|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Uniformitarianism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days)  Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
HI RAZD!
 Let's break this down, I read through the original posts and I have a few things to add and questions to pose.
RAZD writes: Do you think there is a reason to believe that the evidence lies to us? I understand what the evidence looks like through old earth spectacles. I wouldn't argue with you on the founding principles of geology. However, I am currently looking into creationwiki's claim on superposition. Perhaps you could input your opinion on THIS article?
...that events recorded in geological strata do not reflect what actually happened, that radioactive levels do not reflect the actual age of the rocks, etc. etc. If we assumed uniformitarianism, correct? I understand that U-ism predicts the geologic column and that the column predicts U-ism. Although this is circular reasoning it is reasonable, if all the facts were in the U-ism court - so to speak. Perhaps we can get into that on another thread? To the point, I think the interpretations of the evidence is incorrect as evidence cannot speak, it cannot lie. Only humans lie (with perhaps some exceptions  ). Is it coincidental? Perhaps, or made to fit as I peer into the evolutionary mind. This all depends on the specifics, and might I add that the threads here are exhausting! Looking through all of this stuff is awesome. So I'll try to keep it to the point. I don't see any problems with accepting that physical laws and universal laws were the same. Decay rates could be another story though. Considering that a pre-flood world would have been dramatically different. I would like to stray from a supernatural rabbit trail, so I would just like to impose this strictly as my opinion. Also, I haven't read enough to make an educated comment.  The problem I have with U-ism is that it is seemingly positioned as a package, take it or leave it, deal. I can accept the reasonable assumption of physical laws (Although I wouldn't completely rule out an opposing view of this) acting uniformly; I cannot accept the time U-ism sets claim to. Diluvalists would suggest that ONE event changed the earth climatically, geologically, habitably and fundamentally. The fundamentals of pre-flood life are widely speculative, with the few clues given in the Word. The questions are: Does U-ism explain everything without fault? Can the Biblical Flood Event explain current stratigraphy? Does U-ism assumptions automatically negate the possibility for the Biblical Flood Event? By taking a U-ism assumption are we siding with materialism and/or naturalism and excluding a possibility of the supernatural? Also, since U-ism cannot be a truly strict doctrine, how can one truly test against it? TheWay = JESUS! "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hello RAZD,
RAZD writes: The problem is that once you make this assumption you can make no conclusions at all: it does not make an alternate hypothesis more likely, because it renders all hypothesis unlikely. I think this is the reason we have a problem with the scientific origins debate in the first place. Science demands explanation through naturally occurring processes. The spiritual citizen is not so concerned with an answer. So being that:
It is not a matter of "old earth eyes" or "uniformitarianism" it is purely a matter of looking at the evidence for truth, with the assumption that it is telling the truth. This contradicts the foundation of scientific fundamentalism in that it does in fact take upon suppositions for the "evidence" to make sense. When you state:
you must assume that the evidence does not lie.
You reinforce the belief that evidence is somehow not up to subjective view. Rather the "evidence" is somewhat like a Platonic Form.
TheWay writes: I understand that U-ism predicts the geologic column and that the column predicts U-ism Predict is too strong of a word, I didn't mean to confuse you. I mean that they have become so intertwined as to become synonymous.
In science the response is "if you don't like the current theory then develop a new one that is equally good at explaining all the known evidence and then test it for validity" rather than an assumed general ignorance with your "take it or leave it" approach. Denial of evidence that invalidates your pet hypothesis is not a "take it or leave it" approach but active denial of reality: Denial of reality is not faith, it is delusion: It sounds like you have a lot of pent up aggression, have you tried a punching bag or stress ball? You speak of science as if it is a religion, I agree. I am glad you have represented as it should be. In your church, I am sure they have many witty quotes they throw around. My "take it or leave it" is what I see with uniformitarianism. Some aspects seem to be undeniable and reasonable. However, the assumption that the "past" was billions of years ago is unacceptable. Am I denying reality? I'm denying whatever reality your in; I also believe I am right. Without this conviction of spiritual knowledge I wouldn't care for evolution or creation. I also take issue with this term "natural processes" as if the natural isn't supernatural in itself. What is so natural about these processes that God couldn't have a hand in or in fact be a part of? Delusion should be reserved for those who think they understand more than they do. And that isn't an indirect finger point, I openly accuse you. Thanks for the discussion. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hello Razd,
razd writes: I will note that the uses of the phrases such as "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" are essentially and barefacedly assuming that the evidence lies to us. The problem is that once you make this assumption you can make no conclusions at all: it does not make an alternate hypothesis more likely, because it renders all hypothesis unlikely. I guess I just don't understand.  If evidence can speak, which is using your assumption that it can lie which allows us to logically speculate that it can also tell truth, then I would like to place an order for this "talking evidence." Thanks, you can pm me with the details. I guess I just thought, silly me I know, that "evidence" must be interpreted. Is this wrong? It seems to me that whatever evidence your speaking about your generalizing into your main idea. Which from what I gather is: Evolutionists smart, Creationists dumb. Is that fair? Dendrochronology and varve dating is an oversimplified attempt to reach far past the true age of the earth. I find some of it fascinating, but nothing I have read really puts the nail in the coffin of a young earth. Sorry, I had to rant...let's continue.
razd writes: The real point though is that the article you quoted is claiming that the evidence does not speak for itself, that it deceives the observer with false witness, that it lies, and that once you make this claim you cannot then claim what the evidence can support any argument. This is no "alternate explanation" rather it is denial of evidence Again, I know you would like to think that inanimate evidences can speak, I err on the side of skepticism on this. If I claim that evidence lies, well I am in the same quack house as you. Is this some sort of twisted joke for you to lure me into a psychological trap? As far as I can reason, evidence can support anything until it can be falsified, is this not the nature of a theory?
razd writes: You are faced with an intellectual choice: either the evidence tells the truth or it lies. Again what are you smoking?
Logically the latter offers no way to determine any hypothesis at all, And if the truth were that no hypothesis existed? Wouldn't that undermine the ideology of science? I mean I'm all for religion but I mean c'mon enough is enough.
The only choice that leads to logical conclusions and testable results is that the evidence is telling the truth. This is why any explanation of reality must include explanation of all the evidence. And what a shame it would be if we couldn't explain something huh? That kind of thought doesn't occur in evolution dogma, does it?
There may be many subjective as well as objective views, but because the only logical course is to assume that the evidence is telling the truth, we can then test these views against the evidence and see which works and which doesn't. Objective views are dependent on your philosophy or whether or not you believe there is such thing as objectivity in opinion. Is it possible for something to be logical yet wrong? As for my personal attacks, I apologize, you came on rather...strong. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hi Razd,
Sorry I took so long to respond, let's get started. Razd writes: "Understand" has connotations of accept, appreciate, figure out and perceive, while "interpret" has connotations of adapt, depict and portray. As your such a staunch supporter of reality lets just stick to a definition based in such a place instead of your imagination. "Interpret." Straight from Interpret Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Main Entry:in·ter·pret Listen to the pronunciation of interpret Pronunciation: \in-tr-prt, -pt\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter Date: 14th century transitive verb 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms synonyms see explain Regardless of such socially incorrect usages of the word which could have attached certain connotations, I used the word interpret and meant to use the word interpret in a manner consistent with the first definition listed by m-w.com. A good example of interpretation would be of radiometric dating. Scientists calculate the decay rate half life with some fancy mathematics which enable us all to enjoy a given "interpretation" that conceives an actual date. However, there is an assumption that the decay rate has always been a constant. I would like to get to this topic, but for now I haven't the time and I would like to focus on getting to a common ground on uniformitarianism and my biology thread.
When I read an post like yours, the evidence of what you want to convey, the meaning of your post is written in letters and words. If, for instance, rocks had words on them I would concede your point. However, you set up a straw man when you decided what I meant when I used the word interpret. You set the parameters, denoted by your "connotations," and then began to tear it down with a simple logic. Please do not treat me like a fool, as I have not extended you that discourtesy.
Uniformitarianism must be an assumption. Did James Hutton assume this prior to review of any geology? No, it is not a matter of assumption, rather it is a conclusion based on what the evidence shows. I honestly think your trying not to see my point. Allow me to set up a hypothetical situation.
Timmy looks at the grand canyon and watches the Colorado River eroding it very slowly. He concludes that it must have taken a long time for the water to erode the whole canyon. Timmy is concluding that it must have taken a long time for the Colorado River to erode what he now sees. IF, the rate of erosion had always been constant. So Razd, pray tell where do we logically attach this extremely obvious assumption? If it isn't inherently apart of uniformitarianism and if it cannot be attached to uniformitarianism, where can it be placed? No where? If so, wouldn't that be considered denying reality? From Wikipedia:
quote:{emphasis mine} It's in the first paragraph! What else can be said? It's an assumption. And an assumption, like uniformitarianism, can be validated by testing against it. I am not saying that it hasn't been tested against, nor that some data has supported it. What I am trying to convey is that if we replaced this assumption with another assumption like a catastrophic Flood Event, then we would find data that supports this assumption as well. And we have, and in IMO, a much more satisfying picture of the current geology.
Yes, it's a massive evolutionary conspiracy to impose a concept on geology and other sciences, and it was secretly organized many decades before evolution was a gleam in Darwin's eye. Those biologists are dangerous criminals. Well said. 
Why would physicists assume that radioactive rates have stayed the same when they have actually tested this concept and found no measurable change in this or in other known constants (like the speed of light). When I speak generally, I am attacked (by you) ad hominem. I "deny reality" so often one could picture my regular participation at the Special Olympics. I speak "creationist gibberish" harumph! Are you trying to insult me? You veil an agenda to dicredit, provoke and humiliate me instead of being openly civil. You insult my intelligence by asking me questions like the one above, invoking an appeal to popularity and sprinkle of appeal to authority. I don't have all the scientific literature as I will readily admit, however, I highly doubt you do either. I also doubt you have read all of it, to make such a claim and form it as a question you know I could spend hours researching an answer for just so you can hand wave my rebuttal. How about instead of making impossible shoes to fill, you fill them with at least one reference. I'm not in the answering impossible questions forum.
Could it be that the concept is pervading "multiple scientific disciplines" because it is a many times tested valid conclusion based on the evidence we know today? Because there is no evidence that shows it is not a valid conclusion? Could it be that it pervades multiple scientific disciplines because without it the evolution pony doesn't ride?
Again, evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions, the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution. Did you giggle after you wrote this? I laughed out loud. Let me set up another hypothetical scenario.
Timmy received the new issue of Geology Today in the mail. He licks his lips as he reads all of the articles. In summary, scientists now understand that all the rock strata previously thought to be billions of years old, is dramatically younger, perhaps just a couple thousand years old. Timmy wonders what is going to happen to a theory (evolution, big bang, etc.) that required billions of years.... Now, I know this sounds fantastic to you but it illustrates my point. For you to say "the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution," is acceptable but in the light of saying "evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions," is ridiculous.
A geologist does not need to understand evolution to understand and do geology I agree so why is a standard curriculum so involved in the evolution theory? http://www.geol.umd.edu/pages/Graduates/courses.htm
No, because reality does not depend on interpretations or assumptions. Please, you make me want to type rude things. I just have one last question, because I really don't like the rest of your post. Do you believe in an objective reality or "true" reality? "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hello Razd,
Again sorry for the delay. Let us take a look...
Razd writes: Then you should also accept... Why should I accept the synonyms when I clearly used the word interpret? The might be similar, yet do not have the meaning I meant to portray. This is a petty attempt at debate. Please, does this argument really matter? Do you, just, have to be right?
Again, the basic difference is that we want to understand reality as shown by the evidence, rather than interpret it to suit our whim. We can interpret evidence to show that the earth is flat, but when we understand the evidence we know that it shows the earth is an oblate spheroid. We can interpret evidence to show that astrology is valid, yet I believe we can agree that this is not scientific, and thus that because we can interpret evidence to mean what we want it to, that doesn't make the result scientific or any more real than a flat earth or astrology. This is the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the creationist\IDologist approach: scientists are interested in understanding what the evidence really means, what is real, what is true, while creationists\IDologists are interested in making the evidence fit their story. Part of that attempt is to portray science as something it is not, such as saying it is only a theory, it is only an interpretation, and implying that there are other concepts just as valid, just as tested. I highlighted both paragraphs, because as a whole this is very true. I agree that I (a creationist) would examine the evidence to fit the model of creation. However, if you honestly believe that the Theory of Evolution has not done the same then you are truly delusional. From homology to embryology to those missing links, the theory of evolution and common ancestory has failed. Because it tried to fit the evidence within the confines of the theory. If you want to classify creationists in this group, you might as well add evolutionists. Also, your very subtle maneuver of grouping evolutionism with science is remarkably well conceived. Perhaps if I didn't know any better I might think that evolutionism is a fact. Perhaps, I will join you in a discussion about radiometric dating. Not now though.
The short answer is that Timmy's concept is not tested or validated the way that geology is. Geologists would test the erosion rates of different rocks and see what the evidence of slow erosion and fast erosion would look like in different strata, and then compare that with observations of the Grand Canyon. Nor would they assume a constant rate of erosion, as there are several different layers that - on a first assumption basis - would erode at different rates. To state\think that the geological conclusion that the Grand Canyon has eroded over considerable time is just an assumption based on a cursory observation is really rather insulting to geologists.  Well, I seemed to have struck a nerve. My assessment of geology maybe rudimentary, yet it reflects reality. Regardless of how geologists attain all their information on erosion rates and what-not, the fact remains that Timmy's idea is spot on in reference to uniformitarian geology of the grand canyon. The only thing insulting is your incessant evolutionist gibberish.
Well if you were going to be scientific about it, rather than just have a philosophical conversation (the intellectual game of "what if" ideas: what if the Pilgrims had thanked the indians instead of their religion ... ), then you would propose a theory that would explain the existing evidence, make predictions of what you would see that would be different from the "standard model," and test those predictions. Well if I was going to be scientific about it, I wouldn't be here discussing these topics with you, now would I? Run back to this silly defensive position of "your not doing science," while I wonder how the shoe would fit. I haven't postulated any hypotheses, because you knit-picked every single thing I typed. When I do start with an hypothesis I will verify it, until then let's not get side tracked with school yard politics.
That is the impression that creationists give with their ad hoc statements portraying evolution as some philosophical overview that controls how people think. In my opinion, telling someone they are a purposeless ape-thing would fall under the category of controlling how someone would think. To deny this would be truly ad hoc and delusional. Go ahead down play it as a "conspiracy theory," but I won't be deceived.
Nope. This may come as a shock to you, but the young earth model could be true and evolution would still be valid. This is because the argument creationists have is not with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- but with the concept of common descent and the evidence for a single common ancestor population rather than a multitude of (as yet undefined number or level of development) of first ancestors. No shock there, define evolution in the broadest most general way so that evolutionism can get away with stating that evolution is a fact and that the theory explains this fact. Bah! If you want to debate semantics and the dynamic usage of words it only shows your true desire to skirt the real issues instead of knit-picking every tiny thing and "rather than interpret it to suit our whim" we should seek out the hard questions. Every forum I have ever been on and every discussion I have ever had, there are always differing definitions of evolution. I well understand this. I'm not against change. I am against an poorly supported idea and claim that we evolved from a common ancestor. Since no limits can be determined, it wouldn't be fair for you to assume evolution as it would not be equally as fair for me to assume variations within a kind in a debate context.
Gosh, I'm whelmed by the load of evolutionary biology that is forced on geologists to understand their field! So many different course combinations could be taken without a single one involving fossils (such scary things) that this really makes my point: I used evolution theory very broadly, notice how the definition contracts and expands almost on a writers whim. Hmm...
Yes. It is rather a rational concept don't you think? whereas thinking that reality can be subjective or that there can be two or more "objective" realities is really, in essence, believing in fantasy -- isn't it? Well, I would say we agree.
Not "liking" the rest of my post is one way to avoid reality, isn't it? What a cozy world you have, where you only need deal with issues you "like" eh? Do you think you can run away from reality? Obviously not as fast as you. P.S. The rest of your post was worthless to our immediate discussion as you seem to haven't comprehended my lack of desire to get caught up in an off topic discussion. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
"Anti-Evolution"
Apparently your a P.C. fascist. While reading your replies, it becomes obvious that your subtle plays at discrediting anything that disagrees with your "reality" is your objective. You bandy around semantics and obfuscate language to aid in your mental maze, of which if I stayed the course undoubtedly would never escape.
Sorry I don't buy the "you think like I think because I can only think of one way to think" argument. Was I making an argument?
Accusing evolution (or science in general) of doing things the "creationist way" does not make it so. Again, misrepresenting what I clearly said. Accusing evolution? I thought evolution was "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation." Again, using elastic definitions of words. Accusing science in general? 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study It is very obvious your are in the game of misrepresenting your perceived opponents. There is no enemy here, only an enthusiastic student. You make straw man arguments at whim at attach vicious accusations. Shame on you.
What is the evidence that this is actually true for science? Falsified theories that are actually discarded. Hoaxes that are uncovered and discredited. There are many such items in all branches of science - from evolution to physics to chemistry to astronomy to paleontology, etc. etc. etc. ... Can you name one science that has not discarded any falsified theories or a hoax? Can you name one that still uses a falsified theory or a hoax? I thought you would know better...this is a red herring. So what that "science" discards some hoaxes or that some falsified theories are removed? How long did it take? As far as Ernst Haeckel is concerned it wasn't such an open and closed case as you would mislead readers to believe. Remnants of his biogenetic "law" still persist: Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia . And btw, the theory of evolution is LONG overdue for the trash heap.
The final arbiter in science is the test of theory against fact, evidence, reality. When there is a conflict between fact and theory such that the theory cannot be true the theory is discarded or revised until it can be true, then it is tested again. And again. And again. You type these obscure references to basic scientific methodology, and seemingly expect me to fit the Evolution Theory and Uniformitarianism with basic science method as a socket and plug. Thanks, but no thanks I rather not be seduced into your "reality."
The final arbiter for creationists and IDologists is conformance to preconception of reality, making the evidence fit the model and ignoring anything that can't be made to fit. Creation science starts with basic assumptions, yes I agree. As does any science; without assuming that reality is stable enough to test against, there would be no "science." I have been reading into the creation literature for a while, and I have been constantly backing it up with frequent trips to talkorgins.org, and I have become convinced that the debate is much more than an open and closed case as you would have any one reading to believe. Your debate skills are admirable, yet your incessant dogmatic belief and love for the Theory of Evolution and anything thereof relating is asinine and repugnant.
The fact that falsified concepts and hoaxes are never discarded but are endlessly recycled. The "fact?" Is this some sort of semantic banter? Is there some definition I need to read up on before I call you a liar? What do you mean by falsified? Is there some definition I need to read up on before I call you out to display some evidence?
What is evolutionism? Really. Can you find a definition that includes geology? You like to misrepresent definitions and reality so much, I thought I would participate with adding my own word. Evolutionism is the belief in particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe. Because, I have never met anyone that believes in evolution as origins that doesn't believe in an old universe and subsequently an old earth. So Geology and evolution are married in this sense, regardless of expressions of science.I think a quote from Bruce is necessary, "...It's like a finger pointing a way to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly Glory" You concentrate so much on semantical gibberish that you have missed and misconstrued what I meant (on several occasions), this is not my fault rather your lack of understanding (willfully or not).
Yet the evidence shows that your assessment is so rudimentary you apparently don't know what reality is: you think the drainage of a great flood is a better explanation of the canyon, without realizing how totally absurd this is ... without even considering uniformitarianism and different rates of erosion. The difference would be so striking that even Timmy would notice. Another great example of making a mountain out of a mole hill. Accusing me of not knowing what reality is? I live here too pal. But thanks for the confidence boost. And yes, I absolutely think that a Flood Event catastrophe (not be confused with your ignorant definition of a world wide flood) is more plausible than a uniformitarian process that results from millions of years. As for Timmy, Sorry I don't buy the "you think like I think because I can only think of one way to think" argument.
So I take it you don't want to get into geology enough to develop an alternative theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon, determine differences that would occur if it were true instead of the "standard model" used in geology and then test those predictions against the facts in the canyon. That would be doing research that applies to the thread topic wouldn't it? You'd rather repeat your assertion that a child at the rim of the Grand Canyon knows better. Oh how you now me so well. Astonishing. In fact, I am in the process of developing upon an alternative theory for the popular view of the formation of the Grand Canyon and many other Uniformitarian riddled geological structures. You'd rather poison the well than actually engage in a productive discussion; a discussion where you don't use so many logical fallacies.
Then don't listen to creationists, for they are the ones telling you this. It's one of their favorite falsehoods. Certainly nobody on the Clergy Letter Project List would tell you that. Is this a joke? I don't care whose bed catholicism climbs in with, but please refrain from using such outright ignorant arguments. Catholicism is a long way off from Biblical Creation. Pathetic attempt at persuasion.
No shock there, define evolution in the broadest most general way so that evolutionism can get away with stating that evolution is a fact and that the theory explains this fact. Bah! Yet you can verify that this is actually the way evolution is taught, studied and used in the field of biology. You must think I have a master's degree in stupid, huh? Of course that's how it's taught! Wouldn't be possible to get away with it logically if it wasn't. Again, no surprise.
But you already have -- nothing in your post is about geology, it is a rant against evolution, and this means you are not going to address any issues related to geology in general and uniformitarianism in particular. Rants against evolution, with silly assertions about the way science functions, claims of being insulted by arguments are not geology. That's a basic problem with creationism - it's hard to find evidence to support a belief at odds with reality. Clever, attack and retreat. You misrepresented so much of what I said, you think I was just going to ignore it? You try to poison the well with remarks like, "Rants against evolution, with silly assertions about the way science functions," that is a complete misrepresentation of anything that I typed. Your sentiments are ludicrous.
So uniformitarianism is out, actualism is in. No, uniformitarianism is still in you would just like to misrepresent reality...again. Actualism - Wikipedia this has nothing to do with Geology. Because you can't just start re-defining things as counter arguments come against your beliefs. The only argument you can muster is one from semantics. Avoid the controversy by putting up semantical speed bumps. Uniformitarianism is the term that refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Which ultimately is an idea forced upon an idea of an old earth. The two have become inseparable, unless you enforce semantical speed bumps to confound opposition. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
