|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that? The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them. Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001). The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously. AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.  Here is what I was looking for: Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows: ‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads. I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet. Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000 Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued.... •All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th. •Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. •If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time. After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’ Tarq, The arguments for the possibility of a multiverse have nothing to do with protein folding. Nice strawman. As for Flew's argument, I'm aware of it, and it's wrong beginning with the 4 points I mentioned above. In order for the example to be valid, there would be no restriction to English, or any other known language for that matter, but also potential languages not yet imagined. As mentioned above, current life as it exists in not the only potential form or nature of life. Additionally, withing evolution, useful variations can build upon one another. To use your analogy, Within 30 key strokes you could expect a space to be selected. If the next result is not an "a", you don't return to the beginning, but select again. Within another 30 key strokes you would have your "a", and so on. So when properly envisioned, the opportunity is much greater then what Flu represents. Your response is erroneous in every respect, but I don't have time to respond in detail tonight As far as strawmen, the strawman is your false claim that I asserted that the possibility of a multi-verse had anything to do with protein folding. I never asserted any such thing and you well now it, so stop lying. Really, you are shameless. What I asserted is that the theory of a multi-verse is an example of the kinds of devices (fantastical theories) materialists have had to invent to try to tame the very long odds against evolution being true.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 2,401
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 2,401 |
Personally I mix Creation and Evolution.
Dunno how long one of God's days was.
If a few million years, it seems to blend rather well.
It removes one argument, and tends to shut most people up (win win)
There are some young earthers that get rather rabid though.
They also seem to have other issues.
This is the way I've believed for the last 50+ years. My science teacher in High School was also a C of C Preacher and he taught us that yes God created it all but how he chose to do it and how long it took him we'll never know so evolution very well could be a process created by God. My take in it is......Man/woman were the last creatures he created so must have practiced with all the animals first. Unfortunately humans are probably the worst of all creation and He's probably saying "WTF" right now.
Last edited by AZmark; 07/05/20.
Life (and forums) is like a box of animal crackers----There's a Jackass in every box
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,967
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,967 |
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that? The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them. Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001). The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously. AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story. Here is what I was looking for: Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows: ‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads. I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet. Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000 Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued.... •All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th. •Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. •If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time. After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’ Tarq, The arguments for the possibility of a multiverse have nothing to do with protein folding. Nice strawman. As for Flew's argument, I'm aware of it, and it's wrong beginning with the 4 points I mentioned above. In order for the example to be valid, there would be no restriction to English, or any other known language for that matter, but also potential languages not yet imagined. As mentioned above, current life as it exists in not the only potential form or nature of life. Additionally, withing evolution, useful variations can build upon one another. To use your analogy, Within 30 key strokes you could expect a space to be selected. If the next result is not an "a", you don't return to the beginning, but select again. Within another 30 key strokes you would have your "a", and so on. So when properly envisioned, the opportunity is much greater then what Flu represents. Your response is erroneous in every respect, but I don't have time to respond in detail tonight As far as strawmen, the strawman is your false claim that I asserted that the possibility of a multi-verse had anything to do with protein folding. I never asserted any such thing and you well now it, so stop lying. Really, you are shameless. What I asserted is that the theory of a multi-verse is an example of the kinds of devices (fantastical theories) materialists have had to invent to try to tame the very long odds against evolution being true. ...In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them...
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 56,137
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 56,137 |
52 pages by my count. Have we evolved yet?
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,690
Campfire Oracle
|
|
OP
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,690 |
Some are still animals and havent. 
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away. Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'" The whole passage from Matthew 7:21-23 wasn’t posted. But Jesus was addressing the ‘religious’ people in the crowd, those who assumed that they had a golden ticket into Heaven because they gave lip service to God, those who thought their works (especially in front of other’s) would get em’ in. Those who boasted about their holiness, and their works, and called attention to it. There’s no exclusivity to any of this. Following Jesus is open and available to ALL. Some modern day Pharisees would have you think differently though. When Jesus said “I will NEVER, no never, reject one of them who comes to Me”, I’m convinced that He meant it. When Jesus said “Come to me, ALL who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”, I’m convinced that He meant it. Some self-professed ‘Christians’ would have you think otherwise though.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Personally I mix Creation and Evolution...
My take in it is......Man/woman were the last creatures he created so must have practiced with all the animals first.. Why would a perfect intelligent design God require practice? Some christians believe fossils are only designs that God hand doodled and considered, but never put into actual creative production.
Unfortunately humans are probably the worst of all
creation and He's probably saying "WTF" right now...
The kranky old grey bearded man had already planned to have his son killed before he created the world and Mankind. That tells you that humans being all screwed up is God's will.- He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,661
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,661 |
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away. Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'" The whole passage from Matthew 7:21-23 wasn’t posted. But Jesus was addressing the ‘religious’ people in the crowd, those who assumed that they had a golden ticket into Heaven....... Yep....and in contrary to the “religious” people in the crowd, the criminal hanging on the cross next to him was saved. Luke 23 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Why? Because God sees the intention in your heart. Samuel 16 7 ......For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. There are plenty of Christians that aren’t on the narrow road. Attending church, tithing, taking part in formal ceremonies doesn’t bless a hardened heart. When a person truly repents, however, they are forgiven. He doesn’t even see a person’s sins when they accept that He sacrificed his Son for their sins and change their ways accordingly. Isaiah 43 25 I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. So for those bent on seeing contradiction, you can twist the words of the bible into it. If you soften your heart, however, you’ll see there may be some irony injected by human behavior, but there’s not contradiction.
“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
- Socrates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
Yep....and in contrary to the “religious” people in the crowd, the criminal hanging on the cross next to him was saved. That’s a great example. Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. His life was deemed so worthless that it wasn’t even seen as being fit to be worked to death on a Roman galley. That thief would never study the Bible, never attend a church, and never make amends to those he had wronged. He simply said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Jesus promised him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” It’s a reminder that grace does not depend on what we have done for God, but rather on what God has done for us.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
Attending church, tithing, taking part in formal ceremonies doesn’t bless a hardened heart. There’s certainly no saving power in any of it. A little child singing, “Yes, Jesus loves me" is closer to the REAL gospel message than any of those things.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,967
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,967 |
Yep....and in contrary to the “religious” people in the crowd, the criminal hanging on the cross next to him was saved. That’s a great example. Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. His life was deemed so worthless that it wasn’t even seen as being fit to be worked to death on a Roman galley. That thief would never study the Bible, never attend a church, and never make amends to those he had wronged. He simply said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Jesus promised him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” It’s a reminder that grace does not depend on what we have done for God, but rather what God has done for us. Now you gone and done did it....mentioned the Criminal on the Cross. That's sure to start some kind of an interdenominational feud.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
Now you gone and done did it....mentioned the Criminal on the Cross. That's sure to start some kind of an interdenominational feud. laffin’ Maybe not. Hopefully not. Although there’s nuthin’ wrong with discussion.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
The bible doesn't describe long periods of evolution, genesis describes special creation in six literal days, mornings, evenings of each day.....which cannot mean epochs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,827
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,827 |
this thread is starting to get somewhere, I hope.
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o
"May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross,..
.. His life was deemed so worthless that it wasn’t even seen as being fit to be worked
to death on a Roman galley.
Unless you were Roman, life was very cheap. and we don't know the names or background status of the 'thieves' .. if slaves, they had no rights and were easily dispensible even at the whim of their Roman owners without the need of going before a high official like Pilate. Chances are those two earn their punishment and were no better than insurrector Barabbas, who should have been there with them. λῃσταὶ (from orig. Greek Matthew 27:44) Seems to imply An unscrupulous violent plunderer-pillager, marauder/ bandit.... and under Roman law enough to earn the worst punishment the Romans could dish out. Different versions of Bible also describe the two using various terms... rebels, revolutionaries, malefactors, and just plain undescriptive criminals. All worthy of crucifixion under Roman law. so the two thieves could have been plundering while being party to violent insurrection.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
Jesus says, "He who endures to the end will be saved."
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,501
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,501 |
He set it all up that Adam must fall.
He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known
to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be
naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,501
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,501 |
The bible doesn't describe long periods of evolution, genesis describes special creation in six literal days, mornings, evenings of each day.....which cannot mean epochs. Well then the Bible is simply wrong. I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis and probably Revelation, with it's ten headed beasts with seven horns (?) as well. After all, the books that were accepted as "true" were determined by a bunch of medieval superstitious churchmen, not by God, and even then the Catholics and Protestants differ about what words are actually included.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
He set it all up that Adam must fall.
He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known
to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be
naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex. It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
Crafty enough to fool the naive human..😁 btw: N.T. says to be "as wise as serpents." (Matthew 10:16)
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
566 members (10gaugemag, 1936M71, 160user, 007FJ, 10Glocks, 01Foreman400, 58 invisible),
2,574
guests, and
1,307
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,946
Posts18,480,268
Members73,954
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
