Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Implied Pre-Genesis Ice Age & It's Interesting Implications
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 65 (192384)
03-18-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
03-18-2005 8:18 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
What should one expect from a professed Christian who, so far has denied all but two supernatural events of the Bible, i.e. the miracle birth of Jesus and his resurrection?
Can you try to deal with the post and stop silly attacks on the poster.
More of your meanspirited insolence, Jar. Too bad I need to do my own moderating here in town.
Yet another attack on the poster instead of the post.
Buz writes:
jar writes:
We KNOW that for the first Billion Years or so that the earth was here it was a molten wasteland with NO water to freeze even if it was in the dark.
Your evidence?
The temperature of the earth during the collation phase was far too high for water to exist in any form. In fact, where the water came from is still one of the most debated subjects in science.
From what I've read of this, secularist scientists believe both earth and sun are around 4.5 billion years old.
Around. A key word. During the period of planet construction, the sun definitely existed. Its mass is one of the things that determined that planets even formed. No sun, no planets. There are planets, therefore there was a sun there first.
Buz writes:
jar writes:
And we know that the concept of Day and Night could not exist until the earth was formed and both rotating and revolving around the sun.
And your evidence that God couldn't produce the light is what?
Day and night do not depend on light, but rather a body that revolves and rotates so that one side faces the light while the other side faces away. For there to be day and night there had to be a point source light, AND the earth needed to be rotating so that it was partially lighted and partially dark.
Or are you now reducing GOD even further to being just a point of light, yet another limitation. LOL

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 8:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 10:47 PM jar has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 65 (192390)
03-18-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
03-18-2005 8:53 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
Please read carefully before posting. I'm going to say it for the last time. It was ice until heat and light was applied, and that ,imo, is implicated in verse two by the Holy Spirit.
except that there is no "holy spirit" in genesis. nor is there in any book before matthew.
word in genesis is not exactly spirit. it's WIND. yahweh's other name, elohym, which is the plural of elowah, which is a formalized version of of el (as in el shaddai). el, in ugartic mythology is the WIND god. it is not suprising to see him associated with wind at all.
wind - breath - life. that's the theme in genesis 2, btw. these are all related terms. but spirit is a modern christian rendering.
1. Likely a warm ocean would not freeze over night any more than it should with the sun.
2. The temperature would be regulated by God.
except that this deep is NOT god's creation. it was just always there.
3. I have no idea if the ancient Hebrews even cared. The writers, according to scripture were directed by God what to include and what to exclude in the text.
prove it.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-18-2005 10:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 65 (192392)
03-18-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
03-18-2005 8:58 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
How so?
i've shown that water is used to describe liquids, and ice to describe solids, and the text uses water.
i've shown that such a body is indeed water later in the text.
i've described the context of water as an element of emptiness and chaos, from which order is created, and the role of the serpents in genesis 1.
i've shown that the darkness was in fact, like the text says, only nighttime. and the light is only day, and that these things are textually unrelated to the sun.
that means that the water of genesis 1:2 has to be liquid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 8:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 65 (192393)
03-18-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
03-18-2005 9:33 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
The temperature of the earth during the collation phase was far too high for water to exist in any form. In fact, where the water came from is still one of the most debated subjects in science.
At least the Bible has an answer to that problem and it has it existing at the time God began his work on it, first by applying light and heat, light implicating heat.
Around. A key word.
Oh, so you've moved from "long before" to "around." Ok, at least your correcting yourself.
During the period of planet construction, the sun definitely existed. Its mass is one of the things that determined that planets even formed. No sun, no planets. There are planets, therefore there was a sun there first.
1. That is, assuming there was no God to do things differently, as the Bible clearly states.
2. Omnipotent God is able to creat things like animals, Adam, and the sun relatively suddenly with appearance of age.
And we know that the concept of Day and Night could not exist until the earth was formed and both rotating and revolving around the sun.
.......Factoring out God, of course, which you can't do with my hypothesis. The topic is about my hypothesis, not yours.
Day and night do not depend on light, but rather a body that revolves and rotates so that one side faces the light while the other side faces away. For there to be day and night there had to be a point source light, AND the earth needed to be rotating so that it was partially lighted and partially dark.
The HS is multipresent, and not necessarily omnipresent, imo. He produce day and night in any way he chooses. God is omnipotent.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 03-18-2005 9:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-18-2005 11:04 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2005 11:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 65 (192398)
03-18-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
03-18-2005 10:47 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
The topic is about my hypothesis, not yours.
Exactly.
The topic is about your hypothesis.
Your hypothesis is nonsense, depends on a GOD that is a liar and cheat; LOKI, not the Christian GOD.
As a Christian it is my duty to expose such heretical, perhaps even blasphemous, ideas. It's EVERY Christians duty to expose piss-poor theology.
At least the Bible has an answer to that problem and it has it existing at the time God began his work on it, first by applying light and heat, light implicating heat.
Too bad it's not supported by ANY of the evidence.
1. That is, assuming there was no God to do things differently, as the Bible clearly states.
Nope, GOD may well have been there. But not a GOD that is a liar and cheat.
Oh, so you've moved from "long before" to "around." Ok, at least your correcting yourself.
No correction. The sun had to be there before ANY planets could form. If the Bible says that the earth was formed first, it is wrong.
2. Omnipotent God is able to creat things like animals, Adam, and the sun relatively suddenly with appearance of age.
Sure, but only if the GOD is LOKI. LOL
The HS is multipresent, and not necessarily omnipresent, imo. He produce day and night in any way he chooses. God is omnipotent.
So you do believe that GOD is LOKI.
Glad we got that settled.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 10:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2005 11:09 PM jar has not replied
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2005 6:33 PM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 65 (192400)
03-18-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
03-18-2005 10:47 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
At least the Bible has an answer to that problem and it has it existing at the time God began his work on it, first by applying light and heat, light implicating heat.
where are you reading heat? and the light you're reading is DAYTIME.
look, light and ice! how can that be!
1. That is, assuming there was no God to do things differently, as the Bible clearly states.
yes, i'm sure god was reading genesis when he decided to create the world.
2. Omnipotent God is able to creat things like animals, Adam, and the sun relatively suddenly with appearance of age.
what a tricky god! why would he mislead us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 10:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2005 6:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 65 (192402)
03-18-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
03-18-2005 11:04 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
As a Christian it is my duty to expose such heretical, perhaps even blasphemous, ideas. It's EVERY Christians duty to expose piss-poor theology.
agreed.
Too bad it's not supported by ANY of the evidence.
not even textual. it doesn't even agree with what the bible SAYS. you can't be a fundamental literalist, insisting the events of genesis 1 are actually true in every respect if you utterly ignore what the bible actually says.
Nope, GOD may well have been there. But not a GOD that is a liar and cheat.
what's wrong with god being a liar and a cheat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-18-2005 11:04 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 65 (192440)
03-19-2005 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
03-18-2005 8:40 PM


Since I was not arguing that "water" could not be used to refer to ice that is not an important point - if it was I would have investigated his claims.
The significance of Scott's disagreement with you is that it undermines your claim that you are dealing with the implications of the text. If it were a clear implication he should agree with you.
And believe me I'm not ignoring the fact that the text leaves out a lot of details - sicne it's a major point in MY argument. Where the text is silent there are any number of possible things that it DOES NOT mention. There is no reason to favour your imaginings over anyone elses - let alone claim that they are implications of the Biblical text. So where you say that you can't "help" me you are really admitting that your imaginings are NOT implications of the Bible.
I must also add that there is no problem with my imagination. Indeed the problem seems to be with youirs since you seem unable to imagine a state between a molten hot Earth and one with the right temperature for large bodies of liquid water.
Moreover I cannot reread your reasons for insisting that the days before the 4th day were longer because you have none. If you did you would not keep on repeating the same point after I had shown it to be irrelevant.
Finally let me point out that your last paragraph yet again implies a special status for your imaginings. I do not need to show that the text contradicts your ideas - only that it does not imply them. And pointing out that the text is equally consistent with a quite different scenario is one way of doing so.
Please get it through your brain "Buzsaw made it up" is NOT the same as "it is implied by the Bible"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 03-18-2005 8:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 54 of 65 (192490)
03-19-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
03-16-2005 11:35 PM


the length of the creative days
Dear Buzsaw;
Instead of arguing with you on this or that point that I disagree with you on in your last post, I though I would post on a point that I see some have been attacking you on, and I think you could be clearer on too, the length of the creative days.
On the length of the creative days.
The morning and evenings are beginning and endings, like the sun rising or setting on an empire or an age. The Genesis creation account is a simplified poetic story told to man in a earlier age. The fact that each creative day is described as having a morning and an evening does not in itself require that they be literal days. Remember many things in the Bible are told in signs that have larger meanings like the parables Jesus told. Sometimes you have think a bit to discover the answer, this is part of how things in the Bible were hidden by God. On the length of the creative days, each one had a morning and an evening, all but the seventh day. Each of the earlier days we are told ended, but not the seventh, the Bible indicates that it is still on going. At Genesis 2:3 the seventh day starts and is on going, being referred to in Hebrew chapter 4 as still going on. In fact the seventh day is believed to last at least until the end of Christ millennium reign, which would give it a minimum length of over 7,000 years. This is the reason some use the figure of 7,000 years for the length of each creative day, but that is based on two assumptions, first that all the creative days were the same length, second that the seventh day ends at the end of the millennium. Because I can not verify ether of these assumptions, I accept the possibility that the creative days may have covered much longer periods of time. If we look to the physical evidence, we find that it overwhelmingly points towards very long periods of time. I am distrustful of scientific dogmatic statements, so I did some checking on some things that are hard to mess up. One of those things is Dendrochronology, tree ring dating, which extends back over 10,000 years into the past. The thing to remember is that that is a unbroken record made up of a continuos line of over lapping trees, it doesn't include 'floating chronology' of fossil trees from earlier times that are not part of the continuos record. The fact that fossil tree rings do not match the pattern seen in the continuos record, shows that these trees record patches of earlier time. For example trees from the Jurassic reveal that there was time enough for great forests to grow, so the time of the dinosaurs was real, it was not some brief period before the flood. The same is true of other periods, fossil trees and plants are found showing the passage of time.
A Second line of evidence I looked at was the pattern seen in fossil distribution around the world and the connection with rates of continental drift. What I found was that the patterns matched the movements of the continents, thus it was possible to use the rates of possible movement to estimate how long ago the animals had lived. Using the highest rates of movement seen today and even allowing for faster movement in the past, it is very apparent great lengths of time were involved in the creation of life on earth. While I am still doubtful about the accuracy of the timing of these pass events, it is apparent that they occurred and that they occurred very long ago.
You may also want to consider that a literal 24 creative day would only work for the one narrow area of the globe that would happened to be in the right place for the dawn, all the other areas would be out of position anyway. The sun can only shine on one side of the earth at a time, thus when God said let there be light, half the surface of the earth will not see it until later. Then when evening comes, and the one area that was in the right position to see the dawn, sees the sun set, an other part of the surface is just seeing the sun rise and the day is already ending. If you travel around the world you cross the international dateline at which you pass from one day of the week into another. Since the earth is a globe, such a arbitrary line is unavoidable, and since the earth was round at creation too, there would of had to been one then too. So you have the situation that if the creative days were literal days of 24 hours each and followed local time, there would have been a place on the earth were you would have a line that you could set across which would have one day on one side and a different day on the other. The only way of avoiding this situation is to start and end each day earth wide at the same time regardless of local time. Which would mean that the morning and evening of each day is merely the beginning and ending respectively of each day. So when you look at it in detail, there is no way the morning and evening of each creative day could have been literal without raising illogical conundrums.
Most important of all is clear scriptural evidence that the creative days are long periods of time rather than literal 24 hour long days. In the Bible, the term 'day' is used to refer to a period of time, it can refer to a literal day or it can refer to a much longer period of time or age. (Isaiah 13:9) "Look! The day of Jehovah itself is coming," (Jeremiah 11:4) "I commanded YOUR forefathers in the day of my bringing them out of the land of Egypt," (Ezekiel 21:29) "the wicked men whose day has come" (Exodus 10:6) "your fathers' fathers have not seen it from the day of their existing" (1 Samuel 7:2) "And it came about that from the day of the Ark's dwelling in Kiriath-jearim the days kept multiplying, so that they amounted to twenty years," (Psalm 110:3) "Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force." (2 Corinthians 6:2) "For he says: "In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you." Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation." In each of these examples, the term day is used to refer to a time period much longer than 24 hours. But are the creative days literal or are they too references to longer time periods? An answer is found at (Genesis 2:4) "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." here the six creative days and the untold time before the first day, are referred to as one day, which only makes sense if in referring to creation, long periods of time are referred to in the Genesis accounts of creation. Then one day, or long period of time, could equal six 'days' or periods of time, but there is no way one literal day can be equal in length to six literal days, so the only way this makes sense is if the Genesis creative days are of long unspecified lengths. The creative days are event related stages of time in the creation of life on our planet. The biblical term day is sometimes an open ended time period, to determine the length of each creative day, we would need to date when the events that happened on each day, occurred. The evidence found implies that the creative days were of varying lengths, with some being possibly billons of years long. If you consider that fact that life was progressively created over the length of these long periods of time, any perceived conflict with the fossil record disappears.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2005 11:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2005 7:20 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 03-19-2005 9:13 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 65 (192579)
03-19-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
03-18-2005 11:04 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
Shrugs. Now, Jar, you can go ahead and say something -- anything, regardless of substance, as per above, so as to get the last word in.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-18-2005 11:04 PM jar has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 65 (192583)
03-19-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
03-18-2005 11:06 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
look, light and ice! how can that be!
......and lo, some melted ice........heat.
what a tricky god! why would he mislead us?
He created mankind (like you and me) with enough intelligence so as to supposedly understand that when something is suddenly created intact, it's created with the appearance with age. With that in mind, what happened to you and Jar, in your obvious inability to comprehend this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2005 11:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 03-19-2005 8:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 65 (192587)
03-19-2005 6:47 PM


I was hoping we could get some more creationists in here to address this hypothethis, being that this poses problems for some of their views.
Any thoughts, Phatboy or others?
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-19-2005 06:48 PM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 03-19-2005 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 65 (192596)
03-19-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by wmscott
03-19-2005 12:36 PM


Re: the length of the creative days
The morning and evenings are beginning and endings, like the sun rising or setting on an empire or an age.
I believe there's a different word for age than for day.
The Genesis creation account is a simplified poetic story told to man in a earlier age. The fact that each creative day is described as having a morning and an evening does not in itself require that they be literal days.
If you want to be that liberal in interpretation, that's our option. I tend to apply a more conservative interpretation, leaving the word "day" intact, but applying textual implications to the length of the day. Remember that the Sabbath Day was the 7th, a literal day, for which the ancient Hebrews as well as some of us today still honor with a 24 hour rest.
Remember many things in the Bible are told in signs that have larger meanings like the parables Jesus told. Sometimes you have think a bit to discover the answer, this is part of how things in the Bible were hidden by God.
Yes, and when parables were intended, they were usually so designated. Too much human tampering via thought can distort the message so as to arrive at a false conclusion. Thus the emergence of so much false doctrines which caused so much ignorance and deception as so warned throughout the scriptures. The original fall of man in the garden came about by Satan's liberal interpretation of God's warnings.
On the length of the creative days, each one had a morning and an evening, all but the seventh day. Each of the earlier days we are told ended, but not the seventh, the Bible indicates that it is still on going. At Genesis 2:3 the seventh day starts and is on going, being referred to in Hebrew chapter 4 as still going on.
Off topic, but the Hebrews account is an analogy of the the literal Genesis day, imo.
As for the tree rings, the pre-flood climate may have something to do with that if there were a terrarium atmosphere over the earth.
A Second line of evidence I looked at was the pattern seen in fossil distribution around the world and the connection with rates of continental drift. What I found was that the patterns matched the movements of the continents, thus it was possible to use the rates of possible movement to estimate how long ago the animals had lived. Using the highest rates of movement seen today and even allowing for faster movement in the past, it is very apparent great lengths of time were involved in the creation of life on earth. While I am still doubtful about the accuracy of the timing of these pass events, it is apparent that they occurred and that they occurred very long ago.
You may also want to consider that a literal 24 creative day would only work for the one narrow area of the globe that would happened to be in the right place for the dawn, all the other areas would be out of position anyway. The sun can only shine on one side of the earth at a time, thus when God said let there be light, half the surface of the earth will not see it until later. Then when evening comes, and the one area that was in the right position to see the dawn, sees the sun set, an other part of the surface is just seeing the sun rise and the day is already ending. If you travel around the world you cross the international dateline at which you pass from one day of the week into another. Since the earth is a globe, such a arbitrary line is unavoidable, and since the earth was round at creation too, there would of had to been one then too. So you have the situation that if the creative days were literal days of 24 hours each and followed local time, there would have been a place on the earth were you would have a line that you could set across which would have one day on one side and a different day on the other. The only way of avoiding this situation is to start and end each day earth wide at the same time regardless of local time. Which would mean that the morning and evening of each day is merely the beginning and ending respectively of each day. So when you look at it in detail, there is no way the morning and evening of each creative day could have been literal without raising illogical conundrums.
The unknowns, of course in all this are many, as a sunless lighted and heated earth, the HS not being required to be consistently positioned and otherwise regulated with restrictions a sun would have. As stated, it is this variation in conditions which my hypothesis includes so as to produce the desired conditions God wanted for preparing the earth for life.
As for your other stuff on the length of days, the word is often used in reference to a period of time in history, but context so implies. To debate this at length would be to go off topic.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2005 12:36 PM wmscott has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 65 (192617)
03-19-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
03-19-2005 6:42 PM


Re: 1: In the beginning God created: Genesis 1
......and lo, some melted ice........heat.
sigh. alright, here's a better example.
find me the liquid water here. because if you can, i'm sure nasa will want to know about it. mars gets only marginally less light than earth, but doesn't seem to have heat or liquid water. why is that?
He created mankind (like you and me) with enough intelligence so as to supposedly understand that when something is suddenly created intact, it's created with the appearance with age. With that in mind, what happened to you and Jar, in your obvious inability to comprehend this?
yes, and i'm sure gainesboro painted "blue boy" to LOOK like he'd painted out the dog when xrayed, but there never really was a dog in the painting.
basically, you're saying that god is trying to trick us. that he's dishonest in his work. he pulled an all nighter, and tried to make it look he'd been doing the research for years. now, it's fine if that's what you're saying. i'm ok with god being dishonest, and a liar and a cheat. but i don't suspect that you're ok with that.
god also gave us common sense. what happened to yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2005 6:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 65 (192618)
03-19-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
03-19-2005 6:47 PM


I was hoping we could get some more creationists in here to address this hypothethis, being that this poses problems for some of their views.
i believe god is responsible for creation. that makes me a creationist. i suspect wmscott is too. suck it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2005 6:47 PM Buzsaw 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