Latest News: The Great Trubulation


Pages (17): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next > Last »
Who Believes in Evolution?
Author Message
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #46
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Interpretum,

Yep, I think creation was not a slow process but rather quick by human standards.

I don't disagree with evolution however, also believe that it happened almost instantaneously at certain points in the earths history.

There is a biblical indication that it will happen again in the future:

Isaiah 11:6-7
6 And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull.


Will the above description of animal behavior and feeding habits take place over billions of years or will it happen instantly by human reckoning.

What about human evolution?

1 Corinthians 15:50-52
Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 John 3:2-3
2 Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. 3 And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.


In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
02-19-2011 01:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Derek
Member


Posts: 1,075
Group: Registered
Joined: May 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #47
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Interpretum,
Actually, I am studying geology atm.

Of course things have moved on a lot since Hutton. Modern Geology sees things now through the lens of Plate Tectonics.

Actually, scientists never say the final word has been said...all science is provisional until the scientific 'light' gets brighter! :)
regards
Derek



We go in faith, our own great weakness feeling,
And needing more each day Thy grace to know:
Yet from our hearts a song of triumph pealing,
“We rest on Thee, and in Thy Name we go.”
02-19-2011 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user
Resolute
politicus incorrectissimus in extremis


Posts: 1,883
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #48
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Derek Wrote:
Hi all,
Dealing with specifics and not generalizations.

One would have thought, if direct (by God's actual 'fingers') special creation took place intermittently throughout time, there should be, alive or extinct many specie types that are so unrelated to their contemporaries as to render a putative lineage by biologists an impossibility or totally lacking in scientific basis.

What species actual fit this criterion?
regards
Derek


Duck-billed Platypus?



rez


When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one… – Edmund Burke
02-19-2011 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user
Resolute
politicus incorrectissimus in extremis


Posts: 1,883
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #49
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

....Another example?



:P


When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one… – Edmund Burke
02-19-2011 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
Steadfast
Member


Posts: 103
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #50
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The best scientific information I ever saw refuting evolution was by Walter Veith, a Seventh Day Adventist.

He was a professor of zoology in South Africa who actually taught evolution as truth until some nagging questions caused him to look deeper. What he found is a fascinating journey.

U Tube currently carries this video series that can be watched for free. You can access it by going to U Tube and typing Walter Veith Genesis Conflict in the search window.

I was so impressed with this series of 8 DVDs that I purchased them.

Love,

Sis A


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wsKcP9J7Cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4a9dIAOp4
02-19-2011 07:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
Derek
Member


Posts: 1,075
Group: Registered
Joined: May 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #51
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Rez,
Yes, the platypus is an interesting animal, thanks for the clip.
True, there is a paucity of fossil ancestor evidence but it is not absent, most of that evidence comes from Australia.

The fossil platypus had teeth, unlike the modern adult platypus which has no teeth, also there were size differences.
There are similarities in structure with an ancient group of reptiles, and of course mammals since they suckle their young. But like reptiles. and unlike mammals, they have a common body 'exit'.

Their bill has nothing to do with birds! :)
regards
Derek


Resolute Wrote:

Derek Wrote:
Hi all,
Dealing with specifics and not generalizations.

One would have thought, if direct (by God's actual 'fingers') special creation took place intermittently throughout time, there should be, alive or extinct many specie types that are so unrelated to their contemporaries as to render a putative lineage by biologists an impossibility or totally lacking in scientific basis.

What species actual fit this criterion?
regards
Derek


Duck-billed Platypus?



rez



We go in faith, our own great weakness feeling,
And needing more each day Thy grace to know:
Yet from our hearts a song of triumph pealing,
“We rest on Thee, and in Thy Name we go.”
02-20-2011 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #52
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Derek you might find this talk by Dr Graeme Finlay of interest or anyone else who wants to listen to it. He details some of the evidence for evolution and also of the creationist/evolutionist debate. He is a scientist and also a Christian.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/...imedia_123

02-20-2011 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
Derek
Member


Posts: 1,075
Group: Registered
Joined: May 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #53
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Brian,
Thanks for the reference, it is good when Christians who are scientists bring their perspective to the fore. I have been through some of the audio but will listen to it all later.

He mentions chromosome 2 fusion in man, we have discussed this before and it is also referred to in brief here:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

If I had known that stuff 40 years ago I would have felt my JW creationist viewpoint had suffered a body blow.


I had a look at some of Steadfast's, Walter Veith videos on youtube, he is very clever in his wording but IMO he misrepresents the evidence.



Seraphim Wrote:
Hi Derek you might find this talk by Dr Graeme Finlay of interest or anyone else who wants to listen to it. He details some of the evidence for evolution and also of the creationist/evolutionist debate. He is a scientist and also a Christian.

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/...imedia_123



We go in faith, our own great weakness feeling,
And needing more each day Thy grace to know:
Yet from our hearts a song of triumph pealing,
“We rest on Thee, and in Thy Name we go.”
02-20-2011 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #54
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Thanks Derek, I'm glad you enjoyed it so far.

I looked also at Walter Veith stuff and I agree with you. He seems a lovely man, but even on a doctrinal perspective he seems a bit out there. He is a king James only advocate and that doesn't really check out with a cool headed evaluation of the facts concerning that issue.

02-20-2011 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user
Beau Wetini
Me and my boy at the beach!


Posts: 2,194
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #55
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

I personally don't mind the idea of Evolution.

In fact, most things for me these days are up for grabs.....so I dont mind anything!


LIVE THE KINGDOM NOW!!


02-21-2011 03:10 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Tessa
A mere messenger


Posts: 417
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #56
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

I like what Dr Frances Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute says -

“We have caught a glimpse of an instruction book previously
known to God"

Further he writes below-

Ask yourself - How did cells, DNA and chromosomes come about?

Perhaps the greatest scientific proof that we were designed by a higher power is this:
The process of one genome creating a living, self-perpetuating organism cannot happen over time. It has to be right the first time.
It must entail literally billions of designed elements that must be in place and functioning perfectly, or else the cell cannot exist and reproduce.

The self-replicating cell exists only because its inherent intelligent systems – each involving billions of functions – interact perfectly. If they don’t, it is dead.

The chromosome and cell are so unimaginably complex that they could never have evolved through random processes from nothing, even if given the endless time spans evolutionists require for their theory.

Evolutionists are at a loss to explain, for example, how and why heart tissue, liver tissue, skin and blood are distinctly different and have dramatically different functions. Yet, astonishingly, each cell contains the same DNA. A liver cell’s DNA is identical to a brain cell’s DNA. How each cell knows its identity, function and position in the body remains a mystery.

Regrettably, the genetic revolution appears to be taking our minds off the bigger picture - the spiritual potential of human existence. We have a spiritual heritage far more astounding and compelling than the physical heritage revealed through the Human Genome Project, incredible though it is.


Tessa


The angel of Yahweh encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.
Psalms 34:7
02-25-2011 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
e-magine
Disciple of Newness


Posts: 2,488
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #57
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Tessa Wrote:
I like what Dr Frances Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute says -

“We have caught a glimpse of an instruction book previously
known to God"
Tessa


NICE TESSA


avatar:
Henry Ward Beecher-1872 Preacher of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, in his home later bought by C.H. Russell.
He is looking at the Brooklyn Bridge,,,, is it the way into, or, out of Brooklyn for you?
02-25-2011 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #58
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

It should be pointed out that Dr Frances Collins is one of those Christians like myself who except evolution. He also rejects literal six day creation and also the so called intelligent design theory.

At this point it probably needs to be pointed out the WT taught us that evolution teaches that evolution is a random process. Nothing could be further from the truth, and is not what the real scientific theory of evolution says.

Here is a quote that rather better shows his views:

Quote:
"[Evolution] may seem to us like a slow, inefficient, and even random process, but to God—who's not limited by space or time—it all came together in the blink of an eye. And for us who have been given the gift of intelligence and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the natural world that he created, to have now learned about this evolutionary creative process is a source of awe and wonder. I find these discoveries are completely compatible with everything I know about God through the Scriptures...."

".....I encounter many young people who have been raised in homes where faith was practiced and who have encountered the evidence from science about the age of the earth and about evolution and who are in crisis. They are led to believe by what they are hearing from atheistic scientists on the one hand and fundamentalist believers on the other that they have to make a choice. This is a terrible thing to ask of a young person.

Some of them simply walk away from both, convinced that science is godless and that faith is not to be trusted, because it asks them to disbelieve facts that now seem absolutely incontrovertible. This is an unnecessary choice. I don't think our future will be well served by having either science or faith win this battle.

My heart goes out to sincere believers who feel threatened by evolution and who feel that they have to maintain their position against it in order to prove their allegiance to God. But if God used this process and gave us the chance to discover it, then it seems anachronistic, to say the least, that we would feel we have to defend him against our own scientific conclusions. God is the author of all truth. You can find him in the laboratory as well as in the cathedral. He's the God of the Bible; he's the God of the genome. He did it all."

02-26-2011 01:02 AM
Find all posts by this user
Bangalore
Member


Posts: 6,131
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #59
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Misquotations In The Creation Book.

By Jan Haugland

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 15:
4 The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: "Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."

The Source - James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p. 88:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare."

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 18:
12 Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

The Source - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 39:
5 At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction."

The Source - Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p. ix:
"This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliché or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth."

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 42:
Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."

The Source - Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.
Next sentence following the one above is "We shall have to face up to this difficulty." Then he does, which is the purpose of the rest of the article.

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 46:
23 Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts." But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of "inconvenient facts" so easily?

The Source - Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.
The quote is technically correct. The application is very nasty. Examine the text carefully to see that this is just a rhetoric trick (hint: does the "inconvenient facts" Dickerson talk about really exist?)

The Quote -Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 70:
38 Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: "To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory -- and we have seen that it does not -- what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution."
The Source -The "impartian enquirer" might discover that Coffin is really a young-earth creationist, and the quote is from an Adventist paper. No scientific creditentials.

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 89:
Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: "No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like."

The Source- Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy -- the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286.
Picture text to one specific species: "No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on. Sizes here are to scale, with afarensis about two feet shorter than the average human being."

The Quote- Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 96:
38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."

The Source -Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?", Popular Science, November, 1979, p. 81:
"So, today, everything -- human artifacts, animal remains, ancient rocks -- can be dated fairly accurately. The dates may be off a little, but that's mainly a matter of impurities in the sample or need to refine techniques, say the scientists involved. Yet major mysteries and curious anomalies remain -- the odd speculations advanced by Columbia Union College's Robert Gentry, for instance. Physicist Gentry believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude. His theory revolves around "halos," tiny, ringlike discolorations found within coalified wood (wood on its way to becoming coal) and mica, often in the proximity of radioactive uranium or thorium. Some halos can be explained in terms of conventional radioactive decay. Others, known as giant halos, cannot. They're simply too big to be caused by alpha particles thrown off by known isotopes, and they don't fit into any accepted theory. If the theory of radioactive decay is weak in one spot, says Gentry, doubt is cast on whatever answers isotopes give you. Further, when Gentry studies halos in coalified wood, he finds that the uranium/lead ratios are often not at all what they should be. "Since the coalified wood was obtained from deposits supposedly at least tens of millions of years old," he says, "the ratio between uranium-238 and lead-206 should be low." They're not. They're so high, in fact, that "presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of thousands." And man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand. "The possibility of reducing the 4.5-billion-year history of earth by a factor of a thousand," he says with some ire, "has not yet been seriously considered." Most scientists simply dismiss the idea. As one physicist told me, "You can believe it or not; I don't." "I realize it's difficult to believe," counters Gentry. "It would invalidate the whole underlying principle of radioactive dating: that the rates of decay are forever unvarying -- an untestable assumption."

(Note that the premise for the conclusion of the age of men is that we accept Gentry's idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old!)

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 143:
5 Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He views them as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." It will be useful to consider some of this evidence.

The Source - Richard C. Lewontin, "Adaptation", Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 213:
"The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution.... Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation."

(In my opinion, this is one of the worst misquotes ever, and one who has given JWs much bad publicity on Usenet. Lewontin himself wasn't very happy about it.)

The Quote -Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 15:
Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."

The Truth - Hitching sure is an author. Is he an evolutionist? Not in the meaning evolution scientist. The Bible -- God's Word or Man's? p. 106 even says Hitching is a 'scientist' (the source for this book is obviously the Creation book). In fact Hitching only has "private boys' school in Warwick, England". Further, he's a speculative writer relying heavily on creationst writings (see talk.origins archive in file Hitching). Even worse, he is a paranormalist writing books about pyramid energy, earth magic, dowsing, psychic research, etc, etc. In Neck of the Giraffe he attacks Darwin to make the way for his own theories that some magical forces caused the evolution. Would you read a book by this author? He's the most important source for the Creation book!

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 36:
This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events -- from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals -- is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

The Truth - Wallace Pratt said this in a lecture in 1928. He was a young-earth creationist who discounted all scientific evidence, and as such he can't be used to support the idea that science agrees with Creation's interpretation of Genesis.

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), pp. 36-37:
34 The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: [...] Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

The Truth - Science agrees on "a beginning" (even that this beginning was first!) and that man came last. That's it. For all other 8 points science either disagrees strongly (e.g., birds did not come before reptiles) or have no knowledge (as for early atmosphere conditions). See g91 6/8 p.12 for an attempted answer.

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 44:
18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

The Truth - Nobody with any knwoledge about mathematics or biology would make such statements. Creation here quotes creationists (Impact, December 1980, no. 90) without any references, and no evolutionist "acknowledge" this. Just ask your friendly neigbourhood mathematician for a (hopefully) free lecture in basic probability theory. :-)

The Quote - Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985), p. 110:
But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature's genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

The Truth - The finches are new species. They don't interbreed. See Insight under "kind", and then get the talk.origins archive file CB910: New species for other examples of real-life evolution today.1, 2


Warm Christian Love
Bangalore


"While producing people who were outwardly moral, they subverted the essential qualities of humility, compassion and mercy." - Raymond Franz
http://www.spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/
02-26-2011 08:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Beau Wetini
Me and my boy at the beach!


Posts: 2,194
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #60
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Evolution is fine and all, but without God....its useless.


LIVE THE KINGDOM NOW!!


02-26-2011 09:52 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Pages (17): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next > Last »

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: