Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
58 online now:
nwr (1 member, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,962 Year: 13,710/23,288 Month: 228/412 Week: 15/40 Day: 12/3 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
ringo
Member
Posts: 18809
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2296 of 2365 (881619)
08-26-2020 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2295 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 10:40 AM


Re: Time scales
Juvenissun writes:

Did I talk to you a lot about granite? You should know that I am not kidding around.


It's hard to tell whether you're kidding around because you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Maybe you could tell us what the composition of the moon has to do with the flood.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2295 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 10:40 AM Juvenissun has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2297 by jar, posted 08-26-2020 12:44 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2303 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 5:38 PM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33010
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2297 of 2365 (881625)
08-26-2020 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2296 by ringo
08-26-2020 12:10 PM


Re: Time scales
ringo writes:

Maybe you could tell us what the composition of the moon has to do with the flood.

Duane Gish understood.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2296 by ringo, posted 08-26-2020 12:10 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2298 of 2365 (881627)
08-26-2020 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2291 by Tangle
08-26-2020 3:44 AM


Re: Time scales
He's a geologist like I'm a theologian.

Juvenissun

Birthday:Aug 7, 1952 (Age: 68)
Occupation:Research and teaching
Faith: Baptist
Marital Status: Married
Geologist.

A YEC but work with OE models. No contradiction at all.
Fundamentalist.

Build conceptual dynamic models

juvenissun

Who knows on what he's basing his claim to be a geologist. I've seen so many creationists make such false claims before; eg:

  • That creationist who vehemently insisted that he was a scientist solely because he had attended a science class once. Maybe Juvenissun had once attend a geology class so now he's a "geologist".

  • Maybe Juvenissun once watched a PBS show on geology like PBS' "The Making of a Continent" (1983). So with one PBS show under his belt, now he's a geologist?

    BTW, a couple years later I watched that show with my then-four-year-old son. When the episode got to plate tectonics, my son kept saying "I knew that." But then it got to something he didn't know (I seem to recall that it was plate subduction at a plate boundary) and he quietly said "I didn't know that" a couple times before falling silent. I cannot help but think that my 4-yr-old son probably understood more of that program than Juvenissun did.

  • It was on a Yahoo Groups forum where I did most of my first discussion of Kent Hovind's bogus solar-mass-loss claim. Even though I had already calculated the total mass lost in 5 billion years (Hovind's own figure, though he also used 20 billion years which is much more than the currently estimate of the age of the universe so I ignored that one), one creationist, BlueBird (not exact to protect his privacy), refused to accept it and wrote a QuickBASIC program to calculate it. However, his program got stuck in an infinite loop because his loop variable started out as an integer, but when it overflowed BASIC switched it to floating-point, but that format (IEEE 754, I'd assume) didn't have enough precision so adding one to that floating-point variable never changed its value. I tried to explain the problem to BlueBird, but he refused to listen, proclaiming himself to be a "professional programmer" -- I'm a retired software engineer with a BS Computer Science. He knew nothing about the most basic concepts in computer science, but he was a professional solely because he had once been paid for a QuickBASIC program he had written. Ironically, when I converted his program to nested loops that didn't overflow, his program produced lower results than my own calculations had (BlueBird and Hovind needed those results to be much higher). Then suddenly BlueBird had very important business to attend to elsewhere (ie, he ran away like all creationists end up doing).

    So maybe Juvenissun had once been paid by a farmer to figure out where to dig a well, so suddenly he's a "geologist".

  • For decades Kent Hovind has continually bragged about being an expert in science and mathematics because he taught both subjects "in high school for 15 years." That "high school" was three private Baptist schools (one of which he had started), so we know that they had no academic standards regarding teacher qualifications. Also, that was for 13 years, not 15, so we have an example of his expertise in arithmetic. We don't know how much science and math training he had in his own schooling: high school graduate, one year at community college, transferred to an unaccredited Baptist college earning a bachelor's in religion, bought his masters and doctorate in "religious education" from a degree mill.

    In addition, from Glenn R. Morton's presentation at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (see my Message 2283) on geological evidence he had collected while working as a petroleum geologist, John Morris of the ICR challenged him starting by identifying himself as a "petroleum geologist". It turned out that Morris was not a petroleum geologist, having never worked in that profession, but rather he had once taught the subject at a state university.

    Reportedly a famous imposter (I think Tony Curtis portrayed him in The Great Imposter, 1961) said that the easiest profession to fake was a college professor. All he had to do was to read the textbook a few chapters ahead of the class.

    So maybe Juvenissun had once taught a geology class, so that suddenly makes him a geologist.

And of course we have Juvenissun's consistent misconduct here. He always goes out of his way to avoid answering even the simplest questions as if he is trying to hide his own ignorance of geology. After repeatedly insisting that he will only talk with a geologist, but when a geologist does present himself (Minnemooseus in Message 2129) Juvenissun immediately runs away. This guy stinks of fraud.

Edited by dwise1, : removed possible ambiguity by naming Juvenissun explicitly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2291 by Tangle, posted 08-26-2020 3:44 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2312 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:39 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2299 of 2365 (881631)
08-26-2020 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2294 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 10:39 AM


Re: Time scales
When talk about Geology, the difference between me and everyone else here is like the difference between a Ph.D. and school kids.

Sorry, but you are obviously over-inflating yourself. You come nowhere close to the level of school kids. Maybe if you would stop clinging so desperately to your abject ignorance you might one day achieve the level of school kids. Frankly and sadly, I don't think you have it in you.

Do you know the Himalayan Mountains once simply drop straightforward down a few thousand feet? The feature is called "tectonic erosion". If you care to learn, you may look it up.

I do believe that had some significant effect to the orbit of the earth.

No conceivable effect on the orbit of the earth of the kind that you are fishing for. However, it would most definitely have an effect on the rate of spin of the earth, since such an event would change the earth's moment of inertia (the rotational analog to mass in calculating momentum, which is mass × velocity). As I already explained to you (Message 2223 and Message 2248), ... [sigh] ... when you change the earth's moment of inertia then you also change its rate of rotation because of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

Conservation of angular momentum is such a basic and simple concept that I cannot comprehend how you could be so abjectly ignorant of it.

DWise1 writes:

BTW, I cannot help but notice that you completely avoid the kinetic energy part of that "idea". Is that because you do not know what kinetic energy is?


{ crickets }

So you are also abjectly ignorant of kinetic energy? Really? How is that humanly possible? School kids know about kinetic energy! You really do need to start working very hard to try to get up to their level (except I know that you will refuse to because knowledge and learning are against your religion).

You really have no clue why the subsidence of a mountain would have far less effect than a mountain-sized asteroid hitting the earth at high velocity? Really? Your ignorance is absolutely mind-boggling. Inhuman even.

 
Seriously, I need to learn how your brain stunted by scientific illiteracy thinks that things work. I presented a few questions to you that I do need honest answers to (despite your demonstrated inability to do anything honestly).

Again from Message 2281:


  1. How does the sun burn? That is to say, what is the process by which it burns? And what does it burn (ie, what is its fuel, oxidizer, etc)?

  2. How does the burning of the sun affect the sun's mass? That is to say, if the burning of the sun causes it to lose mass, how does that loss of mass happen?

  3. In combustion, which is the burning of a fuel in the presence of oxygen, does the mass of the fuel cease to exist?

  4. If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit?

Until we understand what scientific illiterates such as yourself are not understanding, we cannot help you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2294 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 10:39 AM Juvenissun has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2300 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2020 3:28 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 2309 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:29 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2300 of 2365 (881632)
08-26-2020 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2299 by dwise1
08-26-2020 1:59 PM


Definitions
It maybe an idea to ask Juve if he know the difference between orbiting and rotating. I think he's read stuff about seismic events affecting the length of the day and muddled it all up in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2299 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 1:59 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2302 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 4:35 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 2306 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:18 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2301 of 2365 (881633)
08-26-2020 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2292 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 10:28 AM


Re: Time scales
Take your argument one at a time.

Sure, I'm game (don't shoot me! -- old joke: if a hunter suggests you do something, never respond with "I'm game")

Of course, you will completely ignore my response and absolutely refuse to learn anything, so I'm doing this for the edification of the lurkers and of the other forum members -- this forum page reports the presence of 6 members and 49 visitors.

In geology or in astronomy, a tiny bit change could be very significant.

Yes, that is the case in basic chaos theory. However, that applies to the effects of minor differences in initial conditions which then amplify into large effects at much later stages of the system. It's popularly known as "the Butterfly Effect". That is not what we are dealing with here.

There are also certain systems in which changes in some factors have much more effect than others. You can use partial differentiation to see how the different dependent variables affect their multiple variable function, or at the very least differentiate that function with respect to an individual variable -- but since you appear to be extremely challenged even by simple algebra, I very much doubt that you have any clue about calculus.

For example, the rate of a fusion reaction is dependent on a number of factors. I've seen that function. I noticed that the rate of fusion is directly proportional to the temperature raised to the fourth power. That makes the rate of a fusion reaction very sensitive to changes in temperature -- eg, differentiating that function we find changes in that rate to be directly proportional to the cube of changes in temperature. That is a case of a system being sensitive to small changes, basically on a curve similar to an exponential curve.

Gravitational force is different, because it is directly proportional to the central body's mass. Here's the formula again since your copying lost the mark-up (to copy the mark-up tags, go into Peek Mode):

Gravitational Force: Fg = gravitational_constant × (masscentral body × massorbiting body) / distance2

If the central body's mass is significantly greater than the orbiting body's mass, then we can safely ignore the orbiting body's mass.

Gravitational force can be changed by changing the distance or by changing the mass of the central body. Changing the mass of the central body happens far less often than changing the distance, though it can happen such as in the case of the sun losing mass by "burning".

As someone able to read algebra (which I assume you cannot do according to your performance so far) can see, gravitational force is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the central body and the orbiting body. If you were to double that mass, then you would only double the gravitational force. If you were to decrease that mass by a factor of 0.9996, then you would decrease gravitational force by that same factor. Since 0.9996 is very close to one, then that amounts to virtually no change!

BTW, that factor of 0.9996 is the effects of solar mass loss over the past five billion years. As I have already told you.

A model for the moon is that it goes away from the earth a little bit at a time, but continuous for a long time. And we see the significant consequence

Which we have found to cause one of the factors affecting how fast the earth rotates, albeit a major factor. Some of the factors slow the earth's rotation down and some speed it up (your collapsing Himalayas would speed it up), but the overall effect is that the earth's rotation is slowing down.

The fact that the earth's rotation is not constant came to be suspected by astronomers in the late 19th century so they started making very meticulous measurements. By the 1920's, they had confirmed their suspicions and started working out a much more accurate form of time-keeping using astronomical measurements, which by 1951 led to the establishment of astronomical time whose second was based on the length of the mean solar day in 1900, which was when all those meticulous measurements were made. The development of atomic clocks in the 1950's and 1960's led to an atomic standard for time which adopted the astronomical second as its standard. That second from 1900 then became the International Standard second (SI second).

The earth's rotation is slowing down at the rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century, so in the century since 1900 the mean solar day has become 2 ms longer.

In all past discussions of this, you have insisted that changing the rate of the earth's spin would change its orbit about the sun and would do so drastically. Have you finally realized how utterly wrong that idea of yours is or are you still holding to it?

If the sun continued to lose its mass and/or the earth continued to gain mass, that would certainly be a process which made the earth go away from the sun continuously.

First, your idea that the earth is gaining mass is incorrect as we already established in Message 2280 so then you have no excuse for not knowing better. While the earth is gaining about 40,000 tonnes of mass per year through meteoric infall, it is also losing 50,000 tonnes of mass per year through losses in the core (I think through fission reactions) and primarily through hydrogen and helium lost from the atmosphere into space. That results in a net loss of earth mass of 10,000 tonnes per year.

So then the earth is losing mass, not gaining it. Do please try to make some kind of effort to get something right.

Second, the mass of the sun is so much greater than the mass of the earth, so the former swamps out the latter (since you seem challenged by English, that means that the sun's mass swamps out the effects of the earth's mass, especially with regard to the earth's orbit).

 
Certainly as the sun loses its mass over time, then the earth's orbit would move farther out over time. The only question is: by how much?

I have already told you that in Message 2177, Message 2280, and on my web page, Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim. The amount of the loss of solar mass over a period of five billion years (1 billion = 109) caused the earth's orbit to increase its size (ie, its semi-major axis which represents its radius -- its an ellipse thing that you would not understand) by less than 60,000 miles. So in another 5 billion years, we would expect the earth's orbit to change by another 60,000 miles.

 
We've been through all this several times already. Why do you still refuse to learn anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2292 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 10:28 AM Juvenissun has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2304 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:04 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2302 of 2365 (881634)
08-26-2020 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2300 by NosyNed
08-26-2020 3:28 PM


Re: Definitions
I've already tried but it's impossible to try to reason with Juvenissun.

He seems to also have gotten his ideas about orbital mechanics from Sandra Bullock's movie, Gravity, in which the space junk debris cloud was ripping through low earth orbit much faster than the various spacecraft in that same orbit. That's not how it works, yet he seems to think otherwise. I've asked him that question directly two times now. No response.

I think he's read stuff about seismic events affecting the length of the day and muddled it all up in there.

That may well be the case, though his confusion seems to run far deeper.

Do you remember several months ago how somebody (creation?) tried to argue that the year used to literally be 360 days long and then something happened that suddenly changed the earth's orbit? He based it on how so many ancient calendars had 360 days. What he forgot was that those calendars also had intercalary days added at the end of the official year, usually in the form of a festival, to make up the difference and so the seasons would work out right. It turns out that they were really in love with the number 360 for its unique mathematical properties so they chose it for their calendars despite having to tweak it. Then Roman politicians politicized those intercalary days, declaring more of them to keep their people in power longer or fewer to get their opponents out of office sooner. So Julius Caesar established the Julian Calendar in 46 BCE, of which the later Gregorian Calendar is a refinement.

At no point was the actual physical year literally 360 days long, though it will be some time in the future.

Edited by dwise1, : qs and my reply


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2300 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2020 3:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2305 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:16 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Juvenissun
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2303 of 2365 (881635)
08-26-2020 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2296 by ringo
08-26-2020 12:10 PM


Re: Time scales
Maybe you could tell us what the composition of the moon has to do with the flood.

There has not been a flood on the moon. The moon rocks are bone dry and moon rocks can not change like the same rocks would do on the earth. So the moon rocks stopped generating water soon after their formation.

Is it enough?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2296 by ringo, posted 08-26-2020 12:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2307 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 6:20 PM Juvenissun has responded
 Message 2321 by ringo, posted 08-27-2020 12:17 PM Juvenissun has responded

  
Juvenissun
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2304 of 2365 (881636)
08-26-2020 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2301 by dwise1
08-26-2020 4:22 PM


Re: Time scales
The earth's rotation is slowing down at the rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century, so in the century since 1900 the mean solar day has become 2 ms longer.

In all past discussions of this, you have insisted that changing the rate of the earth's spin would change its orbit about the sun and would do so drastically. Have you finally realized how utterly wrong that idea of yours is or are you still holding to it?

Your stuff read much better now. And thanks for giving so much information. It is tooo long, and I don't know how to respond to all of them. So, I just pick some:

There is no butterfly effect in the geologic process. Even it has, the rate would be too slow to see the impact. What I am talking about is a single simple process, but continued for millions of years.

If the earth rotation slowed down 2E-3 sec. per year, then in 2E8 years (back to the Jurrasic time), the earth would be 1E5 sec. slower in spinning. The same consideration applies to the mass change of the earth. The earth is gaining weight since the beginning.

I don't think there is any fusion reaction at the center of the earth. The center of the earth is solid, with a density like that of gold. This comes from seismology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2301 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 4:22 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2313 by Pollux, posted 08-26-2020 6:52 PM Juvenissun has not yet responded
 Message 2314 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 8:21 PM Juvenissun has responded
 Message 2344 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2020 6:14 PM Juvenissun has responded

  
Juvenissun
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2305 of 2365 (881637)
08-26-2020 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2302 by dwise1
08-26-2020 4:35 PM


Re: Definitions
and then something happened that suddenly changed the earth's orbit?

Seriously, this is a highly likely event in the earth history. It might have happened more than once. The reason is trivial. The earth was hit by asteroids, moons, planets many many times. A sudden change of orbit must be the consequence. Look at the geologic recent, how much orbit shift took place by the hit that killed dinosaurs 60 m.y. ago? We do not know because we do not know the direction of hit. A careful study on the rate change of some key geological processes may reveal something about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2302 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 4:35 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2346 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2020 9:16 PM Juvenissun has not yet responded
 Message 2347 by DrJones*, posted 08-27-2020 9:24 PM Juvenissun has responded
 Message 2359 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2020 7:27 PM Juvenissun has not yet responded

  
Juvenissun
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2306 of 2365 (881638)
08-26-2020 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2300 by NosyNed
08-26-2020 3:28 PM


Re: Definitions
You can ask me that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2300 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2020 3:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2308 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 6:25 PM Juvenissun has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2307 of 2365 (881639)
08-26-2020 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2303 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 5:38 PM


Re: Time scales
ringo writes:

Maybe you could tell us what the composition of the moon has to do with the flood.


There has not been a flood on the moon. The moon rocks are bone dry and moon rocks can not change like the same rocks would do on the earth. So the moon rocks stopped generating water soon after their formation.

Is it enough?

No, it is not enough! ringo asked you a direct and sincere question. You dodged that question to avoid answering it.

How's 'bout you just answer his question? You make us wonder what you are trying to hide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2303 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 5:38 PM Juvenissun has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2311 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:37 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2308 of 2365 (881640)
08-26-2020 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2306 by Juvenissun
08-26-2020 6:18 PM


Re: Definitions
NosyNed writes:

It maybe an idea to ask Juve if he know the difference between orbiting and rotating. I think he's read stuff about seismic events affecting the length of the day and muddled it all up in there.


You can ask me that question.

OK, so answer it already.

And while you're at it, please answer my simple questions which I now present to you for the third time:

Again from Message 2281:


  1. How does the sun burn? That is to say, what is the process by which it burns? And what does it burn (ie, what is its fuel, oxidizer, etc)?

  2. How does the burning of the sun affect the sun's mass? That is to say, if the burning of the sun causes it to lose mass, how does that loss of mass happen?

  3. In combustion, which is the burning of a fuel in the presence of oxygen, does the mass of the fuel cease to exist?

  4. If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit?

My questions are pertinent to NosyNed's message because he's asking the same kind of question: Why are you so confused and why are you coming up with such crazily stupid stuff?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2306 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:18 PM Juvenissun has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2310 by Juvenissun, posted 08-26-2020 6:36 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Juvenissun
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2309 of 2365 (881641)
08-26-2020 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2299 by dwise1
08-26-2020 1:59 PM


Re: Time scales
You really have no clue why the subsidence of a mountain would have far less effect than a mountain-sized asteroid hitting the earth at high velocity? Really? Your ignorance is absolutely mind-boggling. Inhuman even.

Some possible data for you:

Mass: The area of Tibet, 30 km thick.
Density: in average 3.0
Speed of fall: Hmm.. I am not sure on this. Roughly 3 km in 5 million years. Notice this is an average speed.
Landed on the surface of earth's mantle (not a entirely solid material).

I care less about the spin of earth. But would that change the orbit of the earth (just a little bit)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2299 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 1:59 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2317 by Pollux, posted 08-26-2020 9:54 PM Juvenissun has not yet responded

  
Juvenissun
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 07-25-2020


Message 2310 of 2365 (881642)
08-26-2020 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2308 by dwise1
08-26-2020 6:25 PM


Re: Definitions
If you were to speed the earth up in its orbit (eg, have it go twice as fast), will it stay in that orbit?

No. It won't.

That is the point. A collision between asteroid and earth would have 50% (?) chance to push the earth away from the sun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2308 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2020 6:25 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2336 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2020 4:41 PM Juvenissun 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