Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9024 total)
38 online now:
DrJones*, jar, PaulK (3 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: Moe's URL Addresss
Post Volume: Total: 882,863 Year: 509/14,102 Month: 509/294 Week: 265/136 Day: 41/32 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 740 (733673)
07-20-2014 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
07-19-2014 11:01 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
Just wondering how often you find the dust that settles on your car is entirely sand or entirely fine clay particles or entirely carbonate, or foram ooze. Do I need to explain? The sedimentary strata of the Geologic Column are made up of such different sediments, not mixtures.

I beg to differ. In fact, most sediments, particularly water-lain sediments are mixtures of various types of sediments. I could show you thousands of feet of drill logs that show this. Of course you could say that the Niobrara Formation is not part of the geological column of NE Colorado, but you would be wrong again.

How can you possibly justify some of the outrageous assertions that litter your posts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-19-2014 11:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:31 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 740 (733674)
07-20-2014 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
07-19-2014 11:16 PM


You seem to want to divorce the Geo Column from the Geo Time Scale but the funny thing is when you google the column it comes up either in connection with the time scale or in some cases as identical with it.

As I have explained at least twice, the geologic time scale is a framework in which we classify rocks of all ages. They cannot be 'divorced'.

And in that connection it MUST be identified by its sedimentary layers because those are the ones that mark the time periods of the Geo Time Scale.

No, certain strata helped to define the time scale. It is not dependent upon any particular stratigraphic sequence.

Igneous intrusions are of course more recent because they ARE intrusions and therefore out of order on the time scale. Also the sedimentary layers are the ones that contain the fossils that are the major evidence for Evolution. You don't find fossils in the igneous intrusions.

But they all occur within the geologic time scale. The geological column is basically a record of life and events. Just because an ignimbrite does not have fossils (though some do) does not mean that it is not part of the record.

And of course whatever sediments are being deposited today are "Holocene" on the Geologic Time Scale. Just wondering how often you find that these new sediments are depositing on top of identifiable layers that are recognized to have preceded the Holocene as they can be shown to have done for instance in known strata formations such as the Grand Staircase.

Are you saying that the Grand Staircase is an example? I'm pretty certain that the Holocene is continuous from the Pleistocene in the Mississippi River Delta, all the way down to the Triassic at least.

Do you know what lies under them in any case at all?

Certainly. I just told you.

Shouldn't there be at least some identifiable time periods represented there, if not Pleistocene then maybe Permian? SOMETHING identifiably of the Time Scale?

I'm not sure what your problem is. Of course we know in a lot of places.

I mean the Geologic Column, in order to BE a column at all, must in some places actually appear as a column, wouldn't you think?

Partial columns are fine. We know that there are erosional discontinuities in the geological record.

One datable layer on top of one or two other datable layers?

Why are you saying that these don't exist?

So if you are claiming that it is continuing to build wherever sediment deposits, it just seems logical that you could show that what it is building ON is recognizably earlier strata recognizably identifiable as time periods.

And I just gave you an example. Please explain your problem?

Preferably of course the whole recent block of "time" such as Pleistocene, Pliocene, all that. Of course you can always say it eroded away, that takes care of it, but then you really have no evidence that the column is continuing to be built at all.

Hunh? Why not? Where are you getting all this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-19-2014 11:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:34 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 13 of 740 (733675)
07-20-2014 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
07-20-2014 12:25 AM


There are no sedimentary layers on Ascension Island because it is a volcanic island, therefore no Geologic Column at least as it is customarily associated with the Geologic Time Scale.

Completely wrong. Anyone who has studied rocks knows that the boundary between sedimentary and igneous is pretty vague considering that pyroclastic rocks have sedimentary features, and you also have the problem of reworked volcanic rocks.

That may not be an intrusion there, but then it is a layer among other volcanic layers, and not part of the Geologic Column.

It is for Ascension Island...

It seems to have been completely ignored that my original point was that lava is not part of the Geologic Column.

Which is a wrong point...

The picture presented looked identical in form to pictures I found of coal seams. Then it turns out that it's on Ascension Island which is volcanic. But nobody bothered to note that therefore it was not part of the Geologic Column.

Repeating a loony statement is not going to make it true.

Yes, any deposition is going to be more recent than whatever it is deposited upon, but the point is that the Geologic Column IS associated with the Geologic Time Scale and the strata that are identified with that are quite identifiable as separate sediments, often to a great depth, and the core sample presented by CS on the other thread was very far from anything like those strata.

Why do they have to be the same?

The problem, in other words, is that the Geologic Column really is a distinct identifiable stack of sedimentary layers, historically identifiable, and not just a pile of stuff, like the dust RAZD thinks could become another layer of said Column, or like the core samples CS presented.

It is identifiable in each location on earth.

Seems to me you should have to show that you are building on those particular identifiable strata that have been historically identified as rungs in the Time Scale ladder, ...

The rocks are not the ladder.

Do you have problems telling maps apart from actual roads?

... and not just some motley lumpy deposition of shallow layers that isn't anything at all like the Column or the Time Scale.

What rule says they must be. Please document your assertions. As it is, you are just making stuff up.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 12:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-20-2014 12:42 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 740 (733676)
07-20-2014 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
07-20-2014 1:39 AM


I think to a geologist, the geologic column is the geologic time scale, especially if the context is that we are referring to THE geologic column.

As I have tried to analogize before, the time scale is like a calendar that records the deposition of rocks. Some days, not much happens, while on other days there's a lot of events being recorded. The reason the time scale exists in its form is because we see profound changes in the the deposits and the life represented in them.

I don't have a lot of real world experience, and what I did have was quite a few years ago, but I don't recall geologists referring an area's rocks as being "the geologic column". The rocks themselves are "the rocks", "the geology", or "the stratigraphy". A column is a graphic representation on paper.

A good point. A column is a graphic representation and what we loosely call the 'geological column' is really a generalization. Each location actually has its own stratigraphy which we could, more properly call, a stratigraphic sequence.

And no, an areas geology is not inherently tied to the geologic time scale. A geologist could look at an area of rocks, map them out, do cross sections, etc., totally independent of the time scale. As a student, I've mapped a number of areas where I never did know the ages.

Yes, you can do geology without a time scale (other than the relative scale).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-20-2014 1:39 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 20 of 740 (733714)
07-20-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Capt Stormfield
07-20-2014 12:42 PM


I love analogies and this one is apt due to the historical theme. I'm sure that Faith will disagree since analogies are usually lost on YECs who see things only in absolute terms. The 'geological column' is THE COLUMN, no way around it.

I also think that the utter denial of evidence for old ages is central to Faith's reasoning, regardless of the fact that she 'uses the same information'. It is simply not possible to have all of these events occurring in an abbreviated geologic history, so they can be safely ignored. That puts an insurmountable distance between her and reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-20-2014 12:42 PM Capt Stormfield has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 21 of 740 (733717)
07-20-2014 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
07-20-2014 1:10 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
0No you don't need to explain, you need to learn: sometimes layers are all classified as one type of material; sand for instance covers a range of sizes and can be made up of different material of origin ...

A lot of the point is that pure sands are not all that common. Not only do you see mixtures of composition, but also grain size. I think that most sandstones are not pure sand, nor pure quartz. That's one reason we have a number of classifications of sandstone and various modifiers.

... ("black sand" is finely ground volcanic rock), ...

That is one occurrence of sand. Black sand beaches are common in volcanic areas where basalts make up much of the section. Hawaii is an example. Other types of 'black sand' could be some basaltic, fine grained pyroclastics; but my favorite is what you get when you pan down stream sediments for gold. That black sand is largely higher density grains such as magnetite and will includes gold, if present. It makes a nice contrast to the gold grains.

... and it is defined by size more than material: ...

"Sand" refers to the grain size. The "black" would imply some composition.

ETA: I see that the topic is drifting here, so let me add that radiometric dating has solidified the framework of the geological column and has mainly used igneous rocks in the past. There have really been no surprises as far as order of the strata and their absolute ages. At first, they were kind of surprised to see how old rocks are, but they never had an absolute measure before.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2014 1:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 25 of 740 (733752)
07-20-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
07-20-2014 10:31 PM


Re: observed net erosion ¨ deposition must occur somewhere
I get it all from geology sources, where else would I get it?

Well, then, it's pretty clear that you misinterpret the descriptions and make up a lot of stuff.

And you can cut the abusive tone of voice.

I prefer to think of it as 'critical'. Take it however you want.

When you look at the diagrams representing, say, the Grand Canyon, you see separate identifiable unmixed sediments characterizing most of the strata. They are all sandstone or all limestone etc.

You mean like the Hermit Shale?

Hermit Formation (Lower Permian)—Red, slope-forming, fine-grained, thin-bedded siltstone and sandstone. Upper part contains red and white, massive, low-angle cross-bedded calcareous sandstone and siltstone beds in western one-quarter of map area. (bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/hermit.htm)

Or the Bright Angel Shale?


Bright Angel Shale (Middle Cambrian)—Green and purple-red, slope-forming siltstone and shale, and interbeds of red-brown to brown sandstone of Tapeats Sandstone lithology.(bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/hermit.htm)

Or maybe the Muav Limestone?

Muav Limestone (Middle Cambrian)—Dark-gray, light-gray, brown, and orange red, cliff-forming limestone, dolomite, and calcareous mudstone. Includes, in descending order, unclassified dolomites, and Havasu, Gateway Canyon, Kanab Canyon, Peach Springs, Spencer Canyon, and Rampart Cave Members of McKee and Resser (1945). These members consist of fine- to medium-grained, thin to thick-bedded, mottled, fossiliferous, silty limestone, limestone, and dolomite. Three unnamed slope-forming siltstone and shale units of Bright Angel Shale lithology are intertongued between cliff-forming members of Muav Limestone. These unnamed siltstone and shale units are green and purplish-red, micaceous siltstone, mudstone, and shale, and thin brown sandstone. Contact with the underlying Bright Angel is gradational and lithology dependent. Contact is arbitrarily marked at base of lowest prominent cliff-forming limestone of Rampart Cave Member of the Muav in western half of map area, and of Peach Springs–Kanab Canyon Members of the Muav in eastern half of map area. (bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/hermit.htm)

The Coconino is a huge block of sandstone;...

Interesting that you should mention the Coconino. It's not a water lain sediment and is probably more pure than most sedimentary units.

Oh, right! It's not eolian according to Faith!

... the Kaibab is a block of limestone.

Okay, let's check it out:


Harrisburg Member—Reddish-gray and brownish-gray, slope-forming gypsum, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone. Informally subdivided, in descending order, into three units forming an upper slope, middle cliff, and lower slope. Upper slope unit is interbedded red and gray gypsum, sandstone, and siltstone, and yellowish-gray fossiliferous sandy limestone. Middle cliff unit is gray, thin-bedded, fossiliferous cherty limestone and sandy limestone. Lower slope unit is (1) yellowish-gray to pale-red gypsifereous siltstone and calcareous sandstone, (2) gray, thin-bedded sandy limestone, and (3) gray to white, thick-bedded gypsum. Upper, middle, and lower units become inseparable on the Kaibab Plateau, northeastern quarter of map area. Solution weathering within gypsum beds of lower slope unit has resulted in warping and bending of limestone of middle cliff unit, especially in or near local drainages on Kanab and Coconino Plateaus where middle cliff unit forms surface bedrock. Gypsum solutioning is responsible for several sinkhole depressions within Harrisburg Member. Contact with underlying Fossil Mountain Member is gradational and arbitrarily marked at top of cherty limestone cliff of the Fossil Mountain. About 260 ft (80 m) thick in western half of map area, thinning eastward to about 120 ft (36 m) in northeastern quarter of map area. Average thickness about 165 ft (50 m). (bold added)
(http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/...radoplateau/lexicon/kaibab.htm)

This is the same with the Grand Staircase. There are some layers that are made up of more than one sediment type, but usually in shallower layers. Mixtures may occur but they are far from the standard from what I've seen, read and heard.

Then your reading is incomplete and your experience is non-existent. And I haven't even gotten into the Supai Group.

Your own posting of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian layers way back on the other thread shows limestones, not a mixture.

For simplification, yes. However, pure limestone is a rare and valuable commodity, and sandstones are too contaminated to be be flux in iron foundries.

And, looking up the Niobara formation I find that it too is characterized by identifiable sediments:

Chalk
Limestone
Shale


So, do you know how many chalk beds there are in the Niobrara? Do you know that there are marls (essentially dirty, fresh water limestone) associated with them? Do you know that some of the shales have bentonite? Even the Fort Hayes has small amounts of shale in it and it is certainly not a medical grade of limestone, though it does make a good source of cement.

Separate identifiable sediments.

Yes, many in the same unit.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 740 (733753)
07-20-2014 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-20-2014 10:50 PM


This is how I have always encountered it, all over the internet, in books and whatnot. Now to find this common ordinary phenomenon challenged here is perplexing to put it mildly, and the tone of the Geologist in particular is outrageous, accusing me of the idea as if I'd made it up myself, and more outrageous things than that.

I'm sure you have interpreted the reports correctly, without any religious bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 10:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 11:37 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 740 (733759)
07-21-2014 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
07-20-2014 11:37 PM


And now because I've said the sedimentary strata are of different sediments ...

Well, let's see what you actually said:

... you see separate identifiable unmixed sediments characterizing most of the strata. They are all sandstone or all limestone etc.
(I have added the bold for clarification)

Now, this is not an important issue and can be dismissed as barely on topic, but I think it clearly demonstrates your poor understanding of what you read, and that you make up your own qualifications for what constitutes the geologic time scale and the geologic 'column'.

That doesn't strike you as just a bit silly?

Yes I have, though you like to misrepresent things I say to add your own strange opinion of what you think I believe. There is no way to have an honest discussion with somebody who acts as you do.

Well, perhaps if you were a little more clear on your points, this wouldn't happen.

You are a shyster Mr. Geologist.

Heh, heh ... I'm sure you are correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 07-20-2014 11:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 49 of 740 (733799)
07-21-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-21-2014 3:19 AM


Re: Defining the Geo Column again
I'm not sure what the ten "systems" refer to that Austin talks about, ...

"System" refers to the actual rock record in a given time period.

In other words, the "Silurian System" refers to the actual rocks deposited during the "Silurian Period", which only refers to that time frame.

If you wish to refer to a specific location, I would phrase it "Devonian System of eastern North America", or something like that.

... as far as the rocks go, though they clearly refer to ten major time periods on the Geo Time Scale. He seems to be saying they can be identified by rock type, though, not just fossil contents.

The systems are incomplete for various reasons. One is omission by erosion. Unfortunately, you say that this does not happen, so I'm not sure what you are left with for an explanation.

I don't see Austin saying anything about rock type in this quotation.

And yes, the generalized 'geologic column' is diagrammatic. Most references will say that it is a composite of sections from multiple locations. Of course, Austin does not come out and tell you this. In fact, there is nothing in geological reasoning that says any particular 'column' or 'System' needs to be complete or continuous at any location in the world.

Consequently, as suggested by others here, Austin poses a strawman argument that is an embarrassment to his degree in the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-21-2014 3:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 51 of 740 (733805)
07-21-2014 3:10 PM


As I Google "Geological Column", I find that, of the first 10 results, one actually refers to 'geological timescale' (Wikipedia).

One is a definition from Merriam Webster Online. It says that the column is a diagram.

The rest directly refer to the YEC articles, including a TO article which addresses the YEC usage by Kent Hovind.

In other words, YEC is originating and controlling the narrative on the geological 'column'. Although, we see it here often enough, I truly can't remember a discussion of the 'geological column' in all my years of training and my career. To me, it is simply a synonym for 'stratigraphic column' or 'stratigraphic sequence', both of which are constrained to a location, unless one is discussing a very generalized diagram having very little significance to a scientific discussion.

As to igneous rocks, I'd say that might just be a personal preference. Volcanic rocks are obvious inclusions in the time-stratigraphic record since they are interbedded with sedimentary rocks. Intrusives are problematic, but using cross-cutting relationships and contact relationships along with absolute ages, I would consider them important to the interpretation of the geologic record at any given location. Here is an example:

Here is an example of a composite 'column' produced from several locations. This is actually from Creationwiki. Of course, they say that this is all based on bad assumptions.

Just to throw a fly in the ointment, here is an example of an intrusive body, the Stillwater Complex in Montana, with its own internal stratigraphic sequence:

It basicaly consists of a stratigraphic sequence within a stratigraphic sequence as different mineral phases drop (literally) out of the melt. As I understand it, you can actually find 'stream channels in some of the units filled in by later accumulating minerals. Though probably off topic, this shows the prevalence and importance of sedimentary and pseudo-sedimentary features in the geological record.

ETA: Heh, heh, doesn't really look like Faith's standard geo column, but there you go.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Aurelia, posted 07-21-2014 5:20 PM edge has responded
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-22-2014 5:00 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 55 of 740 (733821)
07-21-2014 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Aurelia
07-21-2014 5:20 PM


Re: thank yall very much
anyway, my grand-nephew is here in texas visiting from Alaska, hes 8, and i had my laptop open on one of the other geology threads and he saw the word fossil and he loves dinos. in a couple of days we are getting on bus to explore the grand canyon. he has drawn his own diagrams ,we don't have a printer, that yall provided. we are camping out so he will be my eyes for me. he has his field notebook still out ready to take more notes to take from what you write. hes taking this seriously. i think yall are going to make a budding geologist out of him.

Your post has so much to say... Enjoy the Grand Canyon, be sure to take pictures and carry plenty of water. To see the canyon at the age of 8, what a gift! When you know how to listen, the rocks will tell their story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Aurelia, posted 07-21-2014 5:20 PM Aurelia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-21-2014 11:44 PM edge has responded
 Message 117 by Aurelia, posted 07-23-2014 11:16 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 57 of 740 (733824)
07-22-2014 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
07-21-2014 11:44 PM


Re: thank yall very much
Meaning when you've swallowed the Old Earth koolaid you'll hear all the stupid stuff on those diagrams the boy has copied. When you REALLY know how to listen you'll hear the story of a great catastrophe by water.

Well, that was a predictable barrage of negativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-21-2014 11:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 66 of 740 (733840)
07-22-2014 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
07-22-2014 5:00 AM


That's because it ISN'T the Geologic Column as I have understood it and tried to define it here.

But it is A 'geological column'; admittedly a very different one, but still useful.

And I'm not sure why you should be the one defining terms here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-22-2014 5:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 07-22-2014 10:56 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 81 of 740 (733894)
07-22-2014 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
07-22-2014 5:19 PM


The accusations and opinions about my motives and so on are of course very interesting, but the fact of the matter is that Moose was right, the overload got to me. It's hard to read through long dense posts by a dozen different people, with rude nasty remarks as well, and as he said there appears to have been a lot of conflicting information among you all.

I would be interested in seeing what those conflicts are, particularly in light of how they show you to be correct about the 'geological column'. I would be surprised if a group of scientists actually agreed on every detail. I've always considered that to be on of the strengths of science.

I'm not up to sorting all that out, sorry. Even one long dense post can be a struggle to get through but you all think nothing of expecting me to read them all and read them all carefully and then heaping abuse on me for not doing that.

Actually, I'm an never under the illusion that you will read anything. I've been at this game too long to have such expectations of YECs.

Meanwhile I haven't seen anything that actually addresses my simple point, as usual.

I think then, that you missed a few posts. There have been several examples of 'geological columns' continuing upward during recent times, including the Holocene. We have also provided other locations where the 'geological column' was interrupted by erosion and then continued. We have also shown that the record shows erosion at one place while deposition was occurring at others. Apparently, you missed those posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 07-22-2014 5:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-22-2014 7:33 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021