest known study so far on the question.
A total of 600 of the patients received the prayers of others before surgery after being told they might or might not get them. Another 600 were told the same thing, but were not prayed for. The third group of 600 received pre-surgical prayer and knew it.
The researchers report that the prayers had no effect on the recovery of the first two groups of heart patients, those who did not know whether others were praying for them.
To their surprise, the researchers found that the third group of heart bypass patients, those who knew others were praying for them, had more surgical complications as a whole than the other two.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by slevesque, posted 08-06-2009 1:30 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 81 of 104 (518478)
08-06-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
08-02-2009 3:49 AM


Miracles with bleach! Can you see the difference?
Hello slevesque, my goal for this post is to show you what Dr. Adequate is also trying to show you, that the difference between something being a miracle or not isn't from being a theist/atheist, it's from where you stop looking for answers.
First, your story:
I can give a personnal example of a miracle:
There is a lady I know very well that was diagnosed with a cancer by her doctor, who used x-rays etc. to identify it. Despite that she had the x-ray right in front of here, she refused to believe it and so went to another city to see another doctor so that he would examine her if she had a cancer. (Health care is free here in quebec, so she was paying herself a little 'luxury' haha) Same tests, same results with the same cancer at the same place. She still didn't accept it, and drove 2 hours to another hospital in another city, and was rechecked if she had cancer. Again, exactly the same results. Now seeing these three independant confirmations that she had a cancer, she finally accepted it. After scheduling here operation to have it removed, she said to the doctor: ''God didn't say his last word on all this!'' and left. Fast forward a month or two later, at the day scheduled for here operation. She was in the hospital elevator with the doctor, all set to go down to the operation room when a nurse came running to announce that the pre-operation tests had revealed that there were no more cancer. The new x-rays were totally different from the three previous ones, and the cancer had in fact disappeared. When the lady turned to the doctor and asked: 'What happened ?' the doctor simply replied: 'It happenned exactly what you told me.' This was revealing because that doctor was not a christian at all, and yet didn't even try to explain what had happened. He had recognized a miracle when he saw one.
Second, my story:
quote:
Initially, the room only had a full bowl of candy. Then one child went into the room for 10 minutes. He left. The bowl was still full of candy. Then another child went into the room for 10 minutes. She left. The bowl was still full of candy. In fact, 100 children entered the room, remained for 10 minutes, and left. A check on the bowl shows that it was still full of candy. The next child went into the room for 10 minutes. Then left. Checking on the bowl of candy, we find that some is missing.
Your story - cancer does not go away very often
My story - children do not steal candy very often
Your story - the cancer was there, then later it wasn't
My story - the candy was there, then later it wasn't
Your story - there is a known, natural method that explains why the cancer went away (remission)
My story - there is a known, natural method that explains why the candy went away (kids eat candy)
Your story - there may be other methods to naturally explain why cancer can be quickly healed that we have yet to understand
My story - there may be other methods to naturally explain why candy disappears that we have yet to understand
Your story - we are unable to obtain any further information to help us determine if the healing was a miracle or natural
My story - we are unable to obtain any further information to help us determine if the missing candy was a miracle or natural
Your story - you claim it was a miracle
My story - what do you claim was it's cause?
What is the difference between your story and my story?
-I think it is your personal lack of experience with cancer patients compared to your personal multitude of experience with candy-eating kids. What do you think?
What makes people claim miracles as causes?
-I think it is personal indredulity (as above), but what do you think?
How can we tell if something really was a miracle, or if we're just saying that and it actually was a natural event that we're simply unable to go back in time to see?
-I don't think it's possible to tell a difference between these two things. I do, however, know that once we accept the claim of "miracle" there is absolutely no chance for future discovery of a possible new aspect to the natural world (perhaps God-given) that we live within.
GK Chesterton writes:
The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.
Stile writes:
You will never hear an honest explorer claim that a miracle happened. For that would extinguish the possibility of learning.
If a miracle happens and we do not accept it because there's a possibility it still happened naturally, we have lost nothing. Even in the eyes of a God - given He is self-confident.
If a natural phenomenon occurs and we accept the answer of 'miracle' at any point, we have lost all hope of educating ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 3:49 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 82 of 104 (518660)
08-07-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 8:20 AM


Theodoric writes:
The problem is when I get to reading a thread, I don't read all the posts then decide which to respond to. I read them one at a time and respond at that time. This is the nature of forums like this. Deal with it.
Still, it wasn't an unreasonable request. You might be sensitive to his plight since he is one against many.
At the bottom of every message is a section labeled "Replies to this message" that contains links to each reply, so it is obvious when a message has already drawn several replies. Replying to the message, especially if you end up saying pretty much the same thing, is just piling on.
The list of "Replies to this message" has a link to each reply. Click on it and you're instantly taken there. The reply has a link back to the original message. Click on it and you're instantly back. It's fairly easy to review the replies.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:20 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2009 7:59 AM Admin has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 83 of 104 (518672)
08-07-2009 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Admin
08-07-2009 7:00 AM


If you look at my reply to him and compare it to what the others had said you will see that my message was quite different from theirs. I had earlier posted info explaining the differences between a law and a hypothesis, which he problem ignored As a matter of fact the post in question was a reply to ME.
There is no intent and I think it is quite difficult to interpret my response as "piling on". I will respond to replies to my post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 08-07-2009 7:00 AM Admin has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 84 of 104 (518767)
08-07-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 8:23 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
Great topic for another thread. The problem is you have no evidence. Just your preconceived ideas from your own indoctrination.
I agree it would be a great topic for another thread. However, I do also think that you seem to push the 'indoctrination' button quite early, if anything. What I have claimed is at the very least probable, since why then would every culture aroudn the world have the concept of God/Gods ? In evolution, this fact about the human tendency to believe in divinities has to be explained, and of course much effort has been put into this, such as looking for an evolutionnary advantage for our ancestors to believe in Gods, or even the search for a 'God' gene.
Anyhow, I find the title of the following article to be revealing to the fact that you did in fact push the 'indoctrination' and 'no evidence' button quite early:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...rs-in-God-academic-claims.html
Another reference:
Brooks, M., Natural born believers, New Scientist 201(2694):31—33, 7 February 2009

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:23 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 9:50 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 7:30 PM slevesque has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 85 of 104 (518793)
08-08-2009 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by slevesque
08-07-2009 11:42 PM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
Barrett who is the researcher in the article you linked to is hardly a subjective researcher.
quote:
And one prominent member of the byproduct camp, Justin Barrett, is an observant Christian who believes in “an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God who brought the universe into being,” as he wrote in an e-mail message. “I believe that the purpose for people is to love God and love each other.”
“Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people,” Barrett wrote in his e-mail message. “Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?” Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them, he wrote. “Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me ” should I then stop believing that she does?”
Source
This study was funded by the Templeton Foundation. The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to promote religion(christianity).Before presenting something as clear evidence you should probably look at the responses to it.
Children of God? | AC Grayling | The Guardian
quote:
But Barrett and friends infer from the first half of these unexceptionable facts that children are hardwired to believe in a supreme being. Not only does this ignore the evidence from developmental psychology about the second stage of cognitive maturation, but is in itself a very big - and obviously hopeful - jump indeed. Moreover it ignores the fact that large tracts of humankind (the Chinese for a numerous example) have no beliefs in a supreme being, innate or learned, and that most primitive religion is animistic, a simple extension of the agency-imputing explanation which gives each tree its dryad and each stream its nymph, no supreme beings required.
Sure sounds like Mr. Barrett went into the study with preconceived ideas.
quote:
He compared believers to three-year-olds who “assume that other people know almost everything there is to be known”. Dr Barrett, who is a Christian, is the editor of the Journal of Cognition and Cultureand author of the book Why Would Anyone Believe in God? He said that the childish tendency to believe in the omniscience of others was pared down by experience as people grew up. But this tendency, necessary to allow human beings to socialise and cooperate with each other in a productive way, continued when it came to belief in God.
“It usually does continue into adult life,” he said. “It is easy, it is intuitive, it is natural. It fits our default assumptions about things.”
The Times & The Sunday Times
As for the New Scientist article, it is purely an article. I don't subscribe that mag so I cannot read the full article. New Scientist is not known to be a stellar research mag , but the quick blurb does not convince me that the article necessarily says what you say it does. Has anyone here actually read the article? What is it based on? Who are the researchers?
Anyhow, I find the title of the following article to be revealing to the fact that you did in fact push the 'indoctrination' and 'no evidence' button quite early:
There is nothing here to show me you are correct.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by slevesque, posted 08-07-2009 11:42 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 08-09-2009 8:05 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 90 by slevesque, posted 08-10-2009 1:23 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 86 of 104 (518885)
08-09-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Theodoric
08-08-2009 9:50 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
Theodoric writes:
New Scientist is not known to be a stellar research mag...
It's a science news magazine - no research is published in it. When it's reporting the news it's okay, but it has a weakness for touting highly speculative (but fully legitimate) research as if it were something just around the corner, and for occasionally publishing articles so far out on the scientific fringe that they're pseudoscience. If just 10% of the stuff published in NS over the past 20 years had come to fruition we'd be living to 200, traveling in computer guided non-polluting battery-driven cars with a range of 1000 miles, and living on Mars.
As long as one knows enough science to not be seduced by their, uh, enthusiasm it's fine, but that it is so often cited by creationists is an indication of its, uh, weaknesses as a science magazine.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 9:50 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 9:34 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 7:27 PM Percy has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 87 of 104 (518892)
08-09-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
08-09-2009 8:05 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
I guess I used the wrong terminology. I prob should not have used research at all in my description of New Scientist. At the time I was struggling to come up with a good description of it. "Science News" magazine is a great way to describe it. I will use that in the future.
ABE I wonder if Slevesque will respond to my post. I'd certainly like to see his attempts at legitimizing his argument.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 08-09-2009 8:05 AM Percy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 104 (518932)
08-09-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
08-09-2009 8:05 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
If just 10% of the stuff published in NS over the past 20 years had come to fruition we'd be living to 200, traveling in computer guided non-polluting battery-driven cars with a range of 1000 miles, and living on Mars.
Ah the fond memories of Popular Science ... still going strong ...
My favorite was the personal jetpacks as immortalized in Woody Allens "Sleeper" ....
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 08-09-2009 8:05 AM Percy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 104 (518933)
08-09-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by slevesque
08-07-2009 11:42 PM


what about the topic?
Hi again, slevesque,
I agree it would be a great topic for another thread.
So do you want to get back to your original topic, or has that question been answered?
My take: Message 44
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by slevesque, posted 08-07-2009 11:42 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 08-10-2009 1:29 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 90 of 104 (518946)
08-10-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Theodoric
08-08-2009 9:50 AM


Re: And What Should A Theist Think?
Ok, you'll have to explain something to me: I have seen numerous times on these forums the claim that 'Religion belief is the result of indoctrination' or that 'You are taught to believe in God when you're a kid' from many fellow atheist here. Yet I have seen no one back up these claims from any research.
Now, the question 'Is the belief in God/Gods natural ?' is a legitimate question, yet no one seems to want to answer it with research on the atheist's side. So how do you get the answer, if any research done by a christian is 'off-limits' ?
Researchers do not go around collecting data on everything and anything. You have an idea of something you believe is true, and then set out to prove it. This is counter-intuitive in regards to the scientific method, but this is exactly how science acts in reality (You just have to read Karl Popper and 'The logic of scientific discovery'). Darwin saw different sizes in finch beaks, and theorized that human and apes were relatives. This was not seen at all in the fossil record in his time. When paleoontologist set out to find the fossils of the intermediate stages between ape and man, they already believed that such fossils existed, or else why would they try to find it ? Having the belief that something 'is' before you prove it 'is' in no way discredits you're research as legitimate. The same applies for Barrett's research.
As for the response by AC Grayling, it is not at all surprising from an antitheist. Should I disregard his comments on the research because he has a preconceived idea on the subject ? Of course not ...
In between his attacks on organized religion and the Templeton foundation, I one statement that I found intriguing:
Now on this point he and I, an atheist funded by no organisation keen on promoting atheism, agree. Children's earliest experiences are of purposive agency in the adults and other people around them — these being the entities of most interest to them in their first months — and for good evolutionary reasons they are extremely credulous, not only believing that things must be acting as their parents do in being self-moving and intentional, but also believing in tooth fairies, Father Christmas, and a host of other things beside, almost all of which they give up believing before puberty, unless the beliefs are socially reinforced — as with religious and, to a lesser extent, certain other superstitious beliefs.
He is saying that this tendency in children will dissipate when growing up unless it is socially reinforced. Yet he provides no support for this statement.
I do remember that I stopped believing in Father Christmas the day my older brother told me it wasn't true, and since that day, I take every chance I have to do the same to every small children I see mouhahahaha . I could as legitimately say that these beliefs dissapear when socially repressed.
As for the New Scientist article, it is purely an article. I don't subscribe that mag so I cannot read the full article. New Scientist is not known to be a stellar research mag , but the quick blurb does not convince me that the article necessarily says what you say it does. Has anyone here actually read the article? What is it based on? Who are the researchers?
It is only an article in New Scientist about the Bartnett research, I think. [/qs]There is nothing here to show me you are correct.[/qs]
There was another similar research done about ten years ago, which as can be seen by the next quote by Dr. Olivera Petrovich, came to very similar conclusions. She showed children ojects and they had three possible answers: 'God', 'Nobody knows' or 'by People'. (note that this answers AC Grayling's second objection to the Barnett research). She did this with both British children and Japanese children, which of course are very different cultures and 'social pressures' on these beliefs. (Which answeres AC Grayling's first objection)
I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., ‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion Shinto doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding.
entire interview: http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2009 9:50 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 2:48 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2009 3:09 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 99 by Theodoric, posted 08-10-2009 8:25 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 100 by Admin, posted 08-10-2009 8:26 AM slevesque 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