Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 162 (8127 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-01-2014 9:44 AM
81 online now:
AZPaul3, Capt Stormfield, JonF, PaulK, vimesey (5 members, 76 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Upcoming Birthdays: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,081 Year: 20,922/28,606 Month: 9/1,410 Week: 27/275 Day: 9/18 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
onifre
Member
Posts: 4853
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 256 of 273 (473726)
07-02-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Agobot
07-01-2008 7:23 AM


Re: Singularity's Size
How does the BBT come up with a conclusion that the size of the singularity must have been about pea-size?

The BBT didn't come up with a conclusion, physicist came up with equations based on observations.

Because even if we were able to condense matter(sqeezing the atoms so that electrons and the nucleus become one body), wouldn't we get a singularity 1 billion times greater in size than our Sun?

You are thinking conceptually when to understand it you would need to understand the mathematics behind it, it cannot simply be explained by analogies. However, heres a short but but detailed history on what was observed and how they came to their calculations,

http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

According to my calculations, the Earth could be shrinked to just 100 metres.

Could you show how you came to that calculation?


All great truths begin as blasphemies

I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Agobot, posted 07-01-2008 7:23 AM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 2:47 PM onifre has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 257 of 273 (473734)
07-02-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by onifre
07-02-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
Agobot writes:

According to my calculations, the Earth could be shrinked to just 100 metres.

Onifre writes:

Could you show how you came to that calculation?

By comparing the size of the electrons to the size of the nucleus. Then if it were possible to shrink an atom so that the electrons would touch the nucleus, you'd get a shrinkage of 0.00001:1, that is the Earth diameter would become 12 800km * 0.00001= 0.128km. That is, considering that further shrinkage of the nucleus would not be possible.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by onifre, posted 07-02-2008 12:32 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2008 3:48 PM Agobot has responded
 Message 262 by onifre, posted 07-07-2008 2:23 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1130 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 258 of 273 (473744)
07-02-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Agobot
07-02-2008 2:47 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
You've only gotten to the Neutron Earth stage. Not that the Earth has the mass to do it by itself, but to get to the Black hole stage you've go to get down to 8 mm.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 2:47 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 6:19 PM lyx2no has responded

Agobot
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 259 of 273 (473754)
07-02-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by lyx2no
07-02-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
lyx2no writes:

You've only gotten to the Neutron Earth stage. Not that the Earth has the mass to do it by itself, but to get to the Black hole stage you've go to get down to 8 mm.

Correct me if i am wrong but the average neutron star's size prior to the explosion into a supernova is roughly 6 times bigger than our Sun. Then we have an average size for a neutron star about 10 km in diametre. The Sun's diametre is roughly 1.4 million kilometres, so the neutron star must have been 8.4 million kilometres in diametre. Then we have a shrinkage factor of 8.4 million km/10 km.= 840 000. That would equal an Earth with a diametre = 12 800km/840 000= 15 metres.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2008 3:48 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2008 8:00 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1130 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 260 of 273 (473771)
07-02-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Agobot
07-02-2008 6:19 PM


Neutron Earth
You've got he cart before the horse. It's the collapse that produces the neutron star. Prior to that you've got a carbon star that is trying to turn into an iron star. That consumes rather than produces heat; the heat that caused the outward pressure that was preventing the inward gravitational collapse.

If the star was massive enough it will become a neutron star. More massive still and even the exclusionary principle won't keep it from collapsing into a singularity.

The radius of an (non-rotating) objects event horizon — the "size" of a black hole — can be gotten by multiplying its mass by the meter-of-mass equivalent, 7.424 • 10-28 Mkg. The Earth has a mass of 5.98 • 1024 kg: therefore, a potential event horizon of 8.88 mm.

Abe: Neutron Earth would not be stable. Unlike Black Hole Earth, it wouldn't have the mass to hold itself together. You'll also note, if you go take a look, that the lower mass neutron stars have the greater radii.

Edited by lyx2no, : Add info and change the erroneous heading.

Edited by lyx2no, : Add units to meter-of-mass.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 6:19 PM Agobot has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 273 (473966)
07-04-2008 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by IamJoseph
06-22-2008 11:41 PM


Re: Finite universe (again)
IAJ,

IAJ writes:

The finite factor is of course alligned with any debate of the BB.

Huh?

IAJ writes:

Sci-Tech Encyclopedia according to IAJ writes:

Infinity
The terms infinity and infinite have a variety of related meanings in mathematics. The adjective finite means “having an end,” so infinity may be used to refer to something having no end.

'End' = a change.

I think you have a misconfiguration in your programming.

Did you mean 'End' = no change?

I will agree that if the dimensions of the universe are measurable, with no change to those measurements, then the universe is finite. However, if your claiming that "infinity" can have no origin then you're mistaken.

Do you understand the mathematic expression below?

{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,...(no end)}

This mathematic expression expresses a numerical origin of "1" but however it also expresses that you can count from "1" to variable numerical values; hence infinity. If the universe is actually inflating, which means it has variable numerical dimensions, then it is probably infinite.

Edited by Force, : grammar + add sentence

Edited by Force, : changed first sentence for better understanding

Edited by Force, : No reason given.


Thanks
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 06-22-2008 11:41 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

onifre
Member
Posts: 4853
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 262 of 273 (474308)
07-07-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Agobot
07-02-2008 2:47 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
Thanks
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 2:47 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 471 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 263 of 273 (474671)
07-10-2008 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Straggler
07-01-2008 12:27 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
you can't run a test other than logic in which to observe the origin of all things.

you can discover how some mechanism's work. but your math your using to model the universe is based WAY to much on assumptions that cannot be proven.

when i explored origin i threw the assumptions out and followed definates. the most definite of science is a science "law" which can be expanded, but are not ever completely incorrect.

the greatest proof of what I've shown you is in the observation of those laws. existing is a definite assumption. to question that you exist and are existing within "existence" is DEFINATE.

existence had to "be" before anything that did not exist that "does exist" now, COULD be.

all in the universe has common themes. hydrogen, nitrogen, gravity, atoms, strong force etc etc. and all those forces work in a decidable fashion, that if they did not cooperate in a form in which the abilities of each is limited, they would corrupt each other and be chaos. this is called "balance". these observations im telling you were discovered by the tests of science, in that the "natural order" is exactly that...ORDER.

now also..does different stages of intelligence exist..from trees, to microbes..to mitochondria..to directing cells of DNA. and finally..for what men can find..the greatest of "directing forces" or intelligence..is the human brain. unfortunately..it is so swelled in the heads of men..that they believe the buck stops there. but as per natures "design", so also if the mold strays true as all observation has shown..there is even a greater intelligence than ours. and the easiest to see is the greatest of them all. this law:

by ALL tests or observations NO where will you find, that anything that exists will become greater of itself, with NO outside variables. WITHOUT direction.

and that is exactly what all science has shown us to date, is that T=0 is inevitable by all acceptable models within even the least of set unproven assumptions to model the test data. meaning: that in the beginning, THE EXISTENCE that was..existed singularly (all energy that is at all, all that is or could become , existed within itself , of itself.

NOW ..we KNOW it became more complicated..we are here..thats proof..and we wasn't always here..thats also proven..so BECAUSE things have evolved, we MUST ask..from whence came the first evolution?

science has two options here. chance. or direction. direction meaning God...ands chance meaning existence is a pointless thing to even be at all..since it neither has a point or a purpose but is a random act of forces that just "happen" to "exist" for no reason at all.

now..since science is VERY want to push the "chance" scenario, you now have to explain to the entire world what i have been asking you all along:

how can a single entity, with no outside variables, NO outside interactions, become more complex without direction?

you'll never find it. not in nature, not in anything but a directed consequence, or INTERACTIONS with outside forces before any complexity can be found, so also, will you find that more things which are simple, become more complex by there interactions, with directing forces of intelligence within their forms. (DNA etc).

to Percy: i never came to this site to boggle you with bullshit. i came to this site because i believed that people are smart enough to see what everyone so wants to ignore in the science community: that we do not exist without a reason. and the discoveries that i had observed, i wish to give to you people too think out.

this is not a game. you think this is just afternoon fun to argue and test debate skills on a controversial subject so you can mark your "wins" on your bedpost? do you have any idea at all how important this topic is? to the world? to a people? to science? can you AFFFORD to get this one wrong? for the sake of science and truth? or for the sake of potentially loosing your eternal soul? dont you WANT to know the TRUTH? if your SO sure of it.then show me something that becomes more complex with ZERO to interact with..and ZERO direction.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 07-01-2008 12:27 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Agobot, posted 07-10-2008 4:51 PM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 266 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2008 2:44 PM tesla has not yet responded

Agobot
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 264 of 273 (474759)
07-10-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by tesla
07-10-2008 2:10 AM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Tesla writes:

now..since science is VERY want to push the "chance" scenario, you now have to explain to the entire world what i have been asking you all along:

how can a single entity, with no outside variables, NO outside interactions, become more complex without direction?

you'll never find it. not in nature, not in anything but a directed consequence, or INTERACTIONS with outside forces before any complexity can be found, so also, will you find that more things which are simple, become more complex by there interactions, with directing forces of intelligence within their forms. (DNA etc).

If you are talking about life forms getting ever more complex, you have to seriously consider the fact that life on this planet has been on the verge of extinction on a number of occasions. Some of these near extinction events gave us the variety of species we now have(human beings inclusive). If life was directed and followed some divine logic and guidance, how do you explain the mass extinction events that nearly wiped out all life on Earth?
If we did not evolove to this point to become intelligent human beings, would you consider a planet like ours teeming with other forms of life(but without us), God's creation? Because it seems during 99% of earth's life existence, there have been no humans, hence we have no ground to claim the existence of some divine guidance and direction(at least for those 99% of the period that life existed).

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by tesla, posted 07-10-2008 2:10 AM tesla has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 2:19 PM Agobot has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 265 of 273 (474942)
07-12-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Agobot
07-10-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Because it seems during 99% of earth's life existence, there have been no humans, hence we have no ground to claim the existence of some divine guidance and direction(at least for those 99% of the period that life existed).

If the elements that make up the earth formed in space (big bang) then no evidence the earth itself is not 6,000-13,000 years of age.

Like how are planets formed is it not from the energies generated from nothing increasing from the point in time when nothing mathematically was the size of a pea.

If you take gold and put it into space does it not vaporize and escape to become a part of the fabric of space.

If the fabric of space contains all the elements that make up the earth then due to collisions either in the center of the milkey way part of the fabric of space meaning all we know how long it takes to decay within the earth but not how long it takes to wind up the nucleur clocks by a big bang senerio meaning how wound up the elements are has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

P.S. If you look at how the elements formed before the earth itself was created and how no new elements are formed within the earth due elements only shown to decay from these element then you have no evidence the earth is an old earth.

C-14 gets wound up in the upper atmosphere (happens instantly due collisions) but it will take over 35,000 years for it to decay. The fossils are all dating young but the reason they are dating old is the problems of commercial labs prodical not that the fossils themselves are old, etc...

Baumgardener? one of those reputable creationists has shown how up to 50,000 years of C-14 is buffered out of the carbon fossils dated by the commercial labs.

Basically fossils ages are being fudged to support circular reasoning dates, indicator fossils, but the evolutionists never actually date these fossil, because if they did the lab test correctly it would support the young earthers.

So due since the big bang you should have the elements giving the illusion the earth is an old earth but realize that has no bearing on the true age when the earth itself was created from the energies created from perhaps nothings expansion since the big bang.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Agobot, posted 07-10-2008 4:51 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2008 5:49 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 268 by Agobot, posted 07-12-2008 7:10 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2008 12:18 AM johnfolton has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 9939
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 266 of 273 (474945)
07-12-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by tesla
07-10-2008 2:10 AM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
you can't run a test other than logic in which to observe the origin of all things.

Of course you can. It is called prediction and verification.
A method of objective testing that is woefully lacking in any creationist methodologies and which you are conveniently ignoring.
Can you explain how the predicted existence and value of the CMB, for example, is not an objective test of theory?

you can discover how some mechanism's work. but your math your using to model the universe is based WAY to much on assumptions that cannot be proven.

You seem to be ignorant of the wealth of observational and predictive physical evidence on which BBT is founded.

when i explored origin i threw the assumptions out and followed definates. the most definite of science is a science "law" which can be expanded, but are not ever completely incorrect.

the greatest proof of what I've shown you is in the observation of those laws. existing is a definite assumption. to question that you exist and are existing within "existence" is DEFINATE.

What laws are you talking about? What proof are you on about? Science is not in the business of proof or even definites so I am not sure what form of investigation you are undertaking.

existence had to "be" before anything that did not exist that "does exist" now, COULD be.

This sounds like a theistic preconceived conclusion to me.
On what basis are you so sure of this foundation? Common sense? Is it common sense that you (and all other macroscopic objects) are 99.9999% empty space? If common sense answered all questions there would be little need for scientific enquiry.

The rest of your post amounts to an unnecessarily long winded and frankly not very articulate argument of incredulity.

how can a single entity, with no outside variables, NO outside interactions, become more complex without direction?

The conclusions of science suggest that omplex things evolve from less complex things slowly and gradually.
The physical, predicted and tested evidence strongly implies this.
What is your alternative and, other than incredulity, what is your argument or evidence in favour of this alternative?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by tesla, posted 07-10-2008 2:10 AM tesla has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 9939
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 267 of 273 (474985)
07-12-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by johnfolton
07-12-2008 2:19 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
If the elements that make up the earth formed in space (big bang) then no evidence the earth itself is not 6,000-13,000 years of age.

Actually most of the elements have been created in stars via a process of nuclear fusion. We are, as they say, all made of stardust.

Only the very lightest elements formed as a dierct consequence of the BB alone.

Like how are planets formed is it not from the energies generated from nothing increasing from the point in time when nothing mathematically was the size of a pea.

Planets are formed when the various heavier elements gravitationally attract to form more massive bodies. Your description is nonsensical.

If you take gold and put it into space does it not vaporize and escape to become a part of the fabric of space.

What process are you talking about here? I am unaware that lumps of gold will spontaneaously vaporise in space...... What are you talking about?

If the fabric of space contains all the elements that make up the earth then due to collisions either in the center of the milkey way part of the fabric of space meaning all we know how long it takes to decay within the earth but not how long it takes to wind up the nucleur clocks by a big bang senerio meaning how wound up the elements are has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the chemical elemenets A) Make up the fabric of spacetime and B) Were directly created in the BB. Neither is true.

As for dating - Radiometric dating techniques depend on the relative abundance of the decaying element and the stable element that this decays into. They are thus not subject to the initial assumption of age you seem to be implying. If we know the half life of a substance and can measure the amount of the substance as compared to the amount of the post decay isotope we can determine the age of an object.

In short your whole post is a mish mash of misunderstanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 2:19 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 10:59 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Agobot
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 268 of 273 (474992)
07-12-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by johnfolton
07-12-2008 2:19 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
johnfolton writes:

If the elements that make up the earth formed in space (big bang) then no evidence the earth itself is not 6,000-13,000 years of age.

You mean the dinosaur fossils that we keep discovering are 6-7000 years old? It's so ridiculous that it's not even funny. Education is going down the world over these days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 2:19 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by johnfolton, posted 07-12-2008 11:09 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 269 of 273 (475018)
07-12-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
07-12-2008 5:49 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
Planets are formed when the various heavier elements gravitationally attract to form more massive bodies. Your description is nonsensical.

It appears we agree that the age of the elements is not the age of the earth. In fact given how fast C-14 can be created when it is bombarded by cosmic radiation your stardust age could be quite young meaning a great radioactive decay ages does not mean elements are billions of years old, etc...

What process are you talking about here? I am unaware that lumps of gold will spontaneaously vaporise in space...... What are you talking about?

Water in the upper atmosphere even though cold vaporizes which is the reason I was told gold is not used for seals in the space shuttle in that in a vaccum it vaporizes.

If we know the half life of a substance and can measure the amount of the substance as compared to the amount of the post decay isotope we can determine the age of an object.

C-14 dating I agree has gotten better proving its a young earth. You might want to check out some reputable scientists on the subject like kent hovind, walt brown, andrew snelling, john baumgardener, etc...

I'm not saying your ignorant on the subject even though I suspect your moving the pea under the cup, etc...

________________________________________________________________

Measurable 14C in pre-Flood organic materials fossilized in Flood strata therefore appears to represent a powerful and testable confirmation of the young earth Creation-Flood model.

http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

________________________________________________________________

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the chemical elemenets A) Make up the fabric of spacetime and B) Were directly created in the BB. Neither is true.

No seems I believe nothing is a part of the fabric of spacetime and its through these dimensions that the past present and future exists. Einstein believed nothing is not true nothing for when space expands energy is being created from the expansion of nothing.

Some string theory people say that elements are strings not points. I take it you believe elements are points created in stars however if we have time going forward and back from the present the elements can not be pointlike.

Since the entire universe is said to be still expanding is the big bang still happening? (Were we all created within the current big bang expansion?)Is nothing not still expanding from within because nothing is really nothing thus different dimensions of nothing expanding? Is energy not being created as time expands forward expanding nothing and is the present held together by the past and the future? How would the universe look if you could see the past present and the future in one view? Would it still be a flat universe as all part of what we call the currently observable universe is said to be? ? Do you believe that the past present and future are part of the big bang senerio? Its like t=p t is time and p is the present and the past is always less than p and the future always greater than p yet the mass of the earth stretches (exists) from the past to the future and not only just a point within the present yet in spite of this its still only a flat universe because of how nothing is being used as a dimension expanding within the atom and not outside the atom so its still only a flat universe?

I suspect this can only be if the atom is not pointlike but its existence is like a string of energy going both backward and forward in time meaning the past affects the future but the future does not affect the past(other than God) is this not because of the momentum of the big bang? Does not some string theory people believe too that the atoms not pointlike that gravity is just related to time moving from the present phasing into the past and phasing into the future yet existing in the present instead those that believe the atom is pointlike meaning the past not existing which likely is what an atheist might believe, but it just appears that time is moving and exists in the past and the future though all we can see is the present, etc...
__________________________________________________________________

So when we say "WMAP provides strong evidence that the universe is flat", we really mean "WMAP provides strong evidence that the observable universe is flat".

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=171

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2008 5:49 PM Straggler has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 270 of 273 (475019)
07-12-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Agobot
07-12-2008 7:10 PM


Re: Discovery or Ignorance?
You mean the dinosaur fossils that we keep discovering are 6-7000 years old?
yep, to believe otherwise is not science, etc...

It's so ridiculous that it's not even funny.
Nope

Education is going down the world over these days.
If you get a chance watch expelled by Ben Stein. I can only agree education is not about science these days but political correctness or lose tenure, etc...

If you want to learn science you might do well to learn outside the box. Like answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind, or better yet learn from ex evolutionists like Walt Brown, Humphreys, Gentry, etc...

http://www.creationists.org/switch.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Agobot, posted 07-12-2008 7:10 PM Agobot has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014