Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,557 Year: 4,814/9,624 Month: 162/427 Week: 75/85 Day: 12/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 10 of 536 (915780)
02-17-2024 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
02-17-2024 2:24 PM


Re: Does it matter
GDR in Message 9 writes:
It doesn't matter whether or not God created the physical world. What matters is the life in the world that perceives and experiences this physical world in a particular way with the senses we have been given. More importantly than that though is the creation of conscious life, and further, conscious life capable of empathy, and morality.
Get thee from me, Satan!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 02-17-2024 2:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 16 of 536 (915788)
02-17-2024 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
02-17-2024 7:23 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
I don't have any I just ask google this question, how many galaxies in the universe?

This is what I got and they go up to 2 trillion in the observed universe.
And we're pretty sure the universe is bigger than just the parts we can see, so there are probably far more than that.
We think all matter in the universe was once in the same place around 13.8 billion years ago by projecting the current motion of galaxies backward in time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2024 7:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2024 8:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 33 of 536 (915806)
02-18-2024 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
02-17-2024 8:13 PM


Re: Does it matter
ICANT in Message 17 writes:
If that statement is not correct God is a Liar or He does not exist since He can not lie.
Have you considered the possibility that God exists but the Bible was written by men and is not about Him.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2024 8:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 1:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 34 of 536 (915807)
02-18-2024 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
02-17-2024 8:48 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT in Message 20 writes:
I know it was all in one place at one time it was just a lot bigger place than a pen point or a pea sized universe.
And you know this how?
Every time they work on the telescope the known universe gets bigger.
Untrue. The improved telescopes can resolve objects further away than ever before, but the observable universe never gets bigger. In fact, it can only get smaller. The universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. More and more of the universe is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, so its light can never reach us.
If you remember back in 2008 I made the statement 'I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not necessarily as we see it today'.

I haven't changed my mind. So since the energy has always existed in essence the universe has always existed and we will never see the end of it.
You're free to believe whatever you like.
That is one thing Einstein was correct about believing the universe always existed. If he could have met me after 1950 before he Died I would have made him a happy man.
He might even have found it hilarious.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2024 8:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 10:50 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 35 of 536 (915808)
02-18-2024 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ICANT
02-18-2024 12:40 AM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT in Message 29 writes:
When they get to eternal they will have arrived at the right number.
And you know this how?
There is 10^69 joules of mass and energy in the visible universe.
And much more in the regions we can't observe. Where does your figure come from? Using a volume of 4*1080 cubic meters for the observable universe and using the average matter density of 10-26 kilograms/meter3 and plugging it into E=mc2 yields 3.58*1080 joules, but I don't think that includes dark energy, which is 70% of the universe.
There is no way to put 10^69 joules of mass and energy in something the size of a pea. That can only be done by the imagination of a man so far as there is no mechanism to accomplish that feat.
What is the maximum density for mass and energy permitted by physical laws?
At T=0 There was no existence. No time, no space, no vacuum, no pea sized universe, no energy, and no mass.
So anything that began to exist quintillionth of a second later had to come from somewhere to begin to exist.
One possibility is that quantum fluctuations produced the energy for the Big Bang from nothing, but I don't believe there's a consensus about where the energy for the Big Bang came from yet. It might help to think of the Big Bang not as the origin of the universe but as only the beginning of the universe as we know it.
Energy is unlimited and can be added at any time necessary.
Isn't being able to add unlimited energy at any time the opposite of what you just claimed about T=0?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 12:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 1:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 37 of 536 (915817)
02-18-2024 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
02-18-2024 10:50 AM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT in Message 36 writes:
Percy writes:
ICANT in Message 29 writes:
When they get to eternal they will have arrived at the right number.
And you know this how?
Well lets see if we can figure that one out.
But you never answer the question: How do you know that "eternal" is the right number for the age of the universe?
You instead attempt to answer a different question:
There was non-existence at T=0.
And you know this how?
Science itself doesn't know what existed then. There are hypotheses, but no consensus has formed around any of them.
What we do know is that when we project the current motion of galaxies backward in time to about 13.8 billion years ago we find that the universe occupied a very tiny region of space.
The only way you can fix the problem is to assume the energy that expanded into our universe was able to begin to exist from non-existence.
Possibly. Some hypotheses involve quantum fluctuations where equal amounts of positive and negative energy and matter are created and where the net energy is zero.
Percy writes:
Untrue. The improved telescopes can resolve objects further away than ever before, but the observable universe never gets bigger. In fact, it can only get smaller. The universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. More and more of the universe is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, so its light can never reach us.
Explain how the universe is moving away from us.
The expanding universe was discovered nearly a hundred years ago by Edwin Hubble who measured the red shifts of galaxies and found that the more distant the galaxy the greater the red shift. Greater red shift means greater speed of recession.
As I understand it the Milky Way is moving at the speed of light from the place it formed at.
The Milky Way Galaxy is not moving through space at the speed of light relative to anything.
The galaxy that formed ahead of the Milky Way that is headed in the same direction at the speed of light so how can it be running away from us if both are traveling at the same speed?
Which galaxy would that be? You can't mean the Andromeda Galaxy because it is thought younger than the Milky Way, not older. And it isn't moving though space at the speed of light. No galaxy is. The relative speed of objects cannot reach the speed of light.
The Milky Way has a host of small satellite galaxies, maybe you mean one of those?
In other words you are saying we can see more of the universe with the improved telescopes but since we can't see it with the natural eye it is not observable.
Not quite. The observable universe is that part of the universe from which light arrives here. As bigger and better telescopes are employed we're able to resolve fainter and fainter objects from the arriving light.
The further away galaxies are the faster they are receding from us. At a distance of about 46 billion light years objects are receding from us faster than the speed of light, so light from these galaxies will never arrive here. They are unobservable.
Understand that these unobservable galaxies are not moving through space faster than light relative to us. It is the expansion of space itself causing them to recede faster than light.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 10:50 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 9:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 42 of 536 (915824)
02-18-2024 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
02-18-2024 1:09 PM


Re: By the Numbers
You skipped over how you know that, "When they get to eternal they will have arrived at the right number."
ICANT in Message 38 writes:
Percy writes:
Where does your figure come from?
My AI bot.
I had him run it again and this is what he spit out:
Using E = mc2: Eordinary matter = (4.9 × 1053 kg) × (3 × 108 m/s)2
Adding these components together, we get the total known energy in the universe:
Etotal = Edark energy + Eordinary matter
The calculation for dark energy is missing, dark matter isn't mentioned at all, and the math works out to 1.47×1062 joules, not the 1069 joules from your earlier message.
Be skeptical of calculations performed by AI chatbots - they can't actually do math. They're just doing searches on their database and finding the closest correspondence to the math they need to do.
Now, let’s calculate the numerical values and express them in joules:
Etotal ≈ 1.1 × 1069 J
mc2 is already in joules. I think you need to check through your math again.
Percy writes:
What is the maximum density for mass and energy permitted by physical laws?
The core of a neutron star is the most intensely dense objects we know of in the cosmos, and has a 6 mile radius and would weigh 1 billion tones on earth and there is thought to be a billion in the Milkey Way.
Interesting but irrelevant and wrong - black holes are even more dense than neutron stars.
What is the maximum density for mass and energy permitted by physical laws?
Percy writes:
Isn't being able to add unlimited energy at any time the opposite of what you just claimed about T=0?
...
I make no such claim about T=0 as I don' believe that T=0 ever was as I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not as we observe it today.
Just to make sure I understand your claim, let me repeat it back to you: You believe that unlimited energy can be added to the universe at any time except T=0, which you don't believe exists.
Cavediver, Son Goku and several others pounded it into my memory that nothing existed outside of the universe it was self contained and nothing existed at T-0.
So when I mention T=0 I am just repeating what I have been told about it.
Is it possible you misunderstood Cavediver and Son Goku? Point me at their messages.
I just checked and nothing has changed about T=0 we don't know what if anything existed at T=0.
Yes, I said exactly that, that we only have hypotheses, no consensus.
I Believe that an eternal existence exists and what ever that existence is it would have to be composed of pure energy thus capable of anything. I don't know what you would call something that was pure energy but I call it God.
You're free to believe whatever you like. What matters is if you can demonstrate that your beliefs correspond to reality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 1:09 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 43 of 536 (915825)
02-18-2024 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
02-18-2024 1:56 PM


Re: Does it matter
ICANT in Message 40 writes:
Percy writes:
Have you considered the possibility that God exists but the Bible was written by men and is not about Him.
No I have never thought about that. I have always known it was written by 44 different men over a period of 1800 years.
When I read it they sure talk about God a lot as if the plot was about Him.
Or maybe they just thought they were talking about God.
Any thing man has his hands on can get messed up and usually does.
Wise words to live by.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 02-18-2024 1:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 10:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 71 of 536 (915940)
02-20-2024 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Tangle
02-20-2024 3:17 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Tangle writes:
Have you ever read the New Testament horizontally? That is, take 4 bibles open at the gospels and read them one by one, side by side one paragraph at a time. If you don't want to try that yourself I can give you a link to Ehrman who has and you can check it.
It's called a Bible synopsis when they place corresponding gospel passages side-by-side. I have a hardcopy one and prefer that. I couldn't find Ehrman's online version, but here's one that uses the New English Translation:
It's a PDF. The side-by-side portion begins on page 22 and is rotated to fit better. PDF readers allow you to rotate the view.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Tangle, posted 02-20-2024 3:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Tangle, posted 02-20-2024 5:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 78 of 536 (915970)
02-21-2024 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tangle
02-21-2024 9:32 AM


Re: By the Numbers
I can't see how ICANT is making any progress toward demonstrating that Jesus created the universe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tangle, posted 02-21-2024 9:32 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 02-21-2024 10:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 02-21-2024 3:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 3:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 84 of 536 (915991)
02-21-2024 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tangle
02-21-2024 2:51 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Tangle in Message 83 writes:
Look why don't we all agree - just for the sake of the argument - that a guy call Jesus actually did exist.
Fine with me.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 02-21-2024 2:51 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 88 of 536 (915995)
02-21-2024 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
02-21-2024 3:32 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
The consensus should then settle the question of Jesus being a Historical Jesus.
I gave my assent in Message 84, granting that for the sake of discussion it was fine with me to take as a given that Jesus was real. Please proceed. It might help if you responded to some of the messages you left hanging.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 3:32 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 115 of 536 (916032)
02-22-2024 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
02-21-2024 9:54 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT in Message 110 writes:
Percy writes:
But you never answer the question: How do you know that "eternal" is the right number for the age of the universe?
I believe Einstein was correct to begin with.
Until 1931 Einstein accepted a static universe with respect to changes in size and believed the universe had always been and always would be. Then he saw the Hubble data showing the universe was expanding.
Not only that but because Jesus/God created it in the beginning.
This is the proposition that you say you will prove in this thread. You can't cite your proposition as a conclusion.
Percy writes:
And you know this how?
Science says so.
Science says it doesn't know but has some hypotheses.
Percy writes:
What we do know is that when we project the current motion of galaxies backward in time to about 13.8 billion years ago we find that the universe occupied a very tiny region of space.
That has more than doubled now.
Much, much more than doubled. If it was once the size of a single proton (10-15 meters) and is now, the observable portion anyway, about 90 billion light years in diameter (8.5×1026 meters) then it has grown by a factor of roughly 1042 times.
Percy writes:
Possibly. Some hypotheses involve quantum fluctuations where equal amounts of positive and negative energy and matter are created and where the net energy is zero.
Wouldn't they have to have a place to exist before they could bump together?
You'd have to ask a cosmologist, but my layperson answer is that quantum uncertainty means that there can never be a zero amount of space.
Percy writes:
The Milky Way Galaxy is not moving through space at the speed of light relative to anything.
So is the Milky Way Galaxy sitting still?
All motion is measured relative to something else. The Milky Way is stationary with respect to itself. From within the Milky Way we see the Andromeda galaxy approaching and the more distant Pinwheel galaxy receding.
Nothing made of matter (galaxies are made of matter) is moving at the speed of light. Only photons in a vacuum can move at the speed of light.
If space behind the Milky Way Galaxy is expanding at the speed of light then we have to be moving at the speed of light don't we? Or Can the space go through us.
In what follows you use the term "behind" several times with respect to galaxies. There is no behind, in front of, above or below in space unless a point of reference is provided. The term you just used, "behind the Milky Way galaxy," has no meaning because "behind" isn't a direction in space.
Percy writes:
Which galaxy would that be? You can't mean the Andromeda Galaxy
Andromeda is said to be 4 to 5 billion years old. That would put it 23 billion years behind us. But it is said to collide with us in 4 billion years.
Except for the last sentence, this is gibberish.
Percy writes:
The Milky Way has a host of small satellite galaxies, maybe you mean one of those?
No everything tied to the Milky Way. If space is expanding behind us at the speed of light wouldn't we have to be moving at the speed of light?
Again, nothing made of matter, like galaxies, can move at the speed of light relative to any other object. And an object's speed can only be measured with respect to other objects.
We've attempted to measure the expansion of space, and the current best figure seems to be 67.5 kilometers/second/megaparsec. For example, the space out around Pluto is receding from us at a rate of about .01 millimeters/second. Further away the space out by the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is receding from us at a rate of about 88 millimeters/second. Much further away the space out by the Andromeda galaxy is receding from us at a rate of about 52.5 kilometers/second, but is approaching us even faster, so we see the Andromeda galaxy approaching at about 100 kilometers/second. The speed of nearby objects such as stars in the Milky Way or nearby galaxies like the Magellanic Clouds or the Andromeda galaxy can easily overwhelm the rate of expansion of space.
The the rate at which space is expanding away from us increases with increasing distance, and almost all galaxies outside our local group are moving away from us due to the expansion of space.
Percy writes:
The further away galaxies are the faster they are receding from us.
Then we are sitting still and space is not expanding behind us only in front of us?
Everything is sitting still with respect to itself. These distant galaxies are stationary with respect to themselves and see the Milky Way as receding from them.
Percy writes:
Understand that these unobservable galaxies are not moving through space faster than light relative to us. It is the expansion of space itself causing them to recede faster than light.
Let me see said the blind man. Space behind them is expanding at the speed of light. Space then is expanding at the speed of light in front of us. Space is expanding at the speed of light behind us causing them to be speeding away from us at the speed of light, Is that what you are trying to tell me?
If you understood what I've said in this post then you now understand that this is gibberish.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 9:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2024 3:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 129 of 536 (916054)
02-22-2024 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
02-22-2024 3:00 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Before responding to your message I'd like to endorse Tangle's suggestion in Message 114 that you proceed with showing how Jesus created the universe.
ICANT in Message 126 writes:
Percy writes:
Until 1931 Einstein accepted a static universe with respect to changes in size and believed the universe had always been and always would be. Then he saw the Hubble data showing the universe was expanding.
I still believe he was right to start with.
Einstein changed his position in light of Hubble's evidence of an expanding universe. You're not following the evidence.
Energy can not be created it can be in a different form but not created.
The laws of the universe as we understand them say that energy can neither be created or destroyed (within the bounds of quantum uncertainty), but what the laws were before the universe existed we do not know. Again, science has no accepted theory for the origin of the energy in the universe, only hypotheses.
If you remember I have always said I believe the universe has always existed in some form not necessarily the form we see it today.
Some hypotheses say the same thing, that there was something before the Big Bang. And maybe something will follow the Big Rip.
Since energy can not be created it has had to exist eternally in the past. The universe was created from material that energy produced. Thus the universe is eternal.
There is insufficient evidence for a scientific conclusion.
Will it end? Yes it will melt with fervent heat which science agrees with.
The evidence currently available suggests that the universe will end in a "cold death." The energy density of the universe declines as it expands.
Percy writes:
This is the proposition that you say you will prove in this thread. You can't cite your proposition as a conclusion.
Why not? Isn't that what everyone does here about creation?
No one will find your conclusions persuasive without evidence.
I am told constantly that hot little dense thing created the universe, with no proof of it's existence.
Evidence has grown immensely over time for an expanding universe that was once tiny, and it was confirmed with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson who measured a temperature of 3.5°K, very close to the 5°K predicted to remain after a long ago Big Bang. Temperature measurements have since been much refined and it is now thought to be 2.7°K.
Nothing but an assumption and my assumption is just as good as anybody's.
Not usually.
Percy writes:
Science says it doesn't know but has some hypotheses.
Isn't that the reason you believe what you do?
I follow where the evidence leads.
Percy writes:
You'd have to ask a cosmologist, but my layperson answer is that quantum uncertainty means that there can never be a zero amount of space.
But space did not exist until the universe began to exist, did it? If it did that is what the universe would be expanding into.
The Big Bang was not an expansion into existing space but an expansion *of* space.
Percy writes:
Nothing made of matter (galaxies are made of matter) is moving at the speed of light. Only photons in a vacuum can move at the speed of light.
Somehow in my mind that don't compute. Space all around us is moving at the speed of light but we are not moving with that space how is that possible.
I can't answer this question. It reads like gibberish.
"These measurements, confirmed by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite in 1989 and 1990, suggest that our galaxy and its neighbors, the so-called Local Group, are moving at 600 kilometers per second (1.34 million miles per hour) in the direction of the constellation Hydra."
Does this speed look about right for the Milky Ways movement?
Your quote, which is from an article in the October, 1998, issue of Scientific American titled Galaxies behind the Milky Way isn't about the movement of the Milky Way but about the Local Group, which is a group of relatively nearby galaxies that are gravitationally bound to one another. They're citing a velocity for the Local Group relative to the CMB rest frame. While Einsteinian physics holds that there can be no frames of reference with different laws of physics, that doesn't mean that there can be no special frames of reference. There is a frame of reference where the CMB is at rest, and the motion of the Local Group was measured against that. Its measured velocity has been refined since 1998.
But in any case, 600 km/sec is only 0.2% of the speed of light. Nothing composed of matter can move at the speed of light.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2024 3:00 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-22-2024 7:13 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 160 of 536 (916104)
02-24-2024 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ICANT
02-23-2024 9:03 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT in Message 151 writes:
You mean that hot 1 billionth of the size of an atom thing that expanded into the universe did not have a location it existed? Is that what you are saying?
The was no universe to expand into. That tiny spot *was* the entire universe. Expansion wasn't into existing space. It was an expansion*of* space.
The CMB (cosmic microwave background) is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities,
This is a copy-n-paste of text that appears on at least several websites and doesn't represent anything you understand.
Maybe cosmology isn't your thing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2024 9:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ICANT, posted 02-24-2024 10:04 AM Percy has replied
 Message 170 by Phat, posted 02-24-2024 3:49 PM Percy has seen this message but 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