Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Movie - "The Principle"
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 16 of 120 (760187)
06-18-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2015 12:27 AM


DR ADEQUATE: Are you going to argue in favor of geocentrism or whatever it is, or is this just an advertisement?
SUZANNE: Of course; and it is also an advertisement or promotion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2015 12:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2015 2:34 PM Suzanne Romano has replied
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2015 8:59 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 17 of 120 (760189)
06-18-2015 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
06-18-2015 12:52 AM


Re: Cosmological evolution
ADMINNEMOOSEUS: I think that "evolution/evolutionists" is being legitimately used as per cosmological evolution.
SUZANNE: YOW darn right!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-18-2015 12:52 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 18 of 120 (760201)
06-18-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MrHambre
06-18-2015 10:26 AM


MR HAMBRE: There's no question that Darwinian evolution does away with the notion of species being fixed and immutable.
SUZANNE: Interestingly, in all of human history, we observe only one thing: That animal and plant species are fixed and immutable, admitting, of course, that there are innumerable specific variations within the quite stable kinds (genera).
MR HAMBRE: True, a "species" is more a convenient classification than a hard fact.
SUZANNE: Species is a hard fact insofar as a real existent being belonging to an apprehensible, observable, measureable, generic, categorizable class, is a hard fact.
MR HAMBRE: However, I don't understand how that makes taxonomy as a whole somehow impracticable. Most populations evolve slowly enough that useful if arbitrary distinctions have always been made, with or without the assumption of common ancestry.
SUZANNE: Indeed the Linnaen and other systems of taxonomy work perfectly well in practice because there have been no recorded observations of transpeciation or transmutation within a kind from the beginning of human history. Evolutionism claims that such systems of taxonomy are workable precisely because the hard, factual, material evidence of transmutation comes into being so gradually as to be imperceptible (not to mention unprovable; wherefore evolution is a philosophical system or a religion).
[See this article for a discussion of the problem presented by evolutionism's absolute incapacity for the production of experimental data to support its speculations:
The Remnant Newspaper - The Neo-Catholic Planet of the Apes ]
MR HAMBRE: The notion of flux in other areas of empirical research doesn't invalidate all their distinctions either. Temperature is a variable quality that's local and dependent on many factors, but that doesn't mean "true temperature measurement ceases to be possible." Uranium decays into lead over time, but that doesn't mean that measuring the proportion of radioactive element to its byproduct ceases to be possible.
SUZANNE: Your points address the distinction between substance and accident. Per its formal definition, 'substance' is one of the fundamental classifications of existing beings. It is a category. A substance subsists in itself, and not in another as in its subject. Substance is constituted into existence in such a manner as not to require the support of another being in its mode of existence. It differs from accident in that an accident always requires another being in which it inheres in order to exist.
Wherefore an accident is any reality that does not have within itself the power of existing alone, but requires another reality to hold it in existence. Color is an accident because it cannot exist without a being that is colored holding it into existence. To take your example, temperature is an accidental form or quality that determines or modifies the substance in which it inheres. There is no such thing as a hot or a cold. Hot and cold must inhere in a subject. [Formal definitions taken from Glossary of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Benzinger Brothers, 1948]
A man is a substance - an individual being belonging to a class of beings sharing the same essence or nature. From conception to death, he will always participate in the act of existence through his immutable human nature. But many of his accidental realities will change - size, shape, hair color, reproductive ability, health, knowledge, experience. These accidental realities are intelligible, measureable, sensible - in fact by them we know the nature or essence - and the condition - of the being in question.
Both substance and accident are measurable, but substance is immutable. And immutability (fixity, stability), is necessary for the establishment of all standards of measurement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MrHambre, posted 06-18-2015 10:26 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 06-18-2015 2:18 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2015 2:25 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 19 of 120 (760206)
06-18-2015 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 1:19 PM


Interestingly, in all of human history, we observe only one thing: That animal and plant species are fixed and immutable, admitting, of course, that there are innumerable specific variations within the quite stable kinds (genera).
Well, no, we observe lots of things: that animal and plant populations display innumerable variations; that breeders can produce vast phenotypal changes in a small amount of generations; that fossils of organisms change drastically in successive geological strata; that bones in the forelimbs of organisms as different as bats, humans, and whales have identical structures and genes for development; that humans and chimps share a pseudogene for vitamin C synthesis wrecked by an identical base mutation; and various other observations of living organisms and their remains.
The theoretical framework that unifies all these observations is the concept of common ancestry. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection interprets and explains the data in a way that no other theory has been able to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 1:19 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

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


(2)
Message 20 of 120 (760207)
06-18-2015 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 1:19 PM


Interestingly, in all of human history, we observe only one thing: That animal and plant species are fixed and immutable
No we don't.
Indeed the Linnaen and other systems of taxonomy work perfectly well in practice because there have been no recorded observations of transpeciation or transmutation within a kind from the beginning of human history.
This claim is so flagrantly false that most creationists have given up on it. For example:
Answers In Genesis says "Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human lifetime. "
Creation Ministries International says "New species have been observed to form."
The CreationWiki says: "Species have been observed to form".
The Institute for Creation Research says "New species do arise, a process called "speciation.""
Absurd consequences follow: True taxonomic measurement ceases to be possible because there are no immutable biological forms (no beings at rest, we might say) upon which to base a true branch of science. No category of living being can be anything other than a transitional, relative existence (relative to what, they never say); and this unmoors the entire science of taxonomy.
That may be unwelcome to you and to the ghost of Carl Linnaeus, but that doesn't make it "absurd". You might as well complain that the discovery that water isn't an element is "absurd" because it "unmoors the entire science of alchemy". Well, that's just something we had to learn to deal with.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 1:19 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

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


Message 21 of 120 (760208)
06-18-2015 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 10:05 AM


The Copernican Principle, especially as it has been applied by modern speculative physics, is evolutionist in its essence. The evolutionary worldview posits several paradigmatic foundational principles, all of which have their nascence and inception in the assumptions and theories of the heliocentrists/copernicans.
The first principle of evolutionism is that of material origin or first cause. Whereas both Natural Theology and Divine Revelation recognize One, Omnipotent, Uncreated, Eternal, Intelligent, Simple, and Good First Cause (Creator), In Whom there is no matter, no composition, no material extension, and no potency, Who is pure Act and Pure Spirit, and from Whom came forth the material, finite, created Universe; the evolutionary worldview posits a material first cause. Matter was, matter is, and matter will be. All things that exist are products of cosmological and biological material causes. Whatever form their existence might take at any moment of measurement, observation, or apprehension, owes all of its attributes to random physical causes, and not to the intelligently determined design of an omnipotent Creator.
The Copernican Principle (CP) underpins the Big Bang Theory (BBT) of the origin of the Universe. This theory posits a material first cause. Something - in some versions so small that it amounts to virtually nothing - exploded, cooled, and gelled. And then there was the Universe. And this took billions, and billions of years.
The next principle is perpetual change. In the evolutionary/copernican/relativist paradigm, there is no stable, immovable, absolutely at rest body. If absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then no motion whatsoever is capable of measurement; for all measurement requires a standard for comparison. Furthermore, if absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then there can be no objective direction. There is no up, no down, and no center. All motion is relative, i.e. subjective, i.e. based on perception and vantage point and nothing more. Indeed Big Bang Cosmology posits just this: an acentric universe with no objective direction and no objectively measurable motion.
According to Natural Philosophy and Divine Revelation, the Earth is a fixed, stable body at rest in the center of the spherical, finite Universe. A fixed Earth conforms to common sense, and, being fixed, provides the basis and foundation for all measurement of all motion. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein and the modern scientist establishment posited that the Earth is not fixed, but rather revolves around the sun and rotates on its own axis, in addition to hurtling through outer space with its sun, moon, planets, and galaxy. This destroys the objective existence of a body at rest in the created cosmos, destroys all true measurement of motion, and - not incidentally - destroys belief in the literal sense and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
Likewise biological evolutionism posits perpetual change in the matter-form composition of generic biological forms. Sacred Writ reveals that the Eternal Word created all things according to their kinds (genera). Sacred Theology and Scholastic Philosophy teach that the kinds of plants and animals made by God during the Six Days of Creation are immutable substances, which, though subject to the changes of growth and corruption, are not subject to transubstantiation or transmutation. Evolution holds for the absurd idea that a lower being has the power, through material causality, to transmute itself into a higher being, so that it gives what it never had. Amoeba has no lungs and no legs, but by some magic (called billions and billions of years), its offspring has lungs and legs. Ape has no rationality, but, by the power inherent in matter cum quasi-infinite magnitudes of time, can transmute itself into man.
Evolutionism gives to matter creative power OVER TIME. Matter creates OVER TIME. Because time is the essential requisite for the evolutionary system to have any possibility at all, the entire construct is qualified by the attribute of perpetual change, a function of time. In the case of man, matter is alleged to have created both a body and an immaterial soul. But this is absurd because there is no intellectual or spiritual power or capacity in matter. For this cause the evolutionary paradigm is constrained to categorize man, not as rational animal, but as just plain animal, and to deny the existence of his immaterial, rational, immortal soul. But this flies in the face of observable reality.
Evolution posits that the observable and measurable created kinds are not immutable forms, but rather transitional forms, always in the process of becoming, and therefore never actually participating in true existence according to a true essence or nature. Absurd consequences follow: True taxonomic measurement ceases to be possible because there are no immutable biological forms (no beings at rest, we might say) upon which to base a true branch of science. No category of living being can be anything other than a transitional, relative existence (relative to what, they never say); and this unmoors the entire science of taxonomy.
I don't want this reply to go on forever, wherefore I hope I have sufficiently addressed your question.
And yet for all this blather, if the Copernican Principle was disproved tomorrow, all the evidence for evolution would still be there; and if evolution was disproved tomorrow, then we'd still have no reason to assign our planet a special place in the universe. The two questions are completely independent. The one thing that links them together is that some religious people deny both of them. But they really have nothing to do with one another. It's like when Bush invented the "axis of evil" --- remember that? Consisting of three countries with no common factor except that he didn't like any of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 10:05 AM Suzanne Romano has not replied

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


Message 22 of 120 (760210)
06-18-2015 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 12:03 PM


DR ADEQUATE: Are you going to argue in favor of geocentrism or whatever it is, or is this just an advertisement?
SUZANNE: Of course; and it is also an advertisement or promotion.
OK then. Go for it. Geocentrism. Give it your best shot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 12:03 PM Suzanne Romano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 2:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 23 of 120 (760211)
06-18-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2015 2:34 PM


Thanks for your replies. I'm getting ready to call it a day.
Will respond tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2015 2:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2015 2:54 PM Suzanne Romano has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2015 3:17 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 120 (760212)
06-18-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 2:41 PM


Welcome to the fray Suzanne Romano,
Thanks for your replies. I'm getting ready to call it a day.
Will respond tomorrow.
No hurry, there will be plenty more comments when you return.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 2:41 PM Suzanne Romano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-19-2015 12:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 25 of 120 (760214)
06-18-2015 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 2:41 PM


It seems to me that this covers a lot of subjects. The whole concept of "evolutionism", Relativity, cosmology, biological evolution and the evidence for it, taxonomy , egocentrism and perhaps more. And it also seems to me that there is an awful lot to say on each of these topics, and even related topics would be better discussed in separate threads.
I suggest that this thread is reserved for the movie itself, and the other subjects are split off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 2:41 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 120 (760215)
06-18-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Suzanne Romano
06-17-2015 11:09 PM


I would like to provide information to forum members about the motion picture entitled The Principle, a scientific documentary which brings into question the prevailing assumptions about the structure of the Cosmos.
What is the scientific basis -- the hypothesis and the testing of the hypothesis?
Is the idea of a stationary Earth at the center of the Universe nothing more than a ridiculous holdover from an irrational and superstitious age?
It is mathematically orders of magnetude more difficult to model than what scientists currently use to model earth, the solar system, the milky way galaxy and the rest of the universe in a self-consistent system.
To model it you basically take the current model math and then change the reference system. The model for gravity falls apart in many ways.
Modern science has long maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos. ...
Actually science does not address the question of whether one species is more "special" than another, as that concept is either not testable (and thus not science) or falsified by the evidence of no apparent difference at any measurable level for one species compared to another.
... Indeed, in Carl Sagan’s words, the Earth is nothing more than an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. ...
Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinion is not science.
... Now this worldview is founded upon what amounts to religious faith in the Copernican Principle, ...
It always amuses me when religious people try to disparage science by claiming it is a religion.
The Copernican Principle is old cosmology, long since superseded by newer concepts that more accurately explain the observed evidence.
Curiously that is all science is or attempts to be: the best explanation of the observed evidence. In this way all it does is explain the creation and how it works, not why it is the way it is.
... the core dogma underpinning the evolutionist origins paradigm.
To be specific here "evolution" is used in the cosmological sense rather than the biological sense (which has no preference for what is happening off the earth surface).
See Cosmological Evolution
There is no relation between cosmic evolution and biological evolution, other than that both are sciences working on providing the best explanation for the observed evidence.
"The Principle" provides a format with which to re-examine the modern cosmological assumptions, by publishing, in a visually stunning manner, the astonishing experimental data collected from recent large-scale surveys of the Universe, such as the Planck probe. The evidence discloses a preferred direction, an Earth-oriented alignment in the cosmos, which clearly indicates, not that the Earth is an insignificant orb of dust (as posited by evolutionists), but rather that it occupies a very unique and compelling place in the macrocosm.
Do you happen to have any of that evidence that you can share here? Preferably in peer reviewed scientific journals (you claim it is science)?
The Principle features narration by Kate Mulgrew (Star Trek Voyager, Orange Is The New Black, and Ryan’s Hope); stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (Life of Pi, Thor"); and interviews with scientists and thinkers, some of whom are the most prominent evolutionist cosmologists of our time - George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, Max Tegmark.
Star Trek’s Kate Mulgrew Says She Was Duped on Film Narration
Do I need to look into your other purported "expert" testimony (actors commenting on science? really?), or will you concede that this is fraud rather than science?
Not Even Wrong
quote:
As near as I can tell from all this, without having yet seen the full film, it appears that what probably happened is the following. Sungenis decided that the anthropic principle business in cosmology supported his views, so he went and got physicists like Kaku, Krauss and Tegmark to say silly things on camera, then edited this to suit his case. Maybe the trailer is misleading, and these people actually make a cogent case against Sungenis’s nonsense and for solid science, we’ll see
Update: For a different point of view on this, from someone worried that geocentrists will discredit the Catholic Church, see here.
Where " here" is
Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org
Why the controversy? Because the clear implications of the data point to an alternative model for the structure of the Universe.
There is no scientific controversy.
What you have are some people with a belief at odds with observations and with the simplest explanation for them.
Like YEC beliefs (where there is also no scientific controversy that the earth is very very old).
That some people place their beliefs at odds with science does not create a controversy, it creates a group of people in denial of science but without scientific evidence to back their claims.
A controversy in science only arises when there is a scientific disagreement and evidence for both sides.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-17-2015 11:09 PM Suzanne Romano has not replied

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


(4)
Message 27 of 120 (760227)
06-18-2015 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 10:05 AM


Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein and the modern scientist establishment posited that the Earth is not fixed, but rather revolves around the sun and rotates on its own axis, in addition to hurtling through outer space with its sun, moon, planets, and galaxy. This destroys the objective existence of a body at rest in the created cosmos, destroys all true measurement of motion, and - not incidentally - destroys belief in the literal sense and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
That's correct. So, knowing this ...
I can't do this. My heart just isn't in it. This is just too stupid for me to participate.
Y'all have fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 10:05 AM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 28 of 120 (760228)
06-18-2015 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Suzanne Romano
06-17-2015 11:09 PM


The Principle" provides a format with which to re-examine the modern cosmological assumptions, by publishing, in a visually stunning manner, the astonishing experimental data collected from recent large-scale surveys of the Universe, such as the Planck probe.
As long as the OP contains blatant advertising for a movie, I think it is only fair for me to point out that this movie's executive producer, Robert Sungenis, is a documented Holocaust Denier and anti-Semite.
Some Background on the New Geocentrists | Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org
quote:
For many years Sungenis promoted a wide range of Jewish conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial (see especially here), on his web site and at other venues (see for example here, here, and here). He removed such material from his web site in late 2013 without comment. On November 23, 2013, he wrote regarding his anti-Jewish writings: I still have the same beliefs. That will never change, because I believe it is the truth. What will change is that I will not single out the Jewish people politically, culturally or in any like manner. If I should ever again write about the Jews, it will only be on a purely theological basis, and it will be said in the most non-offending manner I can muster. But to be completely open, with what has been revealed to me (and I cannot say what it is), I simply have no interest in dealing with the Jews ever again (link).
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't pay a single penny to help finance the views of this piece of human excrement. Your mileage may vary.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-17-2015 11:09 PM Suzanne Romano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-19-2015 12:43 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 29 of 120 (760249)
06-19-2015 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Suzanne Romano
06-18-2015 10:05 AM


Suzanne writes:
I don't want this reply to go on forever, wherefore I hope I have sufficiently addressed your question.
Nope. One massive Gish Gallop is not a reply. At all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-18-2015 10:05 AM Suzanne Romano has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 30 of 120 (760250)
06-19-2015 5:11 AM


How about some "Have nothing constructive to say, then don't post a message"?
People, be nice.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-19-2015 12:45 PM Adminnemooseus 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