MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
you cant say that a computer would just form somewhere...and the body is more complex than a computer for sure. but when is matter going to make a CD-ROM and IDE cables set on master and slave at the right parts of the cable on the right IDE port on the motherboard that evolved and how is your turtlebeech soundcard going to get into the right slot and how is your hard drive going to get into a 3.5'' bay. thats right, i didnt think so. not saying i lean either way, but all of you damn zealots that have to refute the bible non-stop need to chill and realize that just because your mom told you it wasnt true and you think you know everything because you have your B.S bull**it degree and your PhD doesnt mean you someone became all knowing and you are neo from the matrix.
The best argument I've heard for creationism is this: No one would believe their computer was built by chance, without a creator or design. Even over millions of years, there is no way the parts of a computer could form together, in a working manner, without input from a creator. So why do we believe that the human body, or the universe for that matter, was formed by chance? Surely, it is more complex than a computer.
Complexity does not imply a designer (another Aquinas proof). Snow flakes are incredibly complex but form according to a natural process.
Thomas
Complexity does not imply a designer (another Aquinas proof). Snow flakes are incredibly complex but form according to a natural process.
Thomas
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
well, now that this thread has hit 300, i better jump in.
I for one am glad we have the persistent, if ineffectual, anti-evolutionists. They have undoubtably provided a catalyst to researchers trying to better understand evolution, and our planet's history.
I for one am glad we have the persistent, if ineffectual, anti-evolutionists. They have undoubtably provided a catalyst to researchers trying to better understand evolution, and our planet's history.
To speak of building a computer from scratch by chance is a false argument, one having no relationship to biulding a human. But we can use the infinite number of monkeys argument. What is the chance of an infinite number of male monkeys doing an infinite number of female monkeys such that to produce one with a slightly shorter tail and a slightly bigger brain. In other words what are the odds that organic reproduction via DMA, a dice roll involving millions of combinations of dice rolls every division, change with time. What, then, are the odds that organic beings will be slightly different from generation to generation since at least a few of the changed organisms will survive to the next generation. If we can say that the father doesn't look exactly like the son we can see this to be true.
This will mean that over time, if there is anywhere these changing organisms can find to survive, they will survive. If there is only one place they can survive that is different in some small way from some other place, and particularly if they are somehow reproductively isolated from the rest of the randomly changing population, the nature of the random slight change will drift off on different themes.
So, bottom line, given the possibility of minute change, change becomes, in time, a revolution. A billion years for an organism is an infinity of time.
Furthermore, the organism we know are made from four letters. You could say the letters are dead, but the machines that can be made from them ate alive. In that sense the code for life works on two levels, it writes both the software and the hardware. This means that the selective machanism of evolution, survival of the fittest, acts on both the efficiency of the hardware, and the complexity or functionality of the software. That means that that evolution is working not only as Microsoft but as Dell. Over time, we get, not only a better Windows, we get faster processors and laptops that can survive a fall from the table. The only difference is that evolution has tryed out trillions and trillions of inovations by brute force to make a machine that will now do the intelligent design.
This will mean that over time, if there is anywhere these changing organisms can find to survive, they will survive. If there is only one place they can survive that is different in some small way from some other place, and particularly if they are somehow reproductively isolated from the rest of the randomly changing population, the nature of the random slight change will drift off on different themes.
So, bottom line, given the possibility of minute change, change becomes, in time, a revolution. A billion years for an organism is an infinity of time.
Furthermore, the organism we know are made from four letters. You could say the letters are dead, but the machines that can be made from them ate alive. In that sense the code for life works on two levels, it writes both the software and the hardware. This means that the selective machanism of evolution, survival of the fittest, acts on both the efficiency of the hardware, and the complexity or functionality of the software. That means that that evolution is working not only as Microsoft but as Dell. Over time, we get, not only a better Windows, we get faster processors and laptops that can survive a fall from the table. The only difference is that evolution has tryed out trillions and trillions of inovations by brute force to make a machine that will now do the intelligent design.
I would say that that process merely existing, having evolved (the laws even being present) imply some sort of intelligent design.
I think the inherent flaw in trying to ascribe any of this to anything at all is because we're ingrained in it. Hopefully that makes sense. It's akin to trying to understand infinity - we cannot comprehend or imagine, because we are temporal beings. Our existence, our ability to relate to the world around us, is dependent upon our temporal nature.
So much more is our ability to describe the universe. We say that the laws of physics/chemistry govern this universe, that they have guided our evolution, etc. However, what happens when we encounter the big bang, or a black hole? Those laws break down, and we have no idea what to expect or what to predict.
I'm not trying to sway this argument one way or the other - these are always interesting threads, great place for an exchange of ideas. Just some thoughts.
You're wrong there. Computers CAN form on their own. The probability of it happening is extremely low though.
The human body didn't form out of nowhere. It took billions of years evolution.
ZaK, when you run up against something you can't explain, that defies comprehension, why not say I don't know, I stand in awe. Why jump to intelligent design?
because thats what he's been told since he's been a wee lad in sunday school
unlike santa clause its ok to believe in this one when your an adult.
in fact its a very bad arguement, and the 2nd time its been brought up in this thread. natural selection and evolution do not apply to inatimate objects. why? because you must reproduce, mutate. whens the last time your pc's gotten it on with an imac and had a child eh? its a false arguement it goes into the same line of thinking of why rocks don't evolve derr....
unlike santa clause its ok to believe in this one when your an adult. in fact its a very bad arguement, and the 2nd time its been brought up in this thread. natural selection and evolution do not apply to inatimate objects. why? because you must reproduce, mutate. whens the last time your pc's gotten it on with an imac and had a child eh? its a false arguement
it goes into the same line of thinking of why rocks don't evolve derr....Because I like being frustrating.
It's actually a very good question... because humans like to have answers.
There's nothing you can say. That's the real story, not the phoney Bible one. It's Aboriginal. They have the oldest religion on earth and so remember back alot closer to when it all started and are bound to have a less scrambled up version of what happened. It can be traced back at least 9 thousand years, I believe.
He! Don't you dare kill the thread, I need something to do instead of working!
If you believe in evolution then the Aboriginals aren't exactly old either. Like all humans they were afraid of the unknown back then too, and looked for explanations in the supernatural. In their case in spirits and such. (Aboriginal Religion) When there was no explanation for something a god would be 'invented' for it. The moment people could explain it the god would become obsolete, and believe would die out (unless a natural disaster happened shortly after, then the one coming with the explanation would be sacrificed in the hope to ease the anger of that god).
With monotheism all unknown things are explained by pointing at the one god, and if you find an explanation for something you don't have to think of an reason anymore for that god not being the source. You will have always something to fall back on though when things are going bad, and/or when you really want an explanation for something.
If someone does something terrible it is more soothing to think that person will be punished in the afterlife than to think that he can do what he want and get away with it, and even live a nicer life than his victims. Most people need their 'opium for the masses' to escape from reality. If you get comfort from it and can refrain from trying to convert me or do nasty things with your religion as cover, good for you. If you can't refrain from that: Get a life.
In the off chance that you might have misinterpreted what I said let me put it like this, "Sky, you don't seem to be very familiar with my position. My aboribinal post was the Moonbeam way to say that there are lots of religions and lots of creation myths, each the absolute truth for each religion. That, from my perspective says they are all pretty much what they look like, myths. To judge myths you may use any criteria you want. I like antiquity. Oldest = most accurate.
I saw that, I just decided to clarify it a bit for the hardcore religious people. A lot of people seem to think you are willing to listen to them telling you why you should choose their religion, but do not want to or are unable to see your reasons for not choosing it in the first place. Still hoping to wake up some religious people so we can continue flaming
I was going to leave this thread for good... but I can't sleep again, so I'll go ahead and post a few more of my thoughts.
Skyclad: Maybe we're trying to submerge the "oooh, flame me, flame me!" mentality.
Then again, perhaps we're just allowing you to attempt to rationalize the complete and total randomness and chaos associated with the development of your own intelligence, deeming it completely worthless and incoherent. Great detective work. Keep it up. One day you will prove that your thoughts ultimately have no value. For if all of creation could create itself by random chance and through naturally random processes, your work means nothing. You can't make a difference that couldn't be made by Moonbeam's "brute force" techniques.
And yet, aren't you glad that computers don't just randomly apply brute force hacking techniques to break into your computer system?
Oh no! Your computer has been hacked! The password has been changed! What do you do? Well, according to your philosophy... nothing.
The technique of brute forcing requires a design in and of itself, the technique requires the code and the pattern itself to search through all the possible combinations. What you're talking about is brute force not by simple mere bit iterations, but random electrical strikes caused by lightning surging through the lines, producing usually destructive problems but this ONE time causing just the right voltage drops across these capacitors and the subsequent discharge through only the right sequence of the millions of transistors to produce the right code to "crack" the life password. Or... would you go ahead and "make the jump" that the brute force attempt required intelligence behind it?
Yeah, that's right. Somebody more likely sat at a keyboard and typed in the right password. This was the person who set up the system to begin with.
In the long run, what you're telling me is that if I take a stack of notecards in a helicopter up about 10,000 feet and drop them, that they will randomly sort and select themselves to produce "Anandtech Off Topic" on the parking lot below me. Oh, no, you say, for it requires trillions of times to make this happen. You're right. I'll do it a few more times, and I'll take the helicopter up 25,000 or 40,000 or even 50,000 feet (although by that time I'll need more than a helicopter) and perform the same experiment.
What does science tell me? That those notecards ain't gonna spell anandtech.
And yet you'd have me believe that if I did it enough times for millions and billions of years, that it just might happen... just once.
Worse, you call me unscientific for not believing you, and instead, for believing that if I happened upon a bunch of notecards that spelled "Anandtech Off Topic" and I believed that somebody arranged them that way -- without *ever* having met this individual -- that I am unscientific and it is more rational to believe that these notecards fell from 40,000 feet and randomly arranged themselves in that situation.
I'm sorry. I don't see it that way. We see an ordered universe. Our very existence is composed of something far more complex than the words "Anandtech Off Topic," yet you say it happened by chance. No? Ok, you say it happened by "natural selection," which I would argue is an unguided process without a creative mechanism. You say it happened by "survival of the fittest" as if only the most fit cards would arrange themselves in the pattern and the rest blow off to Antarctica or something. You still haven't come up with a creative substitute for an intelligent designer to explain the design we see in nature. When we observe the structures formed by ancient cultures, we believe they were formed not because we have met any of the members of the ancient culture -- because we haven't -- but because we know that these designs require a designer. Can anyone explain to me why this is "so obviously" not true with the complex design I like to call "life"?
Here's the problem for presenting evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest as a package that accounts for the mechanisms of all life:
A complex set of random polypeptides, translated to English: "FJDSLNMCVI EIFJ SFDLNE ENJFNDKNM"
A less complex but intelligently designed set of random polypeptides, translated to English: "POSTCOUNT = POSTCOUNT + 1"
One of these was obviously designed intelligently, one was not. Both are complex, but only one is likely to be the result of a random process -- and this is assuming that the selection is made on things which already exists -- so the task becomes further. Yet you tell me it happened. Ok.
The polypeptide idea I got from Geisler. His idea that intelligence produces order and complexity: order (Like "POSTCOUNT POSTCOUNT POSTCOUNT", so repetitive but specified), and complexity (Like FDJFKDSL DFJEI EFJI), so neither repetitive nor specified, to produce the (COMPLEX && SPECIFIED) combination required to signify intelligent life. I grant that complexity does not necessarily require a cause. But specified complexity? Like something designed to communicate a message or provide a given organized function? So in other words, (the "snowflake" example came up earlier, and I've seen it in a previous thread as well,) things like snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, and Niagra Falls are certainly orderly and are natural wonders -- and awesome ones at that. But they in no way equate to the intelligent design of, say, Mount Rushmore or a nuclear fusion power plant, or an automobile or a computer system -- yes, even an iMac. Grrrrrr. I wish the iMac didn't require intelligent design.
I'm also really big on the principle of causality, which I think is central to the scientific method. And that in itself poses problems if you call the universe uncaused, for if the universe as a whole is uncaused, why can it's parts (some or all) also be uncaused? And hence you have random phenomena, unexplainable in partiality or entirety by these things I like to call natural processes. So you lose science. The principle of evolution as an end-all be-all philosophy ultimately crushes under its own weight. It's self-defeating. Commits suicide. Shuffles off its proverbial mortal coil.
No, I'm not going to get into it with you about whether we've got little dogs or big dogs or black people or white people or little horses or big horses. They never lose their "horseness," "dogness," or "peopleness," so I'm not calling that evolution, even though you'd like to call it "microevolution" and start making jumps back to the original life that came from the primordial soup that came from... oh, I forgot... you've ditched causality. In that case, I blew up from an explosion in a garbage truck yesterday and started posting this morning. I'm up to... what... well over 700 now ... but I think I'll get some sleep.
Good night. Don't let the uncaused bedbugs bite. Not that it matters because hey, survival of the fittest is a natural phenomena and it really shouldn't bother you. If it does bother you, perhaps you should go on a crusade to eliminate all bed bugs and prove to the world that you are the superior race. Oh, then we get into the cosmic "should." Do I mean morally, ethically, or am I just tired? I'm just tired.
Skyclad: Maybe we're trying to submerge the "oooh, flame me, flame me!" mentality.
Then again, perhaps we're just allowing you to attempt to rationalize the complete and total randomness and chaos associated with the development of your own intelligence, deeming it completely worthless and incoherent. Great detective work. Keep it up. One day you will prove that your thoughts ultimately have no value. For if all of creation could create itself by random chance and through naturally random processes, your work means nothing. You can't make a difference that couldn't be made by Moonbeam's "brute force" techniques.
And yet, aren't you glad that computers don't just randomly apply brute force hacking techniques to break into your computer system?
Oh no! Your computer has been hacked! The password has been changed! What do you do? Well, according to your philosophy... nothing.
The technique of brute forcing requires a design in and of itself, the technique requires the code and the pattern itself to search through all the possible combinations. What you're talking about is brute force not by simple mere bit iterations, but random electrical strikes caused by lightning surging through the lines, producing usually destructive problems but this ONE time causing just the right voltage drops across these capacitors and the subsequent discharge through only the right sequence of the millions of transistors to produce the right code to "crack" the life password. Or... would you go ahead and "make the jump" that the brute force attempt required intelligence behind it?
Yeah, that's right. Somebody more likely sat at a keyboard and typed in the right password. This was the person who set up the system to begin with.
In the long run, what you're telling me is that if I take a stack of notecards in a helicopter up about 10,000 feet and drop them, that they will randomly sort and select themselves to produce "Anandtech Off Topic" on the parking lot below me. Oh, no, you say, for it requires trillions of times to make this happen. You're right. I'll do it a few more times, and I'll take the helicopter up 25,000 or 40,000 or even 50,000 feet (although by that time I'll need more than a helicopter) and perform the same experiment.
What does science tell me? That those notecards ain't gonna spell anandtech.
And yet you'd have me believe that if I did it enough times for millions and billions of years, that it just might happen... just once.
Worse, you call me unscientific for not believing you, and instead, for believing that if I happened upon a bunch of notecards that spelled "Anandtech Off Topic" and I believed that somebody arranged them that way -- without *ever* having met this individual -- that I am unscientific and it is more rational to believe that these notecards fell from 40,000 feet and randomly arranged themselves in that situation.
I'm sorry. I don't see it that way. We see an ordered universe. Our very existence is composed of something far more complex than the words "Anandtech Off Topic," yet you say it happened by chance. No? Ok, you say it happened by "natural selection," which I would argue is an unguided process without a creative mechanism. You say it happened by "survival of the fittest" as if only the most fit cards would arrange themselves in the pattern and the rest blow off to Antarctica or something. You still haven't come up with a creative substitute for an intelligent designer to explain the design we see in nature. When we observe the structures formed by ancient cultures, we believe they were formed not because we have met any of the members of the ancient culture -- because we haven't -- but because we know that these designs require a designer. Can anyone explain to me why this is "so obviously" not true with the complex design I like to call "life"?
Here's the problem for presenting evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest as a package that accounts for the mechanisms of all life:
A complex set of random polypeptides, translated to English: "FJDSLNMCVI EIFJ SFDLNE ENJFNDKNM"
A less complex but intelligently designed set of random polypeptides, translated to English: "POSTCOUNT = POSTCOUNT + 1"
One of these was obviously designed intelligently, one was not. Both are complex, but only one is likely to be the result of a random process -- and this is assuming that the selection is made on things which already exists -- so the task becomes further. Yet you tell me it happened. Ok.
The polypeptide idea I got from Geisler. His idea that intelligence produces order and complexity: order (Like "POSTCOUNT POSTCOUNT POSTCOUNT", so repetitive but specified), and complexity (Like FDJFKDSL DFJEI EFJI), so neither repetitive nor specified, to produce the (COMPLEX && SPECIFIED) combination required to signify intelligent life. I grant that complexity does not necessarily require a cause. But specified complexity? Like something designed to communicate a message or provide a given organized function? So in other words, (the "snowflake" example came up earlier, and I've seen it in a previous thread as well,) things like snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, and Niagra Falls are certainly orderly and are natural wonders -- and awesome ones at that. But they in no way equate to the intelligent design of, say, Mount Rushmore or a nuclear fusion power plant, or an automobile or a computer system -- yes, even an iMac. Grrrrrr. I wish the iMac didn't require intelligent design.
I'm also really big on the principle of causality, which I think is central to the scientific method. And that in itself poses problems if you call the universe uncaused, for if the universe as a whole is uncaused, why can it's parts (some or all) also be uncaused? And hence you have random phenomena, unexplainable in partiality or entirety by these things I like to call natural processes. So you lose science. The principle of evolution as an end-all be-all philosophy ultimately crushes under its own weight. It's self-defeating. Commits suicide. Shuffles off its proverbial mortal coil.
No, I'm not going to get into it with you about whether we've got little dogs or big dogs or black people or white people or little horses or big horses. They never lose their "horseness," "dogness," or "peopleness," so I'm not calling that evolution, even though you'd like to call it "microevolution" and start making jumps back to the original life that came from the primordial soup that came from... oh, I forgot... you've ditched causality. In that case, I blew up from an explosion in a garbage truck yesterday and started posting this morning. I'm up to... what... well over 700 now ... but I think I'll get some sleep.
Good night. Don't let the uncaused bedbugs bite. Not that it matters because hey, survival of the fittest is a natural phenomena and it really shouldn't bother you. If it does bother you, perhaps you should go on a crusade to eliminate all bed bugs and prove to the world that you are the superior race. Oh, then we get into the cosmic "should." Do I mean morally, ethically, or am I just tired? I'm just tired.
If you need to believe that your thoughts and actions actually matter to the universe you are welcome to believe so.
If you need to believe in the superiority of humankind you are welcome to do so.
If you need to believe in one or more gods to give your life a purpose I won't stop you.
Just interested in hearing why you think that way, rather than 'Someone told me it was right once, and I believed them'.
Did we leave natural selection out? Yes it was generation after generation, and that there were probably trillions of organisms doing the same thing. The best one is favoured, and so it goes on.. I dont see the difficulty.
Well said. 100% of creationism is based on a book of stories.... how credible.
xirtam, maybe I should define, in case you've forgotten, where I'm comming from a bit because arguing with you about evolution is not my real focus. I don't like your, in my opinion, pig headed refusal to face up to the facts of evolution not because I care about the faith of evolution, but because people like you, in my opinion, give religion a bad name. You have your faith in God and that's great. Unfortunately, to me, you just happen to believe in a way that makes faith appear to growing majorities of people, absurd. Most people aren't going to buy a religion that can't accommodate to reality, fact as people know it to be. So if there's anything to beliving in God, scientific people, and that's getting to be most everybody, I think, are gonna throw it out with the dirty dish water of your creationism, or so I see it.
It seems like you are lumping me in with the scientists totally though. I don't see you agreeing with me when I say they have a religion just like you do, the notion that there is such a thing as an objective observer. My point is that after you, or not you but the evolutionist gets through realizing what a big joke your brand of Christianity is, he thinks that means that he knows what all Christianity is and that it's all a joke. Well I don't think so, but, unfortunately, my viewpoint on the true nature of Christianity is so extreme that perhaps it really isn't actually Christianity. I'm not positive, but I would say that Athanasius captures what I think a real Christian would say about Christianity, and maybe linuxboy is somewhere on a spectrum between him and me, but I don't know. I do think they can speak more to your condition than I can. The people to whom I wish to really address my viewpoint are non believers like then I don't believe in God like you do. But I don't not believe in Him like they do either.
I think we evolved as human beings, but that being human beings means something. We can be programmed in millions of ways, but underneath we are human animals. We have a human animal nature that is our birth right. The notion that everything is relative is false. If we do not live according to our real nature we will suffer because we will not be what we are, we will be false. What we falsely are, in my opinion is self haters. He who can overcome his self hate is just like he who accepts that he has been forgiven. When this happens for real, it produces, in my opinion, a completely different kind of human being, a real one, somebody truly odd.
Anyway, so my point is that religion is actually an old and screwed up science, the science of the transformation of the insane into the sane taken over by thieves who's aim is self profit, control, and the prevention of sanity in sanity's name. The operating manual, the Bible in this case, still contains enough science, though, that accidents still happen and occassionally a real Christian happens.
My personal belief, though, is that it's time for humanity to wake up, to cut to the chase, to involve itself in a direct confrontation with it's real illness and begin to treat that illness directly. I see the threat of nuclear, biological and other technical threats to our survival serious enough as to require a full court press. Unfortunately, some people are still stuck of how we got here and it's relevance or imagined threat to a basically defunct yet potentially real religion. So I guess I would say that God is a projection of our inner psyche. He is what we are supposed to become. We created Him in our image. The only thing that means anything at all in life is movement on that path.
It seems like you are lumping me in with the scientists totally though. I don't see you agreeing with me when I say they have a religion just like you do, the notion that there is such a thing as an objective observer. My point is that after you, or not you but the evolutionist gets through realizing what a big joke your brand of Christianity is, he thinks that means that he knows what all Christianity is and that it's all a joke. Well I don't think so, but, unfortunately, my viewpoint on the true nature of Christianity is so extreme that perhaps it really isn't actually Christianity. I'm not positive, but I would say that Athanasius captures what I think a real Christian would say about Christianity, and maybe linuxboy is somewhere on a spectrum between him and me, but I don't know. I do think they can speak more to your condition than I can. The people to whom I wish to really address my viewpoint are non believers like then I don't believe in God like you do. But I don't not believe in Him like they do either.
I think we evolved as human beings, but that being human beings means something. We can be programmed in millions of ways, but underneath we are human animals. We have a human animal nature that is our birth right. The notion that everything is relative is false. If we do not live according to our real nature we will suffer because we will not be what we are, we will be false. What we falsely are, in my opinion is self haters. He who can overcome his self hate is just like he who accepts that he has been forgiven. When this happens for real, it produces, in my opinion, a completely different kind of human being, a real one, somebody truly odd.
Anyway, so my point is that religion is actually an old and screwed up science, the science of the transformation of the insane into the sane taken over by thieves who's aim is self profit, control, and the prevention of sanity in sanity's name. The operating manual, the Bible in this case, still contains enough science, though, that accidents still happen and occassionally a real Christian happens.
My personal belief, though, is that it's time for humanity to wake up, to cut to the chase, to involve itself in a direct confrontation with it's real illness and begin to treat that illness directly. I see the threat of nuclear, biological and other technical threats to our survival serious enough as to require a full court press. Unfortunately, some people are still stuck of how we got here and it's relevance or imagined threat to a basically defunct yet potentially real religion. So I guess I would say that God is a projection of our inner psyche. He is what we are supposed to become. We created Him in our image. The only thing that means anything at all in life is movement on that path.
Religion:
How do you know Jehova/God/Allah exists? Because the Torah/Bible/Quran says so.
How do you know the Torah/Bible/Quran is true? Because it is the word of Jehova/God/Allah.
How do you know it is the word of Jehova/God/Allah? Because the Torah/Bible/Quran says so.
How do you know Jehova/God/Allah exists? Because the Torah/Bible/Quran says so.
How do you know the Torah/Bible/Quran is true? Because it is the word of Jehova/God/Allah.
How do you know it is the word of Jehova/God/Allah? Because the Torah/Bible/Quran says so.
Here is the rubuttal to the original argument:
15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry
Lets see what this does.
15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry
Lets see what this does.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter