Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
344 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 342 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 5 of 877 (833834)
05-27-2018 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


Oh I know they have evidence, I just want to see it spelled out because the usual presentation to the clueless public makes bald assertions about things they couldn't possibly know about, apparently based on some bits and pieces of this and that found in a flat sedimentary rock or assemblage of such rocks found in a stack of flat rocks, each supposedly pertaining to a landscape in a particular time period, a wonderful gift of the gods of science I assume to help us understand the history of the Earth.

Science communication is always a difficult prospect. Too much information and the presentation becomes dry and the 'clueless public' stops listening. Too little information and people are unsatisfied.

During this period, Earth's climate changed from hot and dry to humid and subtropical.

So here is one of those typical assertions in the Name of Science written as if someone had actually been there and experienced this supposed climate change, without one mention of what evidence led to this obviously perfect knowledge of the climate on earth 150 to 200 million years ago.

So I'm asking what's the evidence this is based on?

Early Jurassic climate change and the radiation of organic-
walled phytoplankton in the Tethys Ocean
-Bas van de Schootbrugge et al

Isotopic evidence for Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous climate change - Darren R Gröcke et al

Late Jurassic climate and its impact on carbon cycling - H.Weissert et al

Vegetation history, diversity patterns, and climate change across the Triassic/Jurassic boundary - Nina R. Bonis. Wolfram M. Kürschner

etc etc etc

And since we're supposedly having a climate change right now that's occurring over a matter of decades, or make it centuries to be on the conservative side, how does it make any sense to talk about a change over a time span of fifty million years? In fact there are many things that occur much more rapidly in our present time than is imputed to similar events in the supposedly very distant past. But maybe that will come up later in the thread if the topic goes anywhere at all.

There wasn't anybody deliberately digging up billions of tonnes of carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere.

So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations, just "this is the way it was" and that's it. We don't even have that kind of certainty about what happened a hundred years ago let alone millions.

If you read a similarly basic article on World War I you'll find that there is more detail than the general climate and animals present.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Assuming reading science papers is too far, and the Nat Geo article is too little you could always go looking for a middle ground. A 400 word summary is hardly going to satiate those curious for a discussion of the evidence.

Here is an article that goes into a little bit more detail

quote:
From a geologic perspective, a large amount of climatic evidence for the Jurassic period comes from evaporites. Evaporites are mineral deposits, such as gypsum and halites, that are left behind after a body of water evaporates. Deposits of mineral salts indicate deserts that were once covered by lakes or seas. These regions would likely have had a dry climate. Coals also offer insight into prehistoric climates. The presence of coals indicates a humid climate where land was covered by swamps or other wetlands. The location of bands of halite and coal deposits suggests that the climate close to the equator was arid and higher latitudes had a wetter climate. The lack of glaciation during the Jurassic period also indicates that Earth's average temperature was warmer than present day temperatures.

quote:
Fossil evidence of ferns and cone-producing plants at the poles suggests that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the Jurassic period than in present day. The wide distribution of certain species of prehistoric ferns across many degrees of latitude supports claims that there was not as great a disparity of temperature between the equator and the polar regions as there is today. The diversity of ferns, palms, and needle-bearing trees in the Jurassic period shows that the climate must have been warm and humid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 17 of 877 (833859)
05-27-2018 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
The NG writeup is TYPICAL, that's my point. There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.

Blame the writers, not the scientists. Scientists are forever complaining about oversimplification, over generalization and over confidence in science reporting. The fact is - writers and editors write to their audience. Most people just want the story, not the science. But the science is out there for those who want to read it and there are multiple tiers of popular science writings that appeal to different people based on how much detail there is.

The advantage to a science paper is that it is concise and information dense, but the disadvantage is that it is jargon laden and assumes degree level background in the subject. If you want the same information presented to a high school level, you'll find it is very lengthy.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 55 of 877 (833941)
05-28-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:14 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Do these magazines present characteristics imputed to time periods without any clue to the evidence for their wild interpretations? That's the question, why don't you answer it?

Yes, sometimes, to varying degrees.

Sauropods in the shallows for instance:

quote:
In this case, dePolo and coauthors point out, the track-bearing layers of limestone are fine-grained, contain the shell fragments from contemporary invertebrates, and show signs of burrowing by small marine organisms. The upshot is that the dinosaur tracks indicate that the dinosaurs were walking through shallow water along the accessible portions of an ancient lagoon.

It also provides a link to the original work where you can see the exact details of how they came to their conclusions: A sauropod-dominated tracksite from Rubha nam Brathairean(Brothers’ Point), Isle of Skye, Scotland Paige E. dePolo et al


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 877 (833943)
05-28-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:54 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Got a popular Geology magazine that isn't too expensive I could consider getting?

You might consider geology blogs such as

https://geologylearn.blogspot.co.uk/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 123 of 877 (834065)
05-29-2018 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
05-29-2018 10:39 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
That canyon could not have been cut by that little river

Hasn't human activity resulted in less water flowing trough the canyon in modern times?

Either way let's call it 20,000 cubic feet per second (we know it sometimes would get to 100K cubic feet per second, but even today gets as high as 25K cfs). There are about 30,000,000 seconds in a year so any given section of the canyon sees about 600,000,000,000 cubic feet of water per year. For 5 million years that would be 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of water.

In weight terms a cubic foot is about 30kg so about 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or
90,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes
All the water on the earth weighs approximately
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes

That's certainly more water than your flood scenario proposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 11:48 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 12:07 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 147 of 877 (834103)
05-30-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
05-30-2018 12:07 AM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Yes and if all that water rushed over the sides of the canyon all at once then it would create a very big canyon. But it's running in a narrow track and not pouring into the canyon from all sides all at once.

Well I guess you get to show how it's done. Without pontification can you explain how you know that the quantity of water over the time I'm talking about can't produce the effect that we see.

I came upon what seems to be a reasonable explanation:

From 22 minutes until the end discusses the carving and widening of the canyon. I can't see any reason this doesn't make sense of what we see, but you seem confident so perhaps you can avoid the pitfalls you are criticizing the journalists of making by explaining how this idea is certainly wrong.

Show me what you expect from science communicators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 12:07 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 5:58 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 6:36 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 157 of 877 (834114)
05-30-2018 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-30-2018 5:58 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Nice video, I'm enjoying it. I'm only a little over ten minutes into it but there are already a few things I'd like to comment on before the main point you want to make comes up.

Excellent - I enjoyed it. I'm not geology type person, and I found it quite well presented with some tantalizing information without getting too boring.

I was interested in the use of the calcium content of the garnets found in the Vishnu Schist to determine the height of the rock above it that had provided the pressure to form the scshist and the garnets, which they determined to have been six miles. Of course they were thinking of the supposed former mountains they imagine to have existed there before the canyon. The weight of the Paleozoic strata into which the canyon was cut has always been my explanation for the schist and the granite formed beneath the Great Unconformity, but that only comes to three miles, possibly four, not six. You know of course that I'm not giving that up in any case but it was interesting how they use the garnets.

ABE: Since I think the schist formed as a result of the weight of the strata plus the heat from pressure plus volcanic activity and magma beneath the Great Unconformity, and the whole area would have been under water at the time, I suppose we could add some weight of the water to the rock as well and perhaps that would make up the difference to explain the amount of calcium in the garnets. Of course the strata would have been highly compacted but perhaps the water still contributed some weight, or even the water standing above the whole stack for that matter. A gallon of water weighs something over eight pounds. /'ABE

The mountains they 'imagine' don't make any difference to the formation of the Grand Canyon per se, they get eroded away before any of the main stuff happens - so it's not like they have to have them there to preserve the notion of an old Grand Canyon. My understanding is that the garnets simply indicate how much stuff was above - and the amount of stuff suggests mountains.

I imagine the flood waters would have quite an amount of weight to them, but rock is denser than water so I expect you'd need a heck of a lot of water to make up the difference - more than 5 or 6 miles deep that's for sure! I'm not here to refute your position - but it's certainly something to keep in mind when figuring out how they formed.

And this nice geologist goes on to describe the supposed transgressions of the sea over the land that they say account for the sedimentary rocks, some eight of them, and the animation shows a layer of sand followed by a layer of mud followed by a layer of the calcified stuff that becomes limestone, all deposited apparently by precipitation out of the sea. Here I just want to point out that there's no mention of limestone having to grow in place, it is merely the result of deposited broken up shells. Just as I've said.

I'm not sure what you mean by limestone growing in place - but I think we can agree that as a reasonable approximation 'deposited broken up shells' will suffice to explain the origins of limestone.

So just a few thoughts before your main topic comes up.

I look forward to it!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 5:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 7:06 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 8:58 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 877 (834116)
05-30-2018 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-30-2018 6:36 PM


Re: Video continued LIFTED WITHOUT TILTING
quote:
At 11:50 or so he's saying that the Laramide Orogeny...lifted up the land WITHOUT TILTING IT

That's at about 13:40 I think


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 6:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 193 of 877 (834165)
05-31-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
05-30-2018 8:58 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Anyway. I don't buy the erosion theory to explain the great width of the canyon. Just a way to avoid the obvious explanation of the Flood it seems to me.

Well I know erosion happens, we know the sides are eroding today - we can see it. However 'the flood is the obvious explanation' seems pontifical.

The part about the lake as the possible cause of the canyon was interesting simply because it is so similar to some creationists' theories about how the canyon formed, by the draining of a large lake left standing after the Flood, called Hopi Lake in that case. same basic situation as Lakes Missoula and Lahontan and I forget the others offhand, also very large lakes left standing after the Flood and eventually draining. I think it's a reasonable interpretation but I like my own better.

So the claim was

quote:
That canyon could not have been cut by that little river

So can you explain the problem with the scenario, with reference to how you know these things, in a manner you think would be befitting the science publications this thread is supposedly focussed on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 8:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 3:18 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 5:10 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 196 of 877 (834168)
05-31-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
05-31-2018 3:18 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
One thing that made no sense in the video was the idea that the river carries away the debris from the erosion that is the explanation given for for the widening of the canyon. Since the river only runs in one narrow path through that wide area, which is some eighteen miles at its widest, how is it going to pick up the debris over that whole area?

It seems to me that when rocks fall off a cliff they land at the bottom. When more rocks fall off, they don't just stack on top of the old ones, but they roll forwards - resulting a slope towards the river. Eventually - like those machines in the arcade you put pennies in, some debris falls into the river and is carried away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 3:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 4:03 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 199 of 877 (834172)
05-31-2018 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
05-31-2018 4:03 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
They'd have to roll at least nine miles to get to the river if the river ran through the middle of it, and if you look at that area of the canyon it's full of buttes and other mounds of eroding strata that would make it difficult for any rock falling off the outer wall to get anywhere near the river even if it was all downhill.

I'm not suggesting a rock would fall and roll for miles. That would seem unlikely indeed! The slope however, gives rain a direction to flow - towards the river. It would take small bits of stone, sand or mud with it towards the river. The stuff at the edges of the river gets pushed in and taken away. Occasionally rocks at the edge of the river have their support washed away and they fall in - but the banks are kept 'fuelled' by the miles of dirt and rock behind it being transported by wind and rain.

I would imagine it would take a long time for much of the cliff fall to make it to the river at its widest point


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 4:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 225 of 877 (834228)
06-01-2018 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
05-31-2018 5:10 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Thanks Percy. I don't have any opinion on the particulars, but I was hoping Faith would explain, in a way that she thinks these things should be explained, what problems there were with a long term river cut with the gigantic amount of water moving at a significant rate. Unfortunately it appears she suffers from the same problem of 'pontification' as the articles she wanted to critique. It appears it isn't so easy.

Dickinson's paper was published in 2013: Rejection of the lake spillover model for initial incision of the Grand Canyon, and discussion of alternatives. The reasons it cites for rejecting the idea were that the lake never achieved appreciable depth, the elevation isn't compatible with lake spillover, multiple river canyons are present, the timing of drainage reversal wasn't right, and a couple others.

But hey - it might not be easy to explain what problems there might be, you certainly found a way to approach it! I know basically nothing about geology so I thought I might be a good test audience for things and I think you did a reasonable job where Faith failed in explaining how the spillover idea has weaknesses and what you are basing those weaknesses on.

Also, the Grand Canyon is 18 miles wide at its widest point. This could only be due to a braided river spread across a plain that downcut into the plateau in at least two places and probably more, as is evident from the multiple plateaus situated in mid-canyon. Simultaneous incision by rapid flow in multiple braids seems most unlikely. I think the Dickinson paper is alluding to this issue when it mentions multiple river canyons.

Although if I'm being honest - this conclusionary paragraph seems pontifical as Faith describes it. At the very least I find myself little the wiser having read this. I could certainly run off and research it further, if I was particularly interested - but I find I can't get the motivation up to do so. Again, I think this makes me a good test subject in this thread. I'm basically 'Joe Public' when it comes to this topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 5:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:47 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 229 of 877 (834232)
06-01-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:47 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
I'm not interested in the spillover idea, wasn't that clear? I understand it's popular with some creationists but I like my own scenario better.

I wasn't asserting or demanding you find the idea interesting. I was asking you to explain why lots of water over a long period of time couldn't carve the canyon but less water of a shorter period of time could - with reference to how you know these things in a style you would find acceptable if it were published in a magazine. That is, you criticize the pontifical nature of certain articles, so show me using your 'own scenario' how the ideas of geologists are wrong and your scenario is superior.

I've really only been able to infer from your comments in response that it's 'obvious' - but that's a worse presentation than the National Geographic article you linked to as far as your criticism goes:

quote:
But my objection is that the public is being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 3:08 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 234 of 877 (834238)
06-01-2018 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
06-01-2018 3:08 PM


show us how its done
My point was that I don't know anything about the Hopi Lake theory and haven't thought about it.

That particular theory isn't the point I'm raising.

It would take a lot of water rushing in all at once to carve the canyon

How do you know this?

As for lots of water over a long period of time as I already said I don't see how water running in a narrow track would carve the great width of the canyon.

Could it explain the depth? Couldn't normal weathering we see with other cliff edges explain the width?

Other rivers running in narrow tracks elsewhere just keep running in the track, they don't widen the area they are running in.

Well that's certainly not a universal statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnison_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_(Colorado_River_tributary)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Prairie_Dog_Town_Fork_Red_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waimea_River_(Hawaii)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyn_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Avon,_Bristol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdon_(river)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(river)

To provide a short list.

Right. I can't register a complaint like that, can I?

You are perfectly welcome to register the complaint. I'm just asking if you can show me how to do it better.

Just not acceptable to find fault with how science is presented to the public. I now have to be hit with the same accusation over and over.

I'm accusing you of nothing. I'm asking if you can show me what you want to see from science communication using a position you think is correct.

I'm working out a theory, they have their theory and shouldn't be presenting it as fact when it's obviously fiction.

Well the Bible certainly presents things as fact and it seems obvious to me that many of the things it presents as facts are fictions. Maybe what seems obvious to either of us isn't the best guide to use?

Perhaps it'd be instructive to examine a non-contentious issue. Let's say: the Battle of Hastings.

The Nat Geo has an article about it - so that makes it a useful point of comparison. Here is the article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/...oct14/william-conquers

quote:
The Norman conquest of England had long-lasting consequences. After crowning himself king in December, William (now William I of England) immediately began to replace almost all English landowners and religious leaders with his own supporters from France. Thousands of displaced English families relocated to Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, and even what is today Turkey.

It doesn't mention how we know these things any more than the article about the Jurassic did.

I'd wager there are lots of articles about lots of subjects that fail to give details about how humanity drew the conclusions they are reporting.

Flood geology has been around longer than Old Earth Geology so 'I'm working out a theory', is no excuse. Surely someone has presented to the public a flood geology that is both engaging and justifies things to a degree you feel sufficient. The level of justifying their conclusions that you think should be included in articles such as the one about the Jurassic. If it hasn't happened yet - your complaint that this is something old earth geologists are particularly guilty of seems to fall flat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 3:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 4:47 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1099 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 877 (834251)
06-01-2018 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Faith
06-01-2018 4:47 PM


Re: show us how its done

The time period landscapes ARE fiction, they are made-up stories and that IS obvious.

So at every such assertion I'm going to want to know

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

I'm being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity, factual knowledge that nobody could possibly have.

I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat me with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and I just have to submit.

I expect just enough information on the evidence so people know something about HOW THE CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT (maybe even how stupid it is) and aren't kept in the dark.

Looked at one of your links, no clue there what you are talking about. Any rivers there that widened their track eighteen miles?

Hells Canyon is 10 miles wide - Snake River
Palo Duro Canyon reaches 20 miles at places - Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River

Other rivers mention carve out canyons several kilometres wide but the Grand Canyon is named as such for a reason - its pretty big.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 4:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:06 PM Modulous 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 © 2021