Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 9:22 PM
252 online now:
Coragyps, jar, kjsimons, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Rrhain (6 members, 246 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,400 Year: 29,006/21,208 Month: 1,072/1,847 Week: 447/475 Day: 110/102 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 84 (639222)
10-28-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
10-08-2011 3:41 PM


Re: You're trying to have it both ways
Buzsaw writes:

Minnemooseus writes:
The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.

So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?

In Message 2 of the Peanut Gallery, Boof said:

quote:
So in my example, buz would need to explain (from his Young Animal Life perspective) how the fossils got in to sediments that were deposited about 305 Million years ago. Surely the dead animals which were fossilized were deposited at the same time as the sediments, much as we see today?

Boof's message relates to my question. I assume they've used radiometric dating to determine the age of the strata.

Perhaps you or someone in the PG will explain how the age of my mortar-less wall would date radiometrically. The supporting middle wall of my basement has no mortar, being built of tightly placed old stones, some having sea fossils in them.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 10-08-2011 3:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 84 (639230)
10-29-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Buz's Mortar-less Wall
Hi again, Moose. When you get around to it, a penny for your thoughts regarding the debate Peanut Gallery's take on this and my response.

I forgot to mention that the rock from my wall obviously came from a common source area, all having the same type of sediment, color etc. Let's assume that they came from a local rock quarry. My region has these.

Modern radiometry would date my rock wall the same as the other rocks remaining in the quarry. No?

My wall is over a century old but not over 150 years. Let's suppose the workmen who built the wall dropped a nail in it at the time it was built. Modern radiometry would date the nail the same age as the wall layer which it was deposited in. No?

Prediction: Like the nail deposited in my century old wall constructed of aged rock, a fossil deposited 4300 years ago in flood sediment, radiometrically dating millions of years old, would date the same as the significantly older rock making up the sediment in which the fossil was deposited.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 84 (639233)
10-29-2011 9:15 AM


Re: Buzsaw's Rock Wall
Hi again, Moose. This is getting interesting, and imo, problematic for you and the PG participants. In Message 19, Jon asserts:

quote:
Obviously Buz realizes that dating the rocks in his wall will produce an answer that's far older than the date his wall was constructed, and therefore radiometric dating of rocks can produce a date that's far older than the date they were formed.
The problem with this scenario is that formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks is not at all analogous to assembling a rock wall; we know how they are formed and modified and how that affects or does not affect their radiometric dates. Formation of sedimentary rocks can be thought of as somewhat analogous to assembling a wall, and that's why we don't do radiometric dates on sedimentary rocks (except for a few cases in which we date the "mortar" that holds the grains together).

The PG problem is growing. When radiometrically dating the strata, as some in PG are stating, the method, when applied to strata, does not factor my wall analogy.

Jon now admits that radiometrical dating is seldom used in strata. This brings us back to square one; my contention that the strata is usually dated by the fossils in it and the fossils are dated by the strata; circular reasoning and poor science, imo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-29-2011 3:04 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3584
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 64 of 84 (639259)
10-29-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
10-29-2011 9:15 AM


How fossils can date the rock
This brings us back to square one; my contention that the strata is usually dated by the fossils in it and the fossils are dated by the strata; circular reasoning and poor science, imo.

From my message 44:

Minnemooseus writes:

Side note: The old creationist line (old line, not old creationist, although both could be true ) is "The rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks - This is circular reasoning". The truth is, originally the rocks dated the fossils. The rocks were determined to be of x age, therefore the fossils were also of x age. After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2011 9:15 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2011 4:10 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 84 (639260)
10-29-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Minnemooseus
10-29-2011 3:04 PM


Re: How fossils can date the rock
Moose writes:

The truth is, originally the rocks dated the fossils. The rocks were determined to be of x age, therefore the fossils were also of x age.

But you need to respond to my wall/nail = rock strata/fossil analogy. This falsifies the scientific methodology of radiometric fossil dating.

As the younger nail deposited in the wall would radiometrically date the age of the rock deposited in the young wall, so would the young Noaic flood deposited fossil radiometrically date the age of the old rock particles of which the flood deposited strata consisted.

We know, before forming our hypotheses when the wall was made. However nothing is known before research, about sub-terrain ancient strata. We set out at research and exploration, etc to make conclusions. The wall analogy is to show that objects deposited in strata may not date the same as the rock forming the strata.

Moose writes:

After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.

The creationist response to that is that slower moving animals would tend to be in the lower strata and so on until the birds and fast moving creatures able to escape to higher ground would have survived the longest, leaving relatively few fossils in the highest strata of the geologic column. This is more indicative to a catastrophic flood than a relatively uniform planet history.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-29-2011 3:04 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 84 (639264)
10-29-2011 6:43 PM


quote:
The analogy is erroneous. Consider your rock wall sitting on a poured concrete floor and supporting a poured concrete ceiling, The floor dates at 75 years old, the ceiling dates at 60 years old, the rocks in the wall date to 120 million years old, and we can tell from the construction of the wall that it's made of old rocks created long before the wall was built. How old is the wall?

Jon disregarded my point that the sole purpose of the wall/nail analogy is to show that the nail would radiometrically date the same as the deposited rock in the wall. Jon waived off my important point that all about the wall is known. The wall is not the hypothesis about the sub-terrain ancient strata. It's purpose is solely to falsify conclusions arrived at via radiometric dating of ancient fossils.

Again, we know data relative to the wall, whereas all we know about ancient sub-terrain strata is what can be derived via research, exploration, history and observable data etc.

I have shown, factually, that the deposited nail will radiometrically date the same age as the rock in which it was deposited at the time the wall rocks were sedimented.

None has effectively refuted that what applies to the rock wall would apply to fossils deposited in strata deposited via a flood some 4300 years ago.

As with the rock making up the wall, so the sand and other rock making up the sediment of strata would date older than the time when the strata was deposited and the wall was deposited/constructed.

quote:
Oh, and the igneous and metamorphic rocks we do date aren't deposited by floods or any form of water. We can tell.

The Biblical record denotes the breaking up of subterranean water. It would be a given assumption that extensive volcanic activity would have ensued globally, via a catastrophe so extensive as the Noaic flood producing the igneous rock Metamorphic rock, as I understand can include igneous or other rock, crystals, etc formed via heat and pressure.

In Psalms 104 we read of tectonic activity via the global flood, i.e. :the mountains rose and the valleys sank." My understanding is that the average thickness of the earth crust beneath oceans is three miles whereas the average under continents is 20 miles. This is indicative of the Psalms 104 statement.

Jon writes:

Buzsaw writes:

The creationist response to that is that slower moving animals would tend to be in the lower strata and so on until the birds and fast moving creatures able to escape to higher ground would have survived the longest, leaving relatively few fossils in the highest strata of the geologic column

Of course that pattern is not what is actually found in the geologic record, with elephants and blue whales found above the first birds and way above the first flying insects.

Perhaps Moose or someone in the PG will cite the source, whether this is the exception or the norm. It can be assumed that there will, assuming any global catastrophy, that there will be the by and large norm and the exceptions, due to the extent of what the Biblical flood depicts.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 3:45 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 67 of 84 (639536)
11-01-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
10-29-2011 6:43 PM


Fountains of the deep
Hi Buz,

Buzsaw writes:

The Biblical record denotes the breaking up of subterranean water. It would be a given assumption that extensive volcanic activity would have ensued globally,

Why would such an assumption be a given?

There are fountains of the deep that are still operational today.

There are thousands of fresh water springs all over the world on dry land and in the oceans.

So why couldn't the fountains flo such an amount of fresh water to flood the Earth?

Couldn't it do that over a 150 day period of time?

I just don't see the catastrophic events you and YEC's propose.

God Bless,

{Content hidden. Buzsaw and Minnemooseus only Great Debate. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2011 6:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3584
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 68 of 84 (640702)
11-11-2011 10:46 PM


That nail thing etc.
Buzsaw, in message 59, writes:

Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.

This upheaval from the flood would be the Genesis explanation for the major tectonic plate upheaval and movement, raising the mountains and deepening the oceans. The effect of the flood would not been limited to sediments.

Short version of the Buzsaw evolution of the Earth story:

“The flood tore down the Earth’s mountains and deposited the resulting sediments as the so called “geologic column”. This “column” includes most to all of what is filed under “Cambrian” and stratagraphically up. Miles and miles of “geologic column”, the sedimentary rocks showing the evidence of all kinds of different sedimentation processes. Then new mountains were uplifted and carved into their present form, as the flood waters receded to an unknown location.”

Buz, that’s shoving a lot of process into one year. That’s nonsense.

Moving on…

Buzsaw, in message 60, writes:

The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.

So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?

Your wall is a terrible analogy to geologic strata.

The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.

Assuming that the new wall, was built without mortar, as was the old one, of the same assorted materials, analogous to the fossil strata, would the new wall date any newer than the old wall/strata?

Yes, by your definition it would be a new wall.

Moving on…

Buzsaw, in message 61, writes:

In Message 2 of the Peanut Gallery, Boof said:

I’m not debating Peanut Gallery content.

Moving on…

Buzsaw, in message 62, writes:

My wall is over a century old but not over 150 years. Let's suppose the workmen who built the wall dropped a nail in it at the time it was built. Modern radiometry would date the nail the same age as the wall layer which it was deposited in. No?

Prediction: Like the nail deposited in my century old wall constructed of aged rock, a fossil deposited 4300 years ago in flood sediment, radiometrically dating millions of years old, would date the same as the significantly older rock making up the sediment in which the fossil was deposited.

You don’t radiometrically date fossils, at least not directly.

Fossils are dated by the rocks. In some cases, it was discovered that a certain fossil was only found in rocks of certain particular age. That fossil was found to be a characteristic of rocks of that particular age. Therefore, whenever you found that fossil in a rock off otherwise unknown age, you would know the age of the rock as being the same age as the fossil. NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC.

Now let’s say your nail has some characteristic that would pin down its time of manufacture. That nail was at some later time deposited as part of the wall – It functionally was another fragment in the wall, just like the rocks of the wall. All that tells you is that the wall construction was no older that the nails manufacture date. Dropping a 1000 year old nail into the mortar of a new wall does not create evidence that the wall is 1000 years old.

Now if you’re going to have a real nail/fossil analogy, you need to have the nail being manufactured (“growing”) in the place it was found, at the time the wall was being constructed. IF (and that’s a big if) such were the case, then finding a 1000 year old nail in the wall would be evidence that the wall was 1000 years old.

Moving on…

Buzsaw, in message 63, writes:

The PG problem is growing.

Well, then quit reading the Peanut Gallery.

Moving on, I encounter one of my own messages! Did I just do the above for nothing? Well, I’m not deleting it.

Moving on…

Buzsaw, in message 65, writes:

But you need to respond to my wall/nail = rock strata/fossil analogy. This falsifies the scientific methodology of radiometric fossil dating.

Relief – That’s why I did the above.

As the younger nail deposited in the wall would radiometrically date the age of the rock deposited in the young wall, so would the young Noaic flood deposited fossil radiometrically date the age of the old rock particles of which the flood deposited strata consisted.

This, at best, makes marginal sense, but I’ll take a stab at it.

Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks because they were living there at the time the sediment was being deposited. Certainly, it’s conceivable that an old fossil could be eroded out of older rock and deposited in younger rock, but there probably would be evidence that such had happened. And there is much evidence that such is usually not the case. Besides, isn’t eroding out an old fossil out of an old rock evidence of that life being older that the Buzsaw model of “young life”?

The wall analogy is to show that objects deposited in strata may not date the same as the rock forming the strata.

I know that my position has always been that the age of the sediment fragments is going to be older than the age of the sedimentation (there are exceptions to this rule, but you haven’t come up with one of them). The age of sedimentation is the time of sedimentation, not the age of the sediment fragments.

After much study, it was determined that not only was that true, certain fossils were characteristic of rocks of certain ages. Thus it came to be that the fossils can be used to date the rocks.

The creationist response to that is that slower moving animals would tend to be in the lower strata and so on until the birds and fast moving creatures able to escape to higher ground would have survived the longest, leaving relatively few fossils in the highest strata of the geologic column. This is more indicative to a catastrophic flood than a relatively uniform planet history.

Nonesense. There’s abundant evidence that the fossil remains is where it is because that is where the creature was living.

I’ve said enough for now. And I’m not going to (much) debate your responses to Peanut Gallery content.

And your arguments fail to distinguish you from being essentially a standard YEC.

Moose

Of historical note;

This should be my message 2968, on the 10th anniversary of my joining evcforum.net


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 11-16-2011 9:15 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2011 4:11 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 84 (641144)
11-16-2011 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Minnemooseus
11-11-2011 10:46 PM


Re: Origin Of High Mountains
Moose writes:

Buzsaw, in message 59, writes:

Offhand, you might also want to explain the methodology of piling up all that unconsolidated sediment into mountains. Mud doesn't stack very well.

This upheaval from the flood would be the Genesis explanation for the major tectonic plate upheaval and movement, raising the mountains and deepening the oceans. The effect of the flood would not been limited to sediments.

Short version of the Buzsaw evolution of the Earth story:

“The flood tore down the Earth’s mountains and deposited the resulting sediments as the so called “geologic column”. This “column” includes most to all of what is filed under “Cambrian” and stratigraphically up. Miles and miles of “geologic column”, the sedimentary rocks showing the evidence of all kinds of different sedimentation processes. Then new mountains were uplifted and carved into their present form, as the flood waters receded to an unknown location.”

Buz, that’s shoving a lot of process into one year. That’s nonsense.

It's nonsense because it's what you say I said. It's what my statements implied. If you copy what I said, it makes sense.

The pre-flood mountains were relatively small. The pre-flood oceans were relatively smaller and shallow. The pre-flood earth crust was relatively smooth, the thinner crusts being in the ocean regions and the thicker crusts being under the relatively low mountains.

Much of the pre-flood water was in the atmospheric vapor canopy and in subterranean bodies of water. When whatever triggered the flood happened the vapor canopy condensed and rained upon the earth. The amount of water that emerged upon the surface of the earth sank the thin ocean crusts and (abe:
tectonically raising up the mountains,) to greater heights as per Psalms 104.

Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted in context


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-11-2011 10:46 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 84 (641469)
11-19-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Minnemooseus
11-11-2011 10:46 PM


Re: That nail thing etc.
Moose writes:

Moving on

The only sensible way to date the walls construction would be to determine when the wall was built.

Which goes back to my question. Note carefully, my question; Applying the radiometric dating methodology,

Moose writes:

Buzsaw writes:

So the wall, being analogous to the strata in which the fossil exists, what determines the date of the wall/strata?

Your wall is a terrible analogy to geologic strata.

How so is it a terrible analogy? Because it debunks modern dating methodology? Methinks so.

Moose writes:

The age of the wall material is irrelevant. If one was to tear down a 500 year old brick wall and use the materials to build a new wall, the wall construction would be dated as being new, not 500 years old.

Buzsaw writes:

Assuming that the new wall, was built without mortar, as was the old one, of the same assorted materials, analogous to the fossil strata, would the new wall date any newer than the old wall/strata?

Yes, by your definition it would be a new wall.

Yes, of course; we know it's a new wall, just like we creationists know the fossils are relatively new fossils deposited by the flood.

Your problem applies to both. Your dating methodology dates both, the wall and the fossils as old because the sediment making up the sedimentary rocks are being dated as old rocks just like the rocks in the wall are old rocks and do not necessarily determine the date the wall was constructed.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add the word, "determine


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-11-2011 10:46 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2011 5:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 84 (641833)
11-22-2011 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
11-19-2011 4:11 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery Out To Lunch, Or Stifled?
Moose and I bide our time, but I see the Peanut Gallery has descended deep into Topic page three.

Usually one or more of the folks participating in the Peanut Gallery have something to air about my points. Silence sometimes indicates inability to refute but not always. Perhaps everybody is busy with other matters, holiday travel and all.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2011 4:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 6:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13374
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 72 of 84 (641836)
11-22-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
11-22-2011 5:52 PM


Content moved to Peanut Gallery
Posted by mistake. Please delete. Content copied to Peanut Gallery

Edited by PaulK, : Wrong thread

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2011 5:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 84 (642352)
11-27-2011 11:17 PM


In Message 71 I said,

quote:
Yes, of course; we know it's a new wall, just like we creationists know the fossils are relatively new fossils deposited by the flood.

Your problem applies to both. Your dating methodology dates both, the wall and the fossils as old because the sediment making up the sedimentary rocks are being dated as old rocks just like the rocks in the wall are old rocks and do not necessarily determine the date the wall was constructed.


To elaborate, I have alluded in one of my messages about evolution problems of circularly dating fossils by strata and vise versa so as to avoid problems with each.

Dating igneous strata so as to date fossils in sedimentary strata might be an example of this. Whether igneous strata was deposited early or lately, nevertheless the material is old/early.

How do instruments distinguish age of material from age deposited. Put another way, doesn't the age of the fossil in the sedimentary strata play a role in dating the time the igneous was deposited, being the instrument would be unable, in itself, to date the old material making up the igneous strata deposited?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 84 (642386)
11-28-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Conventional Science Mindset
Evolutionists, in their futile attempt to rebuff the creationist argument that they practice circular methodology, unceasingly apply one flawed method to support the other flawed method.

We see phrases like, you've been told, and you need to understand the science of our direct dating methodology.

Firstly, they've also been told. Their mindset prevents them from listening. They disregard the creationist argument, unable to falsify them.

Secondly, their direct dating methodology directly dates the materials making up igneous rock which are, indeed, old, being unable in itself of determining when the strata was deposited, just as their direct dating methodology, in itself would fail to properly date when my basement wall was laid.

Thirdly, their science, as learned in school and applied on the field, will never consider any other option in their methodology and practice.

Thus, logic, reason and realistic, here and now, life observation go begging as they blindly travel the dark, mysterious, jungle junk science trail of disorder naturally progresses into order, i.e. the ToE.

Edited by Buzsaw, : replace word for clarity


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 84 (653819)
02-24-2012 3:14 PM


Bumping For Moose
Hi Moose. Bumping this lager up so as to address something else. If you have any topic you want to debate, have at it. Otherwise I would like to delve more into the canopy hypothesis or perhaps this biopoesis thingy or whatever. I'm not into having Trixie pass on my stuff to that thread, though she was very gracious for doing it for me. If Admin wants to honor the consensus of the members in that thread and open it to me. Fine. Otherwise there's plenty else to do, like debating you etc.

It's nice to have you participating as another one of us without all of the time directing entails.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Noted in color


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017