Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 3:02 PM
24 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, edge, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,644 Year: 6,681/19,786 Month: 1,222/1,581 Week: 44/393 Day: 27/17 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 121 of 377 (529964)
10-11-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Calypsis4
10-11-2009 8:33 AM


Calypsis's Funniest Mistake Yet? You Decide
You mean there's a fold in the Alps?

Damn, this will destroy geology. Or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Calypsis4, posted 10-11-2009 8:33 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2009 10:58 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 241 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 122 of 377 (529965)
10-11-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2009 10:25 AM


Re: Calypsis's Funniest Mistake Yet? You Decide
I don't wish to be a killjoy, Dr. Adequete, but I would remind you of message 112 from our dear moderators.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Made link message specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 10:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 1:27 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 123 of 377 (529981)
10-11-2009 1:27 PM


Moderator Comment
Hi all!

I posted to this thread as Percy before noticing that Adminnemooseus had requested summaries. I wasn't expecting this at around only 120 posts, and especially with Calypsis4 it does seem to take some time to engage him in discussion of the evidence he presents, so I posted a note to Adminnemooseus over at the admin forum.

But I haven't heard back yet, so until I do I think normal discussion in this thread should resume.

Edited by Admin, : Change author.


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 124 of 377 (529982)
10-11-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Jack
10-11-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Calypsis's Funniest Mistake Yet? You Decide
I don't wish to be a killjoy, Dr. Adequete, but I would remind you of message 112 from our dear moderators.

Ah yes. Well in that case I would remind our dear moderators of message 112 from our dear moderators.

I see that I have actually done a summation, as requested. But the thread has not been closed, and whatsisname is using this as an opportunity to post random errors about geology on this thread.

In which case I might as well post answers.

---

ETA: I started writing this before Percy posted his post above. Apparently I could have saved my breath.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Made links message specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2009 10:58 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 125 of 377 (529983)
10-11-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2009 10:20 AM


Woodmorappe
I nearly busted a gut when I read this in the Woodmorappe article:

I warn these newcomers that, based on his prior behavior, Glenn R. Morton is likely to: 1) Present a false argument, 2) Raise irrelevant points, present another false argument, or otherwise try to confuse the issue when confronted with its falsity, 3) Perhaps lie low for awhile, and then, sooner or later, 4) Repeat his original false argument, most likely to a new audience.

I don't even know where to start. "Holy projection, Batman!" is the first to come to mind, second is this reminds me of someone, I cannot quite think of who......


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(4)
Message 126 of 377 (529986)
10-11-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Calypsis4
10-11-2009 8:33 AM


Re: Summation
So they found the 'geologic column' in North Dakota? Are you sure? And it supposedly exists in 31 other places in the world?

Do you think people would lie about it?

Despite what you might believe, dispelling creationist mumbo jumbo is not what most geologists do in their day-to-day jobs.

What about the hundreds of thousands of other locations in the world?

The geologic column is not complete in the sense that every single second of every day over the last 4.6 billion years of earth's history is recorded in the rocks. That is impossible. A complete geologic column is one that records depositional events (i.e., the stratigraphic record) during each of the known geologic time divisions; and this is why sedimentary rocks comprise the bulk of the geologic column. These divisions in time were constructed from the rock record itself by piecing rocks from various locations together, based primarily upon fossil evidence, but backed up and confirmed by absolute dating methods.

The key word is "depositional." Some places in the world are at this moment in time experiencing depositional processes, which means sediment is building up by way of a variety of processes. Among these are flood plains, ocean basins (e.g., limestone, shale, siliceous ooze), continental basins (e.g., the Great Basin is a good example), and the like. Simultaneously, in order for there to be material which can be deposited, it must first be weathered, eroded, and transported to these depositional areas. The best place for this to happen is the highlands, in other words, hills and mountain ranges.

For these highlands, this means that material is being removed. Material that had previously been deposited there, either by other sedimentary/depositional processes, igneous intrusion, plus others, is slowly removed. This material being removed also represents other, older time periods. Should this removal of material of a particular highlands continue until the highlands is effectively removed down to the level of the surrounding lowlands, it could essentially become a depositional setting. Should this happen and new material be deposited upon this eroded surface, the gap between the older eroded surface and the new material represents an unconformity.

Depending on how much time is represented by the eroded rocks, we could essentially lose millions or billions of years of rock record. In other words, we are losing examples of those time periods from the local geologic column. Depending on the lateral extent of this unconformity surface, this loss may not be so localized, but extend across entire continents. There are various ways in which the rock/time record is lost to us forever, and that is why having a complete record of the geologic time scale is so rare.

And what about the many locations in the world where part of it is completely upside down?

When the rocks are buried deep in the subsurface and subjected to great pressures and elevated temperatures, the rocks do no behave in a brittle manner. They fold in a ductile manner because rocks are in fact composed primarily of ductile minerals, which when exposed to stress, strain, heat, and pressure, they slowly bend. A flat expanse of layered rock can bend back onto itself under the right conditions. This is when you get reversed stratigraphy. These sorts of processes are common during mountain-building events and when buried deep in the subsurface.

If you are interested in learning more about folding, there are plenty of texbooks around to help you out.

Good grief, you are so shallow in your thinking and gullible its pitiful. You would have done well to stay out of this for good.

Beware of the delusions of arrogance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Calypsis4, posted 10-11-2009 8:33 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 5:23 PM roxrkool has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18413
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 127 of 377 (529987)
10-11-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Calypsis4
10-11-2009 8:33 AM


Re: Summation
Hi Calypsis4,

The geologic layers in the Alps are complex. As has already been mentioned, there are areas of folding where the layers are actually inverted, i.e., upside down. There is no doubt of this because of the numerous places where erosion has revealed the entire fold in stark relief, including the fold itself.

But I think what you show in your diagram is the result of a different process, one of faults followed by uplift and then horizontal slippage. This means that while the layers are all right-side up, ordered old layers lie atop ordered younger layers. Here's your diagram again:

This happened when the African continent pushed up against the European continent. The pressure caused the layers to fault vertically. The layers on the African side of the fault slipped upward along the fault line, and once high enough were pushed horizontally along top of the layers on the other side of the fault.

But I'm not sure that there's anything as dramatic as what is shown in your diagram. Where in the Alps is this geological sequence of layers supposed to have occurred?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Calypsis4, posted 10-11-2009 8:33 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 128 of 377 (530004)
10-11-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Peg
10-10-2009 2:39 AM


Re: Bonebed
Hi Peg. Since we're carrying on with this thread after all...

quote:
the Menoceras remained at the water hole where they died of malnutrition, and scavengers devoured their bodies.

Peg writes:

that would be a great explaination if it werent for the fact that animals dont hang around when the food is gone.

they move onto other areas to find food.

And where do they go? In a drought they go to find water. They go to a water hole. If that turns out to be dry, there is only so long that an animal (especially a comparatively large mammal such as menoceras) can keep on looking. Eventually there comes a point where they simply lie down and die. It is extremely common to find dead animals near water holes.

What I find stunning is that you reject a perfectly rational explanation, based upon the work of actual professionals, in favour of the silly flood myth. The mind boggles.

What is your explanation for the homogeneity of the bone beds? Exactly why would a worldwide flood create discrete beds predominantly containing the same fossil? These fossils were found in a valley. Any flood of that magnitude would have mixed up the various bone beds, creating a much more mixed deposit, much further away.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Peg, posted 10-10-2009 2:39 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 10-12-2009 2:18 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 129 of 377 (530043)
10-12-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Calypsis4
10-11-2009 8:33 AM


Re: Summation
By the way, O brilliant one:

Archetypically, you resort to sarcasm. Did you not read the origin of my screenname? You were provided the link! Yet you persist in speaking from abject ignorance!

Read it this time. Here again is the link, this time to the specific page -- http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&t=9873&mpp=15&p=7 -- it's Message #93.

'Calypsis' is indeed based on the Greek word 'Kalupto'. Its reference is to that which is hidden, but only to those that are lost; I Corinthians 4:3. It has nothing to do with anything I am attempting hide from the members of this forum. You were wrong about this one to.

Oh, it's not so much what you would be attempting to hide from us, but rather what you persist in hiding from yourself. Like, the truth. But that is how creationists must act, since they are taught that if the world really is as it is, then there is no God. And since the world really is as it is, creationists must then deceive themselves into believing that it is not. Which is why you feel you must do everything you can to avoid and to wish away the evidence. And, I believe, it is why creationists hate nothing more than for someone to want to actually discuss their claims with them -- immensely more so if that someone also wants to include examination of the evidence. Apparently, the creationist fears examining his own claims too closely, lest he discover for himself how false and even ridiculous they are. Your opponents are so used to examining their own claims and thinking them through and looking for errors that need correcting, that it is very foreign for us to realize how loath creationists are to do the same with their own claims.

You should have stayed out of it.

I would prefer to, though for far different reasons that you think. I've been dealing with creationists for 26 years -- after having started studying it 3 years prior -- , trying to discuss their claims with them. An endeavor made most disagreeable by persistent creationist tactics and strategies of making assertions without any evidence or with distorted or fabricated evidence, refusal to provide evidence or references to their "evidence", refusal to clarify any of their claims, refusal to discuss any of it. And their willingness to any kind of offensive conduct in their attempts to avoid and discourage discussion of their claims.

So far, Calypsis, you appear to be the archetypical creationist. So perfectly archetypical that if an "evolutionist" were to create a sham creationist persona to go out and thoroughly discredit creationism (ignoring the moment that creationism is self-discrediting) and Christianity, he would have created you.

So, the reason why I would not want to join in, is because I'm no longer masochistic enough. It's useless trying to reason with a creationist or to try to discuss anything with him. At best, we can show the lurkers that the creationist's claims are crap and why they're crap. But to the creationist, the evidence and the actual science and truth are just pearls cast before swine.

So they found the 'geologic column' in North Dakota? Are you sure? And it supposedly exists in 31 other places in the world?

You did read that article, didn't you? Duh! What was I thinking? of course you didn't read it! You're the archetypical creationist! The moment you catch a whiff of actual evidence you go the other way! Here's that link again, for the sake of the others reading this, at least, since you'll only run away from it yet again: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

First Morton starts out by stating that he will use a creationist definition of the geological column (by Morris and Parker), making sure to point out that it's not the definition that a geologist would use (but then what else is new?). The creationist requirement was that all twelve major systems had be be present. Further definition is provided by none other than Woodmorappe (link provided on Morton's page):

quote:
Creationists do not say that every single day’s deposits must be preserved! The fact is that Morris and Parker are not talking about a little of the daily sediment being missing. If we read the Morris and Parker quote again, we can see that the 100- or 200-mile column is not the presumed product of daily sedimentation. Rather, the 100- to 200-mile column represents the sum of the thickest sections from the field of each of the ten Phanerozoic systems and/or their major components.

So missing sections of a system is not a problem; it's just that all major systems need to be present. OBTW, notice that Morris and Parker talk about twelve major systems while your "expert" Woodmorappe talks about only 10. Gee, why can't those creationists get their stories straight?

Morton states:

quote:
Today, Woodmorappe claims that the real issue with regard to the geologic column is the small percentage of the maximum sedimentation that exists. If Woodmorappe really felt that the existence of the 10 periods was of no importance, if Woodmorappe really thought that the small percentage of the 200 miles was the real issue, why did he spend his entire 1981 article talking about where the 10 periods existed? One would think he would spend the most time on the most important issue. He spent the most space discussing the 10 periods and I can't find a single paragraph on what he now says is important. Woodmorappe's entire article belies his current claim.

So if you're trying to claim that all those 10 periods don't actualy exist anywhere on earth, then Woodmorappe directly contradicts you. So on one hand you praise Woodmorappe as some kind of idol and on the other you denounce him as some kind of an idiot. How shallow and gullible you truly are (ie, please stop projecting your own shortcomings on others).

What about the hundreds of thousands of other locations in the world? And what about the many locations in the world where part of it is completely upside down?
{followed at the end of the page by yet another rabbit-trailing photograph, this one of the Alps}

First, you need to learn some geology. And for each supposed "anomaly", you need to research what geologists have to say about it. Do not rely solely on creationist sources as you have been doing, because they are guaranteed to lie about those formation.

Second, what's the source of that photo? Where's the link? Or reference? Why didn't you provide it?

You have berated members of this forum for "unprofessional conduct", yet here you yourself persist in engaging in outrageously unprofessional conduct despite repeated protests raised by both members and by moderators. One of the most fundamental requirements of such discussions as we are trying to engage in (and that you are trying to sabotage) is scholarship. And one of the most basic tenents of scholarship is to provide references.

You demand professional conduct of others and yet you abjectly refuse to engage in the most basic professional conduct yourself? There's a word for that: hypocrisy. Do you have any idea what Jesus thought of hypocrites? According to the Gospels, there wasn't much else he hated more than he hated hypocrites.

You want to see professional conduct? Well then you'd better start displaying some professional conduct yourself, mister! Start by providing references to the sources of what you post here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Calypsis4, posted 10-11-2009 8:33 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3452
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 130 of 377 (530048)
10-12-2009 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 10:08 PM


Re: Polystrate Trees
I've always had problems with the polystrate fossil claims. Severe problems that I have never been able to resolve.

The problem is that creationists just never ever give any usable sources for their claims! They'll give one for the photo from National Geographic (indeed! Even Caplysis very uncharacteristically tells us that that photo is from National Geographic!), but not for anything else. Where are the articles by geologists about those sites? There was a 19th century book with polystrate illustrations, but that's all we ever hear. Give us some sources, already!

Now, many years ago on CompuServe (were you ever there, Calypsis?), one creationist did quote from Steve Austin's ICR monograph, Catastrophes in Earth History, and told me that Austin quoted F. M. Broadhurst's article, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine faunas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures (American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869, 1964) which showed trees and their root systems extending through coal seams. In reality, when I actually read Broadhurst's article, none of those trees extended through any coal seams, nor did any of their root systems extend into the coal seams.

But even more telling was what that article said about rates of depositation. While Steve Austin was being paid by the ICR to get a post-graduate degree in geology (so that they could finally claim to have a degreed geologist on staff) he would write creationist articles for them using a pseudonym, "Stuart Nevins". As Stuart Nevins, he wrote an article in which he claimed that geologists believed that strata formed at a completely gradual and constant rate, even though even undergraduate geology students know full well that that is a complete and utter lie -- and Austin was writing that while he was a graduate student. He had to know better and yet he still repeated that lie!

Well, had Austin actually read that article (I learned to not make such an assumption about creationists with the ICR's NASA document moon-dust debacle), he would have learned what he should have learned years ago in his undergraduate classes: geologists can distinguish between layers formed by rapid depositation and layers formed by slow depositation. It's described in Broadhurst's article. Those "polystrate" tree stumps were buried in layers formed by rapid depositation.

Creationists: if you want to make a polystrate claim, then provide proper references!

Are trees supposed to be the only ones? No whales standing on their tail (or head) through multiple layers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 10:08 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2009 2:12 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 5:06 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 131 of 377 (530051)
10-12-2009 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by dwise1
10-12-2009 1:39 AM


Re: Polystrate Trees
Well you're clearly in denial. How can you look at something like this ...

... and deny that this cottonwood tree must have been buried by a magical impossible flood that killed everyone?

I guess you're one of those atheists who thinks that it was buried by real processes which actually happen. Heck, I bet you think that you're still alive right now. But we know that the only way this tree could have been buried is by a magical act of global genocide.

(Photograph from Earth Science World Image Bank.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2009 1:39 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 132 of 377 (530052)
10-12-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Granny Magda
10-11-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Bonebed
Granny Magna writes:

And where do they go? In a drought they go to find water. They go to a water hole. If that turns out to be dry, there is only so long that an animal (especially a comparatively large mammal such as menoceras) can keep on looking. Eventually there comes a point where they simply lie down and die.

but you said that when the food ran out they stayed there and died of starvation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2009 5:55 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2009 2:38 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Granny Magda, posted 10-12-2009 2:43 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Izanagi, posted 10-12-2009 4:03 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 133 of 377 (530055)
10-12-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peg
10-12-2009 2:18 AM


Re: Bonebed
but you said that when the food ran out they stayed there and died of starvation.

I am at a loss to know why that sentence began with the word "but".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 10-12-2009 2:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 134 of 377 (530056)
10-12-2009 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peg
10-12-2009 2:18 AM


Re: Bonebed
Peg,

but you said that when the food ran out they stayed there and died of starvation.

That's not what I said myself, that's what it said in the section I quoted from the Agate Spring website.

Whether water or food, the same logic applies. There was a multi-year drought. The only vegetation and the only water would have been at water holes or dwindling river beds. The rhino's would have stuck to the only source of nutrition available. Those that didn't make the cut died, in large numbers. Later, when the waters returned, their bones were washed along the rehydrated courses of ephemeral streams until they gathered in oxbows and were fossilised together.

What about this strikes you as unbelievable?

Why is this less believable than a magic flood?

How exactly is a worldwide flood of the ferocity of the Bible's supposed to deposit one species of extinct rhino in one quarry and another at a separate quarry?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 10-12-2009 2:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 135 of 377 (530062)
10-12-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peg
10-12-2009 2:18 AM


Re: Bonebed
but you said that when the food ran out they stayed there and died of starvation.

Peg, when a drought occurs, any vegetation in an area can most likely be found near sources of water. Herbivores, naturally, will head towards those sources in order to feed on the vegetation that remains there. Carnivores will head to those sources in order to feed on the herbivores that have gathered to feed on the vegetation that remains there.

There's nothing magical. It's simple survival. Animals gather at watering because that's where the last remaining food in an area will be.

But there are more reasons than that. When food runs out and an animal slowly starves, the animal will move less and less in order to conserve strength. Also an animal is unlikely to move away from a source of water simply because water is more necessary to life than food is. A human can survive, on average, several weeks without food, but only 3-5 days without water.

What this means is that you are very likely to find various groups of dead animals clustered around watering holes. The herbivores went to the watering hole because that's where the last likely source of vegetation would be, and once the vegetation was gone, stayed near the watering hole because they could survive longer staying near the watering hole and drinking water than trying to go out to find food somewhere far away from the watering hole. Carnivores would also be found near watering holes because they follow the herbivores. Carnivores would also be the last to die as their sources of food would last a bit longer.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.


It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 10-12-2009 2:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019