RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   
  Topic: Miracles as an argument for theism< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,08:17   



lord.  skeptic if what you say is true then how can you justify saying 'it is written' as evidence for anything?  it is also written all kinds of other silly and dumb things.  and god reveals herself to zero in such manners as he reports, then what privileges the bible anyway?

never mind.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,08:36   

Skiptic, that's splitting hairs and you know it.

Did God inspire men to write the OT?  I can
pull up your post where you infer he didn't.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,14:32   

One thing that strikes me as odd is this:

If god is omni-max, then why would any miracle be necessary?  Why would god ever use a miracle?  I think that this creates a catch 22 for theists.  Miracles are generally seen as evidence that god exists and meddles in the affairs of humans, but this is an implicit rejection of the idea of an omni-max god that is capable of getting it right the first time...unless the miracles were planned ahead of time so that god could cause some specific thing to happen, but then again, why couldn't god simply create a universe where the miracles were not necessary?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,14:36   

Hey Skeptic,
How can you attack us for being ignorant and really not know what omnipotent and omniscient mean?  How can you attack us and really not know what Pascal's Wager is or why is so spectacularly bad as an argument?

It boggles the mind.

ETA:
Quote
Being the compassionate guy that I am I hope for you guys sake that I am wrong.

This just underscores how "loving" your god is.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,15:55   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,06:45)
That requires making an assumption about his intentions and I'm not prepared to make that assumption.

Also, there is a certain school of thought that says faith is required because if not the choices to follow God would be easy.  If he's obvious and accessable then there's no reason to doubt him and too much pressure not to stray.  Almost like what O'Donnell says, there'd be no more free will.

Moses and the Jews certainly knew god when they left Egypt and they still strayed. Why was the unchanging god so keen to have himself known then and not now. Even in the Acts of the apostles has overt acts of God.

I once heard a good comedy riff where god had used up his advertising budget by 100AD and all he could afford now was the occassional impression on a piece of toast.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,16:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,15:31)
I don't really know nor do I care because it's beyond my capability of answering in this life and therefore a waste of time.

Isn't this contradictory to when you said:
Quote
If I was as ignorant as to the nature of God as these posts exhibit then I would have trouble accepting the concept too.

If god is beyond your capability to answer in this lifetime, then how is it that you can know the nature of god?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,16:29   

GCT, I'm not sure if you noticed but there is a long boring history of skeptic making these sorts of claims.  Nonetheless, you gotta love the guy.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,16:39   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 01 2008,17:29)
GCT, I'm not sure if you noticed but there is a long boring history of skeptic making these sorts of claims.  Nonetheless, you gotta love the guy.

Oh, I'm well aware of it.

I'm well aware of the projection of him accusing us of being ignorant of Xianity and making straw man arguments, while he parades around telling us all that atheism is a religion and explaining to atheists what atheists believe even when they try to tell him he's wrong.  I mean, just as an example....

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,18:25   

the simple answer is what is a miracle to us is not a miracle to God.  God's not doing miracles, we just don't understand what's going on.  You think God sits back and says "Holy crap! How'd I do that?"  Then again he might, how the hell would I know.

Also, the question was rheotorical.

Hero, I think you're getting some things mixed up.  A mountain stream may inspire me to write a poem but it doesn't have editorial power.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,18:40   

mmmmm....

Logic pretzels.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,20:43   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,18:25)
the simple answer is what is a miracle to us is not a miracle to God.  God's not doing miracles, we just don't understand what's going on.  You think God sits back and says "Holy crap! How'd I do that?"  Then again he might, how the hell would I know.

Also, the question was rheotorical.

Hero, I think you're getting some things mixed up.  A mountain stream may inspire me to write a poem but it doesn't have editorial power.

Wrong again.  

Mountain streams do have editorial power.  Exhibit A -The Grand Canyon.  That's some pretty strong deletion power exhibited right there...

re:  ...we just don't understand what's going on".

What's with this "we" stuff.

Mass hyteria and Bronze Age Marketing works just fine for me.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,21:05   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,19:25)
the simple answer is what is a miracle to us is not a miracle to God.  God's not doing miracles, we just don't understand what's going on.  You think God sits back and says "Holy crap! How'd I do that?"  Then again he might, how the hell would I know.

Then why don't miracles conform to scientific scrutiny?

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,21:24   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,18:25)
Hero, I think you're getting some things mixed up.  A mountain stream may inspire me to write a poem but it doesn't have editorial power.

Skeptic, don't judge a brook by his brother.

Zero, my name is Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,01:12   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Mar. 01 2008,21:24)
Zero, my name is Zero

Don't be so modest. You're a hero to us.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,09:04   

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 01 2008,21:05)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,19:25)
the simple answer is what is a miracle to us is not a miracle to God.  God's not doing miracles, we just don't understand what's going on.  You think God sits back and says "Holy crap! How'd I do that?"  Then again he might, how the hell would I know.

Then why don't miracles conform to scientific scrutiny?

They do.  Take the little boy.  He died, technically, and came back in a purely biological way.  Just because the doctors can not explain it doesn't mean that the laws of the universe suddenly broke down in that emergency room.  At some point, we as humans will have to accept our limitations, cognitively, and realize that we're never going to know the answer to every question.  But just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that the universe stopped in place for our benefit or detriment.  I mean, really, who do we think we are?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,09:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 02 2008,10:04)
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 01 2008,21:05)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,19:25)
the simple answer is what is a miracle to us is not a miracle to God.  God's not doing miracles, we just don't understand what's going on.  You think God sits back and says "Holy crap! How'd I do that?"  Then again he might, how the hell would I know.

Then why don't miracles conform to scientific scrutiny?

They do.  Take the little boy.  He died, technically, and came back in a purely biological way.  Just because the doctors can not explain it doesn't mean that the laws of the universe suddenly broke down in that emergency room.  At some point, we as humans will have to accept our limitations, cognitively, and realize that we're never going to know the answer to every question.  But just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that the universe stopped in place for our benefit or detriment.  I mean, really, who do we think we are?

Sure, take the little boy, if your account is accurate, which we can assume for argument sake that it is.

Are you contending that was a miracle?  Last I checked you were not willing to make that judgement.  Yet, we can study it and come to a scientific explanation.  Let's say we figure out what happened, is it no longer a miracle?

What about the sun standing still in the sky?  If that were to happen, it would violate the laws of physics, plain and simple.  This would be an unambiguous miracle, and yet it would not simply be a case of ignorance on our part.

In any case, this is sort of a side topic, right?  If god needs to intervene at all by saving little boys who were clinically dead, then what does that say about this god and how well he should be able to set up a system that doesn't require intervention?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,10:43   

check CNN, it was about two weeks ago in California.

I'm saying peopled called that a miracle and it was or it wasn't depending upon your definition.  What were the odds that the conditions present would result in his living, now that's a "miracle."  Others would say that the Hand of God healed him and he lived, that's their miracle.

As far as the sun standing still, that happened, what? 3000 years ago, give or take?  We can't possibly assess scientifically what really may have happened or what people thought they saw.  Quite possibly they saw a phenomena that they couldn't explain and called it a miracle, who knows?

Finally, this is the common mistake made.  Do we know that God needs to intervene in little boys' lives?  No.  We don't even know that miracles occurred and yet we're making judgments upon the nature of God based upon our ignorance.  Natural, I'll give you, but ultimately unfounded.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,10:49   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 02 2008,11:43)
I'm saying peopled called that a miracle and it was or it wasn't depending upon your definition.

No, it depends on whether god came down and intervened or not.  Simply because I think it's a miracle doesn't make it one anymore than my thinking it's not a miracle makes it not a miracle.
Quote
As far as the sun standing still, that happened, what? 3000 years ago, give or take?  We can't possibly assess scientifically what really may have happened or what people thought they saw.

We can assess, scientifically, that the sun did not stand still in the sky for 24 hours, unless the laws of the universe were suspended or altered.
Quote
Finally, this is the common mistake made.  Do we know that God needs to intervene in little boys' lives?  No.  We don't even know that miracles occurred and yet we're making judgments upon the nature of God based upon our ignorance.  Natural, I'll give you, but ultimately unfounded.

But, that's the whole point isn't it?  Many people think miracles do occur, but if they do then it speaks against god being omni-max, which many people hold to.  It speaks against god being a reasonable and rational venture.  For the sake of argument, we can assume that god does perform miracles or that he doesn't and still discuss the implications of it either way.  Do you really not understand this?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,11:27   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 02 2008,09:04)
 
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 01 2008,21:05)
   
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,19:25)
the simple answer is what is a miracle to us is not a miracle to God.  God's not doing miracles, we just don't understand what's going on.  You think God sits back and says "Holy crap! How'd I do that?"  Then again he might, how the hell would I know.

Then why don't miracles conform to scientific scrutiny?

They do.  Take the little boy.  He died, technically, and came back in a purely biological way.  Just because the doctors can not explain it doesn't mean that the laws of the universe suddenly broke down in that emergency room.  At some point, we as humans will have to accept our limitations, cognitively, and realize that we're never going to know the answer to every question.  But just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that the universe stopped in place for our benefit or detriment.

But why is it any less silly to assume that Bog intervened from His busy work of creating universes to make Timmy walk again? Isn't that basically an admission that we have no idea what's going on, but in another guise? Believe me, saying 'Goddidit' has nothing to do with admitting that we don't understand everything going on in the universe. To the contrary, it's an extremely desperate attempt to MAKE an explanation.

 
Quote
As far as the sun standing still, that happened, what? 3000 years ago, give or take?  We can't possibly assess scientifically what really may have happened or what people thought they saw.  Quite possibly they saw a phenomena that they couldn't explain and called it a miracle, who knows?


The sun stood still? Or, maybe:

1) they made it up
2) the person who wrote it down made it up
3) maybe it was a mistranslation
4) maybe it was a VERY poorly remembered eclipse

Cuz, remember, we have no proof that this, like, happened. Remember?

If you had more exposure to people doing actual science, you'd remember that scientists admit that they don't have an explanation all the time. In fact, see here for some interesting examples. Are any of them 'miracles'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,17:37   

GCT, I think we're talking about two different things or from different viewpoints.  A miracle is whatever the person describing it perceives it to be and they perceive it in that way for their own reasons.  So far God has not entered the picture and it is completely debatable that a miracle has actually occurred.  That's where we're at in my mind.

I would say that a miracle really didn't occur by my definition which would require breaking the laws that govern the universe.

We can't even make a case that this invalidates the idea of God because we have no proof that God is overtly involved.  How can it be said that God created a poor universe and occasionally has to step in and right the ship when God hasn't lifted a finger in 16 billion years and everything is running smoothly?  I'm sure there are equally crazy analogies but I hope you get the point I'm making.  God doesn't do miracles because he doesn't need to, everything is going according to plan.  Because we have no idea what the plan is or how it works we may think it's miraculous when it's not.  Also, just to head off any misconceptions, this is just imagery and not ID innuendo.

Arden makes a good point.  Who knows what happened 3000 years ago and what the people saw that they described as the sun standing still.  It is pointless to assess this scientifically because it's exactly like people at the scene of an accident and we know scientifically that every one there saw something but in most cases the don't agree on what they saw.  Do we now fault God for creating a universe in which observation is imperfect?  No, let's look at ourselves and be aware of our limitations and leave God out of it.

In the end it's still the same result; miracles are horrible measures for the evaluation of theism.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,18:11   

As I read it, that puts you in the agnostic camp, at least as far as the phenomenon of miracles is concerned. If I can presume to summarise your position, you maintain that as long as a rational explanation is at least conceivable, there is no reason to impute supernatural intervention. Hence, miracles (so called) are not evidence for theism, because rational explanations are (usually) available.

Which leads me back to a point I made earlier: revealed religions have a strong tendency to invoke miracles in their scriptures. I'm no expert, but my understanding of the Abrahamic religions, of Zoroastrianism, of various forms of animism, European paganism and mystery religions, is that they all make counterfactual claims involving resurrection from the dead, intervention in the weather, striking the bad guys dead, or the likes. All attribute these to supernatural forces, be they Odin, or the god of your choice acting through the prophet of his choice.

The message of these are all the same: my sky-daddy is bigger than the other bloke's sky-daddy. So the thesis of this thread has missed half the point: miracles (so-called) are not 'arguments' for theism, they are the strongest  'evidence' they can claim.

This is why ID chimes with the faithful: it expresses incredulity in terms of probability. That it does so in a way that provokes real mathematicians and scientists to giggles is irrelevant. Its purpose is to present reality as a miracle.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
jhbbunch



Posts: 2
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2008,23:18   

Theists claim that the orderliness of the natural world is proof that God exists. And when the natural world is not orderly (ie: as in a miracle)  that is proof of God also. They have you coming and going.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,07:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 02 2008,18:37)
A miracle is whatever the person describing it perceives it to be and they perceive it in that way for their own reasons.

Huh?  It's a miracle if the person perceives it as such?
Quote
We can't even make a case that this invalidates the idea of God because we have no proof that God is overtly involved.  How can it be said that God created a poor universe and occasionally has to step in and right the ship when God hasn't lifted a finger in 16 billion years and everything is running smoothly?  I'm sure there are equally crazy analogies but I hope you get the point I'm making.  God doesn't do miracles because he doesn't need to, everything is going according to plan.

And that's the point.  Miracles would be an argument against god because god shouldn't need them.
Quote
Arden makes a good point.  Who knows what happened 3000 years ago and what the people saw that they described as the sun standing still.  It is pointless to assess this scientifically because it's exactly like people at the scene of an accident and we know scientifically that every one there saw something but in most cases the don't agree on what they saw.  Do we now fault God for creating a universe in which observation is imperfect?  No, let's look at ourselves and be aware of our limitations and leave God out of it.

No one is faulting god for anything.  What we are saying is that if it did happen, then it violated the laws of the universe and that makes for a god that can't get it right the first time.
Quote
In the end it's still the same result; miracles are horrible measures for the evaluation of theism.

Exactly, because they make for a god that is less than perfect, etc.  The problem for you is that most of your theistic brethren believe in miracles and even find that miracles are proof of god.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,09:12   

Miracle?  I'll give you an effin miracle...

It's an effin miracle that so many people have believed in Big Sky JuJu for so damn long, with what is really no reason to at all.

Or to put in more Churchillian terms:

Never have so many believed so much with so little reason.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2008,11:11   

GCT, I think you have completely missed my point.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2008,14:50   

No, I got your point, it's just not very good.  You want to say that we can't know if miracles happen or not so we can't say anything about god.  You simultaneously want to say that you don't think miracles occur because god doesn't need them, all while hedging your bets that they might occur or that they are somehow in the eye of the beholder.

  
dheddle



Posts: 543
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,11:19   

I must say I truly didn’t understand this thread. How can miracles be a problem for God? By definition, if he exists he is supernatural and thus can act supernaturally. On what basis can one rationally argue that they (miracles) are some sort of admission of defeat? The only basis I see is to declare them to be unnecessary for any god worthy of the title, and then, ipso facto, their mere postulation demonstrates god’s ineptitude.

It seems rather a stacked deck, and a silly one at that. As any theist must, I assume that God supernaturally manipulated space-time to create the universe. If you don’t believe that, then I don’t know what would make you a theist—instead, at best, you’d be worshipping an advanced though thoroughly natural creature.

To me, once I accept that God can create the whole friggin’ universe (perhaps by setting the big bang in motion, or some precursor thereof), the classic miracles (circumventing the natural laws to impregnate a virgin, turn water to wine, or play games with time for Joshua’s military advantage) seem like child’s play. And the purpose was to further his plan of redemption—for which he is under no obligation to carry out at all let alone to be required to use only secondary (natural) means.
That said, I suspect you guys are sensing some deeper theological problem with miracles, one which, blissfully, I am too shallow to grasp.

And, by the way, JDog is absolutely correct when he wrote:
 
Quote
It's an effin miracle that so many people have believed in Big Sky JuJu for so damn long, with what is really no reason to at all.

As any good Calvinist knows, it is indeed a miracle that anyone believes.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,12:11   

Hi Dave. My thought was the message wasn't strong enough, so they had to sweeten the deal with a bit of purported magic. Think of a divinely crafted message. Then look at the bible. The same? Nope - no tears, no fundamental resonance with me, just a book, written by man.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,02:48   

I agree with Heddle on this. I was basically taught to think of it as a play. God not only created the universe, wrote the history of the universe and wrote himself a part in the story of the universe. So the perfect universe and story of the universe requires these miracles not because the plan was imperfect but they were a neccessary part of the plan.

Of course as I am an atheist, I will note that there is a relationship with miracles. The greatness of the miracle is in direct proportion with how many years they occured before the present and indirectly proportional to the number of witnesses.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2008,23:31   

Quote (bystander @ Mar. 11 2008,02:48)
Of course as I am an atheist, I will note that there is a relationship with miracles. The greatness of the miracle is in direct proportion with how many years they occured before the present and indirectly proportional to the number of witnesses.

Bystander, IMO, a bystander is a witness unless his back is turned.

Rth 4:11  And all the people that [were] in the gate, and the elders, said,
[We are] witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine
house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel:
and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands
of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

The book of Ruth, by chance, was written about 1,322 BC.  Micah in 750 BC.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
  179 replies since Feb. 26 2008,09:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]