Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 5:25 AM
26 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,204 Year: 15,240/19,786 Month: 1,963/3,058 Week: 337/404 Day: 4/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
20Next
Author Topic:   Introduction To Geology
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(11)
Message 151 of 293 (672139)
09-03-2012 9:36 PM


Moving On
So, I think we're about done with plate tectonics. There are some points I may want to expand on later, depending on how the structure of the rest of the course turns out.

It's about time to move on to stratigraphy. Hurrah!

---

Appreciative readers who wish to show that they're still following this can "cheer" this post, as usual. Thank you.

---

Some statistics. The glossary contains 408 definitions. The number of articles posted so far is 40. The total word count is ... good grief ... is 55,224. To put that into context, The Great Gatsby is only 47,094 words, although to be honest I'd still rather have written The Great Gatsby.

---

I've updated the glossary again up to the end of the article on orogeny.

---

Thanks are due to Pressie once more for reviewing the articles.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2012 3:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 152 of 293 (672338)
09-07-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2012 11:49 AM


Core rotation
Hi Dr A.
I am late in catching up with your thread, which I enjoy reading, and appreciate your efforts. The slightly faster rotating core is interesting. Could it be it has not slowed as much as the outer layers because the more fluid mantle does not transmit the slowing of the outer layers quickly. The core is spinning as fast as the outer layers were a few tens of thousands of years ago, so one could guess in an equal time into the future it would be down to today's rate, while the outer layers would have slowed further.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2012 11:49 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2012 2:56 AM Pollux has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 153 of 293 (672340)
09-07-2012 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Pollux
09-07-2012 1:59 AM


Re: Core rotation
Hi Dr A.
I am late in catching up with your thread, which I enjoy reading, and appreciate your efforts. The slightly faster rotating core is interesting. Could it be it has not slowed as much as the outer layers because the more fluid mantle does not transmit the slowing of the outer layers quickly. The core is spinning as fast as the outer layers were a few tens of thousands of years ago, so one could guess in an equal time into the future it would be down to today's rate, while the outer layers would have slowed further.

I don't think so. The model I referenced didn't appeal at all to historical processes. They began with premises such as "the outer core is fluid" and "the inner core is solid", and nothing at all about how old the Earth is. They were constructing an equilibrium model.

So their results can cast no light on how the Earth may have rotated in the past, since the past history of the Earth was not among their hypotheses. An observation cannot confirm a hypothesis if the hypothesis was not necessary to the collection of premises that predict the observation.

I will later post articles about the slowing of the Earth's rotation --- in fact, I've already written one article on this subject and am just waiting for the right time to post it ... probably some time in November. But as far as I can see, your conjecture is just plain wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Pollux, posted 09-07-2012 1:59 AM Pollux has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 9:50 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 154 of 293 (672344)
09-07-2012 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
09-03-2012 9:36 PM


Re: Moving On
Some statistics. The glossary contains 408 definitions. The number of articles posted so far is 40. The total word count is ... good grief ... is 55,224.

Let's say that again, 55,224 words. I know this because I copied the whole thing into OpenOffice as a backup. So if you think that "cheering" my posts is not enough, you could also post things such as: "Dr Adequate you are my role model and I want to have your babies." I'd like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2012 9:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Panda, posted 09-07-2012 5:13 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 155 of 293 (672345)
09-07-2012 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
09-07-2012 3:36 AM


Re: Moving On
Dr. A. writes:

So if you think that "cheering" my posts is not enough, you could also post things such as: "Dr Adequate you are my role model and I want to have your babies." I'd like that.


Dr Adequate you are my baby and I want to have your role models!

But, with a more serious tone, I also say: what an absolutely fantastic piece of work of epic (from a forum PoV) proportions.
*claps appreciatively*


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2012 3:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 156 of 293 (672444)
09-08-2012 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate
09-07-2012 2:56 AM


Re: Core rotation
Hi Dr Adequate and Pollux,

When you get to that article, you can note that some species of corals have daily growth rings and that coral fossils (radio-metrically) dated to ~400,000 years ago show the earth rotated faster back then -- at ~400 days per year:

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 10 (shameless self promotion ... ):

quote:
... Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation?

The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html (2)

quote:
The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...

The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.

A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.


I also found this graphic on this website although it was not used in the article:


Original at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg (3)

This shows the smooth change in the length of days with time. The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).


Note that one of the causes for the slowing rotation rate is the tidal pull from the moon, and this decreases as the moon moves further and further from the earth (typical creationist mistake is to take today's rate and extrapolate it to the distant past).

There are as many hours in a year since the cambrian, but they are divide up into different length days -- ~21 hours and 424 days in the cambrian, ~22 hours and 400 days in the devonian, ~23 hours and 381 days in the triasic, and ~24 hours and 365 days today.

Astronomical planetary mechanics correlating with biological fossil records and radiometric dating information. Awesome.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2012 2:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2012 4:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 293 (672466)
09-08-2012 2:33 PM


"Note that one of the causes for the slowing rotation rate is the tidal pull from the moon, and this decreases as the moon moves further and further from the earth (typical creationist mistake is to take today's rate and extrapolate it to the distant past)."

Typical CREATIONIST mistake? Are you joking? Look up who tried to date the Earth's age from tidal friction: George Darwin, Charles' kid.

http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&pg=PA47&sou...

You're blaming Creationists for making the mistake Darwin's kid did. Oy vey.


Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2012 2:50 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2012 8:06 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 6:26 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 293 (672467)
09-08-2012 2:40 PM


As seen from Dalrymple's whole chapter, most of the dating mistakes ended up being made by evolutionists trying to derive a distant age to the earth without knowing all factors involved for their dating attempts. It's the evolutionists who've been making that mistake of assuming "the present is the key to the past" by trying to infer today's rates are the same as in the past. Put in evolutionist instead of creationist there and you'd be exactly right. That's an evolutionist mistake, not a creationist one.
Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2012 8:12 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3645
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 159 of 293 (672468)
09-08-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jzyehoshua
09-08-2012 2:33 PM


But is George Darwin's mistake still in use? Or, having been found to be in error, was it instead discarded in favor of a more correct calculation? And yet the creationist use of this kind of mistake still persists despite having repeatedly been shown to be in error.

Science is self-correcting, in that every conclusion can be reexamined and reevaluated and, when shown to be wrong, can be corrected or replaced. Science is not perfect nor is it void of mistakes, but at least when mistakes are made they can be corrected and there is strong motivation in science to find and correct mistakes.

Creationism is not self-correcting nor even capable of being corrected from without. Indeed, it is very highly resistant to the correcting of its mistakes since there is very high motivation against the truth and in favor of whatever lies could be used in its social, political, and theological agendae.

The "typical creationist mistake" is not an incorrect calculation, but rather it is not having tested that calculation for correctness and, upon finding it to be in error, not correcting it, but rather misrepresenting it as correct (ie, lying to the world about it). The "typical creationist mistake" is not committed by one individual creationist (though it does usually start there), but rather it is committed by the entire creationist community as it shuns the truth and embraces falsehoods despite those falsehoods having been repeatedly exposed as such.

So then, no, we're not blaming creationists for making the mistake Darwin's kid did, but rather for adamantly refusing to correct that mistake.

{ABE}
Regarding your later message Message 158:

As seen from Dalrymple's whole chapter, ...

Dalrymple wrote many chapters. Which are you claiming to talk about? Why do you not cite it?

And why do you not indicate which message you are allegedly "replying to"?

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-08-2012 2:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3645
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 160 of 293 (672477)
09-08-2012 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
09-08-2012 9:50 AM


Re: Core rotation
In addition, there should probably be discussion of the various factors that account for the slowing down and speeding up of the earth's rotation, even though the net effect is slowing down. In addition to the slow acceleration of the moon to a higher orbit, which in turn slows the earth's rotation down, there is also conservation of angular momentum due to the rise and fall of the earth's crust due to earth quakes, the slow rebound of the northern hemisphere following the last ice age, and the like -- when a section of crust rises, we slow down and when a section of crust falls, such as I understand happened in a Chilean earthquake, we speed up. I've also heard about friction from the oceans.

We constantly monitor the speed of the earth's rotation through direct empirical measurements, as performed by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). This is to maintain Coordinated Universal Time (UTC -- what you used to get from the phone company (from Pacific Bell at least, but not from Mississippi's Bell) and now get from WWV and your NTP time servers), which requires knowing when to add or subtract leap seconds, though so far they've only been added, all 25 of them so far.

Elsewhere, we could get into the common creationist mistake of assuming that the rate of adding leap seconds was the rate at which the earth was slowing down, thus making the earth spin ridiculously fast millions of years ago. That was of course a serious mistake that yielded a rate several thousands of times too fast. That claim was refuted soundly 30 years ago and yet, even though its originator, Walter Brown, no longer uses it, the creationist community continues to spam it all over the Web refusing to give it up even when directly presented with irrefutable evidence that it is grotesquely wrong.

But that side-line has no place in Dr. Adequate's scholarly efforts here. Though the IERS may have a place here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 9:50 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2012 8:17 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

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


Message 161 of 293 (672502)
09-08-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jzyehoshua
09-08-2012 2:33 PM


"Note that one of the causes for the slowing rotation rate is the tidal pull from the moon, and this decreases as the moon moves further and further from the earth (typical creationist mistake is to take today's rate and extrapolate it to the distant past)."

Typical CREATIONIST mistake? Are you joking? Look up who tried to date the Earth's age from tidal friction: George Darwin, Charles' kid.

http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&pg=PA47&sou...

You're blaming Creationists for making the mistake Darwin's kid did. Oy vey.

I think that dwise1 is actually blaming creationists for the mistake that they keep making. The "leap seconds" blunder is one of the most fatuous mistakes in creationism, because it's so easy to find out that it's wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-08-2012 2:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

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


Message 162 of 293 (672504)
09-08-2012 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jzyehoshua
09-08-2012 2:40 PM


As seen from Dalrymple's whole chapter, most of the dating mistakes ended up being made by evolutionists ...

I think you'll find that most dating mistakes are actually made by Young Earth Creationists, y'know, the idiots who pretend that the Earth is only a few thousand years old when all the facts prove that they're wrong. If Dalrymple doesn't discuss this, it's because obviously someone writing about the history of science is not going to spend much time discussing what creationists get up to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-08-2012 2:40 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 163 of 293 (672505)
09-08-2012 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by dwise1
09-08-2012 4:49 PM


topic disruption, sorry
Hi dwise1

In addition, there should probably be discussion of the various factors that account for the slowing down and speeding up of the earth's rotation, even though the net effect is slowing down. ...

Agreed, and nice posts.

I'm afraid my sort of off-hand comment is endangering this thread to go off topic, and I apologize to Dr. Adequate for this.

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 160 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2012 4:49 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 164 of 293 (672523)
09-09-2012 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jzyehoshua
09-08-2012 2:33 PM


start a new topic if you want to pursue this further
Hi Jzyehoshua,

I see that you don't use the [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] or [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] formats, nor reply to specific posts (ie mine in this case), but use the general reply button instead. As has been pointed out in the past, these lower confusion and increase clarity: if you want to be obscure or hope to just be ignored then continue to do as you do.

Typical CREATIONIST mistake? Are you joking? Look up who tried to date the Earth's age from tidal friction: George Darwin, Charles' kid.

Logical fallacy: creationist still use the mistaken calculation, thus it still is a typical creationist mistake no matter who else committed the same calculation in the past and what the state of science was at that time.

If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you start a thread, or bring it to Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes if you can frame it to fit that thread.

This thread is about geology, which you could read and learn stuff -- I have

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 157 by Jzyehoshua, posted 09-08-2012 2:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

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


Message 165 of 293 (673281)
09-18-2012 10:51 AM


Actualism
Actualism

Introduction

In this article we shall discuss the concept of actualism and some common misconceptions which surround it.

What is actualism and why?

Actualism in geology is the idea that the facts of geology can and should be explained by in terms of the sort of physical processes that actually happen.

As such, it can be considered both as a scientific theory (that the facts can be explained by real processes) and as a methodological principle (that they should be so explained).

You might wonder why there is a need to have a name for this. You might also wonder why it is necessary to mention it particularly in a textbook on geology, since after all this is a universal scientific principle. Chemists (to take one example) are just as much actualists as geologists, because all scientists are; and yet they do not include a section on actualism in their textbooks.

The reason why it is mentioned particularly in geological textbooks is a historical one. For many centuries people have been trying to explain geology in terms of non-actual, magical processes: explaining, for example, that the Earth's strata were produced by God turning off the force of gravity and then turning it back on; or that God created fossils when he made the Earth so that coal-miners even when underground would have visible signs of his presence. Various religious sects still promote non-actual concepts of geology to this present day.

Actualism as a theory

As we have said, actualism (considered as the assertion that the geological record can be explained in terms of real processes) should be regarded as a scientific theory. Why? --- because it is testable. We can look at the rocks, and we would recognize if there was something in the geological record which could not be explained in terms of real processes.

In fact, as you will recall from previous articles, what we find is that we can explain what we see: we can explain glacial till in terms of glaciers, marine limestone in terms of the deposition of calcareous ooze, chemical weathering in terms of chemistry, paleomagnetism in terms of continental drift, saline giants in terms of the evaporation of seawater, and so forth.

If there are still things that are not yet perfectly explained, such as the question of how exactly glaciers make drumlins, then we can hardly regard that as a falsification of the theory, but merely an area in which more work needs to be done, for it is not plain that drumlins cannot be explained by a better understanding of actual glacial processes and would instead require the invocation of a non-actualistic being such as the Drumlin Fairy to fill this minor gap in our knowledge.

If, on the other hand (for example) we split open two leaves of slate and found therein the first chapter of Genesis written in quartz, then this would falsify actualism; we could not even imagine that one day we would find any ordinary physical process that would explain the phenomenon: we know too much about the way in which the world works to consider that even for a moment.

Actualism as a methodological principle

Considered as a methodological principle, actualism may be stated in the phrase that we have used repeatedly in our articles on sedimentology: "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Take aeolian sandstone, for example. It looks exactly like lithified aeolian sand; we can understand it perfectly well in those terms. Therefore, this is the most parsimonious way to understand it: it is simply unnecessary to imagine an unknown unobserved process to explain what can be explained by a know observable process.

Now, there are some people who (for religious reasons) dislike this: they wish that aeolian sandstone was something else altogether. These people, let us hasten to say, are perfectly entitled to their own beliefs. But they are not entitled to pass such beliefs off as scientific: when they daydream about alternative magical processes that might have formed something that looks exactly like lithified aeolian sand formed by actual processes, they have abandoned the scientific method in favor of wishful thinking.

For the proposition: "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck" stands at the heart of all scientific thought. We may imagine that it is not a duck; we may imagine that it is in fact a magical fairy disguised as a duck. It is in a sense as easy to imagine this as that it is a duck, for the human imagination is not constrained by actualism. But the scientific method is constrained by actualism: within that method we cannot put the fairy hypothesis ahead of the duck theory, we cannot even place them on the same level. The idea that it is a duck is to be preferred for all scientific purposes unless and until we find evidence that it's a magic fairy. Those who prefer to think otherwise have not merely stepped outside the edifice of the scientific method, they are throwing bricks through its windows.

Naturalism

We should note that the adoption of actualism is not the same as the adoption of philosophical naturalism (the rejection of the existence of processes other than the physical). Supernatural beings and processes may perfectly well exist; it is no function of this textbook to pronounce on such a question. It is simply that we can see no evidence in the geological record that such processes have ever been involved in geology; hence actualism succeeds as a theory, as we have explained.

And, that being so, we are obliged to uphold it as a methodological principle. In the words of William of Conches: "God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so." Let us concede that God can make a cow out of a tree; but unless we have a reason to think that he has done so, we must explain the historical origins of any particular cow as involving a mommy cow and a daddy cow; there is nothing to justify the idea that God made the cow out of a tree even once we have admitted his power to do so if he really wanted.

Uniformitarianism

The view which we have called "actualism" is sometimes (perhaps more commonly) known as uniformitarianism.

However, this word is often misleading. As a term in the history of science, it often refers to ideas some of which no living geologist considers to be true. And as a term in religious apologetics, it often refers to ideas which no geologist in the entire history of geology has ever considered to be true.

For that reason, in this text I have thought it best to retire the old word and go with the more modern term "actualism" instead.

The term "uniformitarianism" is misleading in itself: for when modern geologists call themselves uniformitarians, what are they claiming to be uniform? No less than the laws of nature themselves --- but not necessarily anything else. Every geologist will insist that many things have not been uniform over the course of the Earth's history: its flora and fauna, for example, have not stayed the same; its temperature has not stayed the same; the composition of its atmosphere has not stayed the same; the arrangement of continents has not stayed the same; the global climate has not stayed the same.

What has apparently stayed the same is that throughout all this change the laws of nature have been uniformly unbroken, and only actual processes have taken place. In modern parlance, a "uniformitarian" geologist asserts no more than that; he or she has no general belief in uniformity, merely in actualism.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019