Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 186 (788473)
08-01-2016 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
04-09-2016 12:48 PM


Topic Remix
Topic Remix
In this topic, I want to again bring up some basic questions regarding the difference between faith and science.
  • What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?
  • Must Faith have evidence?
    We know that science requires evidence.
  • Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?
    ringo writes:
    It would be better if the word "evidence" was not used at all in such matters. Since even Bible believers can't agree on what it says, it is far from "evident."
    Were we in Faith/Belief, I would argue that the universe is evident and so is God. Just because "believers" in general can't agree on everything is no reason to throw them out of the courtroom. Believers were born with the same brains as scientists, evolutionists, atheists, and secular humanists. Since our brain itself is evident, and since we all share this gray matter trait, I maintain that the word can be used provided it can also be challenged.
    I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented.
    jar writes:
    They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded.
    I know a certain curmudgeon from deep south Texas who might be so inclined to include "Tom Sawyer" or "Mysterious Stranger" in the Canon... so you do have a point. Perhaps we can agree collectively to disagree. Thats what makes a Forum conversation long and readable.
    ringo writes:
    Existence is a poor form of evidence. Fingerprints exist but they're not very useful as evidence unless you can figure out what they mean - e.g. that George was at the crime scene. If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support.
    Along this line of thought...is there a difference between non-living existence such as a rock or an idea and living existence such as an animal or vegetable or perhaps an idea such as "Jesus is alive" or that "scripture is alive" or even that it is God-breathed. Critics would argue that it can't even be proven or tested whether or not God is alive or that Jesus is alive...though I would call believers to the witness stand and ask for explanations as to how Jesus might be alive.
    What constitutes valid evidence?
    nwr writes:
    Whatever you want it to be.
    There is no objective definition of "evidence", and I don't think there could be. Evidence is that which persuades you, and there is something unavoidably subjective about that. (...) Back when I was an active Christian, I did trust the Bible, but only to the extent that it was consistent with experience and with what I knew from science. By contrast, Faith(evc member) gives it the highest trustworthiness, even if it seems to contradict experience and science.
    PaulK writes:
    In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules.
    Do you mean Faith the EvC member or faith as a concept in general?
    PaulK writes:
    If the basis of Creationist belief is religious SHOULD they try to argue the science ?
    Surely they should argue about what they understand best rather than trying to bully the better-informed into agreeing with ill-founded and often ignorant opinions. And if they do not understand their religious foundations then they should work hard on those.
    Really, if they could show that God wrote Genesis 1 as a literal account of the creation they would have made their case. So why don't they ?
    jar writes:
    Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.
    That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution.
    Yes, but if you were the only witness called to the stand on behalf of the believers, the case itself would be incomplete.
    jar writes:
    The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.
    The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted.
    Whose goal? Remember that we all have gray matter. There is really no us and them....
    Dr.Adequate writes:
    Faith makes its own rules, it's not a set of epistemological principles, but rather is essentially opportunistic: it's whatever arguments make you feel good at the time.
    Some may argue that its whatever arguments make you feel confidant at the time. When a minority group attacks scripture the way that I was taught, it may make me feel uncomfortable but by no means less confidant. My confidence does not rest in evidence alone...in fact I think that many arguments regarding evidence or the lack thereof are themselves far from evident.
    Tangle writes:
    Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim.
    If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary.
    So in other words, you have faith in evidence?
    quote:
    Anglagard nominated a POTM for the following:
    Phat writes:
    Faith is often personal.
    Ringo writes:
    And science is not. It's collective.

    We know that there is a clear difference between faith and science. Are we back to square one?
    dwise1 writes:
    I am not happy with your topic title: "Faith vs Science". Why would you think it is necessary for faith and science to be at odds with each other? They are two different realms of human thought, despite a small number of possible areas of minor overlap.
    Science works best when dealing with the physical universe, with the natural. That is where you are able to observe, hypothesize, and test, the essential scientific activities.
    Faith works best where you're dealing with things outside the physical universe, with the supernatural. It is impossible to observe the supernatural or to test it. Sure, you could form hypotheses about the supernatural, but based on what? And how could you ever possibly test any of it?
    And yet the most interesting questions for humanity lie outside the purview of of science, are too complex and nebulous for science. Faith is not as constrained as science, but what does it have to offer?
    I would argue that Faith offers hope through belief (and subjective confirmation) of a Living Hope aka Jesus Christ. Thats as far as I can go on that in a science forum, however.
    DWise1 writes:
    So, what evidence would faith require? None, actually.
    I would argue that faith can be defended subjectively yet not objectively so as to qualify as evidence.
    Coyote writes:
    Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
    Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
    So where are we now? Where were we then? Why limit the possible answers to evidence based human response? Why not embrace power greater than ourselves?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 12:48 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Phat has replied
     Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2016 7:53 AM Phat has replied
     Message 54 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 9:35 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 56 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 9:50 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 64 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 10:45 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 66 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 11:06 AM Phat has not replied

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


    Message 47 of 186 (788475)
    08-01-2016 5:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
    08-01-2016 4:29 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Phat writes:
    quote:
    Tangle writes:
    Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim.
    If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary.
    So in other words, you have faith in evidence?
    quote
    Tired, so very tired.....
    Why, why, why do believers always need make this damned silly equivalence? It's seems so deeply embedded in their make-up - I'm continually having to correct GDR who brings it up every 6 months or so as if for the first time.
    Can we reserve the words 'faith' and 'belief' for the religious realm and totally exclude their useage when discussing science, fact and evidence please.
    Faith - in the way religious people use the word - has no place at all in science. Sure we have 'faith' in science because it produces knowledge about reality that can be tested and confirmed to be correct, or modified if not. But we don't need 'faith' at all - we could hate the entire edifice of science, think it abhorent, loath its instituations and distrust its scientists; it wouldn't make the slighest diference to the science. V=IxR no matter now you feel about science.
    Can you get that?

    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
    Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 48 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 5:30 AM Tangle has replied
     Message 49 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 5:31 AM Tangle has replied
     Message 59 by GDR, posted 08-01-2016 7:38 PM Tangle has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 48 of 186 (788476)
    08-01-2016 5:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
    08-01-2016 5:17 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Keep in mind that our hypothetical courtroom includes believers and non-believers. You have reiterated that faith has no place in science. My question to you is why you, as a supposed scientist, care how the faith people think. You seem to imply that the gray matter in their heads is inferior to the gray matter in your head simply because they embrace faith over evidence. Am I wrong?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 6:10 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 49 of 186 (788477)
    08-01-2016 5:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
    08-01-2016 5:17 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Can we reserve the words 'faith' and 'belief' for the religious realm and totally exclude their usage when discussing science, fact and evidence please.
    Not when our topic is Faith vs Science and our focus is on any value in beliefs other than evidence.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 6:13 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 50 of 186 (788478)
    08-01-2016 6:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
    08-01-2016 5:30 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Phat writes:
    My question to you is why you, as a supposed scientist, care how the faith people think.
    Because the thinking is in error. If you reserved it for conversations amongst yourselves it wouldn't bug me, but as you do it in a public arena, I'm forced to correct you. It would be a lot less frustrating if you guys didn't continually keep making the same mistake over and over.
    You seem to imply that the gray matter in their heads is inferior to the gray matter in your head simply because they embrace faith over evidence. Am I wrong?
    You're drawing the wrong conclusions from what is being said.
    If you addressed the actual point you might ultimately get it. 'Faith' as you apply it to your belief system is not required in science - the laws and methodologies of science work whether you believe in them or not - argue that point, not what I think or don't think.
    On a separate point, it does seem likely that the brains of fundamentalist believers are different from those of average scientists - what else could explain the delusions that Faith is suffering?

    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
    Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 5:30 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 51 of 186 (788479)
    08-01-2016 6:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Phat
    08-01-2016 5:31 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Phat writes:
    Not when our topic is Faith vs Science and our focus is on any value in beliefs other than evidence.
    Then you're going to have to do the boring work of defining your terms and explaining why your belief in a fantasy is the same as my 'belief' that V=IxR.
    Good luck with that.

    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
    Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 5:31 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 52 of 186 (788480)
    08-01-2016 7:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
    08-01-2016 4:29 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    The rules apply to everyone, although I meant "Faith" as an abstract.
    But, really, your faith is not something you should expect to convince others. Could a Muslim convince you of the truth of Islam through his faith ?
    Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 9:34 AM PaulK has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 53 of 186 (788483)
    08-01-2016 9:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
    08-01-2016 7:53 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    But, really, your faith is not something you should expect to convince others. Could a Muslim convince you of the truth of Islam through his faith ?
    No but they may convince me through their actions. They would stand out from the normal and the average.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2016 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2016 9:53 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 393 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 54 of 186 (788484)
    08-01-2016 9:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
    08-01-2016 4:29 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Phat writes:
    What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?
    Must Faith have evidence?
    We know that science requires evidence.
    Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?
    Faith should not have evidence. Once there is evidence we move from the realm of Faith into the area of conclusions.
    Of course people can get angry when their beliefs are challenged but they cannot then act based on that anger.
    Creationists cannot claim Faith and then claim it is supported by evidence or Science. If they do make such claims then their beliefs MUST be challenged.
    Phat writes:
    jar writes:
    Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.
    That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution.
    Yes, but if you were the only witness called to the stand on behalf of the believers, the case itself would be incomplete.
    I'm sorry but that makes no sense. That is not a matter of witness but rather one of fact. What does the story say? It really is that simple. Now apologists can market what the story really means all they want, but that is irrelevant to what the story actually says.
    It is this significant difference that so often really is the issue. If someone says "I believe the stories mean the same thing" then that is fine but if they say "I believe the stories are the same" it moves out of the realm of Faith and into the realm of Evidence and the evidence must always override belief.
    Phat writes:
    jar writes:
    The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.
    The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted.
    Whose goal? Remember that we all have gray matter. There is really no us and them....
    There is what is supported by evidence and what is unsupported by evidence. The goal is owned by the Apologist who wishes to market a belief and those who wish to adopt that belief without critical examination. And in that instance there really is them and us; those who examine critically and those who refuse to examine critically.

    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:45 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 55 of 186 (788487)
    08-01-2016 9:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 54 by jar
    08-01-2016 9:35 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Faith should not have evidence. Once there is evidence we move from the realm of Faith into the area of conclusions.
    Of course people can get angry when their beliefs are challenged but they cannot then act based on that anger.
    Creationists cannot claim Faith and then claim it is supported by evidence or Science. If they do make such claims then their beliefs MUST be challenged.
    That is such a bunch of garbage. Faith in the right things, true things, real things although unseen things, faith in the true God and His revelation in the Bible, can certainly lead to knowledge of things in the real world. Nobody is claiming faith "is supported by evidence or science," what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific.
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 9:35 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 9:57 AM Faith has not replied
     Message 164 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:58 AM Faith has not replied

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 2105 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 56 of 186 (788488)
    08-01-2016 9:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
    08-01-2016 4:29 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Why limit the possible answers to evidence based human response? Why not embrace power greater than ourselves?
    Because there is no evidence for it?
    If there was evidence that could be applied there would not 4,300 different world religions, with some 40,000 denominations of Christianity.
    Every time there is a disagreement within a religion or denomination there is a schism. If they relied on evidence they could determine which side was correct and there would be far fewer such splits. With beliefs, each group goes its own way.

    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
    Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
    In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
    It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
    If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
    If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
    "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 57 of 186 (788490)
    08-01-2016 9:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
    08-01-2016 9:34 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    quote:
    No but they may convince me through their actions. They would stand out from the normal and the average.
    I'm sure that there have been exceptional Muslims - and Hindus and Buddhists, and many other religions can claim the same. I would say that that undermines any exclusivist religion - at least if you take it as having any great significance.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 9:34 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 58 of 186 (788491)
    08-01-2016 9:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
    08-01-2016 9:45 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Faith writes:
    what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific.
    Examples?

    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
    Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:45 AM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2016 7:42 PM Tangle has replied

      
    GDR
    Member
    Posts: 6202
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 1.9


    (1)
    Message 59 of 186 (788542)
    08-01-2016 7:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
    08-01-2016 5:17 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Phat writes:
    So in other words, you have faith in evidence?
    Tangle writes:
    Why, why, why do believers always need make this damned silly equivalence? It's seems so deeply embedded in their make-up - I'm continually having to correct GDR who brings it up every 6 months or so as if for the first time.
    Well, I wasn't going to say anything in this thread but seeing as how my name has been gently besmirched I'll add something. I am not saying that you have "faith in evidence". I am saying that we look at the same evidence and form our own different conclusions.
    The point I make is that science tells us that there was a point at which T=0. As I understand the entire universe quickly became a mass of mindless and likely dimensionless particles, or something like that. (Cut me some slack as I'm no scientist. ) Fast forward to today and we have sentient, emotional beings, with an understanding of morality, who are able to discern physical and mathematical patterns in the universe.
    I look at that and conclude and have faith in the idea that there is something more that is the reason that things are the way they are, and that the "something more" is intelligent and rational. You disagree and conclude and have faith in the idea that there is nothing more, and that we are simply the result of the processes that made us what we are.
    I frankly don't understand why atheists have a problem with that.
    Actually many of us do also take science on faith. I have read some things about the evolutionary process. However, in the end I am highly ignorant about biology and it's processes but I believe in the evolutionary process on faith as the vast majority of scientists who are experts on the subject believe it to be the how things are the way they are. Again though, whether there is an intelligent designer, (not to be confused with the political movement who have corrupted another good term for their own purposes), or not is a matter of belief.

    He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
    Micah 6:8

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 63 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 3:13 AM GDR has replied

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 60 of 186 (788543)
    08-01-2016 7:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
    08-01-2016 9:57 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Faith writes:
    what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific.
    Examples?
    Pork is an unclean meat and you shouldn't eat that?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 9:57 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 2:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
     Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye 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