Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 211 of 396 (502917)
03-14-2009 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:33 PM


Re: What is Science
Daniel,
Evolutionists often try to tell us that biblical creationism is not science based on the assumption that the supernatural intervention cannot be scientific. This assumption is simply the convenient miss definition of 'science' for the purpose of winning arguments.
It's not science because it cherry picks evidence & steadfastly refuses to accept contradictory evidence. Look at the accepted age of the earth, among other things, it's a creationist exercise in hypocrisy & special pleading. Multiple different methods concur that the earth is waaaaaay over 6k years old, but that gets swept aside in favour of zero evidence of the earth being 6k years old.
Just please don't tel us you are really interested in science, you're not, you're interested in the bible & reject science where a discordance occurs.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:33 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 212 of 396 (502935)
03-14-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:33 PM


Re: What is Science
Hi Daniel,
I've tried to boil down your definition of science, with my comments in italics. Sometimes it seems like you're arguing rather than defining science, but I include those items in this list anyway.
  • Science is about how and why things are the way they are or work the way they do.
    This isn't a formal definition, but it's fine as far as it goes.
  • Outcomes incongruent with known physical laws are indicators of intelligent intervention.
    They're indicators of something, and certainly intelligent intervention is one possibility. It's also possible that our understanding of physical laws isn't as complete as we thought. Or that something isn't as we thought it was, as when our automobile fails to start in violation of known physical laws, except we forgot to fill the gas tank. Or a person survives being sawed in half in violation of known physical laws, except it's an illusion. In other words, lots of possibilities.
  • Orderliness is evidence of intelligent intervention.
    Again, intelligent intervention is one possibility. What about the orderliness of a snowflake? Of a crystal of salt? Of the periodicity of Old Faithful?
  • Anything that is beyond natural explanations must be considered supernatural.
    How do you tell the difference between something that really is beyond natural explanation, and something else that is merely beyond our ability to explain naturally. At one time man couldn't explain lightning and the explanation was supernatural, but as scientific knowledge grew lightning gained a natural explanation.
    Over human history there have been untold numbers of unexplained phenomena that were eventually explained. Not one has ever been resolved with a supernatural explanation.
  • The correct answer to any unexplained scientific mystery is one that employs the minimum number of miracles.
    Since anything observable is considered natural by science, any observable miracle (direct observation is not required) must be considered natural. The quality of being observable renders any phenomenon natural and a potential object of scientific study. In other words, you can't have an observable supernatural event. This is a terminology issue common to these discussions, and it only requires that we agree on vocabulary.
  • The quality of falsifiability is not necessary for something to be considered scientific.
    In other words, you feel it justified to accept ideas that can't be falsified. So am I justified in accepting that long ago in a galaxy far far away the Jedi Knights battled an evil empire? That Bilbo Baggins had a grand adventure in Middle-earth?
    Anyone rejecting falsifiability loses the key criteria for determining what is and isn't so.
  • Evolutionists violate their own principle of falsifiability all the time.
    Not the topic of this thread, but no they don't.
  • Halton Arp has made observations that contradict modern cosmology.
    Again, not the topic of this thread, but no he hasn't.
I think your particular conception of science, tied up as it is with religion and miracles, would make adherents of intelligent design everywhere shudder. It was the need to distance creationist ideas from their religious underpinnings that was responsible for developing the idea of intelligent design. Your ideas on the nature of science run counter to intelligent design's efforts to characterize itself as legitimate science of the same nature as all other legitimate science. That's why they distance themselves from the Wedge Document, which with its rejection of methodological naturalism is much closer to your views.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:33 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 213 of 396 (502949)
03-14-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:33 PM


Re: What is Science
Excluding intelligent intervention in the course of nature or physics is not scientific. Nor is assuming that everything has a mundane physical explanation scientific. Excluding the intervention of a higher intelligent being is logically fallacious, especially for an evolutionist who believes that intelligence evolved! If intelligence evolved, then the probability is that there are evolved intelligences beyond the evolutionists comprehension with great powers to intervene in situations. For this reason, evolutionary philosophers, like Richard Dawkins, can appeal to things like 'panspermia' when their ordinary science fails them. However, this is no different than admitting that intelligent intervention is needed to sustain the theory of evolution.
Since your post is rather long, I will approach just one small part of it here. In the quote above, you seem to have completely misunderstood Dawkins. Dawkins does not appeal to panspermia when "ordinary science fails". He allows that it is a possible naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on earth via an intelligent designer, but he is very explicit that it is most definitely "ordinary science" and involves no supernatural entities. It simply moves the question of how and where life began to a different place and time. A good analogy might be our creation of life in the laboratory. If this happens, it will be intelligent design. But it will say nothing about our genesis and evolution. Postulating that our life, our planet, or our universe might just be someone else's petri dish just moves methodological naturalism to a different arena. It says nothing about the existence of something that is "super" - whatever you think that means.
Nothing in your quote above does anything to advance an explanation of what supernatural is, how it would interface with the natural, or why it is required by any current observation.
Suggesting that Dawkins thinks the idea of panspermia actually is required to explain abiogenesis (you might want to remain clear on that distinction if your time here is to be fruitful) is a simple misrepresentation of his position. I am curious where you got your idea that he does. Please tell me it wasn't "Expelled".
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:33 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 03-14-2009 1:20 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 214 of 396 (502952)
03-14-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Capt Stormfield
03-14-2009 1:02 PM


Re: What is Science
Capt Stormfield writes:
Please tell me it wasn't "Expelled".
I don't know what Daniel's answer will be, but when I first read his Dawkins comments my reaction was, "Expelled strikes again."
One wonders why creationists don't try to more often experience one of life's truly simple pleasures, getting things right. Dawkin's personal opinions about panspermia are of little consequence in the creation/evolution controversy, so if you're going to state what he believes about panspermia, or anything else for that matter, why not get it right?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-14-2009 1:02 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 215 of 396 (502953)
03-14-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:33 PM


Re: What is Science
If one knows by cause and effect that rocks roll down a steep hill, then we make a prediction about a rock that is let loose. It will fall to the bottom. But if in the middle of the night we let rocks loose one by one, and in the morning we find them piled up in a neat little pile half way down the hill, then we naturally assume that someone or something intervened in their natural course down the hill. And we assume more likely that some intelligent being (probably a human) caught the rocks and piled them up when we were not looking. So we correctly determine from the evidence that an intelligent being altered the course of the expected physics of the situation. We assume this knowledge, and consider it wise to assume so. Postulating a personal intervention in the course of the rocks down the hill is scientific, because we observe they did not make it to the bottom, and we observe the orderliness of the pile. Therefore the conclusion of intervention in the middle of the night is scientific. And if we keep repeating the experiment at night, and keep finding the situation as before, we draw the same conclusion. Perhaps we finds some unknown shoe prints next to the pile. That reinforces the conclusion. It becomes a theory. We then find a handwritten note on the pile telling us who made the pile. It now becomes a scientific fact. Someone IS intervening in the course of the rocks falling physics to the bottom of the hill!
Excluding intelligent intervention in the course of nature or physics is not scientific.
And, of course, an evolutionist would make the same deduction about the rocks as you would.
Creationists, however, are in the position of someone who finds the rocks at the bottom of the hill and insists that God put them there.
Excluding the intervention of a higher intelligent being is logically fallacious.
Not when the rocks end up at the bottom of the hill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:33 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 216 of 396 (502969)
03-14-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:33 PM


Re: What is Science
And you completely side-stepped the question. To remind you, as I wrote it in the OP (AKA "Msg 1"):
I hereby call upon Beretta to respond with his description of how this "paradigm shift" that he's pushing for and in full support of is supposed to produce a new science that actually works. I call upon Beretta to describe this brave new science that he wants to impose upon us and to demonstrate that it would work.
. . .
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
. . .
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well.
Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science.
I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.
The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not?
Well, in practical terms, just how is supernatural-based science supposed to work and still remain fully functional?
That question remains unanswered.
BTW, if you do have actual scientific evidence for creation, as I believe you had strongly stated in another thread, then do please present it -- in the appropriate thread, of course. In doing so, you would do something that no other creationist has ever been able to do: present actual scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:33 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by dwise1, posted 09-01-2010 3:40 PM dwise1 has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 217 of 396 (502975)
03-14-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:33 PM


My Hypothesis
A Japanese beauty jealous of a rival in the Emperor's court hired a Korean circus troop to train a trio of acrobatic sun bares to prevent the rocks from making it to the bottom of the hill. She did this to discredit a 7th century mayor of an adjoining town who once, when accused of dipping into the treasury, said "If I am guilty let rocks roll only half way down a hill." Her motive being that if she discredit this mayor his Great-great-greatgreat grandson would be so humiliated that he would shed a tear, which would be collected by by his nurse and delivered to the apothecary who would use it to make a love potion that would be administered to said rival. The rival would fall in love with the shamed descendant, moving away from the court to wed and live in seclusion forever.
I would hope, Daniel4140, that you would not find my hypothesis very scientific. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is better then the God acts hypothesis that you present. Why? Because no individual element of my theory is beyond investigation or reason.
  • Are there Japanese beauties?
    Most certainly.
  • Could she have a rival?
    Most certainly.
  • Could she be jealous of this rival?
    Most certainly.
  • Are there Korean circuses for hire?
    Most certainly.
  • Can sun bears be trained?
    Most certainly.
  • Could I go on?
    Dare me.
I have not provide a stick of evidence that the elements came together, but at lease I can provide evidence that the elements exist.
Can you do as much for yours?
Edited by lyx2no, : Fix code.
Edited by lyx2no, : Rephrase question.
Edited by lyx2no, : Define a pronoun.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:33 PM Daniel4140 has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5483 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 218 of 396 (502986)
03-15-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
03-14-2009 10:31 AM


Re: What is Science
Hi Percy,
Some good questions in your post. I added it to the end of my draft article for future consideration in clearing up some points you raised. I don't have time for all of it right now. The first priority is to clear up the article.
I will say that I think ID misses the point by posisting original design without also assuming ongoing maitainence of that design. In any case, according to biblical prophecy, everyone will be believing in some kind of intelligent intervention. The choice will be between the biblical God or space aliens. But only the former will have predicted it in the Bible.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 03-14-2009 10:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-15-2009 10:11 AM Daniel4140 has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 219 of 396 (503013)
03-15-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:29 AM


Re: What is Science
Some good questions...I don't have time...
Finally, a succinct and accurate summation of how ID science works. Thanks.
Capt.
PS: - I think the second part is a Dembski quote, isn't it?
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : Add PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:29 AM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 4:19 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5483 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 220 of 396 (503034)
03-15-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Capt Stormfield
03-15-2009 10:11 AM


Re: What is Science
quote:
Hi Percy,
Some good questions in your post. I added it to the end of my draft article for future consideration in clearing up some points you raised. I don't have time for all of it right now. The first priority is to clear up the article.
I will say that I think ID misses the point by posisting original design without also assuming ongoing maitainence of that design. In any case, according to biblical prophecy, everyone will be believing in some kind of intelligent intervention. The choice will be between the biblical God or space aliens. But only the former will have predicted it in the Bible.
If there is any relation to Dembski, its a pure accident.

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-15-2009 10:11 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 221 of 396 (578353)
09-01-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by dwise1
03-14-2009 2:46 PM


Bumped for Buz, Dawn B. ... Anyone? Anyone?
Since people are still trying to foist off ID as science, I'm bringing this thread to the top again. My question has yet to be answered: just exactly how science is supposed to work if it were to include supernaturalistic "explanations" as ID requires it to and as proponents of ID keep demanding
To remind you, as I wrote it in the OP (AKA "Msg 1"):
I hereby call upon Beretta to respond with his description of how this "paradigm shift" that he's pushing for and in full support of is supposed to produce a new science that actually works. I call upon Beretta to describe this brave new science that he wants to impose upon us and to demonstrate that it would work.
. . .
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
. . .
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well.
Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science.
I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.
The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not?
Well, in practical terms, just how is supernatural-based science supposed to work and still remain fully functional?
That question remains unanswered.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by dwise1, posted 03-14-2009 2:46 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by dwise1, posted 09-23-2010 1:30 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 222 of 396 (582779)
09-23-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by dwise1
09-01-2010 3:40 PM


Bumped for Dawn Bertot ... Yet Again
Refer to the previous post for a repeat of this topic's opening post. In more than 200 replies, nobody has been able to present an explanation of how science is supposed to include supernatural-based hypotheses and be able to continue to function effectively.
In the meantime, Dawn Bertot has repeatedly claimed that design is detectable and must be included in science. In Message 418 of ICR Sues Texas, I replied to her with a simple question, one much like the question in my opening post, though a bit narrower in scope:
dwise1 writes:
Dawn Bertot writes:
Why in the world should design not be included in the science room when it follows the principles
Does it? Really? Could you please demonstrate convincingly that it does? No, really! That is not by any measure a rhetorical question. Demonstrate it!
You want design to be included in science? OK, so how do we do it? Now, we already know the methodology of science, but what is the methodology of design? Specifically, how do we objectively detect design? Seriously! How is anybody supposed to look at something and determine objectively that it's the result of design? What is your methodology? Are we just all supposed to ask Dawn because only she can tell? Because so far that's all we've been given. And that is just plain not good enough!
What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.
Of course, she has ignored that question so far and will undoubtedly continue to ignore it. That does not make that question and its answer any less vital to her case. For design to be incorporated into science, we must be able to work with it. We must be able to reliably and objectively detect the presence of design in naturally occuring phenomena. That means that there absolutely must be a methodology in place to reliably and objectively detect the presence of design in naturally occuring phenomena. Without such a methodology in place, design-based science will be unable to function.
Of course, I do not expect Dawn to come up with that methodology on her own. But with all the ID literature that she must have read (most of her posts appear to be regurgitations of such readings), surely at least one ID writer must have presented such a methodology at least once. It is after all such an important and fundamental question that it makes no sense at all that all ID writers would constantly avoid it. Unless, of course, they're all just blowing smoke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by dwise1, posted 09-01-2010 3:40 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2010 1:45 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 225 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2010 6:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 223 of 396 (582783)
09-23-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by dwise1
09-23-2010 1:30 PM


Re: Bumped for Dawn Bertot ... Yet Again
Of course, I do not expect Dawn to come up with that methodology on her own.
So far the definition of design from the ID folks is, a la Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."
That doesn't cut it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by dwise1, posted 09-23-2010 1:30 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by hooah212002, posted 09-23-2010 1:49 PM Coyote has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 224 of 396 (582785)
09-23-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Coyote
09-23-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Bumped for Dawn Bertot ... Yet Again
Don't forget: "well, it looks designed, so it obviously is".

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2010 1:45 PM Coyote has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 225 of 396 (583502)
09-27-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by dwise1
09-23-2010 1:30 PM


Bumped for Dawn Bertot ... Yet Again
To repeat yet again:
What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by dwise1, posted 09-23-2010 1:30 PM dwise1 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