Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 10:18 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,617 Year: 6,654/19,786 Month: 1,195/1,581 Week: 17/393 Day: 17/30 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 36 of 372 (411215)
07-19-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Repzion
07-19-2007 12:37 AM


Repzion writes:

I keep hearing people say " A flood never happened" Well instead of asking me to keep giving information, how about you give me information on how a flood did not happen?

Sure, as soon as you give us information on how you didn't rob a suburban Renton bank yesterday.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 12:37 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 37 of 372 (411216)
07-19-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Repzion
07-19-2007 1:31 PM


Re: One little piece...
Hi Repzion,

I don't understand your post. First you question uplift:

Repzion writes:

"Another side effect is called uplift." Please....

Then you explain uplift and how sea fossils appear on mountain tops:

It does seem that the mountain might
have once been under water. But a different story seems far closer to
the truth, a story based on careful study of the way the Earth is now,
combined with study of how materials behave. After all, what is
science about? Many tens of millions of years ago, there were once
some continental shelves, much like those of today. Sediment piled
onto them, as sediment does today. Fish lived and died, and got buried
in the sediment, just like today. As sediment accumulated on top, the
lower sediment got heated and compressed, and was turned into rock.
What next? Continental drift, with some crust plates running into each
other. This sediment got squeezed between two continents, or was
lifted up as an ocean plate was forced downward (both processes
happen), than the fish or any other type fossils get carried with the rock to highaltitudes. Thus, fish fossils in high mountains.....

Then you ask for an explanation of what you just finished explaining:

Seriously... Anyways, explain uplift. I'd love to hear how fossils end up on mountians. In your point of view.

Is the long paragraph actually an excerpt from somewhere? If so, and it isn't a satisfactory explanation for you, just let us know and we'll try to provide more information.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 1:31 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 50 of 372 (411335)
07-20-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Repzion
07-19-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Hi Repzion,

As you're now aware, Anglagard is the original author of that list. For others reading this and in fairness to you I want to point out that a simple Google search only lists a single site, the CBS Sportsline site, and that it doesn't list any hits at EvC Forum where Anglagard originally posted his list. All it does is include text at the bottom of the page saying, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 1 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." If you click on the provided link you'll see the hits at EvC Forum.

I don't believe it's fair to ask you to respond to a list of this length that was the result of a lengthy effort for another thread, so I suggest you don't even try, though you certainly can if that's what you'd like to do. It would be more reasonable if Anglagard were to select one or a few arguments that he feels argue most strongly against a worldwide flood, and then you can respond to those.

What science has shown is that knowledge of the natural world is most successfully gained by actual study of the natural world, and not from books written by people who conducted no such studies, books that are almost completely silent on such matters anyway. In order to participate successfully in this thread it will be necessary for you to begin to familiarize yourself with some of the actual evidence from the natural world.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 57 of 372 (411424)
07-20-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Hi Repzion,

Wow! You provided one of the most spectacular examples of uplift, downcutting and slope retreat I've ever seen, even better than the Grand Canyon! Just look at this picture you provided:


Click to enlarge

You can see there were several periods of uplift, each indicated by the successive vertical portions of the canyon walls.

The Palouse River was never as wide as the top of the canyon. Once a river has cut down through rock the sides experience slope retreat through erosive forces. The rock on the sides of canyon gradually erodes and flakes away into the water and is carried downstream. You can see the larger products of this slope retreat very near the center of the picture. The very large piles of charcoal-colored material contain the larger pieces eroded from the above rocks. Eroding this much material takes a very long time, I'd venture a guess of around a million years at least.

Even if the river initially cuts only a narrow channel, probably about as wide as the river is now, the sides of that channel experience slope retreat and become further and further apart. The sides of the channel exposed first will retreat the furthest, which is precisely what we see in the picture

A single immense erosive event such as a gigantic flow of water would not cut in this tiered way but would quickly cut straight down, and if only 6000 years ago the slopes would have had barely any time to retreat. Plus such a flow would be far too violent to meander.

Also, a mammoth flood that submerged the globe would not cause catastrophic water flows. During massive floods rivers overflow their banks to gradually and relatively peacefully cover the surrounding landscape, and the flood waters recede just as gradually. With rain all over the globe and waters bursting from the deep, water levels would have gradually risen everywhere. There wouldn't have been dam-burst type events in the case of the Biblical flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 4:29 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 66 of 372 (411457)
07-20-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by edge
07-20-2007 4:29 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
edge writes:

I find no evidence of mulitple uplifts of the CRBs. The stair-stepped topography in this picture looks more like successive lava flows; with interflow deposits being the ledge-formers and flows being the cliff-formers.

So lava flows erode quickly, while "interflow deposits", by which I assume you mean sedimentary deposits, erode more slowly? And the layers in the canyon walls in the picture are predominately lava flows? Like 95% of the height of the canyon walls is lava flow layers? Seems like an awful lot, and what features from the picture are telling you this, besides the cliffs and ledges?

"Da-ta! More da-ta!" said #5.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 4:29 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by bdfoster, posted 07-20-2007 6:06 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 70 of 372 (411472)
07-20-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by bdfoster
07-20-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Using this picture again:


Click to enlarge

Looking at the three tiered vertical cliff faces on the left of the picture, what is it about the green portions in between that indicates they are not terraces. The roughly 45 degree angle of these terraces would be caused by till from the rock face above covered with a thin layer of gradually accumulated soil on which some low growing greenery has found purchase.

I understand that differential erosion rates cause different angles of slope retreat, but vertical slopes indicate rapid erosion, possibly even a series of waterfalls moving gradually upstream by a few inches per year.

Is the type of layer, basalt versus sedimentary, apparent to you from the photo? If so, what features in the photograph are you looking at to identify them? Or, given that "the Columbia plateau it could be all lava with different degrees of resistance to erosion", how do you tell that's the case versus differential uplift rates from the photo?

Or is the conclusion based on knowledge that uplift rates, once begun, tend to stay roughly constant or only change very slowly?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by bdfoster, posted 07-20-2007 6:06 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 9:07 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 71 of 372 (411478)
07-20-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by bdfoster
07-20-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
I looked up terraces, I was inferring an incorrect definition from your post. You gave me the right hint when you said "the river is not cutting into its own deposits," but I didn't follow it. Anyway, I'm not arguing that the green regions are built upon terraces. The cliff faces are obviously all rock, not river deposits.

So if there was a constant rate of uplift and a constant rate of river cutting down through basalt layers, then what must have happened to cause the tiered appearance. Let's just consider the top most stretch of vertical cliff face on the left and the greenery covered layers just below it. The rate of slope retreat is tiny compared to the rate of downcutting, so this cliff face is vertical or nearly vertical. The we reach some softer layers, now hidden behind the green covering, and given that they're softer the river cuts through them much more quickly. This should still yield a vertical cliff face, so I'm guessing that's what's hiding behind the green covering. But beneath the green covering is what? I'm guessing talus on a flat ledge. (Did I call it till before?)

So if there's a flat ledge covered with talus underneath the greenery, what caused the ledge? Seems to me only a pause in uplift, during which the exposed cliffs of the downcut continue retreating, could do this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by bdfoster, posted 07-20-2007 6:06 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 9:18 PM Percy has responded
 Message 93 by bdfoster, posted 07-21-2007 11:44 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 76 of 372 (411530)
07-21-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by edge
07-20-2007 9:07 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
edge writes:

I would call them ledges. They have loose material on them that sits at the angle of repose (more or less). They represent more easily erodable material.

I would call them ledges, too. Bdforster's Message 67 mentioned terraces and until I looked terraces up I had the definition wrong in my mind.

The roughly 45 degree angle of these terraces would be caused by till ...

Well, talus...

I think I caught that error, too. Whew, it's probably been a year since I last participated in a geology thread at any level of detail, the terminology fades quickly!

I understand that differential erosion rates cause different angles of slope retreat, but vertical slopes indicate rapid erosion, possibly even a series of waterfalls moving gradually upstream by a few inches per year.

Actually, the other way around. Quickly eroding shales form things like Badlands or the Tonto platform. Resistant rocks form cliffs like the Palisades.

But in the context of canyon slopes, the angle of the slope is a function of downcutting rate versus rate of slope retreat. For any given type of layer, downcutting rate will be a function of rate and nature of water flow, while slope retreat will be relatively constant. A vertical slope can only mean that downcutting was relatively rapid as compared to slope retreat.

Is the type of layer, basalt versus sedimentary, apparent to you from the photo?

You will notice that I carefully called them 'interflow deposits' in my original post.

Oh, yes, I very much did notice. Notice that my reply isn't to you, but to Bdfoster replying to me replying to you. If you look at my reply to you (Message 66) you'll see I wasn't quite certain what you meant by interflow deposits, but correctly guessed that sedimentary deposits was one of the possibilities.

They may be sediments, they may be breccias,...

Breccias ("sediment consisting of angular fragments in a matrix of finer particles," for those of you not sitting with a geology glossary in front of you) seem unlikely, don't they?

...they may be simply porous flow-tops. The added feature they would have is that water would reach daylight along these porous horizons so that plants could live there.

Flow-tops? Not in my glossary, not at Wikipedia, okay, I give up. Water bubbling up from underground?

What I'm trying to figure out is the sequence of events that gave rise to successive ledges. Here's the picture again:


Click to enlarge

Focusing on the top cliff on the left hand side, the river eroded straight down through the basalt layers, that much seems clear. Okay so far?

Below the cliff is a ledge. What happened to cause the ledge if not a break in uplift during which slope retreat continued? (I know in your next message you say it wasn't uplift, I'll address that in my next message.)

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 9:07 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2007 9:41 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 77 of 372 (411531)
07-21-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by edge
07-20-2007 9:18 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
edge writes:

There is no evidence of major uplift here.

Then how did the river come to be a couple hundred feet below the level of the land? Subsidence of an adjacent region into which the river flows with backcutting upriver of a series of waterfalls and/or fast-flowing sections?

What actually happens is the same thing as the Grand Canyon. Weaker layers erode, thereby undermining the stronger layers. The stronger layers, with their vertical joint systems simply collaps along those joints. So, when erosion happens it is quite fast. The problem is that it happens episodically and, in the long run, is slow. This is part of the confusion regarding the Grand Canyon as well. That is why the erosion looks catastrophic, but still takes a long time to form the overall landform.

This still gives me no picture of how the ledges formed. Probably the information is there, I just don't know how to thread it all together into a cohesive story.

Say you commissioned me to do an animation video showing how the river formed the ledges. What would you tell me to put in the animation?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 9:18 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by iceage, posted 07-21-2007 11:34 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 79 of 372 (411558)
07-21-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
07-21-2007 9:41 AM


Re: Basalts
Hi RAZD,

The portion from Wikipedia doesn't help much, because it doesn't explain why Edge would say, "...they may be simply porous flow-tops. The added feature they would have is that water would reach daylight along these porous horizons so that plants could live there." Why would water bubble up a hundred feet above river level, and even if it did, what is the significance for this scenario?

RAZD writes:

So as the river cuts deeper the soft soils\breccia sections between the basalt layers are exposed to erosion and will erode out, the basalt column formations over those eroded soils\breccia sections will fail and you get the stepped formation of ledges and cliffs getting wider over time.

Except that this:

Doesn't resemble the upper left cliff face, the one I've been focusing on, at all:


Click to enlarge

There do not appear to be any vertical faults, only horizontal stratification between layers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2007 9:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 07-21-2007 12:01 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2007 6:07 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 83 of 372 (411617)
07-21-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by edge
07-21-2007 12:15 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Okay, so you and Iceage agree the downcutting wasn't caused by uplift. This is Anglagard's point 21 from Message 46:

  1. River meanders – River meanders incised in rock can only be caused by gradual uplift, not through a year’s worth of soft sediment deposition.

But here we have a clear example of a river meander incised into rock that was not caused by gradual uplift, so Anglagard's point 21 is wrong. And apologizing in advance, I still don't understand the explanation for what caused this meandering downcutting. Iceage said in Message 80:

Iceage in Message 80 writes:

The Columbia river with the help of glacial outflows and dozens of Missoula super floods cut new channels thru the young basalt on its way to the Pacific.

Large glacial outflows and super floods seem inconsistent with meandering channels.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Deletional elimination of redundant redundancy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by edge, posted 07-21-2007 12:15 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by iceage, posted 07-21-2007 4:05 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 85 of 372 (411647)
07-21-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by iceage
07-21-2007 4:05 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
iceage writes:

I don't believe it is. The Palouse River canyon is not an incised meander river canyon.

Okay, looking at the satellite photos I see that Palouse River has no tight meanders, and in fact the spectacular pictures of the canyon are just a small section of the river. It wanders a bit like any river, but there's nothing even close to gooseneck meandering. And the satellite photos make it appear that through much of its course it has produced a flood plain into which it has downcut, though the quality of the photos make it difficult to tell.

So this photo you produced earlier of Goosenecks State Park is of an incised meandering river:


Click to enlarge

And this is in Utah and was caused by uplift?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by iceage, posted 07-21-2007 4:05 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by edge, posted 07-21-2007 8:55 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 104 of 372 (411744)
07-22-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


Repzion writes:

I don't mind ya guys bashing me down, its I just want to see evidence that shows, that it is ALL wrong.

That's the right way to approach this, but becoming convinced by the evidence requires thinking about it and figuring out for yourself what must have happened in order to produce that evidence. With geological events that happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago, none are ever captured on camera. We have to infer what happened from the evidence left behind that still exists today.

It also matters whether you want firsthand evidence or not. For instance, the first point from your list says:

website writes:

Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.

You can find the information that this isn't so at many, many websites and in geology textbooks. For instance, this Wikipedia section on the Earth's Surface says at one point:

Wikipedia writes:

Nearly 75% of the continental surfaces are covered by sedimentary rocks, although they form only about 5% of the crust.

Is that good enough evidence? Or do you want to see the original geology papers that from thousands and thousands of pieces of field data pieced together this information? Or do you want to actually gather the evidence yourself? (This last isn't a real possibility, since the earth is far too big a place for one person to personally gather sufficient evidence to determine how much of the earth's crust is sedimentary rock.)

Science makes a direct connection between theory and the real world by formulating its theories based on evidence from the real world. Because creationist theories are based upon accounts in the Bible, which at the detailed level required by science is not consistent with the real world, their theories tend to have a poor correspondence with the real world.

The question of why sincere Christians would utter obvious falsehoods is a complex one. Glenn Morton, a former creationist, gradually realized the falseness of creationist ideas through his studies as a geologist working for oil companies. In his tale of conversion he hints that much of creationist acceptance of their oddball ideas is an unwillingness to consider implications of the evidence that contradict a young earth. Such evidence becomes just one more item to be set aside for now because it is not yet properly understand. So, for example, creationists reason that sea shells atop mountain peaks is evidence for a young earth, and true these layers go deep into mountains in a way completely inconsistent with the possibility of a young earth or deposition by a global flood, but one day we'll understand this evidence, too. In the meantime it is sufficient just to consider the sea shells on the very top of the mountain.

So if you want to know what really happened in the real world, just make sure your ideas are connected to the real world through evidence gathered from the real world. That would be all the evidence, not just the part atop mountain peaks.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:19 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 146 of 372 (418513)
08-28-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 1:39 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Hi Refpunk,

I guess the thing I'm most curious about is who is supplying you with information like this:

In fact, some scientists have tried to explain that by saying there was a giant tsunami that once covered the whole earth. Other scientists claim it's snow melt from a huge ice age.

This is not how scientists believe the sedimentary layers came to be. Either you're making this up, or someone is having a big joke at your expense.

The evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old. The oldest rocks ever found date to around 4.2 billion years old. Many sedimentary layers contain indications of life in the form of fossils or fossil traces or the remains of structures created by life such as burrows. Before approximately 600 million years ago the indications of life were for single celled creatures - the ancestor of bluegreen algae was very common. In younger layers signs of multicellular life become increasingly common, until the Cambrian explosion when a multiplicity of body forms appear relatively suddenly in the fossil record.

As you explore younger and younger layers you find fish, then amphibians, then insects, then tetrapods (land animals), then reptiles, then dinosaurs, then mammals and finally us. (This is only a rough outline - there's considerable overlap on some of the dates of earliest appearance).

What this means is that fossils become increasingly different from modern forms as we dig into deeper and older sedimentary layers. A giant tsunami or giant melting glaciers could not create this ordering of fossils, so no scientist has ever proposed such scenarios to explain the evidence of the sedimentary layers.

What scientists actually believe is that these ancient sedimentary layers formed in the same way sedimentary layers form today, which is gradually through the process of erosion in higher regions and deposition in lower regions. That deposition takes place most easily in low lying regions explains why most sedimentary deposits are marine in nature, since nothing is lower in any given area than seas.

And as I already mentioned, the accounts of a global flood from over 200 cultures, and ZERO accounts in history of any kind of giant tsunami, ice age or apemen ancestors. Those are all made-up stories by scientists that EASILY dupe anyone who thinks that someone with a Ph.D. can make up history.

The scientific accounts of Earth's history are constructed around evidence. I don't blame you for thinking that a giant tsunami and a giant ice melt were made up, because they obviously were, but but these ideas didn't come from scientists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:41 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18412
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 162 of 372 (418666)
08-29-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 8:41 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Refpunk writes:

Sorry, but I heard about the giant tsunami on the Science Discovery Channel and then again on the History cChannel. So it absolutely did come from scientists.

Either you're making this up, or you misunderstood. No scientist would ever propose that the sedimentary layers of the planet came from a worldwide tsunami, or from a giant ice melt, because such possibilities are inconsistent with the evidence. I explained this before but it bears repeating, because what I'm telling you is the accurate information about what scientists actually believe about the origins of sedimentary layers, and this is what you actually have to address. We agree with you that a worldwide tsunami or a giant ice melt are ridiculous explanations for the origin of the planet's sedimentary layers. Trust me that you will find no such proposals in any geology textbook.

What scientists actually believe is that these ancient sedimentary layers formed in the same way sedimentary layers form today, which is gradually through the process of erosion in higher regions and deposition in lower regions. That deposition takes place most easily in low lying regions explains why most sedimentary deposits are marine in nature, since nothing is lower in any given area than seas. The fossils we find in sedimentary layers tell us what life existed when the layers formed.

And the only "evidence" for evolution is looking at skulls and bones and imagining what they could be.

You're drifting off-topic when you start addressing the evidence for evolution. There are other threads for that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:41 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:16 PM Percy has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019