EvC Forum: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 46 of 2887 (768021)
09-04-2015 5:01 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
09-03-2015 1:02 AM

Well Dr A, you make a statement, "we have the fossils", I assume that means more than a handful, and it means you can show the evolution of an interior scapular girdle to the rib-cage, in turtles from an exterior girdle, by showing the transitionals for all pre-turtles and how that change could occur because of the disjunct? Does this mean you have all of the transitionals for pre-Pterosaurs, pre-bats, pre-spiders, pre-seahorses, pre-Ichthyosaurs, pre-Jellyfish? How about ancestors from terrestrial quadrupeds to arboreal bipeds? Got any to show? I doubt it.

Here is the list I have accumulated of all of the stasis, please note the term, "evolutionary stasis" is the biggest oxymoron in history. "changing stasis". Lol!

Here is my own list of organisms, none of which have any transitionals, but they pop up in the fossil record abruptly, and stay the same. (yes, I have heard the evolutionist sophistry of, 'this poses no problem for evolution', so don't bother to waste your time)

(so, "you win". Yes- you win, you win the right to an argument-from-credulity, you have found a handful of fossils and so infer an astronomical non-sequitur, that a woeful whale is related to a holy cow. (I know ambulocetus and Rhodocetus weren't cows , I was waxing lyrical Mr evolutionist, so don't be obtuse!)

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old)
Gingko Trees (125 million years),
Crocodiles (140 million years),
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years),
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years),
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years),
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Tuatara Lizard - (200 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Herring fish (35-55 million years)
Garfish ( 30-55 million years)
Earliest spider (300 million years)
Grasshopper (100 million years)

Please note the real-life list is far more extensive, this is only my own personal compilation of evidence that supports created kinds.

Of course you could commit intellectual-suicide and say that this is not evidence of created kinds, but then what are you saying - that bats looking like bats is NOT what we would expect if creation was true? That a pine should NOT look like a pine if creation was true? You have to bare in mind this is the EXACT evidence we would expect if creation was true and evolution was false since the transitionals are also none-existent. Where these magical organisms, these transitionals? Have they had an invisibility spell placed on them by Harry Potter? Just why do we see a variety of such organisms but never their ancestors?

Showing us 1% of 1% of the "transitionals" Dr.A, is exactly what we would expect if evolution had not happened, because in a world of millions of species all you would expect is a handful of transitionals, because those transitionals would only really represent what chance would allow. In a world with millions of species it is mathematically GUARANTEED that you would be able to collect a few species that might make it look like they evolved.

This type of reasoning is ultimately post-hoc reasoning, that species X preceded species Y on your evolutionary timescale, by coincidental fortune, therefore species X led to species Y.

The most parsimonious explanation is that the majority of the evidence shows NOT evolution, therefore I regard your argument to be the slothful-induction fallacy. By focusing on the cherry-pickings of the circumstantial evidence of evolution, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel!

Bye for now.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2015 1:02 AM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 47 by Coragyps, posted 09-04-2015 5:31 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-04-2015 5:56 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2015 6:46 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 51 by edge, posted 09-04-2015 7:17 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 54 by ringo, posted 09-05-2015 12:19 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 55 by Dogmafood, posted 09-05-2015 8:30 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 57 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2015 8:32 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 58 by caffeine, posted 09-07-2015 5:25 AM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 59 by Taq, posted 09-08-2015 12:50 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 61 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-08-2015 3:54 PM	mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 794 of 2887 (828683)
02-22-2018 1:45 PM

Reply to: Message 790 by jar
02-22-2018 11:33 AM

Re: A Fair Assessment

Jar writes:

There is a reason people depict the landscapes as they do and it goes back the the fact that we have the fossils, have the geology, have the processes, methods, mechanisms, procedures and models that explain the sorting and can observe the processes, methods, mechanisms, procedures and models happening today.

That is true in some ways, today we can see for example, and indeed witnessed, a canyon being formed in days at Mt St Helens, and laminated strata being put down and many other effects. It seems to me your list is designed to impress but does it really?

For example how did fossils caught in the act of suffocation, digestion, fighting, giving birth, how can we see such fossils happening today for example? Or how about fossil graveyards or polystrate fossils or planated surfaces? Are you saying we can see this today?

Jar writes:

Land itself is raised and subsides. We have measured the growth of mountains and the subsidence of land.

Over very long periods of time stuff gets buried.

Did you measure the long period of time, or extrapolate backwards based on the available time? Did you test that it is actually and in fact time, long time, that did it? Are you aware of the axiom; "A little force over a long time or a lot of force over a short time?" It applies to many things I find.

Jar writes:

All that is required to understand this is to acknowledge that all the evidence shows the Earth is very old, that things have lived, that the geological processes we see today also happened in the past, and that the evidence we find represents the critters and environment as it existed when they were alive.

Now remember Faith, none of this is based on belief, rather it is all based on the actual physical evidence and the fact that there is no other model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would produce what is seen in reality.

Even if that was true and there was only one model, logically it wouldn't follow that this model is the correct one, as that would depend on affirming the consequent. What you mean to say is, there is only one model men will accept, which is the science-model of the past they argue happened.

So you are basically selecting the evidence but confirmation evidence isn't impressive, if it is only circumstantial. So I disagree I think it is based on belief largely because there is a distinct refusal to accept any other model, of which there is also consistent evidence.

It isn't a prediction of evolution that we would find the particular record we find, with the 99% absent transitionals, and unchanged organisms, and features such as flat gaps, planated surfaces and polystrate fossils. All of these things are argued with hindsight.

But with the bible, it predicted things before we found them which had to be undoubtedly true, certain evidences. The bible says animals reproduce according to kind so if there is a fossil record we expect to find generally, the same types of organisms unchanged. Here is my list of some of them which show no evolutionary history;

mike the wiz writes:

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old)
Gingko Trees (125 million years),
Crocodiles (140 million years),
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years),
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years),
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years),
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years
Mayfly - 97—110 million years.
Moss - 330 million years,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)

Gastropoda (snails and slugs) - Cambrian

Nectocaris - mid Cambrian (cephalopod) 500 million years.
Cryptobranchid (salamander) - pushed back to 161 million years (60 million years older than argued)
Grass phytoliths (silica bodies found in plants) in dinosaur coprolites (65 million year old grass)
Anomalocaris - 515 million years. (Arthropod) (Burgess shale)
Large tyrannosauroids (Early Cretaceous, pushed back from late Cretaceous)
Bilaterian burrows - (Many organisms burrow into and disturb soil or bottom sediments of a lake or ocean. This process is called bioturbation and is ubiquitous on the bottom of lakes and the oceans today.31 Burrows of likely bilaterians have been found recently in the late Precambrian of Siberia as old as 555 Ma32,33 and in Uruguay in rocks claimed to be older than 585 Ma.31,34 In the burrows from Uruguay, researchers found evidence of active backfilling, the ability to burrow up and down, and meandering burrows that suggest ‘advanced behavioral adaptations’. This would mean that the evolution of bilaterians was significantly earlier than was recently believed.)https://creation.com...j27_3_79-83.pdf
Bioturbation - (pushed back 45my, to pre-Cambrian from Cambrian)

(The organisms highlighted in red are examples of the argument-from-silence fallacy previously argued by evolutionists, that because previously such organisms were not found earlier they concluded they had not yet evolved only to later find them in the, "earlier" layer, proving how poor such reasoning-from-ignorance, is. Or, they are examples of things silent in the periods later than where they are found and so where concluded to be extinct. "living fossils".

We would also expect evidence of catastrophe, the bible says every kind of animal perished in the flood, consistent evidence is to find every kind of animal type represented, or close to all of them since all life perished.

The correct predictions for an evolutionary history are that we should see a history of evolution, with certain types of flora and fauna until modernity, mostly consisting of ancestors, not mostly consisting of the same kinds of organisms there always were.

CONCLUSION: I think you make out that it's all about the evidence but really it's all about insisting using observer-bias, that all of the evidence is consistent with evolution and long ages, and ignoring strong arguments against that notion such as scientifically provable young, soft tissue, they have experimented can simply not last millions of years under even the most conducive circumstances. There also are not any present day processes showing any new design of anatomy, a bacteria becoming a bacteria isn't very impressive if bacteria were supposed to have become men eventually, a little bit like saying that we should conclude superman exists if an ordinary man can show us he can walk like an ordinary man.

UNDERWHELMING evidence to the minds of many intelligent people, Jar, I am afraid, but as evolutionist laymen, you obviously are biased.

In other words, the claims of evolution, that it created everything on the planet, are not matched in any way whatsoever by any actual demonstration that it has the ability to invent so much as a finger nail.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 790 by jar, posted 02-22-2018 11:33 AM		jar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 796 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 2:06 PM	mike the wiz has replied
	Message 797 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2018 2:12 PM	mike the wiz has replied
	Message 818 by jar, posted 02-22-2018 7:12 PM	mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

(1)

Message 795 of 2887 (828685)
02-22-2018 2:02 PM

Reply to: Message 787 by edge
02-22-2018 3:00 AM

Re: A Fair Assessment

Edge writes:

This is the most bizarre strawman I've ever seen concocted by a YEC.

This is a begging-the-question fallacy because it presumes the former arguments given by YECs were actually strawman arguments, which you didn't prove. "this evolutionist has just punched me, this is the worst beating anyone has had from this evolutionist since he beat up his wife."

Problem: there is no evidence he beat up his wife.

This is the most bizarre begging-the-question fallacy I've ever seen concocted by an evolutionist.

See how that is rhetorical? It implies creationist and creationists alone, are the ones coming up with strawman fallacies. Let me assure you as a person that scores very highly on critical thinking and logic tests, there is certainly a lot of strawman fallacies coming from your side, and I witness them weekly.

Edge writes:

You really think that's what we are saying?

I read a hypothesized model of how long ages occurred. What evolutionists SAY occurred over long ages, and what would actually occur had those long ages existed, are two different things, so Faith's attempt to speculate on a possible, plausible situation for long ages, is as good or as bad as any other speculation about how it would occur given an alleged long-age history.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 787 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 3:00 AM		edge has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 799 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 2:18 PM		mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 798 of 2887 (828689)
02-22-2018 2:17 PM

Reply to: Message 796 by edge
02-22-2018 2:06 PM

Re: A Fair Assessment

Edge writes:

Shrimp?

Seriously?

You might as well include 'mammals'...

There are mammals pushed back of course, that they have found in dinosaurs bellies, they have found grass fairly recently too. The point is, when we do find earlier forms than previously argued, they are identical, even though it was claimed they had not evolved, and way before the clade with all of the ancestors from which they would have derived.

Edge writes:

Now yer just tryin' to make me laugh..

In what way precisely? The greater a claim is the greater the evidence has to be. Evolutionists claim evolution invented everything, but it cannot show any new design in operational science. If a man claimed to be superman but could not demonstrate ANY ability to perform like superman, would you believe his claim if he provided strong, indirect evidence?

The more fantastic a claim is, the greater the burden of proof becomes. To say processes can create for example, all of the usual features of design we see in life, stands against an inductive tally of 100% of evidence which shows the contrary, that in fact only those designer features exist, where there are designers. To say evolution, with no intelligence, can create the solutions we find to obscure anatomical problems, is a contradiction also.

In other words, the evidence for evolution may strike you as very good, but to a person studious in critical thinking, that person knows that the usual evidence becomes underwhelming where there are fantastic claims.

I can show an example where we have the same evidence, but for one claim the evidence is underwhelming;

1. I claim I can run fast, I then run fast.
2. Now we have the same evidence, my demonstration of fast running, but the claim is now, "I can run as fast as Usain bolt". Would you agree that because the claim is greater, all of a sudden the demand for evidence has grown greater?

Want to read more here, message one;

Bot Verification

This message is a reply to:
	Message 796 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 2:06 PM		edge has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 801 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 2:29 PM		mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 800 of 2887 (828691)
02-22-2018 2:25 PM

Reply to: Message 797 by PaulK
02-22-2018 2:12 PM

Re: A Fair Assessment

Paul K writes:

It did ?

Well, in a manner of speaking. If a book written thousands of years before we discovered the fossil record says a flood wiped out everything on earth, that would mean if there was a record from it, we wouldn't obviously expect to only find angiosperms under the ground, or only jellyfish, but evidence every kind of creature was killed, and evidence they were killed while they were alive, and we find many things consistent with that such as organisms in the suffocation position, giving birth, fossil graveyards, and basically exquisitely preserved forms which even neo-catastrophists may argue occurred not from slow burial.

Paul K writes:

That’s pretty meaningless, but we can’t find a single event which killed both anomalocarids and tyrannosaurids to choose two items on your dubious list, which would seem to seriously undermine your claim.

No an bare assertion that it is meaningless, is a thoughtless response, it is very meaningful to biblical claims because if we had only found under the ground, certain types of organism, we would be able to immediately falsify a flood.

I am not sure what your point is about what is on the list. The list only represents things of which we have the earliest dates, that remain unchanged either between extant ones today and past ones, or between extinct forms which for a time existed, but for the latest and earliest recording, remain unchanged, and they have no ancestors.

In other words the list of unchanged organisms shows the evidence we find in the fossils is pretty much unchanged animal kinds. Unless you can provide indisputable transitionals for them? So if we take even one, such as a bat, the earliest representation will appear fully bat, with no transitionals, between say quadruped progenitor and bat, as an intermediate, but rather the same kinds that exist today barring superficial change.

Don't jump to conclusions about what I am saying the list means. A lot of the things listed were previously argued to have not evolved, but they later found them such as jellyfish much earlier, and grass, mammals, etc...."push backs". But one thing is sure, they sure as heck don't show any evolution unless you consider jellyfish becoming jellyfish over millions of years, evolution. Lol

This message is a reply to:
	Message 797 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2018 2:12 PM		PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 804 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2018 2:44 PM		mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 802 of 2887 (828695)
02-22-2018 2:35 PM

Reply to: Message 799 by edge
02-22-2018 2:18 PM

Re: A Fair Assessment

Edge writes:

Problem is, YECs do not understand science well enough speculate about how evolution works. I'm not going to go through the history of YEC strawman arguments in this forum alone.

The problem is this reason COMPOUNDS what I say - if you aren't going to support your arguments against YECs then this is a tacit admission that your argument is a bare-assertion fallacy, which only counts as propaganda against YECs. Not very intelligent is it, for one who implies by allusion, that he understands science but YECs don't. Isn't critical thinking a part of understanding science?

Edge writes:

Of course it's rhetorical. What do you think we are doing here?

Acting as one voice of agreement. it's a nodding-forum where you all agree with each other that you are all correct. Lol.

Edge writes:

Problem is, YECs do not understand science well enough speculate about how evolution works.

Generalisation though isn't it?

Message one shows my scores for evolution quizzes, though of course they are fairly basic but I presume as someone that likes science you approve of an attempt to provide evidence; I also scored okay on the more difficult test, and another creationist got 10 out of 10. It's quite usual for evolutionists to counter an evaluation of evolution theory by saying, "you don't understand the science", but even if Faith doesn't understand the science of which I don't know, it would be a hasty generalisation fallacy to presume all other creationists are equal.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6728...

A more accurate statement is that a portion of YECs don't understand science but then the same can be said of evolutionists, I know many who are appallingly ignorant online. But a lot of the speculations about how things happened over long eons, aren't solid science, and causes and argued causes actually change, even within science.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 799 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 2:18 PM		edge has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 806 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 3:13 PM		mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz

Member

Posts: 4755

From: u.k

Joined: 05-24-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 803 of 2887 (828696)
02-22-2018 2:43 PM

Reply to: Message 801 by edge
02-22-2018 2:29 PM

Re: A Fair Assessment

Edge writes:

Okay, so you didn't get the point.
Saying that evolution is invalid because shrimp have been around for supposedly hundreds of millions of years is like saying that life has been here for supposedly billions of years. It disregards the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of species of shrimp, and probably many more extinct ones. Your list becomes kind of meaningless.

Oh I got what you meant I just think it's a red-herring not worth chasing. The fact is, if there are kinds of organism, such as bats, and they show no evolution even their earliest form, when we might expect to find their ancestors if the fossils are an evolutionary history, then this isn't good evidence of macro evolution if we find identical kinds that look the same today.

Just picking out shrimp, and using observer bias to ignore all of the specific ones on that list, doesn't change the fact that some have simply remained unchanged, and don't show any intermediates for how they allegedly evolved. For example a bat had to evolve from a quadrupedal progenitor, so it's forelimbs had to become wings as they presently are, but all we find is bats with the fully designed wing, none of the intermediates because they never existed, same for pterosaurs, we only find a variety of pterosaurs, or a variety of bats, variety of Ichthyosaurs, never the transitionals they purportedly evolved from.

Edge writes:

Saying that evolution is invalid because shrimp have been around for supposedly hundreds of millions of years is like saying that life has been here for supposedly billions of years.

Now there is a strawman. No, but rather what I am saying is that this record of 100% stasis that actually has no evolution but either still extant or extinct animal kinds, doesn't show any evolution and this is evidence bats were always bats, since I expect to see some ancestors somewhere, heck show me just one that has it's intermediates, that can't be debunked? But one is not enough, what about the Cambrian? An explosion indeed, extinct forms yes, but where is their evolution? It is non-existent. Just admit it, the fossil record supports the creationist position, we would expect to find bats without any history of evolution because they were created to be bats.

You can deny it if you want, I myself as a student of logical, cannot ignore sound deductive reason. It simply follows this is the evidence expected from created kinds, not evolution, or show me the intermediates to all of them.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 801 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 2:29 PM		edge has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 805 by edge, posted 02-22-2018 3:02 PM	mike the wiz has not replied
	Message 815 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2018 6:00 PM	mike the wiz has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	dwise1, LamarkNewAge, Omnivorous, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3

Summations Only