Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is personal faith a debatable topic?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 61 of 85 (563604)
06-06-2010 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by hooah212002
06-05-2010 2:25 AM


Re: My 2 cents
EX-girlfriend's friend. Emphasis on the EX.
I knew it wasn't sis in law but I was to lazy to check. Sorry dude. EX, very EX, got it. lol
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by hooah212002, posted 06-05-2010 2:25 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 85 (563605)
06-06-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
06-05-2010 11:18 PM


Re: Testable Evidence.
We both have an unproven thesis premise, yours being the alleged singularity, having no space to have happened in, no time in which to have happened, no outside of into which to expand, and no model
This, again, is not the correct model for the BB. What you have presented are BOTH your theories. One is creationism, the other is YOUR strawman version of the BB.
But you don't get that do you? You actually think you understand the BB model and have exposed it's fallacies, right?
This is my point hooah. Even if you get your EX to listen to some science, she will find away to misunderstand it and claim it has fallacies just like creationism. At that point it becomes pointless to argue with them IMO.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 06-05-2010 11:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2010 7:37 AM onifre has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 85 (563641)
06-06-2010 8:27 AM


Topic Advisory
hooah2112002 in Message 1 writes:
My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence? Is it acceptable? How would one go about doing this when the other party simply refuses to accept any science that goes against their belief system?
The topic is not the BB.
The topic is not the flood.
The topic is the acceptability, the propriety even, of challenging a personal faith that makes verifiable claims about the natural world, and if so, how might it be done. I think Buzsaw is providing excellent examples of a such a faith, so I suggest using them to discuss the topic while ignoring their substance.
Buz, I checked your thread list and you apparently have scores of unanswered messages on flood topics over in the science forums, and you can propose Big Bang topics over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 85 (563645)
06-06-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Coyote
06-06-2010 12:31 AM


Re: Testable Evidence.
Coyote writes:
Either deal with the issue of the global flood or go jump. You are making a complete ass of yourself.
Now, support the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago or don't bother responding with your strawmen.
Coyote, the issue of this topic is not the global flood. The OP question implies that Biblical creationists like myself always debate contrary to proven scientific evidence.
My response was to remind that creationists use much of the same observable evidence that our counterparts use but the two camps debate from totally different thesis premises. This is your problem. You people keep goading me for flood evidence when that's not the topic here.
I am the one steering this debate on topic by trying to engage you on the reason we Biblical members (abe: are perceived as debating) science on faith and never evidence. I simply used the alleged flood and singularity events as examples, explaining that you people insist debate of the Genesis record must assume the secularist thesis premise. Whether it be the singularity or whether it be that there is an intelligence above the level of earth humans, neither are faith debates perse, though both require an element of faith.
The debate, perse, boils down to the premise being the unproven and the thesis being the debate about the observable data supportive of the respective premises.
I repeatedly remind you that the thesis premise of hypotheses are unproven, including those of secularistic mainline science members, such as the alleged singularity event the foundational thesis premise of your whole world/universe view.
Now right here, I ask you the straight forward hard question. Your response, instead of answering the question in defense of your position, you, like so many, including Hooah, the OP author, resort to personal attack alleging that I'm making an ass of myself.
The real problem is that the scientifically thesis premise underlying the secularist universe view makes even less sense and is less scientifically possible than that of the Genesis record, though both are unproven.
Obviously the secularistic minded members really want to sweep this thesis premise thing under the rug because it's debunking their allegations that we Biblicalists never debate scientific evidence and always debate on faith, they being the only members who debate evidence.
Hooah's OP question writes:
My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence? Is it acceptable? How would one go about doing this when the other party simply refuses to accept any science that goes against their belief system?
Thesis premises are not proven. They are debated. So it goes.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct accidental wrong wording.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2010 12:31 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Admin, posted 06-06-2010 10:22 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 06-06-2010 12:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 65 of 85 (563650)
06-06-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
06-06-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Testable Evidence.
Hi Buz!
It is considered rude to challenge a person's faith. This thread questions whether it is rude even when a person's faith contradicts evidence from the natural world.
You're arguing that your faith does not contradict evidence from the natural world, and so in this thread I urge the other participants to simply take you at your word.
This thread asks, "What if someone's faith *did* reach conclusions that were contradicted by evidence from the natural world? What then? Would it still be rude to challenge their faith, or must one withhold criticism out of respect? If it wouldn't be rude then how would one best go about it?"
Hooah, apologies if I've butchered the characterization of your thread's topic while attempting a clarification.
Edited by Admin, : Express more clearly.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2010 10:05 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 66 of 85 (563670)
06-06-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
06-06-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Testable Evidence.
The OP question implies that Biblical creationists like myself always debate contrary to proven scientific evidence.
Yes. And you prove that that implication is not unfounded. Thanks.
My response was to remind that creationists use much of the same observable evidence that our counterparts use..
That is a lie.
Buzsaw writes:
I am the one steering this debate on topic by trying to engage you on the reason we Biblical members always debate science on faith and never evidence.
Thank you, Buz. Now, if you will kindly never refer to any idea you have as having any sort of evidence, that would be great.
Let me also point out to you, Buz, that your term "thesis premise" is NOT A PROPERLY WORDED TERM IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It makes NO SENSE. You don't get to go around making up new phrases.
Buzsaw writes:
I am the one steering this debate on topic by trying to engage you on the reason we Biblical members always debate science on faith and never evidence.
I just wanted to quote that one more time.
Oh, what the hell. I'll respond to more:
The debate, perse, boils down to the premise being the unproven and the thesis being the debate about the observable data supportive of the respective premises.
Could you try that in English please?
I repeatedly remind you that the thesis premise of hypotheses are unproven, including those of secularistic mainline science members, such as the alleged singularity event the foundational thesis premise of your whole world/universe view.
This thread is not about the buzsaw singularity. The fact that you are wrong about what the singularity implies, and that you deny the evidence for the BB theory, however, could be of some use.
Now right here, I ask you the straight forward hard question. Your response, instead of answering the question in defense of your position, you, like so many, including Hooah, the OP author, resort to personal attack alleging that I'm making an ass of myself.
Because you are thrashing the fuck out of my thread. This is the first thread I've started that actually went anywhere and YOU are fucking it up.
The real problem is that the scientifically thesis premise underlying the secularist universe view makes even less sense and is less scientifically possible than that of the Genesis record, though both are unproven.
The actual evidence not being up for debate in this thread, I will say that this idea IS.
Obviously the secularistic minded members really want to sweep this thesis premise thing under the rug because it's debunking their allegations that we Biblicalists never debate scientific evidence and always debate on faith, they being the only members who debate evidence.
You already admitted to only debating on faith, remember? Let me refresh your memory:
I am the one steering this debate on topic by trying to engage you on the reason we Biblical members always debate science on faith and never evidence.
So we can see ladies and gentlemen, that people like Buz are a lost cost in regards to the OP. He is happily ignorant and doesn't care that he is 100% wrong. I would like to steer this, once again, away from people like him and back onto those creo's that are interested in learning. They are few and far between, but I assure you, they are there.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2010 10:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2010 10:23 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 85 (563821)
06-06-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by hooah212002
06-06-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Testable Evidence.
hooah writes:
Buzsaw writes:
The OP question implies that Biblical creationists like myself always debate contrary to proven scientific evidence.
Yes. And you prove that that implication is not unfounded. Thanks.
hooah writes:
Buzsaw writes:
My response was to remind that creationists use much of the same observable evidence that our counterparts use..
That is a lie.
Blind assertion
hooah writes:
Buzsaw writes:
I am the one steering this debate on topic by trying to engage you on the reason Biblical members always debate science on faith and never evidence.
Thank you, Buz. Now, if you will kindly never refer to any idea you have as having any sort of evidence, that would be great.
Thanks for the heads up on this mistaken choice of words. I've edited to clarify my intent.
hooah writes:
Let me also point out to you, Buz, that your term "thesis premise" is NOT A PROPERLY WORDED TERM IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It makes NO SENSE. You don't get to go around making up new phrases.
Are you reading your own thread, Hooah? I defined it and cited my source in this thread. It's a valid term.. As well, simply look up the two words thesis and premis and go figure.
hooah writes:
Buzsaw writes:
I repeatedly remind you that the thesis premise of hypotheses are unproven, including those of secularistic mainline science members, such as the alleged singularity event the foundational thesis premise of your whole world/universe view.
This thread is not about the buzsaw singularity. The fact that you are wrong about what the singularity implies, and that you deny the evidence for the BB theory, however, could be of some use.
Hooah, there is no Buzsaw (abe: singularity). I've explained how my citing it relatied to this topic and that I have no intention of debating it in your thread.
hooah writes:
Because you are thrashing the fuck out of my thread. This is the first thread I've started that actually went anywhere and YOU are fucking it up.
(abe: I understood the implication in your OP being that all Biblical creationists debate faith if the thesis premise is from the Genesis record. You said, "is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence?")
Edited by Buzsaw, : change some responses.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add a quoted statement to former edit.
Edited by Buzsaw, : correct wording

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 06-06-2010 12:12 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 68 of 85 (563968)
06-07-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Coyote
06-06-2010 12:31 AM


Re: Testable Evidence.
Either deal with the issue of the global flood or go jump. You are making a complete ass of yourself
I see that your compulsion to hijack threads and your hostility is showing again. Look you dont own Buzz or the forum. Buzz is giving you good answers and questions, you just dont like it.
Now as far as calling him and ass and telling him to go jump I am surprised the mods dont keep a tighter reign on you.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2010 12:31 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2010 7:53 AM IchiBan has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


(1)
Message 69 of 85 (563983)
06-07-2010 3:31 PM


Back on Topic:
I started a thread a few weeks ago about the Sacred vs. Profane as it relates to Emile Durkheim's social philosophy theory; it is near impossible to debate a person's faith.
Personal faith is securely established in the sacred domain. As long as its tenets remain in the sacred domain they will be untouchable by science, which resides in the profane. The only way that I can see personal faith becomming debateable is for testable regions of the faith to be transitioned from the sacred to the profane. This is a slow process.
*NOTE: Sacred/Profane is not Good/Evil. It is "Things required by religion/Things neutral". Sacred things can be good or evil. Profane things are just neutral.
This is one problem with an open forum like this, creationists are hit from more than one angle at all times. As long as they feel that their faith - the "sacred" - is threatened they will continue to shut down to any logic and evidence - the profane (example: Buzsaw). The only way I see to change this is to slowly, gently and logically remove certain tenets from the "sacred" and place them more rightly in the "profane."
Ex: Does man's body reflect the "image of God" as described in Genesis 1:26?
If yes, then the "image of God" is corporal/physical. And if so, due to the diversity of the human race some people must be physically more like God than others.
Since this is both an illogical and heretical stance it is imperative that the "image of God" is not a physical image. In fact, almost all christians would claim that God is not physical but rather spiritual. Therefore, the image of God must also be spiritual and have no relation to our corporal bodies.
Now, with most YECs the literal interpretation of Genesis is deemed "sacred." Nothing from the "profane" (science, history, etc) can alter their ideology that Genesis must be interpreted as exact historical events. They have placed their entire theology on this requirement. They claim that in order for christian "salvation" to make any sense there must have been an actual Adam and Eve and an actual snake and an actual apple. No amount of profane evidence could sway them from changing thier "sacred."

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 06-07-2010 9:27 PM misha has not replied
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2010 8:08 AM misha has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 70 of 85 (564004)
06-07-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by hooah212002
06-04-2010 6:29 PM


Re: My 2 cents
But is it not acceptable to do so? I mean as a non-believer, is it a faux-pas?
A faux-pas? lol. What is this Sex and the City and you just wore white after spring?
I don't think it's not acceptable to do so, but it would depend on what the person you're attempting to debate feels about that. As a general rule? Well I don't think there is one, I think that's one we can make up for ourselves.
I personally feel that anything is open for debate. It's the only way we can progress. And I do debate religion, so I'm following through.
Some people feel you can't because it is a sacred belief that shouldn't be questioned. But personally I feel that's bullshit. It has perhaps been the tradition, but we can change that.
I think that's the way to go about it. Debate the dogmas and tenets of the religions, then hopefully people won't rest their beliefs on 2000 year old books and get caught up with the rest of the intellectual society.
Or are you saying it isn't worth it due to the fact that they accept the shit on faith, so therefor are very very unlikely to even listen to the other side?
I don't know what the figures are on that but I'd say that most people of faith who have ignored scientific inquiry in their personal lives, yet pursued a religious education on blind faith, have a very good chance of not being interested in the actual science.
I hate to keep bringing Buz up but: Take his interpretation of the BB, it is absolutely wrong and yet he feels he has learned the science but he just doesn't "buy it." Someone like that is just being ignorant and perhaps doesn't want to learn the actual science because it may further expose their beliefs as false.
But if you find someone who you show the science to and they find it at least curious, maybe, just maybe they'll try to learn it properly.
I see what you mean. However, in my particular case, the life I am concerned with is my son's. The indvidual I had the discussion with is my son's babysitter (my ex has custody). I could give a shit if I change their life, I just want to at least pass on knowledge. If I can get one person to stop and think "hmm, maybe this whole science thing isn't so bad after all", I think my immediate world will be better off.
I see. Yeah I feel you. In my life my ex-wife is Christian, my kids were raised going to church, Sunday school and praying. But, I love science and exposed them to that. Took them to museums, bought them books (kids LOVE dinosaurs), took them to the planetarium, did science projects with them, explain the BB to them, how galaxies and planets and stars formed, how organisms evolved, etc... And now they love it, because one thing we'll have on our side, as long as we expose kids to it is, church is boring and science is COOL!
Planetarium -vs- Church? Get the fuck outta here, hands down, planetarium wins. Kids don't want to be in church, the only thing that keeps them there is fear. Make sure YOU explain to your son that he doesn't need to feel that fear. He'll listen, kids are smart, they can see through adult bullshit. Just actively play a role in exposing him to good science.
Currently my kids are 13 and 11 and neither of them believes anything about god, or at least that's the impression I get. My 13 year old has openly claimed to be atheist. The younger one hasn't said anything but she is the one that's more into science than the older one. She loves biology and astronomy. If anything, she may have a deist approach to the question of god, or perhaps agnostic.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 06-04-2010 6:29 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 8:49 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 73 by hooah212002, posted 06-09-2010 6:32 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 85 (564027)
06-07-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by onifre
06-07-2010 6:05 PM


Re: My 2 cents
A faux-pas? lol. What is this Sex and the City and you just wore white after spring?
Straggler (in girly shrieky voice): Uh oh gosh did I leave my bedroom web cam on again? I was only trying them on in prep for next season!
Some people feel you can't because it is a sacred belief that shouldn't be questioned. But personally I feel that's bullshit. It has perhaps been the tradition, but we can change that.
People cherish all sorts of beliefs. I'm with you in that we should challenge the very attitude that says cherished beliefs should not be challenged.
He'll listen, kids are smart, they can see through adult bullshit. Just actively play a role in exposing him to good science.
Hallelujah to that. As mine get older I am enjoying this aspect more and more.
kids LOVE dinosaurs
So so so true. And space stuff doesn't come far behind. And then the questions come flowing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 06-07-2010 6:05 PM onifre has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 85 (564036)
06-07-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by misha
06-07-2010 3:31 PM


misha writes:
Now, with most YECs the literal interpretation of Genesis is deemed "sacred." Nothing from the "profane" (science, history, etc) can alter their ideology that Genesis must be interpreted as exact historical events. They have placed their entire theology on this requirement. They claim that in order for christian "salvation" to make any sense there must have been an actual Adam and Eve and an actual snake and an actual apple. No amount of profane evidence could sway them from changing thier "sacred."
I think you'll find that there are many ex-YECs who have been swayed by profane evidence to change their "sacred".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by misha, posted 06-07-2010 3:31 PM misha has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 73 of 85 (564307)
06-09-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by onifre
06-07-2010 6:05 PM


Re: My 2 cents
A faux-pas? lol. What is this Sex and the City and you just wore white after spring?
Yep. I'm wearing a dress as we speak. My boss is less than thrilled, to say the least.
I don't know what the figures are on that but I'd say that most people of faith who have ignored scientific inquiry in their personal lives, yet pursued a religious education on blind faith, have a very good chance of not being interested in the actual science.
That is a very good point.
I see. Yeah I feel you. In my life my ex-wife is Christian, my kids were raised going to church, Sunday school and praying. But, I love science and exposed them to that. Took them to museums, bought them books (kids LOVE dinosaurs), took them to the planetarium, did science projects with them, explain the BB to them, how galaxies and planets and stars formed, how organisms evolved, etc... And now they love it, because one thing we'll have on our side, as long as we expose kids to it is, church is boring and science is COOL!
Yea, my oldest boy is about to leave for his mom's in NY for the summer (I have primary placement for him) and I am going to surprise him and his brother when he comes back with a microscope and a telescope. Maybe I might even send it to him out there.
Other than that, I think my questions have been addressed sufficiently. Thanks all for your input.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 06-07-2010 6:05 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 06-09-2010 7:17 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 74 of 85 (564313)
06-09-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by hooah212002
06-09-2010 6:32 PM


Re: My 2 cents
Yep. I'm wearing a dress as we speak. My boss is less than thrilled, to say the least.
Send me some pics you sex thang. LOl
Yea, my oldest boy is about to leave for his mom's in NY for the summer (I have primary placement for him) and I am going to surprise him and his brother when he comes back with a microscope and a telescope. Maybe I might even send it to him out there.
There are lots of cool science things to experience in NY. I'll be there next week, and I can't wait to hit the museums.
Other than that, I think my questions have been addressed sufficiently. Thanks all for your input.
Dude, any time, contact me, private if you want. I've been through divorce, kids, and dealing with their separation, any time you need some help and/or advice hit me up. Seriously bro, I'll try to help.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by hooah212002, posted 06-09-2010 6:32 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 75 of 85 (564350)
06-10-2010 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phage0070
06-04-2010 3:56 PM


2H2O = 2H2 + O2
Do you mean that the above does not hold true in the field of chemitry? If you can falsify the above, it only means that the above is either not scientific, or you are exploring into a deeper paradigm similar to Newtonian laws vs relativity (in this case the rule is not considered as being falsified).
quote:
I cannot see why you think this makes any sense at all. You say that God is unwilling to provide proof of its existence; that it is unwilling to provide any good reason for an atheist to believe in God over any other imaginary concept. Yet God expects them to do so.
Yet, again, he sees fit to personally meet with you and other believers in order to convince you utterly of his existence. Doesn't that seem backwards?
It is like Superman deciding to play Hide and Seek without telling you, hiding behind Pluto, and then when you don't find him murdering you in as horrifying a fashion as possible. Why can't you see how messed up that is?
If you can't get it. That's because you don't seem to get it. It's not some kind of hide and seek, it's about His Law and eternity. Get it? (if not don't draw your conclusion).
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 3:56 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2010 11:13 AM Hawkins has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024