Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 12:21 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Theodoric (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 31 of 107 (403841)
06-05-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


Fundies say the darnest things
WS-JW writes:

Evolution hasn't been proven at all. Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible. Things go in leaps, theres no gradual move into another species. people who learn this evolution fairy tale in school hanve to unlearn it when they come to do quantum theory. Then they realise that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

Holy Leaping Glaciers Batman!

Thanks I just sprayed my morning coffee all over my monitor! That has to the funniest thing I have ever come across here.

Thanks WS-JW, that was pure genius. This remark belongs in a hall of fame somewhere. I did submit it to the website "Funies Say the Darnest Things".

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 7:56 PM iceage has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 32 of 107 (403857)
06-05-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
06-05-2007 1:39 AM


He's finally snapped
It was only a matter of time. Putting so much effort into combatting creo nonsense has finally taken its toll on our esteemed leader.

I now open the floor for nominations for a new Admin.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 06-05-2007 1:39 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3496
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 33 of 107 (403868)
06-05-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


In your opening message, you wrote:
Heres another example on why life is impossible without God:

Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book.

When challenged to name a few of those books, you replied:

And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them.

I've read that book. No, Dawkins doesn't say what you claim.

On pages 46 and 47 (1st ed., Norton, 1987), Dawkins does examine the typing-monkey analogy and simplifies its task immensely to simply producing a 28-letter sentence, a single line from Shakespeare, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". He starts that section stating:

quote:
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.

Then he calculates the probability of producing such a sentence and concludes:

quote:
..., i.e. (1/27) multiplied by itself 28 times. These are very small odds, about 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million. To put it mildly, the phrase we seek would be a long time coming, so say nothing of the complete works of Shakespeare.

In my own research, in which I worked with a much more probably example of a 26-letter sequence, I calculated that for just one chance in a million of succeeding, we have to make something to the order of 10 to the 27th attempts! To put this into some perspective, assume we have a computer that can make one million attempts per second (a very generous assumption at the time, in 1989). That translates to 31,556,926 million attempts per year. At this rate, it would take about 195 trillion years to earn that one-in-a-million chance -- nearly 10,000 times longer than the universe's estimated age of 20 billion years!

So we see that, rather than promoting the idea of producing a book through random typing,
Dawkins had merely cited that analogy, which originated with somebody else, so that he could put it to the test and show that it fails that test. He engaged in that discussion to illustrate "single-step selection" in which (from page 45) "the entities selected or sorted ... are sorted once and for all". Each attempt is an all-or-nothing roll which starts from scratch each and every time.

In that same paragraph on page 45, he describes "cumulative selection" in which:

quote:
The entities are subjected to selection of [sic] sorting over many 'generations' in succession. The end-product of one generation of selection is that starting point for the next generation of selection, and so on for many generations. It is natural to borrow such words as 'reproduce' and 'generation', which have associations with living things, because living things are the main examples we know of things that participate in cumulative selection.

In other words, cumulative selection is descriptive of how life does it, whereas single-step selection is not. And if single-step selection is not descriptive of how life does it, then what possible relevance could it have for evolution?

Back on page 47, after completing his discussion of the probabilities of single-step selection, Dawkins then examines the performance of cumulative selection through a BASIC program, which completes the job while he was out having lunch. He rewrote it in Pascal, which ran much faster (BASIC was an interpretive language back in those days). Because he had never published his code, many of his readers wrote their own programs to test his claims; that class of program became known as "Weasels", because of Dawkins' target string. I had written my own, which I called MONKEY (see below).

Dawkins was clearly promoting the idea of cumulative selection, not single-step selection as you so falsely claim he was. Since you are claiming to be familiar with that book, you should have already known at the time of making your claim that he doesn't say what you claim. So why are you making a false claim? Why are you lying to us?

And you still need to tell us what some of those books are that "state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book." You claim that there are "Alot [sic]", which means many more than just one. Name them! The one that you did name turns out to not state what you claimed; you had lied about that. So when you name the others, please don't lie this time.

As I said, when I wrote my own weasel program, which I called MONKEY, I was so impressed with and skeptical of its amazing performance that I performed a mathematical analysis of the probabilities involved; it turns out that cumulative selection makes success nearly inevitable. I had originally posted it on CompuServe back in 1989 and have since then HTML'ized it and posted it at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/mprobs.html. Since you are so familiar with quantum mechanics, the math on that page should be very simple for you to follow. Also, my page on MONKEY is at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/monkey.html, which also links you to my source code as well as to a page listing several other weasel programs.

-----------------

OK, let's cut the bull and drop the pretenses. You never read "Blind Watchmaker", did you? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You read some creationist or "intelligent design" malarcky and that's all you "know", isn't it?

OK, then, what's your source? Where did you get that claim of "Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book." from? Obviously, that source named "Blind Watchmaker" -- you probably had never even heard of it before, right? -- as one of these "a lot of evolution books". What did your source tell you that Dawkins had stated? Seriously, state your creationist/ID source and quote from it regarding "The Blind Watchmaker".

Now, what that means is that you were not deliberately lying to us, but rather you were using a source that had lied to you.

If you want to fight against evolution, then you need to learn what evolution is and what the associated sciences are. You can't trust creationist and ID materials, because they are lying to you, as you have just discovered.

-------------------------

BTW, you should read the Wikipedia article, "Infinite monkey theorem", at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkeys. Despite its long history, the modern usage was to statistical mechanics, not to evolution. It was a mistaken attribution of the idea in 1931 to Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog", that connected it to evolution, even though it does not apply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 9:20 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

    
kalimero
Member (Idle past 617 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 34 of 107 (403870)
06-05-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them.

I think Dawkins was trying to make the point that natural selection is a non-random process by giving the shakespeare typing monkey analogy "new life". If I remember correctly he took that analogy and added a new rule: any letter that is "beneficial" the the shakespeare story (a letter that actually fits) stays there, and that way you can get the book in much less time.

evolution claims the first primitive cell... if there are such things as "primitive" cells.

You didnt finish the sentence (I think). Anyway, evolution doesn't say whats "primitive" (the way your using it).

Never does he mention where the computer came from.

Irrelevant.

And why ever they say that natural selection seperates the good from the bad I don't know... in science you find the good stuff breaks down ever so quickly and the bad bits you can't get rid of.

I don't quite follow...can you give an example? (remember, we are talking about living things... you know, things that replicate)

The idea that different sexes arose by chance...

wrong.

...that by eating a few potatoes a woman can churn out a baby...

wrong.

...with all the info on how to do so on the size of a pin head. The sperm....

wrong.

...a brain that does a supreme diagnosis of whats wrong if you get a cut or something like that.

wrong.

Well anything that can't be repeated, is not science.

wrong.

I'm sorry... there is nothing I can say here. Please open a textbook. I know this forum is supposed to be educational, but there's a limit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 9:20 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3496
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 35 of 107 (403876)
06-05-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


A side question:

If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker?

So what does physical strength have to do with being "better"? For that matter, what does being "better" have to do with evolution? You're stuck on "Ladder of Life" thinking, which is a false and very mistaken view of evolution. Evolution is about adaptation, for which the criteria depend on the environment. As others have mentioned, building up muscle bulk for greater physical strength can be costly and so could be maladaptive in certain environments.

Then in message 15 you stated:

Stronger IS better in every aspect of life, even for us making the things we need to make to do things for which we lack the strength to do alone.

There's the key. "... to do alone."

Two things we evolved that compensate for lesser physical strength are that we do things smarter and we do things together. And believe you me, that is the much better way to do things.

I served on active duty shortly after women were integrated into the military -- "They're not WAF's; they're airmen!" Women naturally have less upper-body strength than men do. Watch a man work and watch a woman doing the same task. A lot of times, the guy will muscle his way through a task, whereas the woman will make full use of the tools at her disposal. And when they'd lift something, the guy could just muscle his way through, whereas the woman would position herself more carefully and more closely observe proper life techniques of keeping the back straight, lifting with the legs, etc. The woman, because she can't fall back on physical strength, would always work smarter; the guy would also work smart, but he didn't always have to.

Another difference we would observe would be in the "two-man lifts". Some objects were designated as a "two-man lift" because they were deemed too heavy or awkward for one man to lift by himself. Some guys would do a "two-man lift" by himself because he was strong enough to get away with it. A woman would invariably get somebody to help her; ie would observe the "two-man lift" protocol.

Which brings us to that key, "... to do alone." We don't work alone, do we? We work in groups, form teams. We communicate and organize and plan and tackle projects of all sizes. And we complete those projects, ranging from moving a piece of furniture to building the pyramids and beyond, because we work together.

---------------------

WS-JW, you obviously don't have a clue about evolution. Which is a really big problem for you, since you obviously want to oppose and fight evolution. But how can you possibly do that if you don't know anything about evolution?

To quote Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

quote:
Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

WS-JW, you are ignorant of the enemy and you are ignorant of yourself. You are in certain peril.

To quote Steve Rauch, a former young-earth-creationist:

quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

Carl Drews, an evangelical Christian who had to leave his fundamentalist church because the pastor endorse "lying for the Lord", told of the creation science class he had to attend and in which most of the others were there for ammo to use in proselytizing, not knowing that (as Steve Rauch put it) they were loading up with blanks.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html

Even the creationist site, Answers in Genesis, warned against using false arguments in "What about Carl Baugh?" (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm -- posted off-site, but I check with AiG and they did confirm the article's authenticity):

quote:
Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.

Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.


And then there's St. Augustine, in his "De Genese ad litteram":

quote:
It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.


WS-JW, if you really want to fight against evolution, then you need to learn what evolution is. You need to study it and understand it. Thoroughly. And you need to learn the associated science as thoroughly as you can.

You cannot do this from creationist or ID sources, because they lie to you about evolution and about science.

Until you have done this, all that your efforts can accomplish would be to do further damage to your cause. Is that really what you want to do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by iceage, posted 06-07-2007 11:47 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Damouse
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 36 of 107 (403906)
06-05-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iceage
06-05-2007 12:50 PM


Re: Fundies say the darnest things
quote:
Evolution hasn't been proven at all. Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible. Things go in leaps, theres no gradual move into another species. people who learn this evolution fairy tale in school hanve to unlearn it when they come to do quantum theory. Then they realise that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

Ahh. on a totally unrelated topic to the thread, here ur just plain worng. Different systems in mathamatics can be contradictory and still both be true because of the information surrounding their statements, a perfect example is planer geometry vs non-euclidean geometry. A triangle in planar geomerty has 180 degrees, a triangle in non-euclidean geometry can have 360. Both are correct answers, the only thing that is different is the poslutates that both systems begin with.

In short, you are very, very, saddeningly wrong. One of the laws of thermodynamics state that matter always seeks a lower energy level while another says that all reactions tend towards an increase in entropy (chaos and disorganization, can be implied as higher energy). Theyre both right. You are not.


This statement is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iceage, posted 06-05-2007 12:50 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 06-06-2007 1:04 PM Damouse has responded
 Message 44 by iceage, posted 06-06-2007 2:11 PM Damouse has not yet responded

    
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4185 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 37 of 107 (403932)
06-05-2007 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them.

Read it more carefully next time. Dawkins' ENTIRE POINT is that "random typing" is an incorrect, insufficient, and misguided metaphor for evolutionary change, and lacks at least two necessary features: replication and selection.

I can't believe you actually read the book, and missed this. No doubt you're relying on second-hand accounts of what Dawkins said.

Edited by Zhimbo, : format fix.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 9:20 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 10:33 PM Zhimbo has responded

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 38 of 107 (403934)
06-05-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Zhimbo
06-05-2007 10:22 PM


quote:
Read it more carefully next time. Dawkins' ENTIRE POINT is that "random typing" is an incorrect, insufficient, and misguided metaphor for evolutionary change, and lacks at least two necessary features: replication and selection.

nevertheless it is still a sound concept and can still be used as an explination (albiet a wrong one according to dawkins) for evolution. Mathamatically, statistically, and logically a monkey can type out shakespere eventually, provided he lives long enough and actually types.

hey i dont believe it in referance to evolution. Im just defending the math :)


This statement is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Zhimbo, posted 06-05-2007 10:22 PM Zhimbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Zhimbo, posted 06-05-2007 11:02 PM Damouse has responded

    
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4185 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 39 of 107 (403938)
06-05-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Damouse
06-05-2007 10:33 PM


Well, yeah - it just doesn't have the power of natural selection for evolution is the point Dawkins is making.

But I don't think you can actually do the math for monkeys, if we want to get really pedantic. The problem is that monkeys are non-random typers, and I don't think their typing style is sufficiently characterized to do that math.

They tend to hit nearby clusters of keys on a QWERTY keyboard, for example.

Also, they'll poop on the keyboards, mucking them up.

At this point, Shakespeare probably becomes impossible, although the complete "Mission Earth" series by L. Ron Hubbard is still easily in reach.

Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 10:33 PM Damouse has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 11:45 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 40 of 107 (403950)
06-05-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Zhimbo
06-05-2007 11:02 PM


aright fine, so we'll add "Must only hit one key at a time in a random fashion" to the caveats.

Its just a thought experiment, i dont think anyone will try it out any time soon. Though poop resistant keyboards is definatly an idea!

to the patent-machine!


This statement is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Zhimbo, posted 06-05-2007 11:02 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1771 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 41 of 107 (403967)
06-06-2007 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


words, words, words
WS-JW:

Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book.

But you get a creationist OP much faster.

You tell that to a Chinese person and they won't understand.

他們瞭解您是瘋狂的。

Like cat means pussy etc.

Where? Where?

_____


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 4:28 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 42 of 107 (404056)
06-06-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Damouse
06-05-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Fundies say the darnest things
Just what the hell are you saying!?!

Damouse writes:

In short, you are very, very, saddeningly wrong.

Uh just where am I wrong?

Can you explain how thermodynamics (or geometry for that matter) relates to anything that is being mentioned?

BTW are you in competition with WS-WJ for ridiculous statements...

Damouse writes:


One of the laws of thermodynamics state that matter always seeks a lower energy level while another says that all reactions tend towards an increase in entropy (chaos and disorganization, can be implied as higher energy). Theyre both right.

Care to explain what "chaos and disorganization, can be implied as higher energy" relates to your prior claim or proves that I am saddeningly wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 7:56 PM Damouse has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Parasomnium, posted 06-06-2007 1:32 PM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Damouse, posted 06-07-2007 3:14 PM iceage has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 869 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 43 of 107 (404063)
06-06-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by iceage
06-06-2007 1:04 PM


Re: Fundies say the darnest things
iceage writes:

Just what the hell are you saying!?!

Steady, Iceage! Is that a nervous twitch I see in your avatar's bulging eye? Damouse was plainly not responding to you, despite your name in the "Reply to" field. An honest mistake, I think. As you can see, the quote is one of WS-JW's. I suspect Damouse and you are on the same side, so relax.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 06-06-2007 1:04 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 44 of 107 (404073)
06-06-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Damouse
06-05-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Fundies say the darnest things
Well I am on my 5th cup of joe this morning!!!

I did consider that he was mis-replying, however his comment still didn't make any sense. I always get a bit twitchy when someone misapplies buzzwords to prove or disprove something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2007 7:56 PM Damouse has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2007 5:13 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 107 (404109)
06-06-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by iceage
06-06-2007 2:11 PM


Damouse And Thermodynamics
I agree, Damouse's comments didn't make much sense.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by iceage, posted 06-06-2007 2:11 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019