Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2017 12:59 AM
372 online now:
Coyote, halibut, PaulK (3 members, 369 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,740 Year: 27,346/21,208 Month: 1,259/1,714 Week: 102/365 Day: 6/52 Hour: 6/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4344
45
4647
...
50Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 661 of 740 (735037)
08-05-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Percy
08-04-2014 1:05 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you.

I think you're just saying this to provoke a response, instigate a crisis.

I'm completely sincere. It's been a problem for quite a while now.

Faith writes:
I never said waves scour the landscape, I've said the forty days and nights of rain which would bring about something on the order of millions of local scale floods all at once.

Well, then I guess I misinterpreted this from your Message 455:

Faith in Message 455 writes:
Huge waves would have to have occurred somewhere in this process, though, because tides didn't stop and waves don't stop coming up over the land when there is still land for them to come up over. When the water was so heavy with sediments from the scouring, such a wave could have contributed quite a bit of deposition.

Perhaps you did misinterpret that. It's not about scouring the land but about depositing sediments. Mostly I was just taking into account the kinds of behavior we should expect from the ocean such as tides, waves, currents etc. It would have had some effect. And it would have been encroaching from all sides of the continents, or the single continent that was there at that time, which is also interesting to ponder.

So I guess the scouring you mention here isn't from the waves but from the rain. But you say the rain caused "millions of local scale floods", and local scale floods do not scour landscapes. How do you see the landscape being scoured down a depth of miles?

I just posted a news report at my blog on the rain in California that shows cars buried in mud. That was merely one day of very heavy rain and it did a lot of damage. Granted it rained in a fire-devastated area in the mountains which offered little resistance to the water, while in a lush area with heavy foliage, which is the usual understanding of the pre-Flood world, it would presumably take a lot more time to dislodge roots and loosen the soil, but forty days and nights really ought to be sufficient.

I really don't see why you have so much trouble with this concept of such a massive water disaster scouring the land. It would be turning everything to mud that could turn to mud, and the mud would be running down from the high places to the low places. All over the whole land mass. Perhaps it's possible it didn't TOTALLY devastate everything, scour it all down completely, who knows, but it's hard to see how that much destructive water both falling on the land and rising in the ocean flood waters wouldn't have broken up everything. Again I refer you to mudslides in California, but it's really very common for such mudslides to occur in a heavy rain after just a very short time of it.

But there you are with your local flood again as if it holds any clues to what a Flood a bazillion times its size would do.

But it was you who described the great Flood as many local floods growing and combining.

I finally described it that way after all the references to "floods" or "a flood" that don't get anywhere near what the scale of the thing must have been. If you're going to compare it to local floods, think of millions of them happening at once everywhere, that's the idea.

I agree that that makes a lot of sense in a scenario where it begins raining and just never stops, but it isn't going to scour a landscape down by miles, or even feet in most places.

Oh good you agree with something. Hip hip hooray. But I don't know where you get your certainty about how much dirt all that water would have moved. Whole hillsides collapse under heavy rain out here in the west, hillsides with houses on them that slide along with the mud and end up half buried in it, after just a few days of very heavy rain. It shouldn't be too hard to multiply that effect in your head quite a bit beyond "a few feet" for an event characterized by relentless rain on every square inch of real estate for forty days and nights, causing everything to run down as mud everywhere. By which time the flood water should have risen up to meet it and further wash it all down. Miles deep? Who knows, but it certainly seems possible to me.

When a low lying region is already filled with water how are there going to be any scouring flows? How could water be flowing violently into a region already filled with water?

It's the turning of dry land into soggy mud and making innumerable mudslides everywhere that I'm thinking of as the scouring process and that should have happened to a great depth during those first forty days and nights. Very few hills left after all that I would suppose. Given that a day or three of heavy rain can collapse hills intio muddy rivers NOW, I just extrapolate to what would happen to millions of hills. Perhaps there were areas that remained relatively intact, who knows. I just want to get across to people who speak in terms of what they've seen local floods do as their model for THE Flood, that that's WAY out of scale.

Also, the antediluvian landscape would not have been covered by sediments. Land, for the most part, is most often a region of net erosion, not deposition, and even if this were not true, 4300 years is simply too short a time for any significant amount of sediments to have accumulated.

Well, as I keep saying, there is no way to prove unwitnessed events in the past, we're at the mercy of our ability to imagine and interpret. And I always find yours rather smallscale for such an event as a worldwide Flood. But also the antediluvian landscape would have been covered by heavy growth probably everywhere, with strong root systems holding all the soil in place, and there was no rain until the forty days and nights that inaugurated the Flood so there should really have been relatively little erosion. And do you mean 4300 years or one year, because one year is the time period in which the Flood would have laid down the sediments.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by herebedragons, posted 08-05-2014 7:58 PM Faith has responded
 Message 709 by Percy, posted 08-06-2014 8:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1826
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 662 of 740 (735039)
08-05-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:03 AM


This was very funny:

Faith writes:

The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed

After the deposits investigated. Faults don't form in mid-air... Not very difficult.

Sorry, I just don't think that having any conversations with people such as Faith is productive anymore. It's like having debates in any 'Malhuis'. It's like trying to get inmates in an institution for the mentally insane trying to produce sanity.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:50 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 668 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2014 8:59 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 663 of 740 (735040)
08-05-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 662 by Pressie
08-05-2014 8:42 AM


I'm not interested in continuing at EvC so you don't need to worry, I'm just doing a mop up operation and I'll be gone.

As for faults, I see no reason why they couldn't form underground without reaching the surface.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Pressie, posted 08-05-2014 8:42 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 8:53 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 664 of 740 (735041)
08-05-2014 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by Percy
08-04-2014 11:33 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
The Plio Pleistocene follows the contour of the deformed strata beneath showing it's been there some time and uisn't a recent deposit. I have no problem with deposition continuing by the way, I just don't see it on the diagram.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 11:33 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:03 AM Faith has responded
 Message 711 by Percy, posted 08-06-2014 8:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 665 of 740 (735042)
08-05-2014 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 663 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:50 AM


As for faults, I see no reason why they couldn't form underground without reaching the surface.

Yeah, you ignored Message 646 just as you ignored so much. Pathetic.

Sure, if you really believe the faults had to go to the top of whatever layer was the topmost at the supposed time they occurred. I can't prove otherwise of course, but there's no necessary reason to believe that. For this example, though, it looks that way. I just wouldn't be dogmatic about it if I were you.

A fault cannot fail to go to the top of a stack of layers, because the rocks making up the strata are heavy in the extreme. No space can ever open up in a stack of layers for more than an instant before the layer above would fall into it. Your advice to not be dogmatic about this is good scientific advice in general, but one mustn't take it too far. In this case what you're actually saying is to not be too dogmatic about gravity.

Look at it this way. We have these layers that I've labeled A through H:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Now a fault occurs that extends from layer H all the way up through layer D, but no higher. Let's say the amount of slip is a kilometer or two, in other words, nothing trivial like a meter a two. Here's what that would look like:


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD| Empty
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE| Space
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF|DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
------------------------|GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------Basement Rock----|HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

See all that empty space of a kilometer or two between layer C and layer D on the right half of the diagram? A gap that large is impossible. If the thought of simple gravity acting on rock isn't persuasive to you then I offer validation in the fact that no gap of this size in sedimentary layers has ever been observed. As further validation I offer the frequent collapse of caves and mines (which are never anywhere close to a kilometer or two in height) when insufficient support is provided.

Therefore faults must extend all the way up to the surface, and that stack would instead look like this:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB|
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC|AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD|BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE|CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF|DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
------------------------|GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------Basement Rock----|HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

And there are faults to the right of that one that go all the way from the bottom to the top, that is to the Base Tertiary, which shows that all the layers were in place when those faults occurred, and there's nothing there to show that the one you mention was earlier except its shortness, which probably doesn't mean that.

What you're referring to as the shorter fault must have extended up to the surface that existed at the time of the fault. Nothing else is possible.

The fault just to the left of that section of strata that lies beneath the Late Jurassic Shelf Edge, occurred with the pushing up of that whole section, leaving the very same strata on the left lower in the stack. That's all that happened there. All the strata were already in place at that time. Probably also the Base tertiary but of course that can't be proved based on the fault lines.

Here's the diagram again:

The part up until the last sentence is written in a way that indicates you think you disagree with me on that point, but either I don't disagree with you or I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

But about the last sentence about the Base tertiary, it could not have been present when the fault occurred, else there would be a discontinuity at the Base tertiary boundary and the fault would be represented on the diagram as extending into the Base tertiary.

Well you're good at the OE fairy tale, I'll give you that. Of course there were no millions of years, no eroded layers of an imaginary unconformity, just all the strata laid down in sequence and faulted and deformed according to whatever forces acted upon various parts of it.

These are just bare assertions with no accompanying evidence or argument. I'll ignore them.

A NOTE ON INTERPRETIVE VERSUS PRACTICAL GEOLOGY
Now, all this is a perfect example of what I'd been calling "historical Geology" that is all nothing but unprovable untestable interpretations. I'm calling it Old Earthism now because that other term apparently includes more than I want to include. But the principle is quite clear. You've got the whole OE interpretive system going there without any way to verify it. Using the very same data I just answer with my own interpretive system which I think is a lot more plausible. For the purposes of Practical Geology none of this should matter, just the positions of the rocks relative to each other. If the Base tertiary was laid down before the faulting or after doesn't matter, all that matters for practical purposes is where the rocks are now.

This, too, is just bare assertion, so I'll ignore this, too.

Feel free to repeat these arguments when you've got something to support them with.

--Percy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:59 AM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 666 of 740 (735044)
08-05-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by Taq
08-04-2014 1:05 PM


No I am not saying that layers would be horizontal NOW, only when they were deposited, after which faulting, in this case, deformed them. The point was that NEW deposition on top of old deformed layers would deposit with a horizontal flat surface and even if that was subsequently also deformed it wouldn't conform to the shape of the previously deformed strata.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Taq, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 08-05-2014 1:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16163
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 667 of 740 (735045)
08-05-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:03 AM


Faith writes:

Yes that was my theory and I still haven't given it up completely, but there's no real problem if there were volcanoes during the Flood. I used to thinkj that until the Grand Canyon area seemed to show otherwise.

Do you mean that you used to think there were volcanoes during the flood, but then after looking at the Grand Canyon region you decided that there had been no volcanoes during the flood? If that's what you meant, then yes, the record of geological events in the Grand Canyon region cannot be extrapolated to the entire rest of the world. Each region of the world experienced its own unique geology.

So far the evidence is those two tuffs in the Muav from you and a Nevada formation from edge...

My recollection is that there were far more examples of tuffs and basalt interspersed with sedimentary layers than just three. Let us know if you're interested in the other examples.

...oh I think that was pillow lava which forms underwater,...

Yes, that's correct. Normal basalt deposits or layers form in a terrestrial environment, pillow basalt deposits or layers form in marine or lake environments. The ocean crust is all pillow lava because it forms when lava extrudes into water at oceanic ridges. The Cardenas formed in a terrestrial (reading up a bit I see that the correct geological term is subaerial) environment. The Wikipedia section on the depositional environment of the Cardenas Balsalt even describes how it tells us what what the region was like at the time:

Wikipedia writes:

The lava flows of the Cardenas Basalt represent the subaerial eruption of basaltic and andesitic magma. The interbedded sandstones and hyaloclastites provide evidence that these eruptions occurred in wet coastal environments such as river deltas or tidal flats. The coarseness of the lapillites in the upper unit indicates that the volcanic vents from which this material erupted were close to present day outcrops. The character of the individual flow units suggest that the volcanic strata accumulated at a slightly greater rate than basin subsidence.

This is saying that because the Cardenas includes interbedded (alternating) sandstone and hyaloclastite sublayers, we know the environment was coastal. A modern day example might be the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, whose lava flowed into the ocean until around 2011.

Pillows and tuffs aren't really a problem.

For scenarios where lava was extruded in a subaqueous environment, pillow basalts not only aren't a problem, they're precisely what you would expect. But tuffs, which form from aerially born ash (which can fall into a sea or lake deposit on the bottom), and basalts do not form in subaqueous environments and wouldn't be consistent with such a scenario.

The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed so I don't know how anybody can say they prove anything about when the layers were deposited.

This was explained in a number of recent posts by several people. Could you perhaps examine that material and then be more specific about why you think we can't discern the relative timing of faults and sedimentary layers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 668 of 740 (735046)
08-05-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 662 by Pressie
08-05-2014 8:42 AM


Faith writes:

The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed

After the deposits investigated. Faults don't form in mid-air... Not very difficult.

Except that I believe the question relates to faults that are active, dormant and then reactivated ... how would we know?

Actually there is a way to determine the relative ages involved, and that would be to look at the amount of displacement of the different layers at the fault boundaries.

Each layer of sediment would have internal layers that can be identified on both sides of the fault, and the displacement from one side to the other can be measured. If the bottom layer is displaced more than the layer over it, and that layer is displaced more than the layer over it, then we observe that this can only happen if the fault is reactivated after each subsequent layer.

Using an internal marker layer eliminates the effect that would result from erosion on the top of a layer.

This can also be done for horizontal faults if there were markers that could be used (say stream beds).

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 662 by Pressie, posted 08-05-2014 8:42 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:02 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 702 by herebedragons, posted 08-05-2014 8:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 669 of 740 (735047)
08-05-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by JonF
08-05-2014 8:53 AM


Well I hadn't yet got to that post but now I feel no need whatsoever. Percy's ability to speculate is not very impressive and I think I'll just leave it at that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 8:53 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 670 of 740 (735048)
08-05-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by RAZD
08-05-2014 8:59 AM


That is in fact the sort of reasoning I have brought to my own ponderings of the ages of the faults. I'll continue my thoughts elsewhere though, probably at my blog. The company here has become noxious.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2014 8:59 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13310
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 671 of 740 (735049)
08-05-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:52 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
If we look at this diagram:

It is absolutely obvious that on the left of the diagram the Base Tertiary layer does NOT follow the contours of the underlying strata.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:06 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 672 of 740 (735050)
08-05-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 667 by Percy
08-05-2014 8:58 AM


Oh yes, I did forget an important point: the formations made up of interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary layers that many posted appear to be volcanic in origin, the whole formation, that is why I don't include them in my view of the basically sedimentary Geologic Column. I still have to research this stuff, but I won't be reporting on it here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 08-05-2014 8:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:39 AM Faith has responded
 Message 680 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 673 of 740 (735052)
08-05-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 671 by PaulK
08-05-2014 9:03 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Well it does and it doesn't, but I was making a general point as I recall.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:03 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:16 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13310
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 674 of 740 (735054)
08-05-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:06 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
No, it definitely doesn't in the leftmost quarter or so of the diagram. And there's quite a big step up from a fault in that portion. So that fault definitely predates the deposition of the Base Tertiary stratum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:28 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 675 of 740 (735056)
08-05-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by PaulK
08-05-2014 9:16 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
You need the Base tertiary to show some sign of original horizontality, especially since it isn't faulted, which it doesn't, and you also have to take the salt dome into account that pushes it up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:16 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:34 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 677 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:35 AM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4344
45
4647
...
50Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017