Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
67 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,164 Year: 4,276/6,534 Month: 490/900 Week: 14/182 Day: 2/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 145 (5037)
02-18-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 11:09 PM


Why don't you start a thread with this topic, posting testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:09 PM bkwusa has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 77 of 145 (5049)
02-19-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 11:09 PM


quote:
actully i have my own theory on that... my theory is that earth was a comment that was caught in the sun's atmosphere...

- Bolds added by Moose

I would assume that this is the footnote theory.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:09 PM bkwusa has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 145 (5057)
02-19-2002 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Is there really anything that is an indicator that the earth is such an age without the argument of radiometric dating methods?

Guess what, TC? Since I'm not the one throwing the science away, I don't have to provide any more evidence than has already been provided. YOU and zimzam and the rest of the creationists who are denying the evidence of geology - including radiometric dating and the other methodologies - are the ones who must provide POSITIVE evidence that your assertions have some basis in fact. IOW, I don't need to prove that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old because that is the concensus opinion of modern science. Your vocal little fundamentalist Protestant minority, which is trying desperately to refute that evidence, needs to provide evidence that will show - beyond reasonable doubt - that the earth is ~6000 years old. Put up or admit you have nothing but your fundamentalist interpretation of the bible to back your claim...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 4:35 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM Quetzal has replied

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 145 (5059)
02-19-2002 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Quetzal
02-19-2002 1:56 AM


In response I have several things to say.

1. In part I joined this discussion to educate myself about these so called proofs regarding the earth being more than or less than 6-10,000 years old. What I do know is only what I have read and what others have taught me. Up to this point it seems there have always been 2 sides to everything. An evolutionist claims that evidence X proves his side while a creationist can take the same evidence X and say it proves creation. I just got done reading 25 posts between TC and the rest of you arguing geological proofs without anyone giving a single one. I will admit that is frustrating.

2. Reference apparent age of the earth I will have to go back to my post in message 50 regarding the created automobile analogy. You as the creator represent God, the car represents the earth and your friend represents mankind. Lets agree that you had created the car for your friend. You knew he was coming over in 10 minutes and you also knew he would want to drive the car when he arrived. Because of this you created the car as an assembled and fully functioning automobile. Your friend complains that the car has got to be older than 10 minutes because everything he knows tells him that the metal, plastic, wiring and paint job on the car takes longer than 10 minutes to prepare and finish. He now questions your intentions and your response is:
"Why are you struggling with and questioning this cars apparent age? Would you rather I created the car unassembled then had you wait around for 10 months while I assemble and give it a tune up so you can drive it? I did it this way so you can enjoy the car now. When did I ever tell you how old the car is? When did I ever tell you how I created the car? The important facts are that I created the car, I created it 10 minutes ago, and I created it for you to use."

3. Maybe my point is that I feel that arguing the age of the earth is indeed a moot point. How will this change anything? The focus shouldnt be on the age of the earth but perhaps on the time life has been on the earth.

4. Being a creationist/christian/fundamentalist there are certain truths I base my beliefs on. These truths come from The Bible, science, and common sense. It is hard for me to argue one without the others. Most of you seem more educated in the science department than I and I will kindly ask you to explain these geological proofs. I would also be very happy to answer any questions regarding the Bibles vaildity, accuracy and message.

5. I need to know the following:

Do you consider God, creation, and supernatural events as a possibility?
If you dont why?
If you do what evidences are you willing to accept?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2002 1:56 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 5:42 AM zimzam has replied
 Message 84 by Pete, posted 02-19-2002 7:09 AM zimzam has replied
 Message 85 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2002 8:13 AM zimzam has replied
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 10:36 AM zimzam has replied

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 145 (5060)
02-19-2002 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by LudvanB
02-17-2002 11:57 PM


With the help of God I can try to answer all of your questions about God but I can do it only from what the Bible tells us. Are you seriously seeking the answers and will you allow me to back my faith in God up using the message He gave us in the Scriptures?

I apologize for my answers previously if they were meant to suggest that God is self centered and a jerk. There is so much more to him that you need to know. Everything he has done is to show his love for us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by LudvanB, posted 02-17-2002 11:57 PM LudvanB has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 145 (5061)
02-19-2002 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by joz
02-18-2002 4:08 PM


Let me ask you this. When did God ever tell us how old the earth is? He only tells us that he created it in 6 days and that he created it for us. We have created this debate over its age thus completely missing the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by joz, posted 02-18-2002 4:08 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by joz, posted 02-19-2002 9:45 AM zimzam has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 82 of 145 (5062)
02-19-2002 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by zimzam
02-19-2002 5:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

Do you consider God, creation, and supernatural events as a possibility?
If you dont why?
If you do what evidences are you willing to accept?


I do consider the supernatural as a possibility.

When comparing the natural mechanistic framework to the supernatural mechanistic framework (ugly terms, but I can think of nothing better) you get this :

List of natural mechanisms:

Electron behaviour & interaction, radioactive decay, combustion, evaporation, sublimation, inertia, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, meiosis, mitosis………… The list goes on & on.

List of known supernatural mechanisms:

Nothing, absolutely zilch.

So, although the second list is empty, there MAY be entries that can be made. But, until there are, there is no REASON to infer the supernatural over the natural. By definition, to do so is unreasonable. Which begs the question, by what mental process do you (or anyone) infer the supernatural over the natural, & claim it to be reasonable? By simply saying “well, science can’t explain this or that”, you are falling into the God-of-the-gaps. We are talking about the rationality of inferring the natural or supernatural. The conclusion is that there is no REASON to infer the supernatural. NONE.

So, what would a supernatural event be? For our purposes, anything that can be shown to contravene well known natural laws, & to be guided by an intelligence outside our universe.

e.g The bible states the sun stops in the sky, meaning the earth stops turning, despite the property of mass, inertia, & it’s resulting angular momentum. This event also occurs for a purpose, hence the guiding intelligence.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:20 AM mark24 has replied

  
Pete
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 145 (5064)
02-19-2002 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 7:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"That's exactly what you were doing.
--The question that I asked ... is, are there any other dating techniques not associated with radiometric dating that gives you 4.5 billion years as your date for the age of the earth.

Well not sure that any go all the way back to 4.5 billion years,
but there ARE other methods that date the Earth to MUCH more
than 10,000 years.

TC you usually seem pretty ready to a web-search or other
research before posting, so I wonder why you haven't (as I just
did) done a search for "Age of earth". Ignore the creationist
sites (because you know what they say already) and look at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/AgeEarth.htm
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/CJAmmon/HTML/Classes/PhysicalGeology/Notes/SciUniversality/P07.html
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/geotime.html
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/Notes-1998-Fall/Earth/clocks_rocks.html

I would ALSO like to ask why you reject radiometric methods, when
cross referencing several different methods gives consistent
results (within an error tolerance ... as ALL scientific measurements
are ... in the degree level physics course I did at undergraduate
level we were penalised for not putting error bars on graphs
of experimental data!!)

http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/frown.gif[/IMG])


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 02-24-2002 1:36 AM Pete has taken no action

  
Pete
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 145 (5065)
02-19-2002 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by zimzam
02-19-2002 5:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
In response I have several things to say.

1. In part I joined this discussion to educate myself about these so called proofs regarding the earth being more than or less than 6-10,000 years old. What I do know is only what I have read and what others have taught me. Up to this point it seems there have always been 2 sides to everything. An evolutionist claims that evidence X proves his side while a creationist can take the same evidence X and say it proves creation. I just got done reading 25 posts between TC and the rest of you arguing geological proofs without anyone giving a single one. I will admit that is frustrating.


I agree it is intensely frustrating.

Considering the usual quality of TC's debating I can only assume
that he/she him/herself is not themselves convinced of the
biblical version of the age of the earth, and is trying to deflect
the debate away from this area.

Perhaps I am just being cynical.

quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

2. Reference apparent age of the earth I will have to go back to my post in message 50 regarding the created automobile analogy. You as the creator represent God, the car represents the earth and your friend represents mankind. Lets agree that you had created the car for your friend. You knew he was coming over in 10 minutes and you also knew he would want to drive the car when he arrived. Because of this you created the car as an assembled and fully functioning automobile. Your friend complains that the car has got to be older than 10 minutes because everything he knows tells him that the metal, plastic, wiring and paint job on the car takes longer than 10 minutes to prepare and finish. He now questions your intentions and your response is:
"Why are you struggling with and questioning this cars apparent age? Would you rather I created the car unassembled then had you wait around for 10 months while I assemble and give it a tune up so you can drive it? I did it this way so you can enjoy the car now. When did I ever tell you how old the car is? When did I ever tell you how I created the car? The important facts are that I created the car, I created it 10 minutes ago, and I created it for you to use."

The 10 minute automobile would, however, show no evidence of
wear and tear, or of usage. The engine and exhaust system (if
examine in enough detail) would reveal the true age of the vehicle.

Even if old components were used, the gaskets and other fixings would
show a 'newness' under detailed examination.

quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

3. Maybe my point is that I feel that arguing the age of the earth is indeed a moot point. How will this change anything? The focus shouldnt be on the age of the earth but perhaps on the time life has been on the earth.

The reason for DISCUSSING the age of the earth (as I pointed out
in the initial post) is that it is the MAJOR source of
rebuttal to the theory of evolution put forward by creationists.

For evolution to be feasible the Earth MUST be much older than
10,000 years, so that life can have existed on earth much longer
ago that 6000 years.

This question is, therefore, fundamental to the Creation Vs Evolution
debate (i.e. THIS FORUM).

quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

4. Being a creationist/christian/fundamentalist there are certain truths I base my beliefs on. These truths come from The Bible, science, and common sense. It is hard for me to argue one without the others. Most of you seem more educated in the science department than I and I will kindly ask you to explain these geological proofs. I would also be very happy to answer any questions regarding the Bibles vaildity, accuracy and message.

While I DO NOT want to attack your faith, on what grounds do you
hold the Bible to be truth?

Most people I have met who hold it to be true do so because they
have been brought up to beleive it true ... and have never sought
to question it.

Questioning your faith is a GOOD thing ... at worst it will reveal
YOUR truth to you (whichever way you eventually turn).

It is (often) hard to look at scientific evidence and claims
that people make of the bible without seeing contradictions, but
if you take the trouble to research, and think for yourself
you may find that your faith at the end of it all is even stronger.

quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

5. I need to know the following:

Do you consider God, creation, and supernatural events as a possibility?
If you dont why?
If you do what evidences are you willing to accept?


My opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

Give me an hypothesis or assertion and sufficient, credible
evidence to back up the claim, and I WILL accept it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:36 AM Pete has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 85 of 145 (5066)
02-19-2002 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by zimzam
02-19-2002 5:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
In response I have several things to say.

1. In part I joined this discussion to educate myself about these so called proofs regarding the earth being more than or less than 6-10,000 years old. What I do know is only what I have read and what others have taught me. Up to this point it seems there have always been 2 sides to everything. An evolutionist claims that evidence X proves his side while a creationist can take the same evidence X and say it proves creation. I just got done reading 25 posts between TC and the rest of you arguing geological proofs without anyone giving a single one. I will admit that is frustrating.


Zimzam:
In the first place, no "evolutionist" (whatever that is) claims anything about the age of the earth. Geologists certainly do, and biologists use the information furnished by geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. I don’t particularly feel the need to restate in this forum – or even synopsize in bite-sized morsels – the complex evidence from multiple converging lines of inquiry and multiple disciplines concerning the age of the earth, especially since my forte rests primarily in the biology side of the equation. I am willing, however, give you the benefit of the doubt, in spite of your quite evident bias (see bolded section above). If you truly want to learn (and if so you’ll be the first creationist I’ve ever encountered who does), you’ll need to start out with a little reading. I suggest beginning with the following references:

Age of the Earth from the USGS, which provides a nice, fairly easy to understand general discussion of the methodologies leading to a 4.5 billion year earth;
Introduction to Radiometric Dating also from the USGS, which provides a general, although occasionally a bit technical, introduction to radiometric isotope dating – the primary method used for geology, paleontology, etc to determine the age of rock samples;
Age of the Earth, an excellent article by Chris Stassen that provides an overview of all of the scientific disciplines whose convergent lines of evidence give scientists reason to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

If you have specific questions concerning the information provided in these three articles, I’ll be happy to try and answer them. If you feel you can refute any of the information, I’d be happy to discuss it with you, as well. However, I flat refuse to have anything to do with any discussion which proves you haven’t even attempted to read the information provided. You should be aware that TC has been given these sources multiple times, which is why people on this thread have not felt compelled to repeat information he’s already been given – and consistently evades or denies.

quote:
2. Reference apparent age of the earth I will have to go back to my post in message 50 regarding the created automobile analogy. You as the creator represent God, the car represents the earth and your friend represents mankind. Lets agree that you had created the car for your friend. You knew he was coming over in 10 minutes and you also knew he would want to drive the car when he arrived. Because of this you created the car as an assembled and fully functioning automobile. Your friend complains that the car has got to be older than 10 minutes because everything he knows tells him that the metal, plastic, wiring and paint job on the car takes longer than 10 minutes to prepare and finish. He now questions your intentions and your response is:
"Why are you struggling with and questioning this cars apparent age? Would you rather I created the car unassembled then had you wait around for 10 months while I assemble and give it a tune up so you can drive it? I did it this way so you can enjoy the car now. When did I ever tell you how old the car is? When did I ever tell you how I created the car? The important facts are that I created the car, I created it 10 minutes ago, and I created it for you to use."

This is known as argument from false analogy, a very typical creationist ploy. The age of the earth bears no relationship whatsoever to some manufactured artifact. The earth (and the evidence for its age) rests on purely deterministic physics. An automobile, designed and manufactured by a human intelligence, is not analogous. This strawman is a very weak attempt to introduce "creation" into the equation (i.e., the car was designed therefore the earth was designed). Want to talk about frustration? Every time a creationist is asked to produce evidence for creation, they come up with some spurious analogy like this. That's frustrating.

quote:
3. Maybe my point is that I feel that arguing the age of the earth is indeed a moot point. How will this change anything? The focus shouldnt be on the age of the earth but perhaps on the time life has been on the earth.

As Peter pointed out, the age of the earth has everything to do with it. If the geologists, astronomers, physicists, etc are correct and the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, then biological evolution has time to operate as stated. If the creationists are correct, and the earth is only ~6000 years old, the entire ToE must be either substantially revised or thrown out. Guess what? I'm not holding my breath.

quote:
4. Being a creationist/christian/fundamentalist there are certain truths I base my beliefs on. These truths come from The Bible, science, and common sense. It is hard for me to argue one without the others. Most of you seem more educated in the science department than I and I will kindly ask you to explain these geological proofs. I would also be very happy to answer any questions regarding the Bibles vaildity, accuracy and message.

In which case, I'm sure you'd be happy to provide evidence that leads us to agree that the bible is inerrant and completely accurate, geology has had it wrong since at least Lyell, and biologists all need to look for real work to do...

quote:
5. I need to know the following:

Do you consider God, creation, and supernatural events as a possibility?
If you dont why?
If you do what evidences are you willing to accept?


No, you don't need to know that - at least not to discuss the evidence for the age of the earth. Suffice that I don't subscribe to the primitive myth cycle of ancient Middle Eastern pastoralists. Anything beyond that, I'm willing to entertain positive evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:51 AM Quetzal has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 145 (5070)
02-19-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by zimzam
02-19-2002 5:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
Let me ask you this. When did God ever tell us how old the earth is? He only tells us that he created it in 6 days and that he created it for us. We have created this debate over its age thus completely missing the point.

Ok in summary:

Assuming God exists....

1)Either the biblical account of creation ex nihilo X,000 (where X is of the close order of 10) years ago is a)correct or b)it isn`t....

2)Either the biblical God is a) infinitely (or perfectly) good or b) isn`t...

2)a)Precludes 1)a) in that an infinitely (or perfectly) good God would be morally prohibited from an act that would lead to a deception....

2)a)Can be taken to not prohibit 1)b) in that a God that created a universe a time of the close order of 10,000,000,000 years ago which contains evidence of that age has not commited an act of deception....(i)

However it could also be argued that such an infinitely good God would remove from circulation any accounts of creation that were false thus prohibiting 1)b)....(ii)

2)b)Prohibits no courses of action but relies on God not being of perfect moral character which itself contradicts popular christian belief....(iii)

Thus either (i) or (ii) is right:

If (i) God is the perfectly good creator of a 10,000,000,000 year old universe.

Or (ii) is right In which case as the biblical account is still around means God must be as described in 2)b) which gives case (iii)

(iii) God is described by 2)b) a less than perfect (morally) deity who can willfully of by lack of forethought decieve contrary to popular christian belief.....

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-20-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:25 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:11 AM joz has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 145 (5071)
02-19-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by zimzam
02-19-2002 5:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

1. In part I joined this discussion to educate myself about these so called proofs regarding the earth being more than or less than 6-10,000 years old. What I do know is only what I have read and what others have taught me. Up to this point it seems there have always been 2 sides to everything. An evolutionist claims that evidence X proves his side while a creationist can take the same evidence X and say it proves creation. I just got done reading 25 posts between TC and the rest of you arguing geological proofs without anyone giving a single one. I will admit that is frustrating.


See if you can answer my question in message 45 (at the bottom), if you doubt the accuracy of radiometric dating methods.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Pete, posted 02-19-2002 7:16 PM mark24 has taken no action
 Message 93 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:16 AM mark24 has replied

  
Pete
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 145 (5105)
02-19-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
02-19-2002 10:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
See if you can answer my question in message 45 (at the bottom), if you doubt the accuracy of radiometric dating methods.

Mark


I've similarly asked TC what his objections to radiometric dating
methods are.

No replies yet though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 10:36 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 145 (5128)
02-20-2002 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by mark24
02-19-2002 5:42 AM


I do think it is somewhat interesting that we can look at the same thing and come up with the exact opposite conclusions. I look at the universe, earth, animals, and man and see amazing designs that can not be explained without an intelligence behind them. If we went to the moon and dug up a simple machine like a bicycle all of mankind would immediately come to the conclusion that intelligent life created it and then left it there. Why do you and others look at everything beautiful and wonderous in the universe and immediately refute any intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 5:42 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 4:23 AM zimzam has replied
 Message 101 by Quetzal, posted 02-20-2002 6:52 AM zimzam has taken no action
 Message 102 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 7:40 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 145 (5129)
02-20-2002 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Pete
02-19-2002 7:09 AM


Peter I am sorry that you havent been able to find any Christians that can support the bible with facts other than saying because thats how their parents raised them. I am very skeptical in nature and take the Bible and its truths very seriously and have researched them as much as I can up to this point. Here are some areas where I have based my opinion on the Bible:

1. Its uniqueness
2. How it was prepared
3. Its reliability within a historical aspect
4. Archeological confirmation
5. Prophecy fulfilled in History
6. the power of Christs message
7. advanced scientific knowledge
8. how it has changed my life


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Pete, posted 02-19-2002 7:09 AM Pete has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 5:32 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022