Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 1:57 AM
28 online now:
Dr Adequate, dwise1, Heathen, Pressie, Tanypteryx (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 74 (150175)
10-15-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
10-13-2004 10:19 PM


I just discovered the topic here in this Forum.

I owe responses.

ASAP.

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2004 10:19 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 74 (150201)
10-15-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by paisano
10-15-2004 11:33 AM


quote:
Your request is off topic in this forum.

Yeah, I know.

But now I know you read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by paisano, posted 10-15-2004 11:33 AM paisano has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 18 of 74 (150308)
10-16-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by paisano
10-15-2004 1:00 PM


Re: or ...
yes. I was reinforcing it with additional comments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by paisano, posted 10-15-2004 1:00 PM paisano has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 74 (150364)
10-16-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
10-13-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Rational?
Your claim has been that the "rational" worldview that we espouse

By placing quote marks around 'rational' equates to the FIRST time "you guys" have not asserted/insisted/assumed that rational was your natural born-with birthright.

I am very pleased to see your post begin this way as the guts of my complaint centers on the fact that the self-description of rationality is subjective - a philosophic argument.

results in misinterpretations when compared to the "rational"-faithful worldview that you espouse. Let's call them Rational-A (RA) and Rational-F (RF)

Here is the remainder of your sentence.

How quickly things degenerate.

This last half of the sentence now secretly removes the quote marks off of 'rational' by a subtle distiction found in the attempted naming of a worldview to be based on "faith"ful. IOW, you have just subjectively asserted superiority by implying my worldview is based upon faith.

It is not.

We claim the faith to be based upon facts - just like yours.

EVERYONE has faith - the only issue is the object.

Scientific methodologies are the object of faith of naturalists.

Theistic methodology is the object of faith for supernaturalists.

We declare our methodology is superior based on the fact that God IS, and IF He is, then this is the basis of our superiority claim.

Scientific methodologies (SM) EXCLUDE the supernatural as untestable/irrational.

Theistic methodology (TM) fully supports SM except in their Divine exclusions.

TM/its source the Bible clearly explains WHY SM exclude the Divine, that this exclusion (which SM calls neutrality) is maintained because God has incapacitated their ability to embrace Him as a penalty for summarily rejecting Him.

TM only wars with SM when it is perceived that SM interprets and concludes evidence to disprove Biblical claims.

When this happens TM simply points out that rational is subjective to ones worldview.

Each methodology and its claim to rationality is whats called an invulnerable claim - a claim which cannot be falsified because no matter what is argued the other can simply dismiss it as irrational.

But TM, in my subjective opinion, trumps SM because of its terminally defective component of excluding the Divine under the pretense of neutrality.

Now listen close: IF God IS, (and He is based upon the evidence) THEN His subjective beliefs/word as found in the Bible BECOMES objective truth of which everything else becomes inferior and subordinate especially if they (SM) assert a silly objective/superiority that doesn't exist.

TM/we tolerate eveything and everyone EXCEPT when everything and everyone brands TM to be irrational, THEN the TM explanation of God sense removal/punishment applies.

Science and their methodologies are wonderful, EXCEPT when they intrude into faith and by faith, contrary to their methodology, subjectively assert superiority over a methodology (TM) which bases its entire methodology on the objective eternal truths as revealed by the eternal God in His word/the Bible.

Your claim is that the conclusions that use RA are misinterpretations

No.

They are philosophic conclusions IF they are perceived to be disproving RF/TM.

If RF/TM is not affected then there is no quarrel.

My argument is the deceptive nature of RA to operate under the disguise of being entirely based upon scientific evidence while worldview philosophy plays no part in the interpretation of the evidence.

However, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, about 40% of practicing scientists are not atheists.

Fine.

I will accept your claim as fact.

Thus the thought processes they bring to bare are not atheistic. Is there a third class of thought? Since they arrive at the same conclusions as the atheists you claim that the thought processes are wrong because they are atheistic is wrong.

What conclusions are these ?

Is RF/TM affected ?

You have yet to show the workings of the 'correct' method of rational thinking (RF) as applied to existing evidence and how, step by step, it arrives at a different conclusion. That will be necessary to show that there is a better way.

There is no better way than RA/SM pertaining to science.

Big problems arise when RA/SM assert that RA/SM is the ONLY way to determine truth which is implying that RF/TM is inferior/irrational.

IOW, RA/SM should stick to science and not intrude into TM. When this trespass occurrs we then must put you in your place and point out that RA/SM at its foundation relies on a subjective definition of rational just like RF/TM, only we admit it and you do not.

No matter how you slice it philosophy is king and not science and RF/TM explains atheism to be a penalty from God.

Let me have a go at making my own statment about what I think a rational way of coming to a conclusion is:

1) It uses evidence that I have some chance of knowing is not a mistake, delusion or fraud. I do this be expecting others to check out what I think I am seeing or measuring. And redoing the examination if necessary.

2) It considers as much evidence as is possible and is likely to help me arrive at the conclusion. This means that while I do not look at literally everything I try to be careful about leaving things out which do or may have an influence on the conclusion.

3) I make each step of the logic connecting the evidence to the conclusion as clear as I possibly can. I do this to allow others to check what I am doing.

4) (optional?) If I expect others to accept my conclusions without reproducing the entire set of work I subject everything I have done to a careful and, perhaps preferably, somewhat hostile review to see if others without my emotional attachment to the result can find a flaw.

I completely agree with your blue box above - well said.

Now, WillowTree, it is your turn to explain what your form of rational thought processes are.

I did so at the very beginning of this response.

BUT, according to my worldview, it is irrational to exclude God. To snub Him risks His wrath of which manifests itself by removing desire for Him. This state leaves the violator terminally defective and incapable of making correct conclusions concerning the most important issues of life.

Every God-damn fundamentalist be damned - GOD ONLY REQUIRES GENUINE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS THE CREATOR AND A WORD OF THANKS - these TWO requirements make a person ineligible to receive the punishment of God-sense removal.

The irony is that it is Darwinism/atheism which have militantly refused to grant Him those TWO things, hence the punishment of God-sense removal which forever finalizes their decision to deny Him those two things. This paragraph SEEMS circular but it is not if you sequencially follow the argument.

But, according to the Bible, even God-sense removal can be revoked if one embraces the gospel/way of faith which results in a factual reality experience with God.

You have seen plenty of examples of the one I just gave being applied. Once you have defined yours I'd like an example of it being applied.

With all due respect your post does not contain a single example of evidence being interpreted under God-sense removal and with God-sense.

A specific example would be like human evolution, or how does any physical evidence disprove the claim that God is the ultimate Creator ? None of this was mentioned or anything like it.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment.

As noted above this is the method used by firmly believing Christians too. And the majority of Christians accept it as a way of finding things out about the material world while rejecting it as a way of finding things out about the immaterial world of their God.

Agreed.

I think I said this too in my own way.

The only issue is the reverse so to speak.

Materialists asserting RA/SM to be capable of determining the validity of RF/TM and their nasty ridiculous habit of routinely claiming a rationality with the sole intent of saying everyone else is not.

Atheo-evos use something like the method that I described above because they know full-well that they are not exempt from bias.

Great.

Rarely admitted to in general.

The individual humans involved in science be they believers or not are all biased in some way.

That is a objective fact.

The process used is the best that we have devised for avoiding the worst mistakes of that bias. It is the best we have for examining that which can be examined. That is the natural world but not more than that.

Agreed.

But when individual members of RA/SM assert that RA/SM trumps RF/TM then this is a philosophical argument usually done under the guise of an objectivity that does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 10:12 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2004 11:29 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 2:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 20 of 74 (150370)
10-16-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
10-16-2004 8:56 PM


Close aren't we?
The irony is that it is Darwinism/atheism which have militantly refused to grant Him those TWO things

Well, technically atheism doesn't have anything to do with science. It is a philosophical position and not demonstrable or supportable by science.

Darwinism has nothing to do with atheism. Some Darwinians are atheists; many are not.

The ToE (which is a bit more than as Darwin stated it) is simply the conclusion reached through applying the methods we have agreed on.

It is the same as the physics of nuclear synthesis that powers the sun or plate techtonics which explains the location of most volcanoes.

None of them say that God did or didn't do any of these things. They simple describe what we have learned about how He did them.

Now if you feel that any of the currently accepted scientific conclusions are wrong because they are misapplying what we have called RA I would like to see your reworking of the conclusion using RF. Start with the same basic evidence and show the logic involved useing RF where appropriate. Thanks.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-16-2004 08:22 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 8:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:36 PM NosyNed has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 74 (150485)
10-17-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
10-16-2004 8:56 PM


Re: Rational?
Yes rational

First off your post blatantly assumes that only your religion has the godsense to see the supernatural and incorporate it. That is obviously a ridiculous position.

The fact that other religions have not problem reconciling science and faith, rational and superrational, would mean that yours must not be correct.

By your own logic:

Scientific methodologies (SM) EXCLUDE the supernatural as untestable/irrational.

Theistic methodology (TM) fully supports SM except in their Divine exclusions.

Aside from supernatural being excluded by the definition of science, the obvious conclusion is that any TM that fully supports SM in it's totallity and does not need to make exceptions would be superior to one that does, as it MORE fully supports SM.

Again you speak of evidence but do not present any.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 8:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:08 PM RAZD has responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 74 (150805)
10-18-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
10-16-2004 8:56 PM


Re: Rational?
quote:
We declare our methodology is superior based on the fact that God IS, and IF He is, then this is the basis of our superiority claim.

So your methodology is superior because God MIGHT exist? Couldn't an atheist then claim that his/her views are better because God MIGHT NOT exist? This doesn't seem to be a strong enough basis to claim superiority.

However, there is another realm of testing, the physical world. If the theistic worldview is better then theistic theories dealing with the physical world should make better predictions than those based on a naturalistic worldview. What we find is that those claiming to adhere to a theistic worldview make predictions that are false, or they make no predictions at all. However, those using methodological naturalism are able to make predictions, test those predictions, and arrive at an accurate conclusion regardless of their theistic beliefs. By track record alone, methodological naturalism practiced by atheist and theist alike is the most accurate worldview when describing the natural world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 8:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:29 PM Loudmouth has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 23 of 74 (151192)
10-19-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-17-2004 11:29 AM


Re: Rational?
First, I haven't forgotten about your post #5 - ASAP.

First off your post blatantly assumes that only your religion has the godsense to see the supernatural and incorporate it.

Not true at all - this is your deliberate misinterpretation.

You misrepresent my post to say something that it does not say.

Never once did I even mention my religion.

The fact that other religions have not problem reconciling science and faith, rational and superrational, would mean that yours must not be correct.

This comment intentionally evades what I actually wrote.

You fraudulently make it sound like I argued against science. The fact that you refused to quote me directly exposes your only interest in this discussion to be one of sabotage.

This approach is only done to confound and confuse things because my arguments effectively highlight the error of those who assert science and its methodologies to be the only avenue to determine truth.

The remainder of your post only repeats the non sequitor approach stated above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2004 11:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2004 8:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2004 11:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 24 of 74 (151197)
10-19-2004 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
10-19-2004 8:08 PM


Re: Rational?
This comment intentionally evades what I actually wrote.

You fraudulently make it sound like I argued against science. The fact that you refused to quote me directly exposes your only interest in this discussion to be one of sabotage.

Could you show then what you actually wrote and show how what was said was wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 74 (151198)
10-19-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Loudmouth
10-18-2004 2:53 PM


Re: Rational?
So your methodology is superior because God MIGHT exist?

I said IF He does, THEN any methodology based upon this fact would be superior.

We theists know He exists so this is our basis to claim superior methodology.

Couldn't an atheist then claim that his/her views are better because God MIGHT NOT exist?

Sure they could.

But they then would need to explain how their views are bettered by God not existing.

This doesn't seem to be a strong enough basis to claim superiority.

What could be a better claim than the universal God ? (if He exists)

However, there is another realm of testing, the physical world.

Yes, it is called Methodological Naturalism and Rational Enquiry - these methodologies are superior for the natural world. Their only defects is the Divine neutrality claims which are really Divine exclusionary. It is this exclusion which triggers the wrath of God-sense removal.

If the theistic worldview is better then theistic theories dealing with the physical world should make better predictions than those based on a naturalistic worldview.

Completely irrelevant.

Theistic methodology does not intrude into scientific EXCEPT when the scientific interprets or concludes against a Biblical truth/claim.

By track record alone, methodological naturalism practiced by atheist and theist alike is the most accurate worldview when describing the natural world.

I completely agree.

But you god-damn naturalists should stay in your box and cease from attempting to transfer your expertise in science TO religious/theistic realms.

ONLY when science intrudes into the theistic arena are these problems confronted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 2:53 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 10-20-2004 3:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 28 by pink sasquatch, posted 10-20-2004 5:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 26 of 74 (151201)
10-19-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
10-16-2004 9:18 PM


Re: Close aren't we?
Close aren't we?

Yes.

Now if you feel that any of the currently accepted scientific conclusions are wrong because they are misapplying what we have called RA I would like to see your reworking of the conclusion using RF. Start with the same basic evidence and show the logic involved useing RF where appropriate.

Genesis says God created Adam.

How does science disprove this ?

If you allude to the scant fossil evidence then how rational is it to conclude such a mammoth claim based upon a paucity of disputed evidence ?

Lets assume these fossils do evidence hominid evolution - how does this disprove Genesis ?

Genesis says God created Adam, therefore both bodies of evidence COULD be true - no ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:18 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2004 8:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 74 (151409)
10-20-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
10-19-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Rational?
quote:
What could be a better claim than the universal God ? (if He exists)

That there is no God, and therefore all natural phenomena are testable through methodological naturalism and Rational Inquiry. Saying "God exists" AND "God Did It" throws in an untestable variable that weakens the strength of any conclusion.

quote:
Yes, it is called Methodological Naturalism and Rational Enquiry - these methodologies are superior for the natural world. Their only defects is the Divine neutrality claims which are really Divine exclusionary. It is this exclusion which triggers the wrath of God-sense removal.

And . . .

quote:
But you god-damn naturalists should stay in your box and cease from attempting to transfer your expertise in science TO religious/theistic realms.

This is the problem, creationists intrude into the realm of science, into the realm of the natural world. By applying the scientific method and Rational Inquiry, even when devoid of any religious overtures, clash with creationism. This clash is unavoidable, especially when creationists claim that their interpretations of the natural world require a belief in God and are devoid of scientific testing. Areligious science shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that there was not a global flood, and that life changed over time. When will creationists get back on their side of the line?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by paisano, posted 10-21-2004 12:15 AM Loudmouth has responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 28 of 74 (151425)
10-20-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
10-19-2004 8:29 PM


fielding wrath
Hi WILLOWTREE,

Yes, it is called Methodological Naturalism and Rational Enquiry - these methodologies are superior for the natural world. Their only defects is the Divine neutrality claims which are really Divine exclusionary. It is this exclusion which triggers the wrath of God-sense removal.

How is exclusion of the Divine a 'defect', as opposed to a 'limit', of Methodological Naturalism. By definition Naturalism cannot examine the supernatural, so why would it trigger wrath?

Is the wrath of God-sense removal triggered in any other fields when the Divine is excluded, say automobile repair? As an example, I know of no mechanic who considers Divine intervention as the source of a car not starting - wouldn't that also trigger wrath?

Also, in practice, how would inclusion of the Divine in the scientific method work, since the scientific method cannot encompass the Divine?

The best I can come up with is that it would be practiced absolutely the same as it is now, but that each and every conclusion, no matter how insignificant, would be followed by, "or something supernatural happened."

How do you envision integration of the Divine into Methodological Naturalism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 10-20-2004 7:24 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 74 (151435)
10-20-2004 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by pink sasquatch
10-20-2004 5:26 PM


Re: fielding wrath
As an example, I know of no mechanic who considers Divine intervention as the source of a car not starting - wouldn't that also trigger wrath?

Never owned an English car or bike, eh?

Joseph Lucas = Prince of Darkness.

(courtesy of Paul Mossberg, New Jersey Replicar Club, February 2001)

The Lucas motto: "Get home before dark."

Lucas denies having invented darkness. But they still claim "sudden, unexpected darkness."

Lucas--inventor of the first intermittent wiper.

Lucas--inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.

The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three switch settings--SMOKE, SMOLDER and IGNITE.

The original anti-theft devices--Lucas Electric products.

"I've had a Lucas pacemaker for years and have never experienced any prob...

If Lucas made guns, wars would not start either.

Did you hear about the Lucas powered torpedo? It sank.

It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they met too much resistance.

Did you hear the one about the guy that peeked into a Land Rover and asked the owner "How can you tell one switch from another at night, since they all look the same?" "He replied, it doesn't matter which one you use, nothing happens!"

Back in the '70s Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered which didn't suck.

Quality Assurance phoned and advised the Engineering guy that they had trouble with his design shorting out. So he made the wires longer.

Why do the English drink warm beer? Lucas makes the refrigerators.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the Telephone.
Thomas Edison invented the Light Bulb.
Joseph Lucas invented the Short Circuit.

Recommended procedure before taking on a repair of Lucas equipment: check the position of the stars, kill a chicken and walk three times sunwise around your car chanting: "Oh mighty Prince of Darkness protect your unworthy servant."

Lucas systems actually uses AC current; it just has a random frequency.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by pink sasquatch, posted 10-20-2004 5:26 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 30 of 74 (151448)
10-20-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
10-19-2004 8:36 PM


Re: Close aren't we?
Genesis says God created Adam, therefore both bodies of evidence COULD be true - no ?

Yes, I agree. Certainly biologists who are also believers and many Church organisations also agree.

What science is saying is how God choose to create Adam. If we choose to define Adam as being the first human who had a brain that was capable of being self aware enough to also be able to be aware of and be communicated to by God then Adam was an individual who lived sometime between 30,000 to perhaps 150,000 years ago. He was allowed to develope from those which had gone before.

When he was ready God choose to reveal Himself to the human (now fully human) race. That is the position of the Catholic church and something like it for the majority of the Christian churchs.

There is then no arguement.

Genesis is simply a very simplified (for the people of the time) description of a much more complex actual process.

The physical facts tell us this:
1) There was a time (and a lot of it) when there were no humans on the planet.
2) There were a series of organisms over the last 8 million years which developed a number of traits that were more and more like humans.

There are a lot of details in all of that of course. Different individuals may need more details to decide when it is acceptable to connect the dots and connect us to those preceeding organisms. You obviously require more than there is. Almost every single biolgist does not, most churchs and Christians do not. You are entitled to wait for more evidence. There is a steady flow of discovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-19-2004 8:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019