Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1798 of 1896 (717837)
02-02-2014 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1796 by Pollux
02-01-2014 10:31 PM


Re: Quote mine from Faith's #1789
Right, taking me out of context, which just demonstrates the level of deception you're willing to go to, as if things weren't confused enough already. You were EVER a YEC? Well, not a Christian YEC I'd bet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1796 by Pollux, posted 02-01-2014 10:31 PM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1799 by Pollux, posted 02-02-2014 2:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1806 of 1896 (717875)
02-02-2014 3:22 PM


restatement
This is for HBD since I think I didn't say what I meant clearly enough, although throughout the thread from early on I did say it clearly, he just wasn't dealing with it back then. The point is that the tectonic disturbances didn't happen until after all the strata were in place, which is apparent in many ways but also in the fact that the nice neat parallel strata remain nice neat and parallel while being bent over the uplift in the GC area and bent also at the very north end of the GS, also broken at the fault there into a tilted portion or angular unconformity. All these disturbances in the strata occurred after they wree all in place which is evidenced by the fact that they were all affected as a whole block. The same is true of the monocline block RAZD illustrates above. The implication of this is that there were no tectonic changes before they were all in place so that during their laying down over those however many hundreds of millions of years there were no tectonic disturbances at all, which really means there wree no hundreds of millions of years.
I don't care if the strata were wet or lithified. If they can be bent when lithified, fine, it doesn't matter. The point is that they were bent all together, keeping their parallel form, showing that the bending occurred after they were all laid down.
I can't stand this thread any more, I can't stand the way my simple points have been twisted and misrepresented and I don't want to go back and read any more of it, at least not right now, but I realized the above probably needed to be more clearly stated even though it was clearly stated a hundred times earlier in the thread.
Try being honest.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1807 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2014 3:24 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1811 by Percy, posted 02-02-2014 6:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1812 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 11:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1808 of 1896 (717878)
02-02-2014 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1807 by Coyote
02-02-2014 3:24 PM


Re: restatement
Well, that can't be determined when they're being misunderstood, and they've definitely been misunderstood, and I think I contributed to that problem last time I answered HBD. Misunderstood, misrepresented, twisted in the most unbelievable ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1807 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2014 3:24 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1809 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2014 5:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1810 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 5:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1813 of 1896 (717912)
02-03-2014 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1812 by herebedragons
02-02-2014 11:17 PM


Re: restatement
ABE:Yes you did acknowledge that point way back there, thank you, but lately you seemed to be taking it back.
Would you please review the supposed answers I've supposedly been given about erosion between the layers? /ABE
A layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking. Any block of layers represents multiplied millions of years. The strata in the GC covers hundreds of millions without tectonic activity. You can't just limit its effect to the visible short stacks, you have to think additively.
I shouldn't have to establish the already understood expectation that tectonic activity has been ongoing throughout time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1812 by herebedragons, posted 02-02-2014 11:17 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1814 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 12:31 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1815 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 9:08 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1820 of 1896 (718004)
02-03-2014 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1819 by herebedragons
02-03-2014 11:17 AM


Re: restatement
Faith's argument is that there should not have been hundreds of millions of years WITHOUT a major tectonic event.
Please keep in mind that this is what I thought conventional GEOLOGISTS believe. The usual presentation is of a very active planet, which would seem to imply a lot of ongoing movement. Way back there Rox even agreed that this is what she would expect. But then all she came up with was activity in the Supergroup area, which supposedly occurred BEFORE that long long period of apparently NO activity. So perhaps now they are all happy with the idea that nothing at all happened for hundreds of millions of years?
Also note that according to the animation, faulting activity in the GC ceased about 30 mya.
Does "faulting activity" refer only to the formation of faults? Not to the slippage of existing fault lines? See I would include earthquakes caused by fault movement in the sort of tectonic activity one should expect over hundreds of millions of years.
ABE: Actually the following suggests "faulting activity" in the GS a lot more recently than 30 mya: /ABE
National Parks Service on Cedar Breaks:
Between Cedar Breaks and the valley below, the Hurricane Fault divides the two provinces. Although movement has occurred along the Hurricane Fault for as long as 30 million years, the most dramatic episode of movement began 10 million years ago. This period of faulting caused a massive block of the earth’s crust to drop to the west, forming the level valley far below. It also raised the Markagunt Plateau to its present altitude and exposed the edge of the Claron Formation to the elements. The tension that resulted from this movement caused the rock to crack; these cracks are known as joints.
As I keep pointing out on that cross section, there was this long long period in which the GC strata stayed quite neat and parallel for those hundreds of milliions of years (reckoning with OE time estimates, of course) AFTER which a lot of tectonic activity obviously occurred: the uplift in the GC area, the cutting of the GC and Zion Canyon as well, and all the cliffs of the GS and the Hurricane fault and the dropping of the strata to the north of it, and the magma dike which spilled over at the very very top of the GS, which I thought was supposed to have been formed in recent time, Holocene? which would make it a lot younger than 30 mya, but perhaps all that has been adjusted to fit with other information?
And if you're all content with hundreds of millions of years of no activity at all FOLLOWED by a LOT of activity as described above, I'll leave you with that.
Now, would you mind reviewing the claims about erosion between the layers? Thank you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1819 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 11:17 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1821 of 1896 (718008)
02-03-2014 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1815 by herebedragons
02-03-2014 9:08 AM


Re: restatement
A layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking.
Not exactly. A layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time.
The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1815 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 9:08 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1836 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 7:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1841 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2014 8:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1826 of 1896 (718013)
02-03-2014 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1822 by shalamabobbi
02-03-2014 5:30 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.
Typical anti-creationist crap. There are different kinds of mountains with different kinds of exposed surfaces in different kinds of climates, there is no reason to expect erosion to be identical from one to another. Mountains formed of upthrust tilted strata would erode differently from mountains formed from folded strata for instance, and certainly from mountains formed from igneous rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1822 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 5:30 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1829 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 6:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1827 of 1896 (718014)
02-03-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1824 by shalamabobbi
02-03-2014 5:33 PM


Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1824 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 5:33 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1830 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 6:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1883 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-08-2014 1:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1828 of 1896 (718016)
02-03-2014 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1825 by shalamabobbi
02-03-2014 5:38 PM


Re: Note of assurance for concerned Christians everywhere
That is probably THE most evil vicious lying blasphemous post ever put up here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1825 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-03-2014 5:38 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1832 of 1896 (718023)
02-03-2014 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1829 by edge
02-03-2014 6:48 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
What do you think 'upthrust strata' are but folded sequences?
Originally, yes, as I recall Lyell illustrating, but if they've lost their rounded folds they are going to erode differently. The Rockies show straight flat strata, at least where I've seen them, in Canada, while the Alps and the Appalachians show folds. Wouldn't they erode differently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1829 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 6:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1833 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 7:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1838 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-04-2014 12:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1834 of 1896 (718025)
02-03-2014 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1831 by edge
02-03-2014 7:10 PM


Re: restatement
Now, if you want to see real deformation, look at the Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon. These, of course are hard for Faith to explain because they are obviously older mountain building event(s)
I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks.
Seems to me that Siccar Point was formed the same way, by lower strata being folded and eroded against a great depth of horizontal strata above, which all eroded away since then. There's even a dike there too to show volcanism beneath that formation as well, which again seems most likely related to the formation.
Then there's also the north side of the Hurricane Fault which can be seen on the cross section so often posted here,
...where strata that had been continuous with the strata on the South side of the fault tilted and fell a great distance, but keeping the layer of the Claron Formation horizontal on top of the tilted layers. That certainly was not laid down after the tilting, it was already there and fell with the whole block. And again there's a magma dike paralleling the fault.
which are overlain by flat-lying sedimentary systems, which are, themselves folded elsewhere.
I'd guess they were probably folded elsewhere as a block though, just as they were bent as a block in the GC, showing that the strata were all in place before the tectonic force occurred. Too bad it's usually just a small block that happens to though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1831 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 7:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1839 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:00 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1835 of 1896 (718026)
02-03-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1833 by edge
02-03-2014 7:16 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
You are only seeing part of the Rockies. I suggest you google 'the grand hogback' or 'garden of the gods'.
All that's important here is whether there is evidence of different degrees of erosion between the different parts. Is there? I mean I thought my guess was pretty good that different kinds of mountains would erode differently. I don't care if the Rockies are consistently one kind or another, the question is whether you get different degrees of erosion from different ways mountains were formed. You do, don't you?
Know also that the Rockies have actually been uplifted three times in the last 400my or so.
No doubt this is one of those interpretations that is based on particular kinds of evidence, but we never get the evidence, just the interpretation. And why would this matter in this discussion anyway?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1833 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 7:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1840 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1845 of 1896 (718116)
02-04-2014 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1839 by edge
02-04-2014 1:00 AM


Re: restatement
I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup
How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time?
Amount of resistance -- weight, pressure from above -- would apparently have been equal to the force from beneath at that level, so that the effect of the force that created the Great Unconformity and the granite and the schist would not have continued into the strata above.
However, the entire area was uplifted at the same time, probably by the same tectonic force. The strata from the Tapeats on up were lifted up, just not tilted or broken.
This doesn't really make sense even in a rheological model. Do you have experiments showing this phenomenon?
I really wish I could design one. The closest I came to finding one was the illustration PaulK mentions, in Lyell's online book, where he is demonstrating the buckling or folding of strata by lateral force -- a book on each side-- with a pile of cloths as the strata. Of course he's not trying to prove my scenario but I thought it was a good illustration for that purpose. He has a book on top which keeps the cloth confined to the area between the side books.
So to translate it to my idea: the side books of course represent the tectonic force, and the book above represents the weight of the strata from the Tapeats up through the Claron Formation (the uppermost layer of strata from the Kaibab up, now only to be found in the Grand Staircase but originally above the GC too).
PaulK says I said the upper strata were rigid-but-not-rigid but I'm not sure what he's remembering from me. They would have been pretty rigid it seems to me, with two miles of strata above compressing them all. Rigid enough to make an effective resistance against the forces from beneath anyway.
... so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks.
No. That much disruption will not leave the superjacent rocks unaffected.
Well, do YOU have an experiment to prove this? I know you're a geologist and all that but I'm sure you haven't seen anything actually happen on this scale so you're guessing too.
If the underlying rocks were that mobile, they would contain fragments of the rigid rock above.
I don't make a distinction between the mobility or rigidity of either group of rocks, not sure why you do. It's all about the amount of force versus the amount of resistance. A lot of heat and pressure would have been exerted between the upper and lower rocks; If my scenario is right, then that was the point where the two forces balanced each other out -- does seem to me to be about elementary physics. Uplift was all that happened to the upper strata, then the forces dissipated.
Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.
Well, you guys all love to tell me that this idea or that is impossible but since you're just guessing too, without actual evidence, I'm not convinced. What you are describing certainly doesn't seem impossible to me. Seems to me that the underlying unit in fact WOULD have been heavily abraded since the strata are tilted there so the broken ends of the strata would be easily abraded, and I don't see why there's a problem with their becoming embedded in the upper layer either, or being rounded either for that matter. There would have been incredible friction between the upper and lower rocks in my scenario of course, accounting for a lot of erosion at that point. There is also a huge quartzite boulder embedded in the upper layer, which is at least a quarter mile from its source if I recall correctly, which Paul K tried to rationalize away, but it clearly would have broken off the Shinumo layer of the Supergroup and I don't see any reason why it couldn't have gotten itself embedded in the upper Tapeats as you describe, during the upheaval.
ABE: A quarter of a mile travel for that boulder suggests that was at least the distance that was eroded between the two levels, implying a LOT of friction, a LOT of abrasion. /ABE
Seems to me that Siccar Point was formed the same way, by lower strata being folded and eroded against a great depth of horizontal strata above, which all eroded away since then.
Now, you contradict yourself. if the upper strata are eroded away then there is a new depositional regime which is exactly what we see. Is this what you are saying?
I'm not sure what YOU are saying so I can't answer yet but I'm sure there is no contradiction. The angular unconformity would have been created the same way as that in the GC, that's step one: lower strata being forced by tectonic movement to fold and abrade up against a weight of upper strata. But in the GC the strata remained in place up to the Kaibab, only the strata above that washing away, and the canyon was cut through it, while at Siccar Point all the surrounding strata washed away leaving some of the upright rock and some of the overlying rock, which over the years got weathered down to its current condition.
There's even a dike there too to show volcanism beneath that formation as well, which again seems most likely related to the formation.
Volcanism can occur at any point after. If you ask me, all of these events militate against a young earth.
But of course that's your habitual way of thinking. I have no problem thinking of all this as occurring more or less at the same time, the tectonic movement triggering the volcano as well as tilting the lower strata and so on.
Then there's also the north side of the Hurricane Fault which can be seen on the cross section so often posted here, ...where strata that had been continuous with the strata on the South side of the fault tilted and fell a great distance, but keeping the layer of the Claron Formation horizontal on top of the tilted layers. That certainly was not laid down after the tilting, ...
Why is that?
Well I have to refer you to the cross section where you can see that all the layers tilted on the north are the same layers that have remained flat on the south, only the north block has dropped thousands of feet from the level of the south side. The Claron layer is straight on both sides, apparently resisting the tilting of the others. Do you have a scenario by which the same layer would have deposited both on the lower flat and the upper which is thousands of feet higher? It's remotely possible I suppose but not very likely. I'd point out that all the same layers beneath it are on both sides of the fault line, AND the magma dike farther south pushes up through all the layers to the very top where it created a lava field, through the Claron formation too. Seems to me the volcanic eruption would likely have had something to do with causing the fault line? So the fault split the two sections after the strata were already all in place, the lower layers tilted on the north as the whole block dropped, leaving the Claron flat.
...it was already there and fell with the whole block.
How do you know this?
It's my theory, which I think makes sense of what is actually there.
quote:
And again there's a magma dike paralleling the fault.
And?
I just think it's interesting that in the three places noted where an angular unconformity formed there is evidence of volcanism as part of the whole tectonic scenario.
I'd guess they were probably folded elsewhere as a block though, just as they were bent as a block in the GC, showing that the strata were all in place before the tectonic force occurred. Too bad it's usually just a small block that happens to though.
I have no idea what your point is here. There are a lot of observations that really have nothing to do with the timing of faulting.
I'm more interested in the fact that the strata were already all laid down when any / all of these disruptions occurred.
All the activity, all the disruptions, occurred after all the strata were in place, that's the main observation. The contour of the uplift over the GC is followed by all the strata that remained intact there The upper to the level of the Claron all washed away, while the cliffs and canyons of the GS formed, that cut all the way through to the Claron, which was clearly already there. I mean there is no Claron draping itself down the cliffs; it was already there when the cliffs formed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1839 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:00 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1848 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2014 4:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1849 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2014 5:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1856 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 7:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1846 of 1896 (718117)
02-04-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1840 by edge
02-04-2014 1:14 AM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
I did not dismiss different degrees of erosion as climatic, edge, in fact I merely tacked on the climate point as an afterthought, don't know why you make so much of it. My main point is that the way the mountains formed would explain the different degrees of erosion and I'm answering something somebody said about how it could only be due to time.
That does not mean that time is not a factor. For instance, the Alps and the Appalachians were formed in the same way with the same kinds of rocks. Why do they look so differently?
My guess would be that the difference has to do with the fact that the Alps were pushed up a lot higher than the Appalachians, looks pretty obvious to me. The Appalachians were comparatively gently formed compared to the Alps, may also have been softer than the Alps which were under greater pressure so greater compaction. Something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:14 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 7:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1847 of 1896 (718121)
02-04-2014 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1840 by edge
02-04-2014 1:14 AM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
Volcanic ranges erode differently from continental collisions. However, you cannot dismiss different degrees of erosion as simply climatic.
I didn't. See above.
I think you labor to make an insignificant point.
There is little doubt that mountain ranges are of different ages. For instance, we have deformed Cretaceous rocks related to subduction along the west coast of North America. So, where are the deformed Cretaceous rocks on the east coast?
Subduction occurs on the west coast, not the east coast, right? The east coast is moving away from Europe by the separation of the continental plates at the Atlantic ridge, it's a different scenario is it not? Rather less violent than subduction? Enough force to gently buckle the Appalachians but not enough to deform the rocks you are describing or raise the Rockies.
No doubt this is one of those interpretations that is based on particular kinds of evidence, but we never get the evidence, just the interpretation.
That is because you do not read the primary literature, or even a textbook. If you are really interested the information is available.
Seems to me the evidence ought to be a main part of any discussion, not relegated to the technical literature. And you make it sound easy but the technical language is beyond me, I've tried to read some of the papers online, forget it. I'd have to take a long course in Geology and I'm too old for that and normally too busy with other things too, except lately when my life has been taken over by this forum. And I don't want to take on all the issues involved in the Flood anyway, just a very few. AND, I really don't think it would make a difference to the argument anyway.
And why would this matter in this discussion anyway?
Just pointing out that things are not really as simple as one might be led to believe... such as having one mountain building event in the history of the earth
Well, you all don't believe it's that simple, but I do. My job as a creationist is to see things differently than you do. I don't think having knowledge of the technical language would help with this either since most of it assumes the Old Earth scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1840 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:14 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1850 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2014 5:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1852 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 6:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024