Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
Tusko
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 226 of 304 (373681)
01-02-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 9:44 AM


Okay.
TheMystic writes:
Well, let me ask you a question - is this post being generated by a human, or a computer program, or something else?
As you have probably guessed, I'm almost certain that TheMystic is a human. It hadn't been a question that had even entered my mind when I read your responses. I'm interested to see how you think this supports your point.
If your post had been scrapped by some spam filter somewhere because the spam filter considered it to be spam, how would this constitute an indictment (damning or otherwise) or the scientific method?
If you want to start a thread about some of the obviously false conclusions of science, then I'm sure you are welcome - though as you are probably already aware there are quite a few topics already in existence that might be pertinent.
In response to your point about the potential unreliability of our senses, I have two things to say. Firstly, there is always the possibility that one's senses are being clouded or mislead by a medical condition or demonic interference. That's why sciences insistence on the importance that experiments must be repeated for their results to be taken seriously. That's why I think science is best understood as being the product of a community and not an individual.
Secondly, if you fear that we are as a community (or you as an individual, if you want to get solopsistic about it) might be being systematically mislead by some mysterious force (and I don't think this can be discounted out of hand), then why believe anything at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 9:44 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 12:06 PM Tusko has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 304 (373687)
01-02-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Tusko
01-02-2007 11:41 AM


I'm almost certain that TheMystic is a human... I'm interested to see how you think this supports your point.
I'm probably being too Socratic here... I'm trying to say, who cares whether a theory is testable or not. What matters is whether it's correct or not. If some sort of test yields some valuable data, by all means go for it, otherwise don't waste your time. You see, I think I detect a lot of folks who have come to believe in science. They subscribe to the urban myth that there is something called 'the scientific method' that somehow always converges on the truth. That is mysticism. If you flip a penny and get heads 100 times in a row, the chances of getting tails next flip are... 50%. Yesterday's scientific successes have absolutely zero predictive power for tomorrow's success. Sorry about that, but every fact has to stand on its own two feet. I'm just trying to get you to be more interested in truth than being right - There's a much bigger world out there than you might have thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Tusko, posted 01-02-2007 11:41 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2007 1:16 PM TheMystic has replied
 Message 232 by Tusko, posted 01-02-2007 4:32 PM TheMystic has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 228 of 304 (373696)
01-02-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 11:40 AM


TheMystic writes:
But you know you are talking to a real person.
I know.
I presume you would not have bothered to answer Eliza.
What would give you reason to presume that?
The only answers I get are variations on 'I don't want to be told, I want to figure it out for myself'.
I don't know which answers matter. It depends on the question you are thinking of.
I make a distinction between science and technology.
That's what you think... Are we falling out here?
One of the modern sacraments is the 'scientific method', whatever the heck that is.
What do you think about life?
Perhaps we cannot function without our senses, but that does not mean they define knowledge.
Was it about something that we can do or think together?
Even the evolutionist realizes we come into life with some built-in firmware.
I noticed that also.
It is pure unexamined assumption to think our physical senses are the only things involved in that process.
Perhaps.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 11:40 AM TheMystic has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 229 of 304 (373704)
01-02-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 12:06 PM


Making small steps back to topic
TheMystic writes:
I'm trying to say, who cares whether a theory is testable or not. What matters is whether it's correct or not.
Excuse me? By what method do you determine which theory is correct if not by testing? Clarvoyance?
You say you are an engineer. When you design a product based on a customer's specifications, do you just hand it over and walk away? How does your customer know you produced what they wanted? Do they just know it by looking at it? How would you produce evidence that your new inovative design provides what is needed?
Apparently, you don't test anything since you don't believe testing is a means of determining correctness.
They subscribe to the urban myth that there is something called 'the scientific method' that somehow always converges on the truth.
I guess this depends on what you define as "truth". To get us on the same page let's say this means "the correct answer".
So, what part of the scientific method causes scientists to be lead away from the truth? What method should replace it to provide us a more efficient way of discovering truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 12:06 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 1:59 PM LinearAq has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 304 (373720)
01-02-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by LinearAq
01-02-2007 1:16 PM


Re: Making small steps back to topic
Excuse me? By what method do you determine which theory is correct if not by testing?
Well, perhaps we do need to define 'testing'. I was presuming this thread to be using the term as in the high school fairy tale about the 'scientific method' where you take someone else's experiment notes and try to reproduce them in your own lab. Well, certain things can't be reproduced in the lab, such as the origin of species. In fact, most people, scientific or otherwise, decide the accuracy of a theory by how well it fits with the data they have available (including value judgements about the one telling us the theory). If you're missing some data, sure, you try and go get it, but there again you probably go look it up on Google, not do an experiment. The human mind is a massively parallel pattern matching device and we are able to try a peg in all the holes stored in our memory in a very short period of time. When we find one that fits, that's what we go with. If you want to call that testing that's fine with me, but in that case ID can be tested quite nicely - it certainly fits all the observable evidence. If you really examine it, this is probably as logical a means of arriving at "the correct answer" as the Scientific Method. Either way we have to assume the validity of the human thought process.
I don't, by the way, have a problem with the scientific method, per se. It's a great discipline in theory, I just don't think anybody actually practices it, and probably nothing practical could get done if we did try to follow it. Outside of a few issues like religion and politics and evolution we are a very practical species, and if it works, that's good enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2007 1:16 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 01-02-2007 4:26 PM TheMystic has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 231 of 304 (373755)
01-02-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 1:59 PM


Re: Making small steps back to topic
Hi Mystic,
You're confusing replication with research methods. First you say this about replication:
TheMystic writes:
I was presuming this thread to be using the term as in the high school fairy tale about the 'scientific method' where you take someone else's experiment notes and try to reproduce them in your own lab.
Replication is a key component of the scientific process. Research results are not accepted or are only provisionally accepted until successfully replicated.
You next stated your belief that the only acceptable way to provide evidence for the causes of a phenomena is to actually reproduce that phenomena ourselves, which has nothing to do with replication:
Well, certain things can't be reproduced in the lab, such as the origin of species.
Besides having nothing to do with replication, this is wrong for several reasons. First, we have already created new species in the lab. Second, you're misstating your own position, since creationists do not assert that speciation is impossible. What creationists believe is impossible is the creation of new kinds, which has no formal scientific definition. Third, actually reproducing phenomena in the lab under controlled conditions is only one of the available research avenues, and in many circumstances it is neither practical nor possible.
In fact, most people, scientific or otherwise, decide the accuracy of a theory by how well it fits with the data they have available (including value judgements about the one telling us the theory).
This might apply to yourself, and it even applies to scientists when forming initial impressions of newly released findings, but it certainly doesn't describe the way science works. Science advances through achieving replicatable results around which a consensus may be built, with the end result having some impact on current theory. Perhaps it confirms current theory, perhaps it augments it, perhaps it contradicts it. In any case, science moves forward.
If you're missing some data, sure, you try and go get it, but there again you probably go look it up on Google, not do an experiment.
This certainly applies to laypeople. And it even applies to scientists for areas outside their own area of specialty. But research is not performed by forming opinions and looking things up using Google.
The human mind is a massively parallel pattern matching device and we are able to try a peg in all the holes stored in our memory in a very short period of time. When we find one that fits, that's what we go with.
I can only guess you're thinking about how laypeople form opinions. Nothing you've been saying resembles the practice of science.
If you want to call that testing that's fine with me, but in that case ID can be tested quite nicely - it certainly fits all the observable evidence.
Well, it sort of does and sort of doesn't fit the evidence. In one way it fits the evidence because God can do anything any way he likes (the ultimate designer must be God because of infinite regression), and in this approach it doesn't matter what you find, God did it no matter what.
But in another way it doesn't fit the evidence, as indicated by examining the way in which design innovation spreads. People are the model for the designer. ("If you found a watch in a field, you wouldn't think it was natural, you'd assume it was designed.") Design innovations by people spread without regard to brands or companies or geographic borders. An example is windshield wipers, which after their first introduction quickly became standard equipment on all cars. But the fossil record shows that innovations in life forms spread in a nested hierarchical fashion as required by evolution.
I don't, by the way, have a problem with the scientific method, per se. It's a great discipline in theory, I just don't think anybody actually practices it, and probably nothing practical could get done if we did try to follow it.
The actual practice of science is a whole lot messier than the list of steps in the scientific method, but at heart that is how science is really done.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 1:59 PM TheMystic has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 232 of 304 (373758)
01-02-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 12:06 PM


I accept that science might not be a particularly reliable way of accessing "correctness". But surely its the least bad? I'd be very interested if you could outline a better method for trying to understand our environment than some kind of scientific investigation.
How do you determine whether data is valuable or not? It seems questionable to me to reject any problematic data out of hand simply because it doesn't fit with your understanding of how the world works.
If you keep getting a strange result and you rule out all errors you and everyone else can see in your methodology, it seems sensible to propose another hypothesis and further tests to interrogate that hypothesis. Does that sound reasonable?
I'm not sure if I understand your distinction between truth and being right. Personally I'm not overly interested in either; they both sound rather inflexible. On the one hand I'm not sure if it's ever going to be possible to have access to an absolute truth, and on the other seeking to be right at all costs isn't a realistic way to live your life because you are bound to be disappointed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 12:06 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 7:21 PM Tusko has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 304 (373802)
01-02-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Tusko
01-02-2007 4:32 PM


Yeah, I think I'm going a little off track attacking the scientific method. That's not really my intent. I think what I'm trying to say is that each question should be approached individually and a suitable methodology found for that question. So for ID, I think the basic methodology has to be to see if the evidence corresponds with the idea of an ID. I think you have to be very broad in considering the evidence, such as asking, "Has the ID deliberately revealed [him]self in any way?" It's a religious question of course, but you can't just rule it out because it doesn't fit some definition of science. To summarize I'd say something like this: 1) Life seems very ordered and works extremely well. It survives without apparent intervention, it reproduces itself, it adapts. 2) Life seems very ordered - that is, I perceive it as such. 3) I seem to be something more than just an animal or a machine. I am aware, and aware that I am aware. That is, my intelligence does not seem to be the product of natural causes, suggesting that there is a supernatural dimension of some sort. 4) I have the concept of an ID (a variant of #2, really). This is just one element of my built-in firmware, which would likely be designed to comprehend an ID if such existed.
I'm just shooting from the hip here, not trying to prove anything. I'd be glad to drill down on any of these things if it interests you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Tusko, posted 01-02-2007 4:32 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2007 7:53 PM TheMystic has replied
 Message 235 by Quetzal, posted 01-02-2007 8:59 PM TheMystic has replied
 Message 285 by Tusko, posted 01-04-2007 5:33 AM TheMystic has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 304 (373811)
01-02-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 7:21 PM


I seem to be something more than just an animal or a machine. I am aware, and aware that I am aware.
What makes you think that (some) animals and machines aren't aware or aren't aware that they are aware?
That is, my intelligence does not seem to be the product of natural causes, suggesting that there is a supernatural dimension of some sort.
I don't follow your reasoning, here. From what evidence do you conclude that your intelligence is not the product of natural causes? It seems to me that it's quite obvious that natural causes produce intelligence; certainly there's nothing more natural than, or supernatural about, the process that humans use to produce additional intelligences - sexual reproduction and childrearing.
I have the concept of an ID
Sure, you heard about it from somebody. What does that prove?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 7:21 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 235 of 304 (373820)
01-02-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 7:21 PM


1) Life seems very ordered and works extremely well. It survives without apparent intervention, it reproduces itself, it adapts.
Well, it’s clear you’re not a field biologist. One of the most striking observations I’ve made during my career is how utterly messy and disorderly “life” tends to be in reality. Just to give two minor examples that come immediately to mind:
1. There is a truism familiar to all ecologists working in the neotropics: “Rare species are common, but common species are rare.” At first glance, this seems to be not only self-contradictory but counterintuitive. However, once you look at the details of species distributions in any relatively undisturbed tropical forest, understanding dawns. Most neotropical forests have a whopping diversity of plant and animal life - species are found in almost bewildering abundance as far as sheer number of different species goes. Many of the species in a given reserve in the neotropics are likely found in only a few places or even nowhere else on the planet. Hence, “rare” species are common, representing species not found elsewhere, but still making up a large percentage of the number of species locally. On the other hand, numerous studies have been made that show that even individual species which make up the majority of a given forest biomass are extremely patchy in distribution - you may walk hundreds of meters between individuals (especially trees) of the same species, although you are surrounded by dozens of other species. The distribution of even “common” tree species, when you are searching out individual members of the species, means that encountering an individual of a given species is problematic - even if that species in the aggregate makes up a significant fraction of the total number of individuals in the forest. This makes for a very disorderly system by the standards of what we consider designed order.
2. When you fly over a tropical forest, the thing that strikes you right off the bat (and most people never get past it) is that you are overflying a uniform “carpet” of green, with here and there an emergent that pops out through the canopy. The forest looks like it was planted there all at once. However, again, once you get down into the details, you find that - rather than uniformity as would be expected in a designed system - what you actually have is an extremely messy hodge-podge mosaic of heterogenous microhabitats. It’s really all very untidy. I think it's untidy - I can hardly imagine what an engineer would make of it.
Life doesn’t “work extremely well”, except in the aggregate. Species come and species go, habitats change seasonally, annually, or over the course of centuries and millennia. Even populations of the same species appear and disappear (go locally extinct) as subtle changes in their local habitat render their individual adaptations no longer optimal. I agree that life in the aggregate seems to get on fairly well - for at least the last 3.5+ gy. However, individual components (species, genera, even families and orders) of that life don’t do so well - to the point that an estimated 95-98% of all species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct. Doesn’t appear to be overly-well designed, all things considered, now does it?
2) Life seems very ordered - that is, I perceive it as such.
Ah well, I think we’ve already established that your perception may be based on a lack of knowledge of the messy details of that “life”, n’est-ce pas?
3) I seem to be something more than just an animal or a machine. I am aware, and aware that I am aware. That is, my intelligence does not seem to be the product of natural causes, suggesting that there is a supernatural dimension of some sort.
That’s kind of an interesting semantic argument. What do you mean by “more than an animal”? Self-awareness, self-recognition, problem solving, etc are all traits that are more or less evidenced in a number of non-human species to a greater or lesser extent, after all. You exhibiting those traits yourself doesn’t really lead to your conclusion of “non-natural causes”, now does it?
4) I have the concept of an ID (a variant of #2, really).
Well, I have the concept of spending a wild weekend in the mountains with Daryl Hannah. Doesn’t mean it’s either true or even particularly likely/realistic.
Edited by Quetzal, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 7:21 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:13 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 243 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 11:41 AM Quetzal has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 304 (373943)
01-03-2007 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Quetzal
01-02-2007 8:59 PM


4) I have the concept of an ID (a variant of #2, really).
Well, I have the concept of spending a wild weekend in the mountains with Daryl Hannah. Doesn’t mean it’s either true or even particularly likely/realistic.
Let's start here since that's the most interesting point. What it does show is that you have a sex drive. You don't dream of spending a weekend with Frederick Hazzalschneider, because there is no such person.
Re: all that other stuff about tree distributions or whatever; ok, I'm impressed with your knowledge, but it seems like a perfect example of "baffle 'em with bullshit". You see, every layman can tell that life, including our own bodies, are extraordinary pieces of work. I as a layman in biology have great suspicion about someone who claims to be an expert but doesn't recognize that simple point.
The problem, I think, is that you *want* to find this disorder in order to fit your need to bolster the theory of evolution. This is part of why evolution is so destructive - it makes people try to find problems with a system that should instead be studied with awe. What I think you are probably missing is the way God uses, shall we say, chaos theory in his work. For instance, if you take a look at a zip file on your hard drive it will look like garbage, but of course it is not. God seems to code the bare minimum of information into DNA.
It's interesting in fact, it occurs to me, that you should consider life 'messy'. Have you ever pondered how remarkable it is that a product of this messiness should consider it messy? To what is this messy organism comparing life?
One final point - about being conscious: You either accept the reality you find there or not. If you want to reject that in order to prove you are no different than an animal, in my opinion you have committed spiritual suicide and that line of thinking can just go no further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Quetzal, posted 01-02-2007 8:59 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 9:20 AM TheMystic has replied
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 01-03-2007 11:45 AM TheMystic has replied
 Message 269 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2007 6:36 PM TheMystic has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 304 (373944)
01-03-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
01-02-2007 7:53 PM


I don't follow your reasoning, here. From what evidence do you conclude that your intelligence is not the product of natural causes?
A proper scholarly explaination, though in very understandable language, can be found in C.S. Lewis' book 'Miracles'. In short, the idea is that if thought is entirely a physical phenomenon and physical phenomena are basically deterministic then objective thought is really an illusion. We only respond to stimuli. The great paradox of evolution is that if it occurred we could never know it. If our mental instrument is calibrated to give accurate results it must have somehow been calibrated externally.
I have the concept of an ID
Sure, you heard about it from somebody. What does that prove?
Where did they hear about it from? It's more than that. It is at the very least an interesting phenomenon that the vast majority of humans throughout history have had some concept of gods. Where did such a concept come from if it is entirely bogus, and why does it have such sticking power? You will no doubt be tempted to say that man invented God in order to fulfill some need, but the interesting thing is, as forums like this demonstrate, people don't generally like God or the gods.
It's a line of reasoning that may seem strange at first, but in the context of testing ID it makes perfect sense. The first evidence any of us have is our own consciousness. We must ask ourselves, how did I come to be what I am? Do I seem to be a product of random happenstance or done 'on purpose'? How you answer that question is the great divide in philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2007 7:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 9:23 AM TheMystic has replied
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2007 11:53 AM TheMystic has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 238 of 304 (373951)
01-03-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 8:13 AM


quote:
Re: all that other stuff about tree distributions or whatever; ok, I'm impressed with your knowledge, but it seems like a perfect example of "baffle 'em with bullshit".
Well, either it's "knowledge" or it's "bullshit".
If you agree that Quetzal knows what he's talking about regarding field Biology, since he's a field Biologist, then what he was explaining to you about species distribution in the forest wasn't "bullshit".
I understood what he was getting at, and he really didn't use any technical language or opaque terminology, you know.
quote:
You see, every layman can tell that life, including our own bodies, are extraordinary pieces of work. I as a layman in biology have great suspicion about someone who claims to be an expert but doesn't recognize that simple point.
I don't think that anybody denies that our bodies are amazing.
They also have a lot of cobbled together, suboptimal design flaws.
Our knees and lower backs are incredibly vulnerable and weak.
We have a blind spot right in the middle of our retinas.
At birth, our heads are so large (because of big brains) that many, many infants and mothers died before the medical technology was developed to cut the baby out of the womb.
We have a sharp ridge of bone on the inside of our skulls that can tear brain tissue.
We have crossover air and food pipes which makes choking very common.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:13 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 10:03 AM nator has replied
 Message 242 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 11:19 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 239 of 304 (373952)
01-03-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by TheMystic
01-03-2007 8:31 AM


quote:
The first evidence any of us have is our own consciousness. We must ask ourselves, how did I come to be what I am? Do I seem to be a product of random happenstance or done 'on purpose'? How you answer that question is the great divide in philosophy.
But what does any of this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 8:31 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by TheMystic, posted 01-03-2007 10:05 AM nator has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 304 (373957)
01-03-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by nator
01-03-2007 9:20 AM


They also have a lot of cobbled together, suboptimal design flaws.
In every design there are tradeoffs. You also assume a design goal for the human species, such as every offspring surviving. But I think I could sum it all up by saying, if you think you could do better then show me your design. I'll pay shipping and handling both ways, feed it while it's here too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 9:20 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 01-03-2007 1:15 PM TheMystic has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024