Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
71 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 43 of 294 (844752)
12-04-2018 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 7:32 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Last one first:
Seriously biology needs to stop engaging in theological discussions before any credibility is restored.

Biology does not engage in theological discussions. Seriously!

Rather, it's the creationists who try to drag biology into theological discussions. And their idiot followers who don't know any better.

You claim to no longer be a creationist and to be an agnostic, yet you persist in regurgitating the fundamentalist Christian creationist lies. What the fuck is your problem, man?

Your beliefs are founded on frauds like piltdown man, fake horse and moth evolution, hoax embryos.

Yet more creationist lies that you still adhere to for who knows what reason.

Piltdown Man was indeed a hoax, but it was scientists, not creationists, who exposed it as a hoax. Guess what happened then? Its exposure as a hoax was widely published by the scientific community and it was immediately no longer used. Same thing with Nebraska Man whose true nature was discovered within a year, that fact immediately published, and Nebraska Man was no longer used. Except by creationists who lie about those stories.

In contrast, what about creationist hoaxes? The "shrinking sun" claim, which was refuted immediately in 1980, yet it is still very much used to creationists. Their "leap second" claim with lies about the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down. It appeared in 1979 and was soundly refuted in 1982, yet it continues to be one of the standard creationist young-earth claims -- indeed, when a group in Canada tried to discuss it with creationist sites, those cites continued to use it despite their now knowing it to be completely and utterly false (see An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error on young-earth creationist websites., Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2001).

The point is that while hoaxes do happen on both sides, science has a vested interest in detecting and eliminating hoaxes, whereas creationism has absolutely no such interest. I started working on a page based on a discussion in another forum and have put that first draft up here for forum discussion such as here; it is not yet published, so please do not misrepresent it as such. I feel certain that I have pointed you to it before, so it's troubling that you still do not understand such obvious ideas.

Stick around. U closed it in only a few days. People understood what I was asking for and presented it. Thanks to them. Closing it only shows fear.

As others have already pointed out to you, instead of responding to your first topic you immediately created a second one. That tells us (but much more importantly that tells the Admins) that you had abandoned that first topic. That is a typical dishonest creationist tactic. The members here have a lot of experience with creationists and their dishonest ways. For example, I started studying "creation science" in 1981 and started discussing it on-line around 1986. We know with great certainty what a duck looks, sounds, and walks like as well as what a duck will do next. Everything you present to us identifies you as a duck. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to demonstrate that you are not a duck. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

Therefore, closing your first topic does not show any fear. Rather, it shows AdminPhat's decision to close your first topic since you had abandoned it in favor of a new topic which properly belongs in the ID section (Message 1024). If you sincerely want to have it reopened instead of just bitching and moaning in typical dishonest creationist manner, then request AdminPhat to reopen that topic, eg via Messaging.

I will cover the fucking weird stuff in another reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 7:32 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 44 of 294 (844755)
12-04-2018 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 7:32 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Oh crap! Looks like I have to slog through that slime-bog of your Message 17 as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you are in Australia. That would mean that your Message 17 was posted around 1308 hr. That message certainly looks like you had been drinking, but 1308 should be too early in the day to have started drinking that much. Or else I've led a much too sheltered life, especially in reference to Australian drinking habits.

But sticking to this message of yours.

If I shouldn't listen to theists why should I listen to atheists who are preaching this crap?

O...K (while giving you the hairy eye-ball). You are saying that in response to Tangle's Message 20. I have read that message from Tangle. Every part of that message appears to me to be very reasonable, excessively reasonable given the blatantly bellicose nature of your own melt-down message (Message 17) to which he was responding.

So then, I must insist that you identify the specific parts of Tangle's Message 20 was "preaching this crap". IOW, identify said "crap" and point us directly where said "crap" was delivered by Tangle.

Even you must admit that my request is entirely reasonable.

Who have no moral boundaries?

I'm sorry, but are you repeating that stupid lie that atheists have no morals? I know where you got that nonsense from, but I thought that you were leaving that religion. Why are you holding on to their lies such as this and creationism?

Religion has nothing to do with morality. If anything, Christians are far less moral than atheists are. I recently heard reference to a public poll in the UK which found that atheists are seen as being more moral and trustworthy than Christians. Certainly in the field of "creation science" I have repeatedly witnessed creationists lying their asses off. In debates, the creationists use every dishonest trick they can to deceive the audience whereas their opponents go out of their way to present truthful information.

Please learn something and get rid of that religious baggage.

Explain to me how the fuck im meant to get layed under this atheist society?

Oh crap! You are one of those idiotic "incel" pukes -- "incel" == "involuntarily celibate". Really? You are such a loser that you want to blame the rest of the world and now want to grab an assault rifle to kill everybody just because you are such a snowflake that you are all butt-hurt that you cannot get laid (please learn a little English, OK?), that no girl finds you attractive? Really? That is the world's fault and not in the least bit your own? Really?

OK, so I'm 67 years old and was married for 28 years which ended very badly. Even with that record, I do know a few more things than you do, would you agree?

First, the most crass level. What exactly are you looking for? Just sex, no relationship? Get a hooker (AKA "prostitute", whatever your locale's slang for it is). Problem solved!

You don't want to risk getting a hooker? Jerk off! Problem solved! (and you're one of the lucky ones for whom "rubbing one out" is still exciting enough).

Oh, you want to have a relationship? OK. That is a bit more complicated, but the more that you work through it the more you will grow.

There is an intermediate stage here, assuming that you are that type of depraved immoral male, that all you are interested in is finding a vulnerable female upon whom to prey. All you want to do is to find a female whom you can drug or otherwise force into sex, or maybe she is already psychologically predisposed into being exploited (I've heard jokes about "daddy issues" which I still do not understand). Wow! What a man! A man who can only find any sexual pleasure through rape. And if you're really lucky, you'll get caught and sent to prison where you'll have all the sex you could possibly want and much more.

Now, my advice is that you get help from a female such as your sister, cousin, or good friend. Ask her to tell you why women find you so repulsive. Is it your guns, your swastika neck tattoo, your misogynist rants where you express your desire to kill them? And then have her teach you how to be more appealing and attractive to women. Maybe she can even act as a wingman to help you get started talking to girls instead of railing against them. Always remember something that too few men ever learn, that women are people too (and far more interesting).

Edited by dwise1, : Posted far too soon entirely by mistake.

Edited by dwise1, : Completed

Edited by dwise1, : Oops, forgot the thing about morality


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 7:32 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 60 of 294 (844804)
12-05-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 7:46 PM


Re: 20th century Atheists
The communists in your list had a religion: communism.

Hitler was not an atheist. He was Catholic and most of his followers were Christians. Furthermore, they were creationists. Therefore, by your reasoning all Christians are evil, especially creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 7:46 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 63 of 294 (844814)
12-05-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 7:38 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Dr Adequate writes:

Mechanical engineering isn't a science though.

Bahahahahshaha. OMG. That is hilarious.

Except that Dr Adequate is correct. Engineering isn't a science, but rather a discipline which ideally should make use of the findings of science, but doesn't always. In fact, we've had engineering a lot longer than we've had science. Basically, engineers only concern themselves with what works and what doesn't and they don't care why something works.

I'm a retired software engineer with a strong background in hardware (first trained as a computer systems technician, took a number of university EE classes for fun) having worked closely with EEs for most of my 35-year career. Science is about discovering what's happening and why, hence developing theories is very important. Engineering is only about getting something to work, thus caring next to nothing why something is happening; hence engineers care nothing for theory. The strongest rebuke that an engineer can receive is to be derided for conducting a "science project".

In one job, I was designing the software interface to a new sensor (a humidity sensor, as I seem to recall). Part of that is to take the ADC value (digital form (0 to 255) of an analogy voltage level (0-5 V)) and convert it to the units (eg, % relative humidity). The data sheet only gave us a graph. So I started working on conversion formulae derived from curve fitting. Our EE put an immediate halt to my "science project" and ordered me to just build a look-up table.

In my Linear Circuit Analysis class, our professor had worked as a EE and he often expressed his contempt for scientists and mathematicians as well as for theory. When he introduced the subject of convolution, he told us the story of the delta function. Basically, the delta function is a pulse with an area of 1 and whose pulse width gets shrunk down to zero such that when you apply it to a circuit you're hitting that circuit with an instantaneous signal of infinite amplitude. Engineers came up with it and put it to practical use. It took mathematics about a century to prove the delta function and our professor just laughed at those idiots and their silly fixation with theories and proofs.

Next time you read a list of "creation scientists", notice how many of them are engineers (also how many have degrees in theology and in "food science").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 7:38 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 64 of 294 (844816)
12-05-2018 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Porkncheese
12-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
There was confusion about the term “naturalism”. I responded and cleared that up.

No, you did not. Please stop lying.

The term in question was not "naturalism", but rather "the naturalistic theory". That is not the same thing. Furthermore, all you did to "clear it up" was to tell us to look it up, then later from Wikipedia you gave a definition for something other than "the naturalistic theory". Of course you couldn't find that definition since it doesn't exist. "The naturalistic theory" is just something that you made up or else you got it from a creationist who had made it up.

I told you to look on YouTube for a video debate between Aron Ra and Mr. Kent Hovind. The reason is because they both use the term "evolution", but entirely differently from each other. Aron Ra uses it correctly, so if you were to look the term up (as you chided us to do) you would find that that definition agrees very strongly with how Aron Ra uses the term. However, Hovind's definition (which he only hints at, because keeping parts of it hidden makes it more useful for deception) is completely at odds with the definition. They both use the same word, but Hovind is talking about something completely different. We would be very justified to ask Hovind to explain what he's talking about, something that would not be satisfied by your glib "Go look it up!".

So our question to you still stands unanswered: Just what exactly do you mean by "the naturalistic theory"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 12-03-2018 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 67 of 294 (844848)
12-06-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Pressie
12-06-2018 3:25 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
As I suggested to PnC, take a standard creationist "list of scientists who believe in creation" and read what their degrees are.

Several have degrees in theology or directly related to theology (eg, Hovind's albeit fake PhD in Religious Education). As you just noted.

Several have degrees in education.

A large number have degrees in engineering and in other technical fields. For example, I have seen two with PhDs in "food science", a valid field (read the O'Reilly book, "Cooking for Geeks") but what the frak does that have to do with evolution (not counting the truly stupid creationist argument asking how food evolved)?

Some do have degrees in the sciences, but they are definitely the minority in those lists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 3:25 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 84 of 294 (847287)
01-20-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.

The typical creationist line is that most hominids were "100% ape" and some of then "100% human". Furthermore, you should be able to draw a line dividing hominids on that basis and, according to creationists, that line is very clear and easy to draw. Yet nobody is able to draw that line, not even professional creationists.

At http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html, Jim Foley takes six hominid skulls and surveys the writings of nine professional creationists for their judgement of which fossils are "100% ape" and which are "100% human". If the dividing line between the two groups is so clear and obvious, they should have all come to the same conclusions and be in agreement with each other. They didn't. Not only couldn't they agree with each other, but some even changed their minds from one book to another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 161 of 294 (847663)
01-24-2019 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JonF
01-24-2019 9:49 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Slartibartfast designed fjords with krinkly edges because they have such a baroque feel. How do you know your designer doesn't just like the baroque feel of junk DNA and doesn't care about any other aspects of it? (Need a hint?)

Don't forget that for Earth2 he was assigned Africa, so he wanted to give it fjords too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 01-24-2019 9:49 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 235 of 294 (848490)
02-07-2019 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by AZPaul3
02-07-2019 12:59 AM


Yep. Evolution. Just the one word says it all.

For those who understand anything about evolution, yes, the one word does say it all.

For those who don't understand anything about evolution (outside of the X-Men and other sloppy sci-fi *), that one word doesn't really say much to them.

For the creationists, the fact that there are actually many different meanings for that word affords them the opportunity to muddy that water to their hearts' content, sowing confusion everywhere they go.

Creationists love to obfuscate the term, "evolution". Kent Hovind (inherited by his son, Eric) loves to pontificate on the seven or more "kinds of evolution" and I have seen many lesser creationists use the same argument.

My own research finds that the term first appeared around 1610, more that two centuries before Darwin. The word itself means "turning outwards" and so came to signify the "unfolding" or development of some system over time. We can therefore speak of "stellar evolution" as the development of a star over time, something that has no relationship to biological evolution. We can talk of "cosmological evolution" in order to discuss how the universe has developed over time, which likewise has no relationship to biological evolution.

Being a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer, I am particularly fond of this particular definition. "Evolution" means to "turn out". Well, without any possible shadow of a doubt, the United States Navy depends entirely on evolution for all its daily activities. Without evolution, the US Navy could not possibly function.

In the Navy, an evolution is when the crew or a portion of the crew "turns out" for any kind group activity. Since my Navy time was in the reserves, most of our evolutions were training evolutions, of which there were far greater than "many".

So just what the fuck does a US Navy evolution have to do with Darwin?

Always question a creationist's use of the term, "evolution". A creationist has a vested interest in misconstruing that term in any way possible.


FOOTNOTE:
Unfortunately, a lot of the general public's "understanding" of science comes from science fiction and from popularized science. As a result, their "understanding" of science can be very distorted and just plain wrong.

The issues of science popularization are many and a separate discussion. Refer to Wikipedia's article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science in preparation.

What I'm interested in here is science fiction's distortion. On Star Trek: TNG, it irritated me every time some stable "alien element" with exotic properties would crop up. Basic chemistry, people! What makes an element a particular element is the number of protons in that atom's nucleus. Change the number of protons and it becomes a different element. We know all the elements up to and beyond 111 protons in the nucleus (I'm too lazy right now to research the latest number). So if some new "alien element" were to be found, its atomic number (and hence the number of protons in its nucleus) would be greater than 111. And long before a nucleus grows to such an enormous size, that nucleus becomes unstable such that it breaks apart to lower-atomic-number daughter elements -- basically, that's radioactivity. Furthermore, the higher the atomic number, the more unstable the element and the shorter time it can exist and the more energy it takes to create it. Therefore, science fiction's evocation of stable "alien elements" is complete BS.

Unique compounds developed by alien civilizations would be an entirely different matter. Just don't go calling those compounds "elements".

But the smoking gun of sci-fi is what Stan Lee said in an interview that was included in a three-part documentary, "The Never-Ending Battle", a history of super-hero comic books which used to be on NetFlix. In that interview, Stan Lee described himself as the least scientific person in existence -- basically, if a gamma ray were to come up and bite him, he couldn't recognize it. So then, the Incredible Hulk, created by gamma rays. Stan Lee said that he thought (quoted from memory), "Gamma rays. That sounds scientific. Yeah, let's use that!" The same with "cosmic rays" giving the Fantastic Four their powers.

Basically, in writing your story you know the end-result you want and you want to make it sound "scientific", so you use whatever sounds right regardless of whether it makes any sense at all. If your audience's only access to science is what you write, then they have just gotten wrong ideas about science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by AZPaul3, posted 02-07-2019 12:59 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(4)
Message 271 of 294 (849075)
02-23-2019 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by AZPaul3
02-23-2019 11:33 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
So, they fear the court more than they fear their god?

But of course, how else could it be? Their god likes what they like and hates everybody and everything that they hate. Their god misunderstands everything, including the Bible, the same way that they misunderstand everything. Their god never punishes them for doing wrong nor holds them responsible for anything (but will punish everybody else).

That last, called "cheap grace", is built into their theology that, being fallible humans, they will inevitably "stumble" not only at times but also time after time. When that inevitably happens, all they have to do is ask their god for forgiveness, which their god, like any decent "invisible friend", always grants. (see footnote below)

In sharp contrast, the courts do not grant "cheap grace", but rather will hold you responsible for your acts. If a fundamentalist goes out and beats a black man or a homosexual or any of the groups that they hate, their god will forgive them in an instant whereas the courts will convict them and throw them in the slammer (sadly, actual mileage tends to vary). Even if they end up killing their victim, the outcome will be the same wherein their god always forgives them but the court does not.

So then rightly they have absolutely nothing to fear from their god, but very good reason to fear the courts.


FOOTNOTE:

On pages 133-134 of The Authoritarians, Bob Altemeyer describes the nature and consequences of "cheap grace" (coinage attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer). That section follows:

quote:
Cheap Grace. Unfortunately, fundamentalist Protestantism may directly promote hypocrisy among its members through one of its major theological principles: that if one accepts Jesus as a personal savior and asks for the forgiveness of one’s sins, one will be saved. But a lot depends on what “accepts” means. Is one’s life transformed? Do good works increase? Is the born-again person more like Jesus, holier? That would be all to the good. But because of some evangelist preachers, the interpretation has grown that all “accepts” means is a one-time verbal commitment. You say the magic words and you go to heaven, no matter what kind of life you lead afterwards. Many have thought that a pretty sweet deal. You’ve conned a free pass through the Pearly Gates from the Almighty and you can sin and debauch all you want for the rest of your life.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase “cheap grace” to denigrate this interpretation of the New Testament, and other writers have lamented the cheap grace that seems to ooze from some evangelists who seem to keep a sharp eye on the donations that follow. Sider (p. 57) summarizes the analysis of another professor of theology, John G. Stackhouse Jr., as follows: “Many evangelicals lie, cheat, and otherwise sin against others in an ‘already-forgiven bliss’ with an attitude of ‘I’m-cool-’cause-Jesus-loves-me-and-so-I-don’t-owe-you-a-thing.’”

Do only good little girls and boys go to heaven? Or does goodness, as the film star Mae West said many years ago, have nothing to do with it? I asked a large sample 134 of parents to respond to the following proposition: “If we have faith in Jesus, accepting him as our personal savior and asking forgiveness of our sins, we will be saved, no matter what kind of life we live afterwards.” Forty-two percent of the Christian high fundamentalists agreed with that statement. If that indicates the attitude of fundamentalists in general, a huge number of people are swilling in cheap grace. They fully expect that when the saints go marching in, they’re gonna be in that number because they once uttered a magic spell. The lives they’ve lived since are irrelevant, they believe.


On pages 134-136, Altemeyer describes the results of tests he conducted (as a retired university psychology professor, he had actively researched authoritarians for decades):

quote:
What do you do when you have done something morally wrong? What are you most likely to do to get over the guilt, to feel forgiven, to be at peace with yourself? Here are some possibilities.
I ask God for forgiveness, by prayer, going to Confession, or some other religious act.
I go out and do something nice for someone else, a “third party” not involved in what I did.
I rationalize the bad act. I tell myself it was not so bad, that I had no choice, etc.
I talk to someone close, such as a good friend or relative, about what I did.
I get very busy with some chore, assignment, or job to take my mind off what I did.
I discuss what I did with those who may have suffered, and make it up to them.
Nothing; I just forget it.

OK, whatever you typically do, how well does this work? How completely forgiven do you feel after you have done this?

0 = Not at all; I still feel just as guilty as before.
1 = A little less guilty
2 = Somewhat less guilty
3 = Moderately less guilty
4 = Appreciably less guilty
5 = Much less guilty
6 = Completely free of guilt

Most Christian fundamentalists who have answered these questions in my studies said they ask God for forgiveness. And you know what, that makes them feel remarkably cleansed. Their average response on the “How completely forgiven?”question was nearly a 5. Again, it’s just a verbal thing. No admission of wrong-doing to injured parties is required, no restitution, and no change in behavior. But it works really well: Instant Guilt-Be-Gone; just add a little prayer. And why wouldn’t you sin again, since it’s so easy to erase the transgression with your Easy-off, Easy-on religious practice? Fundamentalists therefore might feel little after-effect of their wrong-doings twitching away in their psyches. They have been to the River Jordan and had all their sins washed away, often on a weekly basis just like doing the laundry. But this very likely contributes to self-righteousness, and let’s remember that self-righteousness appears to be the major releaser of authoritarian aggression. So it could come down to this: “Hello Satan!” Yum, sin! “Get thee behind me, Satan!” Whack-whack-whack!

The non-fundamentalists in my samples did not have it so good. Their major ways of handling guilt were to discuss the immoral act with those who may have suffered and make it up to them (which they were twice as likely to do as fundamentalist were), or to talk with a friend about what they had done. Whatever they tried, it did not remove most of the guilt; their responses to the “How completely forgiven?” question averaged less than 3. But the residual guilt may help them avoid doing the same thing again, and when someone asks them how moral they are compared to other people, the unresolved, festering guilt may remind them that they are not as moral as they’d like to be.


I have certainly encountered that a lot in decades of trying to deal with creationists and I'm sure that most of us have had the same experiences.

Edited by dwise1, : Last paragraph: "a lot in decades of trying", not "a lot of decades of trying"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2019 11:33 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021