Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 256 of 503 (677391)
10-29-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 1:12 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
What more do you need? Worldwide layer of clay, plus sedimentary filling in many of the major flood-basins of earth. A PT boundary loss of vegetation across flood basins on many continents. A simultaneous eroding across many flood-basins across earth. Something major happened, and waterborne sediments filled up flood-basins across earth.
This widespread layer of clay seems to be more to do with the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps. It's eroded volcanic ash.
Sedimentary basins fill in in the normal course of events, and the one we have a detailed report on seems to have changed state more due to subsidence than additional sediments.
The loss of vegetation is hardly sufficient as evidence of a flood. The effects of the volcanic eruptions - including increased temperatures due to the greenhouse effect may well have been enough to do the job. Too hot to handle
And the loss of vegetation would lead to an increase in erosion itself. Plants help bind the soil with their roots.
So there really doesn't seem to be any significant evidence of a worldwide flood at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 1:12 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 257 of 503 (677393)
10-29-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 1:12 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
mindspawn writes:
A flood at the PT boundary is at the least a theory worth examining. Do you know that the experts are still arguing among themselves what actually caused the death event at the PTB? yet a worldwide flood is discarded.
You've got this backwards. The possibility of a worldwide flood was never discarded. It's just that geologists have found no evidence of a worldwide flood at the P-T boundary. Just look at the possible causes of the P-T extinction event listed over at Wikipedia. Asteroid impacts, volcanism, and sea level fluctuations, to mention just a few. This list includes everything for which there is at least a little evidence. A global flood is absent from the list because of absence of evidence, not because it was discarded a priori. Find us evidence of a global flood and it will be added to the list - I'll add it myself.
By the way, note that one of the possibilities in the list is pronounced sea level regression. Not global transgression - regression globablly at continental boundaries from dropping sea levels.
I have described the mechanism earlier. The ice caps melted, the glaciation melted, the air was seeded by volcanic activity, volcanic activity causes torrential downpours.
This has been addressed before, but I guess you're just going to continue repeating it. There is too little moisture in the air for it to affect sea levels significantly if it all fell as rain at once.
And the Siberian Traps that you think would have heated the world and melted the ice caps and glaciers might actually have spewed so much dust into the air that it cooled the world into an extremely lengthy winter, in the way the Krakatoa eruption cooled the world a couple hundred years ago, but much worse. The oceans might have frozen all the way to the equator.
Or perhaps the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere caused global warming, making conditions too hot for much plant life, and of course that would have melted ice caps and glaciers, but obviously not enough to cause a global flood, because for that there is no evidence.
But one thing we do know: things that happen leave behind evidence. If a global flood happened, an event much, much more severe and easily detectable than increased fluvial deposits in floodplains, there would be evidence. A lot of evidence.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 1:12 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 4:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 258 of 503 (677397)
10-29-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 1:26 PM


Re: No flood
Other than rock dating, have you got any more of these "thousands of facts" to give me, that would contradict any major flood at the PTB?
Sure!
Noah was born some 250 million years after the events you are ascribing to the flood.
That is a serious problem, and you can't just hand-wave it away, nor put it off to discuss another time.
If you don't consider dating and all the the rest of scientific knowledge--that incidentally contradicts your idea--you're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 1:26 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:32 AM Coyote has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 259 of 503 (677431)
10-29-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 1:20 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Hi mindspawn,
I am learning as I go along, that's what I like about these discussions they force me to do research.
Or, to put it another way, you know next to nothing about geology. Strange then, that you should so lightly discard the expertise of those who do know about geology.
Geology is a huge and complex subject. It takes a great deal of effort to gain any degree of expertise in it. Yet for many years, highly intelligent men and women have been doing just that and they have learned a great deal in that process. Unfortunately for you and your personal religious convictions, one of the things that they've learned is that the Nohaic Flood is a myth.
Let me be frank with you; you are simply not going to overturn the geological status quo by digging out a few papers and making "sounds sensible" conclusions about them. Nor are you going to find evidence for a global flood lurking unnoticed in some online geology paper. I mean, you have admitted that you don't know much about geology, so consider this; if that evidence were there, don't you think that the real experts - professional geologists - would have noticed it by now? And don't you think it rather unlikely that a novice like yourself would suddenly come along and show the experts what's been staring them in the face all these years? To me, that sounds like a fantasy and a somewhat self-indulgent one.
Around the world there are thousands of highly educated, highly intelligent professionals, any one of whom knows their field better than you or I ever will. Believe it or not, they know what they're doing. You should be listening to them, not scolding them from a position of relative ignorance.
Learning as you go is great, but I think that you ought learn first, opine later. None of us have the right to have an opinion on a subject that we do not understand.
And just to illustrate how much you still need to learn...
If you would like to show me any studies of carboniferous fauna/flora in the thinner air highlands regions of the carboniferous rather than the more common swamp areas, I would like to see it.
Sure, me too. But the truth is that arid highlands don't produce many fossils. Fossils tend to be produced in aquatic environments because those are the environments that encourage fossilisation.
Such layers do exist though. You might try looking for info about the interior of Pangea. That area was highly landlocked during the Carboniferous and would have been extremely arid.
Unfortunately the main idex fossils that even show a layer to be carboniferous, are swamp animals.
I don't mean to be rude, but that is an extraordinarily silly thing to say. I only bring this up, because it should bring home to you just how wrong you are about this topic.
The truth is that there are a great many other environments recorded in the Carboniferous, notably a great deal of marine material. Take a look at this discussion of carboniferous index fossils from Berkeley;
quote:
The appearance or disappearance of fauna usually marks the boundaries between time periods. The Carboniferous is separated from the earlier Devonian by the appearance of the conodont Siphonodella sulcata or Siphondella duplicata. Conodonts are a series of fossils that resemble the teeth or jaws of primitive eel- or hagfish-like fish. The Carboniferous-Permian boundary is distinguished by the appearance of the fusulinid foram Sphaeroschwagerina fusiformis in Europe and Pseudoschwagerina beedei in North America. Fusulinids are giants among protists and could reach a centimeter in length. They were abundant enough to form sizable deposits of rock, known as "rice rock" because of the resemblance between fusulinids and rice grains.
The Mississippian is differentiated from the Pennsylvanian by the appearance of the conodont Declinognathodus noduliferus, the ammonoid genus Homoceras, and the foraminifers Millerella pressa and Millerella marblensis. The markers of these boundaries apply only to marine deposits. The distinction between the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian subsystems may also be illustrated by a break in the flora due to transistional changes from a terrestrial environment to a marine one and as a result of a change in the climate.
The stratigraphy of the Lower Carboniferous is distinguished by the shallow-water limestones. These limestones are composed of parts of organisms, mostly the remains of crinoids. These thrived in the shallow seas of the Lower Carboniferous. Other limestones include lime mudstones and oolithic limestones. Lime mudstones are composed of the carbonate mud produced by green algae. Oolithic limestones are composed of calcium carbonate in concentric spheres that were produced by high wave energy. Sandstones (sedimentary rock composed of quartz sand and cemented by silica or calcium carbonate) and siltstones (rock composed of hardened silt) are also found in the Lower Carboniferous strata, though not in as great abundance than the limestones.
Conodonts, crinoids, forams... all marine animals, all carboniferous index fossils. Your statement about carboniferous index fossils being mostly "swamp animals" is false. What's more though, it's obviously false. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of geology would know better than to make such a statement. Carboniferous marine limestone is incredibly common. Hell, I have a big pile of Carboniferous marine fossils right next to me on my desk as I type this. They're pretty common.
In short, I think that your eagerness to provide geological backing for the Great flood has led you to create a number of poorly thought out pet theories, none of which hold up to examination. I applaud your decision to engage with the science on this, but I think that you are letting your zeal for the Flood lead you to exceed your expertise. You should be listening to what geology can tell you, not trying to force it to tell you what you want to hear.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 1:20 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2012 1:51 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(2)
Message 260 of 503 (677439)
10-29-2012 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by mindspawn
10-29-2012 1:20 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Mindspawn:
Show me ONE FOSSIL of a nutria, or a flamingo, or a cypress tree from a Carboniferous swamp. Or broaden that: a mammal, a bird, or an angiosperm fossil from the Carboniferous. One fossil will shut my mouth.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by mindspawn, posted 10-29-2012 1:20 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:37 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 261 of 503 (677482)
10-30-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
10-29-2012 1:35 PM


It's not possible to tell what you're claiming floods can do. Do you mean that floods can cause a loss of vegetation? That floods can cause increased erosion? Both?
Since flood deposits do not resemble fluvial deposits, let's assume you just meant that floods can cause a loss of vegetation. Your claim then becomes that a global flood denuded the landscape world-wide, and after the flood receded there was increased erosion from the denuded landscape.
Yes, but in addition to post-flood erosion, both the transgression and regression would have caused increased erosion and could have contributed towards the overfill situation in flood-plains across earth.
The study was referring to changes to fluvial patterns before and after the PT boundary. It was not stating that the overfill was caused by fluvial flows, but was focussing on the changing nature of the fluvial flows before and after the boundary.
You might consider trying the much more likely scenario that the Siberian Traps threw massive amounts of dust into the air for millions of years, sending the planet into an extended global winter that killed much life everywhere. When the ice finally receded from a landscape now shorn of vegetation erosion would be greatly increased. We have actual evidence of the Siberian Traps, but no evidence of any global flood.
You are incorrect about the extended global winter. These events may cause short term cooling, but the result of the Siberian traps was extended warming.
http://www.killerinourmidst.com/P-T%20boundary.html
Similarly, if the purported regression was indeed caused by global cooling by Siberian Traps generated aerosols, confirmatory evidence is missing. There are no dropstones that would have fallen from the bottoms of glaciers as they reached the oceans, no continental rocks polished by the grinding passage of continental ice sheets, no moraines of the proper age left behind by mountain glaciers. The greatest difficulty with the ice age-induced regression proposal, however, is that sulfate aerosol-produced cooling is remarkably short-lived. Sulfate aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a few years at most before precipitating out. This short a time period is hardly sufficient to produce an ice age, however transient: severe short-term cold, yes, but not great continental ice sheets.
Even if there were extended pulses of eruptions punctuating hundreds of thousands of years of Traps volcanism, this would not have been sufficient to cause an ice age, because while sulfate aerosols precipitate out in a one-to three-year period, another volcanic product, carbon dioxide, would have been accumulating in the atmosphere. Instead of global cooling, extended volcanism produces global warming, and that warming begins shortly after an eruption. The amount of warming, of course, depends on the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere
I think we all agree that denudation of the landscape and increased erosion is a characteristic generally representative of the PTB. What is not generally representative is any evidence of a global flood.
In addition to denudation and erosion, there is also worldwide overfill. I honestly do not see how increased erosion itself would cause these changes across earth without increased waterflows contributing towards the increase in sediment volumes. Do they detect fluvial patterns within the overfill itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 10-29-2012 1:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 11:13 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 5:10 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 262 of 503 (677484)
10-30-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by PaulK
10-29-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
PaulK, yes you are definitely correct here about the worldwide layer of clay relating to the volcanic eruptions. But that volcanic ash needs water to turn the fine sediment into clay. It indicative that the Siberian traps were active during the time that vast regions around the world were covered in water.
You say sedimentary basins normally fill. this is true, yet at this point in earths history large flood-basins all around earth show the same rapid overfill situation. the extent of the phenomenon is not common, its unique.
Yes the loss of vegetation is not sufficient evidence on its own, and there are other quite good alternative explanations for this, however combined with the huge movements of water-borne sediment at that time, a flood becomes a possible theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2012 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2012 9:20 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 274 by roxrkool, posted 10-30-2012 9:13 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 263 of 503 (677485)
10-30-2012 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Coyote
10-29-2012 2:22 PM


Re: No flood
lol, I said other than rock dating have you got any more of these "thousands of facts" that would contradict that flood.
You then repeated yourself about dates. Well dates may contradict a biblical flood, but not a global flood at the PT boundary. Then you refer to "all the rest of scientific knowledge" . at least others are showing me actual objections, if the knowledge is there, post it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2012 2:22 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Coyote, posted 10-30-2012 10:58 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 11:04 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 264 of 503 (677486)
10-30-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Coragyps
10-29-2012 5:50 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Show me ONE FOSSIL of a nutria, or a flamingo, or a cypress tree from a Carboniferous swamp. Or broaden that: a mammal, a bird, or an angiosperm fossil from the Carboniferous. One fossil will shut my mouth.
What more do you want , I already quoted from a link concerning a Russian discovery of angiosperms in the carboniferous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Coragyps, posted 10-29-2012 5:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by JonF, posted 10-30-2012 8:49 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 266 by JonF, posted 10-30-2012 8:49 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2012 10:39 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 10:43 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 265 of 503 (677497)
10-30-2012 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
I already quoted from a link concerning a Russian discovery of angiosperms in the carboniferous.
Your link says "There are Russian reports of spores similar to pollen grains of angiosperms from the Carboniferous period (cf. Seagal et. al. 1965) but these surely merit further study." An unreplicated report of something similar to an angiosperm pollen grain is not discovery of angiosperms in the Carboniferous. And a breakthrough discovery like that is not mentioned anywhere since 1968?
At Mono or polyphyletic? Molecular evidence and phylogeny I find:
quote:
Molecular analyses show increasing support for a pre-Cretaceous separation between angiosperms and gymnosperms. A study in 1989 by Martin et al. puts the split between monocots and dicots at 300 million years ago in the late Carboniferous, suggesting that the angiosperms split from the gymnosperms before then. A comparable study in the same year by Li et al. on the DNA of chloroplast sequences estimates the monocot separation from the rest of the angiosperms at 250-220 million years; there is therefore a 100 million year discrepancy between the two dates.
Critics point out that these studies are based on the erroneous phylogeny treating monocots and dicots as two monophyletic lineages. The studies also assume that molecular evolution has progressed at a steady rate through geological time, which appears not to be the case. A larger study in 1999 by Qui et al., analysing the three cellular genomes — the mitochondrial, the nuclear and the chloroplast gene sequences — thus avoiding the problems of the previous single-genome analyses, has placed the split between angiosperms and gymnosperms as early as the late Carboniferous, 290 million years ago. There is, however, no fossil evidence to back this estimate.
So we're still looking for a Carboniferous angiosperm fossil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:37 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by mindspawn, posted 11-07-2012 4:16 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 266 of 503 (677498)
10-30-2012 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
.
Edited by JonF, : Duplicate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:37 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 267 of 503 (677502)
10-30-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:15 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
PaulK, yes you are definitely correct here about the worldwide layer of clay relating to the volcanic eruptions. But that volcanic ash needs water to turn the fine sediment into clay. It indicative that the Siberian traps were active during the time that vast regions around the world were covered in water.
Is it ? Just how much water is needed ? And how far does the area actually extend ? It certainly isn't found everywhere.
quote:
You say sedimentary basins normally fill. this is true, yet at this point in earths history large flood-basins all around earth show the same rapid overfill situation. the extent of the phenomenon is not common, its unique.
I don't believe I've seen evidence of this, except for the one basin where the filling was explained by differential subsidence, due to tectonic events. Where do you find evidence for such events happening worldwide ?
quote:
Yes the loss of vegetation is not sufficient evidence on its own, and there are other quite good alternative explanations for this, however combined with the huge movements of water-borne sediment at that time, a flood becomes a possible theory.
I haven't seen any evidence for these "huge movements of water-borne sediment" on a worldwide scale.
On the other hand I don,t believe you've addressed the evidence of the Sphinx. How can the Sphinx be built only a few hundred years after the start of the Triassic, if the Giza Plateau was underwater in the Eocene, and on top of the time from the Triassic to the Eocene we also need time for the rock the Sphinx is built around to lithify, the plateau to be cleared of water and the overburden to be cleared off ? Surely the timescales of mainstream geology make much more sense of the Sphinx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:15 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 5:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 268 of 503 (677514)
10-30-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
What more do you want
Quite a bit more actually.
Look, it's pretty simple. When we look at the Biblical record, we can see that the following organisms are recorded as existing prior to the flood;
Cattle
Grass
Fruit-bearing trees
Figs
Snakes
"Fowls of the air"
Ravens
Doves
Sheep
Humans
Giants
Okay, let's just ignore the giants, as well as some vague groupings like "creeping things". The point is that we should see all of these things in the fossil record before any putative Flood layer. But we don't. Not one of them. In fact we don't even see their immediate ancestors in the Permian.
There's no getting around this; the Bible gives plenty of examples of pre-Flood life. We should see all - or at least most - of these emerging before your flood layer. We don't. Instead, we see them all emerging much later, one group at a time, in close agreement with an evolutionary model. End of story. Your P-T Flood theory stands refuted.
Now if you can show us some Permian grass or a Carboniferous cow, then we will bow down before your amazing new geological paradigm. But you can't.
You need to address that.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:37 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 269 of 503 (677515)
10-30-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
What more do you want , I already quoted from a link concerning a Russian discovery of angiosperms in the carboniferous.
Angiosperms are just the tip of the iceberg. The entire fossil record in the Carboniferous is a major problem. There are simply no modern species including no mammals, no birds, no reptiles, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:37 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 270 of 503 (677518)
10-30-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:32 AM


Re: No flood
I said other than rock dating have you got any more of these "thousands of facts" that would contradict that flood.
Sure. 1) There were no people around 250 million years ago to report on such a flood. 2) There was no genetic bottleneck in human populations in recent human history.
You then repeated yourself about dates. Well dates may contradict a biblical flood, but not a global flood at the PT boundary. Then you refer to "all the rest of scientific knowledge" . at least others are showing me actual objections, if the knowledge is there, post it.
You are ignoring the big picture: your argument about geology 250 million years ago in relation to a biblical flood is akin to arguing about whether there are pink polka dots on unicorns' butts. It makes no difference, and is silly besides.
But I suppose you are doing it because somehow, somewhere, you have to find something that will keep your belief in a global flood going.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:32 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024