Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 12:07 PM
39 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tanypteryx (5 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,197 Year: 5,234/19,786 Month: 1,356/873 Week: 252/460 Day: 4/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
AustinG
Member (Idle past 3279 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 230 (544327)
01-25-2010 1:12 PM


What is Supernatural?

Merriam-Webster gives us:


1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

My experience has been that Creationists and ID proponents critisize science's strictly "materialistic" or "naturalistic" worldview.

This is taken from Uncommon Descent, a well known ID blog:


Uncommon Descent holds that…
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

Of course we know what the dictionary definition is for supernatural, but I would like to discuss and examine a philisophical view of what it means for something to be supernatural. I'll give my two cents.

It seems to me that we file all observed phenomena into two "filing cabnets", either cabnet "N" for natural or cabnet "S" for super Natural. Before the 18th century, and the practice of modern science, the two cabnets may have been more or less equal in terms of files. However, scientists began digging through the "S" cabnet and found that many phenomena were mistakenly observed as supernatural. We can use germ theory as an example; after germ theory became accepted the file "Pathologies" was stamped "natural" and moved to the N-Cabnet.

But what criteria does our mind use to decide which phenomena get filed in which cabnet? The asnwer is predictability. If a phenomena becomes predictable, reliable, and constant, it is considered natural. We don't have to know exactly how something works to consider it natural so long as its predictable. Therefor, by definition, supernatural is a classification of phenomena for which no descernable pattern has been disovered. So, In the end, there is no "S-Cabnet"; it was conjured out of neccessity in order to explain the unexplainable, but now there is nothing unexplainable.

This is the fundemental problem with the ID movement's attack on "materialism" or "naturalism" in science. They posit that science does not take into account the supernatural. ID proponents claim a degree of sophistication because they do take into account the supernatural, but how can science attempt to explain that which, by definition, is unexplainable?

I hope that made sense,
Austin


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 01-27-2010 10:56 AM AustinG has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 01-27-2010 1:37 PM AustinG has not yet responded
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 4:55 PM AustinG has not yet responded
 Message 76 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 6:57 AM AustinG has not yet responded
 Message 230 by tesla, posted 05-10-2010 10:51 AM AustinG has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 2 of 230 (544573)
01-27-2010 8:15 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What is Supernatural? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 230 (544582)
01-27-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
01-25-2010 1:12 PM


What is Supernatural?
What is Supernatural?

How about anything that exists (or is claimed to exist) in shared objective reality (i.e. external to the mind of any individual) and yet is inherently empirically undetectable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 01-25-2010 1:12 PM AustinG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by onifre, posted 01-27-2010 12:41 PM Straggler has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1061 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 4 of 230 (544598)
01-27-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Straggler
01-27-2010 10:56 AM


Re: What is Supernatural?
This:

How about anything that exists

Contradicts this:

inherently empirically undetectable

Nothing that is empirically undetectable can also be claimed to exist. That doesn't make sense.

Supernatural is a word that describes nothing...nothing at all. It's a made up term that lacks any kind of conceptual description. It is a cop-out word for anyone that is unwilling to admit that they are full of shit when they don't understand an aspect of reality, yet invoke some unknown element by default.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 01-27-2010 10:56 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Meldinoor, posted 01-27-2010 1:10 PM onifre has responded
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 01-27-2010 1:15 PM onifre has responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2919 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 5 of 230 (544603)
01-27-2010 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by onifre
01-27-2010 12:41 PM


Re: What is Supernatural?
onifre writes:

Nothing that is empirically undetectable can also be claimed to exist

Just about anything can be claimed to exist. But obviously I agree with you that nothing that isn't detectable in some fashion, can be shown to exist.

I would not agree that the term supernatural entails undetectability. Most claims regarding supernatural entities or events make them detectable. Instead, I would define the supernatural as being that which is capable of acting independently of, or appears to contradict, known natural "laws". "Supernatural" may be a misnomer. "Above nature" might better be thought of as "beyond our current understanding of the cosmos".

Admittedly, this probably includes many phenomena that most people would not consider within the realm of "supernatural".

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by onifre, posted 01-27-2010 12:41 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by onifre, posted 01-28-2010 12:46 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 230 (544604)
01-27-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by onifre
01-27-2010 12:41 PM


Re: What is Supernatural?
Nothing that is empirically undetectable can also be claimed to exist. That doesn't make sense.

Well I would say it cannot be claimed to exist beyond guessing. Not that it cannot exist at all. But I think I agree with your sentiment.

However this doesn't stop people claiming that inherently non-empirical things A) Do exist B) Have been somehow experienced C) Are thus "known" to exist or "evidenced" to exist.

You know what I think of those claims. But that doesn't stop people making them or conceptualising such things even if they are vague and contradictory in doing so.

Supernatural is a word that describes nothing...nothing at all. It's a made up term that lacks any kind of conceptual description. It is a cop-out word for anyone that is unwilling to admit that they are full of shit when they don't understand an aspect of reality, yet invoke some unknown element by default.

Well far be it from me to defend the supernaturalists.........

But I think we do have a vague concept of what the supernatural is. Even if it is contradictory in terms of how we experience reality and "made up" as you put it.

Even made-up concepts can be genuine concepts. I don't think it is true to say that the term supernatural means "nothing...nothing at all".

Jeez - I spent the entire ID thread fighting atheists about there being a distinction between ID and creationism and now I am defending the meaningfulness of the term "supernatural" against you. If I am not careful I am going to have to revoke my arch-atheist status!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by onifre, posted 01-27-2010 12:41 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by onifre, posted 01-28-2010 12:59 PM Straggler has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 230 (544606)
01-27-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
01-25-2010 1:12 PM


I would suggest that the supernatural is something that is believed to exist but has no actual evidence of it's existence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 01-25-2010 1:12 PM AustinG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2010 1:48 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 230 (544609)
01-27-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Larni
01-27-2010 1:37 PM


Gaps
I would suggest that the supernatural is something that is believed to exist but has no actual evidence of it's existence.

We can take this farther.

The supernatural is what resides in those gaps in our knowledge.

Primitive man posited various spirits to fill the many gaps in their knowledge, and imagined that they could influence those spirits with the correct rituals.

Over time those gaps have grown smaller.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 01-27-2010 1:37 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2751 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 9 of 230 (544639)
01-27-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
01-25-2010 1:12 PM


Lots of different answers already, i'll adress some of the others in this reply as well.

For my part, 'supernatural' can have a definition that is very intuitive just by looking at it. ''anything that is outisde of nature''. By nature I mean our space-time universe, which is the only place where we can do science.

How about anything that exists (or is claimed to exist) in shared objective reality (i.e. external to the mind of any individual) and yet is inherently empirically undetectable?

I thin this definition is inadequate because a supernatural intervention in nature (ex: a miracle) would be detectable. 'Empirically provable' would be better I think.

Onifre said this:

This:
How about anything that exists

Contradicts this:

inherently empirically undetectable

Nothing that is empirically undetectable can also be claimed to exist. That doesn't make sense.

Supernatural is a word that describes nothing...nothing at all. It's a made up term that lacks any kind of conceptual description. It is a cop-out word for anyone that is unwilling to admit that they are full of shit when they don't understand an aspect of reality, yet invoke some unknown element by default.

- Oni

Even though Straggler's definition is a bit faulty in my opinion, your position still isn't very thought out. You are basically saying that something that is emprically undetectable cannot be claimed to exist. But a simple counter-example will show that this doesn't make sense: the multiverse. Multiple universes outside our own is empirically undetectable, and yet they are claimed to exist.

Larni said:

I would suggest that the supernatural is something that is believed to exist but has no actual evidence of it's existence.

This definition looks good in theory, but in reality it doesn't stand up. I know it wouldn't include the christian belief in God in general since many would say that they do have evidence (ranging from historical up to personnal evidence) for their belief. That this evidence is judged to be 'right' or 'wrong' or 'insufficient' by you or somebody else would be besides the point. From their POV it is evidence, and in fact if they were to accept your definition of supernatural, then God wouldn't be included in their anymore.

In fact, imagine a second that you yourself found evidence that God exists. For example you are witness of a true miracle or that God speaks to you and tells you what will happen in the future and it does happen or whatever I don't know, something happens and you know believe that God exists based on this. Then if you were to stick to your definition of supernatural, God would no longer be considered as supernatural ...

Coyote said:

We can take this farther.
The supernatural is what resides in those gaps in our knowledge.

Primitive man posited various spirits to fill the many gaps in their knowledge, and imagined that they could influence those spirits with the correct rituals.

Over time those gaps have grown smaller.

Ok, I'm bad at identifying fallacies, but isn't this a bit of begging the question ? You aren't really giving an accurate definition of 'supernatural', just simply saying how you perceive supernatural belief, and then define it this way.

Someone who believes in the supernatural could say that their increasing knowledge of the natural world would constitute evidence that God exists. Would it then be OK for this person to define 'supernatural' as 'what is shown to exist from oru knowledge of nature' ? Of course not, this would be absurd in my opinion.

The thing is to try to simply define what is 'supernatural'.

Edited by slevesque, : added: Larni said


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 01-25-2010 1:12 PM AustinG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 01-27-2010 7:58 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2010 1:05 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 1:06 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 01-28-2010 3:26 AM slevesque has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1061 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 10 of 230 (544665)
01-27-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
01-27-2010 4:55 PM


Even though Straggler's definition is a bit faulty in my opinion, your position still isn't very thought out.

Really? And you amaze us with this example:

But a simple counter-example will show that this doesn't make sense: the multiverse.

Umm, who says it exists?

Multiple universes outside our own is empirically undetectable, and yet they are claimed to exist.

Once again, as in the String Theory thread, you supporters of invisible things try to equate "supernatural" or "god/s" with certain hypothesis in theoretical physics. Give it a rest.

Lets see: multi-verse. As opposed to uni-verse. Single uni-verse; multiple universes. We can see one, certain evidence points to the possibility of many. It's a workable hypothesis at best - currently.

However: supernatural. You claim it's ''anything that is outisde of nature'' or our space-time. In other words, nonsense. You have explained it using a collection of words that mean nothing.

But, the difference is, a theoretical physicist could explain to you what is meant by 'multi-verse' and provide equations, etc. to support their hypothesis.

You on the other hand, have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support an "outside of nature/spacetime". In fact, you don't even know what that means.

So it's not the same at all.

My point stands: If you can't detect it, you can't claim it exists. At best, you can formulate a hypothesis based off of other empirically detectable evidence - in the case of the multiverse, you can use our universe as an example for the possibility of a multitude of other universes.

In the case of the word supernatural, what would you use? Your beliefs?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 4:55 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 11:58 PM onifre has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2751 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 11 of 230 (544721)
01-27-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by onifre
01-27-2010 7:58 PM


Hi Onifre,

Umm, who says it exists?

Many physicists will say they believe it exists. I'm not against the idea that it exists, maybe I will be convinced of it further down in my math-physics education.

Once again, as in the String Theory thread, you supporters of invisible things try to equate "supernatural" or "god/s" with certain hypothesis in theoretical physics. Give it a rest.

I was neither in that other thread, neither did I equate God with multiverse and string theory ...

Lets see: multi-verse. As opposed to uni-verse. Single uni-verse; multiple universes. We can see one, certain evidence points to the possibility of many. It's a workable hypothesis at best - currently.

Universe-Multiverse, yeah the construction of the word itself sometimes gives us a general idea of it's meaning.

Of course, we can see one. But it goes further then that: we can only observe/detect/experiment in this one universe.

Multiverse is the logical result of string theory, which is a mathematical construction, an amazing one at that.

[/qs]However: supernatural. You claim it's ''anything that is outside of nature'' or our space-time. In other words, nonsense. You have explained it using a collection of words that mean nothing.[/qs]

I proposed a definition of the word that comes from it's latin construction.

I find it interesting, that despite an arrogant tone (frankly, you didn't give me this impression at all the first time we engaged in a discussion here on evc ...) you haven't even tried to give a definition of the word ''supernatural'' ...

But, the difference is, a theoretical physicist could explain to you what is meant by 'multi-verse' and provide equations, etc. to support their hypothesis.

You on the other hand, have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support an "outside of nature/spacetime". In fact, you don't even know what that means.

Then I guess we need a theoretical physicist to explain to my poor illiterate-self what outside of spacetime means ...

My point stands: If you can't detect it, you can't claim it exists. At best, you can formulate a hypothesis based off of other empirically detectable evidence - in the case of the multiverse, you can use our universe as an example for the possibility of a multitude of other universes.

Our universe is detectable, therefore I can claim it exists.
Other universes are undetectable, therefore I cannot claim they exist.

Only if the existence of our universe is proven to be directly linked to the existence of these other universes (if they do not exist, then we do not exist) can the existence of our own universe be evidence for the existence of these other universes. Since this link is far from being proven, the detection of our universe will simply mean that our universe exists.

In the case of the word supernatural, what would you use? Your beliefs?

Nah, my definition of the word 'supernatural' comes from it's latin origin.

-Slevesque

BTW. I won't continue this discussion if you don't tone it down a bit. I am not obliged to feel your condescendance in your posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 01-27-2010 7:58 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Iblis, posted 01-28-2010 12:29 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 01-28-2010 12:39 PM slevesque has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2006 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 12 of 230 (544724)
01-28-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
01-27-2010 11:58 PM


multiverse
Multiverse is the logical result of string theory,

Minor clarification here. Multiverse is actually the logical result of Hugh Everett's relative state theory, a formulation of quantum state physics that alleviates the asymmetry of wavefunction collapse, developed in detail by Brice Seligman DeWitt as "Many Worlds" theory working with John Archibald Wheeler and resulting in Wheeler getting most of the blame for the whole thing in popular opinion. This specifies one or more extra dimensions of time and gives us the concept of "alternate realities".

M-theory and its predecessors in the string field have some surface similarities, but they are current and therefore in compliance with the renewed definition of "universe" as simply, everything. As a result they try to avoid terms like "multiverse" and instead of speaking of other "universes" they refer to the individual spacetime instances as membranes, D-branes, or simply branes. Another difference is that they specify extra dimensions of space, not time, giving us grounds for the concept of "parallel realities".

Wheeler's extra worlds are just like our own up to some point where one quantum dealie goes differently, then they branch off. The other branes don't show a history with us except to the extent that they may (or may not) be experiencing duration along an axis parallel to our own. All of the multiverses branching off since 1889 can be expected to have had certain Godwin-censored persons and events in them in one form or another. Other branes can't even be expected to have had carbon-based life, planets, or the same physics constants.

There's nothing supernatural about any of this. If it's what's actually going on behind the history of theology, then the subjects of theology aren't actually supernatural, simply extra-dimensional. This is the way all the supernatural stuff that has since been understood has gone, it isn't supernatural anymore. This is an important point to this question. In reference to ID, if it was an alien, even an extra-dimensional alien, even a relatively immortal all-powerful alien with direct access to various areas of spacetime from outside, with three persons worth of single being, there's still nothing supernatural about it.

If we can understand it, we can kill it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 11:58 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 12:43 AM Iblis has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2751 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 230 (544726)
01-28-2010 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Iblis
01-28-2010 12:29 AM


Re: multiverse
Wooh, talk about a minor clarification hehe.

Ok, so if I understood correctly, then I don't want to refer to multiverse as alternate realities etc.

I want to talk about our space-time universe, which has such and such physical constants (speed of light, mass of electron, etc). And when I talk about the other universes, I'm talking about those with other physical constants for example. And when I used 'multiverse' I was talking about the collective assembly of all these universes including ours.

What would then be the correct terminology for this ? Because the terminology I used and described just above is the one that was used by Hubert Reeves (the most recognized physicists to come out of our little province of Quebec) when he gave us a conference about the multiverse ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Iblis, posted 01-28-2010 12:29 AM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Iblis, posted 01-28-2010 1:01 AM slevesque has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2006 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 14 of 230 (544728)
01-28-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
01-28-2010 12:43 AM


Re: multiverse
Right, it's definitely not uncommon to hear the string manifold referred to as a multiverse, even by very important people and experts in their fields. But the problem with this usage is that everyone in the field is trying very hard to reserve the word "universe" to mean "everything, anything at all, the whole deal". This justifies the uni- prefix. So now, when we talk about the extra histories in Wheeler et cetera, we call them "worlds". And when we talk about the extra dimensional constructs in M-theory et al we call them "branes".

In other words, it's just semantics. That's what makes it a minor clarification. You aren't wrong, you could just be more politically correct.

I actually follow what you are saying fine. And other constructs would make it less fluid. But if you really care, then our observable and implied universe or comoving now is in M-theory our "brane" and those other ones are "other branes". These are totally different, not variations on our own. On the other hand our dealie in relative state theory is our "world" and those that branch off in different directions toward alternate futures are "other worlds".

A good way to pay lip-service to this stuff would be to mention whichever construct you mean in quotes at the beginning of a statement and then use whatever usage flows smoothly for you thereafterward. For example

The "manifold" or multiverse concept in string theory postulates the existence of other "branes" or universes like our own. These universes cannot be observed as of yet, but many believe that ...

Kindof a thing. Sorry for breaking up your flow, but I don't want you having to fight for pages against people who say there is only one universe and then once you have it settled have Son Goku or someone show up and say Oh I always use the word "universe" to refer to whatever I'm talking about right now, and devil take the hindmost! If you show awareness of the quibble up front then you won't get treated like a target.

Sorry again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 12:43 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 2:53 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 15 of 230 (544729)
01-28-2010 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
01-27-2010 4:55 PM


On the supernatural
Coyote said:

We can take this farther.

The supernatural is what resides in those gaps in our knowledge.

Primitive man posited various spirits to fill the many gaps in their knowledge, and imagined that they could influence those spirits with the correct rituals.

Over time those gaps have grown smaller.

Ok, I'm bad at identifying fallacies, but isn't this a bit of begging the question ? You aren't really giving an accurate definition of 'supernatural', just simply saying how you perceive supernatural belief, and then define it this way.

Someone who believes in the supernatural could say that their increasing knowledge of the natural world would constitute evidence that God exists. Would it then be OK for this person to define 'supernatural' as 'what is shown to exist from oru knowledge of nature' ? Of course not, this would be absurd in my opinion.

The thing is to try to simply define what is 'supernatural'.


I think I provided a fairly accurate estimate of how the idea of the "supernatural" could have come about, and what it's function was in early cultures. I was not attempting a dictionary definition.

Someone who believes in the supernatural would do well to examine the source of that belief as it stretches back into early human history, and see if it is not ultimately related to the unknown, man's need to explain that unknown, and man's attempts to influence the unseen spirits with which he populated that unknown.

It appears that that same need is found in many, or even most, people and cultures today even though our greatly increasing knowledge is shrinking the gaps within which the unknown, and those spirits, can reside.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 4:55 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 2:45 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019