Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 21 of 142 (588939)
10-29-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


When ID Becomes Scientific
Fiver writes:
I think that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience based on the objective measures (definition of science, requirements of a theory, methodology, etc) and I address these in other posts. This post is admittedly much more subjective: there are many aspects of Intelligent Design that have the "earmarks" of being simply a Trojan Horse for Creationism. These are particularly evident when compared to countless examples in history when an unpopular and unaccepted theory became mainstreamed.
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to whether ample verifiable evidence for that record exists supportive to that record. The more supportive evidence that can be reasonably verified, the more credible that record becomes and the more susect becomes the methodology of established secularistic minded theory.
The problem for Biblical creationist IDists becomes the need to debate evidence considered too religious, too philosophical and too cultural for the science fora for corroborating existing physical archeological, historical and scientific research also attributed to supporting the Biblical record.
Religious, philosophical and cultural data, when supportive to the Biblical ID creationist hypothesy, becomes a valid part and parcel of the Biblical ID creationist scientific methodology.

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 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 10:07 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 1:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 23 of 142 (588969)
10-29-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
10-29-2010 10:07 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
PaulK writes:
The leaders of the ID movement would agree with us at least as far as pointing out that your arguments are not scientific (even those that some of them might believe) - and they do NOT use any of them in their "scientific" literature.
Perhaps this is why they fall short of aired corroborating evidenced data in this area.
Leaders like ICR, do btw, apply some of this evidence that secularists consider non-scientific. Their hypothesis premise, for example, relative to their research would not be considered scientific in the EvC science fora.

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 22 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Son, posted 10-29-2010 11:42 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 11:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 10-29-2010 5:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 28 of 142 (589029)
10-29-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Son
10-29-2010 11:42 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Son writes:
And if I understood you well, Buzsaw, you're saying that I.D is in fact not science (as understood and practiced by the scientific community) so it's the reason it's unlike the contested scientific theories that arose through time? Does it mean you agree it shouldn't be taught in science classes? I'm asking because I was under the impression that Fiver adressed mostly Idists who wanted to put ID in science classes.
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
By it's nature, ID implicates creationism and creationism implicates a power/energy. existing in the Universe, capable of creating and designing things in the universe.
The ID hypothesis, especially that of the Biblical record must debate with half our brains/evidence quietly hid behind our backs.
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Eta became very angry and caustic towards me in that debate, but he never effectively refuted my argument.
Some of these kinds of arguments involve what the science constituency regard as religious, philosophical, etc.
Bottom line: If you want an objective debate between secularists and Biblical creationists but you disallow any evidence not physical/natural, you kill the debate. Thus the scientifially astute creationists who show up don't stay long.
This follows through in the field of education. In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.

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 24 by Son, posted 10-29-2010 11:42 AM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 9:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2010 9:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 10:37 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2010 6:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 10-30-2010 9:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 11-01-2010 1:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 11-01-2010 2:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 38 by jar, posted 11-01-2010 3:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 29 of 142 (589033)
10-29-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by onifre
10-29-2010 1:09 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
onifre writes:
Buzsaw writes:
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to
...God did it.
That's bare and over simplistic, Oni, but that's it if you limit your understanding of the hypothesis to three little words. Volumns would be required to cite all of the evidence supportive to the existence of that entity, alleged to have done it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 142 (600525)
01-14-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
10-29-2010 10:37 PM


Re: Length Of Genesis Days.
Modulous writes:
(In the Eta debate, he even granted a supernatural creation of the star and still argued the evidence shows this must have occurred way before 7,000 years ago without pure omphalism)
There are a number of important aspects of Intelligent Design that are unique to the Buzsaw position. The Buzsaw position has never been that the Solar System was created a few thousand years ago.
The literal interpretation of day four of Genesis one, when the sun was created is that at some time on day four creation of the sun was created. However, in that it was not completed until the end of day four, it is not known how long days one through four were. The text says that one of the functions of the sun is to determine the 24 hour day. There was another source of light and determination of the length of each day before the work of creating the sun was completed.
I know that this is a unique Buzsaw rendition of the text, but it is more literal to the text than the conventional YEC rendition.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 10:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2011 11:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 142 (600561)
01-15-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by onifre
11-01-2010 5:11 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
onifre writes:
Now, how did god do it?
He did it over a period of time, expending energy and working. He intelligently fashioned, from the elements, things which he intended to make. When he designed the animals and mankind, for example, he took soil, intelligently assembling the elements into what he wished to make. In that he, having a higher intelligence than that of the creatures which he made, including mankind, he had the knowledge and ability to assemble and fashion the elements into what pleased him to make.
(abe: After he fashioned the body he inflated the lungs with his life giving breath, having properties suitable for initiating life into the fashioned body.)
That his degree of intelligence was greater than that of the creative ability of his creature, mankind, can be compared to the degree of the difference in the intelligence of mankind to the intelligence of, say, a snail and that of mankind. That of mankind is manifold; being greater than that of the snail.
As per 2Lot, this effected a measure of equilibrium of energy, in that after Jehovah had finished the work which he had done, there was the need for him to rest.
The degree of intelligence existing in the entire universe cannot necessarily be determined by that which we humans experience on our tiny speck in the universe which we call Planet Earth.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:11 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by frako, posted 01-16-2011 8:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 46 of 142 (600682)
01-16-2011 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by frako
01-16-2011 8:25 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
frako writes:
What mechanism or process did he use to make the elements?
When he designed the animals and mankind, for example, he took soil, intelligently assembling the elements into what he wished to make. In that he, having a higher intelligence than that of the creatures which he made, including mankind, he had the knowledge and ability to assemble and fashion the elements into what pleased him to make.
After he fashioned the body he inflated the lungs with his life giving breath, having properties suitable for initiating life into the fashioned body
Having the intelligence significantly higher than a snail, mankind is able to transform trees, gravel, forces, iron/copper/lead etc ore, oil, etc into a beautiful home. The snail's intelligence cannot comprehend how mankind made the home, but humans who do not understand electromagnetism, wood processing and how to make plastic etc, who do not build homes observe that it can be done.
We, like the snail observe ordered complex systems, organisms and forces etc existing. Having higher intelligence than the snail, however, we can observe corroborating evidences of the Biblical god, Jehovah via the prophecies, archeological phenomena and historical events which are supportive to the existence of an intelligent designer.
Thus the topic debate of this thread, Intelligent Design vs Real Science boils down to debating the evidence supportive to such a designer.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by frako, posted 01-16-2011 8:25 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-16-2011 10:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 62 of 142 (600913)
01-17-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
01-16-2011 10:54 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
jar writes:
Buz writes:
When he designed the animals and mankind, for example, he took soil, intelligently assembling the elements into what he wished to make. In that he, having a higher intelligence than that of the creatures which he made, including mankind, he had the knowledge and ability to assemble and fashion the elements into what pleased him to make.
How did he do that Buz, did he move genes around using a pipette or just his fingers.
By the same token, precisely how did each step of evolution allegedly progress into something as complex as the human brain? No generalities or speculative possibilities allowed. You must precisely explain each progressive factor which accomplished the feat and how each factor overcame the tendency of order to regress into disorder all the way from bio-genesis to the modern human brain with all of it's complexity.
Also your problem would be to refute each corroborative evidence supportive to the existence of the Biblical designer as per the Biblical record.
jar writes:
Buz writes:
After he fashioned the body he inflated the lungs with his life giving breath, having properties suitable for initiating life into the fashioned body
How do that work Buz, what exactly is it in that magic breath that is life giving? What are those properties? What is their chemical makeup?
By the same token, without conjecture, possibilities, and/or assumptions ,precisely how did each progressive factor life giving breath overcome each regressive obstacle and progress into the modern function of the human lung?
jar writes:
Buz writes:
Thus the topic debate of this thread, Intelligent Design vs Real Science boils down to debating the evidence supportive to such a designer.
No Buz, the issue is that there is a model in real science while there is NO model or even knowledge to be gained in Inept Design.
You have two problems. You need models for each progressive step of my propositions above and you need to empirically falsify each of the many corroborative evidences of the existence of a designer existing in the Universe having a higher intelligence than what we experience on the tiny speck called Planet Earth; that is a designer capable of fashioning elements available into a functional body and breathing charged energetic elements into the lungs of the fashioned body to bring the fashioned body to life as we observe it.
The work of such a designer required rest after expending the needful energy from the higher energetic designer entity into the created being, as per 2LoT.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-16-2011 10:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-18-2011 12:26 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 80 by jar, posted 01-19-2011 11:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 142 (601163)
01-19-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Otto Tellick
01-18-2011 12:26 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Auto Tellick writes:
The natural tendency for mutations that yield more elaborate neuronal structures to be successful, because they have broader and more effective behavioral repertoires
The clearly demonstrated correlations among DNA, morphology and fossil records that all point uniformly to a particular tree of shared ancestry among all species studied so far
Thanks for your response, Otto. You have cited the elaborate neuronal structures and the DNA. That's a long way up the ladder into complex systems.
Where I see your difficulty is from bio-genesis and the early stages of evolution where bio-genesis is most unlikely and if the odds eventually come out with life, order to chaos is manifoldly more likely than a steady progression of disorder to order, having no genes, DNA and whatever else to enhance progression of lifeless matter into life and/or primitive life into complex systems. That's just not what we observe in the real here and now. Order tends to chaos and if you get lucky, LoL on progressing from step 1 all of the way up to billions of exceedingly complex systems, for more complex than anything man can create with all of his intelligence going for him.
Mr. natural, having no brain is just to dumb to do up the cosmos, the forces and all of the complex systems which we observe.
Otto Tellick writes:
Um, how many of these "corroborative evidences" are there, roughly? Where are they enumerated, so we can falsify each one? (I presume it would be off-topic in this thread to do more than cite a usable reference, but just that much would be helpful.)
Go to my profile. I've cited a number of them.
Otto Tellick writes:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that you have absolutely no evidence -- and indeed, not even any hint, beyond just a phrase or two in Genesis -- that an initial, unique human body was fashioned from soil and brought "to life as we observe it" in this manner.
The evidence lies in the evidence for the validity of the Biblical record and the existence of Jehovah, the Biblical god. The model is an intelligent builder who takes raw materials and designs complex things which require planning, work and time, all of which Jehovah applied to creating the creature.
Otto Tellick writes:
Whoa. In order to apply the 2LoT in this way, I think you'd have to assert that the "designer entity" and the "created being" are components in a closed system.
I've always argued for an infinite closed perpetual machine system, Jehovah existing somewhere in the cosmos of the system, having forever managed, created and destroyed things in the system to please him. This too is somewhere in my profile archives.
Otto Tellick writes:
And I think this would contradict other assertions that you and other theists would normally make regarding the "nature" of your "designer entity": i.e. that "He" is "infinite" in some sense, hence cannot be contained within any sort of closed system.
Hey, my brethren YECs consider the Buzsaw Hypothesis about as daffy as you people do, until I explain it to them and challenge them to refute it. They try to stuff an infinite god into a finite Universe, etc.
Otto Tellick writes:
Really, Buz, although I personally have relatively little formal training in biology or physics, even I can see perfectly well that you're in over your head here. You just aren't thinking through the implications of what you are saying.
Well, this is an evolutionist vs creationist board. Don't expect my creationism to jive with evolution. I've become absolutely positive that Jehovah exists and the Bible is a reliable record. I've been studiously into creationism for over six decades since my conversion. For going on eight years I've weighed Biblical creationism with what I see here on this board and found what I see here to be wanting on many counts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-18-2011 12:26 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-19-2011 2:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 142 (601215)
01-19-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Otto Tellick
01-19-2011 2:30 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Otto Tellick writes:
Buzsaw writes:
The evidence lies in the evidence for the validity of the Biblical record and the existence of Jehovah, the Biblical god...
In other words, it's all in your head -- that is to say, in your subjective fixation on positing an external deity (having personality, likes and dislikes) to explain your personal experiences, and in your own idiosyncratic interpretation of "the Biblical record" (especially as it relates to recent and current events, since I presume it includes your notions on "prophecy"). You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but it would be a mistake to confuse that with science, or to consider it objective.
Otto, where have you been when we've been debating these subjective fixations and interpretations of cited prophecy evidence over the years? You're having now to resort to personal malignment due to the inability to refute the specifics of my message to which you're responding.
I've always argued for an infinite closed perpetual machine system, Jehovah existing somewhere in the cosmos of the system, having forever managed, created and destroyed things in the system to please him. This too is somewhere in my profile archives.
Otto.... writes:
"Infinite closed" sounds like "colorless green" or "invisible pink". Perhaps cavediver knows of some domain in math where the properties "infinite" and "closed" both apply to a particular set (or field or whatever), but if so, he'd be talking about something completely unrelated to what you're talking about.
Perhaps I should have elaborated. Infinite in time and in space, that is. If you have infinite boundless space,, how can there be an outside of?
Otto... writes:
Any notion of a "perpetual machine" is entirely incompatible with 2LoT, which you seem to want to incorporate in your "system", so this looks like another intrinsic self-contradiction. (But perhaps you, like C.S.Lewis and other apologists, view self-contradiction in religious doctrine as "a feature, not a bug.")
My understanding of the law is that equilibrium can be regulated by work and management. Again, the Biblical application lies in the evidence for the Biblical intelligent designer.
Otto... writes:
As for Jehovah, having all these remarkable qualities, and doing remarkable things (creating and destroying) for the purpose of "pleasing" himself... that all seems quite whimsical -- and quite unsatisfying from a teleological perspective. Again, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but honestly, I believe humanity can (and should) do better than that.
As for finding things in your "profile archive", I'm sorry, but my abilities with the search functions on this forum are too limited. Given the "references" you've provided, I have no hope of finding the enumeration I asked about, or a more detailed discussion of this "system" you speak of. But that's okay, don't sweat it.
Whimsical and evidence are quite difference. You can begin with addressing the specifics of my message relating to abiogenesis and the problems cited with alleged early stages of life. How do these probabilities stack up with the probabilities of intelligent design, etc? Methinks more is going for my premise and hypothesis, applying logic, probability and observable evidence.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-19-2011 2:30 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 142 (601295)
01-19-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coragyps
01-19-2011 9:13 AM


Re: again I ask......
Coragyps writes:
So is this field in Spitsbergen designed, or not?
Since there's nothing complex about it, being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky, it is not designed.
There's nothing about it that would diminish the arguments for intelligent design.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 9:13 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 01-19-2011 7:21 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 8:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 142 (601333)
01-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coragyps
01-19-2011 8:31 PM


Re: again I ask......
Coragyps writes:
being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky,
Yeah, shit falls from the sky and splashes rocks around down here all the time, Buz.
What isn't "complex" about hundreds of acres of stones all gathered up into rings with bare centers? If you saw a dozen rings like those in your backyard, would you think first of gophers or of neighbor kids? Or of shit falling out of the sky?
Hint: neighbor kids would be my first choice if it were in my backyard. There aren't lots of kids in Spitsbergen.
I meant to say that the phenomenon was not intelligently designed. Have there been tests for meteor strikes in the region? If a meteor shower struck the terrain, containing relatively similar type rocks, perhaps it created the mounds. Erosion would wash the higher rocks so as to distinguish them from the surrounding terrain.
What do geophysicists say caused the phenomenon?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 8:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 142 (601336)
01-19-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Panda
01-19-2011 7:21 PM


Re: again I ask......
Panda writes:
If something is not complex: it is not designed. Yes?
I meant to say they were not intelligently designed.
They would have been naturally designed, but not complex.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 01-19-2011 7:21 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Panda, posted 01-20-2011 6:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 142 (601339)
01-19-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coyote
01-19-2011 9:55 PM


Re: again I ask......
Coyote writes:
Anyone interested in science knows what caused that
I am interested. I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits. You tell me. Perhaps then I can give an objective answer to the questions. What's the big secret? You''re the geophysicist.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:55 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 01-20-2011 10:49 AM Buzsaw 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