Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 3 of 15 (415942)
08-13-2007 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-26-2007 8:46 AM


Back at it
I'm finally done with most of the "ton of home improvement projects" that I told you about earlier, so I hope I can get here more often.
quote:
Your "rebuttals" are just off the cuff remarks. In contrast mine are substantiated by facts, hence the difference in lengths.
This is a science thread, and that means substantiating your argument. Off the cuff comments don't cut it.
Fact: Tree ring dating CAN be flawed because of false rings possibly going unnoticed. Don't try to tell me that tree ring dating and how it is used and the interpretations and counts are all absolutely perfect. Who invented tree ring dating?- man. Is man perfect?- no. What conclusion can we derive?- anything that man does CAN be flawed, including tree ring dating, esp. when there is the possibility of multiple rings in a season which can throw off the date. Period. What more do we need to debate here? Either you agree that man and his ways can be flawed, or we need to start debating the nature of man...
(And just in case you're thinking that I should go first, I will: Man can be flawed, all humans can be flawed, I am a human. BUT God is not flawed, God is perfect, and HE knows everything. God inspired the writing of the BIBLE, Genesis is a Book in the Bible, Genesis says there was a Flood. I'll trust God's inspiration on this one, and believe that God knows better than us. God was there when it happened, we weren't. So if God inspired Moses(most likely) to write in Genesis that there was a literal Flood, we have reason to trust this account better than any other method of humans who never witnessed it. So if tree ring dating claims there was no Flood, I have very good reason to frown upon it, because it goes against what the Perfect One inspired Moses to write.)
quote:
And you are completely ignoring the point that all the false rings were easily identified as such, therefor the dendrochronology can be corrected for them. It doesn't matter what shinola spin you put on kinds or whatnot: false rings do not invalidate the chronologies. The fact that Don Batten identified every one validates the process.
I am not ignoring the point, I am just trying to say that JUST BECAUSE FALSE RINGS -CAN- BE IDENTIFIED, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ALWAYS WILL BE. If identifying false rings would not be in the best interest of the one (or many) who are counting, then what GUARANTEES that they would spend extra time and effort to identify all of them???
In your quote here you make it sound simpler than it is. You said they were "easily identified", question, did you ask Don Batten how easy or not easy it was for him to identify them? Perhaps he had to put it more effort and time to find them, but had the motivation to do it because he knew that God's Word is the Truth, and anything that goes against the Truth is false. And you used the words, "every one", question, how can we be certain that those were all of them? If tree rings are very close together and require magnification to count them, how can one be certain he hasn't missed one or more? Answer- again this is relying on the fallible man and his ways, we cannot be absolutely certain.
quote:
You also ignore the fact that he is telling you falsehoods: that makes what he says unreliable. That you put trust in someone who has been demonstrated to be unreliable just show your gullibility and your carelessness. I've told you before that you rely too much on creatortionista sites that are out to fool the gullible. The more you rely on people like Don Batten without validating the information in the real world the more gullible that makes you.
You have not yet demonstrated that he is telling us a falsehood. We are not yet finished debating. I still do not see it as a falsehood, the guy found a handful of false rings and said it could make the age younger, so we can't really completely rely on tree ring dating.
quote:
Yes, I included enough to show that Don Batten misleads, misrepresents the truth and presents falsehoods. Why then should anyone interested in the truth read anything more from him? Falsehoods are falsehoods, and unreliable means that you can not trust what he says. You claim to be interested in the truth, yet here you are making excuses for someone who has hid the truth in favor of falsehoods. This is how you have come to perpetuate falsehoods on your own site: you are careless with the truth.
Why? Because you would of had the answer to your questions, what you did is sort the information and only give us that which would benefit you- not that which would give an answer to your own questions, so you demonstrated the fallability of man.
quote:
This is known as an ad hominum argument and it is a logical fallacy. It alsoe does not deal with the evidence. We have yet to come to the dendrochronology based on Bristlecone Pines, but the age of the oldest tree has nothing to do with the validity of the chronology because it is built up from overlapping trees. Try to deal with the evidence. This is just another baseless off the cuff comment that shows denial of evidence rather than an effort to confront the reality of the facts.
No, this is a very important point. It demonstrates the fallability of man and questions how reliable fallible humans can be. I AM dealing with the evidence, the "evidence" relies on fallible man's counting of tiny rings, and this point questions the validity of saying this method is perfect when it relies on fallible man who is influenced by many factors. Let me repeat- THE "EVIDENCE" IS IN THE COUNTING, AND WHO DOES THE COUNTING? - FALLIBLE MAN! This is my whole point, to say that this method can be flawed because it is performed by fallible humans.
quote:
This is known as an ad hoc argument -- like I said above, your "rebuttals" are just off the cuff remarks. In this case fantasy. First you need to provide evidence that there was a global flood, then you need to provide evidence for when it occurred, THEN you could talk about some possible different environment effects.
I've been trying to do this but it keeps getting ignored. How many times have I repeated the upright petrified trees and whales in the strata?? This is evidence for the Flood, and it should not be ignored.
What does the time that it happened have to do with the possible environmental factors? I believe that for this particular point, evidence that it occurred is enough to discuss the environmental changes. But if you really want, here is a link to a site that shows the Biblical evidence of when the Flood occurred: Timeline for the Flood | Answers in Genesis
quote:
What you think is irrelevant. You need to deal with the evidence and not create off the cuff comments to hide your denial. The problem is that the chronology is based on a continuous record of living trees overlapping in time. It is based on many trees from several different sites and multiple samples from trees to rule out errors. At no time is this record interrupted by any such flood. Lets look at what the full chronology reveals:
Again, as I read the article I found that there is room for fallacy. The article said that the 9,000 year old tree was dated going from one tree to another comparing sections of the rings. It said that they had to be EXACTLY duplicate parts to establish a connection. This begs the question- who is determining whether or not the sections are EXACT duplicates?- man, and is man fallible?- yes.
Also, why only sections of the tree? Are these sections just taken randomly and their pair is searched for? Or does there have to be a certain pattern, such as, if tree A seems older than tree B, then the first part of tree B should match the last part of tree A, not just any part taken from the tree.
quote:
Note three things: the tree rings contain climate data, the chronology is not based on one sample but many overlapping and duplicate (from the same tree) samples, and there are other samples that have not been counted yet or that have a break in the climate data that means they are "floating" in the chronology somewhere beyond the end of the continuous record. Adding up all the time recorded by these tree rings would give us a minimum age of the earth for all those years to have passed that generated the rings. We'll be minimalist here and say:
Notice three important thing about the whole method- FALLIBLE humans do the counting, FALLIBLE humans establish the "connections", FALLIBLE humans determine whether or not two samples contain parts that are "identical" and use that to try to connect the trees together and give an age of 9,000.
-That the tree rings contain climate data- GREAT! But if fallible man is doing the counting, we cannot establish with certainty the dates of the trees.
-That there can be taken overlapping samples from the same tree- GREAT! But that can only make the samples on a single tree have a little more credibility that there wasn't error in the process of removing the core, but who does the counting and who establishes the "links"?- FALLIBLE MAN.
-That there is more data waiting for us to discover- GREAT! But that doesn't really help right now, does it?
Thus that minimum age of 8,000 is still not guaranteed.
quote:
As noted previously this dendrochronology has been corrected for false rings (false older age) and missing rings (false younger age) based on cross referencing samples from two closely related species from several different locations. This is more than just a couple of trees, it is a forest.
Sounds like a couple of trees to me. Pick and choose a tree here, a tree there, and wow!- a "correlation".
quote:
That is what we are doing, except that in the process I also show your off the cuff comments to be groundless and based on wishful thinking rather than fact and logic. Thus we don't need to return to them.
Deal with reality: face the facts. There is a lot more coming.
Well, we may as well stick to this one point this whole summer, because I'm not letting up...

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 8:46 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2007 1:56 PM Someone who cares has replied

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 5 of 15 (417254)
08-20-2007 1:06 AM


Change of plans
quote:
I'm finally done with most of the "ton of home improvement projects" that I told you about earlier, so I hope I can get here more often.
On second thought, I may not be able to get here more often... About a day after I wrote this message, I was asked to help out one of my relatives about 4 days a week at his job site till mid-September, so I will be busy...again. Sorry.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2007 7:01 AM Someone who cares has not replied

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 7 of 15 (418405)
08-27-2007 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
08-13-2007 1:56 PM


Re: Back at it
Well, today's one of those few days that I don't have to work, and I'm fired up on debating, so here goes:
quote:
If you feel the need to come back to anything later we can do that.
Yes, the upright trees and whales in the strata which prove the flood.
quote:
Nobody said tree ring dating was infallible
Thank you. For a moment it seemed that this was just what you were implying. Now if it can be fallible, that means that the dates can be misleading too, right?
quote:
Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation.
Yes, and did you compare the red and black lines in the graph on slide 17? That did not look like a good match to me, especially near the middle where one line is low and the other high... If this is how near the results are from the observed and the constructed chronologies, I have reason to doubt the validity of tree ring dating.
quote:
You can't distinguish the extra rings but you can distinguish exactly 5 extra rings in one sample. Riiiiight. Face it -- he is not telling you the truth one way or the other. Notice he also does not say how often the false rings occur (1% of the time?) nor provide any data to back up his assertions or to allow others to review those results. What is he hiding? The truth?
He didn't say it is not possible, he said it is OFTEN INDISTINGUISHABLE, ie- HARD.
He doesn't say how often false rings occur, but when I looked at your slide show, it seemed that false rings were quite a problem because it kept on saying that something has to be done to make up for the false rings. Probably 1/3 of your slides said something about this, so I figured the experts know that it is quite a problem indeed.
Data? The data is his observation. What more do you need? Pictures?
How do you know no one else can review those results? Have you asked?
quote:
What guarantees that they spend the time and effort to do a complete job from start to finish is the scientific review process.
The "scientists" may review the method used and say they can trust the person's results, but do they go back to that same sample and recount themselves? I think not.
quote:
It is hilarious that - without having any evidence for it - you imply a massive on-going world-wide conspiracy (" would not be in the best interest of the one") on the part of scientists to provide false information when you absolve Dr Batten of this in spite of actually having evidence of his falsehoods.
Evidence? The evidence for evolution is lacking! Without evidence, how else are evolutionists to brainwash all the little children in school?- lies, misrepresentations, cover-ups, partial information, etc.- sounds like a conspiracy to me...
We have no evidence of his "falsehoods". Did he count up 5 false rings? Yes. What "falsehood" is there? If there is such a thing as false rings in trees, and any honest chronologist would admit to this, then that is all we need to verify that it is possible that someone found 5 in one tree. And if these false rings can make a tree appear older than it is, this is reason to believe that this piece of "evidence" is not suitable to use for your old age correlations. THE METHOD IS NOT TOTALLY RELIABLE!
quote:
let's move on to the next bunch of evidence and add it to the mix:
What mix? Your bowl is empty!
quote:
My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.
Did you even look at your own slideshow? Slide 3 says "The father of dendrochronology is widely acknowledged to be A.E. Douglass, who came to Arizona at the turn of the 20th century as an astronomer interested in sunspots and climate." Hmmm....
quote:
missing rings are rare in such species as oak and elm. In fact
Ahhh... But what about FALSE RINGS? ...silence?...
quote:
Oaks affected by cockchafer have been identified and discarded from the chronology.
See how sensitive tree rings dating can be to such a thing as a beetle? What if there are OTHER, not yet identified, causes of error?
quote:
Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.
Ahh... Shall we return to the same article I quoted earlier for more information about the fallacies of tree ring dating in general? (If you want, we can skip the false rings part since this has been discussed previously)
"Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes)." Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis
I'm sure that we can extend this statement to other tree species because the Biblical 'kind' after which organisms reproduce is MUCH broader than 'species'. So the tree chronologies could all show older results, EVEN WITH YOUR MATCHING RING PATTERNS between chronologies, because until the ice age(s) passed by, more rings would be produced ALL AROUND than what is actually observed now and what is used to date them. Then with this information, you can easily see how it would be nearly impossible to find which rings happened during the ice age(s) because this would be a GLOBAL EVENT, affecting ALL THE CHRONOLOGIES! Thus any tree ring chronology could have these extra rings, and the chronologists would be unaware of this, so they would not be able to account for this.
"Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ”dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ”clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ”carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4). The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ”incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ”age’). So the carbon ”date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2" Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis
Now here I learned something new, about the C-14 method used to place the old wood in a rough timeline, and then matches in pattern are sought after, and that CLOSER MATCHES IN PATTERN MAY BE REJECTED BASED ON THE C-14 DATE IN FAVOR OF LESS PRECISE MATCHES THAT FIT THE DATE! Here, if C-14 is involved in this method, we would have to turn the debate around to the validity of C-14, and C-14 is not a valid method!
Plus that note that two trees growing next to each other would not have the SAME EXACT PATTERN!
Also, that the pattern similarities ARE NOT A RARE THING! I could easily see how this is, seeing as how all that we see are the ring thicknesses, thier colors, scars and scratches, and maybe a few other observations, but on the whole- THEY ARE NOT THAT UNIQUE! Anyone can see how this would pose a problem to the whole method in general, if matches are not that difficult to make! I would imagine the evolutionists picking out the oldest matches that they can to form their chronologies, and thus they get the "old" date which is actually supposed to be MUCH YOUNGER!
quote:
This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
Based on the above observations, we can see that this date could be MUCH younger and this would not pose a threat to the Flood.
But I wanted to make note of one thing, it is possible that some trees, those that didn't get buried in the Flood, would float around until the Flood waters went down, and then they would reroot in the still soft sediments, and keep on growing, so it is possible that not all trees died during the flood!
quote:
Feel free to stay in denial of the evidence at any time you wish, just remember that what you are dealing with is delusion not faith:
I am not denying the evidence, I am pointing out the flaws in the method, and these flaws are worth recognizing for they can knock down the age greatly.
I'll tell you what the delusion is, delusion is waking up in the morning, looking at yourself in the mirror, seeing how symmetrical your face is and the rest of your body, and saying that a random chance process could do that!
quote:
But I'll also leave you this quote from "Creation Research" (another creatortionista outfit like AiG):
The only reason they probably said this was because they didn't know the MANY FLAWS in tree ring dating and the like, so they went on compliance.
Edited by Someone who cares, : No reason given.
Edited by Someone who cares, : Db code
Edited by Someone who cares, : No reason given.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2007 1:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2007 2:56 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2007 1:10 PM Someone who cares has replied

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 10 of 15 (473106)
06-27-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
09-02-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Moving on to the next batch of data - adding another correlation
Hey, long time no see...unfortunately we may return to this condition again.
I am currently working on a bigger, improved, more technical essay (or book, if you consider size), which requires a lot of research, digging through dozens of scientific journals, and sifting through many books. I have some 90 pages in Word (font 16, not 12) of my notes from one little notebook, and I have 2.8 notebooks still waiting for me to type up their notes. Then I will probably spend all of next year ordering books through interlibrary loans, so that I can dig up as many of the original quotes as I can. Then I will have to put it all in an essay/book format with comments and remarks, get a better web host (probably pay 4 it) and most likely design my own website with Dreamweaver or something, and then I'll post the link everywhere. (Yes, it will be FREE, I believe information like this should be easily accessible to the public, even though the size will be like that of a book)
I will have to work all summer long if I want to get somewhere with this essay/book, so I will probably not be able to attend these forums this summer. And as I mentioned, I'll spend all of the next school year gathering original quotes from many books, so my project will most likely only be ready next summer/fall. But this essay/book will be nothing like the previous one. I'm putting in a lot more research into it, and getting some fabulous quotes, and all in all, this one will be THE BIG ONE.
You can be preparing for this essay/book by attempting to debunk some sources like:
*Bergman, J. and Howe, G. (1990) "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional. Kansas City, MO. Creation Research Society Books.
*Ape-Men- Fact or Fallacy? Malcolm Bowden. Sovereign Publications; 2Rev Ed edition (October 1981)
*The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe, 1999, Institute for Creation Research (Caution! Extremely technical, just get the quotes that stand out)
*In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center For Scientific Creation. Special Edition. 1996. Walter T. Brown, Jr. (A MUST! ESP. 1ST HALF)
*Homology, An Unsolved Problem. Sir Gavin de Beer. Oxford University Press, 1971 (Short, sweet, and simple (approx. 12 pages))
You can probably order most or all of these books through interlibrary loans (don't expect to find them in a secular University library). And if you can tackle the 100 or so points in the 1st half of Walt Brown's book, you will be ready to tackle a lot of my essay.
Enjoy. Sorry I can't be here this summer, but next summer/fall you guys will be in for a treat!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2007 1:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2008 8:41 PM Someone who cares has replied

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 12 of 15 (473465)
06-29-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
06-27-2008 8:41 PM


Re: Moving on to the next batch of data - adding another correlation
"And this will still be here when you do get around (if you ever get around) to answering the issues."
My essay will have a section on radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology, so hopefully I could answer many questions with one essay, instead of repeating myself to everyone I meet.
"And if you still harbor the same mistaken concepts it will be wasted time. You need to start with the truth."
Do not judge before you have seen the work. It will be much more thoroughly researched than the first one. But many of the lines of evidence will remain the same, because they have stood the test of time, ie.: ape-men falsehoods; geologic reinterpretations of fossils; vestigial organs actually being quite useful; homology reinterpreted; young Earth evidence from the stars, comets, Earth, plechroic haloes, ocean sediments, etc.; critical examination of the most popular 'mechanisms' of evolution and their incapability to produce macroevolutionary changes; radiometric dating assumptions and how they are not necessarily valid in realtion to a Flood; other dating methods and their assumptions, such as varve dating, dendrochronology, etc.; the speed of light and how it may actually have been decreasing, which would have a significant effect on radiometric dating and being able to see stars 'billions of light years away'(see Barry Setterfield's work- The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe); and the list goes on and on...
"Why should I repeat work that has already been done?"
Do you have a reference in mind? Has someone taken Walt Brown's work and attempted to debunk it point by point?
"What do you do, S1WC, when one of your sources contradicts another?
You don't test for truth (and we've already established that you are not really interested in truth), so how do you decide?"
I must give you a fair warning, the many of the complete sources and opinions of the authors may be in support of the opposite position from what I am proposing, but they DO make excellent points and studies and observations which CAN be reinterpreted for other theories, such as the Creationist/Diluviologist position.
As for the whole 'truth' thing, we will await my essay and take a look at some of the blunt rejections of evolutionists to take evidence at face value and how they master some delightfully imaginitive theories, but nonetheless avoid direct interpretations for which model would BEST be supported by the evidence (the Green River controversy is a vivid example).
"You mean you are actually going to deal with the evidence that shows several of your basic assertions to be falsehoods?"
I will deal with many 'assumed' contradictions to my assertions.
"they are talking about you after all:"
They are talking about my first work which I completed in about 4 months. They are NOT talking about my upcoming work, which is going to take 3 years. I am doing much of the original research this time around, real library journal-digging work, and so I will definitely improve in this aspect. And I also plan to improve by presenting a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, and I will attempt to make it more visually appealing and easier to navigate, since it will be huge.
But for this, I must avoid finding myself on these forums, and get to the heavy-duty work. After I complete it, I will be more than grateful for you guys to examine it for 'errors' and I will be open for revisions if I am convinced beyond doubt, but to do that, I really suggest you pick up Walt Brown's book and start reading, because if you don't do it now, you'll have to do it later anyway to attempt to critique my work properly. If it's taking me 3 years to do the research for this work, it will take you just as long to go through it and provide proper treatments of the subjects, not just Talk Origins copy/paste things. But it's up to you, if you don't want to take on it, I will find someone else, no stress. We should wait till I finish to figure out who will attempt to tackle it.
Peace. I don't expect to be around here much longer, but you'll know where I am- at the University library, behind my computer typing, or behind my desk reading other books and journals. See ya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2008 8:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2008 10:00 PM Someone who cares has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024