TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Archaeology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-2004, 11:52 PM   #26
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally posted by OldawanKenobi
-The fact that we know that the flood myth was prevalent in the Middle East for some time before the Hebrews adopted it.In the 'Epic of Gilgamesh',the boat was referred to as a 'barque',so we can see that even the terminology was borrowed.I think it's fine as a moral lesson,but as history?Borrowed history at that?

Just because it was recorded first by others doesn't mean it was told first by others.

-The construction of the ark itself.Does it seem likely that one small family could have built the size boat they would have needed in order to house that many animals in the short amount of time that they had?

If I'm not mistaken, they had 120 years, ample time to build an ark of those dimensions. By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

-I guess the biggest hole is that there's just not enough geological evidence to support the theory of such a flood's occurence.I know I say that a lot,but it just seems like the most obvious(and easiest)way to prove the story's validity,but,again,the evidence just is not there.


I would direct you to www.drdino.com, as Dr. Hovind explains all the geological data much better than I can. Various valid scholars agree that the geological upheaval that created this lovable planet's topography and substrata is better explained by one cataclysmic event rather than eons of chaos. After evaluating the research and conclusions of the ilk of Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Walt Brown, I'm inclined to agree.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 12:06 AM   #27
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Oldawankenobi said: "-The construction of the ark itself.Does it seem likely that one small family could have built the size boat they would have needed in order to house that many animals in the short amount of time that they had?"


Genesis 5: "And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth"

Genesis 7: "And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth."

This indicates that Noah might have had more than 75 years to build, and prepare the Ark, and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)


I have done a search on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and have not found Barque, or bark (Another spelling for the same). Could you point me out these things? (I'm supposing you are talking about Tablet 11?)
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 08:43 AM   #28
Indy_Jones88
 
Posts: n/a
Indy

here in Kansas, there is a Church. This Church is built to look like Noah's Ark. It is supposedly the same size and shape as the one in the bible. It is interesting to drive by and look at and think about.

(Just a little info I thought I might throw in, You guys should come and visit to see it.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 10:35 AM   #29
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,981
I believe I have seen a picture of that church.

Here is an interesting exerpt from the Book The Genesis Flood
How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space."

Intetesting to think about it from a fesability point of view, none the less...
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 01:11 PM   #30
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Very good, PaleHorse.
Yes, they would not have needed to carry a cocker spaniel, and a chiuaua, and a german shepherd.
Just a couple of 'dogs'.

Microevolution has proven to work (The small genetic changes, such as crossing a german shepherd with a doberman), although there is no proof of macroevolution ever working (A monkey turning into a man, or crossing an ostrich with a cow, and getting a cow with wings.)

As Kent Hovind would say, very similar to what was in your post, PaleHorse,
all you would need are babies for transporting in the Ark.
Just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 02:16 PM   #31
OldawanKenobi
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 27
I tried the dr.dino link,but it wasn't working for me(?)Thanks for posting it,DS.I would like to check that site out.

'Just because it was recorded first by others doesn't mean it was told first by others'

If this were a philosophy or literature class,I would agree with you.However,since this is dealing with the science of archaeology,we have to go by the evidence that we have.Assumptions based on that evidence may be reasonable,but assumptions based on 'what if' are little more than guesswork,unless new evidence is found.


'...and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)'

Nor does it say that he did.If we are going to take the Bible as a historical document,then we have to take it literally,or not at all.From the material,we have to assume that he had no help(beyond his family).


By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

The general tendency is for life expectancy to improve over time,so by that,the descendants of Noah(i.e.,you and I)should be able to outlive him by a number of years.Why don't we?

I have done a search on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and have not found Barque...

I have the Penguin Classics version,page 108.


As Kent Hovind would say...all you would need are babies for transporting in the Ark

I'm assuming that both you and Hovind are qualified zoologists?Just out of curiosity,were(are)any of the individuals consulted in PaleHorse's post qualified zoologists?Or naval engineers for that matter?

Last edited by OldawanKenobi : 06-30-2004 at 02:44 PM.
OldawanKenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 07:22 PM   #32
whipem
IndyFan
 
whipem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 273
This regards Pale Horse's last post, where it was suggested that there were approximately 8,000 species at the time. The Bible says in Genesis 2:19 (NIV) , "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man [Adam] to seewhat he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature that was its name." I'm focusing on the last sentence. In my opinion, there would have been a much lesser number of species at the time, because it would be rather difficult to name 8,000 species (unless you disregard insects, arachnids, etc., but there would still be fewer species), unless a great amount of microevolution took place in that time. With that said, Pale Horse, I am not trying to correct you, I am just offering a theory. Corrections, anyone?
whipem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 09:53 PM   #33
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,981
Quote:
Originally posted by OldawanKenobi

'...and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)'

Nor does it say that he did.If we are going to take the Bible as a historical document,then we have to take it literally,or not at all.From the material,we have to assume that he had no help(beyond his family).


By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

The general tendency is for life expectancy to improve over time,so by that,the descendants of Noah(i.e.,you and I)should be able to outlive him by a number of years.Why don't we?
[/b]


I like your style, test and retest.

I will pick two things to discuss with you, old wise one.

First, I applaud your insight concering the reading between the lines of the Bible. I don't agree with it. People do it all the time. But one thing that is very important to remember is that the Old testament was translated from the Hebrew language, which is very similar to the East Asian languages in that it deals with pictures and symbols. It differs from the New testament language which is Greek. It is far more structured on logic and concrete images.

Know that will help a bit when it comes to understanding how the Bible is translated. But that doesn't mean you can read what wasn't there. Noah and his family was commissioned by God to build the ark. The reason given is because he was the only man righteous on the Earth.

Why would unrighteous men sentanced to death help a righteous one? What is written is easy enough to understand on a very literal level.

The Second part will take a bit more from you. It asks that A) You believe in the Fall of man (to the point of discussion) B) that the Earth's axis tilted to the current 22 degree, and C) that the effects of sin and the commission of God to Abraham that the number of a mans days be 120 years. If you won't allow any of these premises into the arguement, I won't be able to go further with my discussion....
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2004, 10:21 PM   #34
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Pale Horse said:
I like your style, test and retest.

I will pick two things to discuss with you, old wise one.

First, I applaud your insight concering the reading between the lines of the Bible. I don't agree with it. People do it all the time. But one thing that is very important to remember is that the Old testament was translated from the Hebrew language, which is very similar to the East Asian languages in that it deals with pictures and symbols. It differs from the New testament language which is Greek. It is far more structured on logic and concrete images.

Know that will help a bit when it comes to understanding how the Bible is translated. But that doesn't mean you can read what wasn't there. Noah and his family was commissioned by God to build the ark. The reason given is because he was the only man righteous on the Earth.

Why would unrighteous men sentanced to death help a righteous one? What is written is easy enough to understand on a very literal level.

The Second part will take a bit more from you. It asks that A) You believe in the Fall of man (to the point of discussion) B) that the Earth's axis tilted to the current 22 degree, and C) that the effects of sin and the commission of God to Abraham that the number of a mans days be 120 years. If you won't allow any of these premises into the arguement, I won't be able to go further with my discussion....


Me (Tennessee):
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure who this is addressed to.
I will repost the origional posters above the messages:



OldawanKenobi said:
I tried the dr.dino link,but it wasn't working for me(?)Thanks for posting it,DS.I would like to check that site out.


Me (Tennessee):
Try www.drdino.com

Doc Savage said:
'Just because it was recorded first by others doesn't mean it was told first by others'

Oldawan said:
If this were a philosophy or literature class,I would agree with you.However,since this is dealing with the science of archaeology,we have to go by the evidence that we have.Assumptions based on that evidence may be reasonable,but assumptions based on 'what if' are little more than guesswork,unless new evidence is found.

Me (Tennessee):
'This indicates that Noah might have had more than 75 years to build, and prepare the Ark, and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)'

Oldawan:
Nor does it say that he did.If we are going to take the Bible as a historical document,then we have to take it literally,or not at all.From the material,we have to assume that he had no help(beyond his family).

Doc Savage:
By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

Me (Tennessee):
The Bible plainly states how long major people lived, and it starts at about 500 to 900 years. Right after the flood, life spans dropped to about 100 to 150 years. Probably because of different atmospheric conditions after the flood, although this is theory.

Oldawan:
The general tendency is for life expectancy to improve over time,so by that,the descendants of Noah(i.e.,you and I)should be able to outlive him by a number of years.Why don't we?

Me (Tennessee):
I have done a search on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and have not found Barque...

Oldawan:
I have the Penguin Classics version,page 108.

Me (Tennessee):
Thank you.

Me (Tennessee):
As Kent Hovind would say...all you would need are babies for transporting in the Ark

Oldawan:
I'm assuming that both you and Hovind are qualified zoologists?Just out of curiosity,were(are)any of the individuals consulted in PaleHorse's post qualified zoologists?Or naval engineers for that matter?

Me (Tennessee):
I'm not. Kent was a science teacher before he started the seminar tours. You can probably e-mail him, and he can give you references about this, and I'm not sure about APaleHorse.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2004, 10:59 AM   #35
Pilot
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 62
OldawanKenobi stated that "Biblical archaeology is often not really about archaeology at all. More often, it's about people trying to validate their own faith/beliefs, sometimes at the expense (and abuse) of archaeology." I have found that this subject isn't a one-way street. Just as often, there are people who are trying to advance their own pre-conceived notions/disbeliefs concerning Biblical archaeology. They don't believe that there was a universal flood, that the Red Sea parted, etc. and they tend to ignore any evidence to the contrary. I don't necessarily find these people to be open-minded either. For example, Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code is widely supported by some scholars, even though it is a work of fiction. On the other hand, there are a number of Biblical scholars who have refuted the claims of his book. Theories are nice to speculate over, but quite often, no one really knows, and we should say so. Many times I have wondered that the facts and evidence that some archaeologists and paleontologists speak about with such certainty is simply a misreading or misinterpretation of the facts.
Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2004, 04:45 PM   #36
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
Hey guys let me in here! You said we have to "assume his family built it because it doesnt say other wise"...Um...thats a contradiction...like you said it doesnt say either way so NO we CAN"T make any assumptions. Anyway, if this was Noah's mandate by GOD don't you think God would make sure it get's done. I mean Comon!! It's God. "Through Him all things are possible". "God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in Glory". I mean how did the Israelites deystroy the city of Jericho just by marching around it and blowing trumpets. God doesnt and never has offered full fledged evidence...that would leave us with nothing to search for...it would take the mystery out of it...IT WOULD REQUIRE US NOT TO HAVE FAITH"
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2004, 07:27 PM   #37
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
Science can't explain all...It never will.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2004, 02:58 PM   #38
Doc Savage
IndyFan
 
Doc Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The 86th Floor...
Posts: 747
Two schools of thought...one takes the Bible and tries to make it fit science. The other takes science and makes it fit God's Word. Both take an equal amount of faith. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't thought this thing through. Personally, I've tried them both, and my choice makes the most sense to me. I pray for others who make this choice to do it with wisdom and understanding, not just knowledge.
Doc Savage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2004, 02:01 AM   #39
mra
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12
My two cents:
Seashell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world.
According to tree rings, the oldest tree is 4300 years old.
At the current growth rate, measured over 20 years, the oldest reef is less than 4200 years old.
Based on the current rate of expansion, the oldest desert is 4000 years old.
If the human population doubled every 147 years, to get 6 people to multiply to 6.44 billion, it would take 4410 years.

I realise these examples are based on assumptions, but they are reasonable assumptions, and show that humans starting over from 4400 years ago is not without evidence.

......how fast WAS that calf going?.....
mra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2004, 04:14 PM   #40
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally posted by mra

......how fast WAS that calf going?.....


Ha ha. So you are a city boy.....Oops, I mean aware of Kent Hovind too?
Only people who have been to one of Kent's seminars, or have his tapes know what the above means.

Anyway, good points. And of course, the 4500 years or less explains the date of the flood.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2004, 12:00 PM   #41
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
Tennessee....
I know you are involved in the Wyatt Museum. Personally, for the ark the models that they have always show a boat like figure. This makes no sense to me, I am convinced that the ark was not shaped like a boat, this would not make any sense because it gives less space to work with, and why would Noah build it in that shape? he had no where to go. I am sure it was built as a barge in a rectangular shape.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2004, 03:54 PM   #42
LaoChe
IndyFan
 
LaoChe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 104
MRA - I just did an internet search based on your claims. I was skeptical of these 'facts' because I didn't know where you got them. However, it seems that 4000 years IS a 'magic' number in our collection of 'oldest' organisms.

The only item that did not factor in was the reef building sponge, which stretched into the tens of thousands of years old. The reef, alternatively, is dated to be the oldest at just over 4000 years, go figure.

I'm definately no creationist. I'm a mythologist, so I believe strongly in the symbolic elements of story and their role in collective unconscious. Noah's story, has been told and retold through the ages from many different cultures. The Greeks have Deucalion and Pyrrha for example. Same story, different cultural attache.

But the 4000 year number is definately interesting, perhaps something did happen back then...
LaoChe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2004, 09:48 PM   #43
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
We don't know the 4000 number for sure...the whole carbon dating system is totally out of whack! I have done a lot of research on the system.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2004, 11:08 PM   #44
LaoChe
IndyFan
 
LaoChe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 104
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

To discover how long an organism has been dead (to determine how much C14 is left in the organism and therefore how old it is), we count the number of beta radiations given off per minute per gram of material. Modern C14 emits about 15 beta radiations per minute per gram of material, but C14 that is 5730 years old will only emit half that amount, (the half-life of C14) per minute. So if a sample taken from an organism emits 7.5 radiations per minute in a gram of material, then the organism must be 5730 years old. The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.
LaoChe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2004, 04:16 PM   #45
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
you know you could of just gave me the website you copied that from. But anyway, you can't go on everything you read especially one sourse. The system is out of whack if...you are a believer in the flood.
The heavy components settled on the bottom of the earth which means EXTREME pressure...which we know causes heat. This would then in turn create carbon. So basically anything dated before the time of the flood is way off. I am sure the earth is not even close to being as old as people say it is.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2004, 04:33 PM   #46
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally posted by IndyJohan
Tennessee....
I know you are involved in the Wyatt Museum. Personally, for the ark the models that they have always show a boat like figure. This makes no sense to me, I am convinced that the ark was not shaped like a boat, this would not make any sense because it gives less space to work with, and why would Noah build it in that shape? he had no where to go. I am sure it was built as a barge in a rectangular shape.


Thank you for asking about this, for it is indeed a great theory, and question. Also, I love talking about it

Okay, firstly, Moses, (who wrote te account) was educated in egypt, and would have most likely used the 'royal egyptian cubit' for the dimensions of the ark.
Now, this would have made the boat longer; In fact, around 515 feet long. I needn't tell you that that is long.

Secondly, Microevolution (Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspeciesis) is proven, (i.e. mixing a cocker-spaniel with a bulldog will work) and so, all Noah would have had to take was two pairs of dogs. We don't know, but this could have been just two pairs of dogs for the wolves and coyotes and pets.
So, this means that there would not be a need for a 'huge' ship. ceartainly they would need a large ship, but not a huge.

Third, Noah would not need a full grown animal for each pair. Babies would serve the purpose great. Therefore, downsize the boat a little more.

So, I don't believe that space would be a big problem.

Now, I don't know if you believe that the site in Turkey that is a national park is true or not, but is shows the formation in a boat-shaped formation. kind of like this: ()

As a last note, the model that you see on:
http://wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm
was caulked up, kind of like the tar would have done, on the real deal, and the model was placed in a lake. Speedboats were driven around it, and it would not sink. Note the keel, and two keel-sons on each side, and protruding out of the stern. That is what the formation in Turkey appears to have, and those are known, and used on multi-million dollar sailing vessels for stability.

That is about all I can think of at the moment, please, respond and we can talk about it more.


Oh, and just a tad on the C-14: Some animals have been tested, and one part gives off a greatly different number of a date, than another part.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2004, 03:36 PM   #47
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
I think I could have some fun with you on this subject but anyway...I think the boat is in Northern Iran in a land called Urartu. The bible say's MountainS of Ararat...This is plural and in that point in history the Mountains of Ararat were mapped much more generously than they are today.
Have you heard of the Ed Davis encounter?
Anyway, like myself I am sure that you get your information through various sources and do research so I am always open to hearing more opinions and theories.

Last edited by Johan : 10-09-2004 at 03:41 PM.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2004, 11:06 PM   #48
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally posted by IndyJohan
I think I could have some fun with you on this subject but anyway...I think the boat is in Northern Iran in a land called Urartu. The bible say's MountainS of Ararat...This is plural and in that point in history the Mountains of Ararat were mapped much more generously than they are today.
Have you heard of the Ed Davis encounter?
Anyway, like myself I am sure that you get your information through various sources and do research so I am always open to hearing more opinions and theories.



Do you have a ceartain place you think is the site? Urartu is a big place. I also believe that it is in the land of Urartu. I believe that it cannot very likely be ON Mt. Ararat itself, because of the glacier that replaces itself every so many years, and because of the fact that the same thing that happened to Mt. St. Helens long ago, and is starting to happen again, has happened to Mt. Ararat.

But, very near N. Iran but still about half a mile inside the border of Turkey, is the site that I believe in (As you probably know.)

Hadn't really looked into the Ed Davis encounter, but I believe that 4' of snow wouldn't have stopped me from looking at it in detail, and ceartainly, if he dreamed about it every night for 20 years (As he says), he would have found a way to go back.

And I'm all for having fun (at least to an extent). So, I'd love to talk more on the subject.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2004, 04:05 PM   #49
Johan
IndyFan
 
Johan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Posts: 1,314
I believe the ark rests on Mt. Sabalon.
Johan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2004, 06:06 PM   #50
Tennessee R
IndyFan
 
Tennessee R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally posted by IndyJohan
I believe the ark rests on Mt. Sabalon.


Interesting. Could you share with us some of the reasons that you believe that? Or maybe copy and paste an article here, or the like, for those that do not want to do a search on it.
Tennessee R is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 PM.