History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedcreationism or evolution

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 26272829>
Poll Question: which do you believe is right and why
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
12 [16.67%]
47 [65.28%]
13 [18.06%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 11:47
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That's just your interpretation. It's not what it actually says. In fact of all the creation myths I know there's not one that actually addresses the question of the origin of the universe.
 
I need'ny make any input - its in the text:
Quote 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 
How would you describe it, when the terms universe, space, infinity, galaxies, etc - never happened yet? The term Heaven is explained in follow-up verses, where it says all the stars were also included. The very next verses state the emergence of darkness, light and its seperation, everything which can only apply to the creation of the universe. What do you think that verse refers to - what had a beginning?
 
Quote
 
 
 
 
In every such myth, including Genesis, something existed before the creation being explained.
 
The first 4 words of that verse says what existed before the universe. Genesis is not wanting in cause and effect, nor does it skirt around and deflect the issue. This is why I ask anyone discussing the universe: which universe - one with a beginning or one which always existed? And however they answer, all their follow-up assumptions must allign with that preamble. So pls tell us - which universe do you live in? I acquired this trick question from Genesis, and now one can see why it opens with that preamble!
 
 
Quote
I don't see why anyone should give your personal interpretation any particular standing, unless you're claiming to be some kind of prophet. In which case it would be more appropriate to call yourself IAmHosea, say, or even IAmMoses.
 
One need not have an interpretation or be a prophet. Its in the texts!
 
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

My science is not lacking relative to anyone here, nor would I say those who have studied the Hebrew bible on its own merit, as opposed as one of the theological writings: I have not seen any similarities with other theologies, except by the term theologies.
 
Then you haven't looked very far - there are many. For instance I already pointed out somewhere that the Greeks, Norse, and Jews all believed in the existence in early times of non-human giants as a separate creation from humanity.
[/QUOTE]
 
Giants - these have nothing to do with Monotheism. A giant is a different height of his surrounds only. The greeks believed in head bashing deities battling for supremecy - which is totally forbidden by the first two of the 10 Cs. The hellenists and Jews had numerous wars over this issue - well before the advent of Rome and Christianity. Monotheism was introduced via Judaism - when this was in absolute negation of every other belief. 
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 12:05
I wonder if you guys have seriously pondered the duality factor declared in Genesis, and whether it is accepted or denied, from a scientific and logical premise. It is a deep yet obvious conclusion.
 
The principle is, it takes two to tango, and nothing can happen with one. IMHO, it also means there is no 'ONE' in the universe. To qualify, this refers to an absolute singular entity which is irreducable and indevisable.
 
It is very deep and far reaching, ultimately even negating the BBT, which says there was a singular particle in the beginning, which then expanded/exploded/progressed/enlarged...etc.
 
When one thinks about this, they first have to base it on whether they are discussing a finite or infinite realm. Then they have to explain what constitutes an original, primal first entity - if this is a true singular entity, it means nothing else existed - else it is not the first entity; it also means that entity could not hold within it anything else - else it was not the original entity. Thus at one time, there was a particle entity [whatever that is!], and the BBT says it expanded. How can it expand - when the notion of expansion requires an interaction of either differing temperatures or pressures - there was nothing else, remember?
 
Further, the BBT says other, new compounds were formed: what did these interact with to form new compounds - there was no other elements or forces at one time. Not even the faculty of 'expansion' - because there was no heat or pressure forces.
 
So one can see that when genesis places this statute of a duality in its creation chapter - it means a lot, and its not a stray, superfluous verse. This is also the problems I have with the BBT - it becomes problematic when examined beyond [before] this expansion phase, namely its foundation is the problem. At least, I don't understand how it works in a finite realm.


Edited by IamJoseph - 25-Nov-2008 at 12:07
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 19:02
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That's just your interpretation. It's not what it actually says. In fact of all the creation myths I know there's not one that actually addresses the question of the origin of the universe.
 
I need'ny make any input - its in the text:
Quote 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 
How would you describe it, when the terms universe, space, infinity, galaxies, etc - never happened yet? The term Heaven is explained in follow-up verses, where it says all the stars were also included.
Again, that's only your interpretation. In any case God is part of the universe, or the term universe loses its meaning. Also at the time God created the universe, the terms heaven and earth hadn't been used before either. So he might just as well have talked about galaxies, stars, seas or whatever.
 
Anyway I pointed out some while ago that Genesis 1:1 is the title of the chapter, not the first step in it. The first thing that actually happens as part of the creation process is that God says "Let there be light'. That was the first thing created by god (everything else was just 'without form and void' at that point). 
Quote
The very next verses state the emergence of darkness, light and its seperation, everything which can only apply to the creation of the universe. What do you think that verse refers to - what had a beginning?
 
Quote
 
 In every such myth, including Genesis, something existed before the creation being explained.
 
The first 4 words of that verse says what existed before the universe. Genesis is not wanting in cause and effect, nor does it skirt around and deflect the issue. This is why I ask anyone discussing the universe: which universe - one with a beginning or one which always existed?
There's only one universe. That's what 'uni' means. And you need to think carefully about that word 'always'. Since time is part of the universe, there was no 'before the universe' so, yes, according to any myth of the creation of the universe it has always existed, 'always' meaning 'since the beginning of time'.
Quote
And however they answer, all their follow-up assumptions must allign with that preamble. So pls tell us - which universe do you live in? I acquired this trick question from Genesis, and now one can see why it opens with that preamble!
 
 
Quote
I don't see why anyone should give your personal interpretation any particular standing, unless you're claiming to be some kind of prophet. In which case it would be more appropriate to call yourself IAmHosea, say, or even IAmMoses.
 
One need not have an interpretation or be a prophet. Its in the texts!
Which have to be interpreted, one way or another. Even the phrase 'in the beginning' has to be interpreted.
Quote  
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

My science is not lacking relative to anyone here, nor would I say those who have studied the Hebrew bible on its own merit, as opposed as one of the theological writings: I have not seen any similarities with other theologies, except by the term theologies.
 
Then you haven't looked very far - there are many. For instance I already pointed out somewhere that the Greeks, Norse, and Jews all believed in the existence in early times of non-human giants as a separate creation from humanity.
 
Giants - these have nothing to do with Monotheism.
[/QUOTE]
Then what are they doing in Genesis?
Originally posted by Genesis 6 Genesis 6 wrote:

 
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Apart from the giants themselves, what about the 'sons of God'? Sounds very like the Titans and the Frost Giants to me.
 
The next paragraph is totally irrelevant.
 
Quote
A giant is a different height of his surrounds only. The greeks believed in head bashing deities battling for supremecy - which is totally forbidden by the first two of the 10 Cs. The hellenists and Jews had numerous wars over this issue - well before the advent of Rome and Christianity. Monotheism was introduced via Judaism - when this was in absolute negation of every other belief. 


Edited by gcle2003 - 25-Nov-2008 at 19:03
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 19:15
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

I wonder if you guys have seriously pondered the duality factor declared in Genesis, and whether it is accepted or denied, from a scientific and logical premise. It is a deep yet obvious conclusion.
 
The principle is, it takes two to tango, and nothing can happen with one. IMHO, it also means there is no 'ONE' in the universe. To qualify, this refers to an absolute singular entity which is irreducable and indevisable.
 
It is very deep and far reaching, ultimately even negating the BBT, which says there was a singular particle in the beginning, which then expanded/exploded/progressed/enlarged...etc.
Well, the BBT doesn't take its cues from Biblical notions about duality.
 
Quote Thus at one time, there was a particle entity [whatever that is!], and the BBT says it expanded. How can it expand - when the notion of expansion requires an interaction of either differing temperatures or pressures - there was nothing else, remember?
 
Further, the BBT says other, new compounds were formed: what did these interact with to form new compounds - there was no other elements or forces at one time. Not even the faculty of 'expansion' - because there was no heat or pressure forces.
 
So one can see that when genesis places this statute of a duality in its creation chapter - it means a lot, and its not a stray, superfluous verse. This is also the problems I have with the BBT - it becomes problematic when examined beyond [before] this expansion phase, namely its foundation is the problem. At least, I don't understand how it works in a finite realm.

Well, its not that complex. The particle was unstable and unstable particles don't need to interact with anything else to change, split up, give off light or energy or radiation, etc.

Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph

Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 21:15
What about the belief, as stated in both the Quran and the OT, in a second form of sentient life existing along side man.  The Quran even goes so far as to state this form existed before man. Man is from the earth, the jinn are from fire[light].
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by red clay - 25-Nov-2008 at 22:42
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 22:53
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

   
Both the day and week were introduced in genesis; cosmic day means days not accounted by the sun's luminosity, which are epochs of time. The Hebrew calendar starts after the first creational [cosmic] 7 days.
I agree that the days in the bible could be cosmic days. So day 1 could last a hundred years, a million or a billion years. It is the same with the days 2 to 5. What's with the 6th day or the 7th? Isn't it possible that they lasted a hundred, a thousand or millions of years too?
 
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

 
Quote So the great flood wasn't all around the world? another interpretation of you
 
Yes - all around the 'THEN KNOWN' world. Tasmania was not part of the world 500 years ago.
The known world, okay. But all humans are descendants from Adam and Eve. So if God destroyed the world because mankind failed, he meant all, did he? Or are Tasmanians not a part of he creation? Weren't they speaking. Ar they from an rival creation in the neighbourhood?
 
 
  
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

 Its an anomoly we have no speech proof even the last 20K years - we should have this evidence everywhere we look, even after considering all the excuses, including that of writings.
we have no book from the old Germanics outside the Empire. But nevertheless they existed. So there are a lot of evidences that man could speak before 4004 years BC. You won't see them, cause you don't want them.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

 Abraham was the first jew - it begins with the Covenant, marked by a circumsizion signature: this is how contracts were signed 4000 years ago.
The bible is the only place that tells us about Jews of Abrahamitic times. The first sources from other nations are hundreds of years later.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 06:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Again, that's only your interpretation. In any case God is part of the universe, or the term universe loses its meaning.
 
The reverse applies. God is not part of the universe, and precedes it. Your interpretation is totally unscientific, denying the cause and effect premise. The text says, if you read it with better input, 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD'. The opening 4 words declare a point when the universe and anything else did not exist - else the text is incorrectly read. It is then followed by the first 'VERB' [action] of CREATE as a subsequence.
 
 
Quote
Also at the time God created the universe, the terms heaven and earth hadn't been used before either. So he might just as well have talked about galaxies, stars, seas or whatever.
 
 
Wrong reading. The texts was written 3,500 years ago, and here the terms heavens, and world [earth] did exist. This document does speak in the language of the peoples.
 
Quote
Anyway I pointed out some while ago that Genesis 1:1 is the title of the chapter, not the first step in it. The first thing that actually happens as part of the creation process is that God says "Let there be light'. That was the first thing created by god (everything else was just 'without form and void' at that point). 
 
Yes, genesis [IN THE BEGINNING] was always the name of the first book, also recorded by the greeks as such when it was first translated. The idea that light was the first thing created requires qualification. There are two thoughts on this.
 
1. That everything contained in the universe was created in the first verse, and each component became activated in its due time. This says that all future discoveries already exist now in their potential mode, but the time of becoming activated has not arrived. Thus the term 'create' is only used in the first chapter, and replaced with 'formed' thereafter. IOW, true CREATE occured only one time, and it was fully completed, as per the last verse in this chapter.
 
2. That factors such as light refers only to the process [evolution?] how creation was effected; it is preceded by the verse of order from disorder [entropy], and that light is indeed the most primodial force, able to carry programs [will/command] of all other components. When one considers creation, there has to be a 'carrier' of data and command, and this is here signified by light - of note, this is a pre-sun light! Of note also, the verse which says 'LET THERE BE LIGHT AND THERE WAS LIGHT' - signifies that this is the first ex-nehilo action, because nothing else existed at this point; the term, 'AND THERE WAS LIGHT' signifies Light as a catylist and processor, namely it carries a core program, and is able to interact to produce all other componenents in the universe.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote
 
 In every such myth, including Genesis, something existed before the creation being explained.
 
I pointed out to you, the text says nothing but the Creator existed at one point. Here, you are clearly embellishing your own irrelevent positions voluntarilly, with no regard of the text you are referring to. What, in your interpretation does this mean: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD'?
 
 
Quote
There's only one universe. That's what 'uni' means. And you need to think carefully about that word 'always'. Since time is part of the universe, there was no 'before the universe' so, yes, according to any myth of the creation of the universe it has always existed, 'always' meaning 'since the beginning of time'.
 
 
Yes, I agree there was no 'before', and you raise a good point. However, this point is in fact taken up in Genesis. You will note that there is no 'FIRST' day in Chapter one, although his is followed by DAY TWO, DAY THREE, etc. The first day is in fact listed as 'DAY ONE' - precisely because FIRST signifies one/first of many, but none others existed.
 
Also, I take it you subscribe to a finite uni, and one which is a true finite, where nothing else existed, not even time. This is also genesis' declaration, except only for the qualification of the first 4 words - its grammer and prose quite brilliantly executed in its opening, and as a pointer not to later on fall by any error in this question.
 
 
 
Quote  For instance I already pointed out somewhere that the Greeks, Norse, and Jews all believed in the existence in early times of non-human giants as a separate creation from humanity.
 
The greeks had no injunction against worship of such things - Judaism does. So giants mean totally different things than how you posited and alligned them. If you describe the Hebrew bible, then you cannot ignore the first two commandments when making a conclusion - its an intergrated document.
 
 
Quote
Giants - these have nothing to do with Monotheism.
Then what are they doing in Genesis?
Originally posted by Genesis 6 Genesis 6 wrote:

 
 
It is a descriptions of giants, which hebrew word also means MIGHTY, GREAT STATURE, etc - depending on its application. Nothing more.
 
Quote
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 
'mighty men which were of old, men of renown'
 
[quote]
Apart from the giants themselves, what about the 'sons of God'? Sounds very like the Titans and the Frost Giants to me..
 
Your comprehension is the problem: you have not factored the forbiddence of human divinity in the Heb bible. You will note the verses are preceded by:
 
"Gen 6/1.  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them"
 
Namely, it is discussing men who multiplied, and daughters were born unto 'THEM'. Also, the term for God is not El - this means, LORD, SIR, YOUR HONOR, BIG ONE, etc.


Edited by IamJoseph - 26-Nov-2008 at 07:03
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 07:17
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Apart from the giants themselves, what about the 'sons of God'? Sounds very like the Titans and the Frost Giants to me.
 
As far as I know, there are two schools of thought on the word Nephilim in both patristic and rabbinic sources. One school posits that they were the sons of fallen angels (as I recall, and Joseph may correct me if I'm wrong, the word Nephilim is derived from the Hebrew verb to fall) who bred with the daughters of men. The other school posits that they were the descendants of the sons of the line of Seth who abandoned their own wives and intermarried with the daughters of the line of Cain. I could do a bit more digging if you are interested, but those are the basics.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 12:16
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Apart from the giants themselves, what about the 'sons of God'? Sounds very like the Titans and the Frost Giants to me.
 
As far as I know, there are two schools of thought on the word Nephilim in both patristic and rabbinic sources.
 
My point here was, the only unacceptable, non-coherent reading is that which clearly contradicts the Hebrew bible elsewhere, and giants other than humans and angels, contradict the first 2 of the 10 C's. 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 15:54
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Again, that's only your interpretation. In any case God is part of the universe, or the term universe loses its meaning.
 
The reverse applies. God is not part of the universe, and precedes it.
You just stripped 'universe' of its meaning. You write as if 'God created the universe' was the same as saying 'God created the world'.
Quote
Your interpretation is totally unscientific, denying the cause and effect premise.
Interpretation is unscientific anyway. And there's no reason to accept the 'cause and effect' premise if you mean that every effect must have a cause. You deny it yourself because you claim something can exist without being caused.
Me, I can take the premise or leave it alone.
Quote   
 The text says, if you read it with better input, 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD'.
What on earth do you mean 'better input'? In most at least English translations that's how it reads. How on earth could there be 'better input'?
Quote
The opening 4 words declare a point when the universe and anything else did not exist - else the text is incorrectly read.
No they don't. They declare a point when God existed, however else you interpret it. And in fact they are nonsense because they imply God existed before the beginning and you cannot have a before the beginning. 
Quote
It is then followed by the first 'VERB' [action] of CREATE as a subsequence.
 
 
Quote
Also at the time God created the universe, the terms heaven and earth hadn't been used before either. So he might just as well have talked about galaxies, stars, seas or whatever.
 
 
Wrong reading. The texts was written 3,500 years ago, and here the terms heavens, and world [earth] did exist. This document does speak in the language of the peoples.
But it purports to be inspired by God, and I gather you believe speech was invented by God. So he might as well have invented terms for anything he was creating. You're the one who keeps going on about 'THE NAME' and how names not existing means the things didn't exist.
 
If not havîng a NAME for something means it didn't exist, how come galaxies existed before there was a NAME for them?
Quote  
Quote
Anyway I pointed out some while ago that Genesis 1:1 is the title of the chapter, not the first step in it. The first thing that actually happens as part of the creation process is that God says "Let there be light'. That was the first thing created by god (everything else was just 'without form and void' at that point). 
Yes, genesis [IN THE BEGINNING] was always the name of the first book, also recorded by the greeks as such when it was first translated. The idea that light was the first thing created requires qualification. There are two thoughts on this.
 
1. That everything contained in the universe was created in the first verse, and each component became activated in its due time. This says that all future discoveries already exist now in their potential mode, but the time of becoming activated has not arrived. Thus the term 'create' is only used in the first chapter, and replaced with 'formed' thereafter. IOW, true CREATE occured only one time, and it was fully completed, as per the last verse in this chapter.
That's arguing on the basis of a specific translation, which is absurd. Whether the translator chose to use 'formed', 'made', 'created' or 'brought forth' doesn't make any difference to the thought. To say that things existed before they existed is simply nuts.
Quote  
2. That factors such as light refers only to the process [evolution?] how creation was effected; it is preceded by the verse of order from disorder [entropy], and that light is indeed the most primodial force, able to carry programs [will/command] of all other components. When one considers creation, there has to be a 'carrier' of data and command, and this is here signified by light - of note, this is a pre-sun light! Of note also, the verse which says 'LET THERE BE LIGHT AND THERE WAS LIGHT' - signifies that this is the first ex-nehilo action, because nothing else existed at this point; the term, 'AND THERE WAS LIGHT' signifies Light as a catylist and processor, namely it carries a core program, and is able to interact to produce all other componenents in the universe.
You don't even get your text right. The earth and the 'waters' existed before light was created (according to Genesis), and so for that matter did darkness. And you might as well just lose all the pseudo-scientific jargon. It isn't going to convince anyone and it just makes everything you say less credible.
Quote  
Quote
 In every such myth, including Genesis, something existed before the creation being explained.
 
I pointed out to you, the text says nothing but the Creator existed at one point. Here, you are clearly embellishing your own irrelevent positions voluntarilly, with no regard of the text you are referring to. What, in your interpretation does this mean: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD'?
'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' means absolutely nothing whatsoever. 'God' can mean anything you like. 'In the beginning' means at time t=0, there being no negative time: i.e. when time started/was created/made/formed/brought forth/kicked off....
Quote
Quote
There's only one universe. That's what 'uni' means. And you need to think carefully about that word 'always'. Since time is part of the universe, there was no 'before the universe' so, yes, according to any myth of the creation of the universe it has always existed, 'always' meaning 'since the beginning of time'.
 Yes, I agree there was no 'before', and you raise a good point. However, this point is in fact taken up in Genesis. You will note that there is no 'FIRST' day in Chapter one, although his is followed by DAY TWO, DAY THREE, etc. The first day is in fact listed as 'DAY ONE' - precisely because FIRST signifies one/first of many, but none others existed.
That's silly. Day 1 and first day mean he same thing in a non-zero-based counting system. The first day could have been called Day Zero (which we would probably say nowadays) but they didn't count from zero in ancient Canaan.
 
Moreover, no version I'm aware of has Genesis refer to Day Two, Day Three or whatever. They refer to the 'second day' ('dies secundus'), 'third day' (dies tertius), and so on. The Vulgate, granted, has 'dies unus' not 'dies primus' but to make that 'day one' in the modern manner is a mistranslation. It translates better as the King James (and the others I have checked) has it: 'there was...one day'. I.e. the action to that point took one day.
Quote  
Also, I take it you subscribe to a finite uni, and one which is a true finite, where nothing else existed, not even time.
I don't necessarily subscribe to a finite universe or an infinite universe. It's just that whether it is finite or infinite it has to include everything, or the word is meaningless. If you want to change the meaning of 'universe' to just mean some things, what word do you intend to use to mean 'everything'?
Quote
This is also genesis' declaration, except only for the qualification of the first 4 words - its grammer and prose quite brilliantly executed in its opening, and as a pointer not to later on fall by any error in this question.
 
Quote  For instance I already pointed out somewhere that the Greeks, Norse, and Jews all believed in the existence in early times of non-human giants as a separate creation from humanity.
The greeks had no injunction against worship of such things - Judaism does. So giants mean totally different things than how you posited and alligned them. If you describe the Hebrew bible, then you cannot ignore the first two commandments when making a conclusion - its an intergrated document.
The Greeks didn't worship the Titans. The Norse didn't worship the Frost Giants. The Jews didn't worship the Nephilim. So I don't know what that paragraph is all about. They just had similar myths about them (though I grant not identical ones).
Quote
Quote
Giants - these have nothing to do with Monotheism.
Then what are they doing in Genesis?
Originally posted by Genesis 6 Genesis 6 wrote:

 
 
It is a descriptions of giants, which hebrew word also means MIGHTY, GREAT STATURE, etc - depending on its application. Nothing more.
 
Quote
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 
'mighty men which were of old, men of renown'
 
[quote]
Apart from the giants themselves, what about the 'sons of God'? Sounds very like the Titans and the Frost Giants to me..
 
Your comprehension is the problem: you have not factored the forbiddence of human divinity in the Heb bible. You will note the verses are preceded by:
 
"Gen 6/1.  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them"
 
Namely, it is discussing men who multiplied, and daughters were born unto 'THEM'. Also, the term for God is not El - this means, LORD, SIR, YOUR HONOR, BIG ONE, etc.
 
The passage I quoted talked about the sons of god and the giants who mated with human women. This has nothing to do with whether Judaism forbids human divinity. The Nephilim are neither human nor divine, not are they worshipped. So there's no point carrying on about irrelevancies.


Edited by gcle2003 - 26-Nov-2008 at 16:04
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 23:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You just stripped 'universe' of its meaning. You write as if 'God created the universe' was the same as saying 'God created the world'.
 
Genesis' text mention the galaxies and the earth; this equals the universe vert comprehensively, and applies to all generations of man's understanding.
 
Quote
Interpretation is unscientific anyway. And there's no reason to accept the 'cause and effect' premise if you mean that every effect must have a cause. You deny it yourself because you claim something can exist without being caused.
 
True, this is what genesis says and I do accept it, based on the premise of a 'finite' universe. Here, it does not cause a dispute with the cause & effect, but affirms it. The cycle must stop at some point in a finite realm, and there is no place else to go.
 
I do not think anyone is short on basic intelligence, however I think the issue eases up once a preamble is applied, namely if you uphold a finite premise of the universe or not. The first verse is saying a lot of things, and this can appear deceptively simple: it is perhaps the deepest sentence not just in the entire five books, but maybe that what is ever uttered in all recorded texts, as well concerning the deepest issue of all.
 
I know that some deep thinkers have also pondered why God's name is not used as the first, opening word - because even the term 'beginning' is not applicable in the same verse as God - this is a legitimate thought when the verse is corporated with. But once the finite premise is accepted, then the cause & effect is not violated when applied only once, because then we have the Creator - and nothing else; this points only to the Genesis premise and can go nowhere else. A cyclical conclusion is the wrong path and cannot apply.
 
Quote   
 
What on earth do you mean 'better input'? In most at least English translations that's how it reads. How on earth could there be 'better input'?
 
You never applied the finite premise, meaning there was Creator and no creation at one time. Here, some beliefs of God and the universe being ultimately one, as in eastern philosophies, is the stumbling block, and the notion of ex-nehilo is outside human minds or anything seen in the universe. This is the reason Genesis opens with the second alphabet, which is shaped as a square with only the 'go forth' forward facet open, and all other sides barred. It says we cannot go there - meaning our brain's wiring cannot absorb it. Otherwise we could make universes all over the place and create ex nehilo also.
 
 
 
Quote
The opening 4 words declare a point when the universe and anything else did not exist - else the text is incorrectly read.
No they don't. They declare a point when God existed, however else you interpret it. And in fact they are nonsense because they imply God existed before the beginning and you cannot have a before the beginning. 
Quote
The text says God existed always, and that the universe had a beginning - when carefully read. The word beginning is alligned with the term, CREATED, as opposed to God; grammatically, it cannot apply to God. E.g. 'In the beginning Bob made two cakes'; this means Bob made two cakes, not that in the beginning Bob was made. It is then followed by the first 'VERB' [action] of CREATE as a subsequence.
 
 
=======================
 
But it purports to be inspired by God, and I gather you believe speech was invented by God. So he might as well have invented terms for anything he was creating. You're the one who keeps going on about 'THE NAME' and how names not existing means the things didn't exist.
 
I don't see how the legitimate logic of asking for a name to verify speech is a contradiction here. Its like saying we should look for H20 when looking for life. Re Speech and creation, yes I do accept that the universe was created by speech, at least this was the only tool used. This is what the texts points to. Speech is a Godly trait, and its power not realised by many: all of human prowess and transcendence, good and bad, is resultant from speech - including the wheel and the apollo mission to the moon.
 
The speech tool is used in genesis as the impacting one, namely 'GOD 'SAID' [speech!] LET THERE BE LIGHT'. There were no other tools or elements at one time. In Kaballah, this is depicted that the alphabets preceded the universe [alluded to by the text telling the creation story], as in the blueprints of a house being built. Here, the command was given, and each alphabet moved to form appropriate words, which became meanings, and the act of creation occured. In a sense, this is also what happens in a PC, namely by alphabets or the number 'ONE' [the hebrew alphabets are also numbers]. I accept the premise of speech by the process of elimination in a finite realm, and the evidence of human enterprise subsequent to speech.
 
 
 
Quote
If not havîng a NAME for something means it didn't exist, how come galaxies existed before there was a NAME for them?
 
 
The term 'name' per se is not what is meant here, but speech itself being the magic element used for ex nehilo creation, and the term 'create' limited to one occurence. If this was not a once only occurence, it becomes superfluous. And here, once does not mean once per se, but also that it is ongoing. If you check the tense of the clause, 'AND IT WAS SO' - it is incorrect if read as a past tense; this is in the unique to Hebrew, 'perfect' tense, meaning past, present and future, incorporating all time. So it was, is, and shall be so. IOW, creation is alligned with all time, and one can use the term, 'IN CREATION', as opposed CREATED. This is correct because the tense is governed by time, and when the universe was created, time did not exist - it is subsequent or applicable with the advent of creation. This is clarified by the term, 'I [GOD] HAVE NOT CHANGED' - and change is subject to time and other impacting factors - none of which existed in the beginning of a finite realm.  
 
Quote
 
 
That's arguing on the basis of a specific translation, which is absurd. Whether the translator chose to use 'formed', 'made', 'created' or 'brought forth' doesn't make any difference to the thought. To say that things existed before they existed is simply nuts.
It is certainly not plausable to account the word CREATE appearing only in the first creation chapter as a translation effect. The premise that things existed before they existed is not nuts - else nothing exists; not even the premise of nothingness. You keep forgetting the finite premise - apply it as the preamble, as per Genesis, and see what happens.
 
Quote
You don't even get your text right. The earth and the 'waters' existed before light was created (according to Genesis), and so for that matter did darkness.
 
No. Both light and water and darkness were created in Verse 1 [the text]; these were formless; they became formed with the interaction of light. E.g: 'In the beginning Bob made all the components for his cake, then he mixed the water and the flour and he cooked it in an oven' - here, all the components, including the oven, happened in the beginning. All in creation occured in the first verse [else the verse becomes superfluous]. Later, the potential was changed to actuality, same as happens when we dscover/invent something new: its basics already existed.
 
Quote
'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' means absolutely nothing whatsoever. 'God' can mean anything you like. 'In the beginning' means at time t=0, there being no negative time: i.e. when time started/was created/made/formed/brought forth/kicked off....
 
 
There was no time till post-beginning.
Quote
 
That's silly. Day 1 and first day mean he same thing in a non-zero-based counting system. The first day could have been called Day Zero (which we would probably say nowadays) but they didn't count from zero in ancient Canaan.
 
Day one, and first day, are totally varied constants. Coming first in an olympic race means there were other contestants, whereas coming ONE only cannot accomodate other contestants. The variation of one replacing first, and only in the first instance but not in its successive follow-up verses, must be seen as meaning something; the superfluous factor cannot apply - it is totally forbidden in reading any true theology or true grammar. Thus the constant, THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN TORAH. Why else would there be the injunctive and mandated law, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT - if not because there is nothing superfluous or needing adjustment? Its very legalistic and pristine, and it must be if a divine, sacred text.
 
Quote Moreover, no version I'm aware of has Genesis refer to Day Two, Day Three or whatever. They refer to the 'second day' ('dies secundus'), 'third day' (dies tertius), and so on. The Vulgate, granted, has 'dies unus' not 'dies primus' but to make that 'day one' in the modern manner is a mistranslation. It translates better as the King James (and the others I have checked) has it: 'there was...one day'. I.e. the action to that point took one day.
 
Here you are:
 
Quote Gen 1/5:  And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P}/ Gen 1/8: And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}/  Gen1/13:  And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}
 
 
Quote
I don't necessarily subscribe to a finite universe or an infinite universe. It's just that whether it is finite or infinite it has to include everything, or the word is meaningless. If you want to change the meaning of 'universe' to just mean some things, what word do you intend to use to mean 'everything'?
 
No, everything refers to what is created, without violating the Creator [cause and effect] premise. It does not make any sense any other way. Finite is the counter effect of infinite, and never the other way around: only a infinite can produce a finite, while all subsequence of a finite is also finite.
 
What it all means is, whether one agrees or not, Genesis is 100% deep science and logic. It does not have to allign with every single notion of science held now; it is still an intelligent alternative, one which appears always vindicated by science when all things are considered, and when time is afforded for any science theories held at certain times. E.g., the notion of using evolution as an opposite counter to creation, is matched with Genesis saying evolution is an after thought of creation. I myself agree with genesis. If you do not, it does not mean genesis is without logic or unscientific - it only means Genesis has a valid alternative premise, itself an astonishing thing when it is well considered. Genesis poses the only counter to the ultimate questions!


Edited by IamJoseph - 26-Nov-2008 at 23:41
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2008 at 22:15

Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

What it all means is, whether one agrees or not, Genesis is 100% deep science and logic.

Yes, because talking snakes and magical apples and giants are "deep science" right? No, what we're talking about here is basically a primitive fantasy novel, or the ancient equivalent of D&D. It's hardly "deep science" even if, by some very wild semantic contortions, you can wrestle it into conformity with modern science by calling everything "symbolic" and then assigning whatever meanings you like to it. But in this case, you're taking your cue for truth from science, not the Bible: you're just artificially making the Bible conform to the truths science gave you.

Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 18:24
Q: Concerning the premise of adaptation as described in ToE, is the catylst that drives this premise an internal or external impact?
 
What I mean is, if a life form makes a leap to an elevated treshold, what allows it do so - is this directive embedded within itself, even though it is aspiring to a new level, one it has never encountered or seen before? Or is an external [environmental] force which makes this happen - one that clearly knows the surrounding conditions?
 
If it is an internal triggering, then the data concerning the elevation must have some form of external/outside input, as opposed all the required data to conduct a leap outside itself is contained within itself. We know that an offspring is the result of external factors - external to the offspring, namely the host parents - and the new, extra traits which are in small measure different from the host. The offspring is not the same as the host duality that produced it - it is a new and unique entity, not altogether made exclusively from the hosts, because it has something new. Where did the new comefrom?
 
If we say it is not new but a variation of the same components of its hosts, then we are saying the same thing: the variance, even if derived from a different combination of the same components, is still something new.
 
For example. A fish turns to a Zebra, via many levels of accumulated changes and leaps. Here, one can say that all the zebra's combinations were contained in all the genes of all its predessors, only they have achieved a critical new combination to form a zebra. Here, the factor of an external impact is still encumbent, because whatever one gene adapts to - it can only do so if the resultant object is also receptive to it; the gene cannot adapt to a rock because the rock does not offer it a receptive facility. The receptive factor here acts as an external provision. IOW, if an intergration is contained in this process, then the random factor and the sole internal action by the host gene, becomes negated because it depends on the external environment for reciprocity and intergration.
 
The fish cannot become a zebra on Mars, because of the lack of receptivity and facility of intergration - not because the conditions on Mars are not suitable. The external impact is a new input in the process of adaptation, and can only be derived by an external impacting source. In fact, even the host, made of two seperate life forms, impact each ther as seperate [external] forces.
 
My question is asking, where did the new input come from - what is this external source which becomes receptive to a seperate entity it has never encountered before, yet displays an anticipatory response?


Edited by IamJoseph - 13-Dec-2008 at 18:28
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 18:56
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

What it all means is, whether one agrees or not, Genesis is 100% deep science and logic.

Yes, because talking snakes and magical apples and giants are "deep science" right?

 
Are you even serious? The talking snake is clearly given in its texts as a realm outside the universe, and is thus an allegory, or a metaphysical expression. It cannot be accounted as an everyday natural uccurence by its textual comprehension, which says they were cast down to earth, and re-entry barred by angels with firey swords turning every which way.
 
This is similar to a science scholar on TV ridiculing the term 'dust' for original human construction [Genesis]. I cannot imagine a better term than dust, which in the Hebrew signifies unseeable, unaccountable minute particles, or in today's terms, sub-atomic. That humans are made from the smallest and comprehensive elements of the earth has no alternative, and clearly seen when broken down. How else does one descrive this process, in a manner suitable for all generations, even when the terms atom, partciles, and genes never yet entered the human vocab?
 
And why do so-called scientists only zoom into such verses, and ignore 1000s of scientifically vindicated factors in the same source? Genesis also says the universe is finite, introduced entropy, anticipatory actions for life, the first recording of evolution, introduced the day and weak, and the most accurate and oldest calendar - all this in the first alphabetical books. As if there is another document in existence with more proven factors than the Hebrew bible - like where?
 
 
 
Quote  But in this case, you're taking your cue for truth from science, not the Bible: you're just artificially making the Bible conform to the truths science gave you.
 
So if Genesis contains any correct info, it swiped it from a science book? Did the Genesis writier copy Darwin when it gives the frst chronological grads of species - veg, water, air borne, land, etc - or is it precisely the other way around? Am I inventing something or does Genesis say the universe [heavenly galaxies and the earth] had a beginning? Is Monotheism a contradiction of science, or is a BB in a finite realm not an anomoly, because it infers an original particle was always present - violating the finite factor? Genesis says everything in the universe is derived from a duality, namely of two entities interacting - so what interacted wth the BB original, lone particle - there was nothing yet in existence? Here, a faulty science goes walkabout - but Genesis' duality factor gives a logical answer.
 
All theologies are not myth.


Edited by IamJoseph - 13-Dec-2008 at 18:59
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 19:15
To prempt, my answer concerning adaptation, is that really there is no adaptation as per ToE. There is a duality factor, namely nothing can happen without a minimum of two, and each being receptive to each other. This renders self acquired adaptation as superfluous.
 
E.g. a lone particle in the universe, even when there is no universe but only the particle, cannot perform an action. We cannot say the data is internal here, because then it was not the first, lone particle. Here, only another, seperate entity impacting on that particle can make an action. Nor can this prcess beging here. It signifies a ONE hovering over the DUALITY. No alternative to this.
 
This does not mean there is no adaptation per se - there is an adaptation process, but this process is a driven process subject to outside forces, and not self activating.


Edited by IamJoseph - 13-Dec-2008 at 19:16
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 23:06
I told you, there are living formes that don't need a duality. I asked you why male human beings have nipples. No answer.  All we hear from you is pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific twaddle. If you want to believe, believe, believe in JHW, n Allah, in Amaterasu, Shiva, Cali or the devil. But stay away from science. We want to know.Angry
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 23:16

Why male human beings have nipples? Simple. Male and female share most basic make up. The genetic programs to develop mamals is almost exactly the same for males and females. It seems nipples are codified in the common cromosomes between male and female, and they are stopped from full developed under orders codified in the Y cromosome.

That makes sense under the theory of evolution, which explains that most structures of the body are recycled among creatures. It is like a computer program that have patch after patch to finally make it work well. Evolution goes patch by patch. It is unlike making a building that has a final blueprint since the beginning of the work.
 
That's why we share so many structures with fishes, why the placent remembers so much the egg of a reptile, or our hands are present in potential forms in lunged fishes. We are just a new release of a software that once was called fish, then monkey and now humans.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 23:29
Thank you for your answer, pinguin. But I did not expect you to answer. I was quite sure that you or others have an idea of it. But those guys from the right side of god, those self-chosen prophets, what could they give for an answer? God is without a fail! That's what they say. So why we have nipples? Are we substitute milking machines for our wifes? No, we can't give milk, even if we want to. Are we more beautiful with it? I can't see so. Or is it for better sex? Ooh, sex is evil. God didn't do it, didn't he? Sorry for being unpolite, but all this religious nonsense is making me sick. If there is a god I have to ask him: Why did you gave us a brain, if we are not allowed to use it? Bloody bigottery! Sorry again - believe, but shut up.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 23:40
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Thank you for your answer, pinguin. But I did not expect you to answer. I was quite sure that you or others have an idea of it. But those guys from the right side of god, those self-chosen prophets, what could they give for an answer? God is without a fail! That's what they say. So why we have nipples? Are we substitute milking machines for our wifes? No, we can't give milk, even if we want to. Are we more beautiful with it? I can't see so. Or is it for better sex? Ooh, sex is evil. God didn't do it, didn't he? Sorry for being unpolite, but all this religious nonsense is making me sick. If there is a god I have to ask him: Why did you gave us a brain, if we are not allowed to use it? Bloody bigottery! Sorry again - believe, but shut up.
 
Beorna, we already know that this is your opinion about religion.  You have stated it at least once in this thread already.  Keep in mind that the topic at hand is Creationism vs. Evolution and not just evolution.  If you cannot critique the statements people have made from an objective standpoint, or at least attempt it, it is best not to repeat yourself.
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2008 at 23:56

What objective standpoint? Your not talking about IamJoseph, don't you? No scientist is just using one source. He and all the other creationists are just using the bible, the torah, the koran, nothing else. If you call the creationist statements here in this thread objective I have to wonder.

BTW, I have no problems with religions. If people need a belief I don't care about it, if it helps them. The problem is that all those guys don't have the truth, NO, they have the only truth. That's the problem. If you can convince me of creationism with objective arguments, I'll regret. But there are just your prayers and gospels.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 26272829>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.