Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
 48 online now: DrJones*, Faith, frako, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (8 members, 40 visitors) Newest Member: Mikee Post Volume: Total: 869,641 Year: 1,389/23,288 Month: 1,389/1,851 Week: 29/484 Day: 29/93 Hour: 9/4

EvC Forum Science Forums Education and Creation/Evolution

# Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?

Author Topic:   Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 61 of 98 (433759) 11-12-2007 9:06 PM Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 5:57 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 writes:

quote:
No, the old age dating should not be taught in public schools AS A FACT.

Are you saying all of physics needs to be discarded?

quote:
I think they should include the theory that maybe things haven't always been a constant.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that they haven't? Every single attempt we have ever made to change the various constants has failed. The physics that we have managed to discover all indicate that they cannot be.

It is insufficient to simply play, "What if?" and expect it to be legitimate. Your attempt to play this as some sort of "freedom of conscience" ploy is interesting. You're trying to say that you have the right to lie to people.

quote:
Over the possible billions of years, it is more likely that a total catastrophy happened than life popping up unexpectedly.

Incorrect.

Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards.

What is the probability of me drawing the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of me drawing an Ace?
What is the probability of me drawing a Spade?
What is the probability of me drawing a black card?
What is the probability of me drawing a card?

You are confusing the probability of drawing the Ace of Spades with the probability of drawing a card.

Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards?

What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush?
What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace and King of Spades?
What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace, King, and Queen of Spades?
What is the probability of me drawing a Royal Flush given that I already have the Ace, King, Queen, and Jack of Spades?

You are confusing the probability of achieving a result in a single step with the probability of achieving it step-wise.

quote:
Therefore, by the fact that too many variables exist, no, 'billion-year' teaching should not be taught as a fact, but as a possibility.

Except your proclamation of "too many variables exist" simply isn't true. One of the big reasons that we accept radiometric dating is because the various methods are independent.

Suppose we have a room and we want to know how big it is. There are various ways that we can calculate this. We can use a measuring stick to lay it out, but this will introduce errors as we pick up the stick and put it down again...it will be difficult if not impossible to get a straight line this way and our measurements will be off. Too, it is extremely unlikely that the room will be a perfect multiple of the stick and thus, we will have to come up with a way to measure a fraction of the stick.

We could use an acoustical method. By putting forth an acoustic wave, we can measure the amount of time it takes for the wave to propagate to the other wall and return. This method has its own possibilities for error since it will require the medium in the room to be uniform both in pressure and temperature throughout. There's also the question of making sure that we are listening for the echo of the wall and not the echo of some other object in the room.

We could use a photonic method. By putting forth a light wave, we can measure the amount of time it takes for the wave to travel to the other wall and return. This method has its own possibilities for error since it will require the gravitational field in the room to be uniform throughout.

Each of these methods have ways to return false results. But the important thing to notice is that the way those errors might appear are completely independent of each other. The way in which an error can appear using a stick method have no effect upon a light method. Therefore, if all three methods return the same result, then you're going to have to explain why they all returned the exact same wrong answer when the way to make a wrong answer is different for each method.

Are you saying that we should lie to people?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:57 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 65 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:26 PM Rrhain has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.5

 Message 62 of 98 (433764) 11-12-2007 9:10 PM Reply to: Message 57 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 8:10 PM

Re: Canyon
 He can make a young earth look old without lieing.

Thats impossible. If you're making something that is young look old then you're practicing deceit, so if your god is being deceitful she's a liar.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

 This message is a reply to: Message 57 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:10 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 63 of 98 (433769) 11-12-2007 9:16 PM Reply to: Message 39 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 6:06 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 writes:

quote:
How about the meteors that wiped out lots of dinosaurs/prehumanic life?

Nothing more than a media hype exaggerating the claims of science. Yes, there was a meteoric event about 64 mya (we can see it in the iridium layer in the geologic column) that coincides with the extinction of the dinosaurs, but it isn't like the impact wiped out the dinosaurs.

The dinosaurs were in decline long before the impact. While the impact certainly helped push the dinosaurs into extinction, it was an inevitability.

quote:
The ice age has the ability to alter the climate and to change how quickly C-14 leaves an organic form.

Which is why carbon dating is calibrated.

But note, temperature does not affect radioactive decay. If temperature is going to affect the way we calibrate carbon dating, it is because it affects the rate at which carbon is taken up by organic beings. The carbon is going to decay at the exact same rate no matter what the temperature. It's just a question of where it's going to decay.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 39 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:06 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 64 of 98 (433772) 11-12-2007 9:21 PM Reply to: Message 46 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 7:19 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 writes:

quote:
Like I've said before, and I'll say it a thousand times, if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.

If you're going to insist that it is simply magic, then stop beating around the bush and state directly that you're invoking magic.

Don't pretend it's science. Simply admit that you're contradicting all the evidence and invoking magic.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 46 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:19 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 66 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:28 PM Rrhain has responded

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007

 Message 65 of 98 (433774) 11-12-2007 9:26 PM Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain11-12-2007 9:06 PM

Re: Canyon

### "Are you saying that we should lie to people?"

No. People keep saying that 'science doesn't know everything.' Now that I finally agree, you guys disagree. Are you saying that science knows everything?

A long time ago, J Harlen Bretz made a hypothesis that a massive flood swept through Washington and Oregon. However, people scoffed at his ideas because of their belief in uniformitarianism of geological processes.

However, Joseph Pardee later estimated that a glacial dam failed, releasing Lake Missoula. The flow estimated by him was nine cubic miles per hour, more than the flow of all the rivers in the world, but enough to move boulders. However, the flow might have been ten times the sum of all the rivers.

Now, research confirmed this hypothesis. There is an example of people thinking 'science knows everything', and that geological process is always the same, and suddenly being proven wrong on both aspects.

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:06 PM Rrhain has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 68 by JonF, posted 11-12-2007 9:36 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:34 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007

 Message 66 of 98 (433775) 11-12-2007 9:28 PM Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain11-12-2007 9:21 PM

Re: Canyon
It's not magic. With God, all things are possible.

 This message is a reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:21 PM Rrhain has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:35 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 67 of 98 (433776) 11-12-2007 9:31 PM Reply to: Message 49 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 7:24 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
However, you can hardly be 100% sure that the person is the one who stole your television.

You mean the videotape we have of him entering your house, removing the set, arriving at the pawn shop, and trying to sell it isn't sufficient to show that it was him?

That's the level of evidence we have. You seem to think that scientists are blithering idiots.

I'm going to ask you the same question I ask a lot of creationists...one which they never seem to answer. Please be the first:

When was the last time you went to your local science library and read a peer reviewed journal?

quote:
The justice system isn't perfect. And, possibly, neither is science.

Nobody said it wasn't.

But here's the thing: Science is self-correcting. If you keep at it, science will eventually find the error and correct it because science is continually questioning everything. If you can find evidence that overturns the dominant paradigm, they give you the Nobel Prize.

When was the last time you heard a creationist admit that it's possible his fundamental assumptions about everything were up for debate?

quote:

Please don't presume to lecture me about my spelling. I spell "god" that way on purpose. It is not a mistake. It is not an insult. If you wish, I can explain it to you, but you should be content to know that your presumption is wrong.

quote:
I don't believe in the rapture.

I never said you did.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 49 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:24 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5770
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 68 of 98 (433777) 11-12-2007 9:36 PM Reply to: Message 65 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 9:26 PM

Re: Canyon
Right again.

The possibility of a global flood has been examined in depth by many scientists. They concluded, 200 years ago, that the evidence forced them to discard their presupposition that there had been a global flood. Since then we have gathered lots more evidence, and all of it reinforces that conclusion.

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:26 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 69 of 98 (433780) 11-12-2007 9:43 PM Reply to: Message 51 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 7:27 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
Macro evolution, on which the theory of evolution is based on, isn't happening.

If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

You seem to think that there is such a thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution." There isn't. They are simply descriptors for how much evolutionary action has taken place. "Macroevolution" is evolutionary action above the species level while "microevolution" is action below the species level.

In short, "macroevolution" is nothing more than a bunch of "microevolution." There is no difference in the evolutionary action.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

quote:
We don't see any man-monkeys, or winged horses.

That's because we shouldn't expect to see such things. If we did, that would be a severe blow to evolutionary theory.

Humans are not descended from monkeys. Monkeys are not descended from humans. Humans and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a monkey. If we found a "man-monkey," that would completely destroy our understanding of the evolutionary history of humans and monkeys.

Horses don't have any limb buds along its back. How on earth could it evolve wings back there? Given your classic imagery, I'm assuming you mean feathered wings like a pegasus. You do realize that such wings are modified hands, yes? With no hand on a back to modify into a wing, you're never going to get a winged horse.

If we were to ever find a winged horse, it would completely destroy our understanding of biology.

Do you understand anything about why evolutionary theory says what it says?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 51 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 70 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:49 PM Rrhain has responded

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007

 Message 70 of 98 (433783) 11-12-2007 9:49 PM Reply to: Message 69 by Rrhain11-12-2007 9:43 PM

Re: Canyon

### "If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10"

I was purposefully overstating the theory. I never expected there to be winged horses.

 This message is a reply to: Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:43 PM Rrhain has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:39 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 71 of 98 (433787) 11-12-2007 10:01 PM Reply to: Message 58 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 8:31 PM

Re: truth and evidence
Aquilegia753 writes:

quote:
Macro evolution-the physical change from one species to another (man to human).

Close, but not quite. First, the traditional meaning of "man" in the context you put it is the same as "human," so your phrasing of a transition from "man" to "human," is nonsensical...they're the same thing.

Second, macroevolution isn't necessarily speciation. Macroevolution is simply evolutionary action that takes place above the species level.

But since you bring up speciation, we've seen that happen right in front of our eyes:

I've switched computers so I don't have my references from my PubMed crawl of instances of new genera, families, and even orders.

quote:
Micro evolution-very small changes of plants and animals to adapt to new environments (ants are attacking a plant, so the plant grows special food for the ants, which in turn defend the plant against other predators. Soon, neither can live without the other. Plants developing pestacide on their leafs to ward off bugs, which develope and immunity to the pesticide. No species change at all).

Again, close, but not quite.

It isn't like the plant "grows special food." There is no consciousness involved and the plant does not respond directly to the action of the ants. The plant was going to grow whatever it was going to grow. The action of the ants, however, can have an effect on which plants are going to survive to reproduce. Those plants that the ants can forage on and not die will have more offspring than those that the ants kill.

And similarly, those ants that can forage without killing off their food supply will have more offspring than those that do kill off their food.

That is what causes the morphological change over time. It isn't like the plant thinks, "I'm being attacked by ants! I had better figure out a way to appease them! I know! I'll start devoting energies to sap production, have it leak out of my stem, and that way the ants won't have to eat my leaves!" It's simply that mutation creates plants that can do such, are taken advantage of by the ants, and live to reproduce.

quote:
(taken from http://dictionary.reference.com)

Hint: When trying to define a science term, don't use a regular dictionary. Instead, use a science dictionary.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 58 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:31 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 72 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 10:16 PM Rrhain has responded

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007

 Message 72 of 98 (433795) 11-12-2007 10:16 PM Reply to: Message 71 by Rrhain11-12-2007 10:01 PM

Re: truth and evidence

I meant 'ape'.

#### "There is no consciousness involved and the plant does not respond directly to the action of the ants"

I never said there was. I'm used to trying to deal with people that need simple explaining of complex (to them) ideas. However, I've changed environments where I should be specific and accurate, with lots of research backing up my work. I'm not used to this, yet.

Thanks for the tip

 This message is a reply to: Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:01 PM Rrhain has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 73 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 10:19 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:44 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2050
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.5

 Message 73 of 98 (433799) 11-12-2007 10:19 PM Reply to: Message 72 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 10:16 PM

Re: truth and evidence
 I meant 'ape'

Humans are apes.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

 This message is a reply to: Message 72 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 10:16 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 74 of 98 (433800) 11-12-2007 10:21 PM Reply to: Message 60 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 8:52 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
Yes, that evolution is microevolution, not the macro on which the theory is based.

There is no difference between the two. If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

Evolutionary theory is based upon "evolution" and whether or not it happens above or below the species level is irrelevant.

quote:
For the macro to take place, that E. Coli has to become something that's not E. Coli.

How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore since that would mean it's a new species? You're trying to imply that somehow there's a barrier in mutation and selection that prevents the genome from changing "too much."

So since we can see speciation happen right in front of our eyes, why do you insist that we lie to people and claim we haven't?

quote:
However, the more she studies life, the more she's convinced that something so complicated like a single cell had the ability to be made.

Irrelevant. Science is not a gut feeling.

quote:

Yes.

It's not anything like a human body cell, but we can make cells.

quote:

Define "life." We can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. Is that "life"?

We can create viruses from scratch. Are viruses "alive"?

The question of what is "life" is not a simple one to answer.

quote:
Evolutionists continue to say that life doesn't need an Intelligant Creator/Designer, yet the smartest people in the world (which I hope are smarter than a bolt of lightning) can't make life!

Non sequitur. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise. A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as the internet and the smartest people in the world couldn't have created it.

Does that mean that only god can create the internet? Or does it simply mean that they hadn't yet figured out how? You seem to be in awe of Clark:

 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

You seem to be of the opinion that if you don't know how it's done, then that means nobody knows how it's done and that it is impossible for anybody to ever figure it out.

Oh, and by the way: Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Life could have come into being chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method I haven't mentioned. Evolution doesn't care. So long as life does not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

Are you saying that god cannot make life that evolves?

So if god can make life that evolves and if it turns out, as it certainly seems to be the case, that simple chemistry can make life that evolves, then why would evolution care about how life came into existence? How could you possibly tell the difference?

quote:
Until then, I'll trust and follow God wherever He teaches me.

Don't you think god left his signature of how he did written all over creation? All you have to do is read it.

Have you considered the possibility that god did do it...but not in the way you think?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 60 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003

 Message 75 of 98 (433805) 11-12-2007 10:34 PM Reply to: Message 65 by Aquilegia75311-12-2007 9:26 PM

Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 responds to me:

quote:
Are you saying that science knows everything?

I'm saying that we shouldn't lie about what we do know. You want to say that the evidence that we have for evolution and radiometric dating and all of science itself is nothing more than a "guess."

It isn't. It is the culmination of literally centuries of work by countless people. To trivialize it as mere whim that can be rationally contradicted by a seventh grader ("so he can make up his own mind") is to insult the intelligence of scientists everywhere.

If you're going to say that science is wrong, you need more evidence than simply, "It could be." Sure, "it could be," but so far we haven't found it to be false. The predictions made by the science we have bear fruit. We are able to get actual work done precisely and specifically because of the conclusions the science forces us into.

quote:
A long time ago, J Harlen Bretz made a hypothesis that a massive flood swept through Washington and Oregon. However, people scoffed at his ideas because of their belief in uniformitarianism of geological processes.

Incorrect. There was no belief involved. If it were, then there would be no way to contradict it.

But evidence won the day. You are confusing Lyellian uniformitarianism with modern geology. You are basically trying to say that what Bretz found means that the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a massive flood.

In short, you cribbed that reference from a creationist source, probably a web site, yes? You don't actually know the geology involved, do you? The way massive floods lay down channels have no evidence in the Grand Canyon.

Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985 show how the features of the Washington Scablands bear no resemblance to the features seen in the Grand Canyon.

quote:
There is an example of people thinking 'science knows everything', and that geological process is always the same, and suddenly being proven wrong on both aspects.

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If it were thought that "science knows everything," then nobody would have ever thought to investigate the Scablands. After all, what possible use could there have been in doing so? We already know the answer!

Ah, but science never thinks it knows the answer...it only knows what it understands right now. More investigation leads to more knowledge and more questions and more investigation.

If you think you have evidence that shows the whole paradigm to be off, then you need to present it.

"But it could be wrong," is not sufficient.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:26 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)