The Canon

bob_2 · 10-13-09 2:56 am

JAG, you said: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Bob, So far Elaine has been able to prove her point by using only reputable and reliable sources. On the other hand, your position appears to me to be impossible to maintain - first you cling to a very peculiarly particular interpretation of the Bible - and take it dogmatically, and then asked for proof you can only quote fundamentalist, conservative apologetic sources. Unfortunately, to me this is totally unconvincing.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You sided with Elaine's view that what she picked up over her life from various forgotten sources, and that we would consider those as conclusive and resolving the current discussion. Don is trying to tell her how to document her comments when they are backed by sources. Her kids probably could show her that!! My point, we are not scholars or professors, maybe Don is the latter, but my point was, if we are going to study and debate these topics, a life time of various absorption of sources, and then supplying them in an adhoc manner, well, doesn't cut the mustard. Science has no beginning and it ends in dust and destruction with no hope put out for salvation, or anything of an afterlife, so to talk of using only scientific sources, maybe you and those that want scientific sources only, are on the wrong site, a more secular one might be the ticket. Here where God is discussed but eliminated from naturalistic sources, one does have to turn to transcendant sources, at least ones that permit God and His actions some part in the discussion. Otherwise, no beginnings, and no hope of eternity. I wouldn't want to waste my time on that. I'm willing to give science a lot of credit for the modern advances of medicine and other disciplines, but to, without sources diminish religion and it's contribution is just as arrogant or ignorant on your part to exclude that part of our knowledge base.

don · 10-13-09 4:18 am

Her kids probably could show her that!! In the realm of computers, probably grand children would be most true. I often turn to my young fellows for advice on computer matters. In the post earlier about dating dinosaurs with radiocarbon, <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=7200#POST7200" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=6&post=7200#POST7200</a> I was intrigued with how convincing the first post sounded until I had read some of the second post. It is hard to get to the bottom of a discussion because those who understand radiometric dating don't usually debate with people who challenge the whole system. As Adventists, we are fortunate that one of the foremost authorities on radiometric dating is among us and rather outspoken. Adventists believe that every church member can speak to the meaning in the Bible. Thus, Bible study, from a human point of view, is a matter of simple literary analysis. The scholar can enlighten us regarding matters of style and history. This kind of spills over into science. It is easy for us to think we know the necessary facts re: radiometric dating. I suggest, such thoughts are an illusion. Further, it is futile for us, as radiometric amateurs, to get to the bottom of the practical accuracy used in an AMS lab. The problem comes when people try to integrate the two disciplines. Radiometric data must be interpreted to provide information on origins. The believer acknowledges God as the originator and sustainer of the universe. The believers who consider Genesis 1-11 literal do so because they have chosen to trust the Bible as accurate history and God's Word. The choice is not a scientific choice. Rather, it is one of the inner soul hopefully after due consideration. The practice of keeping my lines of thought identified as scientific, Biblical, theological, OR historical, etc is quite new to me, but I am finding it quite essential. .

elaine · 10-13-09 10:17 am

Bob, I am well acquainted with documentation, having written all my graduate papers as well as thesis, these are mandatory. However, on an informal blog such as this, neither you nor I are writing such papers. Do you ask your tax accountant, your doctor, your mechanic to show you the papers documenting his knowledge? I hope not. If all of your comments are in the "cut" and "paste" format that you prefer, even when they are wikipedia or clearly apologist, then continue to do so. I will continue to write my opinions, and only when necessary to document sources.

elaine · 10-13-09 10:29 am

As Adventists, we are fortunate that one of the foremost authorities on radiometric dating is among us and rather outspoken. Who is that individual? Do all of the other world authorities on radiometric also agree with the Adventist science's position? Unless it agrees with their positions, I would not put too much credence, merely because of the religious position. Science should never be mixed with religion, IMO. I agree with Stephen Gould that they are two separate entitites and both become adulterated when an attempt is made to mix them. Science is an endless search for truth. Most religions declare that the have found the truth. Would you deny that this is the SDA position? That the first chapter of Genesis is a literal story? This is what the Fundamentals claim. If so, then there is no discussion, period. The beginning is described there regardless of what scientists may claim. I agree with you that attempting to integrate the two is specious and prostitutes both the Bible and science. I am confused by your statement that The problem comes when people try to integrate the two disciplines and yet choose the biblical story. How is that not cognitive dissonance? Is the Bible read as a scientific textbook or as a source of TIMELESS truths of how we should live? The many narratives told throughout the Hebrew Bible are surely not to be taken literally, are they? They are much like parables in describing man's behavior and the consequences of his acts. Radiometric was unknown to the ancients, and they wrote the Bible, not God. All of us perceive God differently, just as they did. Is human perception of God infallible? If so, then man is infallible, also. Surely, that is no one's belief. Few, unlike you, can compartmentalize science and the Bible. The official church does not seem to be capable.

don · 10-13-09 11:53 am

Who is that individual? <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=7195#POST7195" target="_blank">Ervin Taylor</a>; professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California. He studied under the leadership of <a href="http://www.english.ucla.edu/ucla1960s/6667/shonnard2.htm" target="_blank">Willard Libby</a>, the "inventor" of carbon dating and has served as the director of the university's radiometric lab. Most recently, Dr. Taylor's "research has focused on the 14C dating of bone as specifically applied to the dating of New World human skeletal materials in the context of controversies concerning the character and timing of the peopling of the Western Hemisphere. He was involved in early applications of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technology in 14C measurements of human bone." <a href="http://www.anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/emeritus/taylor/index.html" target="_blank">UCLA Profile for Dr. Taylor</a>. <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> After the discovery of the bones, the coroner requested that Chatters send 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>} Dr. Taylor "received the prestigious 2004 Fryxell Award for Interdisciplinary Research of the Society for American Archaeology. The award was given in recognition of the outstanding contributions in the development and application of radiocarbon dating in archaeological research. A symposium in his honor entitled 'A Time for Science' included papers presented by former students, colleagues, and collaborators. The Society for American Archaeology is an international organization dedicated to the research, interpretation, and protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas." <a href="http://www.fiatlux.ucr.edu/pdf/17.pdf" target=_top>http://www.fiatlux.ucr.edu/pdf/17.pdf</a> Dr. Taylor strongly supports "deep" time evolution. He remains active in matters of faith and is a gentle voice, persistent voice from the journal, Adventist Today. I think he integrates his religious views with his science more than I do. I am content to be a Biblical conservative and an inquiring observer of science. He is a well-known "Progressive Adventist" and considers Genesis' creation story of non-history. (Message edited by Don on October 13, 2009)

elaine · 10-13-09 12:25 pm

I thought you were referring to Dr. Taylor who regularly contributes to Adventist Today blog and magazine. His is one of the few SDA academics who speaks up for "deep time." Integrity is the coin of excellent academicians. If they can be "bought" by any challenge, they have lost what is most important.

bob_2 · 10-14-09 2:37 am

Elaine I think Don mentioned that Taylor states that Adventists believe in YLC and Old Rocks but not necessarily YEC for the "earth without form and void" that could have been around for a lot longer than "created life". Don correct me if I'm misquoting or not giving the correct jist of your remarks. The Taylor of AToday is the same Taylor that Don is speaking of. Deep time could be shown by "old rocks" but life could be "young" as Usher's chronology suggests and a literal reading of Genesis 1-11.

don · 10-14-09 4:12 am

Elaine I think Don mentioned that Taylor states that Adventists believe in YLC and Old Rocks but not necessarily YEC for the "earth without form and void" that could have been around for a lot longer than "created life". Yes, I believe that Taylor describes mainstream Adventism as YLC rather than YEC. As I look over his own assertions I conclude that he supports and "deep time" worldview for life on earth model. He does not offer his views on evolution. In 1994, Dr. Taylor wrote:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The dialogue currently under way in the Seventh-day Adventist Church concerning the Genesis creation narrative has understandably focused on the geologic time scale since it presents such a contrast: the "about 6,000 years" of Ellen White versus the billions of years of the geological record and hundreds of millions of years of the fossil record based on various isotopic geochronological techniques. However, it is not just the geological and fossil record that are at issue. The facts of the archaeological record—principally those of prehistoric times—are totally at variance with traditional Adventist understandings concerning the age of the earth and humankind upon it. In this discussion, I would like to briefly address the question of human "origins" from an archaeological perspective. There is one point that appears not to be at issue—our belief in a Creator. All in our community of faith would probably agree with the statement that the ultimate source of the universe and life within it is the God represented in the biblical narratives. For our church the problem is, What exactly is meant by "creationism"?... <a href="http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1994/novdec1994/articles/BeforeAdam.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1994/novdec 1994/articles/BeforeAdam.shtml</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>AND in 2008<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Evolution and the Adventist Dilemma: Part 6 For those who have read at least one segment of this series, it should not come as a surprise that the thesis being advanced is that it has been sufficiently demonstrated by several generations of researchers from a range of scientific disciplines that both this world and life on this planet is very, very old. This conclusion is based on multiple lines of evidence, almost all of which are completely divorced from and exclusive of arguments for or against the case for biological evolution. This thesis is being offered assuming that we are observers who wish to base our understandings and conclusions about the reality of "deep time" on the overwhelming preponderance of the scientific evidence. Clearly, this assumption does not hold for many individuals including several who have commented on earlier parts of this series. ... <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-6" target="_blank">http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-6</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on October 14, 2009)

elaine · 10-14-09 10:48 am

I enjoy reading Dr. Taylor's essays on AToday blog. How does a young earth creationist explain the "old rocks" containing fossils? Are the rocks old yet the fossils are young?

jag · 10-14-09 10:39 pm

Another interesting case was P Edgar Hare, who worked on developing a dating method based on analysis of amino acids. This was intended to prove that radiocarbon dating is flawed. To his surprise, Hare discovered that both methods agreed totally. That's how the great scientist started his long road to becoming an Adventist evolutionist. There is no other way if you want to remain an Adventist and yet are not prepared to ignore the evidence seen in nature. Bob - for your benefit here are a few sources: <a href="http://fogel.gl.ciw.edu/uploaded/documents/NLSum06GlObit%20Edgar%20HareED5-24-06.doc" target=_top>http://fogel.gl.ciw.edu/uploaded/documents/NLSum06 GlObit%20Edgar%20HareED5-24-06.doc</a> <a href="http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html" target=_top>http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.ht ml</a>

bob_2 · 10-14-09 11:41 pm

I have read too many articles about hoaxes and flaws to casually give up on my position of flawed dating. Don seems ready to, I am not as gullible as my brother, apparently. <a href="http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/creation_evolution/Ten_Major_Flaws_of_Evolution_-_Revised.shtml" target=_top>http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/creation_evolut ion/Ten_Major_Flaws_of_Evolution_-_Revised.shtml</a>

don · 10-15-09 12:59 am

I am not as gullible as my brother, apparently. How do you spell ad hominen? Ah, I just looked it up and it should be ad hominem. It is the practice of attacking a person's character, in this case gullibility, rather than answering to the argument. Today, in class, one of my students presented an ad hominem attack on another student. I stopped the discussion and wrote the misspelled "ad hominen" on the board and have been wondering about the spelling since. The practice of saying something less than charitable is common on these forums, but ill-advised for people who have decided to respect each other; as you and I have. I prefer avoiding statements about the person and deal with the facts re: radiocarbon dating and non-radiocarbon dating. Others of you reading this brief interaction between Bob and me, I prefer if you not comment on this sibling discussion. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> to casually give up on my position of flawed dating Your defense of Young Life Creationism is unwavering. This has helped our forum discussion. Look over my posts. Have I ever commented on the reliability of radiometric dating? I have provided information about Dr. Taylor and his views because his experience with radiocarbon dating is to be treasured along with his willingness to discuss matters. It is kind of like having an expert in the family. In our family, if I want to learn about hospital administration, I will call on you. On a medical matter, on another brother. On issues of science and molecular genetics, a different brother again. On finance and accounting, yet, another brother. I may not agree with them on matters within, or without, their field of experience. And, discussions where we are all amateurs would be most interesting. Don't confuse respect for one's experience as gullibility. I have reserved judgment on all matters of geochronology, but I am intrigued with the arguments; especially the non-radiometric dating ones. Like you, I can discount major assertions of radiometric dating, as an amateur. But, <ol><li>the comparison of tree rings to radiocarbon data is quite impressive. <LI>The annual "rings" in ice cores and the bilevel deposits (varves) of underwater sediments also add factual data hard to reconcile with a young earth.</li></ol> But, this information is very new to me and I am certainly not one who rushes to judgment on such matters; thus I avoid being easily deceived or cheated (gullible). <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> My respect for Dr. Taylor should not be translated as gullibly accepting his views on things. I think he has much to offer and I know that I have thousands of questions I want to ask. For the record, here is an exerpt from a previous post on my views re: dating methods:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Adventists believe that every church member can speak to the meaning in the Bible. Thus, Bible study, from a human point of view, is a matter of simple literary analysis. The scholar can enlighten us regarding matters of style and history. This kind of spills over into science. It is easy for us to think we know the necessary facts re: radiometric dating. I suggest, such thoughts are an illusion. Further, it is futile for us, as radiometric amateurs, to get to the bottom of the practical accuracy used in an AMS lab. The problem comes when people try to integrate the two disciplines. Radiometric data must be interpreted to provide information on origins. The believer acknowledges God as the originator and sustainer of the universe. The believers who consider Genesis 1-11 literal do so because they have chosen to trust the Bible as accurate history and God's Word. The choice is not a scientific choice. Rather, it is one of the inner soul hopefully after due consideration. The practice of keeping my lines of thought identified as scientific, Biblical, theological, OR historical, etc is quite new to me, but I am finding it quite essential.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on October 15, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-15-09 1:04 pm

well put, Don.... and Radek, thanks for the links... I went to school at the SDA Seminary in Collonges, France, way back in the 60's and was puzzled by fossil shells exposed by weathering 6000 feet above sea level on a mt top in the schools back yard.... one of my classmates was a Penny Hare.... who mentioned that her father was working on explaining just that..... I wonder what became of her and her father as regards the "truth". (Message edited by john8verse32 on October 15, 2009)

elaine · 10-15-09 1:06 pm

A sligt typo on the Hare obituary: it states he was born in 1993, I am sure it should be a century earlier. "A closed mind allows no new information to enter." Corollary: "An open mind should be like a sieve: Sort through new information and discard what it useless and retain what is good."

bob_2 · 10-15-09 5:22 pm

Look, I believe the earth without form and void could be over 3.5 billion years old. But life cannot be that old and if it is for evolutionary purposes, salvation is done away with. Jesus was not an evolutionary creature. PERIOD!!!! Respect for Taylor, OK, but thanks for the clarification, because Taylor has a job to preserve, not too unbiased, IMO.

elaine · 10-15-09 5:33 pm

Mea Culpa! Actually, Hare was born in 1933, so I was wrong, as was also the obit reporter.

elaine · 10-15-09 5:37 pm

Bob, how can the earth be 3.5 millions years old and not the rocks? If the rocks are young, why are the fossils within them so ancient? And if the rocks are old, the fossils indicate "death" which occurred approx. millions of years ago. Do you agree that the earth is old, but the rocks are much younger, created only a few thousand years ago? How can both those premises be right?

bob_2 · 10-15-09 5:48 pm

Look back at my posts on Polystrate Fossils. If a tree dated 3 million years old is laying across three or more stata of earth that is dated only several thousand years old, my mind easily sees it as a dating flaw. <a href="http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm" target=_top>http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees% 20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm</a> (Message edited by Bob_2 on October 15, 2009)

elaine · 10-15-09 8:28 pm

Bob I scanned through several of the topics on this site. Even, some were listed as proving the Genesis flood. Scientist's typically do not attempt to "prove" a very old belief but address findings with a sincere question and open mind to see the actual evidence. While some trees in the area reported, I didn't find that it included all trees in world-wide area. To adopt a theory about fossilized trees, it would have been more convincing had they sampled many disparate areas. To reiterate: scientists may find that what they believed in the past is completely overturned. Is that the same policy held by Creationists? Are they willing to adopt or change their theories with new evidence, or is it dismissed because it doesn't agree with the Bible story? If that is the a priori premise, then why not simply say that findings disagree with the Bible and that is the only one that counts.

bob_2 · 10-16-09 9:01 am

Elaine, you are attempting to prove that scientific views are held similarly to creationists views. I pointed to an example of a "hoax" and the ball is in your court to supply sources that discount or prove otherwise. You are speculating and suggesting science has the answer "somewhere". I don't accept that, especially since I am convinced the dating mechanisms are faulty and multiple tree rings, Don has not taken into account with his accuracy of comparison between tree rings and dating mechanisms.

don · 10-16-09 11:25 am

science has the answer "somewhere". Religion and theology come at life differently than the scientific process. In Biblical religion "truth" is presented. In the scientific process levels of "truth" are sought, theorized, and explained. Then, a new level of "truth" is hypothesized and investigated and so on and so on. Sometimes, what is thought to be a settled "truth" gets challenged by a new scientist and, if he is persuasive enough, he can get the scientific community to change their understanding of "truth". Biblical theology has statements of "truth" to examine. Science has a process and conclusions as part of an ongoing process. Adventist Biblical theology seems on a quest for truth, but the Biblical quest is different. As I study the sacred text, I get a new idea and then I try that new idea out on others who study the Bible. It is a literary/spiritual endeavor. The scientific process is an inquiry/empirical process. People, of course, pursue both Biblical theology and the scientific process. Many people tend to be "know it alls" or "dogmatic". I am not surprised to find religious people close minded regarding "established truth". But, I am surprised (though I shouldn't be) when I find that many scientists are also closed minded regarding scientifically "established truth". Ben Stein illustrates the problem in his movie, "Expelled". In a recent discussion with a science teacher friend, my friend told me that if labs know that you are a creationist they will not allow you to use their lab or testing equipment. So, scientists who want to investigate origins as creationists have to hide their motives. In this way, they can test their findings. If we think that the scientific process is open and friendly to outspoken anti-evolutionary thinking, we live in an imaginary world. Hasn't it all been settled? In the minds of the vast majority of scientists, perhaps. To the point where macroevolution is considered a "fact" of the scientific community. Now that "facts" are known, dogmatism re: those "established" facts is rampant in the "sacred" halls of science. A majority of scientists have quit doubting their evolutionary conclusions. But, there are some serious questions still unresolved. My science teacher friend has studied this and can quicly list the stuff he considers unresolved. (I plan to get more reportable concerns from him, don't have them yet.) Two come to mind: In Yellowstone? there are supposedly "millions of years" of sedimentation all up against a huge rock. This all occured underwater. Why has the rock not been effected by these "millions of years" of erosion? Another problem which seems quite profound is the one where DNA enzymes affect other enzymes which in turn control the original enzymes etc. He seems to understand the problem. I don't, yet. I have asked him to write down how he understands these things. Some of our posters here on atomorrow who study science perhaps can help, as well. (Message edited by Don on October 16, 2009)

john8verse32 · 10-16-09 1:52 pm

In Yellowstone? there are supposedly "millions of years" of sedimentation all up against a huge rock. This all occured underwater. do you have any reference? I've never heard of it... Yellowstone is a volcanic area...little to no sedimentary deposits are there at the surface...tho paleozoic rocks deep down are indicitive of early marine environments ...limestone....millions of years ago later sands and muds flowing in created sandstones and shales... but volcanic activity tops it all....compounded by glacial activity and erosion moving things around. the rocks after which YELLOWstone is named are volcanic in origin. <a href="http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfrbj/parks/yell/yellstrat.htm" target=_top>http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfrbj/parks/yell/yellstrat .htm</a> the real story of Yellowstone is the "regularity" with which it has erupted as the N. American continent slowly grinds its way westward over a proposed "hotspot" of magma deep underground.... <a href="http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/jan/Understanding-Why-Yellowstones-Supervolcano-Is-So-Dangerous-.html" target=_top>http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/j an/Understanding-Why-Yellowstones-Supervolcano-Is- So-Dangerous-.html</a> the eruptions have been dated occuring every 600,000 yrs or so, traceable along the Snake River back thru Idaho..the Columbia.... and its been 640,000 since the last one.... so the Big One is overdue!!! <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/interactive/interactive.html" target=_top>http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/ interactive/interactive.html</a> those fossil rhinos in the dakotas were killed by ashfall from Yellowstone...millions of years ago...friends at Union College could be next? <a href="http://www.travelsd.com/newsroom/pressreleases/industry.asp?id=708" target=_top>http://www.travelsd.com/newsroom/pressreleases/ind ustry.asp?id=708</a>

don · 10-16-09 6:09 pm

In Yellowstone? John, I guess my post before yours illustrates how I start to learn about something; slowly, all mixed up, and full of misinformation. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/sad.gif" ALT=":-(" BORDER=0> The next step(s) will include going back to my friend and get him to tell me (again), at my pace, what he knows. .

don · 10-17-09 7:56 pm

John posted: one of my classmates was a Penny Hare.... I wonder what became of her and her father as regards the "truth". John, the obituary link posted on this thread mentions two children of Peter Edgar Hare, Carol and Calvin. There is no mention of Penny. In the Adventist Archives the latest date for "Penny Hare" is 1965. She won a scholarship while living at Berrien Springs and attending academy. Your report of her in Colognes would be in the late 60's, perhaps 1968 or later. If she married, her name would change, of course. But, it is odd that she was not mentioned in the obit. Dr. Hare seems to have kept his connections with the church. Even after the 1968 GRI "meltdown", he presented an AUC lecture on the lunar samples he studied (1970). Then, much later he works for the church again (apparently part time while working at Carnegie); first at Home Study and then at Columbia Union College. Both Dr. Hare and his wife Patti served on the Adventist Today Advisory Council up to 2005. She continued to serve on it after he died. But, what became of Penny? .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#101 10-13-09 2:56 am

Re: The Canon

#102 10-13-09 4:18 am

Re: The Canon

#103 10-13-09 10:17 am

Re: The Canon

#104 10-13-09 10:29 am

Re: The Canon

#105 10-13-09 11:53 am

Re: The Canon

#106 10-13-09 12:25 pm

Re: The Canon

#107 10-14-09 2:37 am

Re: The Canon

#108 10-14-09 4:12 am

Re: The Canon

#109 10-14-09 10:48 am

Re: The Canon

#110 10-14-09 10:39 pm

Re: The Canon

#111 10-14-09 11:41 pm

Re: The Canon

#112 10-15-09 12:59 am

Re: The Canon

#113 10-15-09 1:04 pm

Re: The Canon

#114 10-15-09 1:06 pm

Re: The Canon

#115 10-15-09 5:22 pm

Re: The Canon

#116 10-15-09 5:33 pm

Re: The Canon

#117 10-15-09 5:37 pm

Re: The Canon

#118 10-15-09 5:48 pm

Re: The Canon

#119 10-15-09 8:28 pm

Re: The Canon

#120 10-16-09 9:01 am

Re: The Canon

#121 10-16-09 11:25 am

Re: The Canon

#122 10-16-09 1:52 pm

Re: The Canon

#123 10-16-09 6:09 pm

Re: The Canon

#124 10-17-09 7:56 pm

Re: The Canon

Board footer