Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 91 of 445 (491589)
12-17-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 12:03 PM


Show me the donuts!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 92 of 445 (491599)
12-18-2008 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 11:55 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
I was just pointing out that your experiment from Message 69
...
doesn't jive with Buz's model in Message 48
Incorrect. I handle Buz's first point by pointing out that you can have as shallow a cup as you wish, so long as there is at least some of it sticking up out of the water. You did read my post, yes? It doesn't matter if the maximum elevation above sea level is only an inch. The point is that it is above the highest point of water.
That's what "sea level" means: The highest elevation of water. "Dry land" is dry land precisely because it is ABOVE the highest elevation of water. Because the water cannot get any higher, there is no way to flood dry land for any length of time. If you could, it already would be.
And I take care of his second point by calculating just how much water is in the atmosphere. There's only an inch. So if we take all of the water that exists on earth, including the water in the atmosphere, and dump it into the ocean, it doesn't rise by any appreciable amount: The ocean already has pretty much all the available water.
Unless Buzsaw is saying that the earth had a topology equivalent to Florida such that the 3% of earth's water that isn't in the ocean would be sufficient to cover it up were it to be dumped into the ocean, then my experiment fits his description just fine:
All the water that could possibly be used is in the ocean and still there is some dry land sticking up. Now, what sort of manipulation of the water can be done that keeps it liquid and doesn't destroy the cup so that after you finish this manipulation, the cup remains completely submerged for an hour?
Moving the water around can get the cup under water, but it can't keep it under water once you stop moving it. And yet, that's exactly what the Bible says: For 150 days the earth was completely under water.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2008 10:39 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 445 (491609)
12-18-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rrhain
12-18-2008 5:29 AM


Rrhain, to clarify my position/model, it was that if the oceans were not deep before the flood and the mountains were not high before the flood (including the submerged ones, even the present amount of water in the oceans would cover more if not all of the surface of the earth. Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.
Again, this is to clarify my position which has not been addressed by Rrhain who apparently does not regard the depth of the water in his dish model as relevant to my model. It is not to further debate what I regard as the Biblical hypothesis.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 12-18-2008 5:29 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2008 11:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 95 by AdminNosy, posted 12-18-2008 11:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 96 by DrJones*, posted 12-18-2008 3:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2008 12:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 94 of 445 (491615)
12-18-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
12-18-2008 10:39 AM


Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.
Either way the problem creates new problems. The atmosphere can hold only so much vapor, if as some have stated that a vapor canopy was in existence then there would have been no life to save in the ark since this canopy would have raised the earth's temperature to a situation similar to Venus, too hot for life. The alternative, subterranean water is implausible for all subterranean water is locked up molecularly in minerals. Separating this and bringing it to the surface would not occur as liquid water but as superheated steam which would have boiled the oceans and poached the inhabitants of the ark.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2008 10:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 95 of 445 (491618)
12-18-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
12-18-2008 10:39 AM


Read! Buz
Message 94
You have been told this before. Your conjectures have been shown to be flawed. Do not repeat yourself over and over as if you haven't read the replies to you.
If you demonstrate that you are unwilling to bother reading replies to you then I think you shouldn't waste the time of others by posting the same material over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2008 10:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 96 of 445 (491632)
12-18-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
12-18-2008 10:39 AM


...it was that if the oceans were not deep before the flood and the mountains were not high before the flood (including the submerged ones, even the present amount of water in the oceans would cover more if not all of the surface of the earth.
care to show your math?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2008 10:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2008 8:31 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 445 (491646)
12-18-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by DrJones*
12-18-2008 3:35 PM


An obvious solution folks
The devil's advocate in me has to speak.
care to show your math?
The earth is 3/4 water and 1/4 land, and the land can be fit into the ocean basin without filling it. This would leave an excess of water to spread out and cover all.
Rather obviously if the hard surface of the earth (rocks soils etc) formed a perfect oblate spheroid, such that the gravitational potential was precisely the same over the whole surface, the water would spread out on top to a depth roughly 3/4 the average depth of the oceans. That ain't peanuts.
To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires the assumption that the earth is exceedingly similar to today. No creationist I know of thinks so, and thus you are not arguing about the same world. On a different earth the proportions of land and water could be entirely different. For example:
Buz in Message 93
Rrhain, to clarify my position/model, it was that if the oceans were not deep before the flood and the mountains were not high before the flood (including the submerged ones, even the present amount of water in the oceans would cover more if not all of the surface of the earth. Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.
No matter what the actual ratio was, no matter how little water there was, with a perfectly smooth hard surface you would get a film of water covering that hard surface, so really all you are arguing about whether it was 20 feet or 2000 feet ... at which point the argument is moot.
Again, this is to clarify my position which has not been addressed by Rrhain who apparently does not regard the depth of the water in his dish model as relevant to my model. It is not to further debate what I regard as the Biblical hypothesis.
This also assumes that the physical laws are not altered or held in abeyance by the supernatural powers in charge of the flood. Give water the capability of liquid hydrogen to flow uphill and it will naturally cover the earth without any change to the geometry.
The Times & The Sunday Times
This type of flow would qualify under the "fountains of the deep" as the source of the waters, without needing volcanoes or huge hydrothermal blasts. Note that this would also be in accordance with the modified behavior of water during the crossing of the Red Sea, which is supposed to be due to the same supernatural actor.
Alternatively all a god would need to do is make the force of gravity at the rock\soil surface precisely the same over the whole earth and water would naturally cover everything. Topologically the earth would become a perfect oblate spheroid as far as the water was concerned.
Is this a special invocation of "god-did-it"? Not really, as the biblical line is that he very explicitly stated he dood it at the time.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by DrJones*, posted 12-18-2008 3:35 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2008 11:40 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 100 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2008 2:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 98 of 445 (491653)
12-18-2008 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
12-18-2008 8:31 PM


Re: An obvious solution folks
ASV Gen 7:19-20
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Where does it say the mountains were lowered?
Edited by bluescat48, : addition

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2008 8:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2008 4:32 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 99 of 445 (491655)
12-19-2008 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
12-18-2008 10:39 AM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, to clarify my position/model, it was that if the oceans were not deep before the flood
It isn't a question of deep. It's a question of whether or not there is land above the highest point of water.
Dry land, by definition, is land that exists above sea level. It doesn't matter how deep or shallow the oceans are. So long as there is dry land, it is geometrically impossible to flood it for any length of time. If it could be, it already would be.
quote:
and the mountains were not high before the flood (including the submerged ones
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? If they're submerged, they aren't mountains. Mountains are juttings of land above the highest point of water.
But again, it doesn't matter how short the mountains are. The highest elevation on earth could be only one inch above sea level.
There still isn't enough water to flood it. The water in the atmosphere won't cover it because there isn't enough (not to mention that it will be immediately sucked back up).
quote:
even the present amount of water in the oceans would cover more if not all of the surface of the earth.
Incorrect. Haven't you been paying attention? 97% of all the water on the earth is in the oceans. If we were to take the other 3% and put it there, too, sea level would only rise about 250 feet.
That isn't enough to flood Florida.
Are you saying the topology of the earth was such that there wasn't anything as tall as the Matterhorn at Disneyworld?
quote:
Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.
Already handled. If all the water that exists anywhere on the earth were to be put in the ocean for a global flood, there still isn't enough to flood it.
Are you saying the highest point on earth was no more than a hundred feet above sea level?
You've got to say it out loud, Buzsaw. It is not enough to simply say that "The topology was different, with the earth being 'smoother.'" There is a hard number you have to deal with:
If all the water in the world were in the oceans, they would only rise up about 250 feet.
Are you saying that the highest point in the world was only 100 feet tall?
quote:
Again, this is to clarify my position which has not been addressed by Rrhain who apparently does not regard the depth of the water in his dish model as relevant to my model.
You realize that you've just contradicted yourself? Since I have shown why it does not matter, your protestations that I haven't accounted for them are irrelevant.
What you need to do is actually spit out the specifics: The only way your claim can be true is if the highest elevation above sea level was no more than 200 feet.
Is that what you're saying?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2008 10:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 100 of 445 (491658)
12-19-2008 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
12-18-2008 8:31 PM


RAZD writes:
quote:
To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires the assumption that the earth is exceedingly similar to today.
Incorrect.
To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires only that the eath not have a topology that makes it nothing but Florida.
Again, we're talking geometry. It doesn't matter the square footage of the dry land. It only matters the elevation. If we're going to look for the water in the air to do it, then an elevation of one inch is too much. If we're going to include the ground and subterranean sources, then the elevation needs to be more than a couple hundred feet.
Is there anybody claiming that the topology of the earth only 4000 years ago was such that there wasn't any place higher than the Matterhorn at Disneyworld?
Because if there is, then we need to explain how Mt. Everest managed to rise five miles into the air without a) having the rocks melt from the energy required to do that in such a short time and b) having nobody notice.
quote:
This also assumes that the physical laws are not altered or held in abeyance by the supernatural powers in charge of the flood.
If you're going to invoke magic, then why bother trying to come up with a natural explanation? Why insist that we can make it flood with the water that exists on earth? "God made more water and when he was done, he made the extra go away and left absolutely no trace of it."
quote:
Is this a special invocation of "god-did-it"?
Well, "special"? Since "god did it" is the answer to so many things, I wouldn't call it that special.
The problem is, those who are trying to argue the flood seem to be unwilling to use the "god did it" explanation. They want it to be mundane.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2008 8:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2008 10:28 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 445 (491677)
12-19-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rrhain
12-19-2008 2:05 AM


No flood
The problem is, those who are trying to argue the flood seem to be unwilling to use the "god did it" explanation. They want it to be mundane.
They want it to be supported by science, thereby affirming their beliefs.
And for the most part they don't care if it is real science, junk science, or creation "science."
Some of the arguments we've seen in these threads show that clearly.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2008 2:05 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2008 4:43 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 445 (491695)
12-19-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by bluescat48
12-18-2008 11:40 PM


Re: An obvious solution folks
Not getting it?
Where does it say the mountains were lowered?
Why do they have to be to be covered in water? Remember that this same god makes the water divide to make a passage across the red sea. Making it flow uphill is small potatoes.
The problem is, those who are trying to argue the flood seem to be unwilling to use the "god did it" explanation. They want it to be mundane.
Except for the raining 40 days and nights and the opening up of the fountains of the deep and the destruction of the earth bit eh?
How do you explain a supernatural event without a supernatural explanation? If the explanation is mundane then the event is mundane.
Incorrect.
To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires only that the eath not have a topology that makes it nothing but Florida.
Which is still effectively applying the world as we know it today ... because you are still assuming the ocean is the same (that part that is 3/4's of the known world today.
What your argument reduces to, is that if there is land above water today, then there must be land above the water before the flood. If you average out all the surface of the world you end up with a world underwater.
If the way the flood is accomplished, is to make water flow up and over the land, then there is more than enough water to do the job.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2008 11:40 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2008 1:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 445 (491696)
12-19-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
12-19-2008 10:28 AM


Re: No flood
They want it to be supported by science, thereby affirming their beliefs.
And for the most part they don't care if it is real science, junk science, or creation "science."
That's the nub. This issue is not whether the flood was possible, but whether there is any reason to think that it did occur.
It is possible for water to cover all the land, there is more than enough water to spread out and cover everything several hundred feet deep on average.
The problem is that there is no evidence of the interruption of life on earth in the last 3.5 billion years that would be necessary if this did in fact occur.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2008 10:28 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 445 (491705)
12-20-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
12-19-2008 4:32 PM


RAZD writes:
quote:
Why do they have to be to be covered in water?
Because Genesis 7 says they were. Now, it also says the water only rose 15 cubits which is only about 7 meters. Would anybody call a seven meter protubance a "mountain"? And how did the ark manage to actually be "lifted above the earth" with all those animals in a depth of only 7 meters? The draft would drag on the ground.
quote:
Except for the raining 40 days and nights and the opening up of the fountains of the deep and the destruction of the earth bit eh?
Mundane doesn't mean uninteresting. There was thundersnow in Seattle this past week.
quote:
How do you explain a supernatural event without a supernatural explanation?
By pretending it was a natural ocurrence. If it's going to be a supernatural event, let it be a supernatural event. Don't try to pretend that there's enough water on the planet to do it. Don't try to pretend that the topography of the earth was such that it was constantly being flooded by the tides twice a day.
quote:
Which is still effectively applying the world as we know it today ... because you are still assuming the ocean is the same
Incorrect. I'm not limiting myself to the oceans. I'm talking all the water that exists on the earth. That's what the discussion about the atmospheric water is about: Is there enough water in the air to flood the earth?
No, there isn't. If you take all the water in the world and dump it into the oceans for a global flood, there isn't enough to actually flood the earth.
Unless you decide to say screw it to the idea of a mundane explanation: God did it. Of course there isn't enough water on earth. That's because the flood waters weren't waters from the earth. They were waters from god. God created the water. No need for a vapor canopy, no need for phantom underground sources (which were already taken into account when we dumped all the water in the ocean).
quote:
What your argument reduces to, is that if there is land above water today, then there must be land above the water before the flood.
Incorrect. My argument is that if you take all the water that is available and try to cover up the land and you find that there is still dry land sticking up out of the water, then there is not enough water to flood the land. If there were, it would be flooded. Since it isn't flooded, then there isn't enough water.
quote:
If the way the flood is accomplished, is to make water flow up and over the land, then there is more than enough water to do the job.
Indeed, but nobody says that. Nobody says that the water in the oceans deformed itself to provide a uniform liquid shell of water perpendicular to every surface. That would certainly be a "god did it" response.
But no, what is being argued is that there is enough water on the planet to flood the earth without any need for god to hold it in place for months on end.
If you're going to invoke magic, then get off your ass and invoke the magic. Don't try to pretend that there is any rational explanation for it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2008 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2008 12:17 PM Rrhain has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 445 (491813)
12-21-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rrhain
12-20-2008 1:13 AM


So why do they have to be (lowered) to be covered ...
Keeping to the thread of thought here
Because Genesis 7 says they were.
Genesis 7 says the mountains were lowered?
Now, it also says the water only rose 15 cubits which is only about 7 meters.
So that is the amount of water that flows out of the "fountains of the deep" (aka ocean basins) to cover the tops of the mountains.
Indeed, but nobody says that. Nobody says that the water in the oceans deformed itself to provide a uniform liquid shell of water perpendicular to every surface. That would certainly be a "god did it" response.
And nothing says it isn't, the issue is moot where the story is mute. Such a flow would average out topography locally, and the amount of earths surface you could see would look relatively uniform. The visibility of distance at sea is fairly limited, and easily dominated by local waves.
By pretending it was a natural ocurrence. If it's going to be a supernatural event, let it be a supernatural event.
Can you point to a creationist that believes the flood was caused by by natural processes? The whole thing is about validating a supernatural event.
It's the same as the parting of the red sea. God waved his hand and it happened.
But no, what is being argued is that there is enough water on the planet to flood the earth without any need for god to hold it in place for months on end.
No, this is what you are arguing. Creationists don't really care about the mechanism, just that the flood occurred. They know that god caused it, how he did it is not important to the fact (to them) that the flood occurred.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : /

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2008 1:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2008 4:32 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 112 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 1:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024