Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 76 of 230 (653959)
02-25-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
02-25-2012 4:22 PM


Re: purpose in science
Would you like me to give you evidence of humans building tools for certain purposes?
yes - because it will be an example of humans creating objects and then using them. This is not evidence of purpose it is evidence that humans created something and then used it.
We are entitled to hypothesize that there was a purpose or that there was intelligence or that they were made to do it by alien mind control and none of those are falsifiable.
In all cases it seems natural to assume purpose or intelligence by a process of 'putting ourselves in their shoes'
If i was a stone age hunter I would want to make an axe to hunt prey etc... but that is a very slippery slope
Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.
Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:53 PM lbm111 has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 77 of 230 (653961)
02-25-2012 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:35 PM


Hi, John.
If you write [qs=person I'm responding to]thing that person said[/qs], you get this:
person I'm responding to writes:
thing that person said
Each message also has a "peek" button: you can click this to see what other codes are used to format messages.
-----
jchardy writes:
There is no need for disrespect on either side of the ledger if only both sides will respect the other's data base and beliefs.
I'm not a big of fan of this approach, to be honest. People deserve respect, but opinions and information do not.
If you ask me to not call IDists idiots, I will gladly comply. I will even compliment you on your communications skills and writing abilities, because you are a good writer.
If you ask me to be nice to a certain idea, hypothesis or data set, however, I will not comply. Science is not benefitted from an "innocent until proven guilty" approach when it comes to peer review: it is better to set the standard too high and end up rejecting a few perfectly adequate papers than it is to set the standard too low and end up accepting garbage.
In the history of science, millions of papers (even papers that support the Theory of Evolution) have been rejected for falling short of the standards, and many hypotheses have been abandoned when superior hypotheses rendered them obsolete. Yet, of all these failed hypotheses, only those that can be construed as supporting the existence of God seem to retain a stubborn following. This is a rather suspicious pattern that creates a wholly justified---though admittedly crude---prejudice against such ideas.
If you wish to have Intelligent Design considered seriously in scientific circles again, you have a steep hill to climb.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:35 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 4:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 230 (653963)
02-25-2012 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lbm111
02-25-2012 4:31 PM


Re: purpose in science
Would you like me to give you evidence of humans building tools for certain purposes?
yes
Really? You didn't even decide to put the effort into explaining why the obvious responses won't satisfy you? You're going to actually ask me to provide evidence of something that no reasonable person doubts? What next, do I need to provide evidence that the grass is green?
Let's use a relevant example then. A watch. A watch is a tool that is used for the purposes of timekeeping.
Do you doubt that humans build watches? Do you doubt that the purpose for building watches is so that the time can be 'kept'?
If you want a paper, why not try 'The Function of Paleolithic Flint Tools', Lawrence H Keeley. The Abstract:
quote:
The microscopic examination of the working edges of certain stone implements used by ancient hunters makes it possible to distinguish among such uses as scraping hide, cutting meat and sawing wood.
source
Here we have a science paper that analyses tools to determine their purpose.
Now it's your turn:
quote:
Would you like to give me evidence of gods building organisms for certain purposes?
Would you like to give me evidence that organisms are being used for the purposes they were built for?

I see you did me the courtesy of expanding:
quote:
because it will be an example of humans creating objects and then using them. This is not evidence of purpose it is evidence that humans created something and then used it.
It is evidence that the tools were created with some purpose in mind. Why else would you create a watch if it was not for the purposes of timekeeping? I am beginning to suspect you are using a strange meaning of the word 'purpose' - perhaps you can explain what you mean by it?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:31 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 02-25-2012 5:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 80 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:31 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 79 of 230 (653964)
02-25-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-25-2012 4:53 PM


Re: purpose in science
Since hammers have been mentioned as well as human design for a particular purpose/function, we can consider the fact that there are claw hammers and ball-peen hammers; two entirely different designs each designed and created to meet a unique and specific set of conditions, a particular function.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 80 of 230 (653969)
02-25-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-25-2012 4:53 PM


Re: purpose in science
modulous writes:
It is evidence that the tools were created with some purpose in mind. Why else would you create a watch if it was not for the purposes of timekeeping? I am beginning to suspect you are using a strange meaning of the word 'purpose' - perhaps you can explain what you mean by it?
sorry clicked submit too quickly on the last post
perhaps i am using a strange meaning but I want to look at it rigorously. You are of course right that in the every day commonly accepted interpretation - flint tools are designed with the purpose of scraping hide and watches are designed with the purpose of keeping time.
What i disagree with is that we have more fundamental evidence to assign purpose to human made objects. I don't argue that it is a highly useful way of describing the world and in every day speech its useful. I might say a cup of tea is 'divine' but that doesn't mean I believe in heaven
We use the word 'purpose' (or intelligence' for that matter) as a shorthand to describe a series of processes. For example the series of processes that compelled the neurons in an ancient hunters brain to configure themselves in such a way that he picked up a flint and sharpened it. he went from not having an axe to having one and in the interim some thoughts went through his head such that his body carried out the actions of making the axe. Now obviously that hunter is long since deceased so we are not able to examine his brain, instead what we do is gloss over it and call the sum of all those neurological processes the 'purpose' for the axe. We assume he thought in a similar way to the way we might think and say he probably did x to achieve y.
my point is partly that we use the word purpose because we lack the evidence (in this case neurological data about the hunter) to give a full scientific description of the creation of the axe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:53 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 5:45 PM lbm111 has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 230 (653971)
02-25-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:31 PM


Re: purpose in science
We use the word 'purpose' (or intelligence' for that matter) as a shorthand to describe a series of processes.
I don't disagree. We use all words this way: science tells us there is no such thing (really) as planets and cows...they are all just pertubations of waves in a Quantum Field. The word 'cow' is a placeholder for a certain class of waves in said Quantum Field.
But neverthless, science can study cows and planets. And intelligence and purpose.
my point is partly that we use the word purpose because we lack the evidence (in this case neurological data about the hunter) to give a full scientific description of the creation of the axe.
And that equally applies to the IDists. If we assume the IDer exists, it doesn't explain how the IDer works. So the IDist cannot give a complete account and uses placeholders such as 'intelligence' and 'purpose'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:31 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 82 of 230 (653975)
02-25-2012 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
02-25-2012 5:45 PM


Re: purpose in science
modulous writes:
there is no such thing (really) as planets and cows...they are all just pertubations of waves in a Quantum Field. The word 'cow' is a placeholder for a certain class of waves in said Quantum Field.
yes i agree and we use these placeholders in our everyday existence. In fact our everyday life is full of these place holders which make up human language. There are a multitude of things we do not have data for or cannot get data about (such as the neurological makeup of a stone age hunter).
we are forced to use fuzzy terms as place holders to describe these gaps.
modulous writes:
And that equally applies to the IDists. If we assume the IDer exists, it doesn't explain how the IDer works. So the IDist cannot give a complete account and uses placeholders such as 'intelligence' and 'purpose'.
why is the IDer or god or whatever other word not also valid as a placeholder? ultimately we will see that the this palceholder ( as with every other place holder) is a peturbation in the Quantum field adn it will then be an irrelevant term but until the stage that we have a full description of the quantum field we are free ( in fact compelled) to use place holders in our everday lives
Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 5:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 6:13 PM lbm111 has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 230 (653979)
02-25-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:58 PM


Re: purpose in science
why is the IDer or god or whatever other word not also valid as a placeholder?
I've not suggested that it is not valid as a placeholder. I'm just suggesting that there is no evidence supporting the existence of the thing/s that it is the placeholder for.
On the other hand, there is evidence for other kids of purpose and intelligence which science has done a marvelous job of studying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:58 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lbm111, posted 02-26-2012 6:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 84 of 230 (654008)
02-26-2012 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by jchardy
02-25-2012 3:30 PM


Re: teleology and ID
Dear Modulous:
Re: ID is creationism in disguise,,,
The affirmation of faith should never be a requirement if we are to communicate meaningfully. The key is to accept the fact that Science is and has been beneficial, but it does not negate faith.
I'm not sure what 'negate faith' means. Science does essentially conclude that faith is an insufficient reason to accept belief in something.
Faith should avoid interacting (and especially manipulating) the law to some end. Such interactions are destructive and counterproductive to us all.
Sounds like you're a secularist.
Strictly speaking, I am a Christian; but one with an open mind to all options. Secularism is a broad term which I assign mainly to governing institutions, agnostics and atheists. Which (to me) is OK. So long as they are as respectful to my belief system and search for truth as I am of their’s.
A teleologist would say that every item may or may not have a rational purpose. The universe appears to operate to its own rhythm which we humans have attempted to define through science. Those attempts have provided us remarkable means to improve our existence, but the attempts themselves were really to satisfy our curiosity. In a way, purpose, was a spin off we call applied science. But it was our need to know, -- our curiosity about who we are; where we are; where we came from and where we are going --- that really spurred science in the first place. It all emanated from our remarkably creative biologic quantum computer — our brains interacting with our mind and — some would say — with our spirit or souls.
That does not address the point you were quoting when you said it. That is:
quote:
________________________________________
And that is the main problem with teleological accounts: they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving.
These are not my words, but I’ll comment as best I can. By purpose-giver (an interesting title for the Designer or Creator or God) — I would only say: OF COURSE NOT!
The Designer has no intention of giving us clear-cut evidence of His existence. It’s not a game (I am convinced); I believe He finds it unwise to confirm His role in anything overtly. It’s up to us to develop the information we need and experiences to affirm in our hearts (i.e., our intuitive selves) His existence and role. As to what purpose they are even giving. I would say what is their goal.
I would conclude that is Their business and beyond our ability to understand.
________________________________________
I (as a teleologist) am not offended, but it seems that teleology is at least as valid as any other discipline (including multiple components of science), --- most of them being unproven as absolute truth or fact.
All scientific knowledge is tentative and is thus 'unproven as absolute truth or fact'. The difference is that teleology has no supporting evidence for its defining feature: A purpose and a purpose giver.
Again, I say: OF COURSE NOT.
Unlike with say, what we know about the respiratory system, or ant behaviour, or the mass of the moon. All tentative, all unproven as absolute truths.
Teleology is 'valid', but it isn't supported by evidence. And that's the essential claim of the ID movement: That teleology is supported by the evidence. And that is not true.
Again, of course not! But it’s not necessary because it is intuitive and personal truth --- we call it (for want of a better word) Faith. But it becomes more than faith when a preponderance of evidence supports the PROBABILITY that this or that is so improbable without some kind of guidance. Many of us see it in the courses of our lives. The right doors open at the right time and we make the right decision to enter (or not enter). It’s all very personal and personal cannot really be objective. The evidence we discern is difficult to analyze and we are rarely privileged to present it as proof of anything tangible. But as time and occurrences accumulate, we are observant and see that --- to us --- personally --- nothing else makes sense.
In the field of scientific investigation, windfalls occur providing us insights we didn’t expect. We take advantage of the insights and they carry us to other areas of fruitful investigation, sometimes leading to great rewards. But most simply interpret such occurrences as good luck. We accept that, because --- well, maybe it was. But sometimes there is a train of events that fall beyond simple probability (and I don’t mean winning the lottery). Sometimes we feel aided; guided; supported at critical times and it sustains us. Enough said. As a Teleological ID believer, those are the conclusions I take away from Cosmologic study; especially in the projected quantum component mathematically extrapolated in the first 10 -33 seconds after the BB. The evolving quarks (the internal structure of which is way beyond our ability to really understand). I believe in a sort of integration of the evolution of the physical world with nuanced purpose outside our control and way beyond proof. In fact, I consider proof as unnecessary, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 3:30 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2012 4:12 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 87 by Warthog, posted 02-26-2012 6:18 AM jchardy has not replied
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2012 12:50 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 85 of 230 (654013)
02-26-2012 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jchardy
02-26-2012 3:36 AM


Re: teleology and ID
You can't mix up [quote] with [/qs]
quote:
use one
or
the other
Use the 'peek' button to see how it's done.
It's also a good idea to use the preview buttone before you submit - then your errors will show up highlighted in red so you can fix them easily.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 3:36 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3969 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 86 of 230 (654022)
02-26-2012 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jchardy
02-25-2012 3:21 PM


Purpose or Function?
quote:
Purpose in science (to me at least) is the accumulation and analysis of data to support or refute a hypothesis or theory. Nothing more. Only if the process also results in applicable information does it otherwise take on a function beyond the initial purpose.
In short, the purpose is curiosity (investigationally) driven in science.
The function applications are needs and wants driven.
They are Totally different platforms and should not be conflated.
That's the purpose of science not purpose within science. You are conflating the two meanings. The purpose of science is to gain knowledge as you have said. You have also brought in a different meaning of purpose by using rabbit tails and flagella as examples. In this case we are talking about the purpose of the subject, not the observer. i.e. the function. I believe this is where much confusion lies in this thread, at least on my part.
So, to be clear, using the following definitions...
Purpose
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention.
Function
1. The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.
6. Biology The physiological activity of an organ or body part
...what do you mean to say? Even your OP isn't clear in this regard.

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 3:21 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 2:53 AM Warthog has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3969 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 87 of 230 (654026)
02-26-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jchardy
02-26-2012 3:36 AM


Formatting stuff
Tangle writes:
You can't mix up [quote] with [/qs]
The preview button helps a lot. It lets you see how your formatting works before posting and is a good way to edit what you've written before you post.
ABE - you can also edit the post afterward but I believe it's customary to preface your edits with ABE (at least that's how I understand it ... took me a while to figure that one out )
Edited by Warthog, : editing for the sake of editing about editing

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 3:36 AM jchardy has not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 88 of 230 (654029)
02-26-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Modulous
02-25-2012 6:13 PM


Re: purpose in science
but there is just as much empirical evidence for that placeholder as for many others - most notably "intelligence"
every instance of intelligence can ultimately be shown to be a result of a mechanical (or random) process hence it is pointless to use the placeholder intelligence.
once we know that it is an automatic reaction for an organism to recoil from a hot flame then it is no longer a sign of intelligence but a sign of a mechanical response taking place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 6:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2012 4:07 PM lbm111 has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 230 (654057)
02-26-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by lbm111
02-26-2012 6:55 AM


Re: purpose in science
every instance of intelligence can ultimately be shown to be a result of a mechanical (or random) process hence it is pointless to use the placeholder intelligence.
once we know that it is an automatic reaction for an organism to recoil from a hot flame then it is no longer a sign of intelligence but a sign of a mechanical response taking place.
Just because problem solving is mechanistic, it does not mean it doesn't exist or that it is pointless to call it intelligence. Either way, I'm beginning to think the point you want to discuss is off topic here and is much better suited to is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products .
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by lbm111, posted 02-26-2012 6:55 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 6:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 90 of 230 (654064)
02-26-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Blue Jay
02-25-2012 4:40 PM


PIVOTAL QUESTIONS
JCHardy put both Blue Jay's text and his own responses in quotes, and he was inconsistent in which quotes he used. I believe I've straightened it out properly.
To JCHardy: Could I suggest you use the Preview button before posting or spend some time in the Practice Makes Perfect forum. --Admin
1) "I'm not a big of fan of this approach, to be honest.
2) People deserve respect, but opinions and information do not."
Of course, I believe ALL OPINIONS deserve respect; I believe INFORMATION based (when possible) on valid studies and review are the ONLY ones which deserve respect. This is a personal preference of course, but is also the one followed by most credible institutions.
3) If you ask me to not call IDists idiots, I will gladly comply. I will even compliment you on your communications skills and writing abilities, because you are a good writer.
4) (BUT), If you ask me to be nice to a certain idea, hypothesis or data set, however, I will not comply.
I would only ask that each of us entertain the other’s idea’s, hypotheses and data sets in a respectful light, at least in the beginning. Sort of like an attitude of assuming a person is perfect when you first meet them, and then --- as time and information is accumulated --- you reject their behavior (a sort of synonym for the sum of information and presentation) --- in such a way that they can actually hear what you’re saying, rather than closing their ears (minds) and learning nothing. So, the cornerstone of all information exchange is respect — at least in the beginning — and through the process of communication — doubt or conviction will set in; in one or the other of the two sides. Calling the proponents of one point of view or the other idiots at the outset accomplishes nothing. It placates the base of one’s belief system, but advances nothing ultimately except an exchange of vitriol.
5) Science is not benefitted from an "innocent until proven guilty" approach when it comes to peer review:
a) it is better to set the standard too high and end up rejecting a few perfectly adequate papers than
b) it is to set the standard too low and end up accepting garbage.
I absolutely agree! But the presentation of those boundaries (those standards) of acceptance or rejection is pivotal. If the standards are presented as dogma (i.e., something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet ) without flexibility at all, the standards had better be so well established that the deviant opinion, theory, hypothesis etc. is incontrovertible by everyone’s experience and observation. The seasons’ changes, for example, are set and everyone agrees how, why and when they occur. That (to me) is valid dogma. What we are discussing requires either proof or acceptance of certain levels of probability and the bar for dogma should be established at a very high level. The value in this discussion is the discussion itself. It is the respectful consideration of ideas we might impulsively (knee jerk) otherwise reject.
6) In the history of science, millions of papers (even papers that support the Theory of Evolution) have been rejected for falling short of the standards, and many hypotheses have been abandoned when superior hypotheses rendered them obsolete. Yet,
7) of all these failed hypotheses, only those that can be construed as supporting the existence of God seem to retain a stubborn following.
So---it’s worthwhile asking why that is so? What is it about the concept of faith that is so absolutely unshakable. So immutable in the minds of those that cling to it? What is the value, if it’s all just bunk. And if there is NO value to faith, (and certainly no validity to it --- according to many) — why does it then endure?
8) This is a rather suspicious pattern that creates a wholly justified---though admittedly crude---prejudice against such ideas.
9) If you wish to have Intelligent Design considered seriously in scientific circles again, you have a steep hill to climb.
I would submit the hill — so far as some of us are concerned — is at least bimodal. If IDists (particularly the teleologists) have a hill to climb --- (when they already KNOW they cannot really reach the top or ultimately convince anyone with solid scientific proof); then so do Darwinists and many Cosmologists; biologists; geologists etc.etc. -- if they want to convince us that all we see evolved sequentially and logically out of initial conditions, without perturbation from an outside influence, via chaos and fractals; strange attractors; following laws of universe which we really barely understand in detail — then I think we are both on even ground.
Therefore, if we are to advance at all, we must get our boots off each other’s throats and allow the free transfer of information --- no matter how dumb or blasphemous the other thinks that information might be.
JCH
Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2012 4:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 02-26-2012 8:57 PM jchardy has not replied
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2012 11:48 PM jchardy 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