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.

 

I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

page: 26
8
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You're barking up the wrong tree. They don't dispute the Evolution exists based on Mendels own work. They dispute that Darwin had a clue because they wrongly attribute abiogenesis to Darwin based on Darwin's depiction of common descent.

Common ancestry between organisms of different species arises during speciation, in which new species are established from a single ancestral population. Organisms which share a more recent common ancestor are more closely relateden.m.wikipedia.org...




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



To deny evolution because it can't be mathematically formulated is just silliness and nonsense. Then you would have to deny that weather exists. We would be able to develop a formula to predict who the next 5 presidents are. We would be able to predict the future.

So stop saying that evolution doesn't exist because scientists can't predict the future.


I never said that scientists can or cannot accurately predict the future.
You are creating an argument where one doesn't exist.

What I have said is that scientists cannot accurately model the past using punctuated equilibrium as a mathematical model.
When the mathematical construct that is being used relies upon an infinite number of input variables, then no computer existing today can reconstruct the past effectively. No computer can process an infinite number of variables simultaneously when all probabilities are equal.

I had already discussed this when linking this paper.


That's the most clear and concise presentation of your point of view I've seen the entire thread. While I still disagree with you on a lot of points I now have a better grasp of where you're coming from so for that I thank you.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Calling it Darwinian is simply the most efficient symbolic representation of the concept at hand, which is the spontaneous self-replication of a single cell to multi-cellular top of the food chain predator.

That is what I dispute.

You can attribute this idea to whomever you wish.

In all honesty, you can attribute this idea to Aristotle, Darwin, Gould, Browne, Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Oparin, Haldane, Bernal, yada... yada...

i don't care who you want to believe created this idea because it is the idea that is not valid.

For me, it is simply easy to refer to it as Darwinian Evolution.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

peter vlar

kyviecaldges
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



To deny evolution because it can't be mathematically formulated is just silliness and nonsense. Then you would have to deny that weather exists. We would be able to develop a formula to predict who the next 5 presidents are. We would be able to predict the future.

So stop saying that evolution doesn't exist because scientists can't predict the future.


I never said that scientists can or cannot accurately predict the future.
You are creating an argument where one doesn't exist.

What I have said is that scientists cannot accurately model the past using punctuated equilibrium as a mathematical model.
When the mathematical construct that is being used relies upon an infinite number of input variables, then no computer existing today can reconstruct the past effectively. No computer can process an infinite number of variables simultaneously when all probabilities are equal.

I had already discussed this when linking this paper.


That's the most clear and concise presentation of your point of view I've seen the entire thread. While I still disagree with you on a lot of points I now have a better grasp of where you're coming from so for that I thank you.


Cheers.

Your welcome.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 





POPPYCOCK... Every single argument that you use to support abiogenesis from a single cell actually supports the idea of intelligent design. You are your own worst enemy.


I doubt that you would accept observed evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of abiogenesis. If you will not accept evidence of evolution as evidence of abiogenesis then you are obviously already separating the two.
Just give up on the argument that not knowing how life started somehow falsifies evolution.
I think this will help solve most of your problems confusing adiogenesis with evolution.

We know how chemicals can react and produce new molecules. We have a very detailed and natural explanation for how chemicals change. However, we don't have a good theory that explains the ultimate origin of those chemicals. This theory would need to explain how our universe came about, and there really isn't a solid scientific theory that explains this as of yet.

So, does this mean that we need to throw out the theory that explains how chemicals react and change over time?
According to creationists, we do need to throw it out because we lack a theory that explains the ultimate origin of matter.

This is one of many problems with creationist arguments. It requires us to throw out the knowledge we do have because we do not have all possible knowledge.
Not knowing the ultimate origin of matter means that we need to throw out ALL scientific theories, according to creationist logic. This would include atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, gravity, etc.

As to abiogenesis and evolution specifically, the theory of evolution would not change one red cent if we found that a God magically poofed an RNA replicator into being, which then evolved into the biodiversity we see today.
The theory of evolution no more depends on the ultimate origin of life than our understanding of chemical interactions depends on the ultimate origin of matter.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I am not a creationist.

I am not a proponent of God.

You have my argument completely misunderstood.

I am saying that evidence does not exist to validate abiogenesis.



Just give up on the argument that not knowing how life started somehow falsifies evolution.

I wholly believe in evolution.
I don't believe in abiogenesis and evolution form a single cell to multicellular predator top of the food chain.
I have stated this now so many times that I don't know what else to do than simply repeat it over and over.


According to creationists, we do need to throw it out because we lack a theory that explains the ultimate origin of matter.

Okay. I am not a creationist.


This is one of many problems with creationist arguments. It requires us to throw out the knowledge we do have because we do not have all possible knowledge.
Not knowing the ultimate origin of matter means that we need to throw out ALL scientific theories, according to creationist logic. This would include atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, gravity, etc.

I am going to try this one more time. I am not a creationist.


As to abiogenesis and evolution specifically, the theory of evolution would not change one red cent if we found that a God magically poofed an RNA replicator into being, which then evolved into the biodiversity we see today.


Sigh....



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
I am saying that evidence does not exist to validate abiogenesis.


No reason to argue about rest if you already got it wrong at beginning.

If you like to talk more about abiogenesis, PLEASE, first read this article:

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

What apparently many don't know, scientist ARE able to prove abiogenesis as being valid, proven theory for origin of life. We can blame it on bad education, or people ignoring latest research, but really, if you like to discuss this, it would help if you really do some research.

Please, remember what is motto of this site, deny ignorance...



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
all things that come to exist have a cause...

immature foot shaking Krauss has come to respect everyone he's come into contact with at the city bible forums



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 





I don't believe in abiogenesis and evolution form a single cell to multicellular predator top of the food chain.


Your argument is from incredulity.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you're going to hold your beliefs up for examination, you have to expect to have such things pointed out.
In my view, if your argument requires logical fallacies, then it's a bad argument and you ought not make it.

For example, William Paley claimed that because he could not imagine how the eye evolved, then it could not have evolved.
What arrogant piffle! He failed to consider the real answer to his question, that he just wasn't bright enough to reach the correct answer.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



What apparently many don't know, scientist ARE able to prove abiogenesis as being valid, proven theory for origin of life. We can blame it on bad education, or people ignoring latest research, but really, if you like to discuss this, it would help if you really do some research.


Did you take the time to actually read what you linked?

I really don't think that you did. Either that or you just don't understand it, because it is not at all convincing and the research itself is characterized as being merely "plausible".
And I also don't think that your understanding of RNA is quite up to snuff.

This study merely suggests that pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed if a controlled environment is present. Let's see what the study actually says-

Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are PLAUSIBLE prebiotic feedstock molecules and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models.

link to source

Before I even get to the real issue with this research, I want you to notice something. Do you see the very last sentence that says "the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models"?
That one sentence tells me that this entire study is a conjecture, because it relies on PLAUSIBLE prebiotic feedstock molecules.

Here is the definition of plausible because obviously you have no idea what it means-

1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.
2: superficially pleasing or persuasive.
3: appearing worthy of belief.

link to source

And It's all based upon models that are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models.
Guess what we can NEVER know?
Give up?
We can never know what the early-Earth was like geochemically. Yep. All we can do is guess.
And this guess is all confirmation bias because the scientists were looking for a specific environment that would allow for this synthesis.

Because these scientists want to believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis, they specifically looked for a very particular environment that would allow for the synthesis of only three of the five necessary parts of nucleotides and two of the four components of RNA.
But in all honesty none of this matters one iota, because we don't know what in the heck the Earth was like 4 billion years ago.
It's all conjecture.
One small tweak in the process and the nucleotide pyrimidines don't synthesize, and it doesn't matter anyway because they still need a catalyst.

Do you know what pyrimidines are?

Let me give you a hint- RNA and DNA are made up of building blocks that can be broken down into two categories: purines and pyrimidines.
You gotta have both, and this study only proposes a potential environment where only three of the five needed building blocks of all nucleotides can be synthesized. Uracil, Cytosine and Thymine.
And only two of those can be used for RNA.

And to top all this off, the study relies upon inorganic phosphate to be present as a catalyst for synthesis.
INORGANIC PHOSPHATE, which is also known as phosphorus.
Phosphates are created in our mitochondria through ATP. I am real interested to know how these scientists came to the conclusion that phosphorus, an inorganic molecule, would also be part of this soupy mix of early Earth

And even then you still lack the purines. Adenine and Guanine.

This is such a freaking stretch. It proves nothing.
These scientists are creating a very controlled environment in order to specifically synthesize only a partial amount of what is necessary to have merely a small portion of the building blocks of life.

None of this, not one part of it tells me why amino acids combined with RNA to spontaneously self-replicate creating negentropy and DNA.

Fail. Horribly.

I can't believe that you actually think this proves anything...
And to top it all off, you actually tell me to deny ignorance.
That is exactly what I am doing, but yet you are running head first, blissfully into the arms of darkness.
I don't need any help understanding anything. That is you my friend.
edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 



Your argument is from incredulity.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you're going to hold your beliefs up for examination, you have to expect to have such things pointed out.
In my view, if your argument requires logical fallacies, then it's a bad argument and you ought not make it.


Please tell me how I am making my argument from incredulity.

I just described to you, at length, how a study linked only applied to a partial synthesis of only three of the five components of nucleotides and only two of the four components of RNA, and all in a conjectured and controlled environment.
Did you read my response?

Do you actually think that I am arguing from ignorance or do you plan on cherry picking sentences to fit an argument that you create out of thin air?

Your desperation is so obvious that it is laughable.


For example, William Paley claimed that because he could not imagine how the eye evolved, then it could not have evolved.

I am not merely telling you that I couldn't imagine how abiogenesis occurred. I am actually describing to you the flawed reasoning and impartial evidence that YOU are using to validate it.

Big time freaking difference.
edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 





The OP is arguing against a scientific fact


No, a theory.....and now we have come full circle....and you still dont get what he is talking about.

Other unproven things can then also be called facts by that logic....even that God made it all and does it all....

You see? or do you still not get it.

You are getting all uppity over someone arguing an alternate idea to a THEORY....not a fact. You act like its a fact and think it is an appropriate response. Like for example if he was arguing that the earth was in fact flat.....and that you are somehow defending "common sense" by standing by the "it is round" argument.

Evolution is a theory....an unproven theory. NOT fact.

Until it is PROVEN, everyone who cares to has the right to be reserved with their validation and acceptance of this theory as being worthy to them.

And that is really the point. You have tried to devalue his and everyone else´s right to have the resounding evidence brought to them before giving any meaningful measure of credence to this IDEA.

Faith can not be demanded of anyone....and you could say mass and that would still be the case.

Try and earn it if its so important to you. My faith and that of the OP´s needs more. Our acceptance of anything as fact needs to be proven as such. We wont just trust you...no. Sorry.

And that is why you are wrong to act like a Bigot about it. (and thats twice)


edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


same....refer to previous post.

AND

abiogenesis is not an accepted and plausible theory any more by the scientific community. SOME may cling to it. NO ONE can just say "trust me on this" when the numbers dont lie.

It is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY....

lmgtfy.com...

digitalcommons.liberty.edu...



edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


That was a brilliant response.

I am obviously not a Christian but yet I find myself in total agreement with you on this issue.

And to be totally honest, the more I debate this with these scientific establishment atheist types, the more I trend toward the deist side of belief.
None of this makes sense.
Just the sheer probability that life, a force that seemingly goes against the laws of physics, continues to grow seems more impossible than improbable the more I look at the evidence.

The complexity of it all is so mind boggling, and then the idea of adaptive radiation.
Seemingly random mutations all happening simultaneously that are actually beneficial....
To me, that is evidence that could very easily be used to support intelligent design.

Life seems way too awesome and improbable to be just an accident.

Another funny thing that I have noticed about these same believers of the many cults of Darwin is that they generally scoff at the amazing brilliance of life.
If they actually saw the beauty then the idea of a higher power would make sense.
They want to try to minimize this truth by diverting attention away from this beauty by claiming that it is seen in their theory, but what they obviously don't see is that a belief in natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is what allows the corrupt who are in power to stay in power.

It breeds competition and not cooperation.

I don't care what any of them try to say, our belief in the nature of life creates the moral framework for our decisions and behaviors and what we find acceptable socially.

The Church, right or wrong, was the foundation for our society's morals when this country was created, and before that for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Promotion of a purely scientific belief of the nature of life displaces the church's role in creating morals and now this idea of competition replaces cooperation.
Granted, the church's idea of cooperation was heavily controlled and the institution of the church was no better than the institution of the state today, but by instilling an individual foundation of cooperation as the nature of life, instead of competition the church produced a more caring society between the commoners.

The only reason that Social Darwinism is even accepted is because the scientific establishment continues to deify Charles Darwin, and the idea of natural selection is becoming society's basis for their moral code.
Go to courtroom and you can see it in action.
Those with the most money get treated to a much better form of justice than the commoner.

Try to get a job and the prettiest are chosen first.

Wanna get an actual education and you have to pay a lot of money and then they still leave out the best parts.

Capitalism and Natural Selection are a perfect pair.

They both seek the greatest profit despite any moral or ethical concerns.
edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   

SuperFrog
Are you serious?


yep...

skip the details would ya? and give me something I can readily digest.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   

kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyingfish
 



Your argument is from incredulity.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you're going to hold your beliefs up for examination, you have to expect to have such things pointed out.
In my view, if your argument requires logical fallacies, then it's a bad argument and you ought not make it.


Please tell me how I am making my argument from incredulity.

I just described to you, at length, how a study linked only applied to a partial synthesis of only three of the five components of nucleotides and only two of the four components of RNA, and all in a conjectured and controlled environment.
Did you read my response?

Do you actually think that I am arguing from ignorance or do you plan on cherry picking sentences to fit an argument that you create out of thin air?

Your desperation is so obvious that it is laughable.


For example, William Paley claimed that because he could not imagine how the eye evolved, then it could not have evolved.

I am not merely telling you that I couldn't imagine how abiogenesis occurred. I am actually describing to you the flawed reasoning and impartial evidence that YOU are using to validate it.

Big time freaking difference.
edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.


Incredulity is right, you keep moulding the premise of your arguments when questioned. You're still doing it!

You said recursive algirithms invalidate evolution, so it must be a fallacy. I pointed out that the problem is with recursive algorithms themselves, not evolution. You then post a link where recursive algorithms have been used to create a phylogenetic tree. Whilst not an example of undirected evolution (by a user) by using it as evidence you are countering your own argument. Complex biological systems cannot be modelled by recursive algorithms. Super recursive (like an inductive turing machine is required). How can a guided computer program possibly model evolution to an infinite degree when evolution has no end point. It makes sense, thanks for pointing it out but it in no way invalidates evolution

You're still moulding abiogenesis and evolution together. And abiogenesis is not the spontaneous formation of a single celled organism. You've conveniently skipped a few biochemical steps there.

And meteor bombardment seems a likely source of phosphorous. There are other possible sources for phosphorylation to occur also.
edit on 3-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

tadaman
reply to post by helldiver
 





The OP is arguing against a scientific fact


No, a theory.....and now we have come full circle....and you still dont get what he is talking about.

Other unproven things can then also be called facts by that logic....even that God made it all and does it all....

You see? or do you still not get it.

You are getting all uppity over someone arguing an alternate idea to a THEORY....not a fact. You act like its a fact and think it is an appropriate response. Like for example if he was arguing that the earth was in fact flat.....and that you are somehow defending "common sense" by standing by the "it is round" argument.

Evolution is a theory....an unproven theory. NOT fact.

Until it is PROVEN, everyone who cares to has the right to be reserved with their validation and acceptance of this theory as being worthy to them.

And that is really the point. You have tried to devalue his and everyone else´s right to have the resounding evidence brought to them before giving any meaningful measure of credence to this IDEA.

Faith can not be demanded of anyone....and you could say mass and that would still be the case.

Try and earn it if its so important to you. My faith and that of the OP´s needs more. Our acceptance of anything as fact needs to be proven as such. We wont just trust you...no. Sorry.

And that is why you are wrong to act like a Bigot about it. (and thats twice)


edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry have i upset you?

Like i said, fact:

www.nas.edu...

edit on 3-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

tadaman
reply to post by helldiver
 





The OP is arguing against a scientific fact


No, a theory.....and now we have come full circle....and you still dont get what he is talking about.

Other unproven things can then also be called facts by that logic....even that God made it all and does it all....


Not a scientific theory. Therefore you are wrong.


You see? or do you still not get it.

You are getting all uppity over someone arguing an alternate idea to a THEORY....not a fact. You act like its a fact and think it is an appropriate response. Like for example if he was arguing that the earth was in fact flat.....and that you are somehow defending "common sense" by standing by the "it is round" argument.


You are still confusing the layman definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!


Evolution is a theory....an unproven theory. NOT fact.


You know if you keep repeating it all the time it still won't make it true. I know politicians love to use this tactic, but it doesn't mean it is a valid one to use.


Until it is PROVEN, everyone who cares to has the right to be reserved with their validation and acceptance of this theory as being worthy to them.


Except it HAS been proven. You have to actually DISPROVE it at this point to maintain that it is a false theory.


And that is really the point. You have tried to devalue his and everyone else´s right to have the resounding evidence brought to them before giving any meaningful measure of credence to this IDEA.


You need to go back to science class. You appear to have failed it.


Faith can not be demanded of anyone....and you could say mass and that would still be the case.

Try and earn it if its so important to you. My faith and that of the OP´s needs more. Our acceptance of anything as fact needs to be proven as such. We wont just trust you...no. Sorry.


Burden of proof is required for the bible, yet Creationists go on and on about how much more "true" their theory is than Evolution. There is more proof for Evolution than Creationism. How about instead of spending so much time and effort trying to (unsuccessfully) debunk Evolution, you spend some time trying to prove the bible?


And that is why you are wrong to act like a Bigot about it. (and thats twice)


edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


People who disagree with you aren't bigots. You need to drop that word from your lexicon because you are misusing it.

By the way, here is a list of OTHER scientific theories. If Evolution isn't proven then so aren't these other theories:

Big Bang Theory
Theory of Relativity
Cell Theory
Plate Tectonics
Atomic Theory
Molecular Theory

In other words you can't pick and choose which theories YOU think are unproven. You either accept the definition of a scientific theory or you say that ANY scientific theory is flawed. LEARN YOUR SCIENCE.
edit on 3-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by helldiver
 



You said recursive algirithms invalidate evolution, so it must be a fallacy. I pointed out that the problem is with recursive algorithms themselves, not evolution. You then post a link where recursive algorithms have been used to create a phylogenetic tree.


I never said that recursive algorithms invalidate evolution.

I said that they are used by evolutionary biologists to validate evolution, but they are not capable of validating anything.
I then posted a link to a group of scientists that used recursive algorithms to validate the ancestry of a phylogenetic tree.

At least get my argument right.

You are simply trying to muck up my argument. It won't work.

For some reason you want to deny recursive algorithms when they don't fit in the framework of your theory but what you are conveniently leaving out is that all these scientists that claim that abiogenesis is a theory use computers to fill in the gaps simulating things that we can not understand.
Like the early earth environment.

New research provides clues on how continents formed early in Earth.

The scientific clues leading to this conclusion derived from computer simulations of the slow cooling process of continents, combined with analysis of the distribution of diamonds in the deep Earth.


Physical conditions on the early earth.

Simulation of the formation of the Earth from smaller objects still possessing significant gravitational attraction requires specialized computer codes that are capable of correctly solving Hamilton's equations of motion taking into consideration the diverse time-scales involved, and the subtle gravitational resonances that develop between Jupiter and the growing planetary embryos. The codes, called ‘symplectic integrators’, are now in widespread use


Why early Earth was no snowball: Illuminating the ”faint young Sun paradox”

A team of scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) analyzed in computer simulations how much CO2 in the atmosphere was necessary to prevent the early Earth from falling into a “snowball state”. They found the critical amount to be significantly higher than previously assumed, according to their study now published in Geophysical Research Letters. This sheds light on the environment on early Earth during a time when life first appeared on our planet.


All of those computer simulations use recursive and super recursive algorithms.

You look desperate. It is funny. Keep trying.


You're still molding abiogenesis and evolution together.


Wrong. That is you. I have said and I keep saying that I do not believe in abiogenesis because nothing but hypothetical evidence exists supporting it.
However I am a firm believer in evolution as shown valid by Gregor Mendel. I have only said that about a bajillion times now.


And abiogenesis is not the spontaneous formation of a single celled organism.


Then explain to me how life began to spontaneously self-replicate.
You can't.


You've conveniently skipped a few biochemical steps there.


Then tell me what they are and show me the repeatable experiments that validate them.
You can't.

If you repeat this same tired argument then I will simply continue to refer you to this post.
You are making yourself look foolish. Please learn my argument and understand my position before you continue butchering my words.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Except it HAS been proven.


Then kindly point me in the direction of the repeatable experiments that validate this.

Please do.

Because I have already shown that the Miller-Urey experiments show absolutely nothing.

And I have also shown that the recent effort to synthesize ribonucleic pyrimidines using inorganic phosphate as a catalyst shows absolutely nothing as well.

Read the thread.

Please. I grow tired of repeating myself.
edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join