Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   The evolution of an atheist.
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 222 of 280 (577001)
08-26-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
A completely bogus suggestion. False dichotomy.
Why? I agree that nobody in this life is going to completely committed to the the love of others and nobody is going to be completely committed to the love of self. (We are no doubt all closer to the latter.) However the choice is there to be made. I think the choice as I see it is best explained allegorically in CS Lewis' book "The Great Divorce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 7:17 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 9:14 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 229 of 280 (577030)
08-26-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
But it isn't a 2-way choice, and it has bugger-all to do with religion. You seem to be implying religion is the meaning and therefore atheism = no meaning.
It isn't black and white. I guess it's more where we put our emphasis. As for the last part, I'm not sure why you think I'm implying that as I'm not. We all make moral choices in this life no matter what we believe. I can see where an atheist would find all sorts of meaning in life. Family comes to mind as the most obvious one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 9:14 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 230 of 280 (577031)
08-26-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Phage0070
08-26-2010 9:14 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Phage0070 writes:
If we actually don't know, then it not only addresses the issue but is the only honest approach.
Sure it's an honest approach but it has nothing to offer as to whether there is a creative intelligence behind our existence or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Phage0070, posted 08-26-2010 9:14 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Phage0070, posted 08-26-2010 11:01 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 233 of 280 (577037)
08-26-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 9:23 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
What case is there for the existence of such an intelligence?
All of things that you listed are very interesting,(although in some cases you resorted to a "science of the gaps" argument), but they are all instances of how things happened.
If you are going to decide on theism vs atheism you have to look at what caused things to happen.
Let's assume that science can produce a chemical solution to abiogensis. We would think ourselves very clever but in order for that to happen someone would have to reproduce the situation that first brought life into the world. In other words the scientist in question would be the initiator or the designer if you like of this second abiogenesis. That then begs the question of who or what caused abiogenesis all those millions of years ago.
So even after that huge leap forward in science we are still left with the question of whether all things have a material cause or whether there is a cause from an external intelligence.
The case is that we have something instead of nothing, we have cellular life emerging from basic molecules, and from single celled creatures we have evolved into sentient beings. No matter how much science is able to explain to us how that happened it can only speculate as to what caused it to happen. It either happened through materialistic chance, (or however you want to word it but you know what I mean), or it was designed by a designer. The choice isn't a scientific one. Science is agnostic.
There are all the other arguments such as the fine tuning of the universe that can be made by those who are qualified to make them. I’m sure you know them better than I do but in the end we all draw our own conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 9:23 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 11:25 PM GDR has replied
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 08-27-2010 3:36 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 234 of 280 (577038)
08-26-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Phage0070
08-26-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Phage0070 writes:
Dishonest approaches which have more to offer on issues we don't actually have knowledge about are called "lies".
Honest approaches which have more to offer on issues we don't have sufficient knowledge about are called "opinions".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Phage0070, posted 08-26-2010 11:01 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2010 10:05 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 236 of 280 (577043)
08-27-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Bikerman
08-26-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
This is a nonsense argument. Firstly you don't have to show something happening for it to be scientifically valid.
That's fine. I just used an example but the point still holds true. Science may well explain abiogenesis but that is something different than saying what caused it.
Bikerman writes:
And secondly it doesn't beg any question - begging the question is a fallacy. Any such explanation has to setout what steps are involved and I'm pretty sure none of them will be 'Miracle' or 'Designer'.
I guess that the uninterested wouldn't ask the question but it is a question both of us have already considered. There are no steps as this isn't a scientific question. It is an opinion based on whatever it is we have to go on.
Bikerman writes:
No, we aren't. You are, but the logic of your position is unsustainable. Your entire justification is that if we can invent something then it implies any natural analogue requires design. That is classic begging the question. There must be a designer because a designer is required. So like most instances of begging the question, it is also completely tautologous and therefore adds nothing.
Not at all. I don't think anyone questions the idea that this world has the appearance of design. That however is not the same thing as it actually be designed. If you like I'll rephrase things that way. The question then is, does the world just have the appearance of being designed or is it actually designed. I have my opinion or belief, and you have yours which is the opposite of mine.
Bikerman writes:
Science isn't agnostic. An agnostic is one who doesn't believe the existence of God can be proved or disproved. Science is a way of thinking about things and to that extent it admits no such pre-conditions.
Hmmmm...maybe. I would consider that it is possible that science could prove God, but I can't see how it is possible to disprove Him but I have a hunch you might disagree.
Bikerman writes:
The fact is that you still haven't given an answer to 'what evidence'.
The choice is between coherent, logically consistent and self-consistent theories, and nothing at all. There isn't any evidence and science doesn't deal with personal revelation. So there is a scientific explanation, sometimes several competing ones, or there is faith in a creator intelligence, unevidenced. It isn't a choice...
Well... I've said all along that Christianity is a faith but I don't accept that it is a blind faith. There are a large number of people far brighter than me, and possibly even brighter than you that do believe as I do, which doesn't prove anything except to demonstrate that it is an accepted belief for a number of thoughtful people. Is it evidence? No. The Bible exists and purports to tell us about God. Is it evidence? Yes, but only if we are prepared to give it credibility. I have emotions and am self aware. Is that evidence? It's evidence of something but we can't be sure what.
I have drawn, then altered and altered again the conclusions that I have come to. It's been an interesting process for me and it goes on. I don't expect to either prove my position or convince you to change yours. My goal was just to have you and anyone else reading this to have something of an understanding of how I have come to my beliefs. I think that is similar to your reason for starting this thread.
I see you having another sleepless night. Enjoy the sunrise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 11:25 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Bikerman, posted 08-27-2010 2:47 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 240 of 280 (577270)
08-27-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Bikerman
08-27-2010 2:47 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
No. You sort of get there and lose it at the end. Yes, we have the appearance of desig, no it isn't actually design. That's not just an opinion. Evolution can't accomodate directed evolution and it is the only theory around. It is a straight case of Occam, the God hypothesis explains/predicts nothing, doesn't solve the imaginary first-cause problem and involves introducing a new infinite, or at least massively complex, entity. It cannot be logically sustained.
The study of evolution is the study of what happened. Why can't it be designed or directed? Occam is just a principle. When you are looking for solutions you should first consider the simplest one. It has nothing to do with what the actual solution is. You keep invoking occam has if it's evidence.
Bikerman writes:
"I am self-conscious and I cannot accept that this 'me' can one day just stop.."
This is your version of the old condescending Marxist "opiate of the masses" view. What I'm interested in is the truth. I happen to believe that there is more to this world than we are able to perceive with our 5 senses.
Bikerman writes:
It is human and understandable - anyone who cannot empathise probably hasn't thought about it enough.
There is no good reason to think it is true and lots of reasons to think otherwise. We know that the 'you' that is so wonderfully unique in all of us - that 'You' can be switched off at will with the right drugs. We also know a great deal about what happens to that 'you' when different physical brain damage occurs. There is no possible mechanism for storing memory, consciousness and personality after death, so it is left as 'a matter of faith' but it is absurd. Once the brain is dead then anything that was or could be considered 'you' is gone. It cannot be otherwise - there is no storage device in a body suitable for duplicating consciousness. As far as we know the minimum complexity of such a container would be brain-like. So the notion of a soul is a nice little myth, but it always had problems and modern science renders it completely redundant.
All of that is absolutely true, but only if the materialistic view of the world is correct. If there is a spirtitual or other-dimensional aspect to our existence then there are other possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Bikerman, posted 08-27-2010 2:47 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 9:28 PM GDR has replied
 Message 250 by Bikerman, posted 08-28-2010 11:55 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 241 of 280 (577271)
08-27-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rrhain
08-27-2010 3:36 AM


Rrhain writes:
If they come to their position on their own, why would humans being able to create life chemically make humans the "designer"? It isn't like they are manually adjusting the chemical bonds of the molecules. They aren't grabbing individual atoms and pushing around electrons to create covalent and ionic bonds. Instead, they're just putting chemicals together and letting them react all on their own.
Did Henry Ford design the model T? He just put a bunch of materials together, threw in some gas and there it was, reacting all on it's own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 08-27-2010 3:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2010 10:38 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 243 of 280 (577276)
08-27-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 9:28 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
That's sort of the problem with the notion of "directed evolution"; evolution doesn't have the levers you need to direct it. You can't program evolution, you can't program environment. Evolution doesn't even happen without random heritable change; the randomness necessary for evolution to occur means that any attempt to insert a "plan" into evolution is bound to fail, because the plan gets degraded, randomly. (And we know that those random events truly are random, at a quantum level, due to Bell's Inequality.)
I know that biology is your field and I don't even have what would qualify as a basic understanding of it. However. what I believe to be the case is that evolution happened through a series of genetic mutations. All we know is that they happened. Whether they happened by chance, design, by manipulation or a combination of all of them is another question. People who are expert in your field such as Francis Collins disagree with your position so it can't be that cut and dried.
crashfrog writes:
The early universe - milliseconds after the Big Bang, as far back as we can study - doesn't have the room or the necessary diversity of state to encode enough information to specify even a millionth part of the biological complexity we see today.
It seems to me that would make the case in favour of a designer.
crashfrog writes:
If you believe, though, that there's more than we are able to perceive by any conceivable instrumentality I think the burden of evidence is on you for that position - and, of course, given that it is only by our senses that we can know anything at all, it's not entirely clear how you could ever hope to gain any evidence or any accurate idea about something supposedly "beyond our senses." How do you know the difference between REVELATION FROM THE GREAT BEYOND and your own imagination?
How do we know anything? As Bikerman points out science doesn't prove anything. I have formed my beliefs based on my personal life experiences, observations, study etc. We have all done that and come to our own conclusions. Christianity makes sense of the world that I experience and perceive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 9:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 10:43 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 245 of 280 (577280)
08-27-2010 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 10:43 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
We know that they happened randomly, though.
We know they happened. Let's say you stiffed the local loan shark for $100.00. As you are running down an alley being chased by the knee breakers you spot a $100.00 bill on the ground. Is that bill there by random chance or was it put there intentionally. Neither case can be proved. Either opinion is valid.
crashfrog writes:
Did you misread me? I think you must have, since the point of that information is that it precludes the possibility of a designer. The universe, at that period of time, wasn't big or diverse enough to contain the information involved in a specified plan or design.
I must be misreading you. It looks to me that if the universe wasn't big or diverse enough to contain the information then the information must have come from something external to the universe.
crashfrog writes:
Science doesn't prove anything according to logic, which I think is the inherent flaw in logic. But according to our inherent reason, science has real, unique, demonstratable power to uncover truths about the real world.
No argument there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 10:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 11:20 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 247 of 280 (577290)
08-27-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 11:20 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
First off let me be clear I can't debate the level of my knowledge of this theorem, so as far as any technical debate goes this is a David and Goliath kind of thing and I ain't got no sling shot.
This is from wiki.
quote:
No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
It seems pretty clear that Bell is talking about a physical theory. I don't see God as being physically defined. I don't see the concept of God supernaturally tinkering in the physical world as part of any physical theory.
Also, Bell published this theory in 1964. You think that if he had absolutely proven that theistic evolution was impossible, as you assert, that there would still be a discussion on the subject involving highly intelligent, highly educated scientists 56 years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 11:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 1:43 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 249 of 280 (577315)
08-28-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by crashfrog
08-28-2010 1:43 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
No, but we live in the physical universe, don't we? If God is manipulating mutations, those mutations are physical, aren't they?
Yes and no. Bell's theory referred to a physical theory. A physical theory involves a physical cause for a physical action. If God is manipulating mutations we are talking about a physical mutation but a metaphysical cause.
crashfrog writes:
Columbus proved the world was round in 1492, yet centuries later it's still news to people.
Which people would those be? You must hang around a different crowd than I do.
crashfrog writes:
I think you overestimate the power of physical evidence and scientific knowledge to settle issues among those who aren't familiar with it, or have a lot to gain by ignoring it.
People like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox etc.
crashfrog writes:
I mean here you are, desperate to find the out that lets you maintain your faith in spite of the ample evidence against it. I mean is there any scientific evidence I could present that would disprove to you the notion that God is in control of evolution?
I don't turn to theology to answer scientific questions and I don't turn to science to answer theological questions.
The following is from the wiki site on Carl Sagan
quote:
Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe. According to his wife he was not a believer:
When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to meit still sometimes happensand ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl.
I also own and read his book "The Varieties of Scientific Experience - A Personal View of the Search for God". The following is from that book.
quote:
Does trying to understand the universe at all betray a lack of humility? I believe it is true that humility is the only just response in a confrontation with the universe, but not a humility that prevents us from seeking the nature of the universe we are admiring. If we seek that nature, then love can be informed by truth instead of being based on ignorance or self-deception. If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would He prefer His votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy. I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, then our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival in an extremely dangerous time. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is consistent surely with science, it should be with religion, and it is essential for the welfare of the human species.
Here is a highly intelligent, highly respected man of science who is not a believer. However he is clear that science does not answer the questions about God.
He is of the same view as I am in that if there is a God such as the one I worship then one of the ways that we can learn about that God is through the study of the laws and nature which He created. I found that paragraph enlightening and there is nothing in it that I disagree with even though I have come to a different conclusion about the Christian God than he did.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 1:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 12:43 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 256 of 280 (577518)
08-29-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Bikerman
08-28-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
Directed evolution supposes that we are the endpoint (or if it doesn't then it is useless to the theist who proposes it). This is simply not the case - as can easily be demonstrated by examining genetic evidence
Directed evolution does not necessarily suppose that we are at the end point. Certainly we still see natural selection happening all the time, so life is still evolving.
Christianity even teaches that at the end of time we will evolve, whether it be by an evolutionary process or something else, into a re-embodied existence, with God's heavenly dimension and our earthly dimension coming together in a re-created universe.
quote:
Ephesians 1: 9-10 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillmentto bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
Bikerman writes:
Directed evolution presupposes a master geneticist. Why would such a designer build obsolete, redundant and positively harmful code into the DNA molecule? Why build inelegant and flawed solutions when it is possible to do better? Those very flaws are a result of the unguided nature of evolution. This alone defeats the notion. The normal counter is that these deficiencies may be inherent in the solution (ie using DNA at all). That is a nonsense argument for two reasons - firstly we can already improve on the 'design' ourselves in some cases and secondly any sufficiently advanced designer would not select a flawed basis for his creation unless he were a fool, or incapable of better. Either way the crown begins to slip past the ears.
This isn't the end product.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Bikerman, posted 08-28-2010 11:55 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Bikerman, posted 08-29-2010 12:58 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 258 of 280 (577589)
08-29-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Bikerman
08-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
Bikerman writes:
Where does it mention evolution to a new state? Where does it mention development?
It seems to me that the meaning is clear - he will us what it was all about at the endtime. That's it.
The whole Christian message focusses on the resurrection of the physical as well as the spirit. It has nothing to say about evolving into a new physical state to my knowledge. Indeed we are created in the image of God and I fail to see how God can evolve - it would imply a rather less than optimum starting point and I think it would probably be considered blasphemous in most Christian sects to suggest that God is subject to natural selection - for a start who would he mate with?
I should have taken more time with my post but I was in a rush to get to church. The point about natutal selection was just to point out that evolution is still happening today. It wasn't meant to tie into what happens at the end of time.
I certainly don't see God evolving, but I do see His relationship with us evolving. I agree with your summation that Christianity is, amongst other things, about the resurrection of body and spirit. I do not have any idea of how that will come about and only a very basic idea of what it will be like. I don't know if it will be a event that happens in a moment or if it is something that will happen over time, (which if it is over time would I suppose look like something of an evolutionary process.)
My point is that what we are living today is not the end of the process that started with creation and evolved from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Bikerman, posted 08-29-2010 12:58 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Bikerman, posted 08-29-2010 7:42 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 259 of 280 (577598)
08-29-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by crashfrog
08-28-2010 12:43 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
crashfrog writes:
Francis Collins is on the record already as believing that some notions are simply beyond the capacity of science to address, even if it looks like science has addressed them. He's got a lot invested in being the nation's most prominent Christian scientist (not, like, a Christian Scientist) so he's got a lot to lose by accepting what the science pretty clearly says (as, obviously, do you.)
I hear that type of argument a lot. You discredit what someone has to say by discrediting their argument by questioning their objectiveness. Collins did convert from atheism.
crashfrog writes:
Couldn't Carl Sagan have simply been trying to avoid the public controversy that would surely embroil him if he ever posited a contradiction between science and theism? I mean, Carl Sagan at the time was one of the most prominent scientific unbelievers. The "New Atheism" movement had not yet begun and it was not yet accepted for someone to be an out and out atheist. People were always scrutinizing his statements and work for anti-religion notions with which to attack him.
Same point I made about Collins.
crashfrog writes:
Anyway, you never answered my question. Is there any scientific evidence I could show you that would diminish your faith in your god?
If my theology is 100% correct, and my science was 100% correct then they would obviously have to be compatible. However, science can and has impacted my theology. Like all of us, it is a search for truth and I'll take it where ever I can get it.
I see science, as I've said before as a natural theology and I have no doubt that God has given us inquisitive minds for a reason. Science is about telling me what God has done. Theology is about why He has done what He's done and what we are to do about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 12:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Phage0070, posted 08-29-2010 6:03 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024