Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 1 of 143 (694362)
03-21-2013 9:23 PM


Dr. Hugh Ross has written a book titled More Than A Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation. In the book, he outlines a number of predictions for each of the four major views of origins: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and RTB’s creation model (Ross’s model).
Ross writes: Hallmarks of a good scientific theory are explanatory power and predictive success. In addition to excelling on these criteria, the RTB creation model performs well in the five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications. p.255
I view these tests (especially explanatory power and predictive success) as adequate tests. If the RTB creation model outperforms the other models over the next five years, I believe scientists should reject the failed models and embrace the model with the most explanatory power and predictive success.
What do you say?
This thread probably belongs in Is It Science?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 03-21-2013 10:43 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 3 of 143 (694364)
03-22-2013 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
03-21-2013 10:43 PM


Re: More Details
Could you be more specific? What type of details are you looking for?
The issue in the past has always been that intelligent design and creation science are not real theories because they do not explain anything or successfully predict anything. What Hugh Ross has shown in his new book is that his relatively new theory does have explanatory power and has made successful predictions.
The debate I'm proposing is not about the evidence for these different theories, it is about the ground rules. I am arguing that scientists should choose the theory with the most explanatory power and predictive success. Will anyone pick up the debate and disagree? I don't know. But if they want to disagree, they should do it prior to the debate on the evidence about explanatory power and predictive success.
Does that explain it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 03-21-2013 10:43 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 1:29 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 5 of 143 (694366)
03-22-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
03-22-2013 1:29 AM


Re: Details
Do you think there will be any argument about picking what has the best explanatory power?
Yes, there most certainly will be a debate on that, but that debate is for later. I want to establish the ground rules first.
Can you give a hint of what you might expect someone to bring up?
I gave five hints - the five other tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications. In my opinion, these tests provide confirmation of the major tests but nothing more. If a theory passed all five of these but did not pass the first two, it would mean nothing to me. I would like to know if others feel the same way. If not, can they convince me?
If that is all you wish to discuss it seems hardly necessary to even mention Hugh Ross's book.
I mention Hugh Ross's book because I am setting the table for a future debate focused on the evidences in the book.
Again maybe it is just me but perhaps you should explain those terms and why you mention them. Myself, I don't have a clue as to what they mean.
I mention the five other tests because they are mentioned by Hugh Ross and because they are the five most likely challengers to explanatory power and predictive success. Of course, other tests might be proposed by members of the forum. By mentioning them, members could research them and then bring their views to the debate.
I used to debate here under the name designtheorist. I forgot my password and the password reset feature did not work for me. None of the emails I use was recognized, so I established a new account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 1:29 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 10:43 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 7 of 143 (694368)
03-23-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
03-22-2013 10:43 AM


Revised Version
Forum - Is it Science?
Thread Title: What would it take for you to become a RTB creationist?
Many times intelligent design and creationism are criticized as not being science or not being fully developed scientific theories. A new approach has been introduced and is worthy of debate. Before debating the evidence for this new model, I would like to debate the ground rules for determining if a model should be embraced by the scientific community.
Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe, a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. (quoted from the RTB website) Dr. Ross has written a book titled More Than A Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation. In the book, he discusses each of the four major views of origins: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and RTB’s creation model (the model developed by Ross and his team).
For a viewpoint to be considered science, it has to be testable. There are many hypotheses, such as belief in the multiverse or belief the Big Bang was caused by a vacuum fluctuation, which are not testable. Therefore, they are not science in the normal sense. (This debate is not about the multiverse or vacuum fluctuated universe. These are only examples.)
Direct observation is generally important in science. But direct observation of origins is not possible. Other evidence has been brought forward and other tests have been proposed. It is these tests themselves I wish to debate.
Ross writes: Hallmarks of a good scientific theory are explanatory power and predictive success. In addition to excelling on these criteria, the RTB creation model performs well in the five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications. p.255
I view the tests of explanatory power and predictive success as adequate tests. The other five tests: censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications are merely confirmatory in my mind. In other words a theory may pass the five minor tests but if they fail the first two, then they fail.
If the RTB creation model outperforms the other models in explanatory power and predictive success over the next five years, I believe scientists should reject the failed models and embrace the RTB creation model.
What do you say? Is success in these two tests enough for you to embrace RTB’s creation model? Or would you require something else? How important are the tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications to you? Is there some other test you would like to see RTB’s creation model pass before you accept it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 03-22-2013 10:43 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 03-23-2013 1:55 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 9 of 143 (694370)
03-24-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminNosy
03-23-2013 1:55 PM


Thanks for helping me sharpen this
Forum: Is it Science?
Thread Title: Criteria for judging scientific theories
Many times intelligent design and creationism are criticized as not being science or not being fully developed scientific theories. A new approach has been introduced and is worthy of debate. Before debating the evidence for this new model, I would like to debate the ground rules for determining if a model should be embraced by the scientific community.
Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe, a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. (quoted from the RTB website) Dr. Ross has written a book titled More Than A Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation. In the book, he discusses each of the four major views of origins: naturalism (evolution), theistic evolution, young-earth creationism and RTB’s creation model (the model developed by Ross and his team).
For a viewpoint to be considered science, it has to be testable. Direct observation is generally important in science. But direct observation of origins is not possible. Other evidence has been brought forward and other tests have been proposed. It is these tests themselves I wish to debate.
Ross writes: Hallmarks of a good scientific theory are explanatory power and predictive success. In addition to excelling on these criteria, the RTB creation model performs well in the five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications. p.255
Explanatory power and predictive success are well-known, but the other five tests are less so. Below is a series selected quotes describing these five minor tests:
Censorship
Ideologues, who tend toward fear, often censor what they view as serious threats to their paradigms. The prohibition of valid theistic models for the origins and history of the universe, Earth, and life may be an indicator that those scientific models offer a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of nature’s record. One measure of RTB’s creation model might be the ongoing purposeful attempts to ignore or shut out its claims — not only from naturalists, young-earth creationists, or theistic evolutionists but rather from all three.
Stultification
The stultification test identifies faulty models by measuring the degree to which a model impedes scientific advance. Likewise, this tests identifies successful models by measuring the extent to which a model stimulates scientific progress with the greatest efficiency and economy.
To be sure, some poor interpretations and applications of Scripture today justify the complaint that Christianity stultifies science. However, historically, Christianity gave birth to both the scientific method and the scientific revolution. A sound biblical interpretation generates a desire to know more about the Creator and his creation. Such motives stimulate increasing research efforts and explorations in the realm of science.
Integration
Overspecialization in science can seriously impede the testing of creation/evolution models. Some researchers (e.g. many anthropologists, zoologists, and chemists) have little if any exposure to those eras of cosmic or terrestrial history in which creation proponents claim divine activity occurred. Accordingly, these scientists lack the opportunity — and the impetus — to witness the merits of creation models and put them to the test.
The integration test simply evaluates which creation/evolution models provide the best and most seamless integration of various scientific disciplines. The best model should explain at least some phenomena in all disciplines in a manner distinct from and superior to that offered by other models. It should also supply the best integration of the entire history of the universe, Earth and life.
Research Passion
North America today faces a serious science education crisis. That crisis is especially pronounced in the United States. A number of causes largely account for a dramatic drop in the public’s zeal for science.
A large percentage, perhaps a majority, of America’s science and engineering graduate students now come from other countries. South Korea, with only one-sixth the U.S. population, graduates almost as many engineers. In a 2003 address to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Richard Smalley, Nobel laureate in chemistry (1996), forecast that by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asians working in Asia.
Could it be that, to some degree, the American science education crisis stems from the quelling of controversy? Has dismissive attitude toward any alternative to strict naturalism made science education boring? Is fear of the religious or philosophical implications of amazing new scientific discoveries prompting American science educators to squash discussion of the important and intriguing why questions? Do science educators avoid the very issues with the most potential to engage their students?
This research passion test measures the degree to which a model engenders a zeal for studying science and a joy over what is being discovered, not only for science students but also for the general public. The better the creation/evolution model, the more it ignites enthusiasm for science.
Destiny implications
The drive to fulfill destiny did not evolve from lower species. No other life-form on Earth manifests it to any degree. Nor did it evolve within the human species. Archaeology shows that the earliest humans displayed the same strong impetus toward eternal destiny as people experience today.
A seventh test for all creation/evolution models, then, is how well does the model explain and satisfy the human drive to seek and achieve an ultimate hope, purpose and destiny.
These minor tests are interesting, but I view the tests of explanatory power and predictive success as adequate tests. In other words a theory may pass the five minor tests but if they fail the first two, then they fail.
If the RTB creation model outperforms the other models in explanatory power and predictive success over the next five years, I believe scientists should reject the failed models and embrace the RTB creation model.
What do you say? Is success in the two main tests enough for you? Or would you require something else? How important are the tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications to you? Is there some other test you would like to see a model pass before you accept it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 03-23-2013 1:55 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 11:16 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 12:32 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 1:46 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:34 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 20 of 143 (694396)
03-24-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
03-24-2013 11:16 AM


Re: Censorship? What censorship?
The biggest problem with this is that nobody is trying to censor creationism.
There is a strong effort to keep any criticism of evolution out of the scientific journals. But not the really the point of this debate. That will come later.
The question is "What are the necessary tests to decide between competing scientific models?" Explanatory power and predictive success are the two most commonly discussed. We can call these the major tests. Are there other tests you would consider major tests?
What about the five minor tests discussed? You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past. If they are valid tests, then they are valid for every scientific model, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 11:16 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:05 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 3:21 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 23 of 143 (694399)
03-24-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
03-24-2013 11:41 AM


On Testing Scientific Models
If he wants to change the rules before he starts, that's a pretty big clue that he feels that his ideas fail the standard tests.
Actually, Ross is pretty confident that his model measures up better than any other model on the major tests. This debate is my idea. I want to debate the tests because I want to clarify my own thinking on the appropriate tests. I am hoping someone will propose a test that Ross has not discussed so we can discuss it. I don't think anyone will attempt to criticize the two major tests, but if there is criticism of the five minor tests - I would like to discuss that also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2013 11:41 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:22 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 24 of 143 (694400)
03-24-2013 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
03-24-2013 12:32 PM


What dishonesty?
Please be specific. What dishonesty?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 12:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 3:31 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 25 of 143 (694402)
03-24-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 1:46 PM


The Major Tests
Thank you for explaining your thoughts. I have a different view and think my view is closer to what Dr. Ross has in mind. Ross does not specifically differentiate between explanatory power and predictive success, but I think it is easy to do so.
Explanatory power is the ability of a model or theory to explain data we already have. For example, we need a theory that explains why life popped up on planet earth almost immediately after it cooled. We need a theory that will explain the Cambrian explosion, the cessation of new life forms evolving after mankind came on the scene and the role of extinctions (why there are fewer species alive on the planet now than earlier).
Predictive success is the ability to predict new discoveries and observations. It is purely about data we do not yet have but based on the model we would expect to find in the future. If it does not happen in the future, it is not a prediction.
Does that help?
Edited by designtheorist1, : Left out a word!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:32 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:47 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 5:22 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 32 of 143 (694414)
03-24-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
03-24-2013 3:21 PM


Minor tests used against young earth creationism
have no idea what you mean or what point you are making when you talk about these "minor tests" being "used against creationism."
The tests have been used in the past against young-earth creationism. The arguments don't work against the RTB model of creationism or at least Ross does not think so.
Censorship
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship.
Stultification
This is often used against young-earth creationism when people say "If you get your science from the Bible, there is no reason to do research." So the claim is that Christianity promotes ignorance. It is true that young earth creationists have not done a lot of research. But that seems to be changing as the young earth creationists are losing ground. Ross actually has a couple of sections in his book on this topic. When the Bible is interpreted rightly, it encourages research.
Ross writes: "If one model generates more scientific breakthroughs, better explanations of natural phenomena, and more comprehensive integration of scientific disciplines for less effort and expense than a competing model, then the better model deserves consideration, whatever its philosophical or religious implications."
Integration
For a long time young earth creationists thought the discipline of geology was the only field that was problematic. The last half century has shown the problem of an old universe and old earth is found in many different scientific disciplines.
Research Passion
I don't particularly like this test because research passion can be similar to a fad. Early after Darwin published his first book, it released a great deal of research passion. Some scientists pointed to this as new passion as evidence it is a better theory. Now the story is different.
Ross tells the story of Chinese paleontologists studying the famous Cambrian explosion fossils in the Chengjiang shale in the Yunnan province saying "In China we are not allowed to criticize our government leaders, but we are free to criticize Darwin. In your country you are free to criticize your government leaders, but you are not permitted to criticize Darwin."
This suppression of any criticism of Darwin is a problem in the U.S. Ross believes it is a major reason U.S. students are not studying science as much as Asian students.
Destiny Implications
This seems to be the only test that has not been used against the young-earth creationists. I could be wrong, but it looks like a test developed by Ross. It has some similar characteristics as some of the tests used against the young-earth creationists. It may even be valid as a confirmatory test.
I hope this answers your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 3:21 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 4:38 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 6:00 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 33 of 143 (694416)
03-24-2013 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
03-24-2013 3:31 PM


Re: What dishonesty?
Okay, so you have questions or criticisms but no real evidence of dishonesty.
I am running out of time at the moment. I will attempt to answer soon. For now, let me say some of your criticisms probably have value and others are due to the fact I did not fully explain. I will again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 3:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 4:10 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 35 of 143 (694418)
03-24-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 3:47 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Well, this is the sort of thing I was warning against. "Goddidit" is not actually superior even to "I don't know", because although it gratifies the desire to have an explanation, there's no predictive power there.
At this point, we are not getting into the evidence. I only provided some examples of some of the data that has to be explained. The point is:
Explanatory power - means the ability to explain data we have.
Predictive success - means the ability to make predictions about what we are going to learn in the near future.
Ross claims the RTB Creation Model has had more predictive success than any other model of origins. But let's not get into that just yet.
My questions to you are:
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
2. Are there any minor tests you think add value as confirmatory tests of a model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 9:56 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 39 of 143 (694427)
03-24-2013 6:00 PM


Please don't just ahead
Several people are trying to debate the evidence. We will have that debate when the time is right.
The questions I would like people to focus on are these:
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
2. Are there any minor tests you think add value as confirmatory tests of a model? Specifically, do you buy any of the five tests Ross mentions (four of which have been used against young-earth creationism)? Is there some other confirmatory test you think adds value that Ross did not mention?

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2013 6:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 41 of 143 (694429)
03-24-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
03-24-2013 5:22 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Regarding the cessation of new life forms, you write:
Who believes the above to be the case? I think we should stick to requiring theories to explain established facts.
First, I was just using this as an example. I really do not want to debate the evidence yet but I thought it was well understood that we have fewer mammals on the planet now than in the past. If it was not well known, I would not have used it as an example.
Why isn't acceptance by scientists a valued measure?
What we are discussing is the tests scientists should use in choosing the best model. By including "acceptance of scientists" as a method, the reasoning would be circular and new theories would rarely get a hearing.
For example, there is no single 'naturalistic' view of 'fine tuning'.
This may well be true. It is possible to have more than one prediction when this is the case. How many different predictions have come out of the different naturalistic views of fine-tuning? If the view is not able to make any predictions, is it really science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 5:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 6:49 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 7:10 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 42 of 143 (694431)
03-24-2013 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by subbie
03-24-2013 6:00 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
The Scopes trial was about keeping evolution of out public schools. But the fact that Tennessee was trying to keep evolution out says nothing whatsoever about whether evolution is a valuable scientific theory. All is says is that the Tennessee Legislature didn't want it in schools, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy.
Let me try again. The old and often used criticism of creationism is that creationists are afraid of data, facts and science. They point to the law passed in Tennessee and the prosecution of the teacher in the Scopes Trial as evidence of censorship. Obviously, if creationism wasn't afraid of data and science, they would not try to censor science in this manner. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. But it is only self-correcting when all sides get a thorough hearing of the evidence.
Whenever you see someone trying to gain an unfair advantage in a competition among ideas, then you have to realize the one seeking the unfair advantage is aware of the weakness of his position. If he was confident in his position, he would not seek to censor the other idea or prevent its publication.
Surely you have heard this argument before, right? And it does make some sense to you, correct?
Ross is agreeing that the test makes some sense. When people see their paradigm under attack, they get emotional. Sometimes they try to block publication of competing ideas and data. Sometimes they call people names and try to shout them down.
Ross is saying the test makes sense but it needs to be applied in all directions. If science is going to function as science, then the test has to be applied to all the competing models.
I am saying this test has some value but only confirmatory power. The major tests of explanatory power and predictive success are more important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 6:00 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 7:13 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 7:17 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-24-2013 9:40 PM designtheorist 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