Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:23 PM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, ringo, Taq, xongsmith (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,152 Year: 9,188/19,786 Month: 1,610/2,119 Week: 370/576 Day: 45/128 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
Taq
Member
Posts: 7895
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 196 of 235 (648175)
01-13-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Huntard
01-13-2012 1:41 PM


Re: Oh well
Just to prevent any miscomprehensions that will take 50 posts to resolve, that should read www.pubmed.com .

Wow, Freud would have a field day with me.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Huntard, posted 01-13-2012 1:41 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 197 of 235 (648177)
01-13-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
01-13-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Oh well
His mum?

Abe: please note (before the ban hammer falls): he was at one time born of woman.

Edited by Larni, : Cowardly back peddling.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2012 11:00 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 198 of 235 (648178)
01-13-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Huntard
01-13-2012 1:41 PM


Re: Oh well
Stop lurking!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Huntard, posted 01-13-2012 1:41 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(5)
Message 199 of 235 (648192)
01-13-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:39 AM


Re: Oh well
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of, nor should it be embraced. Rather, ignorance needs to be eliminated and the means by which it is eliminated is learning. The problem for creationists is that their entire approach is based on their ignorance and their success depends on their victims' ignorance. Their claims, including the 15 "gems" that this topic is based on, are based on their ignorance and so end up being incredibly ridiculous, utterly ludicrous. It would be hilarious if creationists weren't so intent on destroying science education. Well, of course, they feel that they must, because their greatest enemy is knowledge; the only way their way of ignorance can survive is to preserve their high levels of ignorance, so they must do everything they can to prevent anyone from learning the truth. Most of all, they must protect themselves from ever learning the truth, because they believe that that would cause them to become atheists. Like what happened to agent_509 in the recent Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC topic and to many of our former-YEC forum members. And ironically, little Jimmy Stephens, the OP, is from Livermore, CA, where in 1981 teacher Ray Baird used ICR materials to teach a "balanced treatment" class, which resulted in some of the 10 year old students doing what the creationist materials repeated implored them to do, they made their choice to become atheists. The entire story of Ray Baird's misguided class is at LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study.
quote:
JP Hunt, student in Ray Baird's 1980 "balanced treatment" class at Emma C. Smith Elementary School, Livermore, CA, in "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982:
"Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it."

And not surprisingly youth ministers are finding that about 80% of their youth who were raised all their lives on creationist and other fundamentalist ignorance end up abandoning their faith, many of them rejecting religion altogether. The problem with making your faith dependent on ignorance is that there is always the danger of learning the truth. Ignorance is a losing proposition:
quote:

The then-Governor of Mississippi explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state:

"We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!"
(Quoted from memory from a radio newscast circa 1990, give or take half a decade)



When are you ever going to finally realize that simple truth?


DWise1 writes:

So, no, it's not so complicated that "no one can explain it". But it does take a certain amount of thinking about it. So as long as you refuse to do due diligence, you're never going to understand it. Like with any other idea that exists.

So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit?


Chuck77 writes:

Well yeah sure. Does the geologic column even exist?


Typical idiotic creationist nonsense based on abject ignorance:
quote:
Claim CD101:

The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.
Source:

Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 15.
Response:

1. The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.

2. There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).
Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G3

Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ or http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
References:

Morton, Glenn, 2001. (see above)
Trendall, A. F. et al., (ed.), 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3. Geological Survey of Western Australia. State Printing Division, Perth.



The geological column is a composite based on empirical data. That is what it is taught to be, which reveals your and other creationists' ignorance to be even greater. Nothing in how it is taught or used requires that it physically exist nor would our understanding of the earth's geological history cause us to expect it to physically exist. Nonetheless, we do find 25 sites where the column does physically exist (The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood ). Not every single layer, but at least representative layers from each geological age which verify that we did get the sequence right in our reconstructed column.

Now, if you weren't so ignorant of geology, you would realize that the long complex history of an old earth would entail each location to have experienced times of depositation and of erosion, such that we would be surprised to find any one location that had experienced only depositation and no erosion. However, since Flood Geology claims that those layers were deposited by The Flood, in which case Flood Geology would have us expect to find many sites that had only experienced depositation and therefore at which we would expect to find every single layer of the Column. So why don't we find that?

BTW, Glenn Morton started out a YEC and went to work as a field geologist having learned everything he knew about geology starting out from the ICR. He lost his faith in YEC after having to face rock-hard geological facts that he had been taught did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. His creationist drove him to the verge of atheism.

Now, please do everybody a favor and learn something about geology.

DWise1 writes:

And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same?


No problem at all everything they needed to adapt was in their DNA. What's your problem?

I have no problem with the finches. You're the one who has a problem with them.

The finch beaks is mainly of historical significance, because they were part of Darwin's initial realization of the role of adaptation in changing a single ancestral form into several different descendant forms. They are a case in which adaptation had led to the creation of new species.

Please do yourself and us a favor and learn something about genetics and about Darwinian evolution. Do not use creationist sources, since they are lying to you and want to keep you ignorant.

Chuck77 writes:

What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe.

DWise1 writes:

What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case.

Kingdom: Animalia
Are we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are.
Phylum: Chordata
Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are.
Class: Mammalia
Are we mammals? Yes we are.
Order: Primates
Are we primates? Yes we are.
Family: Hominidae
Are we of that family? Yes we are.
Tribe: Hominini
Are we of that tribe? Yes we are.
Subtribe: Hominina
Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are.
Genus: Homo
Are we of that genus? Yes we are.
Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello?

Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello?

Get used to it.

Oh my. I don't even know what any of that means.

It is extremely simple and basic biology. Please do yourself and us a big favor and learn something about biology. Your constant clinging to ignorance really is tiring.

As, I would think, has already been explained to you many times, the idea is that of nested hierarchies. That is what we observe and we observe it because of how organisms reproduce and evolve.

Let's start with some typical creationist ignorance nonsense. When a new species of moth evolves, the creationist response is, "But they're still moths!" No shit, Sherlock! They are also still insects and still animals too. None of which counters the fact that they are still a new species.

Another piece of ignorant creationist nonsense is the totally false claim that if evolution were true, then we would expect to see cats giving birth to dogs. That demonstrates the extreme ignorance of those creationists, since that is not at all what evolution would have us expect. Rather, we would expect descendant dog sub-populations under selective pressure to form new species of dog and that, even if they were to go on to form a new higher taxon, they would still be a form of dog, not cat or weasel.

IOW, evolution would have us expect to observe "producing after their own kind", which is what we do observe. As I pointed out in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens, we are of the "animal kind", of the "vertebrate kind", of the "mammal kind", of the "primate kind", of the "hominidae kind" (ie, apes), and of the "Homo kind" (ie, the genus of man).

Now do you understand that simple idea?

Now please do yourself and us a big favor and learn something about evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:39 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 200 of 235 (648195)
01-13-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Butterflytyrant
01-13-2012 9:56 AM


lol
Hi Butterflytyrant

And besides, I am going to get that fucking Don Quixote award if its the lat thing I do.

okay already

here's an avatar picture to go with it

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 9:56 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 10:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 201 of 235 (648207)
01-13-2012 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
01-13-2012 7:45 PM


Re: lol
Hello Zen,

I like your style.

However, my enemies are not imaginary.

No imaginary friends, no imaginary enemies.

I found this definition of Quixotic and it does seem to apply -

Quixotism - is impracticality in pursuit of ideals, especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action. It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality. An impulsive person or act might be regarded as quixotic.

Quixotism is usually related to "over-idealism", meaning an idealism that doesn't take consequence or absurdity into account. It is also related to nave romanticism and to utopianism.

I could be called worse than quixotic I suppose.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2012 7:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 235 (648216)
01-14-2012 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
01-13-2012 8:53 AM


Re: Oh well
Percy writes:

Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know.

For instance? There is a lot evolutionists do not know. We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim. Same evidence. It's there for everyone.

Common designer instead of common ancestor. No transitional fossils.

We have a theory too. Common designer. The fossil record, the flood, the ice age etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 01-13-2012 8:53 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2012 2:10 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 7:42 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Coyote, posted 01-14-2012 11:05 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 01-17-2012 5:06 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 235 (648217)
01-14-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by NoNukes
01-13-2012 2:19 PM


Re: Oh well
NoNukes writes:

Anyone here could play devil's advocate and do a better job they you are doing. Aren't you even the least bit embarrassed by that state of affairs?

You are under the impression I am here to try and impress you?

Sorry. Not why i'm here, but keep up the good work. Everyone is impressed with you. Feel better about yourself now?

After all that's what it's all about ehe? Fitting in? Not going against the grain? You're a pathetic people pleaser.

You should be very embarrassed about this state of affairs. Keep up the good work. Dawkins would be proud.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2012 2:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 7:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 204 of 235 (648219)
01-14-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 1:55 AM


Re: Oh well
For instance? There is a lot evolutionists do not know. We have the same fossil record to look at.

Creationists, however, tend not to look at it but to look at things that other creationists have made up instead.

Creationists say it supports Creationsim.

Which is easy to say if you never look at it and know nothing about it.

We have a theory too.

And possibly it accounts for the things that creationists have made up. For the real world, not so much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 1:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 205 of 235 (648227)
01-14-2012 2:52 AM


CMI
This is a very exciting time for me. I am happy to say that CMI has contacted me with a request to submit to them the information that this thread had produced. It was recently contacted by a EvC member and has contacted me in response.

They have politely asked that any information I can forward to them would be greatly appreciated and to use extreme caution in picking the given responces. They will be sharing them with the CMI staff and team and will go over them carefully and objectivly.

This is not to be taken lightly and I would like to share this proud moment with the members here at EvC that I in fact do not take this litghly. It has been a very long time coming and I am thrilled to have been included in the endeavor. My thanks to all of you and I will take it upon myself to represent this site with the utmost repsect and plan to convey the true spirit of the debate with the following comments. Thank you for your labor and undivided support.

Butterflytyrant writes:

You sir, are a douche. I mean that literally. I believe that your sole function should be to wash out dirty vaginas.

crashfrog writes:

Who would ever let Chuck near their vagina?

Larni writes:

His mum?


Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 6:48 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 223 by hooah212002, posted 01-17-2012 8:29 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 206 of 235 (648259)
01-14-2012 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 2:52 AM


Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
Hi Chuck,

This is a very exciting time for me. I am happy to say that CMI has contacted me with a request to submit to them the information that this thread had produced. It was recently contacted by a EvC member and has contacted me in response.

Yes and they told BT that they couldn't possibly get involved. This turns out to be a lie. Odd that their lying doesn't bother you at all. I guess you must be okay with dishonesty.

My thanks to all of you and I will take it upon myself to represent this site with the utmost repsect and plan to convey the true spirit of the debate with the following comments.

In other words "An evolution said a bad thing! Evolution must be false!". Pathetic.

Meanwhile you continue to reply only in trite soundbites. You refuse to engage with the topic. You reply almost exclusively to those who are being rude to you whilst ignoring anyone who tries to respectfully make a point.

I mean, when do I get the promised response to Message 48? You have found the time to address various people who were being dicks to you. When do you address my message, that even you have acknowledged was respectful and on topic? When Chuck? Or are you not actually interested in real debate? Do you not think you can handle it? I have to say, I don't think you are up to it. I think that's why you won't engage; you know you'll be out of your depth, so you ignore serious responses in favour of soundbites and slanging matches.

Your behaviour on this thread has been that of a child, the only difference being that when I was an eight-year-old child, I knew more about biology than you do as an adult. Here is a case in point;

Percy writes:

Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know.

Chuck writes:

For instance?

Here's an instance Chuck;

Oh my. I don't even know what any of that means.

In english huh? English this time?

It was in English. You just haven't learned enough to understand it, even though it represents the most basic level of understanding in biology. When I say that I knew this as an eight-year-old, it's not rhetoric. Please try to bring your level of understanding up to the level of a schoolboy. If you won't, then I guess you will have proved Percy right; you'll refuse to learn anything that might challenge your beliefs.

There is a lot evolutionists do not know.

There appears to be a hell of a lot more that you don't know and some of that includes the most elementary facts of biology.

Same evidence.

Really?

No transitional fossils.

Oh, so not the same evidence, since there exist a great many transitional fossils. We have evidence, you have to resort to untruths and pretend that that evidence doesn't exist. Sad.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 2:52 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 6:53 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 6:57 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 235 (648260)
01-14-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 6:48 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
the only difference being that when I was an eight-year-old child, I knew more about biology than you do as an adult.

Really? So why is evolution so hard to explain if an 8th grader can understand it but crashforg says it takes extensive research.

If you evolutionist can get on the same page it would be easier to understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 6:48 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2012 7:38 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Larni, posted 01-15-2012 2:54 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 235 (648261)
01-14-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 6:48 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
Granny Magda writes:

Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult

Haha, that's gold right there, gold! Did you see my most recent post before the last one? With the three quote form other members? Hmmm, selective hearing you have.

Obviously it was sarcasm to illistrate a point. Obviously they did not contact me. Pathetic I have to explain this to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 6:48 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 7:02 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 209 of 235 (648264)
01-14-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 6:57 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
Haha, that's gold right there, gold! Did you see my most recent post before the last one? With the three quote form other members? Hmmm, selective hearing you have.

Then don't sink to their level Chuck. Rise above it.

I gave you a respectful answer and you ignored it in favour of mudslinging. That strips you of any right to complain about the mud.

If you want us all to throw shit at each other, carry on as you are doing, ignoring serious posts and addressing abusive posts.

If you at all serious about defending the creationists position, pick a respectful post - there are quite a few - and address it respectfully.

Show the mudslingers that you can do better. Or show us all that you can't. Your choice.

Obviously it was sarcasm to illistrate a point. Obviously they did not contact me. Pathetic I have to explain this to you.

Do you have any point that is relevant to the discussion? Or just more shit to throw at everyone?



Added by Edit

Please try to keep it to one reply per message. Multiple replies clutter up the thread unnecessarily. Use edit if you need to. Or just take a moment to think before posting.

Really? So why is evolution so hard to explain if an 8th grader can understand it but crashforg says it takes extensive research.

If you evolutionist can get on the same page it would be easier to understand.

You have misunderstood.

What I was referring to was the system of Biological Classification that you seemed to be having such trouble with in dwise1's message. That is truly one of the most basic concepts in biology. I understood it as a child because I was a keen bird watcher.

The questions asked by CMI go way beyond that, encompassing a bewilderingly huge range of information. That you don't even understand taxonomy only goes to show how out of your depth you and exactly how minuscule your chances are of understanding the answers to CMI's ludicrous questions. Baby steps first Chuck. Then, when you've understood the real basics, you can move on to more complex material. Unless you refuse to learn at all, in which case you will remain woefully ignorant of the theory you arrogantly claim to disbelieve.

In order to refute something, you first have to understand it. That will require that you learn something. Sorry. I know that creationists don't like learning, but sometimes, there's just no other way.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 6:57 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 7:06 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 235 (648265)
01-14-2012 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Granny Magda
01-14-2012 7:02 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
Maybe Portillo would appreciate a respectful debate from you? Instead of the way you address him by disrespecting his every post?

Please do not tell me how to act here. You are in no position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 7:02 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 7:14 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019