Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
91 online now:
kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat, Stile (4 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,230 Year: 4,342/6,534 Month: 556/900 Week: 80/182 Day: 14/38 Hour: 2/9

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
edge
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 436 of 533 (728049)
05-22-2014 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by NoNukes
05-22-2014 8:19 PM


Re: Summation Time?
1. What feature of the grand canyon would you say is most problematic for people who maintain that the GC was created in a few months by flood waters.

That's tough to say, there are so many features that require some factor unaccounted for by a young earth/global flood scenario. My best are:

1) The occurrence of numerous geological events from deposition of the Vishnu to down-cutting of the modern Grand Canyon. It's just not feasible to have so many events occurring in 6ky. This includes such things as numerous unconformities, limestone formations and entrenched meanders.

2) The occurrence of tetrapod tracks in the Coconino Sandstone. To have these you either need to have a hiatus in current flow over some kind of amphibious tetrapod track in a sand deposit, or a hiatus in deposition of an eolian sand. Which is more believable?

3) The last is a lack of evidence for any other features suggestive of a single transgression/regression cycle and lack of evidence for any flood exceeding the banks of the canyon (scablands, etc.). There just isn't enough water...

2. What features of the grand canyon exist for which the scientific explanations are very speculative and possibly bordering on just plain guessing? Surely there are some perplexing features.

The only things that puzzle me are couple.

1) The lack of definitive origin for limestones in the Bass Formation of the lower Unkar Group. Most limestones are certainly organic, but it would be nice to have some fossils that look like real stromatolites. This is, however, a common problem for Precambrian limestone as far as I know, so it doesn't bother me very much. There may be some information out there that I'm not aware of, also.

2) The fact that there are so many diastems and horizontal unconformities bothers me a little; but again, they do occur in other known settings, so I"m not too worried. This was just a very stable block for some reason, over a very long period of time, and that violates no principle of geology.

Otherwise, things are pretty much explained as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone has a specific issue, but I can pretty much guarantee you that you don't have to worry about anything in the GC overturning old earth and mainstream geology. That is one of the most extensively studied regions in the world and, if there was anything suspicious, it would be pretty well exposed as a failure of geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2014 8:19 PM NoNukes has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 437 of 533 (728078)
05-23-2014 12:51 PM


my summation
I would suggest that you start a nondebate thread on a subject of your choice, like the one that jar started some years ago about the Grand Canyon. It's still there if you want to revive it but if you want to talk about Walther's Law you may need to start a new one.

I too wish this thread had been more about Walther's Law. As it is I don't want to participate in anything further right now.

Just a couple thoughts about what's supposedly problematic for the Flood in the GC:

1) The occurrence of numerous geological events from deposition of the Vishnu to down-cutting of the modern Grand Canyon. It's just not feasible to have so many events occurring in 6ky. This includes such things as numerous unconformities, limestone formations and entrenched meanders.

No idea why the Vishnu is a problem.

The unconformities are of course "missing" depositions, for which there is no evidence except belief based on the theory that they're supposed to be there. So that is hardly a problem for the Flood as we don't expect them to be there anyway.

As for the cutting of the canyon, it fits fine with the cutting of all the other phenomena at the same time in the Grand Staircase area after all the strata were laid down.

Entrenched meanders would have occurred after the Flood waters had died down to river size, but especially in the eastern parts where the land was more flat, scoured down to a flat layer.

Limestone would have been laid down as per Walther's Law. It's laid down in rising sea water so certainly should have been laid down in the rising Flood water.

The idea that any of this is a problem for the Flood makes no sense.

2) The occurrence of tetrapod tracks in the Coconino Sandstone. To have these you either need to have a hiatus in current flow over some kind of amphibious tetrapod track in a sand deposit, or a hiatus in deposition of an eolian sand. Which is more believable?

Isn't this called the Argument from Incredulity? Of course what one believes is really scientific, isn't it? So if that's the scientific criterion here I find it much easier to believe that there were numerable breaks in the rising of the Flood waters, waves coming in and going out the way waves do, only bigger waves across more land area.

3) The last is a lack of evidence for any other features suggestive of a single transgression/regression cycle and lack of evidence for any flood exceeding the banks of the canyon (scablands, etc.). There just isn't enough water...

Banks of the canyon? I figure the water was standing a mile above the canyon before it was cut, right over the uppermost strata that had been laid down to that height, and that while it was probably the tectonic shaking and faulting in that uppermost strata that opened the crack that eventually became the GC, it was the water rushing into that crack as well as all over the GS area at the same time that cut the GC along with all the GS cliffs and canyons, washing away humongous amounts of broken up strata. The "lack of evidence" is due to looking in the wrong place with the wrong theory.

2. What features of the grand canyon exist for which the scientific explanations are very speculative and possibly bordering on just plain guessing? Surely there are some perplexing features.

The only things that puzzle me are couple.
1) The lack of definitive origin for limestones in the Bass Formation of the lower Unkar Group. Most limestones are certainly organic, but it would be nice to have some fossils that look like real stromatolites. This is, however, a common problem for Precambrian limestone as far as I know, so it doesn't bother me very much. There may be some information out there that I'm not aware of, also.

Don't see why this is a problem.

2) The fact that there are so many diastems and horizontal unconformities bothers me a little; but again, they do occur in other known settings, so I"m not too worried. This was just a very stable block for some reason, over a very long period of time, and that violates no principle of geology.

Nor should the Flood violate any principles of Geology really. The fact that there are so many diastems and unconformities IS a problem for the OE theory, not at all a problem for the Flood, in fact it's evidence for the Floodl. Not that Geology can't rationalize away anything that supports the Flood of course.

Otherwise, things are pretty much explained as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone has a specific issue, but I can pretty much guarantee you that you don't have to worry about anything in the GC overturning old earth and mainstream geology. That is one of the most extensively studied regions in the world and, if there was anything suspicious, it would be pretty well exposed as a failure of geology.

If they knew where to look and what sort of evidence matters they might see something suspicious, but we don't have to worry because they aren't going to.

So, anyway. Enjoy your Mutual Admiration Society.

ABE: Oops, forgot I wanted to add this link to a site about students investigating Walther's Law on a marshy beach. Wanted to find something that shows it as a normally occurring way sediments are layered, in this case probably merely by rising tides. Still seems to me that the rising water of the Flood had to have acted in exactly the same way, making all those huge extensive layers of sediments everywhere they are found.

https://rodriguez.web.unc.edu/...s-walthers-law-in-the-field

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by roxrkool, posted 05-23-2014 2:20 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 439 by roxrkool, posted 05-23-2014 2:29 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 440 by edge, posted 05-23-2014 2:32 PM Faith has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 438 of 533 (728083)
05-23-2014 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
05-23-2014 12:51 PM


Re: my summation
No idea why the Vishnu is a problem.

For one thing, the Vishnu did not start out life as a metamorphic rock. It's protolith are sedimentary and volcanic rocks. In addition, the Vishnu complex itself rests atop even older basement rocks (the Elves Chasm Gniess and the Trinity Gniess), which themselves have their own volcanic and/or sedimentary protoliths AND subsequent metamorphism PRIOR to deposition of the Vishnu protoliths.

For the older Elves Chasm and Trinity gneisses alone, this means that:

1) the protolith sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks had to have been depositied by non-Flood-related sea water and volcanoes to several kilometers depth,
2) the rocks then had to undergo lithification,
3) the rocks had to be uplifted,
4) then weathered / eroded,
5) then surficially exposed,
6) then covered by more sedimentary and volcanic flows and who knows how much more sedimentary/volcanic material, to some depth,
7) then buried and undergone metamorphism
8) then uplifted,
9) then exposed to weathering and erosion.

Only after all these events can the deposition of the Vishnu protolith sediments finally start, which essentially begins the numbered sequence above, again:

For the Vishnu Metamorphic Complex, this means that:

1) the protolith sedimentary rocks had to have been deposited by non-Flood-related sea water and volcanoes to several kilometers depth,
2) the rocks then had to undergo lithification,
3) the rocks had to be uplifted,
4) then weathered / eroded,
5) then surficially exposed,
6) then covered by more sedimentary and volcanic flows and who knows how much more sedimentary/volcanic material, to some depth,
7) then buried and undergone metamorphism

Also! The entire package of rocks from the gneisses to the Vishnu complex were intruded by numerous igneous plutons, dikes, sills, etc. (the Zoroaster Plutonic Complex) during pre-, syn-, and post metamorphic events (i.e., more than one metamorphic event is suggested by the minerals and textures of the rocks). These igneous rocks take time to cool, too, and the deeper the emplacement of these igneous bodies, the longer they will take to cool.

It is only until after all the above has happened that the entire package of basement rocks can be uplifted, exposed to weathering and erosion, and form the surface upon which more sedimentary rocks (the Grand Canyon Supergroup) can be deposited -- this is, of course, the surface which we today have named the Great Unconformity. The fact is, this is only one of several major unconformities, it just happens this one is the easiest to recognize in the field.

And that, in short, is part of why the Vishnu is a problem for Creationists.

For a succinct summary of Proterozoic-aged events, see Chapter 8: Early Proterozoic Rocks of Grand Canyon, Arizona

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 12:51 PM Faith has taken no action

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 439 of 533 (728084)
05-23-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
05-23-2014 12:51 PM


Re: my summation
Limestone would have been laid down as per Walther's Law. It's laid down in rising sea water so certainly should have been laid down in the rising Flood water.

I would be interested in seeing your chemistry on how flood waters can precipitate and deposit thousands of feet of carbonate. Carbonate precipitates and deposits only under very specific conditions, none of which are reasonable during a global catastrophic flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 12:51 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 440 of 533 (728085)
05-23-2014 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
05-23-2014 12:51 PM


Re: my summation
No idea why the Vishnu is a problem.

It is a huge problem because it represents a time of volcanism and sedimentation that was metamorphosed and deformed prior to intrusion by the Zoroaster Granite. That granite is dated at about 1.7 ga, and had to cool and be partially eroded along with the Vishnu before the Unkar Group could even be deposited. When you consider all of the post Vishnu events, it is impossible to even imagine them all being fit into a 6ky timeframe.

The unconformities are of course "missing" depositions, for which there is no evidence except belief based on the theory that they're supposed to be there. So that is hardly a problem for the Flood as we don't expect them to be there anyway.

They represent time. Time for which there is no record and time which only adds to the time represented by deposition and deformation.

As for the cutting of the canyon, it fits fine with the cutting of all the other phenomena at the same time in the Grand Staircase area after all the strata were laid down.

The problem is that there is evidence for at least two periods of stream erosion. Again, you don't have time for that.

Entrenched meanders would have occurred after the Flood waters had died down to river size, but especially in the eastern parts where the land was more flat, scoured down to a flat layer.

But the implication is two periods of different erosional style.

Limestone would have been laid down as per Walther's Law. It's laid down in rising sea water so certainly should have been laid down in the rising Flood water.

I have found no evidence of limestone being deposited by a flood and that doesn't even begin to address the time it would take. Walther's Law, or not, there simply isn't time or the depositional environment.

The idea that any of this is a problem for the Flood makes no sense.

This is what you have said repeatedly, but you have not provided any evidence to support your statement.

Isn't this called the Argument from Incredulity? Of course what one believes is really scientific, isn't it? So if that's the scientific criterion here I find it much easier to believe that there were numerable breaks in the rising of the Flood waters, waves coming in and going out the way waves do, only bigger waves across more land area.

I'm sure you find it much easier to believe, but you have not gone any further than just making this assertion. Your waves are exactly what would destroy the footprints.

Banks of the canyon? I figure the water was standing a mile above the canyon before it was cut, right over the uppermost strata that had been laid down to that height, and that while it was probably the tectonic shaking and faulting in that uppermost strata that opened the crack that eventually became the GC, it was the water rushing into that crack as well as all over the GS area at the same time that cut the GC along with all the GS cliffs and canyons, washing away humongous amounts of broken up strata. The "lack of evidence" is due to looking in the wrong place with the wrong theory.

I'm still looking for your evidence. Telling us what you 'figure', is not evidence.

Don't see why this is a problem.

I'm not saying it's a problem in the sense of refuting anything, just that I'd like to see some nice definitive evidence.

Nor should the Flood violate any principles of Geology really. The fact that there are so many diastems and unconformities IS a problem for the OE theory, not at all a problem for the Flood, in fact it's evidence for the Floodl

Did I say that a flood would violate any principles? The evidence, however refutes a flood.

Not that Geology can't rationalize away anything that supports the Flood of course.

I thought you wanted a technical discussion...

If they knew where to look and what sort of evidence matters they might see something suspicious, but we don't have to worry because they aren't going to.

So, anyway. Enjoy your Mutual Admiration Society.


Thank you for proving my suspicion that you are not being serious about having a straightforward technical discussion.

ABE: Oops, forgot I wanted to add this link to a site about students investigating Walther's Law on a marshy beach. Wanted to find something that shows it as a normally occurring way sediments are layered, in this case probably merely by rising tides. Still seems to me that the rising water of the Flood had to have acted in exactly the same way, making all those huge extensive layers of sediments everywhere they are found.

https://rodriguez.web.unc.edu/...s-walthers-law-in-the-field


It would have. That's the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 12:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 3:08 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 441 of 533 (728088)
05-23-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by edge
05-23-2014 2:32 PM


Re: my summation
I didn't say I wanted a discussion at all. I've been pretty clear about that I would have thought. I was giving my summation, period.

I'm not interested in your answers, they are all about TIME and time has nothing to do with this, that's just the box you all think in.

I answered your post clearly enough, try thinking outside your box for a change, I did give good reasoning for the Flood.

Instead of thinking about the particulars of Walther's Law you switch to what you think a "flood" would do. NO, think in terms of what rising water would do as per Walther's Law. If that link I posted shows that layers can be laid down in a very short period of time just from normal tides, there is no problem with the time element of the Flood.

No need to answer again. Please.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by edge, posted 05-23-2014 2:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by edge, posted 05-23-2014 6:23 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 443 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2014 6:42 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 444 by edge, posted 05-23-2014 7:25 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 446 by ringo, posted 05-28-2014 1:34 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 442 of 533 (728105)
05-23-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Faith
05-23-2014 3:08 PM


Re: my summation
If that link I posted shows that layers can be laid down in a very short period of time just from normal tides, there is no problem with the time element of the Flood.

I don't see that it does. Please explain your reasoning.

Why can something that appears to happen over a short period of time not happen over a long period of time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 3:08 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 443 of 533 (728107)
05-23-2014 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Faith
05-23-2014 3:08 PM


Re: my summation
I'm not interested in your answers, they are all about TIME and time has nothing to do with this, that's just the box you all think in.

You should be very interested in time, as time has everything to do with the things we are all discussing.

You are trying to compress time by a factor of some 5000 to 50,000x from what everyone else has concluded so you don't just get to hand-wave it all away.

I answered your post clearly enough, try thinking outside your box for a change, I did give good reasoning for the Flood.

You have demonstrated time and again that it is you who can't think outside of the box. You are willing to ignore or obfuscate any data that disagrees with your religious belief.

You made yourself not just blind, but deaf and dumb besides.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 3:08 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 444 of 533 (728110)
05-23-2014 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Faith
05-23-2014 3:08 PM


Re: my summation
No need to answer again. Please.

Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 3:08 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 445 of 533 (728339)
05-27-2014 8:56 AM


Google Street View now covers the Grand Canyon. Talk about opportunities for more Faith fantasies!

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19526
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 446 of 533 (728416)
05-28-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Faith
05-23-2014 3:08 PM


Re: my summation
Faith writes:

... try thinking outside your box for a change....


Nice mantra. But before you can think outside the box you need to understand the box. You're sitting on a bicycle and fantasizing about how to fly a 747.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 3:08 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 447 of 533 (728549)
05-30-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by Faith
05-20-2014 2:31 PM


Re: salt basin
I can pull rank too: Some day God will show you that the Flood did happen, ...

Why not now? Why not here? This would be a great opportunity to set the record straight, so why not do that?

I can only suggest that both God, and the professional creationists, have abandoned you in your efforts to strike down the anti-floodists and start a whole new branch of geology.

So, it appears that, really, you have not the authority or the backing to 'pull rank' on anyone.

So I'll leave you to answer to Him for now. You WILL have to answer to Him, you really should keep that in mind for lots of reasons.

I already have answered.

But I have a few questions of my own, as well.

At this point, I think the earlier question regarding summation phase is appropriate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 2:31 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 448 of 533 (730408)
06-28-2014 12:57 AM


All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
I can't find any place else to post this and I've said much along the same lines in this thread in relation to the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase area.

I watched the old movie "Thelma and Louise" recently and particularly enjoyed the part where they are driving through the Arizona landscape among all the layered formations, Monument Valley type formations although not those well known monument formations, just layered hills, bumps, buttes. ABE: The police car where they put the cop in the trunk is parked right across from such a layered formation so it's in the picture close up for some time. /ABE

Just have to comment again about how such formations -- a stack of layers exposed by massive erosion -- show that the whole stack was in place before the massive erosion took place. This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut. It's true of the Grand Staircase where all the strata are there from Kaibab to Claron before the cliffs and canyons of the "stairs" wre cut. And it's true of the hoodoos of the Claron where the layers that formed them were all in place before the hoodoos themselves were sculpted. And it's true of Monument Valley where all the strata of which the monuments are composed had to have been in place for thousands of square miles before massive erosion took all of it away except the monuments themselves. And the formations shown in the film mentioned illustrate the same point.

I keep pointing this out but its implications don't seem to be getting across very well. It's the same point I was trying to make by pointing out the lack of tectonic disturbance or SERIOUS erosion to he strata visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon until after all of the strata were laid down in that area from the bottom of the canyon to the top of the Grand Staircase. None of that massive erosion happened until after that entire stack to a depth of at least two miles was laid down.

In the movie I'm reminded of the same point. Looks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are. Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.

The thing is the laying down of the strata supposedly occurred over hundreds of millions of years and yet ONLY after all that was in place did this massive erosion occur. And yet that fact is dismissed as nothing unusual?

Weird.

I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.

Edited by Faith, : punctuation

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 2:16 AM Faith has replied
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 06-28-2014 8:49 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 449 of 533 (730418)
06-28-2014 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:57 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
If your point is that strata are only eroded after they've been deposited, this is equally consistent with real geology as with Flood geology or indeed with magic-strata-pixies geology. The only thing it's inconsistent with is time running backwards. It's kind of ... y'know ... logically inevitable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 681 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 450 of 533 (730419)
06-28-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 2:16 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
No, I'm talking about the WHOLE DEEP STACK of strata being laid down before being eroded, shaped into monuments, stairs, hoodoos, carved into canyons.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 2:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 2:22 AM Faith has replied
 Message 453 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2014 2:34 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022