Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 2:39 PM
350 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,053 Year: 28,659/21,208 Month: 725/1,847 Week: 100/475 Day: 10/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5299
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 121 of 136 (620365)
06-15-2011 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by DBlevins
06-15-2011 6:41 PM


Re: Mineralized soft-tissue paper
Thanks greatly, DBlevins!

Mazzy, I recommend the paper DB found for us. If you will read it and ask questions, I can answer the chemistry ones - I do chemistry for a living. Other folks here can answer geology or anatomy questions. I don't think you will find much discarding of evidence. Try us out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by DBlevins, posted 06-15-2011 6:41 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 122 of 136 (620370)
06-15-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Mazzy
06-15-2011 5:41 PM


Edmontosaurus
The matter at hand is that evolutionists discard evidence that is uncomfortable.

A dino was most certainly found with tissue and bones in tact.

Back in the real world, it was evolutionists who discovered the fossil, evolutionists who dug it up, evolutionists who freed it from the matrix, evolutionists who made a TV program about it, and evolutionists who published the National Geographic article which brought its existence to your attention in the first place.

Meanwhile it is you who is ignoring the evidence, namely that the skin was mineralized.

So in reply to your nasty attitude I say that many evolutionists are liars when it suits them.

And your saying that would be more convincing if you could point to any actual lie. Or even something that you thought was a lie. Instead you have cited an evolutionist article which you apparently think is true.

All this talk on dinos being around 65mya appears to be debunked nonsense that evolutionists will clutch to with their dying breath.

No it doesn't, for two reasons: first, it is not nonsense; and second it has not been debunked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:41 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ooh-child, posted 06-17-2011 4:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 123 of 136 (620371)
06-15-2011 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Mazzy
06-15-2011 5:41 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
My apologies. I did not intend to be rude, and I'm sorry if my tone was offensive to you.

I see that others have already addressed the issue of the possible survival of soft tissue dinosaur remains. A full reading of the source material does make it clear that the remains in question were in fact mineralized - that is to say, fossils - and not soft tissue per se.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objection you and other creationists have to the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years is that this is evidence that contradicts the notion of a young earth. I've mostly seen this claim of fresh dinosaur remains as part of a general denial of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Is that what you're objecting to?

The two articles you cite in the later part of your post are about evidence that not all species of dinosaur went extinct about 65 million years ago, but that at least one line survives for another 700,000. I can't see that being able to determine that a hadrosaur bone is 64.8 million years old as opposed to 65 or 66 million goes very far to support the belief that dinosaurs actually went extinct only a few thousand years ago.

Interestingly enough, a major point of both articles is how this example shows how much more accurate dating techniques have become.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Clarity of expression.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:41 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 1851
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 124 of 136 (620384)
06-16-2011 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Mazzy
06-15-2011 5:30 PM


Hi Mazzy

There's nothing rude in pointing out the fact that creationists lie. You were shown exactly where they lie.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. By pointing out the lies, hopefully a few creationists would be shocked out of their delusion.

As for the horns part of your post, I don't really know what you mean by it.

Anyway, my local rugby team is called the Blue Bulls. Sometimes I do go to the rugby stadium with real bulls' horns glued to the blue plastic helmet I wear. Just to show my support. Thousand of us do it over here.

What's your problem with horns, anyway? Lots of animals do grow them, naturally. Unfortunately humans don't. I would actually enjoy going to the rugby with two natural blue horns growing out of my skull. I would then really be a proud Blue Bull!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake

Edited by Pressie, : Added words

Edited by Pressie, : Added words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:30 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
ooh-child
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 125 of 136 (620557)
06-17-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2011 9:31 PM


Re: Edmontosaurus
Back in the real world, it was evolutionists who discovered the fossil, evolutionists who dug it up, evolutionists who freed it from the matrix, evolutionists who made a TV program about it, and evolutionists who published the National Geographic article which brought its existence to your attention in the first place.

And I'd point out that most of those folks are also members of various churches, temples, and what have you. Believers in God. Evolution has not weakened their faith - why does it seem that it weakens yours, Mazzy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2011 9:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 126 of 136 (622181)
07-01-2011 2:20 PM


Apologies for posting off topic message.

Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Edited by deerbreh, : Message withdrawn because it has been deemed off topic.


Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 127 of 136 (625786)
07-25-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ZenMonkey
06-15-2011 9:41 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Quote ZenMonkey

My apologies. I did not intend to be rude, and I'm sorry if my tone was offensive to you.
I see that others have already addressed the issue of the possible survival of soft tissue dinosaur remains. A full reading of the source material does make it clear that the remains in question were in fact mineralized - that is to say, fossils - and not soft tissue per se.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objection you and other creationists have to the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years is that this is evidence that contradicts the notion of a young earth. I've mostly seen this claim of fresh dinosaur remains as part of a general denial of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Is that what you're objecting to?

The two articles you cite in the later part of your post are about evidence that not all species of dinosaur went extinct about 65 million years ago, but that at least one line survives for another 700,000. I can't see that being able to determine that a hadrosaur bone is 64.8 million years old as opposed to 65 or 66 million goes very far to support the belief that dinosaurs actually went extinct only a few thousand years ago.

Interestingly enough, a major point of both articles is how this example shows how much more accurate dating techniques have become.

My apologies. I did not intend to be rude, and I'm sorry if my tone was offensive to you.I see that others have already addressed the issue of the possible survival of soft tissue dinosaur remains. A full reading of the source material does make it clear that the remains in question were in fact mineralized - that is to say, fossils - and not soft tissue per se.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the objection you and other creationists have to the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years is that this is evidence that contradicts the notion of a young earth. I've mostly seen this claim of fresh dinosaur remains as part of a general denial of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Is that what you're objecting to?
The two articles you cite in the later part of your post are about evidence that not all species of dinosaur went extinct about 65 million years ago, but that at least one line survives for another 700,000. I can't see that being able to determine that a hadrosaur bone is 64.8 million years old as opposed to 65 or 66 million goes very far to support the belief that dinosaurs actually went extinct only a few thousand years ago.
Interestingly enough, a major point of both articles is how this example shows how much more accurate dating techniques have become.

ZenMonkey, I am not a scientist and I need to rely on the varacity of the information that is online and in research papers. I also did not mean to be rude here or elsewhere.

This is a snip from the article:

"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died."

This is what the article states. If it is incorrrect information that is not my fault. If the truth has been exaggerated to suit the paradigm, that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available.

My point was around the unliklihood of 'soft tissues' being found that dates back anywhere near 65my. In other words my point was that if it is 'soft tissue' it is more likely to be much more recent than suggested. This assertion is based on common sense rather than scientifically knowing just how long 'soft tissue' will remain soft tissue for in any particular environment. The researchers appeared to be surprised themselves to find this 'soft tissue'.

If researchers or related articles have misrepresented the information I use, please refute as you have. I can then add this to my folder of misrepresetations.

I am not young earth so that is an erraneous assumption. I am only young earth when it comes to mankind, so when dinos lived is of no consequence to my beliefs. However, 'soft tissue' over 60myo produces some skepticism for me, regardless of the fact that it does not matter to me.

If there is an article that refutes this soft tissue being such but is rather some fossilized something or another then I am happy to take on the refute.

I guess that in the end if researchers cannot agree on what they have found, that says something else again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-15-2011 9:41 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 5:58 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 129 by Panda, posted 07-25-2011 7:46 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 133 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-25-2011 9:55 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 128 of 136 (625791)
07-25-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 5:27 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
This assertion is based on common sense rather than scientifically knowing just how long 'soft tissue' will remain soft tissue for in any particular environment.

Arguments from common sense are logical fallacies. Many findings in science have gone against common sense. For example, light can be both a particle and a wave. This goes against common sense, but that doesn't mean it is false.

This T. rex was found in a very well documented strata that is one of the most accurately dated strata around. That fossil is as old as they say it is. Whatever material they find in it has survived that long. No amount of incredulity refutes the facts.

If researchers or related articles have misrepresented the information I use, please refute as you have. I can then add this to my folder of misrepresetations.

Never trust secondary sources where science is involved. Secondary sources get a lot of things seriously wrong. Always go to the primary source. In the primary research paper it describes how the fossil was soaked for a long period of time before anything soft was observed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 9:38 PM Taq has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1324 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 129 of 136 (625808)
07-25-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 5:27 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Mazzy writes:

This is a snip from the article:

"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died."

This is what the article states. If it is incorrrect information that is not my fault. If the truth has been exaggerated to suit the paradigm, that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available.


You provided 3 links in Message 114.
None of them contain the text you are quoting above.

But the three links you provided DO explain that it was mineralised tissue:

quote:
Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it.

I am left wondering why you had to find a 4th web-site to support your assertions, but then claim "that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available."
There WAS information available: YOU provided it.
But when it failed to support your claims, you went looking elsewhere.

You can't claim ignorance of the evidence when YOU have linked information refuting your own position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 130 of 136 (625819)
07-25-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Schweitzer
Quote

As has been pointed out to you, the soft tissue was mineralized. As Schweitzer et al wrote:

"Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. (Schweitzer et al, Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex)What no-one has yet mentioned is that the scientist who discovered this, Mary Schweitzer, is a former YEC who left the young-Earth cult as a result of her scientific studies. As she explains:

Like many hard-core young-earth creationists I didn't understand the evidence. When I understood the strength of the data, the evidence, I had to rethink things. (Schweitzer, quoted by Horner, Horner and Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur)If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.

Just to finish off what I have to say....

I had a look at the quote that speaks to the 'soft tissue' being demineralized and a bit appears to have been missed.... I had best acknowledge that I at least read the info....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/

"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments."

The mention of hollow and pliable blood vessels being found appears misleading if in fact all they found was not much at all.

Mary may be YEC turned evolutionist but John Sanford was an evolutionist turned YEC.

So basically my creationist response to what this find means to creationists is nothing at all unless one is a strict YEC. The only way this would present a concern to me is if the dating was accurate and robust and you placed mankind with dinosaurs 65mya.

Given that evolutionists refute any evidence of dinosaurs and mankind coexisting 'old earthers' don't have a problem but may explain why some are not total YEC's.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2011 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:03 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 131 of 136 (625821)
07-25-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 8:54 PM


Given that evolutionists refute any evidence of dinosaurs and mankind coexisting

We don't have to refute it. There's simply no evidence.

Someone paints a cartoon dinosaur on a jug and Creationists think they have something.

Like everything else they trot out, it's good for a laugh and little else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 8:54 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 9:58 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 132 of 136 (625824)
07-25-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
07-25-2011 5:58 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
quote Taq

Arguments from common sense are logical fallacies. Many findings in science have gone against common sense. For example, light can be both a particle and a wave. This goes against common sense, but that doesn't mean it is false.

This T. rex was found in a very well documented strata that is one of the most accurately dated strata around. That fossil is as old as they say it is. Whatever material they find in it has survived that long. No amount of incredulity refutes the facts.

Are you suggesting there is no common sense in evolutionary theory? I think there is, or should be. Quantum physics will make sense once they understand it. If light is both a particle and a wave you should not have any trouble understanding how God can cause to happen while not being physically present.

In fact I think some posters have refuted themselves on this one. The find spoken to cannot be both 'soft tissue' and just demineralized minerals.

I do not need to refute the dating for dinosaurs as when they lived is no conflict for me. I refute dating methods generally.

What I do have a problem with speaking and posting to part of a research paper that speaks to demineralized remnants when the next phrase speaks to presevation of blood vessels. It seems to me it cannot be both, so 'yes' that seems to escape common sense, as does the skepticism tied to pliable fibre 65myo or more, and I don't think I need a PHD is science to say so. I have given information of evolutionary researchers that have problems with it all. I also reserve the right to be skeptical like some of your evo researchers, whether it is a matter of common sense or not.

See this bit below

"Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought.."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/.../274/1607/183.full

This info above suggests strongly to me that what was found was actually 'soft tissue' as well as demineralized stuff.

It appears that I have information that suggests there is dispute as to the validity of claiming preservation of soft tissue past 1 million years, as never seen before. The link below speaks to it.

"It was at this moment—when a fragment of 68 million-year-old dinosaur was rendered as strings of letters decipherable only by the most labyrinthine mathematical algorithms—that empirical certainty crumbled. What followed was a complex, contentious, and peculiarly modern scientific argument, one more about software and statistics than bones and pickaxes.

Before long, however, a distinctly human subplot emerged. Within 16 months, three separate rebuttals appeared, two in Science itself. Many researchers were skeptical of the quality of Asara's data and doubted that collagen could survive so long, even partially intact. "You're talking about something a hundred times older than anything ever sequenced," says Steven Salzberg, director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland. "If you have extraordinary results, they require extraordinary evidence."
http://www.wired.com/...cs/magazine/17-07/ff_originofspecies

What is apparent from my being a YEC when it comes to mankind is that I have no faith in these algorithms, past population size algorithms, the fossils that sometimes date the strata eg Jehol birds etc that suggest mankind is more than 6,000yo. However this is not the thread topic.

I did go to the source, as you suggested, and that only presented more problems....as what they found was soft fibrous tissue. It is either soft tissue or it is not.

Interestingly, some evolutionary researchers do have a problem with this find as illustrated above. I do not appear to be the only skeptic.

As I said, it makes no difference to my beliefs so long as you are not placing mankind at the campfire with T Rex 65mya.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 5:58 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 133 of 136 (625825)
07-25-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 5:27 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Mazzy writes:

I am not young earth so that is an erraneous assumption. I am only young earth when it comes to mankind, so when dinos lived is of no consequence to my beliefs. However, 'soft tissue' over 60myo produces some skepticism for me, regardless of the fact that it does not matter to me.

Hi Mazzy, nice to see you in a different thread.

I hope that it's clearer now that what Mary Schweitzer recovered was not the sort of soft tissue remains that would cast doubt on the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for some 66 million years, and not a few thousand or even a few hundred as some creationists have claimed.

The thing is, dinosaurs do matter. If you accept that the established dating of the fossilized remains of dinosaurs is in fact valid, then you have no grounds for doubting that the dating of human remains is valid as well. You can't claim that a tape measure is accurate when it says that the couch is 7 feet wide, but that the same tape measure is wrong when it says that the living room is 15 feet long. You don't get to pick and choose. And that's a serious problem for you. Accurate dating of various human and pre-human remains show a clear transition from more primitive "ape-like" forms to modern humans. No overlap. No H. ergaster hanging around with Australopithicus or with H. sapiens either.

Now, I will quickly point out that this thread is not about human evolution at all, so we shouldn't derail the topic by continuing this particular conversation. The point was just that those creationists who claimed the this discovery cast doubt on the fossil record were wrong.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 134 of 136 (625827)
07-25-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 9:03 PM


quote Nuggin
Given that evolutionists refute any evidence of dinosaurs and mankind coexisting

We don't have to refute it. There's simply no evidence.

Someone paints a cartoon dinosaur on a jug and Creationists think they have something.

Like everything else they trot out, it's good for a laugh and little else.

I think what is funnier is not being able to discern the results of the research that one posts and speaks to, nor keep on topic.

If there is no evidence for mankind being around with dinos 65myo you and me are still dancing on the same page, Nuggin, like it or not.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:03 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 135 of 136 (625828)
07-25-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Minnemooseus
04-30-2003 7:01 PM


Going to kill this catch-all sort of topic
Minnemooseus, at message 29 posted back in 2003 (8+ years ago), writes:

My general impression is that this topic started nowhere, and has since wandered to various other places of about equal distinction.

And it's only got worse.

I'm going to close this topic down, say in about 15 minutes. There are at least 4 existing topics specifically targeted at the "Dino soft tissue" theme. I'll pick one to "bump" and also supply links to the others (and also link back to this topic).

By the way, did anyone else notice that the topic title is pretty much cutting edge worthless?

CLOSING IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES (UNLESS MY MIND WANDERS OFF, WHICH DOES HAPPEN).

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "5" to "4" - There was one topic in my database that I was unable to track down.


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-30-2003 7:01 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-25-2011 10:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017