Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
41 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,364 Year: 22,400/19,786 Month: 963/1,834 Week: 33/430 Day: 33/63 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 224 (820632)
09-24-2017 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by edge
09-24-2017 10:10 PM


an altrnative time frame
It's depressing that you don't understand my argument at all, but then everything at EvC is depressing so no big deal.

On the one hand, they want sediments washed up from the ocean to be deposited on the continents, and yet the continents are also being eroded severely by torrential rain.

The rain came first, forty days and nights of it, and did the severe erosion of the land, which I would suppose even you would acknowledge as a very likely consequence of such an event. Then we have the sediments washing into the ocean water, killing all the marine life we now find fossilized; and then the sediments both from the land and whatever was also in the ocean water, the calcareous ooze etc, started getting deposited onto the land at some point as the water rose or after it fully covered the land or both.

The question asked here seems to be, 'would Walthers' Law be applicable to a flood deposit'? In a superficial and simplified way, I suppose so, but it leaves a lot of questions in the minds of people who observe nature.

The Flood would have been basically the ocean rising over the land, the rising of which is the cause of the sedimentary deposits according to Walther's Law, although in a different time frame.

I would say that, first of all, there are a lot of other things happening on earth than just rising sea level. We do have mountains eroding and volcanoes erupting, etc. To me, this is where Faith's scenario really breaks down.

The question is WHEN things happened. I think there is evidence that volcanic activity began about the same time as the tectonic movements divided the continents, concurrent with the Flood's starting to recede. So all those events including the erosion of mountains, are post-Flood in my scenario.

The eroding Appalachians proveded detritus to create the Mesozoic erg deposits whether you believe in an eolian origin or not.
The next problem is time. There is simply not enough time to erode all of the material to produce the various advancing seashore deposits for 6 megasequences in the sedimentary record.

Well, forty days and nights of WORLDWIDE pounding rain ought to be enough time to erode most of the land mass, wouldn't you think? Then we have the limestones that originated in the ocean itself, which seems to be pictured by Walther's Law -- they also get deposited as the water rises in that scenario so why not also in the rising ocean water of the Flood? Of course I don't believe there were any megasequences, and whatever the evidence is that is interpreted in those terms had to be the result of the Flood itself. The theory that the eroding Appalachians provided the detritus for any of the strata needs some reexamination.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 09-24-2017 10:10 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2017 10:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 12:19 AM Faith has responded
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 12:33 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 11:36 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 10 of 224 (820634)
09-24-2017 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Minnemooseus
09-24-2017 4:56 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
The nature of the precise erosion and deposition model of THE FLOOD is dependent on the nature of the "created kind" Earth.

Presumably, there can be an element of apparent age in God's creating of an Earth complete with all the various mineral resources included. A complete ecosystem of earth ("rock and dirt") and water and vegetation and animals. I guess the question is, would an intelligent design and creation of the Earth's crust include the impression of long and complex processes? After all, the mark of quality design and construction is simplicity and functionality, not a "Rube Goldberg" complexity and dubious functionality. The Earth's crust sure seems like bad design to me?

You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood, which had to have rearranged things tremendously. Nobody knows what the original Created Earth looked like beyond a few conjectures based on hints in the Bible, but something far more orderly than its tumble-down appearance now would be a good guess. It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect.

What would be a quality design and construction of a planet be, to support life?

There shouldn't have been any uninhabitable places at the Creation such as we see now in deserts and high mountains and frozen wastelands. All that has to have been the result of the Fall and the Flood. Somehow it supported an unimaginably lush vegetation on just about every square inch of soil. But everything has been disrupted since the Fall which brought death into the Creation that had not existed before, caused "thorns and thistles" to thrive where only fertile soil had existed before, all followed by the Flood that further compromised whatever was formerly congenial to life in ways that redued the former longevity enormously, made all things subject to deformities, diseases and death and so on.

What we see now on the planet and in living things can only be a severely ruined version of what God originally created.

Or could there be a deliberate complexity designed it, just for the geologist to have fun with?

My guess is that there is no appearance of age OR created complexity, it's all the effect of the destruction since the Fall and the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-24-2017 4:56 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 11:59 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2017 3:45 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 12 of 224 (820636)
09-24-2017 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
09-24-2017 10:59 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
I believe I have shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth, especially for rapid deposition of the strata, the absence of any actual evidence for the time periods in those strata and in fact the logical impossibility of the whole Old Earth Geological Time Scale.

The hardest argument I've had to make is for the formation of angular unconformities after all the strata were laid down, but I think it holds together. It certainly supports all the rest of my arguments.

I also believe I've shown evidence for rapid evolution within the Kind that is genetically limited to the Kind.

Showing evidence for the Young Earth has been the aim of many of my threads, and posts on both the geological and biological situation over many years, and I believe I've made the case. I know there is evidence on the other side too; I just expect it to eventually be accounted for in other ways than it is now.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2017 10:59 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2017 11:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:15 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 09-25-2017 4:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 14 of 224 (820640)
09-24-2017 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coyote
09-24-2017 11:17 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
None of my arguments has been refuted. All kinds of conjectures are brought against them, but no, they are not refuted. Besides, my arguments are all refutations to begin with and show the logical impossibility of the ancient earth, the time periods and the Geological Time Scale.

The scenario I present hangs together and accounts for what we see.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2017 11:17 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2017 12:36 AM Faith has responded
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:19 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 1:32 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 1:53 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 18 of 224 (820646)
09-25-2017 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
09-25-2017 12:19 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Problem is that you have less and less sediment available for erosion on to the continents because the continents are both eroded and inundated by the sea. Your source of sediments simply disappears.

The sediments are now suspended in the water, pretty densely too I would suppose, so what's the problem?

What does "erosion ON to the continents" mean? OFF the continents is what I would expect, not ON.

And now you have to move sediment from the sea onto the continents. How does that happen?

The water is rising over the continents and it's full of the sediments, what IS the problem?

How do the sediments get layered on the land according to Walther's Law? Why wouldn't that Law be in operation with the rising of the sea water in the Flood, especially since it would be thick with the sediments from the land at least?

Why would sediments move up onto the land?

Cuz they are suspended in the water that is rising over that land, what IS the problem here?

And how would they do that while making nice neat layers that you refer to?

The water carries them over the land and deposits them in those neat layers, such as we see occuring with rising sea water according to Walther's Law, but perhaps also by precipitation when the water has risen to its height. There is all this heavily sediment-laden water over the land, rising over the land, standing over the land, both, and the sediments get deposited from that water. How are we having such difficulty communicating about something so simple?

Why could you not have multiple tectonic movements such as what we see in the geological record?

What I see in the geological record is one major tectonic upheaval, which seems to correspond to the timing of the end of the Flood as I suggest, and accounts for things like the upending of the entire Stratigraphic Column of Britain, which had to occur all at one time, and accounts for the massive erosion in the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area. Beyond that, as the continents keep moving apart there are many other tectonic and volcanic events brought about by that movement, especially with the subduction at the western side of the Americas which brings about volcanism and earthquakes and so on, due to that continued movement. It would of course have been that movement that raised the mountains everywhere, that are still rising in tiny increments just as the continents are still moving in tiny increments.

About the Appalachians, if my timing is right yours is wrong, that's all, nothing mysterious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 12:19 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 1:16 AM Faith has responded
 Message 32 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 8:54 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 19 of 224 (820647)
09-25-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
09-25-2017 12:36 AM


Re: an alternative time frame
The scenario I present hangs together and accounts for what we see.

Why is it that only certain religious believers see things the way you do?
Doesn't that seem to explain your entire approach to things, as you've admitted many times here.

First, if you understood much of my arguments you'd have to notice that I have my own independent way of thinking about all these things that isn't shared to any great extent by other creationists, who DON'T all "see things the way [I] do". But of course we all take our cue from the Biblical record and try to understand where it agrees and disagrees with the current scientific theories. The only issue is whether the facts hang together, not where the theory originated.

Whereas people of other faiths and no faith at all see an entirely different picture.

Again, what matters is whether the facts fit together or not. Why should we all agree? I pursue certain lines of thought that have caught my attention, I assume others do the same and sometimes we end up going in different directions. I do hold firmly to the Biblical revelation, though, so what I pursue follows from what I understand about that. But if the facts hang together they hang together despite your prejudice.

Face it, you ignore evidence, make up seemingly plausible scenarios, refuse to entertain any evidence to the contrary, and proclaim victory.

I'm sorry you fail to grasp the logic of my arguments.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2017 12:36 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 21 of 224 (820650)
09-25-2017 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
09-25-2017 1:16 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
What I see in the geological record is one major tectonic upheaval, which seems to correspond to the timing of the end of the Flood as I suggest, and accounts for things like the upending of the entire Stratigraphic Column of Britain, which had to occur all at one time, and accounts for the massive erosion in the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area.

But Faith that isn't what you really see. It's what you decided to see - as you have made quite obvious by dismissing all the contrary evidence.

NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS. I COULDN'T POSSIBLY JUST "DECIDE" TO SEE ANYTHING, I ACTUALLY SEE IT AND I'VE SHOWN THAT IT IS THERE, MANY MANY TIMES. I'VE INDICATED IT ON THE CROSS SECTIONS, CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.

AND I DO NOT "DISMISS" THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, I ANSWER IT.

And this, I think is one of the major problems you have here. You "see" things you made up and expect everyone else to "see" them too - even though anyone who really looks will see that you are wrong.

THEY ARE LOOKING THROUGH THEIR EVO-BIASED GLASSES AND SEEING THEIR OWN PARADIGM. OR IF THEY DO SEE WHAT I'M POINTING OUT THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING AT ODDS WITH "SCIENCE" SO THEY DUCK IT. TYPICAL IN THE CASE OF A PARADIGM CLASH.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 1:16 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:05 AM Faith has responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 8:06 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 09-25-2017 4:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 23 of 224 (820653)
09-25-2017 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
09-25-2017 2:05 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
iT'S THE THEORY THAT'S AT FAULT, THE THEORY THAT EVERYBODY NOW ACCEPTS JUST BECAUSE IT'S WHAT EVERYBODY ACCEPTS. THAT'S THE WAY WITH PARADIGMS, THEY GET ESTABLISHED, EVERYBODY BUYS INTO THEM EVEN THOUGH VERY FEW HAVE ACTUALLY CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, THEY BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT BELIEVES IT, AND THOSE WHO DO THINK THROUGH THE EVIDENCE CAN ONLY THINK IT THROUGH ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED ASSUMPTIONS, SIMPLY CANNOT SEE CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

AND YES I HAVE SEEN AND I HAVE SHOWN THE EVIDENCE. WHAT YOU CALL A FACT IS JUST YOUR OWN DELUSIONAL FAULTY SEEING. BUT THERE'S NO POINT IN KEEPING UP THIS STUPID BICKERING.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:05 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:24 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 25 of 224 (820656)
09-25-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
09-25-2017 2:24 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
I don't dismiss or ignore evidence, I've either answered it or it's the umpteenth time it's been thrown at me, and in that case too I've answered it that many times already. Or it's the usual changing of the subject without dealing with my evidence. You ignore my evidence I ignore yours. Except I don't think I've left any unanswered in one way orf another.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:24 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 3:41 AM Faith has responded
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2017 10:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 27 of 224 (820665)
09-25-2017 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
09-25-2017 3:41 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
I disagree, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 3:41 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 7:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 46 of 224 (820704)
09-25-2017 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Thugpreacha
09-25-2017 8:51 AM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
I have one question for both of you though. Can we agree that Creation Science starts with a conclusion whereas Science as taught traditionally starts with a Premise? Is this one of the basic differences?

That is way too simplistic. Darwin himself didn't even originate the idea of evolution, his grandfather had already thought of it. So you could say that Darwin worked from the Conclusion of evolution to come up with his theory of natural selection as the mechanism for how it could have come about.

That's really all creationists are doing. For instance we know there was a worldwide Flood some 4500 years ago so we think about the particulars of how it could have come about.

And now all thinking on the evolution side begins with the Conclusions of Evolution and many of the tenets that support it. Or geology begins with the conclusions of the Old Earth and related tenets. All thinking is done within these established frameworks and if anyone thinks otherwise they are seriously misled. Once you are convinced that you know how something happened everything you do is done within that framework. There is nothing at all different about how creationists think. We start with what we know as provided by a trustworthy source: God's word.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-25-2017 8:51 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 1:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:34 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 2:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 48 of 224 (820706)
09-25-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
09-25-2017 11:36 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
As I said I've been ignoring posts that attack me personally, sorry if that interferes with what you think of as "evidence" but that's the way it goes. Looking over this post of yours I see that as is often the case with you, your rebuttal is beyond idiotic. I may or may not decide to answer you some time in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 11:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 50 of 224 (820708)
09-25-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
09-25-2017 1:53 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
Yes you keep bringing up OTHER evidence and ignoring my evidence. I doubt you even have a clue to what I've been arguing all these years. I've acknowledged some of yours as belonging on the plus side for evolution and the old earth, yes "good evidence for your side" and I leave it at that, because my evidence is very good for MY side, conclusive in my opinion. Meaning yours is going to have to be adjusted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 1:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 3:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 5:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 51 of 224 (820709)
09-25-2017 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
09-25-2017 1:59 PM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
The rejection of the Flood hypothesis was wrong, based on a failure to imagine the sheer magnitude of such an event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 1:59 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2017 2:13 PM Faith has responded
 Message 54 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 2:20 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33939
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 55 of 224 (820714)
09-25-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
09-25-2017 8:54 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
The water carries them over the land and deposits them in those neat layers, such as we see occuring with rising sea water according to Walther's Law, but perhaps also by precipitation when the water has risen to its height. There is all this heavily sediment-laden water over the land, rising over the land, standing over the land, both, and the sediments get deposited from that water. How are we having such difficulty communicating about something so simple?

So, how do you keep all of that sediment suspended in the water as it's carried all the way across the continent?

How do sediments get progressively deposited as the water rises according to Walther's Law? I would guess they are depositing with each rising of the water.

The kind of turbulence necessary to do that would not facilitate nice, even, tabular, sorted deposits of the kind that we see. Basically, you are talking about a mudflow. Have you ever seen a mudflow deposit? How many thick limestone layers are there?

Yes, all there is for the ancient unwitnessed and untestable past is such conjectures, lots of conjectures. See, I know the Flood occurred so I'm trying to explain it. You think it didn't occur so you are trying to debunk it. That's all that's going on here. You don't know what degree of turbulence was involved but it makes you happy to think there was more of it than would facilitate the depositing of the strata. Perhaps if you put your geologically educated mind to the task of explaining instead how it could have happened you'd come up with something really interesting.

This is all silly nonsense. There is no reason for this quantity of sediments to suddenly be ripped off the ocean floor and cast onto the continents. ....

Why not? Fountains of the deep, turbulent water, huge quantities of sediments from the land all rising up over the land.

There is a reason that sediments accumulate where they do ... it's because they have reached a low energy environment and the eroded sediments can settle out in the ocean basins. So, why would they move back up-gradient to travel across the continent?

This basin idea is nonsensical. The strata show no signs of being deposited in basins, they are huge flat horizontal expanses, they aren't shaped within rims of basins. Again, Walther's Law shows that sediments do move "up-gradient" as sea level rises.

In fact, the kind of turbulence that you would need would also leave behind some kind of diagnostic evidence.

My guess is that you are overlooking the necessary evidence because you don't expect to find any.

What is that evidence? Why did it suddenly stop to settle out in neat fashion? How far would boulders and gravel be carried across the continent in what is essentialy an uphill direction?

I thought boulders and gravel were carried by glaciers.

Your jacking the data into an impossible scenario.

Well, there is plenty of evidence for that scenario that I've shown many times already. The famous cross section I like so much is good evidence for rapid deposition of the strata for instance, for no disturbance of the strata until all were in place and so on and so forth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 8:54 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 2:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 4:50 PM Faith 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 © 2019