Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 226 of 349 (627562)
08-02-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
Coyote, my question criteria did not call for your rendition of what is science. I simply ask you, were they doing science or practicing religion with their research ship and crew?
I suppose the leaders were seeking to reinforce their religious belief with evidence. Unfortunately, the methods they chose were not those that would be used by real archaeologists. They gathered the flimsiest of evidence and used it to make far-reaching claims. One might be allowed to do that in apologetics, but not in science.
Not all scientists come to the same conclusions. Surely you know that. Which is it? What were they doing out there that does not come under the definition of science? Certainly they were not practicing religion. Likely some of the crew were not even religious.
But when scientists disagree they go back to the evidence and do additional analyses and interpretations, or they seek more evidence. That is not the case in the chariot wheel investigations. As far as I have been able to tell from your posts and some brief googling, they came back with pictures and nothing else. There is no real evidence to work with to determine which of the many possible interpretations might be correct. And why didn't they grab some of the "wheels" when they were there? Surely that would have helped to settle the issue.
As for the crew, I have no idea what they were practicing. It is not really relevant to our debate.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 6:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Coyote has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 227 of 349 (627582)
08-02-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot
08-02-2011 6:22 PM


Re: Logic demands
hey Dawn,
I have been referring to you as female in my posts.
I know two Dawns, both female so it was the natural thing for me to do.
Other posters have now advised you are male so I will do so from now on. Sorry for the error.
I have posted about logic on this thread and it covers some of your questions and statements regarding logic. I wrote it after being tied in knots by discussions mostly with IamJoseph.
here it is -
Message 200

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 6:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 349 (627590)
08-02-2011 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Coyote
08-02-2011 8:22 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
Coyote writes:
They gathered the flimsiest of evidence and used it to make far-reaching claims. One might be allowed to do that in apologetics, but not in science.
There is no real evidence to work with to determine which of the many possible interpretations might be correct. And why didn't they grab some of the "wheels" when they were there? Surely that would have helped to settle the issue.
That's not true. They researched the whole region, establishing corroborative evidence. Moller researched to falsify other sites. You need to view the video and read his book to get a handle on all that he did.
I'm not sure, but perhaps if they were to show that they removed items they would be in some kind of legal trouble with the nations whose waters they were in. Being an archaeologist, I'm sure you know that there are some sites where it is best not to disturb the field of phenomena.
Coyote, all I can say is that sometimes your reasoning is either totally biased or totally irrational. You know full well that this research crew was doing science, whether or not you ascribe to their research.
If, in your mind their research was incomplete and more study needed to be done, that does not negate the research they did as something other than science. That is often the case with many scientists projects. More study may need to be done.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2011 8:22 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2011 10:25 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 10:30 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 1:50 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 232 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2011 9:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


(2)
Message 229 of 349 (627594)
08-02-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 9:59 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
That's not true. They researched the whole region, establishing corroborative evidence. Moller researched to falsify other sites. You need to view the video and read his book to get a handle on all that he did.
No, don't have time for that. If there is real evidence I'll rely on you to point me to it.
I'm not sure, but perhaps if they were to show that they removed items they would be in some kind of legal trouble with the nations whose waters they were in. Being an archaeologist, I'm sure you know that there are some sites where it is best not to disturb the field of phenomena.
There is a need in archaeology to conform to local laws and, in my area at least, to work with descendants of local Native Americans. I'm doing a small excavation tomorrow and a local Native American will be on site.
But if the legal requirements are such that you can't actually get at the materials, you don't make major claims about them! In real archaeology you have to be able to justify any claims you make. The more unusual or far-reaching the claims, the more you have to provide real evidence.
Last night I got back from the lab three radiocarbon dates for a site I'm studying. They all were in the range of 7050 to 7550 years ago. That finding fits in with what has been seen from the four nearest sites which have previously been dated. No big discoveries here, just plodding along and gathering evidence for what happened in the past. But if I were to be claiming 50,000 years I had better be able to substantiate that age in more than one way. This seems to be what the chariot folks are doing: getting poor evidence but making far-reaching claims. That doesn't stand up for long in science.
Coyote, all I can say is that sometimes your reasoning is either totally biased or totally irrational. You know full well that this research crew was doing science, whether or not you ascribe to their research.
I have to judge the type of work they did by the methods they used. If they use the scientific method, they can be said to be doing science. Where are their publications in the scientific journals? Where are their presentations at scientific conferences? Where are their specialized studies of metallurgy, chronology, and other specialized techniques?
If, in your mind their research was incomplete and more study needed to be done, that does not negate the research they did as something other than science. That is often the case with many scientists projects. More study may need to be done.
There is almost always need for more study. That is not the issue here.
The issue is whether they were doing science (i.e., following the scientific method) or whether they were doing something else.
Perhaps you can show me the steps they followed which corresponded to the scientific method?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Dirk, posted 08-03-2011 10:23 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 235 by fearandloathing, posted 08-03-2011 10:56 AM Coyote has replied

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


(6)
Message 230 of 349 (627596)
08-02-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 9:59 PM


Moller again
That's not true. They researched the whole region, establishing corroborative evidence. Moller researched to falsify other sites. You need to view the video and read his book to get a handle on all that he did.
Bullshit. As has been shown to you numerous times on numerous threads that all Moller has is assertions. He has NO evidence. You can not even list his evidence.
I'm not sure, but perhaps if they were to show that they removed items they would be in some kind of legal trouble with the nations whose waters they were in. Being an archaeologist, I'm sure you know that there are some sites where it is best not to disturb the field of phenomena.
More baseless assertions. You have never provided anything to support these wild ass assertions. Show that there were legal issues or issues with disturbing the artifacts or admit this is something you pulled out of your ass.
If, in your mind their research was incomplete and more study needed to be done, that does not negate the research they did as something other than science. That is often the case with many scientists projects. More study may need to be done.
Don't you find it odd that no historians or archaeologists give Moller any support? Is there a grand conspiracy?
His whole chariot wheel thing is just a rehash of Wyatt's lies.
quote:
The made for TV film also featured Dr. Lennart Moller and was titled, The Exodus Revealed and one portion of it featured not the actual gilded wheel photographed by Wyatt but a digital recreation of it
Announcer: While most of the possible artifacts found off the coast of Nuweiba are covered with coral, one significant discovery was not.
Dr. Lennart Moller: There is one find at the Nuweiba location that is of great interest, and that is the gilded wheel. [digital ‘recreation’ appears on screen, based on photo taken by Ron Wyatt] It is a wooden basic structure of the wheel and it is covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver and gold, and corals have not been able to grow on it. [really? why not? see questions below] It’s been very well preserved, although it’s very fragile. It seems like the wooden content has been dissolved. So I mean you could break it if you tried to remove it.
Announcer: After its discovery the fragile wheel-shaped veneer was photographed, then left in place on the sea floor. Later analysis revealed that its dimensions and design resembled four-spoked chariot wheels painted on an 18th Dynasty tomb wall near the biblical date of the Exodus.
Note that Moller does not say he discovered this gilded wheel, nor that he saw it, photographed it, nor touched it. There is no undersea footage of the gilded wheel in the film but merely a digital reconstruction of a photograph taken by Wyatt in the 1970s. But note that although almost no coral is shown touching this bright shiny wheel, based on Wyatt's photo, still there are plenty of thick corals growing on one another and seen all over the actual seabed of the Red Sea as shown in the film. Neither does Wyatt's original photo provide clear evidence as to whether the small piece of coral seen on the wheel simply was placed there or not, it doesn’t seem particularly well attached, not compared with the vast conglomerations of corals in the general area. And contra a statement made by Dr. Moller in the film, there does not appear to be any reason why coral should not be able to grow on an object made of gold, silver or a mixture of both, as any archeologist can demonstrate who has dug up objects made of all sorts of ancient precious metals from the sea with coral growing on them.
Source
Moller had a conclusion before he did any research. That is not science.
quote:
While ostensibly scientific, Mller’s perspective is at the same time explicitly anti-rational (p. 15). We should not be too sure of ourselves and our powers of reasoning. Only God is perfect, says Mller, and humankind is frail and weak. Look at the Titanic, it sank even though it was supposed to be unsinkable! This is, put mildly, a weakness in Mller’s research strategy. Mller is a Christian and thus strongly biased toward the belief that the hypothesis that he sets out to test has been formulated by God himself.
Successful scientists believe in all statements until they have been disproved, according to Mller. Having offered this parody of Popper’s criterion, he sets out on his biblical trek through time and space from Abraham in Ur to Moses on Mount Sinai. Soon it becomes clear that Mller is not in fact trying to disprove his hypothesis. Quite the contrary: he searches intensively for anything that fits with it. The idea that the selected texts are historically true is not a hypothesis for Mller, it is the basic axiom of his investigations. To the extent that he takes his pseudo-Popperian philosophy of science seriously at all, Mller appears to feel that the task of disproving the hypothesis is the reader’s job, not his.
Source

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 231 of 349 (627616)
08-03-2011 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 9:59 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
quote:
That's not true. They researched the whole region, establishing corroborative evidence. Moller researched to falsify other sites. You need to view the video and read his book to get a handle on all that he did.
Buz, if there was anything good in the video or the book it's not in anything you've told us, nor in the clips available online. nor even in anything the other Wyatt supporters produced.
quote:
Coyote, all I can say is that sometimes your reasoning is either totally biased or totally irrational. You know full well that this research crew was doing science, whether or not you ascribe to their research.
Hold on Buz, first you try to tell us that the science is stuff in the video and the book that you haven't bothered to mention, now you assume that Coyote knows that it exists. They can't both be true. If there's real science there, just produce it.
And let us not forget that we have a review of the book by a real archaeologist who describes it as worthless pseudo-science. Having seen the nonsensical rewrite of Egyptian history i am inclined to think that he was too generous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 232 of 349 (627659)
08-03-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Buzsaw
08-02-2011 9:59 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
I am going to tell you the same thing I told Artemis Ent. If you are going to give my post a thumbs down, why don't you ahve the balls to respond to the post. Why does it deserve a thumbs down? What in it is so objectionable?
Put up or shut up.
Arty won't put up, will you?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dirk
Member (Idle past 4024 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 233 of 349 (627669)
08-03-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Coyote
08-02-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
But if the legal requirements are such that you can't actually get at the materials
Just to be sure, this is not true. You are not allowed to (permanently) export any artefacts from any Near Eastern country (which is reasonable, given the history of "legit plundering" over much of the 19th and early 20th century by Western countries, the results of which fill the Louvre, BM and the likes). However, you are obviously allowed to study them (given that you have the proper excavation permits, which, for some reason, I doubt in this case); either in the field or in a laboratory in the country where you are working (artefacts are placed in storage in a museum or depot after they have been excavated, where they can be studied as well). Furthermore, it is usually possible to take samples out of the country for dating, chemical analysis etc. So if these researchers had the proper permits, nothing would have prevented them from providing proper evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2011 10:25 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 234 of 349 (627670)
08-03-2011 10:36 AM


Is this the video, Buz?
Hello again Buz.
Might this be the video you are referring to?:
If so, then these are my comments which I posted in Message 39 of one of the "exodus" threads.:
Huntard writes:
The first bit about Joseph: They just assert that Joseph = Imhotep, and then assert a whole lot more things about what Joseph did in Egypt. They show no evidence for any of this.
Then about Moses: They assert his adopted mother was Hatshepsut, and that his name was Senmut. His adult name (yeah, a name change, sure) is supposed to be Thutmoses II. Evidence for Moses being Thutmoses II is supposed to be his "hebrew shaped nose". Again, no evidence whasoever. Lots of other unevdienced assertions follow.
Before we get to the actual crossing, speculation about the route the isrealites supposedly took. No evidence that they actually took this route presented. Also, we get some talk about a supposed egyptian fort that was supposed to have stood there. A structure is shown, but no evidence for the claim that this was an Egyptian fort. Some assertions are made about where the pillar of clouds was and went.
We see "an amazing marker", a pillar that had once fallen over, but is now resurrected again. This is the pillar that marks the point of crossing, or so we are told. But, you guessed it, no evidence is provided. We are told a "matching column" is on the other side. We never see this pillar, though. They do sneakily show some footage of the same pillar, as if to try to fool the audience. Very dishonest. We get told about inscriptions on the "other" pillar. We of course are never shown these inscriptions. The inscriptions on the "Egyptian pillar" were removed by Egyptians, or so we are told. Nowhere is this shown to be the case. They use Google Earth to zoom in on the pillar on the "Egyptian" side. Of course, they never zoom in to the "other pillar".
The first underwater picture is shown, this is supposed to be a chariot wheel with three of its four spokes. It looks like a rock to me. Proof that it's a chariot wheel? 90 degree angles, which proves it's a man made structure. Of course, the angles aren't 90 degrees. We are told that using metal detectors, divers have found metal in the "hubs that were found". We are neither shown these hubs, nor shown any evidence that they in fact contain iron. We see more weird shapes that are supposed to be chariot wheels. We are told Wyatt has found many artefacts here. We are not shown any. Formations are shown that "could have once been a chariot cab", seems even the makers of the film aren't too sure about what it is. Another choral with a drawing of a chariot wheel imposed upon it is shown. It doesn't even come close. We are shown a "shrunken hoof" and a femur covered in coral, some more bones are shown. Yes, I'm sure nothing ever drowned there, except when the exodus happened. Some more "chariot wheels". The premier find, is a gold veneer. We are shown something shiny in the water. Curiously, this isn't covered in coral. Everything else in the film is.

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 235 of 349 (627672)
08-03-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Coyote
08-02-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
Hi Coyote,
This might not be exactly a question for an archeologist? If one of the "chariot wheels" was to be recovered would there be anything of the wheel left inside the coral that Moller claims to have grown on said wheels? If so it seems you could use that do date the wheel based on how fast coral grows? This might be better answered by a marine biologist?
Lot of ifs, too many IMO. I remember watching part of a show on History ch or somewhere about Mollers theory and didn't think too much of it, I wasn't convinced, but it seems pseudoscience makes for good TV. Sadly this shows how gullible many people really are.
Without being able to examine any said artifacts then no matter the claims, that's all they will ever be.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2011 10:25 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2011 11:04 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied
 Message 237 by jar, posted 08-03-2011 11:04 AM fearandloathing has replied

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


(3)
Message 236 of 349 (627673)
08-03-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by fearandloathing
08-03-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
They might find wood still there and be able to get carbon-14 dates. Also, the metal could be analyzed to see what the alloys are and compared to known specimens. There are a lot of other things that clever scientists could probably do to analyze such specimens.
I would not think coral would be that good of a dating tool in this instance, but in marine environments it has been used for dating.
The point is, there is a lot of potential evidence there that could be examined but this was not done.
If one wants vague photographs to be evidence then UFOs and bigfoot are proven also.
Buz should google some of the real biblical archaeology articles and see the level of investigation and analysis they use. Might be educational.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by fearandloathing, posted 08-03-2011 10:56 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 237 of 349 (627674)
08-03-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by fearandloathing
08-03-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
The issue is whether or not Mller was even doing science and there the evidence is overwhelming that he was NOT doing science.
First, he recorded none of the data about any of his findings, made no grid diagrams to specify locations, labeled not one single sample, took no samples, presented no samples, published no findings.
Mller was simply making a movie to sell to gullible Christians.
It really is that simple.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by fearandloathing, posted 08-03-2011 10:56 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by fearandloathing, posted 08-03-2011 11:18 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 238 of 349 (627677)
08-03-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by jar
08-03-2011 11:04 AM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
I agree, hence my comment on pseudoscience making good TV.
It just seems to me it would be fairly easy to prove or disprove his claims. Based on my limited knowledge of what happens to wood in a marine environment, it would never allow coral growth to form in the shapes he shows, wood would be the first thing to go. I am not sure how long iron would last or what evidence of it if any would be left inside the coral formations.
AbE... Thanks Coyote.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 08-03-2011 11:04 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 6:03 PM fearandloathing has not replied
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2011 11:20 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 239 of 349 (627736)
08-03-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by fearandloathing
08-03-2011 11:18 AM


Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
Interestingly, although Buz touts Moller's qualifications as a marine biologist (it's not his primary field, but it's the closest to being relevant) we haven't seen anything about the difficulty of coral growing on wood, the growth rates of coral or even the species of coral. All issues a marine biologist really ought to be addressing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by fearandloathing, posted 08-03-2011 11:18 AM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 240 of 349 (627738)
08-03-2011 6:25 PM


For what it is worth:
quote:
One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,000 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins. Gentle, soft-spoken Ron verbally abused an Arab car rental agent when the agent told Mr. Wyatt that his son was to young to drive the vehicle.
This couple and the television man returned with nothing to show for the ten's of thousands of dollars he gave to Ron. Later, Ron returned and asked for $10,000 dollars more. This man told Ron he would give him the money if he agreed to take a lie detector test and sign a statement agreeing to allow this man to use the results of the test any way he wanted. Ron tried to get the money without agreeing to take the test, but when he saw that he would not get another dime without the test, he finally signed the statement and took the test. In the words of the man who put Ron Wyatt through the test, as told by the man who gave Ron Wyatt all the previous money, "He failed just about everything except his name."
source
Moller's connection with Wyatt taints all of Moller's claims. Wyatt was a con artist. Plain and simple.

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2011 11:36 PM Taq 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