It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 23
1
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Ugh, it doesn't say that at all. Christ, if my skull is thick, your's must be solid right through. It's a pretty clear statement IMO. Also, most people would note the hint of sarcasm in there. Most ...

Sarcasm is tough with text.



then be willing to accept the evidence of ignorant god believing morons


Had they decided to say GOD was the casue of gravity, GR, etc, then yes, I wouldn't accept that aspect at all. There is no supernatural guy going around zapping crap into existence.
They did believe this. They recognized God as a first cause... ie: God zapped the universe and everything in it including gravity and LUCA into existence.



but you dislike him


nonono, never said that either. I don't know him personally to dislike him, but what he stated still means what it means. I'm not sure how to put it in mattenese

Hmmm... so when you stated

I personally dislike evolutionist's who think god did it as well

You didn't mean that you didn't like Ken Miller. He is an evolutionist who believes God did it. You're going to have to clarify.



evolution, and abiogenesis are concerned with biological origins.


Evolution has literally nothing to do with origins. If Abiogenesis is akin to evolution then big bang is akin to abiogenesis making it one complete happy family.

You're not serious are you. Perhaps you should note the title of Darwins book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Explain this to me like I'm a two year old. How is that not about origins?



Let's suppose abiogenesis is completly wrong and that GOD did it, but in such a way to allow for common decent/evolution. Does this mean evolution is wrong because abiogenesis never happened?

Absolutely not, because you've accounted for LUCA. The point is firstly you can't account for LUCA created by God, short of God coming down through the clouds and proclaiming it, and secondly the a priori assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life... which like it or not, is far from resolved.



So far, it hasn't been supported, has no evidence of anything being designed,

This is of course a matter of opinion.


and all it does is play court games. One thing I can agree on, it has been falsified, but I'm not sure that alone is enough to make it a legitimate field of science.

Then why not post the falsifications here for all to see. After all that is your goal here... exposing ID for the fraud it is. If it's been falsified, this should be very easy for you to prove. Prove it.





posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The problem with intelligent design is that most of nature isn't so intelligently designed. There are body parts that don't even stand up to our scrutiny. We could design some of the things in nature better, so what does that say about god.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
The problem with intelligent design is that most of nature isn't so intelligently designed. There are body parts that don't even stand up to our scrutiny. We could design some of the things in nature better, so what does that say about god.


Intelligence doesn't equal optimal design. The recent recall of segway scooters is a good example. They have a design flaw, but that doesn't mean they weren't designed.

Most of these bad design examples are really bad design. As any engineer will tell you, design is a process of compromise, you have optimal designs within reason.

Take a laptop. The screen could be bigger, the keyboard could be more ergonomic, that battery could have more life, etc. The fact is these things were designed to work in the context of a compact computer, not to be optimal in every way.

None of this says anything about God, as ID isn't about God.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
No bad design is not intelligent design. There are plenty of bad designs out there. Good design is optimal in just about every way you can comprimise, but there are things that are designed poorly that didn't need to comprimised for any reason and are still in existance. The retina didn't have to be behind the optic nerve messing up our vision but it is. It was chance that put it there not comprimise. the human eye... bad design. Why cant we have an eye with more intelligently layed out rods and cones so that we could see color in lowlight environments would be nice to see objects better at night time if I just could simply look directly at them instead of on a goofy angle. Intelligent design isn't about God although it is usually infered that way. It could be about aliens designing people, but surely they would have spotted some of our basic design flaws and design a better one. Maybe not comprimised when they didn't have to. Maybe aliens aren't as smart as people and thats why we have those flaws. I cant wait for our species to accend to the highst levels of the galaxy, we're so smart well have total ownage! it'll be awsome. If god did create us with these flaws that didn't need to be there than god isn't so intelligent and again-whoohoo! We are going to own this place once we get powerfull enough. go humans.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
No bad design is not intelligent design.

So then you're saying Seqway scooters weren't designed by an intelligence?

Please clarify.


There are plenty of bad designs out there. Good design is optimal in just about every way you can comprimise, but there are things that are designed poorly that didn't need to comprimised for any reason and are still in existance. The retina didn't have to be behind the optic nerve messing up our vision but it is. It was chance that put it there not comprimise. the human eye... bad design.

Are you a physiologist? What do you really know about this system? First of all, there is in fact no evidence suggesting that having this layer of nerve fibres (which are largely transparent) in front of the receptors significantly blocks, or distorts incoming light in anyway... the 'blind spot' is perfectly compensated for by having two eyes.

In addition to this, light is particularly damaging to cells in the shorter wavelengths... that is UV light. Furthermore, the eye contains a layer of cells called the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE), which has an extremely intricate mechanisms for obviating the damage caused by radicals, etc. that are produced by the natural action of light. Combating this damage requires specific enzymes like superoxide dismutase, catalase, etc.

As a consequence of prolific and significant damage caused by light, the photoreceptor cells are continuously replaced by the RPE. Were not the case, the photoreceptors would quickly acquire multiple fatal defects that would preclude their function. IOW, if photoreceptors weren't continuously replaced, you'd go blind.

Also, the RPE cells contain the pigment melanin, (not melatonin
) which absorbs stray and scattered light to improve resolution. The RPE is in contact with the choroid layer, which contains a significant concentration of capillaries, and in fact, has the highest rate of blood flow per gram of any tissue in the body. The blood flow must be high here, since the RPE and photoreceptor cells are in constant regeneration. IOW they require a high rate of exchange of oxygen and nutrients. Finally, it appears that the high rate of blood flow is required to remove thermal energy from the retina to prevent damage resulting from focused light, which function in manner similar to burning ants with a magnifying glass.

Of course, don't take my word for it: Check out this paper
or this one or even this article: Kennon Guerry, R., Ham, W.T., Mueller, H.A. 1998. Light toxicity in the posterior segment. In Tasman W., Jaeger EA. (eds.), Clinical Ophthalmology, Lippincott-Raven, New York, vol. 3, ch. 37, which you'll have to take a book out of a med school library for... good read though.


Why cant we have an eye with more intelligently layed out rods and cones

We do. Please see above refs.


so that we could see color in lowlight environments would be nice to see objects better at night time if I just could simply look directly at them instead of on a goofy angle.

Enhanced vision in low light environments is likely to result in an increase in the damage to photoreceptors. The eyes function best in throughout the wavelengths and light intensities that they view the most. Design is about compromise.


Intelligent design isn't about God although it is usually infered that way. It could be about aliens designing people, but surely they would have spotted some of our basic design flaws and design a better one.

Flaw is subjective. Sorry to hear that you take your vision for granted. I don't have a blind spot, and my eyes work just fine. I am further willing to accept the opinion of actual 'eye doctors' that there is a very good reason for the eye being layed out the way it is.

Like I said, read the papers I posted. I can email you .pdfs if need be.

This post could lead into the 'well why don't squid eyes possess this defect," which is somewhat common. The reason is because the eyes function in completely different environments. Squid eyes don't receive much light, and must be optimized to work in low light conditions. Furthermore the body structures are different in terms of symmetry. Humans, are one of the few species to have and 'eyes front' 'design.' Squids don't have this, and thus couldn't compensate for blind spot that exists in the human eye.


[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I understand with what your saying about comprimise and all, but if the designer of the eye was intelligent he would have created rods and cones that could handle more photons and of wider degrees and not go blind when receiving light. There is a wider spectrum than what we precieve, wouldn't it be great if our eyes could pick up on more of them, why not? It's not designed for the frequencies we view the most, we just precieve light from the frequencies the eye is capable of interpriting the most efficiently, but alas out eyes are still not very efficient. Owls can see great at night and day, they don't go blind during the day time, vision is important to us so why didn't we get awsome eyes? I'm glad the designer got it right about leaving the tissue in the eye with a fast metablolism and a robust blood flow to replace worn out eye cells but isn't that how it should be? I would expect that it would evolve that way over a period of time anyway. I was refering to the fact that the human eye can't see colors well in low light situations even though it can be critical to do so, because the cones dominate the center of our vision, but wouldn't it be better if the rods and cones were both more resilient, more sensative at the same time and spread out evenly so that we could actually focus on objects at night time using other than our periphrial vision? Too much of a comprimise? Well than use better building material, but if they were intelligent they would have know to do that from the get go and life wouldn't look the way it did, or be made as much from carbon based material. By the way I don't take my vision for granted but if I were designing a device that interprets light to our brain and I had the abilities of what ever creator i'm sure I could have done a better job. And the Seagway is a stupid invention, wow a self balancing scooter that doesn't scoot very well, and has no real funtional use that isn't vastly out done by plenty of other better and more intellignetly designed inventions. maybe the designer was sentient but not necesarilly intellignet. I'm not saying the eye isn't really intricate which it is,and you've given plenty of examples of that but so are my toe nails when examined and I don't think they were the optimal design either. The doctors are explaining the eyes layout and why it is the way it is, but they aren't as saying that it's the best way for them to be even with all the comprimises factored in. And squid do use binocular vision when striking prey, they swivel their eyes out and forward to get true binocular vision and depth perception. The eye is just an organ that it is sensative to light that can evolve through evolutional process to become complicated, but not necesarilly designed. I'm sure the squid would have wanted a superior design when it has to swivel its eyes around to see where it's striking, but chance and luck is what designed it not a intelligent designer.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I understand with what your saying about comprimise and all, but if the designer of the eye was intelligent he would have created rods and cones that could handle more photons and of wider degrees and not go blind when receiving light.

This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, and again, I'm sorry you take your vision for granted.


Owls can see great at night and day, they don't go blind during the day time,

Ummmm, owls are nocturnal. They don't go out in the day.


vision is important to us so why didn't we get awsome eyes?

Again, I'm sorry you take your vision for granted. Hopefully you never lose it.



I'm glad the designer got it right about leaving the tissue in the eye with a fast metablolism and a robust blood flow to replace worn out eye cells but isn't that how it should be?

Not how it should how it must be.


I would expect that it would evolve that way over a period of time anyway. I was refering to the fact that the human eye can't see colors well in low light situations even though it can be critical to do so, because the cones dominate the center of our vision, but wouldn't it be better if the rods and cones were both more resilient, more sensative at the same time and spread out evenly so that we could actually focus on objects at night time using other than our periphrial vision?

Once more design is a compromise. Primates are not nocturnal for the most part, and thus their eyes are optimized for the daytime. Primates that are nocturnal have different eyes. Your eyes are optimized for the type of vision they are most utilized for. Again, sorry you take your vision for granted.


Too much of a comprimise? Well than use better building material, but if they were intelligent they would have know to do that from the get go and life wouldn't look the way it did, or be made as much from carbon based material.

There aren't other biological materials. Sorry, but proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and lipids are what we have to work with. That's what makes the biosphere integrated... all organisms are made of the same stuff. If they weren't it wouldn't be a food chain.

Carbon based life is the only option... at least on earth. It's the only element that can form a wide variety of compounds in the temperature range where water is a liquid. Like I've said repeatedly design is a compromise of many factors.

You're missing the point anyway... even if the designer were retarded, the designs are still a product of intelligence. Intelligence doesn't equal optimum, it simply means intelligence... could be an IQ of 15 or 15 million. The point isn't about how intelligent, just intelligence in general.

I see you ignored my question about recalled products. Do you insist that recalled products weren't designed, or that they weren't designed by an intelligence? If you do, you're completely wrong.


By the way I don't take my vision for granted but if I were designing a device that interprets light to our brain and I had the abilities of what ever creator i'm sure I could have done a better job.

Take your best shot. What's stopping you? If you could design something better than do it, don't just front about it.


And the Seagway is a stupid invention, wow a self balancing scooter that doesn't scoot very well, and has no real funtional use that isn't vastly out done by plenty of other better and more intellignetly designed inventions.

Whether or not you think it's 'stupid' is completely irrelevant. A person, a person with intelligence, I don't know how much intelligence, but a designing intelligence designed the Segway... like or not, it's an inescapable fact.


maybe the designer was sentient but not necesarilly intellignet.

You're missing the point re: intelligence. My down syndrome sister in law can design something. No doubt, she's not intelligent by societal standards, but nonetheless, if she designs something it is the product of a designing intelligence. It's an inescapable fact. Intelligence doesn't imply superiority or anything like that it implies intelligence only. Like I said IQ of 15 or 15 million, it's still intelligence.


I'm not saying the eye isn't really intricate which it is,and you've given plenty of examples of that but so are my toe nails when examined and I don't think they were the optimal design either.

Your toenails could be designed better?



The doctors are explaining the eyes layout and why it is the way it is, but they aren't as saying that it's the best way for them to be even with all the comprimises factored in.

Obviously you didn't read a single ref that I posted.
It's obvious your mind is already made up about this issue



And squid do use binocular vision when striking prey, they swivel their eyes out and forward to get true binocular vision and depth perception.

Okay, so... I never said they didn't use binocular vision, I said that their eyes were optimized for lower light, and they exhibited a different type of symmetry than do human eyes.


The eye is just an organ that it is sensative to light that can evolve through evolutional process to become complicated, but not necesarilly designed. I'm sure the squid would have wanted a superior design when it has to swivel its eyes around to see where it's striking, but chance and luck is what designed it not a intelligent designer.


Once more intelligence doesn't imply optimal.

So you're going to refuse to answer the question about the segway in the context I asked?

I'll try once more: You are claiming that things that are not optimally designed are not the products of a designing intelligence?

So the Henry Ford when he built the model T wasn't intelligent because it wasn't a Lexus.

The Wright Brothers must have been a couple of morons then... their plane only got off the ground for like 13 seconds. Perhaps the Wright Brothers were retarded.

Do you know what an idiot Edison was... he designed the light bulb, and here we are a century and half later, and their still blowing out. Perhaps you can come up with a better design for the light bulb too... maybe you should try some different materials.

Hey do you know who the biggest bunch of idiots of all time must be, those astrophysicists and mechanical engineers that designed the early US space vehicles... you know the ones that blew up on the launch pad. Man, too bad you weren't around back then... could have saved the US taxpayers millions.

So none of these highly faulty designs were the product of intelligence... okay...


Sorry, but I'm not buying it.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR There is a wider spectrum than what we precieve, wouldn't it be great if our eyes could pick up on more of them, why not? It's not designed for the frequencies we view the most, we just precieve light from the frequencies the eye is capable of interpriting the most efficiently,


I was pretty sure this wrong, but didn't want to call you on it until I was able to look a couple things up. The range where we see is from about 400nm to 700nm, and as it just so happens about 40% of the sun's energy is emmitted at these wavelengths. Furthermore, the sun's spectrum peaks right in the middle of that range. IOW, are eyes are optimized to receive light in the spectrum most highly radiated by the sun.

It certainly seems possible that this is simply an artifact of eyes having evolved to the exact spectrum of light coming through the atmosphere. But in any case, it argues against what you've stated above.

It is worth quoting George Greenstein, dept of Astronomy @ Amherst (special emphasis mine) from his book The Symbiotic Universe, which I recommend.

One might think that a certain adaptation has been at work here: the adaptation of plant life to the properties of sunlight. After all if the sun were a different temperature could not some other molecule, tund to absorb light of a different color, take the place of chlorophyll? Remarkably enough the answer is no, for within broad limits all molecules absorb light of similar colors. The absorption of light is accomplished by the excitation of electrons in molecules to higher energy states, and the general scale of energy required to do this is the same no matter what molecule you are discussing. Furthermore, light is composed of photons, packets of energy, and photons of the wrong energy simply can't be absorbed.


Allow me to paraphrase: the molecules that are used to construct living organisms have an effective range of wavelengths they can absorb. Carbon based molecules absorb over a limited range. Too much energy rips them apart, while too little energy doesn't allow them to absorb any energy.

In short the eye is not only optimized to absorb the wavelengths emmited most heavily by the sun, but is in fact limited by other energetic constraints.

Just as I've been saying all along... design is a compromise between a lot of different competing factors. Some of which are not so obvious... unless you have a degree in chemistry or physics.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
isn't it an assumption to say that we were intelligently designed. What proof is there for the design being intelligent. Or designed even for that matter. And regarding the squid are you talking about their internal eye structure or the general symetry of their bodies, cause when their striking their food they aren't very different with respect to where their eyes are located and what their doing at the time. And not all squid live in low light environments. Owls do fly during the day time-even though they are nocturnal. I've seen plenty of Great Horned owls moving about in the daylight even if they are just going from one resting spot to another. And no I don't think the scientists were stupid because their inventions weren't as technologically advanced when they invented them than as they are today, I'm saying that if someone who was so intellectually powerful to invent and design all the organisms on earth sure picked a limiting platform to develope life on. Thought he/She/they would go with a better method. Life the way it arises on earth may work but it's not nececerily be the best way to go about it. I mean you could have someone with some degree of intelligence design a car made out of paper machet and it could probably work for a while and have it still concidered intelligently designed your right, but would an intelligent designer capable of more understanding and fore thought than humans have created things in this maner? If they did than damn go humans cause we are still so gunna own this place when we become big and powerful enough to do so. Go humans.

Edison wasn't the genius he and his publicist claimed, half of his inventions were those of his subordinants and he was involved in a few intellectual theft accusations. And if I had the capacity of either a diety or an alien race that knew enough to create all this than yeah I could do a better job with less comprimises.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
And by the way I did loose my vision for over a day once when I recieved a really bad injury to my eye that required 7 internal stitches in it at the emergency room so I know what it feels like to loose your vision even for a litle bit. Still think we got jipped by our creators in the vision department.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
And everything is symbiotic because it evolved-critical word here- from everything else. Again a issue of chance and reinforcing relationships, not because it was designed to peacefully coexist with each other.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
isn't it an assumption to say that we were intelligently designed. What proof is there for the design being intelligent. Or designed even for that matter.

Design is an inference.


And regarding the squid are you talking about their internal eye structure or the general symetry of their bodies, cause when their striking their food they aren't very different with respect to where their eyes are located and what their doing at the time.

Body symmetry. Squid eye placement isn't 'eyes front' only primates demonstrate this type of eye arrangement... at least I think.


And not all squid live in low light environments.

All squid live under water which is by definition a lower light environment than the surface.


Owls do fly during the day time-even though they are nocturnal. I've seen plenty of Great Horned owls moving about in the daylight even if they are just going from one resting spot to another.

Owls are nocturnal. Their eyes are optimized for nighttime. It doesn't mean they never come out in the day. Humans are diurnal (by nature), and their eyes are optimized to work in the daylight. It doesn't mean they can't come out at night.


And no I don't think the scientists were stupid because their inventions weren't as technologically advanced when they invented them than as they are today, I'm saying that if someone who was so intellectually powerful to invent and design all the organisms on earth sure picked a limiting platform to develope life on.

You think the Earth's biodiversity is limited? Okay... I respectfully disagree.


Thought he/She/they would go with a better method. Life the way it arises on earth may work but it's not nececerily be the best way to go about it.

Like I said, you think you can do better? Go for it.


I mean you could have someone with some degree of intelligence design a car made out of paper machet and it could probably work for a while and have it still concidered intelligently designed your right, but would an intelligent designer capable of more understanding and fore thought than humans have created things in this maner?

Possibly.


If they did than damn go humans cause we are still so gunna own this place when we become big and powerful enough to do so. Go humans.


We are all waiting, anxiously for your optimized designs. Let me know when you work 'em out, okay?


Edison wasn't the genius he and his publicist claimed, half of his inventions were those of his subordinants and he was involved in a few intellectual theft accusations. And if I had the capacity of either a diety or an alien race that knew enough to create all this than yeah I could do a better job with less comprimises.

All right... now I'm psyched. What's your first improvement going to be? This should be good.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
The scientists were discusing why everything must work the way it does because of comprimises due to the material the organ is constructed out of. I'm sure if they had it their way they would have chosen a different platform to create on. But since no one had that option there is a logical argument that there is nothing designed about the human race or life at all.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
And everything is symbiotic because it evolved-critical word here- from everything else. Again a issue of chance and reinforcing relationships, not because it was designed to peacefully coexist with each other.


Maybe, maybe not.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
My first invention would be an eye that can precieve more than 40 percent of the available light spectrum. And I would probably use something else than cellular life to develop it out of. In the future intelligent self replicating androids are going to be laughing at our "intelligently designed" eyes which will be inferior to their eyes.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
The scientists were discusing why everything must work the way it does because of comprimises due to the material the organ is constructed out of.

Exactly. Things work the way they do because they must... your points about absorbing different wavelengths, etc. are bull... Glad you realize this.



I'm sure if they had it their way they would have chosen a different platform to create on.

You're sure of this? How can you be sure? So suddenly you can infer what a designer who you say doesn't exist would do. Wow... that's a pretty neat trick.


But since no one had that option there is a logical argument that there is nothing designed about the human race or life at all.

Well... it's obvious your mind is made up about this issue, so why are you discussing it?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
My first invention would be an eye that can precieve more than 40 percent of the available light spectrum.

So did you not read the info I posted re: chemistry on this earth? Did you completely ignore that fact that carbon based molecules are only able to effectively absorb certain wavelengths of light? Did you also ignore that fact that Carbon based life is the ONLY option for planet earth for the reasons I mentioned above.

So you're going to design an eye that's not carbon based?


And I would probably use something else than cellular life to develop it out of. In the future intelligent self replicating androids are going to be laughing at our "intelligently designed" eyes which will be inferior to their eyes.

You obviously don't follow the AI literature too much. It's nice to say this is going to happen, and I'll be laughing when it does, but until it does happen it's just baseless speculation thrown out to protect your world view.

Dude, self replicating androids are little more than just a pipe dream at this point. When we have 'em you can cite 'em as evidence, but not until then.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
On a side note don't most predators have Binocular or stereo scopic vision of some sort to spatialy locate their prey. Ie. Lions,cats, tigers, dogs, bears, primates, ferrits, spiders(along with really great periphrial vision) owls, eagles, falcons with the eception of sharks.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
the whole self replicating android thing was a joke to make a point but ok.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Like I said earth doesn't have the best stuff to set up a creation shop for anyone who isn't trying to make themself nuts by using inferior building material, they would have gone elsewhere to create if that is what they it were trying to do, which would make my point about how their is nothing intelligently designed about this place, it all fell into place and evolved. Thanks to the sun and it's unending supply of outside energy to create complexity on earth. Build with stuff that will work better than the severly limited capabilities of the chemistry on earth or the universe. No place is safe- the universe has limitations everywhere because it was not intelligently designed. people maybe, but not by very intelligent entities, the universe by a omni potent creator that willingly chose shoddy building material. God would have been dumped from just about any construction or engieneering job if he/she designed like it did life. yeah if I use paper machete to build a car it's going to have a lot of comprimises, but hey the end that goes forward has a drag co efficient thats 40 percent as efficient as a car built with better material actually up to the task. I'm an intelligent designer now. No just a designer.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join