A Long-Lost Relative?

elaine · 10-11-09 1:10 pm

How do YEC explain the radiometric dating of the rocks, world-wide?

don · 10-11-09 2:14 pm

here's the "official" USGS explanation John, thanks for the link. How do YEC explain the radiometric dating of the rocks, world-wide? Ervin Taylor notes that most Adventists are Young Life Creationists not Young Earth Creationists.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The sincerity, creativity and dedication of the author are clearly reflected in the book. Anyone who, as he informs his readers, took "two years away from the practice of law to research and write this book" should be appreciated for his effort. Regretfully, at the beginning of the volume, the author begins by confidently asserting something which is factually incorrect--that Adventists "take for granted the ‘young-earth creationist' world view" (p. v). What is officially endorsed and advocated by the institutional SDA Church is, in fact, a form of young life creationism (YLC), not young earth creationism (YEC). The YLC/YEC distinction is an important one if one wishes to understand the history of Adventist interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis. The current conventional "orthodox" Adventist understanding is that the rocks of the earth are very old (e.g., billions of years) while all life forms are relatively young (e.g., not more than about 10,000 years). <a href="http://www.atoday.com/dinosaurs-perspectives-goldstein-and-taylor" target=_top>http://www.atoday.com/dinosaurs-perspectives-golds tein-and-taylor</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Further Notes<blockquote>I am arriving at the conclusion that those who view life as "young" and those who view it as "old" will not very likely come to a debated agreement. Thus, the church needs to find avenues of thought which supports their Biblical worldview and which acknowledges the logical analyses of scientists who desire to be in community with it. This involves knowing how to acknowledge individual points of logic on the part of the church. It also calls for a form of methodological naturalism on the part of "deep" time Adventist scientists. As a high school religion teacher, I have found the apparent contradictions between science and Scripture to be very useful in getting my students to broaden their grasp of reality. But, I believe it is essential that they know that I hold to a historical-literal understanding of Genesis 1-11. And, that I am willing to think seriously about the facts without always being the apologist.</blockquote> .

elaine · 10-11-09 7:32 pm

But, I believe it is essential that they know that I hold to a historical-literal understanding of Genesis 1-11. And, that I am willing to think seriously about the facts without always being the apologist. Admittedly, that is the only position possible. If that is the position taken by the science teachers at LSU, they should be applauded rather than censored. Why is it so difficult to answer some questions with an honest "I don't know for certain"? There are many things of which we cannot be absolutely certain, and many may later prove to have been erroneous: we can't always determine that beforehand. If we are humble enough to admit that we don't know, and that there are several possible positions taken by reputable scientists, that would seem to give the student the task of studying for himself and determining what his tentative position is; and that it may be changed with newer information. That is the true scientist's position: what he believes as true today can easily be wrong tomorrow, given new information that refutes the previous. To hold doggedly to YEC is what some Adventists are doing. They will not allow themselves any other possible position. Most of these are not really trained in the particular branch of science which they are critiquing. This is the case of the "lawyer" who spent two years researching dinosaurs. Is that supposed to make him an expert? If scientists are made in such a short time, whey are most wasting many more years before they even begin serious work? If a lawyer wrote a book, even though it was praised by some, about a very serious disease for which a cause and treatment have not be determined, would an intelligent person read and believe it? Especially if all the medical community failed to find any redeeming value in it?

john8verse32 · 10-12-09 12:05 am

The current conventional "orthodox" Adventist understanding is that the rocks of the earth are very old (e.g., billions of years) while all life forms are relatively young (e.g., not more than about 10,000 years). but that does not explain limestone.... or fossils found in other types of ancient sedimentary rocks...such as the Burgess Shale up in BC. thereby indicating "death before sin"... if sin only started a few thousand yrs ago.

bob_2 · 10-12-09 1:42 am

Again, John you have already bought into what has been proven to be a flawed dating system. Until you can help us understand the flaws and the hoaxes, personally your stories I find interesting but not convincing.

don · 10-12-09 3:23 am

Until you can help us understand the flaws and the hoaxes, personally your stories I find interesting but not convincing. Maybe we should invite Ervin Taylor to join us for a brief interaction. He certainly has the knowledge, experience and gentle manners to help move the discussion along. One of my hobbies is developing biographical "chronologies" on individuals, usually Adventists. In the next post, I will present my chronology for Dr. Taylor. One "surprise" as I prepared the chronology was the fact that Dr. Taylor did the Carbon 14 dating in the Kennewick Man case. (The C-14 data indicated that Kennewick Man was 8400 C-14 years old which translates as 9500 real time years old.) .

don · 10-12-09 3:26 am

Ervin Taylor, Chronology (This Chronology is a work in progress.) 1938?<blockquote>Born, Los Angeles, as third generation Adventist.</blockquote> 1955<blockquote>Junior at Lynwood Academy. "Lynwood Academy Bible Department completed its series of church and home Missionary Volunteer meetings on April 23 in the Compton church. The students took over the entire program for the Sabbath.... The church service was under the direction of Ervin Taylor, a junior." <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19550516-V54-42/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6" target="_blank">http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19550516-V54-42/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6</a></blockquote> 1957-1960<blockquote>Attended Pacific Union College. Strongly influenced by Pacific Union College professor, Walter Utt</blockquote> 1957<blockquote>"Sabbath, September 14, the Newhall church launched its vouth program by seven students from La Sierra and Pacific Union colleges taking over the Sabbath service. The 11 o'clock service was comprised of four sermonettes. Ervin Taylor spoke on the part that emotion has in the development of Christian character..." <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19570930-V57-10/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8" target="_blank">http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19570930-V57-10/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8</a></blockquote> 1959<blockquote>"About forty student association representatives from the Northern and Central California senior academies met at Pacific Union College last week to discuss ways of developing leadership among academy students. This was the first workshop of its kind to be sponsored by the college in the interest of student leadership...Planning of the weekend-long meetings was under the direction of Student Association Vice President Ervin Taylor." <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19591214-V59-21/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8" target="_blank">http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19591214-V59-21/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8 </a></blockquote> 1960<blockquote>"Nine Pacific Union College seniors have been named for the 1959-60 edition of Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities. They are: ... Ervin Taylor, Los Angeles..." <a href="http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1960-02/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=15" target="_blank">http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1960-02/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=15</a> Graduated from Pacific Union College. Began graduate work at the University of California, Los Angeles. Radiocarbon developer Willard Libby, just arrived at UCLA, received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry this same year.</blockquote> 1974<blockquote>Ph. D. in Anthropology from UCLA. R. Ervin Taylor, "Genesis and Prehistory: The Conflicting Chronologies," Spectrum 7(3/4) (1974): 33-34. <a href="http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html</a></blockquote> NSF Postdoctoral Fellow with Daniel Kivelson, Department of Chemistry, UCLA Chronometric dating in archaeology, p. 389 1978<blockquote>R.E. Taylor, "Concordances Between Radiocarbon and Racemization-based Dating of Bone," Carnegie Institution of Washington Conference: Advances in the Biochemistry of Amino Acids, Warren, Virginia, October 29-November 1, 1978. <a href="http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html</a></blockquote> 1987<blockquote>R.E. Taylor, Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeological Perspective (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1987) 212 p. <a href="http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html</a></blockquote> 1994<blockquote>Developed a new method of dating protein, i.e. bone and hair samples. <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=lrydNWrckPAC&lpg=PP1&dq=Bones&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false" target="_blank">Bones By Elaine Dewar</a>, p. 195.</blockquote> 1996<blockquote><a href="http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~Sinclair/ALGY399_Site/kennewick_man.html" target="_blank">Kennewick Man</a>: The initial date - about 8,400 radiocarbon years (approximately 9500 yrs bp in real years) before the present - was done by Ervin Taylor, chairman of the Anthropology Department at the University of California-Riverside. <a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1211/story/136601.html" target="_blank">http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1211/story/136601.html</a> On August 5, at the coroner's request, Chatters sent the left fifth metacarpal (the bone joining the left little finger to the wrist) to R. Ervin Taylor, Jr., of the University of California, Riverside, for radiocarbon dating. . . <a href="http://www.archaeology.org/9701/etc/specialreport.html" target="_blank">http://www.archaeology.org/9701/etc/specialreport.html</a></blockquote> 1997<blockquote>Co-edited <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=igeVNzJkpHMC&lpg=PA65&ots=wEncWMfYsJ&dq=%22ervin%20taylor%22%2C%20%22university%20of%20california%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false" target="_blank">Chronometric Dating in Archaeology</a></blockquote> 2007<blockquote>Became editor of Adventist Today.</blockquote> (Message edited by Don on October 12, 2009)

don · 10-12-09 6:18 am

How Accurate is Carbon 14? If tree-rings are produced just once a year, as is generally believed, then Carbon 14 dating can be checked with those rings. Here is one graph reporting the results of such a comparison. If I am reading this correctly, the older the sample the more the two dating systems differ: <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1994.jpg" alt=""> Source: <a href="http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/ErvTaylor_C14_April2009.pdf" target="_blank">RADIOCARBON DATING: HOW THE GEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCES DATE THE LAST 50,000 YEARS</a> .

john8verse32 · 10-12-09 9:09 am

so does that flawed accuracy prove it to be a flawed dating system?..... actually, two dating systems that seem to agree fairly well....at least enuf to prove that Bristlecone Pines are older than the flood which allegedly destroyed the whole earth, except the pyramids.... or does it suggest that we have been misinterpreting the Old Test....??? and that there are those who will never be swayed by factual evidence?

don · 10-12-09 9:48 am

so does that flawed accuracy prove it to be a flawed dating system?..... I think that would depend on how old the sample was and what one claimed for results. It seems that the older the sample the less accurate the results. Recently, I ran across a report giving the results of C-14 measurement of dinosaur bones (fossils). <a href="http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm" target="_blank">http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm</a> Of course, C-14 depends on the Carbon of life for measurement. Fossils don't contain any carbon at all (I presume.) This would make the results meaningless, or would it? If you have time and inclination, look over the website linked and give us your thoughts. What are carbonized fossils? two dating systems that seem to agree fairly well. I think if I had unlimited access to an AMS Lab, I would submit various items and watch to see how consistent the results were. does it suggest that we have been misinterpreting the Old Test....??? A certain amount of "misinterpreting" can account for a slight variation in time. (Slight by evolutionary standards.) Adventists insist on the literal reading of Genesis 1-11. The issue is not the "how long ago" but the "six day event" of Creation with a seventh-day of rest, blessed and sanctified. As long as Adam and Eve come alive from their maker's creative "moment" the Adventist community will not fuss too loudly about the exact time. Generally, they are opposed to the idea of "deep" time for life., i.e. millions of years. John, I occasionally ask you if you are amenable to a life of faith if theistic evolution were the basis of that faith. In my study of Ervin Taylor's ideas, I have noted that he is a theistic evolutionist (I think). When I came to this conclusion, I remembered my wondering about where you stand regarding faith. Any thoughts? (Message edited by Don on October 12, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-12-09 11:09 am

Any thoughts? it would be nice again to feel like a member of a wonderful community.... just attended my SLA alumni reunion... met old friends, didn't ask them if they still believed, but got to chatting with a couple who told me their story which may suggest its too late for many of us. They were not only church members, but SS teachers, sent their kids to SDA grade schools... but they became involved in a theatre group..we didn't get into the play they were participating in.... but apparently there was a friday evening presentation for the play they were in which got pictured in the local newspapers. They told me that before the next friday, they were visited by the pastor and several elders, and given an ultimatum... leave the play, or leave the church.... guess which they left.... thats right....they never looked back... kids now in public school, and they occasionally visit neighboring churches on special occasions. they got riffed from an exclusive "club"... the key root word is the active verb, to exclude why would I want to rejoin a club that either would actually accept me (..thats a joke from Rodney Dangerfield), or why would anyone want to join an exclusive club which would quickly expel them for breaking the rules? why join a club which makes up rules based on ancient misunderstandings.... and then can use those rules to exclude you from membership? or at least whisper behind your back.. "I hear they drink beer" "I saw them at a restaurant last friday night..she had a wine glass" "they say he took the kids swimming last sabbath...during their sabbath afternoon walk" "Look at her jewelry!!!" "they go to the movies, I hear" "I saw a ham in her basket at the market the other day" "her skirts are too short ..."

don · 10-12-09 11:11 am

C-14 on Dinosaur Both; Asserted and Critiqued Recently, I ran across a report giving the results of C-14 measurement of dinosaur bones (fossils). What About Carbon 14? <a href="http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm" target="_blank">http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm</a> Here is a well-thought out critique of the above claims. Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaurs? <a href="http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Radiocarbon%20Dates%20for%20Dinosaur%20Bones.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Radiocarbon%20Da tes%20for%20Dinosaur%20Bones.pdf</a> .

don · 10-12-09 11:20 am

why join a club which makes up rules based on ancient misunderstandings.... and then can use those rules to exclude you from membership? Yes. The SDA Church behaves in ways contrary to the good of the people they want to "save". The first issue, as I see it, is what will each of us do regarding Jesus. I see no reason to join a Christian church if one does not believe in Jesus on some level. Ervin Taylor seems to have taken a different approach. Still from within the community, he appeals to his fellow church members on a variety of topics. His position as Executive Editor of Adventist Today puts him in the middle of many church discussions and issues. This allows him to try to affect change. You could do that, too. We need more prophetic voices, IMO. .

elaine · 10-12-09 12:57 pm

Hasnt't radiometric dating replaced radiocarbon dating as a more accurate measuring tool? How can the rocks be so very old, yet the life forms of fossils in them are so much younger; i.e. if the rocks are ancient, but life is much younger?

don · 10-12-09 1:46 pm

Hasnt't radiometric dating replaced radiocarbon dating as a more accurate measuring tool? It seems that scientists use different methods depending on what they want to measure. Radiocarbon dating is useful for dating relatively recent material. For example, Dr. Taylor's lab dated Kennewick Man in 1996 with a result of 9500 years bp (before present). A decade earlier, he helped in the dating of the <a href="http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=ucmercedlibrary/jcgba" target="_blank">Haverty Human Skeletons</a> (a pdf file). This Haverty study is a comprehensive analysis. It reminds me of the recent Science Magazine reports on Ardipithecus ramidus. Here is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating" target="_blank">a list of radiometric dating methods</a><ol><li>Uranium-lead <LI>Samarium-neodymium <LI>Potassium-argon <LI>Rubidium-strontium <LI>Uranium-thorium <LI>Radiocarbon <LI>Fission track <LI>Chlorine-36 <LI>Optically stimulated luminescence <LI>argon-argon (Ar-Ar) <LI>iodine-xenon (I-Xe) <LI>lanthanum-barium (La-Ba) <LI>lead-lead (Pb-Pb) <LI>lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf) <LI>neon-neon (Ne-Ne) <LI>rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) <LI>uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He) <LI>uranium-uranium (U-U) </li></ol> (Message edited by Don on October 12, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-12-09 9:22 pm

varves in this lake in Japan <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Suigetsu+varves&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=" target=_top>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Suigetsu+varv es&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=</a> correspond to current understanding of the ages of dendrochronology, and are used to double check the accuracy of RC dating.... back about 40,000 yrs. the first link to read is written by a christian web site calling for accuracy (if not honesty) in understanding Genesis....

bob_2 · 10-13-09 3:05 am

The problem again John is your god, Uniformitarianism. You worship it and it shows in your posts. Catastrophic events can alter rates of decay and even plate movement that scientists can only measure by today's activity and rate, that is naive and just plain, well, unscientific, since catastrophes have altered rates regularly as science well knows but their dating mechanisms need that snapshot, only the data won't stay constant or hold still for that snapshot.

don · 10-13-09 5:16 am

The problem again John is your god, Uniformitarianism...Catastrophic events can alter rates of decay and even plate movement that scientists can only measure by today's activity and rate... In other words, radiometric dating has its assumptions and limitations. But what about physical evidence? First, recall the comparison of tree-rings with radiometric data given in an earlier post: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=7196#POST7196" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=7196#POST7196</a> Next, consider the various non-radiometric physical evidence of Sediment Varves, Glacier Layers, Corals, Tree Rings, Speleothems. I don't understand much re: how to derive age data from these but I do know that the various sources are compared to each other and if the age data corresponds to other age data, that is considered significant. The uniformitarian assumption still plays a role, but the comparisons are informative. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1999.jpg" alt=""> <a href="http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/08chronann.html" target=_top>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/08chronann.html</a> <a href="http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background_files/2-2_geophysical_files/2-2-3_earth_after-pangea-breakup_files/2-2-3-8_quaternary-chronology-annual-techniques.htm" target="_blank">Another source for info in link above</a>. The quote below may be helpful. Keep in mind that the context is not critical but informative. I accessed this journal article after a free registration process:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Science 20 February 1998: Vol. 279. no. 5354, pp. 1187 - 1190 DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5354.1187 Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production H. Kitagawa, J. van der Plicht ... The atmospheric 14C content (expressed in 14C) (1) is sensitive to geomagnetic field strength and solar fluctuations (also through magnetic effects) as well as rearrangements in equilibrium between the major C reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, and biosphere). Detailed calibration of the radiocarbon time scale into the glacial period is critical for accurate dating and a better understanding of changes in the Earth system. Radiocarbon calibration can be performed by 14C dating of samples that can also be dated by an independent, preferably absolute dating method. The ideal samples for this purpose are tree rings, which can be dated by dendrochronology. Dendro-calibrations with (for the most part) 20-year tree-ring resolution have been obtained for almost the complete Holocene, back to about 7900 B.C. for the absolute chronology and to about 9400 B.C. including a matched floating tree-ring curve (2). Beyond the range of tree rings, calibration has been problematic. Radiocarbon dates of terrestrial macrofossils from annually laminated sediments can potentially provide a high-resolution record of atmospheric 14C changes. However, varve chronologies have been revised several times (3). At present, calibration data from glacial varves provide a consistent data set back to about 11,000 B.C. (4-6). In addition, a marine calibration curve for the Late Glacial period is obtained by combined 14C and U-series dates of corals (7, 8) and 14C measurements on foraminifera from varved marine sediments (9). Because these data are for marine materials, they have to be corrected for the apparent 14C age of the surface oceans, known as the reservoir effect... <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5354/1187" target=_top>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5354/1187</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Further Reading How Do We Investigate Climates of the Past? <a href="http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html&cd=pcx" target="_blank">http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html&cd=pcx</a> PAGES - PEPIII: Past Climate Variability Through Europe and Africa August 27-31, 2001 Centre des Congrès Aix-en-Provence, France <a href="http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/g/c/01.htm" target="_blank">http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/g/c/01.htm</a> Calibration of the 14C time scale: towards the complete dating range <a href="http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000206/article.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000206/article.pdf</a> MIT OpenCourseWare - Paleoceanography Spring 2008 Carbon 14 Animated Powerpoint <a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Earth--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/12-740Spring-2008/LectureNotes/lec09a_slide.pdf" target="_blank">http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Earth--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/12-740Spring-2008/LectureNotes/lec09a_slide.pdf</a> One benefit to the radiometric dating debate is the personal learning curve participants experience. (Message edited by Don on October 13, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-13-09 8:26 am

you ARE learning, Don!!!! that probably means you are also a god teacher... curious about things, and interested to share. those seem to be some interesting links I'll have to explore later. Bob..."uniformitarianisim" is what happens in between the catastrophes!!! science recognizes the fact of catastrophes...mof, that's how they explain the missing layers inside the Grand Canyon...the Great Unconformity...where eons of earth history were eroded away before more layers added on top. and as regards the recent revelation about Ardi, "she" was dated using catastrophes....the volcanic eruptions which laid down the datable layers in between which Ardi was found. and your statement that ...catastrophes have altered rates regularly even admits that there sometimes is "regularity" in catastrophic events....such as eruption of volcanoes creating the Hawaiian Island Archepelego whose geographic footprints traces toward the NW on a "regular" basis can be used to prove the radiometric and weathered age of their rocks since you love google so much, try this: "shiva hypothesis Rampino" and you might find that the universes biggest catastrophes might actually be somewhat regular... every 30-35 million years... and since Chixulub was 65 myo..... frighteningly, the "big one" is overdue!!! and there is NO DOME strong enuf to protect us.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 10-11-09 1:10 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#52 10-11-09 2:14 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#53 10-11-09 7:32 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#54 10-12-09 12:05 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#55 10-12-09 1:42 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#56 10-12-09 3:23 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#57 10-12-09 3:26 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#58 10-12-09 6:18 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#59 10-12-09 9:09 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#60 10-12-09 9:48 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#61 10-12-09 11:09 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#62 10-12-09 11:11 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#63 10-12-09 11:20 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#64 10-12-09 12:57 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#65 10-12-09 1:46 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#66 10-12-09 9:22 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#67 10-13-09 3:05 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#68 10-13-09 5:16 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#69 10-13-09 8:26 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

Board footer