Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
AlexCaledin, caffeine, Dr Adequate, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,770 Year: 16,806/19,786 Month: 931/2,598 Week: 177/251 Day: 6/59 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 589 of 687 (525103)
09-21-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


Hi ICANT, I guess I'm late to the party seeing as how the thread has distanced itself a bit, if not completely, from your OP.

So if I may, I'd like to just deal with your OP.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You qualify that with:

ICANT writes:

Science has no evidence concerning how the universe began to exist.

Let just start with the BB, and not go beyond that point (so that you don't get confused in a sematics battle).

Cosmologist have a very factual understanding of how this (the BB) occured and it does not include the conception of planets (ie. earth) - So, with the evidence provided by science, Gen. 1 is wrong. "In the beginning" (the BB) the earth was not created.

That disproves that...

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

You qualified that with:

ICANT writes:

Science has no evidence of how life began to exist.

There is factual evidence that shows the first life on earth was a single cell organism, and it does NOT show the first form was human. Further, no evidence exists for man being formed from dust, it shows a clear evolvement from a common ape ancestor to all apes. So, with the evidence provided by science, Gen 2.7 is wrong.

That disporves that...

Therefore Science has not proved God did not create the universe and life as presented in Genesis.

There is no need. Science shows that the earth was not created "In the beginning" and it shows that humans are not the first life forms and were NOT formed from dust.

Conclusion:
Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are scientifically proven wrong.

Where am I missing your point, ICANT?

[ABE] Just to rehash your old arguments and your complete misunderstandings, the universe did not begin to exist from nothingness. The reason no one will explain to you "how it began" is because it didn't "begin." You and you alone hold to this ridiculous point. Prove to us that there was nothing and then something began, you can't, you know you can't, so put that tired argument to rest.

You're talking about the speed of light and time dilation as if you actually have a clue as to what you are describing. You use terms like "time stops at the speed of light," which is a complete misunderstanding, and shows nothing but ignorance on the subject when you speak of it with authority. You say things like "gravity causes time to slow down," which is also a complete misunderstanding, and again shows nothing but ignorance on the subject when you speak of it with authority.

You have sadly wasted yet another thread trying to grasp concepts and use terms for which you nothing about. Instead of trying to learn, you waste time confusing things. You don't know what you're talk about when you reference anything in GR or SR. You don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the dimension of time and the dimensions of space. You could, though. You could really have a good basis for understanding what cavediver and guys with his knowledge are talking about; this has been made available to you many times over. But you seem to be more concern with your "idea" of what certain terms and theories mean, rather than learning the proper use of them, so once again you have proven to be a waste of time and effort.

You don't know what you're talking about, you sadly, probably, never will.

But one thing is for sure, Gen. 1 as you quoted it and Gen. 2.7 as you quoted it, has been scientifically proven wrong, so you lose this debate hands down, dude. [ABE]

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:17 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 595 of 687 (525271)
09-22-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by ICANT
09-22-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Going back
The BB is an attempt to tell us what happened after the universe was in existence, not how it came to exist.

I'm sorry, ICANT, but you are incorrect on that. There is no point in which there was no universe or existance, that is a religious point of view that you can't seem to shake off. You're already coming into it with the idea that there was a time when there was nothing and then suddenly something appeared. That is simply wrong, and something to which you and only you are seeking an answer to.

The problem is that you have no evidence that can show us nothing then something actually took place, so it's a bare accertion that no one will be able to answer.

The problem you are having in understanding what certain words mean is that you're taking them in the layman definition.

"Begin" has no place in cosmology when describing our universe. It is finite in origin, it also has no point where it began to exist from.

That is a fact that you'll either have to learn to understand, or ignore as you have been.

But whether you "get it" or accept it doesn't change the fact that Gen. 1, as you quoted it, is refuted with the scienctific evidence for the BB (it doesn't matter that you can't understand the evidence). The universe exists and came to be without a moment of creation from nothingness to something, AND, in the beginning the Earth didn't exist. No "creator" needed, no moment of "creation" from nothingness.

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and it became a living being.

Oh lets not be modest, ICANT. I believe the Lord did more than just "breath life into some nondescript life;" your quote seemed to indicate much more than that.

Lets look at Gen. 2.7 and see why, AS YOU QUOTED IT, it is refuted.

Genesis 2:;7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Humans are not created from dust, according to science they are an evolved primate which came from Old World monkeys, and so forth. This is why scienctific evidence (whether you agree with it or not) refutes Gen. 2.7.

Nor were humans the first organisms on this planet. According to scientific evidence, single cell organisms were. That is why science refutes Gen. 2.7 (whether you agree with the evidence or not).

It doesn't say "God created a single cell organism" does it?

I don't have to show you evidence of life emerging from nonlife, I just have to show you that humans aren't made out of dust, weren't the first organisms on this planet, and don't come into existance by way of breathed air, they are reproduced.

I said gravity slows the pulse rate of the atomic clock thus the clock runs slower not time. You put the clock in a satellite and it runs faster than a clock at sea level on earth because of the effect of gravity and velocity.

No. This is wrong. There is no "effect of gravity," gravity is not a force, it doesn't do anything. Gravity is curved space, space is cuved due to mass. Period. That's all gravity is. SPEED is what affects the clocks, velocity! Period.

But this is off topic! See that's what you do, you drag it off topic into talks about showing you how life comes from nonlife and crap like that.

Your thread is about Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 being refuted scientifically (WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THE SCIENCE OR NOT, DOESN'T MATTER).

Then lay out the evidence for everyone to examine.

But that would be a waste of your time wouldn't it?

Not at all, the waste of time comes when YOU drag YOUR thread off topic. That is where the waste of time comes in, when people try to explain things to you and you waste time trying to refute it when you know NOTHING about it.

As my post shows, for anyone to see and weigh in on it, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are refuted scientifically.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:17 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 9:03 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 600 of 687 (525335)
09-23-2009 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by ICANT
09-22-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Going back
Hi ICANT,

The standard BBT requires a beginning to exist.

Wrong; you're terminologies are incorrect. What you wrote is nonsensical.

The Big Bang theory is not a "thing" that requires anything; it is a collection of theories that support the observed evidence.

The Big Bang, as in the "event" is also not a "thing." It is a name given to the moment when the universe expanded beyond a finite point (a singularity). The theory explans how it expanded.

As you can see, up to now, no creator is necessary.

But this is OFF-TOPIC.

Gen. 1 states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

According to the general concensus amoungst scientist, which is what you asked for in your OP, no moment of creation from nothingness happened, and the Earth was not formed in the beginning of the BB.

Gen. 1 is disproven scientifically (whether or not you agree with the scientific evidence, that doesn't matter. You asked for the evidence).

If you want to get specific it does not say what the creature in Genesis 2:7 looked like. It simply calls it mankind.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that "mankind" is not refering to man? How can you, in good faith, lie in that fashion just to win a debate?

Lets look at what Gen 2.7 says as per YOUR quote:

quote:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Look ICANT, we've debated a lot you and I, I think we can both honestly say that we won't see eye to eye on many things, but you know very well that Gen. 2.7 is talking about humans.

Humans are not made from dust, they were not the first organisms, they come to life after a process of reproduction. Therefore Gen. 2.7 is scientifically refuted.

Assertions are not evidence.

And an honest person would debate in an honest fashion, and admit when they have been shown that their position is wrong.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 9:03 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 607 of 687 (525460)
09-23-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 605 by ICANT
09-23-2009 10:08 AM


Re: space and time
Hi ICANT,

Light is made of particles and waves.

Here again you've misunderstood what is being explained in the article, and simply quoted the heading of the article; a heading that was given to the article by the writer, not the physicist.

If you read the full article you would have read the actual quote from the physicist:

quote:
"The important new contribution is that light carries both wave and particle aspects at all times, and future experiments will further clarify the nature of each component." Afshar said.

What is time made of?

Time is experienced by all biological organisms, particles, molecules, etc.; eventually, in a finite amount of time, each individual organism/particle/sub-atomic particle decays. When you increase the speed of the time experienced you can reduce that decaying process.

That is why a photon travelling at (c) doesn't experience time and doesn't decay. If it where possible (which it is not) for humans to travel at (c), then we too would not experience time or decay.

Time is not "made of anything," it is an aspect of reality, it is a dimension in our universe, that is experienced not "seen."

Some say it is made of particles called gravitons, some say it is a force, but no one really knows.

You don't really know, don't say "no one."

Gravity was considered a force 100 years ago when Newtonian physics was the only theory that explained gravity. But Einstein changed our understanding of gravity and explained it not as a force, but as an effect of mass on spacetime.

Mass curves space; gravity is that curvature. The Earth is not being "pulled" toward the Sun by some unknown gravitational force; the Earth is following the curvature of space caused by the Sun's mass, and travels in an orbit because it too (the Earth) curves the space around itself.

Gravity is not a force, it is curved spacetime.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:08 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:41 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 608 of 687 (525508)
09-23-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by ICANT
09-22-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Going back
Hi ICANT,

Just want to be specific in pointing out your inconsistencies, so that you don't say "Well I didn't say that..." or "That's not what it actually says..."

You said:

quote:
If you want to get specific it does not say what the creature in Genesis 2:7 looked like. It simply calls it mankind.

But YOU argued this in Re: Evidence God produced Life (Message 476) to Moose:

quote:
Man was formed from the dust of the ground but God breathed the breath of life into him.

Life was breathed by life into man.


You see, you yourself are arguing that God created man from dust and breathed life into man.

Why are you back peddling now and telling me that it's not specific?

Need more proof of YOUR position?

In Genesis Literal Facts (Message 444) you said to Rrhain:

quote:
In the same light period God created man first.
In the same light period God created plants second.
In the same light period God created all animals, creaping things and flying things. third.

Again YOU make the point that God created man first, then other creatures third.

Why are you back peddling now?

In Re: Time changes (Message 479) you wrote:

quote:
If I understand what I read relativity says time stops when you reach the speed of light. If you can exceed the speed of light time will then run backwards and you will be traveling in time.

This is what I was refering to when I said you were misunderstanding things.

"Time" isn't a thing that stops and goes, it is experienced and at the speed of light (c), whatever is travelling at that speed, doesn't experience the duration of time. Period.

In Re: Him (Message 434) your argument gets very weak, you say:

quote:
If biological man evolved from non life he has no spirit and when he dies he dies end of story.

But no one has ever stated that biological man evolved from non-life; science clearly states that man evolved from a common ancestor (who was ALIVE) of the apes.

You are spinning in circles trying to find any argument that fits your position, but you are failing badly.

I'll end there, but as you can see, I only went back a few pages of posts. The question remains, will you deal with your inconsistencies and debate honestly?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 9:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:25 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 614 of 687 (525811)
09-24-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by ICANT
09-24-2009 6:25 PM


Re: Going back
Hi ICANT,

What I said was the Bible does not say what he looked like. The Hebrew word translated man and mankind does not tell me what that man looked like. I can assume he looked like man today, which I do.

You sound like my kids "I mean, I finished my homework, but I didn't finish finish it."

Look, God created man and breathed life into him. This is not a fact and is countered with scientific evidence. Man was not the first organism, this too is supported with scientific evidence.

Gen. 2.7 is disproven scientifically. That is the ONLY THING your thread is about.

What is the difference between time being stopped at the speed of light and not experiencing time at the speed of light?

To deep of a discussion and is off-topic to your thread.

Apes who evolved from x who evolved from y who evolved from z who evolved from non life.

Therefore man evolved from non life makes no difference how you spin it.

It doesn't matter past apes. Gen 2.7 is the only thing in question here (and Gen. 1, which I guess you've conceded on). If you want to discuss the evidence to support evolution of man, pick a thread that deals with it and post there.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 615 of 687 (525814)
09-24-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by ICANT
09-24-2009 6:41 PM


Re: space and time
Hi ICANT,

That is correct.

It is a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence.

Yes, the way we tell/measure time (and please lets not get hung-up on semantics) was invented by man to measure the duration of existance ( the duration of experienced time). But also, to measure how long a proposed distance will take to travel (How long does it take to get from Miami to NYC?). We need to know how to measure duration to be able to give an accurate answer. Today it's no big deal, but a thousand years ago you could die on a trip if you calculated wrong and didn't bring enough food.

So time is an actual function in reality. We take time into consideration even before we had clocks or even language.

Now we are in an age that deals with the cosmos, though. The distance travelled in this realm is of an enormous proportion - other methods of measuring, with much more complicated mathematics, needed to be introduced. Relativity is just such a unit to measure with. It takes "time" or "duration of an event" and understands it at a great distance. However, when physicist began to do this, they noticed certain anomalies about the nature of (that which we refer to as time) when different components were factored in - like (extremely fast) speed or great density.

So when we speak of time and (c), and things like that, it's not something understood logically. It involves learning the math, the theories and equations to comprehend the complexity of what is being described.

However, the most important thing about the point I'm making is this: That you don't get to change these facts as understood and recognized by science. And that's the point in regards to your thread and the question you asked in your OP.

Here's what you asked: Message 1

quote:
I have been told science has proved this story wrong.

Now if I am mistaken about the Scientific evidence please present it.


You have been presented the scientific evidence. That is all you asked for. The statement stands, According to science and their evidence, Gen 1 and Gen 2.7 are proven wrong.

Now, feel free to personally reject the evidence, that doesn't matter or change anything. Reject it all you want, debate in any forum you wish, but understand that as far as this thread is concerned and your OP, you have been given what you asked for. You have been show the evidence for why Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are disproven by science. Whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't matter.

And frankly, you don't qualify to give an educated accessment of the scientific evidence. A simple "thank you" is enough.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:41 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 9:40 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 628 of 687 (526156)
09-26-2009 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 617 by ICANT
09-24-2009 9:40 PM


be honest
Hi ICANT,

First off Genesis 1 has not been under discussion. Genesis 1:1 has.

I have trouble keeping up with all these mythological stories, my apologies.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin.

Yes, I have presented it, the BB. That you don't understand the theory and what it explains, doesn't matter. Nor does it affect the evidence. You are not qualified to challenge it either.

You asked for the evidence. The evidence is the BB. I won't entertain your silly argument about "beginnings."

The evidence is the BB, Period.

And, "in the beginning" neither the Earth, or any other planet, formed. When Gen 1:1 says "in the beginning god made the heavens and the Earth," that's wrong. The Earth came much, much later (which is when you began that other bogus off-topic argument about time).

Once it is established as fact that the Earth formed billions of years after the singularity, "in the beginning god created the Earth" is disproven.

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and that form became a living being.

NO! It does not. It says MAN.

Evolution disproves that mans origin is from dirt!

The life from nonlife is a bogus argument that you're making for no reason. You asked for the evidence against Gen 2:7 that CLEARLY says, "breathed life into man." Stop being dishonest.

You asked for the scientific evidence, the evidence is evolution. It has nothing to do with life from nonlife. God didn't create a single cell organism, he made man. In fact, he "breathed" life into him; you don't "breath" life into single cell organisms. But all this is irrelevant, the point is that man doesn't come from dirt, he evolved.

Once it's established as fact that man evolved (which you have never denied), "comes from dirt" is disproven.

Gen 1:1 is disproven by science, Gen 2:7 is disproven by science.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 9:40 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 10:43 AM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 635 of 687 (526606)
09-28-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 629 by ICANT
09-28-2009 10:43 AM


Re: be honest
Are you saying your evidence for the origin of the universe is the BBT?

No, it is not the origin because, as you have been told 1000 times before, there is no reason to conclude that the universe began from nothing. You are the only one asserting that there needs to be an origin or a beginning, this is your assertion and it continues to be wrong.

In the beginning the heavens and the earth were not "created," in the beginning the earth was not formed. Why do you keep evading these two points? Are you just being stubborn?

This is YOUR thread, YOU asked the question.

"Show me the scientific evidence AGAINST Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:7, that is all you asked. The BB covers "heaven and the earth being created" by showing that it wasn't "created" from nothingness and the earth wasn't form at the BB. Period. Thats what you asked for, why are you evading these points?

This has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, your thread is in reference to Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:7 and the scientific evidence against it.

The Bible in Genesis 2:7 says God imparted life to man first.

Do you have a better explanation of how life began to exist on earth?

Wtf are you talking about ICANT?

All I have to give you evidence for is man not being the first species, why are you evading that point?

Man evoled just like every other species, show me evidence for man being the first species. Are you actually saying that science hasn't shown that man was not the first species on earth?

All you asked is fior the evidence AGAINST Gen 2:7, all I have to show you is the evidence that man was not the first species, period. You're playing all these other bullshit games just to avoid dealing with that point. Man was not the first species on eath, Gen 2:7 is disproven.

Your evading these points and looking like an asshole in the process.

You call yourself an honest man and yet have not been honest in this debate...Oh the shame...

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 10:43 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 8:27 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 638 of 687 (526636)
09-28-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 637 by ICANT
09-28-2009 8:27 PM


Re: Life
Hi ICANT,

Since science does not know how the universe began to exist.

We can end this easy, show me the evidence that the universe had to begin to exist.

Since science does not know how life began to exist, how can science say what that life form was or when that first life began to exist.

No, that's not how this goes, ICANT. That's you being evasive.

YOUR thread is about showing you the evidence, period.

Science has plenty of evidence to show you that man was not the first species on this planet. Whether you agree with that evidence or not is irrelevant. Your point in your OP was for someone to show you the evidence.

You are not qualified to judge the veracity of the evidence because you, ICANT, are not a scientist. Therefore, whatever you may think about it doesn't matter.

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"

- According to the scientific evidence: Neither a moment of "beginning" from nothing to something took place, nor was the earth made at the moment of the BB.

That's the scientific evidence you asked for, whether you agree with it or not.

Gen 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

- According to the scientific evidence: The first life forms on earth were single celled organisms, not humans.

- According to the scientific evidence: Humans are not formed from dirt, humans are formed by the process of reproduction.

That's the scientific evidence you asked for, whether you agree with it or not.

So your assertions does not mean anything except they are your opinions. Which you are welcome to have.

As are you welcome to them as well. But I'm just focused on your questions in your OP, not questions about the orgin of the universe (which is your assertion that the universe needs a beginning) nor am I interested in questions about the origin of life. Your OP doesn't ask any of that. It simply asks for the scientific evidence in regards to - AND ONLY IN REGARDS TO - Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:7.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 8:27 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 665 of 687 (527568)
10-01-2009 6:18 PM


In closing...
ICANT asked for the scientific evidence against:

quote:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth

According to science, no point of creation from nothing to something took place, and, the Earth was not created at the BB.

That's the evidence ICANT asked for. Period.

quote:
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

According to science man is not formed from dirt, man was not the first species on this planet.

That's the evidence ICANT asked for. Period.

His thread, this thread, is not about the origin of the universe, the origin of the first single cell organism, or any other OFF-TOPIC discussions that ICANT decide to posit to take away from the focus of this thread. This thread is about presenting the evidence from science.

He is being evasive when confronted with this fact. He tries to shift the focus of the discussion away from his OP. He has been dishonest in this thread.

He asked for the scientific evidence, that is all. He was shown it, that's the point. He tried to refute the evidence but unfortunately he is not a scientist so he is not qualified to do that.

ICANT was shown the evidence that he asked for, period.

- Oni


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019