Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 7:20 AM
202 online now:
Porkncheese, Pressie (2 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,041 Year: 16,864/29,783 Month: 852/1,956 Week: 355/331 Day: 14/69 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 346 of 518 (811689)
06-10-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by edge
06-10-2017 11:48 AM


One possibility is that the volcanism was mostly underwater since the continents split at the end of the Flood and in association with whatever caused the waters to recede. Also the Flood would have brought on the ice age. Mitigating factors to the effect of the volcanism perhaps.

As for the animals spreading throughout the earth why is that a problem? Even the animals with yearly reproductive cycles or less frequent cycles would have multiplied greatly in a few hundred years. As for sizes, that's built into the genome, all it takes for any particular variation to show up is the isolation of a part of the gene pool in which that variation is high frequency, and since such small populations would have been breaking off and spreading out from season to season into new territories such isolation would occur frequently.

Remember there were only eight human beings on earth at the end of the Flood when I'm saying the continents split. A few hundred years later the population would have grown greatly and they would already have spread quite a bit just like the animals. Some by that time may have already started settling in Europe, others in Asia, others in Africa etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by edge, posted 06-10-2017 11:48 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by edge, posted 06-10-2017 10:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19666
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 347 of 518 (811702)
06-10-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
06-10-2017 9:11 AM


Re: Remember this Faith?
You want to know where the sediments came from? They were washed off the land and churned up from the ocean, haven't I said that often enough?

So now we have undisturbed marine ecologies of fully mature marine growth buried suddenly by massive influx of sediments off the lands, that isn't turbulent, but then miraculously picked up while each fossil is preserved in situ undamaged and dropped on top of other such sediment buried mature marine ecologies, stacking them up hundreds of layers deep all over the world. Tearing up the world but preserving the marine growth undisturbed.

Where do all those fantastic flying layers come from Faith? Not the sediment, the layers of fully mature marine growth deposited on top of each other hundreds of layers deep. Does the Fantastic Flying Flood now clone these deposits?

Those sediments off the lands would not have marine growth, and thus they could not provide a continuous deposit of marine growth on top of marine growth, instead they would show up as intrusions between the layers of non-marine growth.

No, Faith, that does not even begin to explain the evidence.

You really do...not...have...a...clue.

The earth is old.
There was no flood.

That's what the evidence shows.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 343 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 9:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 8:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 348 of 518 (811705)
06-10-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by RAZD
06-10-2017 8:20 PM


Re: Remember this Faith?
Marine deposits come from the ocean water, what else? What IS the problem? You aren't making any sense.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2017 8:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2017 11:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4420
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 349 of 518 (811706)
06-10-2017 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
06-10-2017 2:48 PM


One possibility is that the volcanism was mostly underwater since the continents split at the end of the Flood and in association with whatever caused the waters to recede.

But that's not how continents split. The volcanism is subaerial as we see in the East African Rift, or the Great Basin.

On top of that, you have the fact that extensive volcanism means high heat flows and high heat flows expand the mid-ocean ridges so that they displace water back onto the land. This is not a marine regressive situation.

Also the Flood would have brought on the ice age.

So, you say.

And yet we've never seen an explanation of how that happened, just that it did, period.

Mitigating factors to the effect of the volcanism perhaps.

Unlikely.

And that's just the volcanoes.

Remember there were only eight human beings on earth at the end of the Flood when I'm saying the continents split. A few hundred years later the population would have grown greatly and they would already have spread quite a bit just like the animals. Some by that time may have already started settling in Europe, others in Asia, others in Africa etc.

More bald assertions.

What is your evidence that this happened. You can say whatever you want (and you do), but there is never any evidence to support your assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 2:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19666
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 350 of 518 (811742)
06-11-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Faith
06-10-2017 8:37 PM


Re: Remember this Faith?
Marine deposits come from the ocean water, what else? What IS the problem? You aren't making any sense.

The depth of those deposits -- meters thick showing continuous growth of the mature marine ecology, organisms dying and their shells being used as support for a new generation, sediments intermingled with the growth so that the floor gradually rises as new growth builds on top of old growth.

Meters thick of undisturbed mature marine growth that is only explained by extended periods of time for this to occur, hundreds if not thousands of years without interruption.

Cairaco basin for example (from The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1), Message 19):

Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation (full PDF) or view on-line (with free sign-in)(3)

quote:
... Here we present 14C data from Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC (hereafter 58PC), providing 10- to 15-year resolution through most of deglaciation. The new calibration data demonstrate conclusively that Δ14C changes were synchronous with climate shifts during the Younger Dryas. Calculated Δ14C is strongly correlated to climate proxy data throughout early deglaciation (r = 0.81). Comparing Δ14C and 10Be records leads us to conclude that ocean circulation changes, not solar variability, must be the primary mechanism for both14C and climate changes during the Younger Dryas.

Cariaco Basin core 58PC (1040.60′N, 6457.70′W; 820 m depth) has an average sedimentation rate (70 cm/kyr) more than 25% higher than core 56PC (1041.22′N, 6458.07′W; 810 m depth) (13, 14), and shares similar hydrographic conditions. Restricted deep circulation and high surface productivity in the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela create an anoxic water column below 300 m. The climatic cycle of a dry, windy season with coastal upwelling, followed by a nonwindy, rainy season, results in distinctly laminated sediment couplets of light-colored, organic-rich plankton tests and dark-colored mineral grains from local river runoff (13). It has been demonstrated previously that the laminae couplets are annually deposited varves and that light laminae thickness, sediment reflectance (gray scale), and abundance of the foraminifer Globigerina bulloides are all sensitive proxies for surface productivity, upwelling, and trade wind strength (14, 15). Nearly identical patterns, timing, and duration of abrupt changes in Cariaco Basin upwelling compared with surface temperatures in the high-latitude North Atlantic region at 1- to 10-year resolution during the past 110 years and the last deglaciation (7, 14, 15) provide evidence that rapid climate shifts in the two regions were synchronous. A likely mechanism for this linkage is the response of North Atlantic trade winds to the equator-pole temperature gradient forced by changes in high-latitude North Atlantic temperature (16).

The hydrography of the Cariaco Basin provides excellent conditions for 14C dating (17). The shallow sills (146 m depth) constrain water entering the basin to the surface layer, well equilibrated with atmospheric CO2. Despite anoxic conditions, the deep waters of the Cariaco Basin have a brief residence time, as little as 100 years (17). Two radiocarbon dates on G. bulloides of known recent calendar age gave the same surface water-atmospheric 14C difference (reservoir age) as the open Atlantic Ocean (7). Good agreement during the early Holocene and Younger Dryas between Cariaco Basin and terrestrial 14C dates, including German pines and plant macrofossils from lake sediments (1, 9, 11, 18) (Fig. 1), suggests that Cariaco Basin reservoir age does not change measurably as a response to increased local upwelling (i.e., during the Younger Dryas) (19). Planktonic foraminiferal abundance permits continuous sampling at 1.5-cm increments, providing 10- to 15-calendar-year resolution throughout most of deglaciation.

The anchored Cariaco Basin varve chronology provides radiocarbon calibration at high resolution from ∼14.8 to 10.5 cal kyr B.P.


Now I would say "tethered" rather than "anchored" because it is tethered by matching the existing 14C levels to an anchored absolution tree ring chronology that extends back to ~12,400 cal BP (before 1950 ce).

This shows a period of over 1500 years of mature marine growth. Diatoms living, reproducing, dying, in a continuous pattern, deposited and left undisturbed by any massive storms.

And this is just one set of data, used here because it is anchored in time by consilience with other evidence of an ancient earth.

We also have the evidence of Foraminifera extending back over 65 million years in a similar pattern of living, reproducing, dying, in a continuous pattern, deposited and left undisturbed by any massive storms.

... What IS the problem? ...

That there is massive evidence that has refuted each stage of your delusional fantasy explanations to the point where making the evidence cram into your delusional microcosm just does not fit.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 348 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 8:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
14174dm
Member
Posts: 136
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(1)
Message 351 of 518 (811745)
06-11-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
06-10-2017 9:11 AM


Re: Remember this Faith?
You want to know where the sediments came from? They were washed off the land and churned up from the ocean..

Wouldn't that moving sediment up from the depths of the ocean basins onto the continental plates require velocities so high that the sediment would just be washed back off the continents?

We would see, in the ocean basins, thick layers of sand downstream of the continents and only thin, recent layers on the upstream side. To my knowledge we don't see that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 9:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 06-11-2017 3:14 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4420
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 352 of 518 (811751)
06-11-2017 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by 14174dm
06-11-2017 1:21 PM


Re: Remember this Faith?
Wouldn't that moving sediment up from the depths of the ocean basins onto the continental plates require velocities so high that the sediment would just be washed back off the continents?

This is a problem that Faith does not seem to recognize, but it is very important. The Faith scenario would seem to defy gravity and everything we know about sedimentation and hydrodynamics (basically that water flows downhill). It also fails to explain how fossil communities transported in a turbulent state (and it would have to be turbulent to rise out of the abyss and cover a continent in the timespan of a year) and yet be preserved and perfectly sorted into very distinct layers. This kind of transport would almost have to be some kind of a mudflow without any particular dynamic explanation.

I think her response the last time I brought this up was something like, "Well, it wasn't like a mudflow everywhere." And yet these events/strata seem to cover entire continents ...

It's all very inconsistent (even internally) and disorienting to the reasonable audience. There are so many things wrong with the Faith scenario, that one has no idea where to start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by 14174dm, posted 06-11-2017 1:21 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2017 3:29 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 354 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2017 3:34 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 353 of 518 (811752)
06-11-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by edge
06-11-2017 3:14 PM


Belief vs. Evidence
There are so many things wrong with the Faith scenario, that one has no idea where to start.

It is based on belief, not evidence.

In an approach that is the exact opposite of science, creationists have a specific conclusion (belief) in mind, and do their best to fit the evidence into that conclusion.

This is, of course, why presenting evidence won't change the minds (beliefs) of a great many creationists.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 06-11-2017 3:14 PM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 354 of 518 (811753)
06-11-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by edge
06-11-2017 3:14 PM


Re: Remember this Faith?
That is because Faith is making ad-hoc excuses without considering the implications - often without the understanding she'd need to be able to properly consider the implications. And this is how she has to treat - what she calls - evidence for the Flood.

It's not science, it's just bad apologetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 06-11-2017 3:14 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 355 of 518 (811758)
06-11-2017 8:01 PM


Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
As so often happens in these debates the Flood debunker asserts something unprovable about how this or that makes the Flood impossible and I respond with something equally unprovable to argue that it doesn't have to be that way but some other way that makes the flood possible. So we have the usual list of such speculative stuff coming from you guys here. Velocity is again made a part of it. There's no reason to assume great velocity to carry sediments on to the land and all you can do IS assume it. We've got the "fountains of the deep" stirring up the ocean floor and the ocean water in general which would also stir up the sediments that washed off the land. The water should have been thick with such sediments as the sea level rose over the continents so that they'd be deposited by tides and waves or precipitated out of standing water etc. I'm sure you could think of scenarios more conducive to the Flood if you had a mind to and gave it a little thought but you don't and you won't.

But there is also actual evidence besides this war of unprovable plausibilities, mostly in the cross sections I've spent so much time on in the past, cross sections that show the impossibility of the Time Scale theory plus facts that support the Flood. A lot of it shows that the strata were deposited one after another sediment after sediment before any tectonic activity occurred. This is shown on the cross section of the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area, as well as on mnay others though not quite as unambiguously.

But here's another unambiguous one: William Smith's cross section of England, which I'll post at the bottom of the message. It clearly shows that the strata were all laid down before they were tectonically deformed, which among other things disproves the timing claimed for the breakup of Pangaea because ALL the srata from Precambrian to the present were clearly all in place before being pushed into their current tilt. According to current theory Pangaea broke up before all the strata were laid down, but clearly that is not the case. There is no disturbance to the strata shown for that supposed time period.

There is no indication whatever on any of the cross sections I have shown that any layer existed for any great time before the next was deposited. All the facts show continuous deposition, rapid deposition followed by tectonic deformation. It's so absolutely clear that one can only marvel at the continued insistence that millions of years existed from layer to layer. Against that kind of irrational mindset there is clearly no point in further debate.

And then there's the fact that the sedimentary rocks that form the geological column cover huge areas of geography. This alone shows that former time periods associated with any such layer of rock are an absolutei impossibility. The rocks exist, there is no denying them. Life can't live on a rock, and it can't live where enormous amounts of sediment are getting deposited. Despite what you think is OTHER evidence for your theory, these two facts I'm discussing here show to it to be absolutely impossible.

Yet as usual it will be denied, and how can anyone answer flat-out denials? I consider the evidence to show that the Time Scale is absolutely falsified and the worldwide Flood is the best explanation of the facts, yes the evidence, but it will be denied as usual. It makes all the contrary evidence utterly irrelevant. It's been proved over and over on old threads and really, just this one post alone disproves it anyway. There's plenty of other evidence I've given that backs this up though it's more easily rationalized away; this evidence isn't but it will be denied anyway.

Here's Smith's cross section:

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by edge, posted 06-11-2017 9:10 PM Faith has responded
 Message 360 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 6:08 AM Faith has responded
 Message 376 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 10:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4420
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 356 of 518 (811759)
06-11-2017 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
06-11-2017 8:01 PM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Where would you put Siccar Point on this section?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 06-11-2017 8:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 3:00 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 358 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2017 3:26 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 357 of 518 (811762)
06-12-2017 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by edge
06-11-2017 9:10 PM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
I wondered about that. Also the chalk cliffs. But the point is made without them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by edge, posted 06-11-2017 9:10 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6240
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 358 of 518 (811765)
06-12-2017 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by edge
06-11-2017 9:10 PM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Siccart Point is several hundred miles North East of that section, to the right of Edinburgh (topish right). The 'white cliffs' are about 70 miles South of London on the bottom right hand side.

It's an odd section of the UK to a Brit's eyes as it's a diagonal drawn through the bottom of England and Wales - missing almost all of the country. Draw a line from London (bottom right) to Wales (slightly higher up on the left) and you've got it.
But maybe there's a geoligical reason for it. But like Faith I haven't a clue about geology.



Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by edge, posted 06-11-2017 9:10 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 4:09 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 373 by edge, posted 06-12-2017 10:16 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 359 of 518 (811768)
06-12-2017 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Tangle
06-12-2017 3:26 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Here's a geological map of the UK done by the same William Smith who made the cross section. What it shows is the strata as they have been eroded away exposing the strata beneath. The cliffs of Dover are of course Cretaceous, just one of the strata. The island was clearly rather roughly treated by the tectonic upheaval after the Flood laid down all the layers.

But I'm sure edge was interested in Siccar Point because it's an angular unconformity. As I recall it's much earlier in the Time Scale than the Dover cliffs, Devonian I think?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2017 3:26 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19666
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 360 of 518 (811775)
06-12-2017 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
06-11-2017 8:01 PM


YEC Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is NOT Supported, Summary Statement is Garbage
As so often happens in these debates the Flood debunker asserts something unprovable about how this or that makes the Flood impossible and I respond with something equally unprovable to argue that it doesn't have to be that way but some other way that makes the flood possible. ...

Time Scale is Disproved, ...

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

  • Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
  • European Oaks - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).
  • German Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
  • Lake Suigetsu Varves - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
  • Annual Layers of Ice - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
  • Ice Cores in Greenland - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
  • Ice Cores in Antarctica - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
  • The Devil's Hole - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data
  • Talking Coral Heads - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
  • Discussion of Radiometric Correlations - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
  • The Bottom Line - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.
  • Theme Song - just for fun.

Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but delusion. You have made 3 posts on that thread, including"

Faith writes:

No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now.

So no, you have not disproven the time scale, you haven't even attacked it, all you have done is avoided the evidence.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 355 by Faith, posted 06-11-2017 8:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 6:23 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 380 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-12-2017 12:52 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018