|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not possible. In other words you have a closed mind. You are unwilling to even consider the validity of 10,000 years of age marked by tree rings in two differrent species on opposite sides of the earth, it's too dangerous to your worldview, one best described as fantasy. When confronted with the reality you claim
Not possible. You raised the issue, but when confronted with the evidence and asked to deal with it you say
Not possible. When faced with evidence that counters your pet fantasy you run from it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : toyp we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your continued characterization that my position as fantasy, and that I lose, or am running from the evidence is not even close to being true. There is one simple way to disabuse me of this impression: deal with the issue. Do you agree or not that tree rings count actual annual layers of years that are the result of the earth's orbit around the sun -- that the tree rings correlate with the annual orbits? (note: we don't need an exact correlation to calibrate the tree ring chronology -- it can be valid for 10,000 years +/- 5% say -- if that makes you more comfortable, after all good calibration identifies and quantifies sources of error eh?) If not, why and by what evidence -- support your position. If you agree we'll move on to the next issue. Stop shuckin and jivin and deal with the issue. Demonstrate that my impression is wrong. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 32 Tranquility Base asserts
I mentioned the varves or micro-layers of Mt St Helens to demonstrate that they can form rapidly. I can't help but notice that you failed to attempt to discuss the tree ring information, ... ... or the in fact annual varve layers of Lake Suigetsu (which are formed by an entirely different process than the micro-layers of Mt St Helen), ... ... prefering to restate your straw man position that is unrelated to actual dating methods actually used by actual scientists. From this I assume that this is the best information you have, and it is insufficient to disprove the ages measured by these systems:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)quote:And that is just for starters. THIS is the thread to discuss this issue -- if you care to back up your assertions. I also notice that YOU asked if there was a dendrochronology thread, and that until you address them here you are avoiding addressing the issue YOU raised. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In replying to Message 1, my post, Message 12, quoted material that also addressed misuse of radiocarbon dating to date diamonds:
quote:It would appear that your source is ignoring evidence that contradicts his precepts. That is not science, it is delusion. Confidence replied with Message 39:
They are thus not aware of the many potential sources of trace amounts of radiocarbon in the blanks and how a detector can register the presence of a few mass 14 events that are not radiocarbon. quote: And my response was Message 47:
I looked over the article, but could find absolutely no reference to the methodology used or the criteria applied to eliminate contamination. The closest I could find was:
quote: And in under "references and notes":
quote: This last statement is false, on two levels. First, the amount of 14C in a specimen does not depend on the method of measurement -- it is there or it isn't. Second, radioactive decay does not eliminate ALL radioactive elements by decay, no matter what the half life is there is always the possibility of some remaining in a sample. It is more likely that such small levels will be detected with more advanced and sensitive instruments. This of course is one of the sources of the background radiation levels that they say they have eliminated in the first statement. Of course dismissing the evidence of contamination and background as being "completely unhelpful in explaining its source" does not mean that this has been SHOWN to be the case, they are just denying the evidence that contradicts their position. The kicker is when they state "as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown" ... and don't give a single reference. Not one. Could it be that they are making a bare unsupported assertion while using KNOWN cases of contamination to INTENTIONALLY provide false samples?
quote: This too is a false statement: 14C dating is only good for samples less than 50,000 years. Anything older than that is misuse of the dating method -- and likely intentionally by Baumgardner et al -- because (could it be?) that is where background levels and contamination are KNOWN to make the results unreliable. "reference 3" is Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model available in PDF atError | The Institute for Creation Research quote: And "fossilized organic material" is by definition contaminated:
quote: But there is one more issue to deal with in this "paper" ...
quote: The issue of contamination is not just biological contamination - that is a straw man fallacy. Contamination can also come from non-organic sources, and it can also be radioactive. The easiest way to contaminate samples for 14C testing is to subject them to radiation that reconverts 14N to 14C and thus results in false elevated levels of 14C for detection. Curiously the false young dates for ancient coals and oil is directly related to radioactive contamination and not related to geological age of the sample -- thus indicating a high correlation with radioactive contamination. Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote: Unless of course you WANT false results ... then you go LOOKING for radioactive contamination of fossils. This demonstrates that the opening statement on radiocarbon dating in the "RATE" article is and outright falsehood:
quote: Not just because of the errors listed previously but because the sources they are intentionally using for samples are those specifically listed that are known to be contaminated by radioactivity from other sources. Curiously the issue of 14C dating has nothing to do with starlight and fantasy models of a universe and it's effect on explaining the astronomical age of the universe and the earth. What it does show is that Humphreys ... and Baumgardner and others ... are not interested in eliminating sources of errors to develop scientific conclusions, but in actually using known sources of errors to create false impressions for gullible people. Meanwhile the evidence of annual layers still shows the world is older than any YEC model I know of.
Message 40 Many claims that Humphrey is not a real scientist are not founded on good arguments. quote: What part about the argument from authority being a logical fallacy DO you understand? A blind man shooting at a target will occasionally hit a bull's eye but that does not make him a marksman. The claims that Humphrey's work is not valid science is based on evaluation of that work by scientists that show where, how and why it is wrong. Those are the GOOD arguments. and btw, some of the best writers of Science Fiction are scientists. Where I noted that I could not find any information on how they had eliminated background radiation and contamination levels, just the assertion that they had done so. Confidence responded with Message 51:
It is true that they do not give to many clues on where and how they got those results. I will continue looking for now, your references are helpful though. My latest response, Message 52, is to direct this discussion to this thread:
Reply should be on Thread Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III As that thread deals specifically with age dating methods, and discusses Radiocarbon as it corroborates other systems. Of particular note is that the effect of climate on carbon 14 dating is also matched by the effect of climate on the annual layer systems, and that any criticism of carbon dating needs to address how this correlation occurs. Thus I have transfered the arguments to this post for continued discussions. It should be noted that the constraints on radiocarbon dating include
There are known sources of non-atmospheric carbon - marine organisms that use or reuse old carbon (shellfish, consumers of shellfish, etc), called the "resevoir effect" - and there are known sources of radioactivity contaminated oils and coals and the like. Thus it is easy for an unscrupulous sample collector to achieve false results by intentionally collecting bad samples, and at least ONE indicator that someone is intentionally misusing the dating method is if they cite dates beyond the capability of the method. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for the reply, Confidence.
As you will already have noted there is a substantial need to not just critique 14C dating, but why all the various dating methods correlate so well. We can come back to this issue later, but first let me say that these involve several different annual layer systems, several radioactive systems and one astronomical system that all give data consistent with the rest of the data -- in spite of being three entirely different mathematical trends (linear, radioactive decay and planetary rotational decay) and that the annual layer systems also capture climate information that is also consistent between them. This gives a very high degree of reliability to the ages measured by these systems, ages much in excess of 6,000 years by any count.
So when Creationists find c-14, the first thing evolutionist do is ridicule them for trying carbon dating on something they think is so old. That they have such a high degree of reliability on the age of these things goes far further than just thinking up how old things are, it is a well measured and deliberated, discussed and dissected age that we are talking about. And where the reliablity is low, due to any number of factors, scientists are happy to note "age - indeterminate" and say "we don't know" rather than post some arbitrary date.
So, is this contamination?
quote: Can you absolutely guarantee that there has been absolutely no contamination by current modern air-born 14C in any of those samples? Can you absolutely guarantee that there was no contact with other contaminated material? Or is it reasonable to say that below a certain level we just cannot guarantee that a sample won't show some contamination from being handled, and say below this level we cannot measure with any accuracy? The fact that this limit -- 45,000 to 50,000 years -- is STILL far older than any YEC scenario should mean that this is not what the real problem is for YEC's creatortionistas (those who intentionally distort the truth). When done with proper scientific controls the ages measured by 14C are sufficiently consistent from the present through to 50,000 years ago to render critiques like the ones by the 'RATE' group to be insignificant. If they vary wildly after that, it still does not invalidate ages up to 50,000 years ago, does it? Age is also usually measured by at least two different methods, to ensure contamination is not involved or some other anomaly (like the resevoir problems), and both ages are usually reported for comparisons. When you get two consistent ages you have reliable data, and when you get two inconsistent ages you have unreliable data. The 'RATE' group looks for unreliable data to evaluate: that is not honest science. All they prove is that they have found a specific set of unreliable data, but that does nothing to invalidate those cases where the data IS reliable. One thing the 'RATE' group has NOT been able to do is collect samples that date anomolously by two different methods to the same anomolous young or old age: when they can do that - have a two to one advantage - then and only then will their claim of eliminating contamination and background radiation have some relevance.
So, is this contamination?
quote: I still only see denial of contamination and background radiation and not evidence to the contrary. As noted by Percy in Message 53 and Coragyps in Message 54 there is ample sources for radioactive contamination in diamonds, both from 13C being converted to 14C by neutron accumulation or by 14N being reconverted to 14C in a manner similar to how it is converted in the atmosphere. As noted in previous discussions regarding coal and 14C, there is also a high degree of correlation of anomalous high 14C content with radioactivity and none with age once past 50,000 years. BUT: the end argument is that age measured out to 50,000 years by 14C is an accurate and dependable method when done correctly and with the proper sample controls and with the constraints on 14C noted (and quoted by you). This age alone is enough to refute a YEC model of the earth: falsifying it at 51,000 years does you no good. If you don't believe me then start at the beginning of this thread, Message 1, and walk through the tree rings and the climate information, through Lake Suigetsu and into the 14C correlations, and then ask again. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Carbon 13 makes up 1.1% of carbon on Earth, And something like one in a trillion atmospheric carbon atoms are carbon-14, so the beginning amount of 14C in any organism is very very small, much less than 13C and much much less than 12C. And after 57,300 years (10 half-lives) it is reduced by decay to (1/2)^10 = 0.001 or 0.1% of that original amount. When do you reach the point where +/- one atom makes a big difference in the measured age eh? And how easy is it for one nitrogen atom or one 13C atom being converted to 14C to make a big difference in the measured age when you get to that point? Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hello again, whatever.
contamination cannot trump correlations because it cannot explain the correlations -- why they exist instead of random numbers. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I agree in advance that the colloids clays formed by humics acids likely would slow (plugged)slowing the C14 and other gases migration upwards, causing values of the correlations to be inflated downward proportionally with non-random numbers. This has been refuted before Charley, Bret, Craig, johnfolton, tim, tom, The Golfer, ... whatever (did you get a medal for the most user names yet?). You still need to deal with the clay layers being annual layers that give the same ages as the biological samples: thus positing contamination of one does not refute the result of the other and the correlation between them - what it shows is that contamination is NOT an issue. The data from the lake also correlates with other data for age and climate, both in the tree rings and in the ice layers. How can it do that with contamination in one system being the answer? How can they all be wrong in exactly the same way, time and amount? Maybe it's time you looked further than Lake Suigetsu, seeing as you seem to have a hang-up here. Look at the layers from the ice cores - north, south and inbetween. Start with the low latitude ice cores are from the Peruvian altiplano, a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Rising over it is the Quelccaya ice cap with a summit elevation of 5670 m and a maximum summit thickness of 164 m. Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) This is a slide showing the marked bands on the ice in South America, alternating dust layers with ice layers:Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) From the slide description:
quote: Quotes from later slides:
quote: These cores don't extend to the time of the tree ring data, but they correlate with the climates in those rings, specifically with "the little ice age," and they also correlate with the climates in the other two ice core data fields. The next ice core is from the Dunde Ice cap in tibetPaleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) quote: And matching up to the dates for Lake Suigetsu ... and the climate pattern. They correlate age with climate, with ice, with clay & diatoms and leaves .... Then go on to the two big core data sets:
They also correlate with the climate for Lake Suigetsu to match the ages due to annual layers there and the 14C data. Then they go on to much greater ages. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added little ice age info, Dunde Ice core info we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, is this contamination? Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. Radioactive decay is an exponential decay curve, not a constant rate over time. The effect of contamination and background levels is an additive error - it can cause high readings, but not low readings, thus making things appear younger than they really are - but it adds the same error to any sample. If we have two curves, one "clean" data and one "contaminated" data, they would look something like this (with the "contaminated" one above the "clean" data curve) There is the same vertical displacement at any point between the curves, where the y-axis is the amount of 14C and the x-axis is the time for decay.
At t ~0 we have error = ~1/10 of clean data At t ~1/2 we have error = ~1/3 of clean data At t ~1 we have error = ~3/2 of clean data -- more error than clean data. This delta between the curves is intentionally exaggerated here to make the point. The point is that the error induced by contamination and background levels is low initially, so the age data result is reliable. But certainly by the time you have reached point {1} above you have more error induced by the background radiation and contamination than you have available data, and the method is unreliable at that point because of that fact. The point where the method becomes unreliable is based on the difference between the curves and the amount of error one is willing to put up with ... perhaps somewhere around 10% (using real delta curves not these exaggerated ones) Does that make the issue a little clearer for you? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : pasted rest of post, formating we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You do have fun don't you?
Either you don't understand much relevant here or you are intentionally twisting this information for the fun of it.
I find this interesting as the glaciers melt the peat bogs in the northern most hemisphere area's of the globe are not dating hundreds of thousands of years old but carbon dating around 11,000-12,000 years ago. The UCLA-Russian Academy of Sciences team found no peatland dates earlier than about 16,500 years ago, suggesting that no large northern peatland complex existed before that time. Last time I checked 16,500 was not between 11,000 and 12,000 years. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
quote: That doesn't make the peat dating problematic eh? The glacier scrapes the surface ahead of it, piling it into moraines, and when that Last Glacial Maximum retreated it allowed the peatland complex to invade the area left by the retreating glacier at that time. Subsequent deposition of snow that becomes ice over those areas from snow-pack accumulation and the like would bury those peatland complexes without scraping them into moraines, as glacier movement would do. And your article does not talk about the peatland complex forming earlier than had been previously thought but later:
quote: Are there 110,000 annual layers in the Greenland ice sheet? More. Only 110 have been counted. From the original post on this thread:http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf quote: The antarctic ice is now dated\counted to 650,000 years. And the climate data correlate between the two for the ages in discussion here.
Ice varves annual interpretation too like lake varves appear inflated only because the uniformitists belief in an old earth. You are missing the point: it is the same age in both ice cores and in Lake Suigetsu and the same climate -- they correlate. They match. And by doing so they validate each other. Not matching would invalidate the concept. Different entirely different annual layer counting systems, dependent on totally different processes for making the layers, getting the same ages and the same climate patterns. You can't just hand wave "inflated" and "uniformitist" over this data and not explain why they have exactly the same apparent ages AND climates. That's not an explanation of the data but a denial that it contradicts your beliefs. Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith, it is delusion:
quote: If both system ages were due to errors those errors should be from different causes that would make different errors in the ages and climates. The ages AND the climates should not match if they were due to errors. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Isn't Whatever just successfully distracting attention from the topic of the thread? Not as long as we keep coming back to the correlations.
While I think the details about lake varves and glaciers is interesting, ... Whatever is saying, in effect, "Lake varves have these dating problems, glaciers have these other dating problems," but he isn't addressing how these widely different dating problems (were they real) could affect things in identical ways such that the dates still correlate. I'm not sure he understands (or chooses to understand) the basic difference between these systems of measurement. He is essentially saying that 14C can diffuse up and distort the record. The problem is that this is a linear function, and can only distort another linear function by changing the slope. The diatom\clay layering system is quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of annual deposition of clay and diatoms. The 14C system is exponential decay - the amount lost each year is less than was lost the year before, being based on a fraction of the amount in existence each year. What he needs to change is the straight line (from layers) to the curved line (from radioactive decay): ... in order to "explain" the age of the Lake Suigetsu data as showing ages that are much older than he wants it to be. The Ice Core layering data is also quasi-linear - the layers compress with age so each deeper layer is thinner for the same amount of ice\annual accumulation. Conversely the layers that measure the climate changes are NOT linear or curved -- they ARE a ratio between stable isotopes of 18O atoms and 16O atoms trapped in the ice when it was formed: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html
quote:(some conversion of text for readability) So you have one quasi-linear system matching climate to a radioactive decay exponential curve and another entirely different quasi-linear system matching climate to a stable isotope ratio (essentially a flat curve with variations for temperature\climate), and BOTH give the same climate at the same age. There is no "diffusion" of 14C in the Ice Core data. There is no stable ratio of 18O in the Lake Suigetsu data. Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : added formula we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The answering from genesis people link said the uniformitists made assumptions for the mid to lower snow varves. That still leaves 50,000 years of straight annual layers with no assumptions to hand wave away. Or to accept that the world is really older than you want to believe it is.
The creationists believe the earth was not yet created 16,000 years ago, that too would account for the lack of vegetation. There is a lot of evidence of things less than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that does not invalidate an old earth. There is a lot of evidence of things more than the age that YEC's posit for the age of the earth -- that DOES invalidate a young earth. The issue is not the evidence that you accept, but the evidence that you deny that contradicts your position.
quote: Its not a mystery why the correlations appear to agree(inflating non-random numbers till they agree). Climatics should have some agreement but the problem appears the mid to lower varves and the assumptions used to extrapolate. Again you have provided no mechanism for this "miraculous" correlation between extremely different and divergent systems ... see
Message 69 So you have one quasi-linear system matching climate to a radioactive decay exponential curve and another entirely different quasi-linear system matching climate to a stable isotope ratio (essentially a flat curve with variations for temperature\climate), and BOTH give the same climate at the same age. There is no "diffusion" of 14C in the Ice Core data. There is no stable ratio of 18O in the Lake Suigetsu data. Stating "it is not a mystery" does not take the mystery away.
... all they are finding is vegetation dating no older than 16,500 years. In that specific location, in spite of expecting to find it only 8,000 years old ... And they are finding rock that is much much older. Rock that shows the effects of scrapping by ice after being formed by geothermic processes. And it other parts of the world -- they are STILL finding evidence of life that is still much much much older. You are cherry picking tid-bits of information and ignoring the total body of evidence that refutes your position. Dodging the issue of correlations does not do you any good: the evidence is still there whether you {believe\understand\accept} it or not. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... claims that not only are there pollen grains and bacteria in ice cores from Greenland, Tibet, Antarctica, and Bolivia dating back 20,000 years (that the scientists have checked so far), but that, in the case of the bacteria, they are able to revive them and check their DNA. Not only that but:
quote: There appears to be another correlation with layers and climate from another independent system to record climate information within the annual layers. There is also the matter of the pollen in correlating to climate. We know that pollen from a specific plant, the alpine / tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, is a marker for climate change, and has the Younger and Older Dryas Periods named after it Younger Dryas - Wikipedia
quote: As noted in the main article, this period also shows up in the Lake Suigetsu climate data, even though the markers for climate in that system have nothing to do with bacteria or pollen. Pollen samples have been used before to study climate change, and now that there is a technique that can isolate pollen from ice cores without contamination, I expect more correlations to follow. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : fixed paragraph order we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
2. Annual layers of dust are counted as they correlate with visual counts at a rate of 98% where they overlap. The dust is a result of late winter/early spring winds which are global in nature. Counting the dust layers results in a maxomum age of 250,000 BP. Looks like I need to update the OP again ... Seasonal variations in dust concentrations too ... and
quote: another correlation.
quote: and another. Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : and another we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The granites were created at the time the helium became trapped within the granites. False. This also has nothing to do with correlations so no further response is necessary. Please stick to the topic. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024