|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Noah's Flood
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... whether all lead was previously uranium?
No. Is only specific isotopes that decay into specific isotopes of lead. The whole chain is very complex involving dozens of different isotopes and I don't know much about it. Though I expect Alan might.
quote:
Why is 14C not useful in dating fossils?
Because they are mostly so old that almost all the 14C had reverted to C12
The point about C14/12 is that C14 is continuously regenerated in the atmosphere and incorporated into plants (and from them into animals that eat the plants) Once the plant or animal dies and stops breathing no new C14 gets added but some of it gets converted to C12. So the more C14 in a dead creature, the more recent it is likely to be. But fossils are far too old for that. Also (as no doubt your creationist handbooks will tell you) the very definition of a fossil is that the original tissue has been fully or partially replaced by inorganic minerals - so you don't expect to find much organic carbon. But there some non-fossilised organic remains that are old enough to have lost all their measurable 14C.
Not that all "fossils" are in fact fossilised. Sometimes parts of the actual body of a long-dead creature is preserved. Teeth, for example, are pretty well mineralised in life and there's not much there to rot or be replaced, so if one is buried in mud it can survive an awful long time. I remember holding an Allosaurus tooth in the Natural History Museum and asking how it was fossilised and being told that no, it was the actual material that had been in the animal's mouth. It was still sharp.
There are other cool things we can do with carbon isotopes on recently dead animals. I mean geologically recent, the last ten thousand years or so. The ratio between C13 and C12 can give clues as to what kind of plant fixed the CO2 into sugar to make the protein that the animal eats. Different plants use different biochemical pathways to convert the products of photosynthesis into sugar (the most common ones are called C3, C4, and CAM) and they trap the different carbon isotopes with different efficiencies. So you can tell what kind of a plant a dead animal used to eat by looking at the rations of stable isotopes of carbon. Also the lighter atoms are lost more easily each time some protein is eaten so heavier isotopes are concentrated as you go up the food chain. So you can tell whether a mummified corpse was a vegan or not. There are also clues to that from the ratio of stable isotopes of nitrogen to each other. And we can use sulphur isotopes in protein. Nitrogen isotope ratios are also slightly different in marine plants and land plants. And sulphur isotope ratios are very different in most marine creatures proteins from most terrestrial ones. So by comparing the ratio of stable isotopes of all three of those chemicals to each other you can work out whether a dead body ate lots of seafood or not.
That difference in uptake of heavier isotopes applies to uptake of 14C as well. The proportion of carbon 14 in a plant will depend on what kind of photosynthesis it uses and whether it is in air or sea. But its only a tiny difference that is outweighed by the loss due to radioactive decay. So over decades or centuries the signal due to age is much stronger than the noise due to diet. So you can't carbon-date a recent corpse. But you can carbon-date vintage wine.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But do you know which obscure passages from Genesis St Augustine did attempt to provide meanings for and what were his explanations for them?
I've read secondary sources only I'm afraid. IIRC the one that gets most frequently reported is the existence of light and darkness before the sun and moon. Augustine believed that the order and duration of events in Genesis 1 was purely expository, and in fact creation was more or less instantaneous.
Someone may come along and correct me.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why bother with further explanations? You're not objecting to the methodology but to the fact that it produces answers you don't like. If you're determined to reject out of hand any data which contradicts your pre-established ideas, why do you care what the data says?
Because I'm not afraid of facts. You may know whether all lead was previously uranium? Or whether that is a fair assumption. Why is 14C not useful in dating fossils?
I never said you were afraid of facts, just that you were completely indifferent to them.
As for the question about lead, not all of it was originally uranium. The trick, as Alan pointed out, is to find a mineral that has a crystal structure that doesn't readily permit the incorporation of lead during formation but will allow uranium. (e.g. zircons) Since lead is excluded from the mineral during crystalization any lead found in it must have formed subsequently as the product of radioactive decay. By measuring the proportions of uranium and lead in a zircon one can then calculate the amount of time since the crystal was formed (i.e. the last time the rock was molten).
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Because they are mostly so old that almost all the 14C had reverted to C12
Carbon-14 undergoes beta decay, so it's actually reverting to nitrogen-14. Other than that your description is fairly accurate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the man in the moon and the face on mars show the same thing: that people are prepared to see what's not there and persist in stubbornly believing it even when disproven.
But you pit your opinion against scripture. It is simply not true that the flood is disproven.
The issue is what the evidence points to neh? We have ice ages, extinctions and vast reserves of vegetable matter. We have fossils that each side claims as evidence for their case. The issue cannot be established beyond doubt. Vast amounts of time are disputed by one side and insisted upon by the other. A comet has been mentioned ..pure speculation. Burial grounds and glaciation are explicable in terms of flood. Sure we don't have it all tied down despite extreme claims on both side of the argument.
The Bible has never let me down in any way over many years. it has been exactly what the Lord says it is ..to me. A lamp to the feet and a light to the path. It says there was a flood.I think, therefore, there was.
And this is the problem. It would be honest--though foolish--to say "Science is human folly--scripture is the only source of truth." It is profoundly dishonest to say, "Science is useful so long as it confirms my preconceptions and makes my life more comfortable, but is otherwise untrustworthy." There is no scientific controversy in this matter--only science and anti-science.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the man in the moon and the face on mars show the same thing: that people are prepared to see what's not there and persist in stubbornly believing it even when disproven.
But you pit your opinion against scripture. It is simply not true that the flood is disproven.
The issue is what the evidence points to neh? We have ice ages, extinctions and vast reserves of vegetable matter. We have fossils that each side claims as evidence for their case. The issue cannot be established beyond doubt. Vast amounts of time are disputed by one side and insisted upon by the other. A comet has been mentioned ..pure speculation. Burial grounds and glaciation are explicable in terms of flood. Sure we don't have it all tied down despite extreme claims on both side of the argument.
The Bible has never let me down in any way over many years. it has been exactly what the Lord says it is ..to me. A lamp to the feet and a light to the path. It says there was a flood.I think, therefore, there was.
And this is the problem. It would be honest--though foolish--to say "Science is human folly--scripture is the only source of truth." It is profoundly dishonest to say, "Science is useful so long as it confirms my preconceptions and makes my life more comfortable, but is otherwise untrustworthy." There is no scientific controversy in this matter--only science and anti-science.
I'm a bit unsure of your point here. I don't think the two things need be seen as opposites.
Thank you Alan and Ken for the explanations above. I don't pretend to grasp them really except in broad outline. Is a medical analogy appropriate? One goes to the doctor and one believes the diagnosis, but one doesn't really have the knowledge base to critique it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood™" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world. You can't have it both ways.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood™" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world. You can't have it both ways.
I think that you could consistently believe that science is generally true and useful, but that in this particular instance, God has deliberately and flawlessly covered up all evidence of what happened in the past. That wouldn't invalidate science as a way of knowing - it would be in the same catergory as a human interloper switching the labels on all the bottles of chemicals in a lab: the unwitting scientist will fail to get 'true' results in a test-tube from which all the necessary reagent is missing - not because science doesn't work, but because it does.
The problem for that approach is what it says about God, not what it says about science.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think that you could consistently believe that science is generally true and useful, but that in this particular instance, God has deliberately and flawlessly covered up all evidence of what happened in the past. That wouldn't invalidate science as a way of knowing - it would be in the same catergory as a human interloper switching the labels on all the bottles of chemicals in a lab: the unwitting scientist will fail to get 'true' results in a test-tube from which all the necessary reagent is missing - not because science doesn't work, but because it does.
The problem for that approach is what it says about God, not what it says about science.
Another problem with this sort of Last Thursdayism is that it's essentially an abandonment of any sort of rational thought on the issue. There's no reason other than personal preference to decide the Universe was created six thousand years ago or Last Thursday or at any other point in time. A Creator could theoretically have implanted all of our memories of the 'events' that supposedly happened before creation.
This is essentially a conspiracy theory and follows the same general deductive rules for the genre. Any evidence which supports the hypothesis, no matter how tenuous, is believed without question. Any evidence which contradicts the hypothesis is also taken as proof, since it was obviously planted by the conspiracy. And a lack of evidence one way or the other is still further proof, since it's taken as evidence that there's been a cover-up.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood™" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world. You can't have it both ways.
Science is not the issue. An evolutionary and uniformitarian take on the geologic evidence is the issue. Evolutionary thought is a construct. It is a framework for interpreting realities we see. It is, nevertheless not the only framework. In the strictest sense it is theory and its conclusions do not have the status of fact.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Jamat, the theory of evolution is not just from the geology, there's also the genetic evidence. Ken will no doubt be along to clarify my vague overview, because it's his field not mine, but since we've been able to decode the genome we've been finding that it confirms the theory of evolution very nicely - you can see evolutionary development of organisms in the development of genetic coding too. It's helped with classification of organisms.
To some degree you can also see evolution in foetal development - it follows the same sort of pattern. One of the more stupid things I heard recently was someone arguing against evolution though the lack of specialisation in humans while talking about in utero development.
The whole biological field is also confirming evolutionary theory.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Science is not the issue. An evolutionary and uniformitarian take on the geologic evidence is the issue.
And, the issue is that uniformitarianism is a major element in the foundation of modern science. Take it away, and you have no science. We work on the assumption that if you repeat an experiment exactly you'll get the same result, whether you do the repeat experiment in your own lab or the other side of the world; whether you do it today or next week. That's uniformitarianism. We can observe processes happening in the Sun fairly closely, we assume that similar stars across the galaxy and beyond will behave in a similar way - and, vice versa that study of younger or older main sequence stars can tell us about the past and future behaviour of the Sun. That's uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism simply states that the laws of physics, and the emergent properties of the physical universe, are the same everywhere and at all times.
We can look at modern processes, such as the development of sedimentary layers, and we see similar sedimentary layers in rock formations and conclude they were deposited by similar processes. There was an early trend in geology to view everything as the result of gradual processes similar to what are observed today. Of course, no contemporary geologist would ever hold such a naive view ... all geologists accept some form of catastrophism where there are some events that are due to things not currently observed on Earth (asteroid strikes, super-volcanoes, widespread glaciation etc). Although there are two caveats to that.
- The catastrophes would be events that are scientifically plausible.
- Geologists would resist a catastrophic explanation where the data can be explained by processes we can study today.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood™" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world. You can't have it both ways.
Science is not the issue. An evolutionary and uniformitarian take on the geologic evidence is the issue. Evolutionary thought is a construct. It is a framework for interpreting realities we see. It is, nevertheless not the only framework. In the strictest sense it is theory and its conclusions do not have the status of fact.
I know we've done the fact/theory thing on the ship before but I don't think it's come up on this thread so I'm going to ask: Jamat, what do you think scientists (specifically) mean when they use the word "theory"?
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Every time you drive a car, go to the doctor, use a computer, turn on the lights or the water, you proclaim to the world that you are a uniformitarian. You can't live any other way. Extrapolating that into the past is hardly an act of faith equivalent to believing an impossible flood.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
What Alan and mousethief said--to reject uniformitarianism is to reject science. (Evolution has nothing to do with the Flood.)
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Theory: Correct me please but is it not a suggested or posited scenario that one then tries to experimentally test?
Looking on Wiki, Uniformitarianism seems to have morphed, somewhat like evolution. It now seems to say that things got like they are through the laws of nature we see presently operating but sometimes this means catastrophic events. My understanding of it was more Lyellian.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
AlanCresswell:all geologists accept some form of catastrophism where there are some events that are due to things not currently observed on Earth (asteroid strikes, super-volcanoes, widespread glaciation etc). Although there are two caveats to that.
The catastrophes would be events that are scientifically plausible.
Geologists would resist a catastrophic explanation where the data can be explained by processes we can study today.
I find this interesting. Who exactly decides plausible? Its a bit like the cops investigating themselves isn't it?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What you've described as 'theory' would be closer to a hypothesis.
You can start with a conjecture; an idea of how things might work that probably has limited observational data to either for or against it. A conjecture would postulate data that might help understand whether it's on the right track.
Next up the chain, you'd have a hypothesis. Which is a proposed explanation for observed data. As such, it's supported by the observations. A hypothesis would make predictions of further observations that could be made - either of the form "if you do x then according to the hypothesis y will happen" or "if you don't get y when you do x then this hypothesis is flawed".
A hypothesis that passes several rounds of observational verification is a strong hypothesis.
A theory is on another level entirely. A theory takes a collection of strong hypotheses and binds them into a coherent whole, from which not only can further observational tests be identified that would support, or deny, the overall theory but which also allows the development of additional hypotheses within the theoretical framework.
As an example, we could look at quantum theory. There were observations of photo-electric emissions for which a hypothesis was developed that the effect was due to light being composed of discrete packets of energy, a hypothesis that was demonstrated to be very strong by further observation. There were observations of emission lines in atomic spectral for which a hypothesis was developed that the effect was due to atomic electrons occupying discrete energy levels and that they could move between them, a hypothesis that was demonstrated to be very strong by further observation. I could go on and list other observations and hypotheses. Quantum theory takes all these different observations and hypotheses and generates an overall theory of the behaviour of matter and energy on the smallest scales, with an explanatory and mathematical structure that incorporates the whole collection of earlier hypotheses and observations and allows fruitful development of additional work.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
...Evolutionary thought is a construct. It is a framework for interpreting realities we see. It is, nevertheless not the only framework...
And if I were to say the same for creationism, intelligent design, church doctrines, your favorite hymns, theology as an entire school of thought, moralities, and even the whole notion of "The Body of Christ"...
The trouble with Christians and post-modern thought is we all like to use it so selectively. Be careful when you start using the existential blah-ray of fundamental nihilism. Eventually that beam will bounce off something and then you will simply cease to exist in any meaningful sense, as "it is [merely] a framework for interpreting realities" is the death of all meaning, including the rational soul.
And perhaps that is where one finds God. I'm half-persuaded myself. But it will utterly annihilate anything that remotely resembles a plain reading of anything except for the eternal OM.
[ 17. June 2010, 17:17: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Theory: Correct me please but is it not a suggested or posited scenario that one then tries to experimentally test?
Looking on Wiki, Uniformitarianism seems to have morphed, somewhat like evolution. It now seems to say that things got like they are through the laws of nature we see presently operating but sometimes this means catastrophic events. My understanding of it was more Lyellian.
Catastrophic events that can be explained by the same processes we can observe today, certainly. Meteorites strike the Earth frequently--we can extrapolate to very large ones. Floods are common events (especially this week)--we can figure out what a very large one would be like, what conditions might lead to it, and what signs it would leave behind. But a literal understanding of the Genesis flood requires a flood unlike any ever observed, with different causes and, remarkably, without similar effects.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Theory: Correct me please but is it not a suggested or posited scenario that one then tries to experimentally test?
Looking on Wiki, Uniformitarianism seems to have morphed, somewhat like evolution. It now seems to say that things got like they are through the laws of nature we see presently operating but sometimes this means catastrophic events. My understanding of it was more Lyellian.
Catastrophic events that can be explained by the same processes we can observe today, certainly. Meteorites strike the Earth frequently--we can extrapolate to very large ones. Floods are common events (especially this week)--we can figure out what a very large one would be like, what conditions might lead to it, and what signs it would leave behind. But a literal understanding of the Genesis flood requires a flood unlike any ever observed, with different causes and, remarkably, without similar effects.
It happened way long ago though. Imagine a world virtually covered in giant trees, all undermined, uprooted and meshed into floating carpets of vegetation 1000's of sqare miles in area, waterlogged, buried and finally, voila! coal!
[ 18. June 2010, 22:03: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Tell it to a geologist. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Jamat: how long in your view is "way long ago"? 6,000 years? 6 million years? 600 million years? Longer? It makes an enormous difference as to what kind of evidence we'd expect to find.
And as Alan said, scientists would most likely use the word "hypothesis" to describe what you said, not "theory". In science, a theory is an overarching explanation which ties together a massive amount of existing evidence. If you think of something like "musical theory" (ok that's an art term but bear with me) it explains how all the musical notes, clefs, keys, time signatures, musical terms and so on hang together to create pieces of sheet music that make sense. In a similar way, "evolutionary theory" explains how all these bits of evidence from diverse areas in biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, medicine and so on all hang together in one system of how life on earth works. It is much, much more than a hypothesis.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
We have a pretty good idea of the evidence left by massive flooding 12,000 years ago. The explanation was, in fact, initially dismissed on the basis of Uniformitarianism when it was first presented, but later research showed the same types of features as we see with normal water flow, just on a much larger scale, and included further research to identify a source for the water.
At the moment we can describe this flood as a theory: we have no written human account of it, but a wide array of data and geological formations support it. There may be alternative explanations for some pieces, but nothing that ties all the diverse evidence together as well.
So we know that large floods can happen. And when they do the water has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. The coming and going of that much water tends to leave marks that give us clues to the depth, flow rate, direction of flow, etc.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Josephine and I have driven through some of the areas that were scarred by that flood. The coulees are quite impressive and in the sere ecosystem of central Washington, very beautiful. If you like check out some photos of Dry Falls, near Coulee City, WA.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
bouncing this up for ByHisBlood.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Timothy quote:
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world.
Really? And what verified scientific facts would they be?
Nicole,
Thanks for the jolt.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Timothy quote:
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world.
Really? And what verified scientific facts would they be?
Well, everything in this thread for a start. Biology, physics, geology, etc.
There is no rational way to look at the world without the Bible and conclude that there was ever a global flood as described. There's no rational way to come even close to that!
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Timothy quote:
My point is that the only consistent way to believe in "The Flood" is to reject science as a useful way of knowing anything about the world.
Really? And what verified scientific facts would they be?
In the case of the flood, it's more the absence of facts--we know the markers left behind by floods, and nothing on that scale is there. And, of course there's not enough water, and there wouldn't have been any olive trees left after 120 days under water, and you couldn't fit all those species on a boat even if you could get access to the ones in the New World, and...etc. Read the thread--Alan and Ken can do the details far better than I can. Science assumes that the world is consistent: the same observation made under the same conditions will yield the same result. It also assumes that you can understand the world by carefully and systematically observing the world. These are assumptions--they can't be proved. But without them science is impossible, so if you reject them, you reject science.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Science assumes that the world is consistent: the same observation made under the same conditions will yield the same result. It also assumes that you can understand the world by carefully and systematically observing the world. These are assumptions--they can't be proved. But without them science is impossible, so if you reject them, you reject science.
Excellent post, Timothy. Because the post that ByHisBlood challenged isn't about 'scientific facts', it's about the scientific method.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
...Science assumes that the world is consistent: the same observation made under the same conditions will yield the same result. It also assumes that you can understand the world by carefully and systematically observing the world. These are assumptions--they can't be proved. But without them science is impossible, so if you reject them, you reject science.
But it cannot be proved that conditions remain the same over time.
For example, popular current scientific thinking tells us that the universe came to be from nothing, and that life emerged from non-life. Yet the arguments against such things as the flood assume there is no change in conditions from what we currently observe. This is a difficult thing to grasp from a logical point of view.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
...Science assumes that the world is consistent: the same observation made under the same conditions will yield the same result. It also assumes that you can understand the world by carefully and systematically observing the world. These are assumptions--they can't be proved. But without them science is impossible, so if you reject them, you reject science.
But it cannot be proved that conditions remain the same over time.
No. Of course not. But if you change the physics then it has some demonstrable effects on the universe. Unless you have a Creator that deliberately changes things to such a degree that they appear to have always been the way they are now - and that needs to have been a deliberate act. At that point you are making the Creator into the Prince of Lies, with a universe deliberately set up to deceive its inhabitants.
Off the top of my head for a Young Earth and literal Flood to make any sense you need there to have been a change in fields including: - Nuclear Physics (decay rates)
- Archaeology
- Anthropology
- Evolutionary biology
- Marine Biology (fish have ... issues with the wrong levels of salinity)
- Genetic diversity (how many species are there? Australia on its own would be more than enough)
- Animal husbandry (The food for the ark must have been massive)
- Geology
- Paleontology
- Botany (Because many plants don't survive under water y'know)
- Horticulture (Flooded land)
- Genetics (A recent five person bottleneck)
And that's just off the top of my head. Any change in all the above would have a massive impact on the physical world.
quote:
For example, popular current scientific thinking tells us that the universe came to be from nothing, and that life emerged from non-life. Yet the arguments against such things as the flood assume there is no change in conditions from what we currently observe. This is a difficult thing to grasp from a logical point of view.
The opposing argument is simple. Make a set of changes that would have been necessary for the flood to have happened. From these changes there will be other events that we can check - I've given a wide array of fields that would be affected by the Flood. If we check and they didn't happen then your hypothesis fails. Whereas a floodless universe seems to work on all the points I've listed.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
OK - assuming God did all this stuff to cause a flood, bring the animals, take them back to where they came from etc etc.
My next question would be WHY?
If the plan was to get rid of wickedness, it failed miserably. How does a God who does such massive, seemingly impossible miracles then fail so dismally in his objective?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Timothy quote:
And, of course there's not enough water
Two points here:-
1. If we look how the toplogy of the Earth's surface altered after the flood, the flattening out of Earths mountains (raised during the flood according to God's Word) and the stores of water of the deep since discovered, would allow the volume of water on earth to cover the original terrain to a depth of 2 miles.
2. Science today amazingly has declared that Mars - a planet with close to nil water - may once have experienced a global flood! Of course those same scientists insist that Earth - a planet mainly covered in water - could never have experienced the same ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
1. If we look how the toplogy of the Earth's surface altered after the flood, the flattening out of Earths mountains (raised during the flood according to God's Word) and the stores of water of the deep since discovered, would allow the volume of water on earth to cover the original terrain to a depth of 2 miles.
Do you have a reference for the Bible saying that the mountains were flattened during the Flood, or raised only after the Flood (I'm not too sure which of those options you're claiming)?
quote:
2. Science today amazingly has declared that Mars - a planet with close to nil water - may once have experienced a global flood! Of course those same scientists insist that Earth - a planet mainly covered in water - could never have experienced the same
Can I have a reference to a global Martian flood? Because, I've never heard any scientist make such a claim. And, I even know some scientists involved in Martian studies.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
and the stores of water of the deep since discovered
What, please, is this in reference to?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Alan,
This is one of a few sources with the link at the end:-
All the fountains of the great deep broke up …
Adding to the irony is a recent news release on analysis of images from the Mars Express. It claims that deposits called LTDs, which most closely resemble Earth sediments, were formed “when large amounts of groundwater burst on to the surface”.1
And now, in addition, comes a claim of still more frozen water on Mars—from the well-regarded journal Science (322, p.1235, 21 November 2008). Ground-penetrating radar on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter suggests the presence of “vast Martian glaciers of water ice”.2 To date, the only ice found on Mars has been at polar latitudes. The report suggests that because the ice exists “under protective blankets of rocky debris” this has prevented it from evaporating into outer space. True, there still has been no liquid water found on the red planet, but these ‘blanketed’ storehouses of ice are huge. Added to the water at higher latitudes,3 it would probably represent enough water to cover the entire planet to some 20 cms in depth. And remember that they think this is the remnant of water that has not yet dissipated into space—either because it is at high (cooler) latitudes or protected under insulating layers of dust and rock -
LINK
As for the topology, Psalm 104:8 describes some of the events during the flood when it says, "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them”.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, there are flood deposits over large parts of the Martian surface for which the most likely cause is an outburst of water from melting of an underground reservoir of ice. There's nothing to indicate these were a sinlge event, rather that they happened at widely dispersed times over a very long period of time.
And, the "Noachan Epoch" on Mars is simply a recognition that the evidence appears to be that at one point in the early history of Mars the planet was substantially covered by water. That's hardly unusual, after all our own planet is substantially covered by water.
And, your Ps 104 quote is out of context. Ps 104 refers to the original creation myth, when God seperates the seas and dry land. Also it appears to be a mistranslation, other versions I know have that the water flows down the off the hills, rather than the hills rising out of the water.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
BHB if you are ignoring my question -
<If God caused a flood to destroy everything on Earth - WHY?
If the plan was to get rid of wickedness, it failed miserably. How does a God who does such massive, seemingly impossible miracles then fail so dismally in his objective?>
that's fine.
Psalm 104 is a beautiful Psalm. I am a Worship Leader in my Church and I use it often.
Have you ever heard of Metaphor?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Boogie,
I would never knowingly ignore any of your questions, so do feel free to PM me if it seems I have, thanks.
1. If God caused a flood to destroy everything on Earth - WHY?/ If the plan was to get rid of wickedness, it failed miserably
Well let's remember that all people are wicked in some fashion, we read that "the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things", so God's action could never alter that, yet I think there were a number of things happening here, the Sons of God were becoming too active and widespread (as discussed on the other thread atm) so God served a 120 year warning via Noah and with the amount of space remaining in the Ark (ask me if you want the data) there was sufficient room to house the many who could have chosen to repent. Just like Christ's offer now, so many more could choose to turn to Him, there is sufficient room, but they ignore His offer ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
2. How does a God who does such massive, seemingly impossible miracles then fail so dismally in his objective?
Well as you have pointed out elsewhere, you don't recognize my God as being your God.
My God is Almighty and a Global Flood is hardly testing His limits, have you ever considered the size, power, beauty and order of what He did make?
And you say He failed? I would say mankind failed to listen, mainly failed to repent and now look like repeating that error.
3.Have you ever heard of Metaphor?
Indeed I have, and I use Biblical and non-Biblical examples when I teach and preach, but when I see them in scripture they ALWAYS fit the context, the way liberals suggest they are there when they are not is rather desperate, but why stick with the context if your World view is being threatened?
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Have you considered that God is indeed creator of everything and all powerful, but limits his own power due to his Love - thus giving us freedom?
Consider also that ancient texts can contain wonderful passages which can be used to worship our creator - without having to believe in a world wide flood?
Look again at the context of Psalm 104. I think you'll see how timeless it is.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Amen Boogie,
The Word of the Lord shall endure for ever. But in the meantime you are correct, it does cause us to worship Him more and more.
Yet while we remain in time it has many other functions including rescuing us from false teaching and ungodly attitudes, and in 2 Peter 3 we read about certain people when it says:-
5 They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water. 6 Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood. 7 And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed.
So do YOU accept all theses ancient writings including verse 6 ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
[tangent]
One of my grandmother's favourite phrases (used when one of us expressed disbelief in something or other) was: 'In the last days, there shall be scoffers'.
[/tangent]
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
As for the topology, Psalm 104:8 describes some of the events during the flood when it says, "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them”.
Genesis 7:19 has the flood waters covering "the high mountains". What's that about, then?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
1. If God caused a flood to destroy everything on Earth - WHY?/ If the plan was to get rid of wickedness, it failed miserably
Well let's remember that all people are wicked in some fashion, we read that "the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things", so God's action could never alter that,
OK. We need to combine this with the fact that God created Man. And that God created Man in his own image. God's creation in his own image is therefore "deceitful and desperately wicked above all things".
quote:
with the amount of space remaining in the Ark (ask me if you want the data)
Please post it. There are too many animals there as it is.
quote:
Just like Christ's offer now, so many more could choose to turn to Him, there is sufficient room, but they ignore His offer
Jesus Christ's offer is contained in a book that directly contradicts the natural world. The world was made in a naturalistic manner with no direct evidence of the Creator being real - and it's not that such a God can't do miracles (even 'hardening Pharaoh's heart' to give him an excuse to do so) - it's that he won't provide direct physical signs he is out there. If God really wanted people to turn to him and has the ability to re-write creation then he could easily provide proof that he exists. He refuses to do so, instead providing strong evidence that the bible is false. If God's goal is to communicate, he's a miserable failure.
quote:
2. How does a God who does such massive, seemingly impossible miracles then fail so dismally in his objective?
Well as you have pointed out elsewhere, you don't recognize my God as being your God.
My God is Almighty and a Global Flood is hardly testing His limits, have you ever considered the size, power, beauty and order of what He did make?
Yes. Your God made a huge mess. He also failed to change hearts and minds. He failed to influence and to communicate. At best he comes off as a socially inept engineer "My way is Best. If people were sensible, they would just do what I told them to then things would be better. Why don't they?"
quote:
And you say He failed? I would say mankind failed to listen, mainly failed to repent and now look like repeating that error.
When communication fails it means that both sides have failed. Both communicator and communicatee. If mankind failed to listen then God failed to communicate. Your supposedly Almighty God therefore failed despite all the power at his disposal.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
As for the topology, Psalm 104:8 describes some of the events during the flood when it says, "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them”.
Genesis 7:19 has the flood waters covering "the high mountains". What's that about, then?
Two things:
1) Psalm 104 isn't about the Flood in the first place, it's about the Creation.
2) Psalm 104:8 does not say "the mountains rose and the valleys sank". It says (more or less) "the waters flowed off the mountains and down the valleys" and relates to God seperating the water from the land in Genesis 1.
It's a case of misquoting a verse out of context. And, then coming up with complete nonsense. You don't even need to think about the implications of Psalms as poetry in the interpretation of the verse to realise how much nonsense BHB spouted with that statement.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Justin quote:
OK. We need to combine this with the fact that God created Man. And that God created Man in his own image. God's creation in his own image is therefore "deceitful and desperately wicked above all things".
He certainly is now, have you read Genesis 3 and Genesis 5 carefully to see what initially happened to those in God's Image and in whose image the following generations were? (I wonder, is Genesis 3 the largest blind-spot in literary history?).
Justin quote:
Please post it. There are too many animals there as it is.
And there you have evidence of the greatest problem re Genesis and people reading it today, the humanists have intercepted the reader and the reader come at it with mis-information which makes God's account 'unrealistic' to begin with. You must congratulate them, it was indeed money well spent for that doomed kingdom. And what does it lead to? .............. well Justin tells us >>>
Justin quote:
Jesus Christ's offer is contained in a book that directly contradicts the natural world. The world was made in a naturalistic manner with no direct evidence of the Creator being real
Humanistic mission accomplished (for many).
Justin quote:
If mankind failed to listen then God failed to communicate. Your supposedly Almighty God therefore failed
Really, well what are you doing here then if there is no God and faith and therefore talk about faith is futile?
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Alan,
Your comments re the Psalm are a view many hold, and many hold the other view, here is an article which mentions within it option 2 - LINK
Here is a section from it which also answers Boogie who doubted a Global Flood earlier:-
Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 kilometers) high. How, then, could the flood have covered “all the high hills under the whole heaven”?
The Bible refers only to “high hills,” and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Justin quote:
Please post it. There are too many animals there as it is.
And there you have evidence of the greatest problem re Genesis and people reading it today, the humanists have intercepted the reader and the reader come at it with mis-information which makes God's account 'unrealistic' to begin with. You must congratulate them, it was indeed money well spent for that doomed kingdom. And what does it lead to? .............. well Justin tells us >>>
The strength of your data here definitely sways me.
(and if you're going to give the canard of large amounts of 'micro-evolution' occuring post-flood giving us the current radiative branchings among species, feel free to just ignore it. That hypothesis is entirely unsound for many reasons.)
quote:
quote:
Jesus Christ's offer is contained in a book that directly contradicts the natural world. The world was made in a naturalistic manner with no direct evidence of the Creator being real
Humanistic mission accomplished (for many).
Feel free to provide some scientifically valid evidence for Creation. The Creationists certainly haven't managed to do so, but I'd love to see what you have.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
The Bible refers only to “high hills,” and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting.
Well, at the rate that Everest has been growing since the time of the Flood, the mountain was only 3 meters shorter since then. So this doesn't help you out much.
Or you could posit that the flood was at least 600,000 years old when the last major upthrusting of the Himalayas ended.
Of course, there's no evidence for either.
quote:
In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.
As this is evidence for the standard geologic model as well, you cannot use it as evidence for the flood over other models.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Alan,
Your comments re the Psalm are a view many hold, and many hold the other view, here is an article which mentions within it option 2 - LINK
OK, that article states quote:
Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1].
Which still doesn't really address the two main problems with that interpretation.
1. The Psalm is clearly about Creation, and indeed mostly about Gods continuing sustaining of creation rather than necessarily about any initial act of creation, not the Flood. It seems bizarre to try and take a verse or two about water (which, of course features heavily in Genesis 1) and assume that therefore that's about a flood when the rest of the Psalm is about God created springs and streams so the animals can drink, making food grow and making the moon and stars and sun, and the general wisdom of God. The context of a verse is very important, and taking verses out of a very clear context and applying them to a very different context is an abuse of the Scriptures God has given us.
2. And, as I've said, the statement "the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8)" is simply incorrect. Verse 8 of Psalm 104 simply does not say that. What it says is:
quote:
they [the waters] flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them - NIV
[And the water flowed] down the mountains and through the valleys to the place you prepared - CEV
They [the waters] go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them - KJV
Someone who knows Hebrew will probably need to tell us if the version you've quoted is credible or not. But, even if it's a credible translation that doesn't alter the fact that the context of Psalm 104 isn't the Flood.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
