Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 46 of 224 (705599)
08-29-2013 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 6:46 AM


Hi Mindspawn,
You seem to be teaching yourself the details of radiocarbon dating one little step at a time, which is what we hoped to avoid in this thread. Yes, 14C production rates vary over time, this has been discussed in every thread we've ever had here about carbon dating. But we know those rates over time quite a ways back by calibration with varves, tree rings and ice cores, among others.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period.
Here's the calibration curve from the Wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating:
Notice that what is considered significant variation in 14C production causes only small dating variations, generally between 10% and 20%. Were no calibration performed we would think that a Bibilical-era dig might date to 5000 years old when it is actually 5700 years old. That isn't the degree of error you need. You need errors of hundreds of percent before the ages would become acceptable to you.
Consider this hypothetical. Let's say some ancient organic material is found at an archeological dig that possesses so little 14C that it is dated to 40,000 years ago. If the world is only 6000 years old, and if 14C production rates were greater in the past than they are today, how could that have ever happened?
Again, this is not the discussion I thought we'd be having in this thread, but I guess it's the only one we're going to get.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 6:46 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 5:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 47 of 224 (705601)
08-29-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 7:44 AM


How can you calibrate if the relationship between carbon-14 production and the strength of the magnetic field has not been established.
By comparing 14C results to the results of other dating methods (on the same samples) that do not have any link to the Earth's magnetic field. As already explained. in Message 26 and you're ignoring:
quote:
...it ignores the point that they make, which is that the ratio between c-12 and c-14 has been changing and increasing the proportion of c-14, assuming that the ratio has been relatively constant over the last thousands of years causes the samples to appear much older than they really are, what you have to say about that?
If that were the case, you might have a point. However, the radiocarbon method, as it is currently used, does correct for atmospheric variation. It does so by comparing radiocarbon dates on items of known ages with radiocarbon ages themselves. In this manner the changes in C14 levels in the atmosphere are corrected for.
The items of known ages include tree-rings, varves, annular rings in corals, etc. Not surprisingly, the calibration curve for these various materials is in close agreement and if I remember correctly, the maximum correction is on the order of 11%.
This is what the calibration curve looks like:
Your comment is another example of creationists raising arguments against radiocarbon dating without knowing what they are talking about. The problem of atmospheric fluctuations was identified by scientists over 50 years ago and a calibration curve has been developed to deal with it.
Here is a good article dealing with the calibration curve (pdf format):
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions? is a good explanation by a former YEC, formerly withthe ICR but left because he insisted on honesty. I think he still doesn't agree with all of mainstream science but on this subject he's sound.
You could also read the Wikipedia article on 14C calibration; it's pretty accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 7:44 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 48 of 224 (705605)
08-29-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 6:46 AM


Objection unfounded
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period.
You are wrong.
The calibration curve I explained in a previous post takes a known event in the past (a tree ring, a varve, etc.) and radiocarbon dates it.
If that known event and the radiocarbon date do not agree, then we can apply a correction to the radiocarbon date to make them agree.
They have dated one particular type of tree ring, from standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California, going back some 12,000 years. The recent rings are dated in 1-year increments, while the older ones are dated in 10-year increments.
This produces a curve, which I have included in previous posts. Curves made from other materials are in close agreement. The maximum correction that is needed going back some 50,000 years is about 10 or 11%.
What this curve does is correct for the atmospheric fluctuations in C14 levels--no matter their cause!
So your question or objection is unfounded.
You can google this information for yourself; just stay away from those creationist websites, as their essays on this subject are among the most inaccurate things they produce.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 6:46 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 9:07 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 6:03 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 49 of 224 (705607)
08-29-2013 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 5:36 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
I can see why you would have that impression, and its your honest appraisal of the situation, but creationists see the obvious bias that you may be unwittingly supporting.
But the bias is only against unevidenced proclamations. Its not against creationists, themselves. Hell, I'm a creationist. It the anti-evolution portion of creationists, that just make up unevidence crap, that cry that they're being biased against. If they could just provide evidenced ideas, than there wouldn't be any bias.
For example in these threads, most of the time I'm just discussing facts, and yet the amount of unnecessarily emotional
Got any examples? This medium, online discussion boards, doesn't allow you to determine emotion. Take this for example:
OMG! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU WRITE THAT!!!!
Did you detect any emotion in that? Well, it had none, I just wrote it that way to make you think it did.
So what are you talking about, specifically, that was emotional?
most of the time I'm just discussing facts
But its your application of those facts that people are arguing against. Like when you show that yeast can have different mutation rates in high UV and then erroneously think that can also be applied to humans. When you're told it can't be applied to humans, you cry that people aren't dealing with the fact that mutations are affected by UV. Well, its totally irrelevant to the issue. Unfortuantely, you only see bias.
and unscientific comments is a bit disturbing if this site is representative of common scientific thought.
This site is representative of the evolution vs creation debate. It has all kinds of different "thought".
So I see the bias expressed numerous times every day on this very site.
Yeah, you see it... its just that you're wrong about what its towards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 5:36 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 224 (705619)
08-29-2013 9:36 PM


Any more?
Any other objections to radiocarbon dating?
This is your big chance!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


(1)
Message 51 of 224 (705620)
08-29-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Pressie
08-28-2013 1:05 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
I read that article and that author was dishonest as well. One example from that article:
quote: Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
Nope. Uniformatarianism does not 'assume' that at all.
From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:
quote:Uniformitarianism:
(a) The fundamental principle or doctrine that geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classic concept that the present is the key to the past. The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies.; The term was originated by Lyell (1830), who applied it to a concept by Hutton (1788). Cf. catastrophism. Syn: actualism: principle of uniformity.
(b) The logic and method by which geologists attempt to reconstruct the past using the principle of uniformitarianism.
So, it seems as if the term uniformatarianism refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Not what Baumgardner claimed it is. He told an untruth.
The result is that both references to creationist websites given so far in this thread indicate that those creationists tried to mislead people.
I've seen many creationist 'articles' in my lifetime. I've never seen one where creationists are not very, very economical with the truth. You always find at least one falsehood.
I don’t see any dishonesty in Baumgardner’s definition on uniformitarianism: the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, it’s pretty much the same as the one presented by Gary, Macafee and Wolf: geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today. Yeah, they also add: The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies, but Baumgardner is not implying otherwise, in fact Gary et al are implying that changes not happening at an uniform rate and minor catastrophies aren’t relevant enough to affect the uniformitarian principle that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today.
Opposite to that, Baumgardner and other creationists claim that you cannot use uniformitarianism because there is a global catastrophy in the way, namely, the biblical flood. This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates.
Now it appears that it is possible to calibrate radiocarbon dates by comparing with things of known age, like tree rings, varves, etc, but how can we really know the age of things that are supposed to be tents of thousand years old?. I think the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating is being calibrated with equally inaccurate stuff, I will have a look at this calibration method and will be back to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Pressie, posted 08-28-2013 1:05 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2013 11:25 PM Ossat has not replied
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2013 1:27 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 54 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 4:42 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 7:21 AM Ossat has not replied
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 08-30-2013 8:05 AM Ossat has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 52 of 224 (705624)
08-29-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Baumgardner and other creationists claim that you cannot use uniformitarianism because there is a global catastrophy in the way, namely, the biblical flood. This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates.
First, you cannot use a mythological event to calibrate the radiocarbon curve. That is akin to using Mickey Mouse to attest to the existence of quantum mechanics.
Second, even if there had been such a flood ca. 4,350 years ago, as biblical scholars claim, your comment that pre-flood radiocarbon dates show show "infinite or tents [sic] of thousand year old dates" is easily disproved. In the areas I work, there is a smooth "curve" of radiocarbon dates back past 10,000 years, reflecting a growing aboriginal population. There is no evidence of a flood, or a sudden increase toward infinity in the radiocarbon dates.
Now it appears that it is possible to calibrate radiocarbon dates by comparing with things of known age, like tree rings, varves, etc, but how can we really know the age of things that are supposed to be tents of thousand years old?
"Now it appears"? This is something that has been known to everyone but creationists for over 50 years.
...how can we really 'know' the age of things that are supposed to be tents [sic] of thousand years old?
Simple, you count the tree rings or varves.
In the case of tree rings, there is an additional confirmation. The variation in the rings comes from climatic and seasonal variations. If they are accurate the rings should reflect past volcanic events, such as eruptions of Mt. Etna. This has been found to be the case.
So, all you have to do is find a series of trees that have overlapping rings going back thousands of years and you can find all the information you are looking for. If I remember correctly, the standing dead bristlecone pines of southern California go back over 12,000 years, and a species of oak in Europe takes the calibration curve back past 20,000 years. And this is not even counting corals and ice cores and varves, which have similar long histories, taking the calibration curve back toward 50,000 years. And (sorry creationists), those different materials all produce similar curves! I posted an image upthread. Did you examine that, and the article it came from? Here it is in case you haven't been able to find it:
http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf
The same author has a lot of other interesting papers:
http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/publications/
I think the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating is being calibrated with equally inaccurate stuff, I will have a look at this calibration method and will be back to discuss.
You have yet to show any inaccuracy in the radiocarbon method other than the inaccuracy of creationists' beliefs. Take a look at the literature and get back to me (but please avoid the creationists's websites, as they are literally full of lies and misrepresentations).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 53 of 224 (705625)
08-30-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates
This is simply ad hoc assert and denial. Without a shred of evidence for the flood, you simply assert a flood and different atmospheric conditions because not doing so means admitting you are wrong. I suppose I might do the same if I thought my salvation hung in the balance. And if I did not need to understand science just to make a living.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by JonF, posted 08-30-2013 8:09 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 62 by JonF, posted 08-30-2013 8:09 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 54 of 224 (705636)
08-30-2013 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Seeing that this is off-topic, I’ll only write something on it quickly.
What Baumgardner wrote:
Baumgardner writes:
Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts
Let me point out one word he wrote down: SLOW.
The word ‘slow’ in his description of uniformitarianism should have given you a hint. Baumgardner was dishonest. It simply is not true. Huge difference between what he claims about it and what the word means in reality.
Uniformatarianism does NOT imply ‘slow’. It is a conclusion that the earth’s surface can be explained by uniform processes. They can be very fast, very slow and everything in between, just as we see happening today. Read that reference to what is written in the Glossary of Geology again.
Lots of other falsehoods in that sentence from Baumgardner as well. Read some geologic literature on uniformatarianism. Avoid religious websites who use sciencey-sounding words to pretend that they do science.
The author of that propaganda piece has a PhD in Geophysics. This means that he was not trained in carbon dating, but that he knows a little bit about Geology. Yet, the author was deliberately dishonest about a basic geological term. Why is he so dishonest about it? An agenda perhaps?
I stopped reading that article after that, because I realise that he’s going to tell untruths about carbon dating, something I don’t know much about.
I rather accept the findings of the tens of thousands of specialists on carbon dating (from all over the world; all nations, religions, non-religion, colours, creeds, etc.), who publish their research in the appropriate scientific journals.
I don’t believe dishonest people, with an agenda, writing untruths about subjects both inside and outside their fields of expertise, on fundamentalist religious websites. Then they pretend that it is ‘science’. No thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 55 of 224 (705641)
08-30-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 5:36 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
mindspawn writes:
For example in these threads, most of the time I'm just discussing facts, and yet the amount of unnecessarily emotional and unscientific comments is a bit disturbing if this site is representative of common scientific thought. So I see the bias expressed numerous times every day on this very site.
Yes, I know. I found references to anti-scientific fundamentalist religious websites in this thread very disturbing. No facts provided. Just untruths. They do the opposite of science.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 5:36 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 56 of 224 (705642)
08-30-2013 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Ossat writes:
I don’t see any dishonesty in Baumgardner’s definition on uniformitarianism...it’s pretty much the same as the one presented by Gary, Macafee and Wolf...
Well, in that case the words "accurate" and "distortion" must be synonyms, as must "honest" and "dishonest". What's worse, Baumgardner *is* a skilled and knowledgeable geologist and knows he is misdefining uniformitarianism. As soon as he begins, "Uniformitarianism assumes..." he's already wrong because uniformitarianism is based upon the available evidence.
But he's wrong in an even more direct way when he says it assumes that "the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts." There *is* a term that has the definition Baumgardner claims and it is gradualism. Modern geology definitely does not accept gradualism as an explanation of the evidence, and gradualism is not a synonym for uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism, as others have already informed you, holds that the same array of forces and processes at work today have been at work all during Earth's history. That means it accepts the slow accumulation of limestone layers for millions of years, but also earthquakes, volcanoes, and the cataclysmic strikes of asteroids. Ask yourself how uniformitarianism could include all these things and yet be synonymous with gradualism?
And now ask yourself how Baumgardner could define uniformitarianism the way he does yet still be considered a reliable source?
Are you looking for only what supports what you already believe, or for what is true? If the latter then listen to the universe, for it doesn't lie. Religion has a history of wonderfully noble goals combined with miserably constructed rationales for the ugly acts it employs to achieve those goals. Your religion teaches that salvation depends upon believing that the Earth is young and that science is lying. Salvation depends upon no such thing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 7:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 7:35 AM Percy has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 57 of 224 (705643)
08-30-2013 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
08-30-2013 7:21 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Baumgardner is a person who tends to tell untruths about anything. He's also a fraud.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence, as the word l**r is not allowed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 7:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 58 of 224 (705645)
08-30-2013 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
08-30-2013 7:21 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Percy, the facts are that he was an Electrical Engineer wo did a PhD in Geophysics. Not much training in Geology at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 7:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 8:03 AM Pressie has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 224 (705646)
08-30-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Pressie
08-30-2013 7:35 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Baumgardner. He's published more in the peer-reviewed literature than probably any other creationist. He really has no excuse, and particularly not lack of talent or knowledge, for his creationist efforts.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 7:35 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 8:54 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 60 of 224 (705647)
08-30-2013 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates.
Sounds like a somewhat confused version of R.H. Brown's theory.
It doesn't work.
If there was essentially zero radiocarbon circa 4500 years ago, then the dynamics of radiocarbon in the atmosphere and ocean and organisms is such that we would still be a long way from secular equilibrium (since we are now less than one half-life of 14C from the supposed zero), and we would have been even farther from secular equilibrium in historic times. This leads immediately to obvious impossibilities. If the 14C/12C ratio in a sample is not almost completely due to decay but is also significantly due to a much lower 14C/12C ratio when the organism died, then everything we have dated is noticeably younger than we think. But we have exceptionally solid evidence that the 14C/12C ratio has been essentially constant for the last 3500 years or so.
My favorite example is bread dug up from Pompeii, under the ashes of Vesuvius' eruption in 79 AD. If you are correct, then the wheat from which that bread was baked grew centuries after the bread was buried under Vesuvius' ash.
Here's poster Mike PSS's graph based on his spreadsheet, which doesn't seem to be around anymore, but I could probably get it from him in a few days:
And, of course, the consilience with other methods is still there. Creationists just can't handle consilience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024