Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 2:28 AM
19 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,784 Year: 8,820/19,786 Month: 1,242/2,119 Week: 2/576 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Author Topic:   At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 160 (538160)
12-04-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Larni
12-04-2009 9:03 AM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
Larni writes:

It's full of bad science, Buz.

Without an explanation, you're blindly asserting yada. I suppose other threads would be necessary to debunk the whole page full of scientific data. Perhaps you could succinctly address your assertion relative to the exerpt which I cited in message 6.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Larni, posted 12-04-2009 9:03 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Larni, posted 12-04-2009 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Wounded King, posted 12-04-2009 11:06 AM Buzsaw has responded

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


Message 92 of 160 (538172)
12-04-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
12-04-2009 9:19 AM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
Sure, Buz, happy too.

Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.

The problem with this assertion is that it conflates selective breeding with natural selection. The difference is that natural selection always selects for traits that enable animals to survive long enough to breed.

Selective breeding selects for traits which don't aid survivability and so (when taken to the extreme by humans) lead to a decrease in survivability.

So the problem with making the assumption that a non-material explanation is required for a material effect is that a material explanation actually better resolves the conundrum.

In this case the misunderstanding of the science involved is the problem as there is no conundrum.

That's the thing, here Buz. Every time you say "we need a non-material explanation for this phenomena" eventually science will come along and say "actually, this is how the phenomena came about".

Edited by Larni, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2009 9:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 93 of 160 (538180)
12-04-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
12-04-2009 9:19 AM


my tuppence
Only a small portion of a creature's DNA is protein-coding genes (around 1.5% in humans). In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it "junk DNA", saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved.

This is nonsense, no one in the 70's was putting 'junk DNA' forward as an argument against intelligent design because the modern intelligent design argument wasn't formulated till the 80's.

'Junk DNA' was also a specific thing in its original form. When Susumi Ohno coined the term in 1972 he was referring specifically to the production of pseudogenes as a byproduct of gene duplication, and he thought these were the major contributor to the non-coding DNA. While there are such pseudogenes there are also a host of other forms such as processed pseudogenes which are mRNA transcripts which have been reincorporated into the genome by reverse transcription (Zhang et al., 2003). 'Junk DNA' has often been used variously ot refer to non-coding DNA and also to non-functional DNA, but the two have not been considered the same for decades now.

Ohno's theory was definitely wrong, but I'm not sure why that is some argument against evolution or materialism. Early hypotheses generated with little available evidence were corrected as more evidence became available.

Decades later, researchers are finding that the "junk" does vital work. Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo22.

As I mentioned before, this was occurring barely a decade after Ohno's 'Junk DNA' paper in some instances, the fact that it is still occurring is not surprising since large scale whole genome sequencing is still in its infancy, or maybe its early adolesence now.

Other bits separate coding and regulating sections, like punctuation marks in writing, so that DNA is not a long run-on sentence23.

This is not novel and certainly didn't occur decades later. There are recent developments, such as the discovery of microRNAs and long distance regulatory elements, but even in his original paper Ohno was discussing the roles of non-coding elements in spacing distinct genes and regions as well as a very tentative description of the phenomenon of alternative transcripts. Alternative transcripts weren't actually established until ~1977.

This is pretty impressive considering effective sequencing techniques were only just being developed around the same time. Ohno was basing his theory principally on studies of protein size.

The "junk" label discouraged research into this part of the genome for many years; who would want to waste their time studying it?

I'd say this is almost pure spin. The genetic techniques simply weren't there for many years. As soon as the sequencing techniques became available people were studying all different parts of the genome.

Scientists have found that the number of genes a creature has is not a good measure of how complex it is. For example, the human genome is 23 times larger than the fruit fly genome (3.2 billion base pairs versus 137 million), yet humans have only about 2 times the number of protein coding genes (almost 25,000 versus 13,000 according to Human Genome Project Information). Yeast has about 6,000 genes

It seems a remarkable example of creationist doublethink to be moaning about how evolutionists have were ignoring research into alternative splicing and gene regulation for decades and then to blithely make a statement which completely ignores the roles those 2 elements play in the creation of genomic/developmental complexity. The simple count of putative protein coding genes is virtually meaningless. It also raises the question of what or who makes the evaluation of how much more complex a human is than a fly, is it simply genome size? This seems circular since it is the creationists who insist that the whole genome must be complex and functional, biologists are happy for the majority of the human genome to be functional only at a simple structural level.

Leaving all that aside When one recognises the complex interactions involved in development it should be clear that a doubling of the proteins available can lead to much more than a doubling in complexity because those various genes can all have multiple interactions. Indeed when we look at developmental pathways they show abundant examples of crosstalk between and among pathways.

As one example there are only 3 fibroblast growth factor family members in Drosophila and 2 receptors, 6 possible simple interactions. In humans in contrast there are 22 FGF members and 4 different members, giving 88 possible simple interactions. When you factor in other elements such as binding partners things get even more complicated. But this isn't magical non-material complexity, it is complexity that can be explained by perfectly material process such as gene-duplication and subsequent subfunctionalisation or neo-functionalisation.

I'm also not sure what sort of argument for a non-materialist basis any of this is supposed to form, you still seem to be saying nothing but 'oooh! Complex => god did it', your just taking a longer time to say it.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2009 9:19 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2009 8:54 PM Wounded King has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2838
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 94 of 160 (538197)
12-04-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
12-03-2009 6:49 PM


Re: You Need to learn to read
Greetings Wounded King, thanks for the sarcastic slapdown.
This is arguably true technically. But your whole argument based on this news piece is a fantasy of nonsensical make-believe.
I happen to enjoy fantasy and make believe. My only general comment was how interesting the news article was. How amazing it was that a man can manipulate a mechanical hand by thought. The fact that it is electro-magnetic neuropathway does not make it any less wondrous, at least to me, His thoughts are controlling the movement. The wireless signal from satellites transmits information to computers and devices with out being connected. IR can control TVs, but this is a thought generated in the brain from a mind controling a machine hand. I realize there are many who see the Human body as nothing more than a collection of organic materials and nuero tissue that has become sentient. I on the other hand am interested in how the non physical can influence the physical. And I thought this was an example. Sorry for offending your superior intellectual sensibilities. I am still interested in learning what is generating the thought. Where does this spark originate? guess what. Its a mystery for now, and since it is still wonderous.

Edited by 1.61803, : redundant


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 12-03-2009 6:49 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2009 1:04 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 1:08 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 160 (538199)
12-04-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by 1.61803
12-04-2009 12:55 PM


Re: You Need to learn to read
When you think: "I am going to move my arm", the brain outputs an electrical signal to move your arm. That signal can be received and translated to an actuator in a robotic arm.

Are you amazed at the point from where the thought of moving your arm becomes an output of an electrical signal? Or that that signal can be translated to an actuator?

If thoughts are simply a series of neurons firing, where are they non-material?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2009 12:55 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2009 10:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 96 of 160 (538200)
12-04-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by 1.61803
12-04-2009 12:55 PM


Wonderous Ignorance?
I on the other hand am interested in how the non physical can influence the physical

What exactly do you mean by the "non-physical" here?

Its a mystery for now, and since it is still wonderous.

Sounds like "somethingsupernaturalofthegaps" to me. And there is nothing wonderous about ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2009 12:55 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2009 10:16 PM Straggler has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15020
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 97 of 160 (538210)
12-04-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
12-03-2009 9:22 PM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
Some of that is so false, it's outright insane.

To just point out the craziest nonsense there's this ignorant piece of bigotry:

quote:

The penalty of refusal to worship the image will be punishable by death, as per Shariah Islamic law. Many who refuse will be beheaded as per Revelation 20 and Islamic tradition.

Worshipping images is AGAINST Sharia law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 12-03-2009 9:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM PaulK has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 160 (538248)
12-04-2009 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
12-04-2009 2:14 PM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
PaulK writes:

Worshipping images is AGAINST Sharia law.

Hi Paul.
Likely it will be that two way TV will be spot checked to make sure the sheeples are worshipping as Islamics do in the view if the TV which will cite Mecca on the image or something of that nature. The TV or whatever advanced tech is in place at the time will be the image, not some hand crafted idol which Shariah law forbids.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 12-04-2009 2:14 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 12-05-2009 1:19 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 12-05-2009 1:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 160 (538250)
12-04-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wounded King
12-04-2009 11:06 AM


DNA Gene Problem
Wounded King writes:

I'm also not sure what sort of argument for a non-materialist basis any of this is supposed to form, you still seem to be saying nothing but 'oooh! Complex => god did it', your just taking a longer time to say it.

Thanks WK, for taking the time to respond. I see that perhaps I could have chosen a better exerpt for the purpose of this thread. How about the following exerpt from the same link? This looks pretty convincing to me as to how rare mutations in DNA improve a creature's ability o survive. What about this sequence and simultaneous gene problem, etc.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed

Edited by Buzsaw, : Change message title and add url.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wounded King, posted 12-04-2009 11:06 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 12-05-2009 4:33 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2838
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 100 of 160 (538257)
12-04-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
12-04-2009 1:04 PM


Re: You Need to learn to read
Hi Catholic Scientist,
If thoughts are simply a series of neurons firing, where are they non-material?
Where are the thoughts which are a series of nuerons firing getting the marching orders from? Everything that exists is manifested from energy. Energy of which mankind has yet been able to explain. Energy that can be both material and inmaterial. At what point do quantum waves manifest physical reality? At what point do quarks or strange charms or any other massless particle become material? I realize that simply saying goddit is not that answer.
But pretending the question is irrelvant does not keep me from wondering nevertheless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2009 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2009 1:50 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2838
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 101 of 160 (538260)
12-04-2009 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
12-04-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Wonderous Ignorance?
Hi Straggler,
Sounds like "somethingsupernaturalofthegaps" to me. And there is nothing wonderous about ignorance.
I would rather be ignorant in wonder than
certain of my nihlism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 1:08 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 2:07 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2878 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 102 of 160 (538262)
12-04-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by 1.61803
12-04-2009 10:00 PM


Waiting for the Book on Tape
Hello ∅

Everything that exists is manifested from energy. Energy of which mankind has yet been able to explain. Energy that can be both material and inmaterial. At what point do quantum waves manifest physical reality? At what point do quarks or strange charms or any other massless particle become material?

This is gobbledygoop. Its primary function is to allow one to pretend that confusion is a profundity. It can also be used in the hope that an adversary will also mistake it for profundity; thus, undermining confidence and causing him to hesitate in his reason.

Setting the gobbledygoop aside, your post reads:

Where are the thoughts which are a series of nuerons firing getting the marching orders from? I realize that simply saying goddit is not that answer.
But pretending the question is irrelvant does not keep me from wondering nevertheless.

Who pretends the question is irrelevant? It is a particularly fascinating one. I read something somewhere sometime that talked about a whole other subconscious self that thought and functioned a thousand time faster than does our conscious self. It went on about intuition and how we know things that we don't know. how realistic it was I couldn't surmise, but it was a really cool idea and consistent to the degree I was able to suss it.

Saying Goddidit isn't good methodology even if Goddidit. So far it seems that if Goddiddoit He used a system that we have some capacity to comprehend. (Thank God.)

AbE: Who's a nihilist? Not scientist; they find everything fascinating. You couldn't invent a group having more fun with ignorance.

Edited by lyx2no, : Extention.


The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.
Ernest Hemingway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by 1.61803, posted 12-04-2009 10:00 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by 1.61803, posted 12-05-2009 9:04 AM lyx2no has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3489
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 103 of 160 (538265)
12-04-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by New Cat's Eye
12-02-2009 11:31 AM


Sorry for just bringing an anecdote, but I saw a TV show on out of body experiences where a guy had a surgery that he flat-lined during but was brought back. Afterwords, he asked the surgeon why he was doing the chicken dance during the surgery. The surgeon explained that sometime during surgery, when his hands are tied up, he'll point to things with his elbows and that he could see how it might look like the chicken dance. But the guy was not conscious during the surgery which is besides the fact that his head was covered during the whole thing. There was no way the guy could have actually seen the surgeon and it convinced the surgeon that the guy might have had an out of body experience. I think that was a legitimate place for the surgeon to look for a non-materialistic explanation.

Or to learn that someone on the surgical team, such as the anesthesiologist (AKA "gas passer" as per the original book, "M*A*S*H" by Dr. "Richard Hooker" -- back in 1981 in the extreme emotional situation of my wife delivering our first child, I wanted to ask for an anesthesiologist, but I could not remember that term, so I called out for a "gas passer"), had muttered a comment about the surgeon looking like he was doing the "chicken dance". Eyes may be covered or taped shut (cannot speak from personal experience here, since I very suddenly fell asleep the instant I had positioned myself in the center of the table), but not the ears. While the patient could not have seen anything, he could still hear.

Doesn't mean that that has to have been what had happened, but it is a very reasonable and likely non-non-materialistic explanation. The point is that the doctor would have jumped to assuming a non-materialistic explanation very prematurely, without having investigated all possible natural explanations. It would be like my coming to the conclusion that my car keys aren't where they should be because a Poltergeist had hidden them, when actually I had absently-mindedly put them somewhere else, or someone else had moved them.

To the original question, we start looking for non-materialistic explanations when we have completely given up on ever learning the truth. It's just that some of us give up a lot sooner than others.

Indeed, part of the creationist approach is to give up almost immediately, in order to invoke the "God of the Gaps" so that any "mystery" can be equated with evidence for "God" -- while this is only one of several creationist tactics, it appears be the entirety of ID's approach. Not only does jumping to this conclusion put an immediate halt to any further investigation, but once that leap has been taken then it becomes imperative to prevent any further investigation. To indirectly quote Wakefield, when a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve it. But since a creationist equates that mystery with "God", when a creationist sees that mystery he wants it to remain a mystery. And since any "evidence" for his "God" is vitally important to a creationist, we can count on that creationist to do everything in his power to obstruct any attempts to solve that mystery. This has recently been demonstrated quite well by Buzsaw's providing a link to typical PRATT-filled creationist nonsense (http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html) basically taking the position of "the author and I don't understand, nor do we want to, so the rest of you must all give up trying", the subsequent attempts to discuss it with him, and Arphy's attempts at obfuscating the discussion in the current great debate.

Edited by dwise1, : added "PRATT-filled" adjective

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


{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, 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 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2009 1:43 PM dwise1 has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15020
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 104 of 160 (538270)
12-05-2009 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
12-04-2009 8:06 PM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
quote:

Likely it will be that two way TV will be spot checked to make sure the sheeples are worshipping as Islamics do in the view if the TV which will cite Mecca on the image or something of that nature. The TV or whatever advanced tech is in place at the time will be the image, not some hand crafted idol which Shariah law forbids.

Aside from the fact that the whole TV idea is an incredibly dubious interpretation, there is still no requirement in Islam to actually worship a TV picture, a TV or anything that could be shown on a TV. Just the opposite. In other words this scenario is NOT plausible and can be entirely attributed to your imagination. Nothing supernatural is required to "explain" it at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 7:51 PM PaulK has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3489
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 105 of 160 (538271)
12-05-2009 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
12-04-2009 8:06 PM


Re: The Non-Materialistic Explanation
With all due respect (my absolute favorite Woody Allen quote), do you really know absolutely nothing about traditional Arabic art? It's all geometric! No images of anything! Hello???

It's almost expected that Christians would be pig-ignorant. But shouldn't you at least make the most minimal attempt?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2009 8:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019