Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
91 online now:
dwise1, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,618 Year: 1,366/23,288 Month: 1,366/1,851 Week: 6/484 Day: 6/93 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 216 of 518 (810780)
06-01-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
06-01-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Even a bryozoan would be good. Is there any sensible reason why they would be absent from the Cambrian if Flood geology was true ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 219 of 518 (810785)
06-01-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by edge
06-01-2017 2:36 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Just another example of Faith's anti-scientific attitude. She doesn't want people examining the data so she can maintain the pretence that the fossil record is evidence for the Flood rather than unanswerable evidence against her crazy Flood geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:36 PM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 239 of 518 (810835)
06-02-2017 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:05 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
quote:

Why are you raising these ancient questions that have been answered many times?

Because the "answers" are grossly inadequate. That should be obvious.

quote:

For whatever reason the Flood sorted things that way.

There is no sensible reason for thinking that it would. Especially when you get to the idea of the Flood repeatedly picking up large areas of sea floor and gently stacking them on top of each other.

quote:

The lower strata are mostly all marine, there's a start, and the upper get into the land animals which makes some kind of sense.

Most strata are marine. If the proportion is significantly different for older rocks I would appreciate a reference. So far as I am aware it is not the case.

quote:

the Flood explains the facts so much better than the Time Scale does there's no point in worrying about the things that aren't yet understo

I guess that if you make a habit of rejecting contrary evidence it might seem that way. But in reality that's just a joke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 1:02 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 241 of 518 (810837)
06-02-2017 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
06-02-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
quote:

I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table

No, you have not.

quote:

that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario

You haven't even made a good attempt at that, ignoring counter-examples, ignoring the fact that sea beds are expected to be mostly flat and really no evidence other than a handful of photographs which are bound to miss a lot of evidence.

quote:

that time periods can't be marked by rocks

Which seems to be a silly strawman, although you can't explain it well enough to even be sure of that.

quote:

that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances.

Which we know to be false.

quote:

Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.

And were subsequently eroded, and unbent laters deposited on top...

quote:

The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.

A more rational evaluation would be that your arguments are to weak to matter much in the face of the fact that you have not even a hint of a valid explanation of the order of the fossil record. And that is before we get into considering all the other evidence better explained by the scientific view.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 1:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 249 of 518 (810897)
06-03-2017 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
06-02-2017 11:35 PM


Re: The Bible is certainly an unreliable source
Certainly as history, suffering the flaws of most ancient sources - and much more so than some. Genesis is especially unreliable in that respect, being composed of retellings of myth and legend.

Naturally if you twist the truth to support the false dogmas you cling to - even unwittingly - your arguments are going to fail. And that is the only reason you think you have "proof"

quote:

Its critics are the ones at fault.

Because accepting the Bible as it is, rather the way you want it to be is a "fault" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 11:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:05 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 251 of 518 (810901)
06-03-2017 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:05 AM


Even Christianity would be better
quote:

You might try just taking that position some time instead of insisting on the vaporings of the scholars who are just making up stuff anyway.

At least I wouldn't have to resort to hypocritical lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:22 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 253 of 518 (810903)
06-03-2017 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:22 AM


Re: Even Christianity would be better
Thank you for proving my point. In fact more than one point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 255 of 518 (810905)
06-03-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:45 AM


Re: Even Christianity would be better
quote:

You can't read the Bible and deny it without lying to yourself because it's supernatural

You seem to manage it easily enough.

I am happy to take the Bible as it is and treat it as a historian would. There is nothing about it that compels me to take any other approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 262 of 518 (811001)
06-04-2017 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
06-03-2017 7:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
quote:

Dating methods is all you guys have though.

You know that isn't true. All the other evidence doesn't go away just because you want to deny and suppress it.

We have the fossil record. We have numerous geological features which speak of long periods of time, or of prolonged dry conditions or of buried landscapes.

quote:

And you don't seem to see that they are open to interpretation and are not the hard and fast evidences you think they are

By which you mean that we accept the strong evidence of their validity - which has been discussed here, notably in RAZD's thread while you reject that evidence solely because the dating methods all prove you wrong.

quote:

What I've shown is that the Flood explains much of the actual geological facts, and shows the impossibility of the Geological Time Scale.

You can't do that by ignoring or by attempting to explain away as many actual geological facts as you do. The real evidence shows the opposite of what you claim.

quote:

The evidence is very clear

Yes, and it shows that Flood geology is false, and that the Earth's geology formed over a very long period of time. This has been known for 200 years now.

quote:

That means the dating methods are flawed.

All you have is an attempt to impose a myth onto the evidence - and to do so you have to deny and suppress or desperately "explain away" the evidence. Obviously your beliefs and methods are anti-scientific and false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 7:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:13 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 265 of 518 (811020)
06-04-2017 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:13 AM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
quote:

The arguments given have been all about dating.

Oh please, these issues have been thoroughly discussed in previous threads and all the matters referred to have been at least mentioned in this thread

quote:

The fossil record is irrelevant if what I've shown is true, that the strata clearly show rapid deposition by water and absolutely no evidence of time gaps suggesting millions of years for time periods. "Buried landscapes" are also easily understood to be features carved underground by running water. If time periods are eliminated so are buried landscapes.

You haven't shown any such thing. Refusing to admit the evidence hardly shows that it doesn't exist and daft attempts to explain it away hardly helps your case.

quote:

I grant the logic of the claim but the logic breaks down when it can't be confirmed, which it can't because it reaches into the unwitnessed past where things may be different enough to invalidate it.

Because "the laws of physics must have changed so as to affect multiple independent dating methods in the same way, but leaving absolutely no trace" is a rational position. I don't think so.

quote:

But I'm not rejecting it for reasons concerning dating itself, but on the grounds I spelled out in the previous post, that the strata show features that make time periods impossible, and if time periods are impossible the dating methods are wrong.

Which amounts to nothing more than the rejection of all contrary evidence.

quote:

I believe the actual evidence I've given explains the geological facts and shows the standard interpretation's to be wrong. The strata support the Flood and clearly do not show any evidence for long ages between layers.

And you do so by ignoring or "explaining" away large amounts of evidence for long ages.

quote:

This is not ignoring anything or explaining away anything, it's answering it with a more reasonable interpretation based on the actual observable facts.

If it was reasonable you wouldn't have to deny or "explain" away so much evidence. Angular unconformities, the huge monadnocks buried in the Grand Canyon, a boulder from earlier rock embedded in more recent strata. And so on.

quote:

The problem is that I just showed how this is wrong

The problem seems to be your unwillingness to admit to the existence of the contrary evidence. That is the whole basis of your argument. Not surprisingly it can't be taken as showing anything about geology.

quote:

Everything I said is based on observation of the geological facts, the strata as seen in the Grand Canyon, and not on any prior belief

Because pretending that evidence doesn't exist is "based on observation".

quote:

the lack of the kind of erosion between layers to show time at the surface which the Time Scale needs to be truE

Which can be seen if you look for it.

quote:

the lack of disturbance through all the laying down of the strata,

Which can be seen in many places.

quote:

the bending of rock supposedly millions of years old in tandem with much younger sedimentary deposits, which is impossible and suggests that all were equally young and malleable at the time of the bending.

Which is in fact entirely possible. I've seen photographs of fossils deformed by tectonic stress in the same way as the enclosing rock. Slow motion backed by massive force - which is exactly what tectonic stress Is observed to produce - can force rock to flow.

quote:

All this is actual evidence against the idea of an old earth, it's not something imposed on the facts, it's there IN the facts.

Saying that we don't see things which are there to be seen is not "actual evidence". It is not "in the facts". It is falsehood and nothing more.

quote:

And again, when the evidence on this level is so clear, that makes other evidence wrong, such as the dating methods.

When you are so clearly wrong about everything why on earth should we discard evidence which better fits with the real facts ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:45 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 270 of 518 (811085)
06-05-2017 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
When you say that you "answered' the evidence you mean that you "explained" it away. And your explanations are somewhat less than convincing.

quote:

I believe it's clearly shown in the facts I've given

Falsehood aren't facts.

quote:

I also believe the monadnocks and the boulder are easily explained in terms of rapid deposition followed by tectonic disturbance.

In the absence of any such explanation - or even the likelihood of any such explanation that's not exactly something that you should believe, let alone anyone else.

quote:

It is not refusing to admit contrary evidence when that evidence is being answered with a better interpretation.

If the "better" interpretation is only "better" because it fits with your views - and is worse by any sensible standard I would call it a refusal. And that is the case here.

quote:

I've also seen the deformed fossils. The extreme pressure of tectonic twisting of the rock can do that, and of course ALL the rock in the strata were not completely lithified at that time, being recently laid down in the Flood, which is what the evidence for rapid deposition show

Then you are misinterpreting the evidence. Obviously an unfossilised shell would not be soft - it would be brittle and break rather than be deformed. The process of fossilisation can only harden it further, yet if it were somehow much harder then the sediment surrounding it, it would not deform. This is pretty clear evidence that the rock and the fossil were fully lithified when the distortion occurred.

And let me point out that it is observed that the Himalayas are still growing. Are they made of your soft sediment or is actual rock being slowly deformed right now ?

quote:

You accept what is only an assumption based on OE geology that the rock was millions of years old when deformed. But my example is just of a gentle bending, the bending of different layers to which conventional Geology assigns a difference of millions of years between them, all being deformed together identically and that is not possible. Try it with clay some time, try folding completely dry strips with a damp strip.


If it can't happen with clay then how can it possibly happen with your recently deposited sediments ? It's weird that you think an experiment that resembles your ideas more than those of conventional geology can somehow refute the latter but not the former.

And what about the layers that are NOT deformed ? You have yet to offer any reasonable explanation for that. And I have to point out that inventing nonsensical ideas about friction hardly helps your case there.

quote:

You say the erosion can be seen if I look for it. If I have to look for it that proves that it is not the sort of erosion that would occur if a layer existed at the surface of the earth. A bit of rubble between layers is far from what we see at the surface of the earth everywhere. Give us hills and valleys, a canyon, a gorge, even an eroded grassy meadow. Nothing anywhere near that scale is found between layers

Of course, we have examples of canyons. Which you explain away. Personally I'd count the monadnocks as "hills and valleys". And how could you identify an "eroded grassy meadow" ? You reject the identification of paleosols, so you can't even find that the surface material was soil.

Not to mention that those features are somewhat atypical of the environments that we should expect to see preserved. To point out just one issue, high areas are almost always subject to erosion, not deposition.

And that doesn't change the fact that we have evidence of a good deal of erosion occurring which you discount.

quote:

Yes I do claim the evidence is there in the actual facts and can be seen by eyes not biased by the OE paradigm.

Given the amount of bias needed to claim that your "facts" are indeed facts your claim is, I am afraid, sonething of a joke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 279 of 518 (811188)
06-05-2017 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
06-05-2017 5:04 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
If you actually look at that diagram, Faith, it is easy to find evidence that you are wrong. At the far left the Claron formation is NOT tilted, but sits on top of the tilted strata. Given the exaggeration of the vertical scale I have to say that I am not convinced that the section to the right of the fault was tilted by tectonic forces, either. The slope is so very gentle there.

At the far right the faulted angular unconformity (just to the left of the canyon) is even worse for your case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 5:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 6:13 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 287 of 518 (811221)
06-06-2017 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
06-05-2017 6:13 PM


Re: Just the Usual Crazy Flood Scenario
quote:

The far left formation with the Claron lying horizontally on top of the tilted strata is a perfect example of an angular unconformity in which the lower strata tilted under the upper, in this case the Claron

That is a perfect example of the disparate rationalisations you invent to try to explain away contrary evidence. And let us note that you do not offer any reason why that did not happen to the Claron formation to the right of the fault. (Aside from the obvious lunacy of the idea).

I suppose that you will insist that I am just being biased - because you can't believe that something you made up could be wrong. Yes, you did make up the claim that there was no tectonic movement before all the strata were deposited - you certainly didn't base it on viewing the actual evidence.

And the idea that all such disturbances "appear" to be caused by the same event is also a ridiculous falsehood. The ideas you impose on the data despite the actual appearances is just another example of putting your inventions before the evidence.

quote:

The far left unconformity is also like the Great Unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon which you know I've interpreted in the same way, as tilted while all the strata above were in place, in this case confined by the weight of what would have been about three miles of strata above, the tilting forced by the tectonic pressure that produced all the disturbances seen on the cross section, all of them AFTER all the strata were in place. What's remarkable of course is that the main depth of the strata remained roughly horizontal and parallel during all this activity, which is what makes this area such a good place to see such things.

That IS the Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon. And we still see no reason to suppose that the upper strata were in place when the original tilting occurred. The fact that they were not affected is not amazing at all - just solid evidence that they were not there. They were, after all, affected by the later faulting as can easily be seen. As I said it is a good place to see that you are wrong.

quote:

And since the Great Unconformity covers a huge distance, well beyond the Grand Canyon area, it looks like when the continents separated there was quite a shaking in the Earth

The Great Unconformity generally refers to the hiatus in deposition, not the tilting, which is far more local.

quote:

I'm more and more convinced this had to have occurred simultaneously with the receding of the Flood waters,

Of course that is how you often react to contrary evidence - by clinging more strongly to the original belief.

quote:

You and edge should really start recognizing all this and joining us Floodists in renovating Geology.

There is no way that I am going to accept obvious falsehoods. No way that I am going to put a crazy fantasy before the evidence. And no reason why I should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 6:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 290 of 518 (811228)
06-06-2017 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
06-06-2017 1:45 AM


Re: Just the Usual Crazy Flood Scenario
quote:

Akshully, there's nothing desperate about it, I don't even know what the contrary view is in this case. I just look at the cross section, ponder it, and report what I see. A horizontal layer with tilted layers beneath it is what else but an angular unconformity. The tilted layers are easily identified as those that on the right are just beneath the Claron there too

The contrary view is the obvious one. That the lower, tilted layers were tilted first, then eroded and then the material that makes up the Claron formation was deposited on top. If you come to any other conclusion, I'd have to ask what evidence there is for it.

That scenario is even more obvious in the angular unconformity on the right. And, if you remember a more detailed look at the unconformity at Siccar Point only confirmed the standard scenario.

quote:

For some reason the strata split at that point, at the fault line, dragging the strata beneath the Claron on the left (North) into their tilted position, but the Claron itself simply stayed in its horizontal position, probably originally with many other layers above it. I usually explain that kind of formation elsewhere in terms of the friction between the tilted or buckled lower strata and the upper causing the two to "stick" together, so I'd apply that here too.

Obviously there should be an explanation of why the situation is so different on each side of the fault. Why is it "obvious" that the tilt occurred when the Claron formation was present ? It seems obvious to me that it happened first (the fact that the Claron formation seems to be completely unaffected - and the flatness of the surface it rests on point to that). And since the contact surfaces should be the same, your ideas about friction obviously don't explain the difference at all.

quote:

Well, this happens to be completely untrue. I got it from studying this cross section. What is seen there is NO disturbances except at the top of the Grand Canyon and underneath it, and the canyon itself of course.

In other words you only looked at one small corner of the planet (which is certainly inadequate) and even there you have to overlook clear evidence to the contrary. I think that is quite sufficient to prove my point.

As to your longer argument I will point out that you cannot prove a universal by cherry-picking evidence. The very fact of doing so is grounds for suspecting deception. To make the obvious point there is no reason why things could not occur after all the (currently present) strata were in place - so pointing to things that did is hardly good evidence for your claim.

More we know that you are making false claims. The meanders in the Grand Canyon provide strong evidence that it was formed by the river - evidence for which you have yet to offer a coherent answer.

Also:

quote:

Looks to me like the raising of the land and the tilting of the Great Unconformity occurred simultaneously, whatever tilted the GC also pushing up the whole area.

Is only a subjective personal impression and one very much at odds with what we see. The fact that the tilting did not affect the upper strata, while the fault did is one obvious piece of evidence that the fault was a later event - and reinforces the conclusion that the tilt occurred before the other strata were in place.

And to top it all the chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion is absent.

quote:

Beg to differ. Not at all "despite the actual appearances" but entirely because of those appearances as I just spelled out. Truly truly I have derived all these ideas from my observations of the evidence and no prior ideas whatever.

For that to even be possibly true you need actual evidence that - despite the obvious appearance to the contrary - all the angular unconformities we have looked at really did happen underground. Because quite frankly it looks exactly like a desperate excuse invented to explain away evidence that demolishes your assertion.

quote:

How odd since I've done a good job of mustering the evidence that shows that they were already in place before ALL the disturbances shown on the cross section, above and below the canyon area.

I would really like to see the evidence that the tilt at the Great Unconformity happened after the other strata were in p,ace. The evidence that it happened before is very, very clear. What do you have to overcome that evidence ?

Edited by PaulK, : Tidied up quote, removing excess material


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 1:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 4:26 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 292 of 518 (811237)
06-06-2017 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
06-06-2017 4:26 AM


Re: Just the Usual Crazy Flood Scenario
Quick comments:

1) the fact that some tectonic events happened after all the strata were in place is not even evidence that all of them did. In particular the fact that the fault split the Claron formation is not evidence that the layers underneath were tilted at the same time.

2) if you have no evidence favouring your alternative "explanation" over the obvious conclusion that the tilted strata in angular unconformities were tilted before the later strata were deposited your argument collapses.

3) when you do try to make a case for the tilting happening later, it doesn't make sense:

quote:

the fact that the land is raised over the GU and all the strata above it follow that contour, the fact that the canyon itself is cut into that contour, the fact that the Cardenas lava flows out at the far eastern end of the canyon at the uppermost level still standing there, which suggests it happened at the same time as the lava flow at the top of the Grand Staircase

The raising obviously follows the faulting, but not the tilting. This is evidence against your view. As I asked, how does it make sense for the fault to affect the upper strata, but not the tilting of the Supergroup if they happened at the same time?

As for the Cardenas, here is some actual geology:


A thin, discontinuous basalt flow is preserved in the Ochoa Point Member several meters below the Dox/Cardenas contact. The lithology of the uppermost Dox suggests a tidal flat environment and that the region was at or near sea level during the onset of the repetitive eruptions extruding the Cardenas basalts. Local features and mixing at the contact suggest that the basalt overflowed wet, unconsolidated Dox sand and sediments. The Cardenas is characterized by recurring horizons and discontinuous lenses of interbedded sandstone similar to Dox lithology, which suggests the erosion and transport ongoing during Dox time continued to operate and contribute sediments that accumulated throughout the Cardenas during intervals between the eruptions and flows extruding the igneous layers.

In short, the Cardenas lava was breaking through to the surface at the same time as the Dox sandstone was being deposited.

Rockhounds

I don't understand how you relate the Cardenas basalt to the flows on top of the staircase - even without the evidence cited above it is rather clear that the Supergroup rocks were eroded before the strata above them were deposited. And that includes the igneous rocks I take to be the Cardenas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 4:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by edge, posted 06-06-2017 10:17 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 4:18 PM PaulK has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020