Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2017 5:24 PM
368 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,212 Year: 20,818/21,208 Month: 1,251/2,326 Week: 587/345 Day: 110/134 Hour: 4/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
25262728Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4956
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 346 of 409 (680771)
11-21-2012 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:38 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.

Well so far, you haven't shown us how footprints and fossils are preserved in your layers and your only explanation for the massively differences in dates of the layers is that the dating methods must be wrong.

We now have the problem that the 'column's are interspaced with igneous rock which, according to you couldn't have been formed until after the flood as volcanoes didn't exist before.

Sadly, the igneous and metamorphic rock is both the oldest (yeh, I know, I know) and the lowest down the column. So we have a thing called basement rock which is on the bottom of the pile supporting all the sedimentary layers above - and guess what, it's igneous! Weird co-incidence, eh?

Now how did volcanic rock get to be at the bottom when it should be at the top?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:03 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12960
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 347 of 409 (680772)
11-21-2012 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:38 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:

I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.

I'll just say that I find your opinions to be lacking much basis in reality. Especially as you clearly regard any mention of evidence against your views to be unacceptable bullying.

If you want an honest discussion and a real debate you have to deal with evidence, not throw false accusations against anybody raising evidence you can't account for.

quote:

Also, the schist at the bottom of the GC WAS a sedimentary layer but now is a different kind of rock. I don't want to exclude that layer from the definition.

I don't think that that's much of a problem. If you say "all sedimentary rock was deposited by the Flood" it would naturally include metamorphosed sedimentary rock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 348 of 409 (680773)
11-21-2012 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:38 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.

"Inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur"? "Fantastic scenario-building nonsense"? My dear Faith, the "old earth explanation" of the layering is that it happened in the way that it happens now, before our eyes. We do not need to speculate on "how layering could occur"; we watch how it does occur. We do not need to "build" scenarios --- we observe them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Boof
Member
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 349 of 409 (680775)
11-21-2012 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:15 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

Obviously you had no way of knowing I assumed you used the term just as I did, and I had no way of knowing it wasn't familiar to you.


Fair enough. I'm still interested to know why you think the term 'geological column' is mainstream. Is it in a lot of the geological literature you've read? If so could you point me towards some of it to help improve my understanding?

Faith writes:

I've already said I confine my argument to the Grand Canyon so when you bring in granite boulders and don't define their location except "conglomerate" - that's just mystification. Is it in the strata of the Grand Canyon or not? If not, then why do you expect me to have an explanation for it?


Seems a little incongruous to talk about a global flood if all the evidence you have for it comes from the Grand Canyon. I'm sure there are lots of threads specifically devoted to the Grand Canyon and flood geology, maybe we should move the debate to there?

Faith writes:

No, you aren't interested in the creationist perspective at all, just making creationists toe your line as everybody here does, as the Road Trip itself that started this thread aimed to do. You don't listen for half a minute to the creationist argument before you're putting out the next objection you think will really do us in. That's the modus operandi here, you're just doing your own version of it.

As you said from the moment you entered this discussion, your objective was just to slap me down for daring to challenge your sacrosant Holy Science and all its holier-than-thou priests. That's why you brought up eclogite and thats got to be why you are bringing this up, NOT to find out what a creationist view of it might be but just to find a way to blast me for not having an advanced degree in geology and having a creationist opinion at all. Which you refuse to think about, just telling me I "misunderstand" the Grand Canyon and need to study things I've already studied.


Wow, we just spent several pages confirming that you couldn't understand me when I asked a relatively straightforward question, but now you tell me you know what I'm thinking! Why didn't you use this mystical power earlier?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5276
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 350 of 409 (680777)
11-21-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:06 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
The Granite Wash in western Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle puts the lie to this. A huge extent of igneous rock - granite included - that washed out of the ancient Wichita Mountains and are now buried under two miles of ocean-laid sediments. Like limestones and shales and stuff.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 351 of 409 (680787)
11-21-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
11-20-2012 8:56 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith,

The reason for the questions about "dissolve" is because you keep using it in ways that imply you think rocks can dissolve in water. When people challenge you on this you respond that you know that rocks don't dissolve, as you just did here:

Faith writes:

No, Tangle, I was not thinking that rocks would dissolve, never said anything to imply that as far as I know so I don't know where the idea came from.

But then you follow it with another statement that implies that you still think rocks dissolve in water, as you did here immediately after saying you know they don't dissolve:

The context of the quote you give was my comment that I think layers of the Grand Canyon would re-dissolve if the Flood repeated itself. It was an afterthought.

So there you go, two consecutive paragraphs, two contradictory statements, and you do this kind of thing over and over again. If you stop making claims of understanding that are belied by your own confused statements then questions like the one about "dissolve" will also stop.

Some small proportion of components of soil and a very tiny proportion of those in rock will dissolve in water, but for the most part soil and rock can only be transported in suspension by energetic water. Once the water loses its energy the suspended components will fall out of suspension. This is how sedimentary layers form.

Dissolved components will remain dissolved until the water evaporates. Many salt deposits form this way from seas that repeatedly form and evaporate, something that couldn't happen during a flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 8:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:06 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25795
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 352 of 409 (680788)
11-21-2012 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Tangle
11-21-2012 6:31 AM


Re: The flood and the Grand Canyon area
Tangle writes:

Well so far, you haven't shown us how footprints and fossils are preserved in your layers and your only explanation for the massively differences in dates of the layers is that the dating methods must be wrong.

There had to be stages in the laying down of the strata to account for the footprints. They were obviously rapidly filled in by the layer above, which is how they got preserved. What's the problem with fossils? They got transported with the sediment to their final location in the strata. The only reasonable explanation for all those fossils is a catastrophic buriaL and it all fits perfectly with the Biblical message of the Flood as judgment on the whole world as well as reasonable conjectures about how a worldwide Flood would behave.

And again, the old earth explanation that conjures millions of years flies in the face of the general condition of the strata, the fact that there is no difference in their condition from bottom to top of the canyon, also that the so-called "erosion" of the strata is a minuscule roughing-up of the surface which is easily accounted for by runoff between the layers, while REAL erosion... cuts canyons, washes away at least a mile more of the strata above the canyon, as evidenced by its presence north in the Grand Staircase, carves the "steps" of the Grand Staircase and the hoodoos and the buttes and so on.

Please note that in all these examples the STRATA are neatly horizontally present to a great depth before any of these cutting and erosive processes began, so that the cutting and erosion acted on the entire stack.

So the hoodoos are standing columns of strata untouched until the erosion that shaped the hoodoos themselves, the GS climbs to a great altitude before the stairs are cut into it, the Grand Canyon walls are all neatly horizontal layers all the way up to the rim at the Kaibab Plateau before the canyon is cut, undisturbed by any comparable action until that point -- but you interpret all those placid layers as representing a few billions of years against all reason. What changed to bring about such a huge disturbance at the level of the Kaibab that hadn't occurred in all those billions of years? I keep asking this over and over. It's like you can't think about it at all. Can you, or are you so attached to the time paradigm you can't deal with the question of what actually happened spatially?

We now have the problem that the 'column's are interspaced with igneous rock which, according to you couldn't have been formed until after the flood as volcanoes didn't exist before.

That's a whole big discussion unto itself. No, the argument is not that they couldn't have been formed until after the Flood because they didn't exist before, the argument is that you can SEE in the many diagrams how the volcanoes in the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area erupted beneath the stack and sent magma dikes up through the strata.

At the GS the magma goes to the top and spills over, in the GC although there is an area in the canyon where it spilled over, for the most part it clearly was contained underground, resisted by the weight of the strata above. It simply displaces the lowest strata, creates the Vishnu schist and the granite rocks, creates the Great Unconformity and is responsible for the uplift of the entire stack of strata above so that it forms a mound shape, also visible on all the diagrams. (The strata conform to the shape of the mound, following its rounded contour, which is evidence that they were already in place when this mound was formed; otherwise they would have been laid down in a way that butted up against the slope of the mound.)

It looks to me like it was this force of the volcano beneath the area that actually created the canyon because it caused stress on the upper layers -- again all the layers that you can see in the GS had originally to have been present above the current rim of the GC.

The stress caused by the uplift caused by the force of the undergound explosion cracked the upper strata, probably in a number of places, and let in whatever water was still standing after the Flood. This could have been water the strata were still standing IN or it could have been a remaining reservoir of water at a higher elevation -- there's a diagram that shows the drainage pattern of that area to suggest that possibility. But either way a massive amount of water would have rushed into the cracks in that mound, pouring in from the east but probably from all sides of the cracks, breaking up those uppermost layers and washing them down the now rapidly widening canyon, the layers themselves acting as a carving tool, carving out a vast vast canyon.

That scenario is consistent with the actual physical situation of that area. And it looks to me like it was the volcano beneath the canyon that caused the stress that caused the cracks that became the canyon.

Sadly, the igneous and metamorphic rock is both the oldest (yeh, I know, I know) and the lowest down the column.

Well, volcanoes begin deep in the earth when the crust (? or more accurate term) is disturbed to allow the magma of the core (? or more accurate term) to erupt. Tectonic action after the Flood, which is part of the creationist understanding of the Flood, could have triggered the volcano which pushed up the strata which made the cracks which became the canyon.

In the case of the GC the magma only intrudes to the base of the actual canyon. It intrudes into the schist and obviously it formed the granite. The force would have been great enough to tilt the lower strata, forming the Great Unconformity, and all of that upheavel under the area is all part of the stress that pushed up the strata that formed the crack etc.

To the North you can see the volcano at the farthest end of that formation push through the strata to the Clarion formation at the very top of the GS, showing that it occurred after that stack was already in place. There's also a very interesting unconformity at that end of the GS which was most certainly a result of that volcanic eruption, again after the whole stack was in place.

All that volcanic activity in the region disturbed the upper strata so that it completely washed away from the GC area, carving the canyon and denuding the Kaibab Plateau, but in the GS area it broke off pieces forming the stairs, and cut a few relatively shallow canyons as compared to the GC. Those canyons COULD have become stairs but their southern walls stayed in place. You can see all this on the diagrams of the area.

So we have a thing called basement rock which is on the bottom of the pile supporting all the sedimentary layers above - and guess what, it's igneous! Weird co-incidence, eh?

T'is indeed "basement" but its formation is more recent than the strata above as I just explained.

Now how did volcanic rock get to be at the bottom when it should be at the top?

It shouldn't be at the top, who said it should? The eruption formed a gigantic pluton beneath the canyon, formed the Great Unconformity, the schist and the granite, pushed up the stack of strata which cracked the upper layers, which allowed a cataract of water into the cracks along with megatons of broken up strata ... etc etc. etc.

It fits the actual situation very nicely.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 6:31 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25795
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 353 of 409 (680789)
11-21-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Percy
11-21-2012 8:58 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Percy that remark about redissolving the strata of the GS came after they accused me of thinking in terms of dissovling rock, which I hadn't, it was an afterthought to see if I did think it might, and I thought the strata might re-dissolve but certainly not marble or granite. Again it was an afterthought, I'm sorry I mentioned it. But it is NOT the reason for what they were saying and I still don'tknow what was. It was very frustrating because ALL i was trying to say is that the LAND MASS would have been the source of the sediments that became the strata, and I had LOOSE material in mind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 8:58 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 9:40 AM Faith has responded
 Message 357 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 10:03 AM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 354 of 409 (680790)
11-21-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
11-21-2012 1:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, I actively reject the ridiculous time scale explanation of how a stack of sediments formed that so clearly all formed by the same physical mechanisms...

Except that they didn't form under the "same physical mechanisms". Sandstone forms in deserts or offshore in coastal areas. Shale forms further offshore. Limestone forms in quiet shallow seas far from shore. Salt forms from evaporative rather than sedimentary processes. Volcanic layers flow onto a landscape. The only thing similar about these "physical mechanisms" is that they are all natural.

Why do you need natural explanations for a God-caused flood?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 1:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:27 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25795
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 355 of 409 (680791)
11-21-2012 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Percy
11-21-2012 9:15 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
The flood didn't "form" the strata in the sense you mean. It only only "formed" the strata by moving the sediments and depositing them. It did not create the sediments themselves unless by breaking up the land mass. It picked up clay, it picked up sand, it picked up calcium carbonate sea creatures and moved them, from wherever they had initially resided or formed, and carried them most likely in currents of the Flood waters -- that occur naturally in layers in the oceans and do transport things -- to be deposited as layers over the continents where they piled up very deep and eventually became rock.

Correction, the currents do occur at various levels, but the layers I had in mind are formed by the different temperatures at various depths and are a different phenomenon from the currents.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 9:15 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 10:09 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2012 10:56 AM Faith has responded
 Message 363 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 12:13 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(5)
Message 356 of 409 (680792)
11-21-2012 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:06 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:

It was very frustrating because ALL i was trying to say is that the LAND MASS would have been the source of the sediments that became the strata, and I had LOOSE material in mind.

Then where did the sedimentary layers of rock come from? They're certainly not composed of soil.

The sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon are records of regions that were once shallow seas for millions of years, then offshore regions for millions of years, then shorelines for millions of years, then deserts for millions of years, and so on. Going from the top the major layers of the Grand Canyon consist of:

Limestone
Shale
Sandstone
Shale
Sandstone
Limestone
Shale
Limestone
Shale
Sandstone

Material suspended in flood waters falls out of suspension according to density and particle size. The mere fact of alternating layers is the simplest way to eliminate a flood as a possible cause of the layers of the Grand Canyon.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 11-21-2012 11:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4956
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 357 of 409 (680797)
11-21-2012 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:06 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:

Percy that remark about redissolving the strata of the GS came after they accused me of thinking in terms of dissovling rock, which I hadn't, it was an afterthought to see if I did think it might, and I thought the strata might re-dissolve but certainly not marble or granite. Again it was an afterthought, I'm sorry I mentioned it. But it is NOT the reason for what they were saying and I still don'tknow what was. It was very frustrating because ALL i was trying to say is that the LAND MASS would have been the source of the sediments that became the strata, and I had LOOSE material in mind.

It came from your reply to RAZD - message 254

The discussion was about how standing water could cause erosion (of rocks)

RAZD
Curiously, standing water is not known for causing any significant erosion or mudslides.

Faith
It's known for DISSOLVING stuff. Soaking, saturating, dissolving.

If you like, we can also take issue with soaking and saturating too - granite doesn't easily saturate with water. Not in my house anyway.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:23 PM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15667
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 358 of 409 (680799)
11-21-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:27 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

The flood didn't "form" the strata in the sense you mean. It only only "formed" the strata by moving the sediments and depositing them. It did not create the sediments themselves unless by breaking up the land mass. It picked up clay, it picked up sand, it picked up calcium carbonate sea creatures and moved them, from wherever they had initially resided or formed, and carried them most likely in currents of the Flood waters -- that occur naturally in layers in the oceans and do transport things -- to be deposited as layers over the continents where they piled up very deep and eventually became rock.

As someone said before, this is just a "magic water" explanation. Floods do not behave this way, they do not deposit sediments in neat layers, and the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon are of the same type we see forming all around the globe today, and it's just normal natural processes doing it, not magic floods.

A global flood would only inundate each landscape region once. In order to deposit the miles of layers we see today your flood would have had to pick up huge amounts of sediment by denuding landscapes of miles of whatever you think was there before. Turbulent waters capable of scouring might occur as a flood first overflows a landscape, but then the area is submerged and no more scouring occurs. Plus the rock particles that make up many sedimentary layers need millions of years of erosion and weathering to form from the original rock.

Since you think the flood scoured landscapes to acquire the sediments it later deposited, one thing you could look for as evidence for the flood is the topmost pre-flood layer that the flood scoured down to. Shouldn't we see a global layer that was the lowest the flood scoured down to?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5276
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(2)
Message 359 of 409 (680805)
11-21-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:27 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
How did the Fludde pick up the Horseshoe Reef - 200 meters thick, 30 by 200+ km in extent, and set it down in West Texas? How did it pick up the Coconino Sandstone and drop it in the Grand Canyon with its dunes still at 30-degree angles of repose? Was Fludde water more viscous, for better carrying, and also less viscous, than today's water?

"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 355 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:27 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:27 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7012
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 360 of 409 (680807)
11-21-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
11-20-2012 10:53 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Try imagining a worldwide Flood. There's nothing magical about it.

I would challenge you to do that very thing. What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to say that it was not formed by a recent global flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
25262728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017