Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
86 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
Phat
Member
Posts: 15958
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 186 (781858)
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


In this topic, I want to again bring up some basic questions regarding the difference between faith and science.

  • What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?

  • Must Faith have evidence?

    We know that science requires evidence.

  • Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?

    Is It Science, please


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 11:37 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:43 AM Phat has replied
     Message 10 by nwr, posted 04-08-2016 12:10 PM Phat has seen this message
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:17 PM Phat has replied
     Message 12 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:24 PM Phat has taken no action
     Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2016 1:53 PM Phat has seen this message
     Message 16 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2016 4:09 PM Phat has taken no action
     Message 19 by Dogmafood, posted 04-08-2016 8:44 PM Phat has seen this message
     Message 20 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 12:03 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 21 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 12:04 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2016 12:24 AM Phat has taken no action
     Message 163 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:54 AM Phat has taken no action
     Message 182 by Davidjay, posted 06-04-2017 10:47 AM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 3 of 186 (781861)
    04-08-2016 11:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-08-2016 9:00 AM


    Evidence
    To be more specific, I want to hopefully come to a consensus regarding the necessity for evidence in each venue--namely Faith & Belief and also in any of our Science Forums.

  • What is the bare minimum evidence required for scientific claims? Does this standard differ between evolutionists and creationists?

    Creationists are encouraged to respond to this thread as well as Evolutionists.

    Edited by Phat, : added


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 5 of 186 (781863)
    04-08-2016 11:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
    04-08-2016 11:43 AM


    Collective versus Selective
    Granted I believe that the Bible itself is evidence in regards to matters of belief and personal philosophy.

    In regards to truth, such as the age of the universe or the distance to a star collective evidence is needed.

    As to the question, say, of whether a Bible was divinely inspired, I would argue that collective evidence is impossible or at the very least impractical due to the fact that unbelievers cannot use collective evidence to judge a philosophical belief system.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:43 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:58 AM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 7 of 186 (781866)
    04-08-2016 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
    04-08-2016 11:58 AM


    Re: Collective versus Selective
    The words themselves are evident though. They are evidently there. I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented. I suppose we can agree that the word "evidence" need not be used.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:58 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 12:07 PM Phat has taken no action
     Message 14 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 12:53 PM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 29 of 186 (781907)
    04-09-2016 10:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by jar
    04-08-2016 12:02 PM


    Re: Collective versus Selective
    jar writes:

    They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded.

    It seems that the default human nature is to disagree rather than to agree. If we all agreed, there would be no EvC Forum.

    I am reminded of a quote from a book I once read, Thinking As A Science.

    If a man were to know everything he could not think. Nothing would ever puzzle him, his purposes would never be thwarted, he would never experience perplexity or doubt, he would have no problems.
    If we are to conceive of God as an All-Knower, we cannot conceive of Him as a Thinking Being. Thinking is reserved for beings of finite intelligence. Were we to study the origin and evolution of thinking, we would doubtless find that thinking arose in just this way—from thwarted purposes.
    Science and Faith share several things. Both arise from doubt. Both arise because certain things--situations in life if you will--puzzle us.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 12:02 PM jar has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 30 of 186 (781908)
    04-09-2016 10:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
    04-08-2016 12:17 PM


    Re: Context
    ringo writes:

    If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support.

    Like I said.... we rarely agree.

    PaulK writes:

    In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules.
    Among those who believe in Biblical inerrancy a reference to the Bible may be all the evidence required - but even then quote mining or misrepresentation should not be tolerated, let alone appeals to a scripture that she thinks exists somewhere in the book.

    And what justifies Faiths anger ? It's far from always disagreement with the Bible. Very often it is disagreement with her opinions or defeating her arguments. Do you think that those are matters of deep religious significance to her ? Is her pride in herself her religion ? Is that what you mean by challenges to her faith ?

    What do you think Phat ?

    I would agree that for many of us, our pride in ourselves...in our supposed wisdom, in our cherished identity can and do cause us to get angry.As for quote mining and misrepresentation, I can only say that I go into a mine to find valuable nuggets. In the process I am forced to sift through a lot of rock. The same holds true in any book. In order to support my argument, I look for the best words, phrases, passages or statements that accomplish this.

    Thankfully, there are others who disagree with me.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:17 PM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 10:32 AM Phat has replied
     Message 33 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 12:48 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 32 of 186 (781910)
    04-09-2016 10:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
    04-09-2016 10:32 AM


    Re: Context
    Good point.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 10:32 AM PaulK has taken no action

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 36 of 186 (781916)
    04-09-2016 2:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 33 by jar
    04-09-2016 12:48 PM


    Re: Context
    jar writes:

    A scientist who sifts through the data and selects only the nuggets that support his theory should get fired immediately and all of his works subject to intense scrutiny.

    I can see where purposely attempting to falsify a theory is a key component of the scientific method, right? But should the same discipline be used in regards to faith? Is that why you used to always tell me to "throw God away" and I never understood why?

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 12:48 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 38 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 2:28 PM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 37 of 186 (781917)
    04-09-2016 2:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
    04-09-2016 2:07 PM


    tangle writes:

    I was amused to hear that the Pope has finally decreed that in matters of sex, marriage and the family believers should follow their conscience. Imagine giving a physicist that instruction - he could claim that pluto was created out of the centre of a donut in 1027 and is kept in orbit by strings of super-sticky candy floss. If that's what he believes, then it ok. That's called faith, believe any old crap and don't worry about the contradictions.

    Interesting. I have a question, though. What should be the rule of thumb regarding sex,marriage and the family? Does the Pope mean to imply that we should be responsible for our own behaviors?

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 35 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2016 2:07 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2016 3:01 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 39 of 186 (781921)
    04-09-2016 3:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
    04-09-2016 10:32 AM


    Re: Context
    PaulK writes:

    Looking for quotes that honestly support your case is rather different from quote-mining - looking for quotes to misrepresent. If you are only concerned with winning an argument and don't care about the truth of the matter, or the ethics of honest discussion, it,s not really faith that is the issue, is it ?


    I just enjoy sharing discussion, examining context,having a laugh or two, and getting to know other peoples thought processes.

    ringo,from another topic writes:

    Some can argue both sides of a debate; some have to believe what they debate; some can't argue either side effectively.

    I suppose that in order to be a better debater, one must study the contrary positions.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 10:32 AM PaulK has taken no action

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 41 of 186 (781925)
    04-10-2016 6:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
    04-09-2016 3:01 PM


    Pope On A Rope
    Tangle,referring to The Pope writes:

    He's talking about divorce, use of contraception and homosexuality.

    And as a Christian who struggles with same sex attraction, I can accept and respect what Pope Francis eloquently expresses. Personally, I believe that the guy I need to be attracted to the most is Jesus Himself. I believe strongly that people cannot control nor switch off their basic inborn human characteristics but that we can and must control our behaviors.
    Tangle writes:

    An enormous great fudge wouldn't you say? (Welcome though it is.)

    I never understood British humor. Can you elaborate, O Tangled One?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2016 3:01 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2016 6:00 PM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 46 of 186 (788473)
    08-01-2016 4:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 33 by jar
    04-09-2016 12:48 PM


    Topic Remix
    Topic Remix

    In this topic, I want to again bring up some basic questions regarding the difference between faith and science.

  • What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?
  • Must Faith have evidence?
    We know that science requires evidence.
  • Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science?

    ringo writes:

    It would be better if the word "evidence" was not used at all in such matters. Since even Bible believers can't agree on what it says, it is far from "evident."

    Were we in Faith/Belief, I would argue that the universe is evident and so is God. Just because "believers" in general can't agree on everything is no reason to throw them out of the courtroom. Believers were born with the same brains as scientists, evolutionists, atheists, and secular humanists. Since our brain itself is evident, and since we all share this gray matter trait, I maintain that the word can be used provided it can also be challenged.
    I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented.
    jar writes:

    They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded.

    I know a certain curmudgeon from deep south Texas who might be so inclined to include "Tom Sawyer" or "Mysterious Stranger" in the Canon... so you do have a point. Perhaps we can agree collectively to disagree. Thats what makes a Forum conversation long and readable.

    ringo writes:

    Existence is a poor form of evidence. Fingerprints exist but they're not very useful as evidence unless you can figure out what they mean - e.g. that George was at the crime scene. If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support.

    Along this line of thought...is there a difference between non-living existence such as a rock or an idea and living existence such as an animal or vegetable or perhaps an idea such as "Jesus is alive" or that "scripture is alive" or even that it is God-breathed. Critics would argue that it can't even be proven or tested whether or not God is alive or that Jesus is alive...though I would call believers to the witness stand and ask for explanations as to how Jesus might be alive.

    What constitutes valid evidence?

    nwr writes:

    Whatever you want it to be.
    There is no objective definition of "evidence", and I don't think there could be. Evidence is that which persuades you, and there is something unavoidably subjective about that. (...) Back when I was an active Christian, I did trust the Bible, but only to the extent that it was consistent with experience and with what I knew from science. By contrast, Faith(evc member) gives it the highest trustworthiness, even if it seems to contradict experience and science.


    PaulK writes:

    In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules.

    Do you mean Faith the EvC member or faith as a concept in general?

    PaulK writes:

    If the basis of Creationist belief is religious SHOULD they try to argue the science ?
    Surely they should argue about what they understand best rather than trying to bully the better-informed into agreeing with ill-founded and often ignorant opinions. And if they do not understand their religious foundations then they should work hard on those.
    Really, if they could show that God wrote Genesis 1 as a literal account of the creation they would have made their case. So why don't they ?

    jar writes:

    Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.
    That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution.

    Yes, but if you were the only witness called to the stand on behalf of the believers, the case itself would be incomplete.
    jar writes:

    The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.
    The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted.

    Whose goal? Remember that we all have gray matter. There is really no us and them....
    Dr.Adequate writes:

    Faith makes its own rules, it's not a set of epistemological principles, but rather is essentially opportunistic: it's whatever arguments make you feel good at the time.

    Some may argue that its whatever arguments make you feel confidant at the time. When a minority group attacks scripture the way that I was taught, it may make me feel uncomfortable but by no means less confidant. My confidence does not rest in evidence alone...in fact I think that many arguments regarding evidence or the lack thereof are themselves far from evident.

    Tangle writes:

    Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim.
    If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary.

    So in other words, you have faith in evidence?
    quote:
    Anglagard nominated a POTM for the following:
    Phat writes:

    Faith is often personal.


    Ringo writes:

    And science is not. It's collective.



    We know that there is a clear difference between faith and science. Are we back to square one?

    dwise1 writes:

    I am not happy with your topic title: "Faith vs Science". Why would you think it is necessary for faith and science to be at odds with each other? They are two different realms of human thought, despite a small number of possible areas of minor overlap.
    Science works best when dealing with the physical universe, with the natural. That is where you are able to observe, hypothesize, and test, the essential scientific activities.

    Faith works best where you're dealing with things outside the physical universe, with the supernatural. It is impossible to observe the supernatural or to test it. Sure, you could form hypotheses about the supernatural, but based on what? And how could you ever possibly test any of it?

    And yet the most interesting questions for humanity lie outside the purview of of science, are too complex and nebulous for science. Faith is not as constrained as science, but what does it have to offer?

    I would argue that Faith offers hope through belief (and subjective confirmation) of a Living Hope aka Jesus Christ. Thats as far as I can go on that in a science forum, however.
    DWise1 writes:

    So, what evidence would faith require? None, actually.

    I would argue that faith can be defended subjectively yet not objectively so as to qualify as evidence.
    Coyote writes:

    Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

    Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

    So where are we now? Where were we then? Why limit the possible answers to evidence based human response? Why not embrace power greater than ourselves?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 12:48 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Phat has replied
     Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2016 7:53 AM Phat has replied
     Message 54 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 9:35 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 56 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 9:50 AM Phat has seen this message
     Message 64 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 10:45 AM Phat has taken no action
     Message 66 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 11:06 AM Phat has taken no action

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 48 of 186 (788476)
    08-01-2016 5:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
    08-01-2016 5:17 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Keep in mind that our hypothetical courtroom includes believers and non-believers. You have reiterated that faith has no place in science. My question to you is why you, as a supposed scientist, care how the faith people think. You seem to imply that the gray matter in their heads is inferior to the gray matter in your head simply because they embrace faith over evidence. Am I wrong?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 6:10 AM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 49 of 186 (788477)
    08-01-2016 5:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
    08-01-2016 5:17 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    Can we reserve the words 'faith' and 'belief' for the religious realm and totally exclude their usage when discussing science, fact and evidence please.
    Not when our topic is Faith vs Science and our focus is on any value in beliefs other than evidence.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 5:17 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 6:13 AM Phat has seen this message

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15958
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 53 of 186 (788483)
    08-01-2016 9:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
    08-01-2016 7:53 AM


    Re: Topic Remix
    But, really, your faith is not something you should expect to convince others. Could a Muslim convince you of the truth of Islam through his faith ?
    No but they may convince me through their actions. They would stand out from the normal and the average.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2016 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2016 9:53 AM Phat has seen this message

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022