Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 8:02 AM
38 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, RAZD, vimesey (4 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,576 Year: 9,612/19,786 Month: 2,034/2,119 Week: 70/724 Day: 2/68 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
City_on_a_Hill
Junior Member (Idle past 4363 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-09-2007


Message 1 of 305 (394139)
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


"Science is based on repeated Observation"

this simple statement is ignored by many scientists who accept evolution. Science limits its focus on the present. "Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points.

There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.

Edited by City_on_a_Hill, : I meant to say SCIENCE, not evolution, is based on repeated observation. I was in a hurry and made a mistake =/


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 9:11 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2007 9:24 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Doddy, posted 04-10-2007 3:21 AM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 7:43 AM City_on_a_Hill has responded
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 04-10-2007 7:47 AM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 04-10-2007 8:27 AM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2007 1:36 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 300 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2007 10:52 AM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded
 Message 301 by BanjoBlazer, posted 06-04-2008 9:28 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 305 (394145)
04-09-2007 8:55 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 305 (394153)
04-09-2007 9:06 PM


Chiroptera the Mentor
Chiroptera asked to have this OP (opening post) promoted.

I've done so even though it is a bit thin to deserve to be promotoed.

I'd like to ask that Chirotera answer and others watch out for a pile-on. If you think Chiro is missing an important point or way to explain something then don't worry about contributing. But don't overwhelm the newbie. ok?

added by edit

City on the Hill:

Welcome to EvC. This site offers you a great chance to learn. But you'll have to be prepared to listen to those who want to help you learn. Your understanding of the nature of science (and, I suspect, many of the facts studied) is very weak. If you accept that you have a chance to learn. If you arrogantly think you already know it all then you will lose a great opportunity.

Edited by AdminNosy, : Added a bit for CotH


Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6638
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 4 of 305 (394154)
04-09-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


Welcome, City.

Just to get the ball rolling:

quote:
Science limits its focus on the present.

Science is limited only to what can be observed. The past can be observed. The past leaves evidence that can be examined in the present. Just like the composition and state of the center of the earth; the earth's core cannot be directly observed. However, its state and composition has effects that can be observed here on the surface. Likewise, the past cannot be directly observed; however, the past has left effects that can be observed in the present.

-

quote:
There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.

I do not believe in this postmodern vision. I do not believe that evidence can be interpreted any way that you want, and that one can just believe anything one wants to believe.

I believe that there is a reality that exists regardless of what you or I believe about it. There was a past history that occurred, regardless of what you or I think about it. And events in the past leave traces that can be examined in the present. Not all possible past histories are consistent with the evidence that exists. We can use this evidence to rule out possible scenarios for the past, and can even come to definite conclusions about the present.

-

The logical conclusion of your viewpoint is that we can believe anything we want about events that we have not witnessed ourselves, and can simply reinterpret evidence anyway that we want to confirm our beliefs. That is madness. I think most of us will agree that we can know some things very definitely without directly observing them. Otherwise, the only thing we can really know about is what we see in front of us, with our own eyes, and that anything else in the world, whether the earth is flat, or whether there is no such country as Australia, or that the earth's core is made of ice cream, are all equally plausible, depending only on how we want to "interpret" the evidence.

Edited by Chiroptera, : typos -- lots of 'em


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 04-10-2007 7:49 AM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 104 by Chiroptera, posted 10-13-2007 4:53 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 304 by BanjoBlazer, posted 06-07-2008 3:14 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 305 (394156)
04-09-2007 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


Science limits its focus on the present.

Since the evidence of evolution in the past is available in the present, there's little validity to your statements. While it's common for creationists to assert that science has no power to look backwards, it should be obvious to the most casual thinker that, indeed, every observation that has even been made has been of an event that is now in the past, so clearly, the past is an appropriate field of study for science. The past, in fact, is all science can study.

All points in time in the past were the present, once; when they were, they left evidence that we can see in the present, now. We use that evidence to discern what happened when we weren't there. It's no different than what happens on CSI. It would be ridiculous indeed to suggest that the same process that sends criminals to jail isn't sufficient to tell us what happened a little farther in the past.

There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.

No, it really can't. The body of evidence on the subject, when approached without a prior ideological commitment to support a political movement, points to the conclusion that has been accepted as definitive by the scientific community - the evolutionary model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2007 9:38 PM crashfrog has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 305 (394158)
04-09-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
04-09-2007 9:24 PM


Crash's Echo
Did you post add anything to what Chiro said Crash? Or did it, maybe, only make it harder for City on the Hill to take time to really think about what was said?

Hold back and wait before you post please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2007 9:24 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 9:45 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2007 9:54 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6638
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 7 of 305 (394163)
04-09-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
04-09-2007 9:38 PM


Re: Crash's Echo
I think that crash's CSI analogy is a valid point and has a lot of potential is explaining how science can help us come to definite (yet tentative) conclusions about events we have not witnessed.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2007 9:38 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-09-2007 11:02 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 305 (394164)
04-09-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
04-09-2007 9:38 PM


Re: Crash's Echo
Did you post add anything to what Chiro said Crash?

Maybe you should relax. When I began the message, nobody had posted yet. I had no way of knowing what Chiro was writing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2007 9:38 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 9 of 305 (394169)
04-09-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
04-09-2007 9:45 PM


CSI? What's CSI?
Actually, I do happen to know. But one shouldn't assume that City on a Hill or others do.

I think that ALL abbreviations and/or acronyms should be defined (and if needed, explained) within the message. I know I've had instances where I went back many messages without being able to determine what an abbreviation was about.

Any further discussion of this should go to the "General..." topic, link below.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 9:45 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4080 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 10 of 305 (394194)
04-10-2007 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


Evolution Witnessed First-Hand!
Look City on a a Hill, I was around 3 billion years ago, and I can tell you that evolution did indeed happen. I directly observed it first-hand for billions of years.

:p

You probably just dismissed my argument that I was around in pre-biotic Earth, but for what reason? You don't know for a fact I wasn't around 3 billion years ago, because by your own admission that is an issue of faith, not fact. However, there is evidence that eon long life spans are not possible, so you probably drew the conclusion that there is no way I could have lived that long. So, you just made a factual conclusion about the past - that I wasn't there. So clearly, science isn't limited to facts about the present.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19877
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 11 of 305 (394201)
04-10-2007 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
Welcome to the fray City_on_a_Hill.

"Evolution is based on repeated Observation"

And theory(ies), based on observation, and testing of the theory(ies), and refining the theory(ies) as evidence invalidates some concepts and validates others. This is the way science is done. When evolution does this it IS science -- by definition.

For instance the observation that there are variations within every population of every species, and that there are more offspring produced than needed. The theory of natural selection says only those best able to survive and reproduce will do better than those least able to survive and reproduce at the critical job of survival and reproduction. This is tested and validated.

Likewise we can state a theory of evolution that the hereditary characteristics within populations of breeding organisms change over time. This fits observations and tests and has been validated.

We can also use the fossil evidence as a test of this theory: does the fossil evidence show change within species over time?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram_article3.html

quote:
Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."

The study focuses on the microscopic, fossilized remains of an organism belonging to a huge order of marine protozoans called foraminifera. Often heard shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, perforated to allow strands of protoplasm to bleed through. The shell shapes range from the plain to the bizarre.

... Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.

"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

Some biologists have long suspected that the evolutionary process works differently, although within certain principles, among different species. In other words, what may be true for evolution in mammals may not be true in molluscs.

"The forams may not be representative of all organisms, but at least in this group we can actually see evolution happening. We can see transitions from one species to another," Parker said.


In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.

This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present.

There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.

Denial of evidence is not a re-interpretation. Ignoring parts of the evidence is not a re-interpretation. It is easy to make "interpretations" of things you want to believe - you can "interpret" evidence to show the sun orbits a flat earth if you want to - but the TEST of the "interpretations" is whether they explain all the evidence and whether there is evidence that contradicts the "interpretations" that is not dealt with.

For instance: the many layers of forams in their different sedimentary layers can be "interpreted" as being deposited by some mythic flood or other, but this does NOT explain the separation of the different species of foraminifera into specific layers within those sediments and the clear progression from species to species from layer to layer. This separation cannot be accomplished by sorting, as there are different density forams within each layer that span the densities of forams between layers, and the density of forams is different from the density of the sediments, some of which are very slow to settle in water. Thus the "flood interpretation" does not explain all the evidence nor does it explain the contradictory evidence of differential settling rates.

You failed to address the issue of what science is and therefore your post does not even come close to showing your title conclusion.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 6:29 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 6:17 AM RAZD has responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 4884
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 12 of 305 (394203)
04-10-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.

Creationists love this mantra. Alas, it fails because ya gotta come up with the re-interpretation of all the evidence. Creationist "interpretations" all rely on ignoring 95%+ of the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 4884
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 13 of 305 (394204)
04-10-2007 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
04-09-2007 9:11 PM


I do not believe in this postmodern vision. I do not believe that evidence can be interpreted any way that you want, and that one can just believe anything one wants to believe.

It's not necessarily postmodernism. Conceivably there could be an alternative interpretation that accounts for all the evidence. There jsut isn't one (to date).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 9:11 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 1:47 PM JonF has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 305 (394206)
04-10-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


history v science
Let me start off by saying you are basically correct, but that essentially your conclusion is not.

Science is about making observations today. And the science of evolution does this.

However, Natural History is not a science, it is history. A different subject. However, as you hint at - it is history different than many other types of history. Many other types of history are human-centric - they rely on documents and the like to understand the past and what happened.

But they almost universally do use science to help construct their history. Natural history is simply based purely on science. It relies on conclusions reached by science (that all existing life seems to share a common ancestor, that all fossils can be included in this family tree and the dates that these organisms were alive etc etc), to construct (as best it can) a chronology of life on earth.

As has been stated earlier in the thread - natural history is not unique in this regard. Forensic scientists work to gather and interpret observations to determine the chronology of past events.

Recently I saw an archaeology program where they sifted through some silt and extracted pollen from it, from this evidence they were able to construct an approximation of what the plant life was like in the area. They used animal bones with this to develop an idea of what the ecosystem was basically like - and from that, and other bits of science like phosphorous levels etc, they concluded how a human settlement came and went (they deforested the area, the acid levels in the soil rose and the are became unable to support anything but hardy plants like grass. To this day the area is a barren moor.).

"Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points.

Not by any definition of fact that makes sense. We cannot make observations on the past (with things that happened locally anyway), but we can determine facts about the past - otherwise the mandate of the court would be different. As it is, courts are used to determine facts - often about events in the past. Otherwise we could not declare it a fact that Ronald Reagan was president. We certainly cannot observe that he was president, but we can conclude it from the evidence of it that remains today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

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


Message 15 of 305 (394243)
04-10-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


"Science is based on repeated Observation"
this simple statement is ignored by many scientists who accept evolution.

No, this simple statement is understood by all scientists who accept evolution.

The evidence for evolution consists entirely of observations which can be repeated as often as you like.

Science limits its focus on the present.

You made that up.

Ever heard of archaeology? Astronomy? Paelentology? Textual criticism? Dendrochronolgy? Paeleolinguistics? Geology? Forensic science? Evolution?

Forensic science is a good case. Do you deny that scientists can use fingerprinting, DNA, fibre analysis, ballistics and so forth to tell us something about a crime they didn't personally witness?

Evolutionist: This man has been shot.

Creationist: How do you know? You weren't there.

Evolutionist: He has a bullet wound in his skull, he has a bullet in his brain, he has scorch marks consistent with gunpowder on his forehead, here's CCTV footage of someone shooting him, there's a strong smell of gunpowder in the air, and look, here's a smoking gun.

Creationist: That's unscientific! It's impossible to know about the past! Your belief that he's been shot is a religion! Waaah!

Evolutionist: If you ever get called for jury service, please recuse yourself on the grounds of idiocy.

"Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points.

No, they're facts. They're supported by the all evidence.

There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.

If this is so easy, why can't creationists actually do it?

---

But the craziest thing about this whole line of argument is your bizarre assumption that you get to define science.

You might as well have posted: "Many evolutionist doctors think that medicine is about the diagnosis, cure, alleviation and prevention of disease, but really it's about slapping people in the face with a fish."

The people best qualified to know what is and isn't science would be scientists.

Like these people.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Are you really telling me that you know what science is --- and they don't?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Doddy, posted 04-10-2007 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019