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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 61 of 396 (580687)
09-10-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2010 7:56 AM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
But none of this is really true.
On the one hand, lots of what you would call "secular scientists" and what I would call scientists manage to believe in God and miracles and still do science perfectly well.
As mentioned in the previous post, I just mentioned this one general assumption because it englobed all of which could be refered to as 'creationism' in its general sense. ie God created, all the way from 'God created every single thing' up to 'God sparked the BB'.
So it's normal that it includes the theistic evolutionnist scientists, for example.
Creationists, on the other hand, do not merely think that God exists, they believe that he has done certain specific things, and will advance any hypothesis, no matter how unevidenced, that will protect that belief.
This is why there is no general creationist method for doing science. If there was it would look like this:
Scientist : The boiling point of water at sea level is 100C.
Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are wrong.
Scientist : But I did the experiment. Here's the data.
Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are lying about the data. You evil atheist liar.
Scientist : Come and look. Look here. Boiling water. Thermometer. See?
Creationist : Clearly the devil or God or some form of magic pixie is tampering with your thermometer.
Scientist : But look, I can calibrate it against objects of known temperature, so I know it works.
Creationist : Well, that rests on your materialist atheistic assumption that calibration works and that God never does miracles to confute your secular materialistic calibration.
Scientist : I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Creationist : ATHEIST! ATHEIST! ATHEIST! I don't have to listen to what you say about the measurements you've made because you assume naturalism! This is secular science! You have the wrong assumptions!
You put way too much time into that strawman if you ask me.
Not only that, but your are conflating historical science and operational science. Particularly, you make it seem as though because they reject one particular scientific theory, they therefore reject science in it's entirety. (fallacy of composition)
The only reason that this particular scenario has never played out is that creationists are only obliged to be wrong about some things, not everything.
OR maybe creationists aren't nearly as retarded as you make them out to be, and this is why such a profoundly stupid scenario was never actually witnessed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 8:00 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 62 of 396 (580688)
09-10-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coyote
09-10-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Assumptions
Assumption does not automatically mean wrong or suspect, as creationists would have us believe.
Maybe some layman creationists pejoratively use the term assumption when discussing science and scientific theories, but this is never found in creationist litterature that I know of.
You may find disapproval of a specific assumption, but not of the whole concept of 'assumptions in science'.
Assumptions in scientific theories and techniques are not guesses, nor are they random and arbitrary. They follow the evidence.
Example: it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate is constant because all the evidence points in that direction. Radiocarbon dating, even though based on this assumption, is considered reliable as this assumption is supported by the evidence.
In some scientific modeling the assumptions may be arbitrary, random, or unsupported by evidence as this is one method of obtaining feedback on those assumptions (in this they act as variables). These models should not be confused with scientific theories, which are supported by immense amounts of data and are not contradicted by any significant data.
I agree that some assumptions are based on evidence. Another exampel would be Einstein's assumption of the speed of light being constant in all reference frames. This was based on previous observations that seemed to indicate this.
But saying that therefore all assumptions have such foundations would be fallacious. Some assumptions are purely intuitive guesses. For example, Lyell's assumption of uniformitarianism was an arbitrary starting point for his interpretation of the fossil record. No evidence required it, and maybe ironically, it's catastrophist counterpart was actually the evidenced assumptions, since it relied on the then perceived discontinuity of the fossil record.
Note that even in such a case, such an assumption is neither wrong nor even suspect. Technically, anyone can start with any assumption he wants and construct on it, just as in mathematics I could start wuth any axioms I wanted. However, if it is wrong at some point it won't be able to accomodate the evidence (or continue to be self consistent in maths). At that point you can reach what Khun called a ''paradigm shift''.
This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).
Well obviously, this is your personnal impression of the situation. Being a YEC, I obviously think the contrary that the YEC position is the most consistent with the data.
This flawed method is commonly found in creation "science," and has led to the "teach both theories" slogan. Ignored is the fact that science generates theories based on the evidence, while creation "science" is designed to support religious dogma and belief and to sneak that religious dogma and belief back into the schools. There is no theory in creation "science" -- only beliefs which must be supported no matter what the evidence shows.
Lots of begging the question epithet which only reflects your personnal taste on the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 3:40 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 5:45 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2010 6:09 PM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 63 of 396 (580692)
09-10-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by slevesque
09-10-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Assumptions
For example, Lyell's assumption of uniformitarianism was an arbitrary starting point for his interpretation of the fossil record.
Uniformitarianism refers to the production of geologic formations. It simply states that the processes creating geologic formations in the present were the same as those in the past. When we see a calm lake depositing fine grained sediments and also find the same deposits in older sediments we can infer that a calm lake environment also deposited these older sediments. The present is the key to the past.
Using this same principle we can look at how catastrophes deposit sediments in the present and then look for those same sediments in the past in order to infer past catastrophes.
Note that even in such a case, such an assumption is neither wrong nor even suspect. Technically, anyone can start with any assumption he wants and construct on it, just as in mathematics I could start wuth any axioms I wanted. However, if it is wrong at some point it won't be able to accomodate the evidence (or continue to be self consistent in maths).
So if I started with the axiom that there was a recent global flood what evidence could this axiom not accomodate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 5:18 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 09-10-2010 6:05 PM Taq has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 396 (580694)
09-10-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taq
09-10-2010 5:45 PM


Re: Assumptions
"So if I started with the axiom that there was a recent global flood what evidence could this axiom not accomodate?"
for there to ba a global flood there there would be evidence like
a very thin layr of sediments and thin layr of plant rot or fossilazation underneath it
erosion visable and showing how fast the flood resided
geneticale evidence of a species bottleneck similar to what we sea in lions
a thin layr of salt deposits stretching all arround the world
your theory of a flood would have to explain why there is no such evidence and more. you cant go and say well this place looks like it was flooded at one time this proves there was a world wide flood. for a hypothesis to become a reliable theory it has to explain all the facts that are availble

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 5:45 PM Taq has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 396 (580695)
09-10-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
09-10-2010 4:50 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
The example I keep returning to of the genetic bottleneck is a great example in my opinion of a valid Creation Science or Biblical Science experiment. Another great example would be to look for a common ancestor for all mankind that dates to the same period as all the other animals, plants and bugs. After all, it either of the Genesis Creation stories are true, then the first of each kind was created within days of each other and therefore we should see the lineage of all critters converging to a single point in time.
Another experiment would be to look at the geological record and see if it supports the order of creation found in one or the other Creation myths. For example, it is quite clear from Genesis 1 that the very first plants were seed bearing. If the geological record shows that seed bearing plants appeared before other types then it would support the hypothesis.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 4:50 PM Taq has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 66 of 396 (580696)
09-10-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by slevesque
09-10-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Assumptions
This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).
Well obviously, this is your personnal impression of the situation. Being a YEC, I obviously think the contrary that the YEC position is the most consistent with the data.
This gets down to the crux of the issue.
The facts and theories, and the assumptions underlying those theories, are consistent and overwhelming in their assessment of the age of the earth--and it is old, not young. This determination involves multiple techniques for age estimation spanning any number of scientific fields, and ranges from counting various annular phenomena to geology and hydrology and nuclear chemistry.
The specific details would be beyond the scope of this thread. What is pertinent to this thread is that there are a lot of scientific experiments that can be proposed to shed light on the age of the earth. Can you detail any creation "science" experiments that can do so?
(The RATE boys tried, but they ended up doing real science and had to disavow their own results when they didn't support their a priori beliefs, but supported science instead.)
So it is your task to provide an experiment that creation "scientists" can perform to document their opinion that the data is most consistent with a young earth belief.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 5:18 PM slevesque has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 396 (580698)
09-10-2010 6:30 PM


Creation Science Geology.
I would love to see the Creation Science model for the Vishnu Schist. Not the whole grand Canyon mind you, I'm not asking that much of them, just the Vishnu Schist.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 68 of 396 (580702)
09-10-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Granny Magda
09-10-2010 1:35 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Hi GM,
thanks for your comments, I liked everything you said. However you seemed to imply that within this modern times, there could be no more Pascals or Newtons lurking out there. I would not exclude this possibility. Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2010 1:35 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 09-10-2010 7:19 PM Just being real has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 396 (580705)
09-10-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Just being real
09-10-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Are you familiar with Georges Lematre?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Just being real, posted 09-10-2010 6:56 PM Just being real has not replied

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


(2)
Message 70 of 396 (580711)
09-10-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by slevesque
09-10-2010 4:59 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
Particularly, you make it seem as though because they reject one particular scientific theory, they therefore reject science in it's entirety. (fallacy of composition)
No: I explicitly said that they're not required to be wrong about everything. This is why the creationist method is not required when it comes to the boiling point of water.
Not only that, but your are conflating historical science and operational science.
They're both science, they both work exactly the same way, and it's equally silly to apply the creationist method to either.
Besides which, creationists always are wrong about the here-and-now when it bears any relevance to the there-and-then. From the distance of stars to the existence of beneficial mutations to the density of cosmic dust to the existence of intermediate forms to the genetics of bullfrogs to the strong nuclear force ...
(In case you're wondering, "the answer" is that Jesus is personally holding together all the atomic nuclei. The cartoon ends with the evil (and ugly) atheist professor seeing the error of his ways and leaving academia because he can no longer live a lie.)
OR maybe creationists aren't nearly as retarded as you make them out to be, and this is why such a profoundly stupid scenario was never actually witnessed.
Sadly, scenarios just that stupid are witnessed regularly.
As an example, let us turn to the much-vaunted RATE project of the Institute For Creation Research. Amongst their findings, they admit:
A large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth at today’s rates of nuclear decay occurred.
This is the point at which an actual scientist would start to think that maybe the Earth wasn't all that young. But no, they have a better idea --- "highly accelerated nuclear decay". Though the details are somewhat sketchy:
These diffusion data are not precise enough to reveal details about the acceleration episodes. Were there one, two, or three? Were they during early Creation week, after the Fall, or during the Flood? Were there only 500 to 600 million years worth of acceleration during the year of the Flood, with the rest of the acceleration occurring before that?
The details of how this could have happened are not so much sketchy as non-existent.
At this point I should like to mention that the slogan of the Institute For Creation Reasearch is "Biblical. Accurate. Certain."
It has of course been pointed out to the folks at the ICR that this "accelerated decay" would have melted the Earth, boiled the seas, and killed off Noah and his maritime menagerie. As RATE member Larry Vardiman admits:
The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth.
But they are equal to the challenge:
The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well.
"With one bound, Jack was free!"
How exactly God achieved this is unclear even to them. As they admit:
The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation. (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, p.763, my emphasis.)
In short, they have discovered the principle of Smacco's Rozar: To any hypothesis, no matter how contrary to reality, further hypotheses may be added to explain away the discrepancy. Which is just the attitude I was parodying: and I question whether the satire is actually sillier than the reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 4:59 PM slevesque has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 71 of 396 (580713)
09-10-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Straggler
09-10-2010 1:39 PM


Re: Creation/ID "Science" and Discovery
Name me one discovery made directly as a result of creationist or IDist theories and I will eat my pants.
This statement is quite different from the previous one. In this one you leave out the notion that creationists and IDists don't ever make any scientific contribution at all. You devote your statement specifically to discoveries made as a result of theories. This is quite a huge difference. I want to really emphasize the difference because it can be so subtle that most do not catch it. We are talking about two separate cases.
In the first case we have both people with evolutionary points of view and Creationist points of view working side by side making scientific discoveries completely unattached to their personal belief systems. In this case the discoveries have little to nothing to do with origins science.
But in the second case we have the notion that scientific discoveries are being made as a result of personal belief systems and theories derived from them. However lets try and step back from the trees for a second and look at the forest, shall we?
Consider the notion that in order to see the said discoveries within the second case, one has to ascribe to that particular belief system. People with either points of view have no problem when it comes to the first case because those discoveries are unattached to their personal belief systems and are unrelated to origins. However origins science by nature is the attempt to piece together a past historical event. When trying to piece together a historical event, you have to recognize it is not a repeatable science. We start with some theories as to what happened and then look to see if the evidence supports those theories. But what do you do when the evidence can be demonstrated, depending on your view point, to be readable in support of either opposing view?
Both camps use the exact same data, but logically read it in support of their own view point. The evolutionary paleontologist looks at the fossils and says he has discovered evidence for evolution. The creationist paleontologist looks at the same type of fossils and says they discovered evidence in support of creation. But neither from the opposing camp can see the others discoveries because they view the same data as support to their own theories.
In final analysis of the situation we have several problems at work together. Not only do we have two different cases being confused, but we also have origins science having the requirement to hold to the belief system in order to even be able to see the discoveries claimed within that system. And finally to top it all off we have people who don't even know how to adequately represent the system they ascribe to.
Why don't you instead describe how creationism/ID can be demonstrated through prediction and discovery? Why don't you explain why in these terms it has been such an epic fail? I dare you to try.
Straggler, for me to attempt to try such a feat would be an exercise in futility if you do not first ascribe to that belief system. What is required to demonstrate evidence in support of the opposite view (in the second case), requires evidence that can only be explained within one system and which has no logical explanation within the other.
And from what I have experienced the boundaries of logic become ever more gray the closer to them we get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2010 1:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2010 6:53 AM Just being real has replied

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


(3)
Message 72 of 396 (580765)
09-11-2010 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by slevesque
09-10-2010 4:37 PM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
But, and this is where assumptions come into play, you will interpret the data and evidence differently depending on what assumptions you make. You won't look at the same places, you won't look for the same things ...
You would, however, look in the same way in the same places at the same things --- you'd just be hoping to get different answers; and one's private hopes and wishes do not affect the scientific method.
After all, the same observations which would tend to confirm a theory if they turned out one way would tend to disconfirm it if they turned out another way. If I claim that water boils at 100C, and you claim it doesn't, then we should both be interested in the obvious experiment involving a beaker, a bunsen burner, and a thermometer. If you had no interest in the experiment, I should think that you were lacking in conviction.
Similar remarks might be made about evolution. When the techniques of molecular phylogeny were developed, what should have happened is that creationists should have said to themselves: "According to those silly, silly evolutionists, crocodiles should be more like birds than like lizards on the molecular level, and coelacanths should be more like dogs than like dogfish. Let us rush to our laboratory and test it, and put an end to this Darwinian nonsense once and for all."
Meanwhile scientists should have been saying: "According to us clever, clever scientists, crocodiles should be more like birds than like lizards on the molecular level, and coelacanths should be more like dogs than like dogfish. Let us rush to our laboratory and test it, and then everyone back to my place for drinks and gloating."
Of course, this is not what actually happened. Instead, scientists rushed to their laboratories, whereas creationists (I imagine) held urgent conclave in their Secret Underground Lair with but one item on the agenda --- "Can even we manage to obscure the significance of this?"
But if creationists were interested in science, they would have wanted to do the same experiments. They'd just have been hoping for a different result.
Or take paleontology. While scientists were sifting through the fossils of the Devonian looking for fishapods, the creationists could have been on their hands and knees right next to them looking for modern mammals. But they scarcely seem interested in looking for anything in the fossil record that might contradict evolution, finding it a better use of their time to sit cosily indoors on their indolent backsides writing stuff like this:
The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up!
What this statement lacks in truth, it more than makes up for in irony.
Again, if creationists wanted to do science in this area, they'd be doing just the same things as scientists. They'd just be hoping to find something different: and this would have no effect on what they actually found. Pro-evolution and anti-evolution science should be indistinguishable, just as our experiments to find the boiling point of water should be indistinguishable. The only discernible difference would be that the evolutionists would be significantly happier in their work than the creationists, because it is more agreeable to be continually proved right than continually proved wrong. But this should not affect the way in which science is practiced.
What it does apparently affect is the willingness to practice it in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 09-10-2010 4:37 PM slevesque has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 396 (580799)
09-11-2010 11:16 AM


Y to X
Another Creation Science experiment might be to develop the model for changing YX to XX.
If woman was created as a clone of man as described in Genesis 2, then women should have one X and one Y chromosome. They don't. So a Creation Science experiment would be to develop and test the model that would change a Y chromosome to an X chromosome during cloning.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2010 11:58 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 74 of 396 (580803)
09-11-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
09-11-2010 11:16 AM


Re: Y to X
Another Creation Science experiment might be to develop the model for changing YX to XX.
Unfortunately the experimental apparatus would need to include:
* A deity with miraculous powers.
* Er ...
* ... that's it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 09-11-2010 11:16 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 75 of 396 (580805)
09-11-2010 12:19 PM


Creation Science 101
Since the creationists here have not taken the experiments offered in this thread to heart I thought maybe some experiments more in tune with their usual thought process may be more attractive to them.
1. Prayer Healing. From the list of cardiac patients at a local hospital select three patients at random. Assign each to separate prayer groups who will pray for the safe recovery of the patient daily for as long as the patent stays in the cardiac ward. When a patient leaves the ward, either on a gurney or in a wheelchair, assign another patient to that group. After 10 years, if the number of fully recovered patients is greater than 2 then this would be startling new evidence that the prayer intercession was effective.
2. The Flud. At the top of high hill overlooking a small town erect a 5,000,000 cubic meter water tank. Release the water all at once. When the town has washed away inspect the side of the hill. If deep gullies were formed then this is startling new evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed during the great flud of noah.
3. Age of Earth. Put together a team of creation scientists to study the literature and perform experiments on radioisotopes in relation to the age of the Earth. When the results match perfectly to an Earth of billions of years in age then conclude that the rate of radiometric decay had to have been millions of time greater during the creation and that god majiked away all the excess heat without making the oceans boil or destroying the entire planet and that this is startling new evidence that the Earth is in fact quite young.
4. Evolution. Completely disassemble a Boeing 747. Put all the pieces into a covered shoe box. Have student volunteers from Oral Roberts shake the box up and down 100 time per minute non-stop for 10 years. At the end of this time open the box. If a fully assembled and operational 747 has not resulted then this is startling new evidence that evolution is false.
Wait one!
I seem to recall that #3 has already been done. Skip that one.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024