A Long-Lost Relative?

don · 10-08-09 8:26 pm

I agree with much of what you say regarding the bias of AIG. My point is that scientists, for example those working with Ardi, don't seem to question the larger assumptions. For example, one thing I would explore (but in doing so I would not be too welcome by these doctors of science, I don't think) is how much the radiometric dating varies with the bones all said to be from Ardi. Or, take several items which are believed to be all from the same 4.4 million years ago and compare the readings. It is assumed that everything on the same strata are from the same time of the past. So my scientific inquiry would lead me to test to see if all the material on that strata really measure the same on radiometric dating. I'm sure that the team of scientists working with Ardi would not welcome such an intrusion into their work. .

elaine · 10-08-09 9:02 pm

Do you think that the scientists studying Ardi have not spent sufficient time to ask these and thousands of other questions? Do you think that in the past 12 or more years, they have not investigated every possibility of other results? Can you, or I, or any layman ask questions that they could not, nor have not investigated? I can only equate it with a doctor's diagnosis and recommendation for treatment. It is a patient's responsibility to investigate, which I do very thoroughly (thanks to the internet) whenever a diagnosis or treatment is recommended. When I find, which I always have, that their recommended treatment is the first one that all doctors recommend, and check the possible side effects, then I trust their judgment. It is impossible for a lay person to be fully educated in all the other professions, so we have to rely on their expertise, but with due diligence. All of us need expert help in hundreds of daily things: a good plumber, trust in our food and drugs and many other things. When we send our kids to college, do we check the qualifications of all their teachers, or do we, eventually, decide to respect the administrators who hired their instructors, as well as the school? "Trust, but verify" is always appropriate, but in the end, we are unable to verify every bit of our lives.

elaine · 10-08-09 9:30 pm

If more information is needed, here is the link to the article appearing in Science magazine. <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news173615221.html" target=_top>www.physorg.com/news173615221.html</a> and the National Geographic site: Ardi More inclusive articles covering more details. One thing that they all emphasize: She is NOT the missing link--but a separate species not previously seen.

don · 10-08-09 9:38 pm

Do you think that the scientists studying Ardi have not spent sufficient time to ask these and thousands of other questions? Do you think that in the past 12 or more years, they have not investigated every possibility of other results? I doubt they have investigated the questions that I am raising. These questions are too elementary to their field. I think they work off the large assumptions, such as same strata same time zone, without going back to questioning such assumptions. (I could be wrong, but this is what I am guessing is the case.) so we have to rely on their expertise, but with due diligence. Yes. Radiometric dating presents its own challenges for the layman. Paul R. Renne is a geochronologist at Berkeley. He is on the Ardi team. Here is an abstract from a study he presented in 1997. I present this to illustrate how difficult it is for a lay person to make any kind of a decision about the accuracy of radiometric dating: <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1977.jpg" alt=""> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yznpufx" target="_blank">Intercalibration of standards, absolute ages and uncertainties in 40Ar/39Ar dating</a> Paul R. Renne, Carl C. Swishera, Alan L. Deinoa, Daniel B. Karnerb, Thomas L. Owensb and Donald J. DePaolob Berkeley Geochronology Center, 2455 Ridge Road, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA .

don · 10-09-09 4:43 am

The Great Chain of Being Below, I provide a quote from a blogger, an evolutionist. He says some things that caught my attention:<ol><li>Linnaeus developed his taxonomy as a creationist but it is now used to show evolution. <LI>The Great Chain of Being is no longer adhered to, yet it is used by evolutionists anyway. <LI>The idea of a "missing link" depends on the Great Chain of Being. Since the idea is no longer in vogue; the idea of a missing link should not be either.</li></ol>Question: What do you think of this line of thought? Shouldn't there be a continuous line of fossils demonstrating the many changes necessary for evolution to have occured? On our present topic: Ardi, dating 4.4 million years ago, has caused scientists to wonder if her species evolved into the Lucy species of 3.2 million years ago. Is the blogger of the quote below correct in not using the term, "missing link"?<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:... Now, I would like to discuss something that has bothered me for some time. The Great Chain of Being and missing links. You hear a lot of people in the news and even scientists using the term missing link, when in fact, they are completely mistaken. The idea of missing links is well in our past and is no longer a valid assessment of phylogeny or paleontology. Our ancestors used to believe that God created everything in the world from the lowest to the greatest along a continuum, or as it was called the Great Chain of Being. Everything that exists presently and in the past was somewhere on that chain with humans at the top as the pinnacle of Creation. If dinosaurs existed as fossils then God must have made them and they had to fit somewhere. So, basically, evolution never happened. Everything stayed the same and nothing changed. Our taxonomic forefather, Carolus Linnaeus, believed wholeheartedly in this Chain and set out to find and place every species in Creation on that continuum. Now, we use Linnaean taxonomy to show evolution. Oh how times have changed! Anyway, missing links were those things that should be there in the Chain but are not known. The term missing link is not synonymous with transitional form, even though it is used that way today. That is why the term bothers me; it should never be used, because it is archaic and we no longer believe in the Great Chain of Being. It is out of date and useless, but scientists and lay people continue to use it. It really bothers me. Scientists are promoting misconceptions and myths of evolution... <a href="http://blgtnjew.livejournal.com/tag/dental+anthropology" target="_blank">http://blgtnjew.livejournal.com/tag/dental+anthrop ology</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Further Reading Great Chain of Being <a href="http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/Enc%20race%20GCOB.pdf" target="_blank">http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/Enc%20race%20GCOB.pdf</a> (Message edited by Don on October 09, 2009)

don · 10-09-09 12:27 pm

"Evolutionists are Crazy" Several students, while eating at the cafeteria, got into a vigorous debate over the statement made by one of them, "Evolutionists are crazy!" When they arrived at my class, they were still fired up about it and wanted to discuss. (I have made it clear to them that discussions of pressing issues takes priority over my other teaching plans.) My first goal was to help dispel the idea that evolutionists are "crazy" and that they have compelling reasons to believe what they believe. Tied to this is an analysis of what is meant by "evolution". I presented two concepts:<ol><li>Evolution means that permanent change takes place in living things. <LI>Evolution means that all living things have a common ancester.</li></ol>I tell my students that I believe in the first but not the second concept. Then, I presented the idea that evolution only deals with living things and its study begins at the theoretical point when life first came about. Before that the study of origins is called by some other name. I explain to them my view that the origin of life from nonlife is probably the most difficult idea that the scientist must examine. I present my belief that the Garden of Eden had only one dog pair from which have come all the dog species. So, for Family, Genus, and Species, I believe that permanent change has, and is, taking place, i.e. evolution. At the conclusion of our discussion, the students were asked to write a response to this question: "Your friend says that evolutionists are crazy. How could you respond to your friend to help him (or her) view evolutionists more charitably?" Some of the responses indicated a sensitivity to evolutionists as thinking people. Others remained unmoved and stated that they agree with their friend, "Evolutionists are crazy." .

don · 10-09-09 12:49 pm

From where did we come? (My apologies for so many posts one after the other. This forum keeps me forging into new (personal) territory.) Theologically: God created the world. Biblically: God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. Scientifically: Scientist cannot answer this question with overwhelming scientific evidence. Many scientists propose theories regarding the origin of this world and the whole universe. If the radiometric and genetic clock measurements are accurate, the time for life forms on earth extends backwards for millions of years. Scientists have two huge problems to consider: <ol><li>No one has ever seen life originate from non-life. <LI>No one has ever seen matter come into existence from nothingness.</li></ol>Of course, the Special Creationist has never seen God create. But, Special Creationists do not depend on scientific observation to believe in Special Creation. .

elaine · 10-09-09 1:52 pm

Shouldn't there be a continuous line of fossils demonstrating the many changes necessary for evolution to have occured?" Why? That only seems to be the question Creationists' ask. Scientist have not claimed to have found "The Missing Link." The scientists in the Ardi investigation clearly said that this is NOT a transitional form! So, they are unconcerned about a continuous change they expect to find. Scientists have never attempted to explain the origin of life; it is only biblical Creationists who choose to believe in the Bible story. IOW, each begins seeking different answers. Have scientists given any answer to the origin of life? No one, even Creationists can answer than question except as a belief. If Creationists do so, they still cannot answer who created the original Designer; so they both have no answers. evolution means that permanent change takes place in living things. Evolution means that all living things have a common ancester. I tell my students that I believe in the first but not the second concept. That all living things have a common ancestor is a belief. Evolution has much more evidence, IMO. Creationists has never seen life originate from non-life. Creationist has never seen matter come into from nothingness. Which makes both the Evolutionists and Creationists at the same place: no evidence!}}

elaine · 10-09-09 1:57 pm

A pastor friend submitted this poem written by his stepfather, a retired physicist,on another forum: To Ardi "You'd surely be surprised to know the rout that rose on hearing of your resurrection. With strident voice your gender was in doubt, while others held your age in reservation. 'twas clear that some have wished you back to sleep within your rocky bed in Afar land, a secret place they think that you should keep since you disturb what they can understand. It fascinates to think we're your heirs. Although a better artist you deserve who'd have a rousing lady fix her hairs, arrange her face, dress well with true reserve before he took her photo for the book. Welcome--mother, cousin, aunt--what may be. We'll place you in the album where we look to find the other branches of our tree.

elaine · 10-09-09 2:27 pm

Just this week I received the result of my DNA done at the National Geographic Genome project. My mitochronidal "mother" Hplogroup L1/L/0, first originated in E.Africa some 150,000 and 170,000 years ago. At some point, these two existing groups (L1/L0) have the most divergent genetic sequences of anybody alive today, meaning they represent the deepest branches of the mitochondrial tree. At some point, after these two groups had coexisted in Africa for a few thousand years, something important happened. The mitochondrial sequence of a woman in one of these groups, L1, mutated. A letter in her DNA changed, and because many of her descendants have survived to the present, this change has become a window into the past. The descendants of this woman, characterized by this sighnpost mutation, went on to form their own group, called L2. "Eve" begat L1, and L1 begat L2. The next signpost ancestor is the woman whose birth around 80,000 years ago began haplogroup L2. My L3 ancestors are significant because they are the first modern humans to have left AFrica, representing the deepest branches of the tree found outside of Africa. The next signpost ancestor is the woman whose descendants formed haplogroup N, comprising one of two groups that were created by the descendants of L3. The first of these groups, M, was the result of the firset great wave of migration of modern humans to leave Africa, eventually making it all the way to Australia and Polynesia. The second great wave, also of L3 individuals, moved north rather than east and left the African continent across the Sinai Peninsula, in present-day Egypt. Descendants of these migrants eventually formed haplogroup N. After several thousand years in the Near East, individuals belonging to a new group called haplogroup R began to move out and explore the surrounding areas. Haplogroup R is complicated, because these individuals can be found almost everywhere, and because their origin is quite ancient. In fact, the ancestor of haplogroup R lived relatively soon after humans moved out of Africa during the second wave. Haplogroup U (my direct ancestral line) descended from the R group (above), by a woman who gave rise to people who now constitute haplogroup U. It is likely that this woman lived around 50,000 years ago. Finally arriving at my own clan, a group of individuals who descend from a woman in the U branch of the tree and her descendants, the most recent common ancestor for all U5 individuals, broke off from the rest of the group and headed north into Scandinavia. Even though U5 is descended from an ancestor in haplogroup U, it is also ancient, estimated to be around 50,000 years old. It was easy to furnish the cheek swab for DNA analysis and learning what the DNA revealed. Having drawn my maternal genealogical ancestry back to the first century AD, as verified by separate genealogical records, my Scandinavian ancestors, great shipping explorers, evidently settled in the northern British Isles, as the validated records I have, originate in Ireland: actually, I am of Scott-Irish descent. Whether one believes this or not, is was an exciting discovery to see what one's DNA reveals. Plus, the string of 569 letter in my mitochondrial sequence. Males are able to trace their ancestry through both paternal and maternal lines. Maybe I'll persuade my son to check his paternal line.

john8verse32 · 10-09-09 3:25 pm

Ardi to be explained on the Discovery Channel, Sunday night.... <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html?" target=_top>http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html?</a> who said there's never anything good on TV???? but there will be those who don't want to look, see, or understand!!!! <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1980.jpg" alt="">

don · 10-09-09 4:23 pm

Did your DNA report confirm things you already had discovered about your past?

elaine · 10-09-09 5:00 pm

Yes, but because I could only get genealogical records back to the first century A.D. and of course, the information from the Genome Project extend far deeper than any historical records--they lived in a preliterate society. I hadn't previously known by DNA.

elaine · 10-09-09 5:01 pm

Yes, but because I could only get genealogical records back to the first century A.D. and of course, the information from the Genome Project extend far deeper than any historical records--they lived in a preliterate society. I hadn't previously known my DNA.

don · 10-09-09 5:46 pm

In particular, what did the DNA report confirm about your heritage that you already knew? Also, were there any surprises?

elaine · 10-09-09 10:52 pm

No surprises, and of course, everyone originated in E. Africa, according to available evidence. It was interesting to see the trek of my ancestors from there to the north and through Europe to the Scandinavia. I was not aware of the Scandinavian route.

don · 10-10-09 4:18 am

It would be interesting to compare a DNA "graph" showing the Scandinavian connection with one that doesn't show such. Where in the DNA sequence is it, etc? .

elaine · 10-10-09 11:50 am

Don, I am unable to answer your questions. There is so much yet to learn. I do believe that our DNA can reveal much about who we are in relation to the rest of the world's people. Have you ever tried a genealogical search of your family, or do you have some information already? I was very surprised when I began my search several years ago to find that a 5th cousin had supplied much of the more recent information and thanks to the computerization of the LDS genealogical site, they can instantly link hundreds, even thousands of people. Each individual that supplies some ancestral information is linked to others (don't ask me how it's done!) but never before has this been possible before computers. When I began, I typed in my father's name (he had been dead nearly 50 years--and that's about the minimum requirement to begin research). Lo, and behold! his name came up with his paternal fathers for more than 6 generations! Knowing the exact birth dates and places is most important, and recognizing some of the names and birth places, I checked for the name of the submitter and discovered it was a 5th cousin residing in Birmingham, AL, the state where both my parents were from. I called him and we talked for more than an hour on our mututal relatives. Not everyone's family can be found, but the more info one knows about names, dates, birth places, etc., makes it more possible to locate them. Also, there are many other genealogical sites: Ancestry.com (not free as is the LDS site) and many others to check.

don · 10-10-09 2:04 pm

Have you ever tried a genealogical search of your family, or do you have some information already? Not very much. My mother was quite interested in her heritage and told us stories of famous folk of the past we are related to. Stanford University's Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza author of, "<a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&lpg=PP1&dq=%22History%20and%20Geography%20of%20Human%20Genes%22&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=&f=false" target="_blank">The history and geography of human genes</a>." He studied the variation in genetic material from people of different geographical area. I have only begun to examine his book. .

elaine · 10-10-09 5:34 pm

Knowing one's family history gives "roots" to you and your children. After finishing Jim Webb's Book Born Fighting about the Irish from their earliest history down to the present in America, has confirmed much of the temperament and independence inherent in the Irish. It is both good and bad, but their willingness to fight for independence has been a strong force in U.S. history, as well as problems still seen in the eastern Appalachians still today. Mountain people, wherever in the world they are located, develop a closeness because of their isolation that has enabled long traditions in stories and songs that have endured for centuries.

don · 10-10-09 8:30 pm

A Creationist Makes Peace With Radiometric Dating (I don't really know very much about this, but let's give it a try. I welcome critical thoughts on what I am presenting here.) Imagine: I have discovered some ancient hominid fossils, several. I submit them to the lab for radiometric dating. I get the results. I compare the data with my field data re: their location, strata, etc. Then, when I publish my report in the peer-reviewed journal I report the data and even give the generally accepted millions of years "data" so that my peers can understand what my results mean to most scientists. I may even discuss what my data means to the various theories of my colleagues. The difference between my use of the data and an evolutionary paleoanthropologist's use is in the speculating on how the "older" hominid evolved to become the "younger" hominid, if it did. As a Creationist, I am keenly interested in the raw data and the generally accepted time frame but am unwilling to enter into evolutionary surmising about the hominids under study. (Since I do believe in a limited role for evolution, I may change my mind and allow myself to wonder about the relationships between the various fossils I am studying. But, because I am a Young Earth Creationist, my speculating will take a different path than my colleagues who believe in "deep" time. Perhaps, I would attempt to place my findings on some sort of <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=22&post=7174#POST7174" target="_blank">a cladogram</a>.) (Message edited by Don on October 10, 2009)

elaine · 10-10-09 10:57 pm

Before you present your thoughts, how much have you studied on the entire process involved in radiometric dating? Wouldn't that be the best place to start to thoroughly understand how this dating is performed and the restrictions and requirements? Just a thought. If you are "unwilling to enter into evolutionary surmising" is that not a priori position taken before the study? Is that how your students approach a new subject?

don · 10-11-09 5:33 am

If you are "unwilling to enter into evolutionary surmising" is that not a priori position taken before the study? Is that how your students approach a new subject? Not necessarily. To take part in evolutionary "surmising" can only be part of the scientific process if I accept that "deep" time evolution explains the natural world; otherwise it would be like "fairy tale" thinking to me. I would have to be convinced that "deep" time evolution is a fact before I could join Dr. White in his thinking. OR, I would have to understand carefully how he and his colleagues think and then "help them think" using their worldview; kind of a form of methodological naturalism, I suppose. I recently read an interview with Tim White. In the interview, he describes his evolutionary thinking. The depth of "surmising" reflects his worldview. A Creationist can try to think like an evolutionist, but to be immersed in the evolutionary worldview is absolutely necessary to think like Dr. White.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Ardipithecus doesn't [have the same type of teeth]. It's much more of an omnivorous creature. It turns out that frugivory evolved along chimpanzee lineages. But that's not the only thing. The fascinating thing we see in Ardipithecus is that it had a chimp-sized brain, and yet its front face is very much smaller than a chimpanzee. Its incisors were not only smaller, its canines were really small, especially the male individuals. Now the fossil we found, the skeleton, is a female. But we have lots of other individuals from the same horizon of Ardipithecus. And we have not a single large chimpanzee-like canine. So even the males by that time in hominid evolution had feminized the canine tooth. And this tells us about the social behavior that would have been practiced. And again, this very aggressive behavior you see in chimpanzees where males fight with one another all the time over estrous females, this wasn't happening early in our lineage because that canine tooth is very much reduced. <a href="http://www.canada.com/technology/Read+transcript+interview+with+White/2054807/story.html" target="_blank">http://www.canada.com/technology/Read+transcript+i nterview+with+White/2054807/story.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>how much have you studied on the entire process involved in radiometric dating? Not very much. And, yes, it would be helpful to understand the process further. The best way would be to visit with someone like Ervin Taylor and ask him lots of questions. (Message edited by Don on October 11, 2009)

don · 10-11-09 5:49 am

Radiometric Dating and Adventists (This is a copy of a post from atomorrow dot com.) <a href="http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=8&post=55115#POST55115" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=8&post=55115#POST55115</a> You may find this collection of URL's interesting reading. (I have not tested all the links to make sure they are still valid. I know that Dr. Bottomley's Clock in the Rocks link no longer works.) Most of the articles come from the magazine Adventist Today. Two interesting facts: Both Ervin Taylor and Richard Bottomley hail as experts in radiometric dating. Taylor ran a radiometric lab for University of California, Riverside. -------------------------------------- Radiometric Dating - Adventists Speak The Search for Alternate Solutions CLYDE L. WEBSTER, JR. 1994 <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1994/novdec1994/articles/AlternativeSolutions.shtml" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1994/novdec 1994/articles/AlternativeSolutions.shtml</a> --------------- Supporting young-earth creationism: Religious faith or scientific evidence? ERVIN TAYLOR , 2001 R. Ervin Taylor, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Anthropology and director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of California, Riverside. <a href="http://www.atoday.com/422.0.html" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/422.0.html</a> ---------------- BRISCO 1996: Selected Church Scientists Meet IVAN ROUSE In 1996, Ivan E. Rouse, Ph.D., was chair of the Physics Department, La Sierra University <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1996/novdec1996/news/BRISCO.shtml" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1996/novdec 1996/news/BRISCO.shtml</a> ---------------- The Issues Going In By John Thomas McLarty The 2003 Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Convention Center <a href="http://www.atoday.com/145.0.html" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/145.0.html</a> -------------- Report 4 from the 2003 Faith and Science Conference By John Thomas McLarty and Ervin Taylor <a href="http://www.atoday.com/148.0.html" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/148.0.html</a> -------------- The Church Must Pastor all its Children by John McLarty <a href="http://www.atoday.com/229.0.html" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/229.0.html</a> ------------- Geological and Chemical Clocks P. Edgar Hare, 1994 P. Edgar Hare was a founding staff member of the Geoscience Research Institute. For 30 years he has been a senior scientist in the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1994/sepoct1994/articles/Hare.shtml" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1994/sepoct 1994/articles/Hare.shtml</a> -------------- Science and Faith Convention at Andrews University by James Stirling, Ph.D., 1998 James Stirling, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of anthropology at La Sierra University and assistant editor of Adventist Today. He studied Biblical archaeology under Siegfried Horn at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and is interested in the human side of prehistory. <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1998/sepoct1998/articles/ScienceFaithConvention.shtml" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1998/sepoct 1998/articles/ScienceFaithConvention.shtml</a> -------------- That "Pesky Scientific Data": A Response to Ervin Taylor's Review JOHN T. BALDWIN, PH.D. , 2001 John Baldwin received his PhD from University of Chicago. He is professor of Theology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs,Michigan. <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/2001/marapr2001/departments/scidata.shtml" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/2001/marapr 2001/departments/scidata.shtml</a> ------------- When the Earth was Flatter than it is Today Max Phillips, 1997 Max Phillips holds a BA in theology from Loma Linda University, La Sierra campus, and degrees in theology and Christian philosophy from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. Currently he is a medical writer and editor in the Northwest. <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1997/mayjun1997/articles/FlatterEarth.shtml" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1997/mayjun 1997/articles/FlatterEarth.shtml</a> ------------- The 2003 Faith and Science Conference By John T. McLarty and Ervin Taylor <a href="http://www.atoday.com/151.0.html" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/151.0.html</a> ------------ The Clocks in the Rocks Richard Bottomley, Argon-Argon Geochronologist Canadian University College FOR: Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Ranch, CO — August 2003 <a href="http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-ClocksRocks.htm" target=_top>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-Cloc ksRocks.htm</a> .

john8verse32 · 10-11-09 10:51 am

Don...I hope folks appreciate your links and the info above... here's the "official" USGS explanation the "G" of course is for Geology.... <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/" target=_top>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/</a>

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 10-08-09 8:26 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#27 10-08-09 9:02 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#28 10-08-09 9:30 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#29 10-08-09 9:38 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#30 10-09-09 4:43 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#31 10-09-09 12:27 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#32 10-09-09 12:49 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#33 10-09-09 1:52 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#34 10-09-09 1:57 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#35 10-09-09 2:27 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#36 10-09-09 3:25 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#37 10-09-09 4:23 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#38 10-09-09 5:00 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#39 10-09-09 5:01 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#40 10-09-09 5:46 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#41 10-09-09 10:52 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#42 10-10-09 4:18 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#43 10-10-09 11:50 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#44 10-10-09 2:04 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#45 10-10-09 5:34 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#46 10-10-09 8:30 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#47 10-10-09 10:57 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#48 10-11-09 5:33 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#49 10-11-09 5:49 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#50 10-11-09 10:51 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

Board footer