Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guyver

Young Earth Creationism

108 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Guyver

Question: Is a young earth possible?

I was recently engaging in a debate/discussion with Young Earth Creationists. I was surprised to find that anyone would consider this view tenable in today’s modern world. Personally, I consider myself an “Old World” Creationist, not only because of my interpretations of scripture, but because of modern scientific advancements as well. Anyway, there are several arguments they made and others I’ve discovered in research. I’ll try to put some of their arguments out there as best I can.

1. Natural Clocks – some of the natural clocks include the size/diameter of the sun, the recession rate of the earth-moon system, dust accumulation on lunar surface, silt accumulation on the sea floor. Check this link for a complete version of the natural clock argument.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

2. Problems with Carbon Dating. I pasted this directly from a site where one particular researcher is speculating on the Neanderthals.

This dating test rests entirely on knowing exactly what the original ratio mix of C14 to C12 is or was. It is only accurate if the ratio is the same today as when the organism lived and remained constant during its life and its death up to the time of dating. If there had been less C14 in the atmosphere during its life than today it would have absorbed less and the ratio would read much lower giving it a much older false reading.

Evolutionists believe that there has been no change but experiments by Richard Lingenfelter, Hans Suess, V R Switzer and Professor Melvin Cook have shown that the C14 in the atmosphere is 'still' increasing at between 25 to 38% more than it is at present decaying. This indicates that the atmosphere because it has not yet reached saturation with C14 (saturation point is reached when the amount decaying as the same as that being formed) is either much younger than originally considered or at some earlier stage was protected from the present rate of cosmic particle bombardment and is still building up C14 to reach its saturation equilibrium point estimated to take some 30,000 years.

When calculating the equation back to the zero point of C14 in the atmosphere incorporating this 'greater build up to decay ratio' we get a starting date for the C14 build up in the atmosphere at only c10,000 years ago. This would drastically reduce the amount of C14 that was in the atmosphere and thereby absorbed by living organisms during their life times creating an artificially, much older dying date when using the presently calibrated C14 clock reading.

Scientists calculate Neanderthal disappeared some 32,500 years ago according to dating by C14, applying the erroneous assumption that C14 saturation has already been achieved. To arrive at a date of 32,500 years ago the C14 reading in the Neanderthal bones would have been c 2% of original ratio, giving a C14 clock reading of c 6 counts per second.

Reworking the date using the 10,000 year period of C14 build up and the 2% of original ratio ( 6, counts per second ) used in the evolutionists original calculation. Then if a Neanderthal had died say 4,400 years ago and the absorption of C14 into the atmosphere had only been going on for 5,600 years then at death the Neanderthal would only have absorbed 18.67% of the scientists anticipated full saturation amount of C14 (If absorption into the atmosphere started 10,000 years ago then 4,400 years ago absorption would have been in operation for 5,600 years, if saturation takes 30,000 years then 5,600 years would be 18.67% of 30,000 years). This would give a false calculation for the year of his death showing erroneously that he had been dead for 14,286 years at the time he died.

Reducing the ratio to the same 2% reading (6 counts per sec) as follows:

Plus 5,700 years

Plus 11,400 years

Plus 17,100 years

Plus 18,756 years only 9.34% C14 remains – at a 6 count reading

only 4.67% C14 remains – at a 6 count reading

only 2.34% C14 remains – at a 6 count reading

only 2.00% C14 remains – at a 6 count reading

3. Problems with the Fossil Record.

Another criticism is that the layers of strata used to date the fossil record are inconsistent throughout various regions in the world. Apparently the argument is that due to upheaval, tectonic activity, whatever forces, the layers of strata intermingled making correct timeline correlation dubious.

So what say you? Can you prove that a young earth is impossible, or is possible but unlikely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torgo

While I have a final exam to get to and cannot post a detailed response right now, this page http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html addresses many of these arguments and many others.

Every young earth creationist claim is either based on outright falsehoods, misinterpretations of data, or old data. Additionally, while there are currently some things about the universe and solar system we do not understand, they are no reason to invoke young earth creationism due to the mountains of evidence for the 4.56 billion year age of the Earth. Every little thing we do not understand cannot be twisted to suit whatever dogma you prefer.

The page does not cover the moon's tidal recession. I am insufficiently good at differential equations to calculate the total time the moon would have required to get to its current distance with the fact that tidal dissipation occurs with the inverse 6th power of distance. I do know, however, that tidal dissipation is several times its usual value at this epoch in earth's history. This is due to the layout of the continents - Africa/Eurasia and the Americas basically produce 2 north/south bands of land that go almost from pole to pole. The tidal bulges raised on the oceans experience a LOT of drag going around these things, are dragged around the planet more from the earth/moon line than usual as a result, and thereby drag the moon outwards faster than normal. The continents have been in a LOT of arrangements over geological time, and this one happens to cause a lot of tidal drag. It is not unusual that there is SOMETHING unusual about the current configuration - every configuration will do something odd. Pangeas for example cap off the flow of heat from inside and eventually lead to crazy hotspot volcanism in their centers.

Gotta go. Be back later.

Edited by Torgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I'm not scientist, but according to my knowledge, I understood that the age of the universe was pretty well established scientifically speaking. So, my argument against a young earth had to do with the fact that the age of the universe, in which earth is a subset is well established. This is considered a straw-man fallacy? OK, so leaving the age of the universe outside the discussion, is it possible to disprove young earth creationism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

Question: Is a young earth possible?

1. Natural Clocks – some of the natural clocks include the size/diameter of the sun, the recession rate of the earth-moon system, dust accumulation on lunar surface, silt accumulation on the sea floor. Check this link for a complete version of the natural clock argument.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

I wouldn't take anything that website says particularly seriously. Constantly referring to anyone who thinks the world is over 10,000 years old as an "evolutionist" is shorthand for "completely clueless on the subject".

And they are completely clueless.

Almost every single point on there shows a complete lack of scientific understanding, or very heavy bias. Its a site for creationists, by creationists.

No, there is no evidence for a young earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I wouldn't take anything that website says particularly seriously. Constantly referring to anyone who thinks the world is over 10,000 years old as an "evolutionist" is shorthand for "completely clueless on the subject".

And they are completely clueless.

Almost every single point on there shows a complete lack of scientific understanding, or very heavy bias. Its a site for creationists, by creationists.

No, there is no evidence for a young earth.

I'm on my third reading of that website now. They do use the term evolutionist as you say, but I don't think disparagingly, more as an identifier. But, I don't think it's so easy to do a summary rejection of those points. They have established quite a few points, some of them I haven't heard before. There's alot there to look at. To say that they're completely clueless would be inaccurate IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

I got one thing to say; "dragon bones"? If your talking about science and you want to be taken seriously you at least use scientific terms. This isn't science it is trying to make dogma fit some notion of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I got one thing to say; "dragon bones"? If your talking about science and you want to be taken seriously you at least use scientific terms. This isn't science it is trying to make dogma fit some notion of reality.

"Dragon" is the archaic term for dinosaur - you're right about that. But that in itself isn't a refutation of their position. Still, you make a good point. They could use modern terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

"Dragon" is the archaic term for dinosaur - you're right about that. But that in itself isn't a refutation of their position. Still, you make a good point. They could use modern terms.

No their complete ignorance of science altogether refutes their position. YEC takes an amazing level of wilful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Speaking of dragons, and this is mildly off-point here - but they use the historic "dragon" myths as well as the two or three animals mentioned in the Bible that appear to be dinosaurs as an indication that modern humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I already know that most people consider this scientifically impossible; but.....there are anamolous "fibrous tissue fossils" mentioned on that site, plus we know of the t-rex discovery more recently...

Additionally, according to evolutionary ideas the theropods supplanted the tetrapods as apex predators but there are examples of tetrapods today.

komodo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

No their complete ignorance of science altogether refutes their position. YEC takes an amazing level of wilful ignorance.

Not really. Just because they don't "think" like you do, or you do not like their language is not a successful refutation of their position.

Bumblebees suppossedly lack sufficient power/weight ratio for flight, yet we've all seen them buzzing around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChloeB

One thing I see that is questionable about this is that they are trying to build a case against the line dating back to mitochondrial Eve claiming that mtDNA isn't strictly maternal. As far as I can find, there has only been one documented case of this in humans, and it was linked to infertility. So I'm not seeing how they could be using a case of an infertile male to prove some paternal involvement of mtDNA to interfere with tracing a straight line back through the maternal line. Being infertile would eliminate a man from passing on anything to future generations so it seems to me they are defeating their own case trying to make something of this one and only case of it being known to happen. They, of course, leave that out here: http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

This is the actual study they are mentioning: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/8/576

I haven't had time to look at that study very close, but this is something that I did notice.

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randomhit10

so what is the prize for who is right?...and what difference will it make to the world?...it will only change the arguement to another form of disagreement and Godly vs godless will go on and on...those who believe will continue and those who don't believe will still not believe...

randomhit10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

One thing I see that is questionable about this is that they are trying to build a case against the line dating back to mitochondrial Eve claiming that mtDNA isn't strictly maternal. As far as I can find, there has only been one documented case of this in humans, and it was linked to infertility. So I'm not seeing how they could be using a case of an infertile male to prove some paternal involvement of mtDNA to interfere with tracing a straight line back through the maternal line. Being infertile would eliminate a man from passing on anything to future generations so it seems to me they are defeating their own case trying to make something of this one and only case of it being known to happen. They, of course, leave that out here: http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

This is the actual study they are mentioning: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/8/576

I haven't had time to look at that study very close, but this is something that I did notice.

I don't know enough about genetics to confirm or deny your criticism. But, I have one of my own. They say that the earth is most likely only around 10,000 years old, but one of their first scientific papers shows the earth-moon system to be 750 million years old. So which is it - young earth or medium earth? I'm still working on their other points, they have quite a few and some seem pretty solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Not really. Just because they don't "think" like you do, or you do not like their language is not a successful refutation of their position.

Bumblebees suppossedly lack sufficient power/weight ratio for flight, yet we've all seen them buzzing around.

Sorry mate, but that is not true, the flight mechanism for bumblebee's are well known.

The rest is simply not true, their claims are not only baseless but they go against all the available evidence.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Sorry mate, but that is not true, the flight mechanism for bumblebee's are well known.

The rest is simply not true, their claims are not only baseless but they go against all the available evidence.

Maybe your right about the bumblebee; that's not one of their points. I just threw that in for color and that was just heresay on my part. How would you refute the criticism regarding C14 and dating errors as mentioned as point #2 in the OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Maybe your right about the bumblebee; that's not one of their points. I just threw that in for color and that was just heresay on my part. How would you refute the criticism regarding C14 and dating errors as mentioned as point #2 in the OP?

I'd ask for a paper and what qualifies say a academic fraud creationist and metallurgist like Melvin Cook to make a good argument that seems to have been missed. C14 dating has been shown to be very accurate, as have other dating methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I'd ask for a paper and what qualifies say a academic fraud creationist and metallurgist like Melvin Cook to make a good argument that seems to have been missed. C14 dating has been shown to be very accurate, as have other dating methods.

It seems he agrees with you.......up to about 2-3 thousand years. After that, he saying that fluctuating levels of carbon in the atmosphere are going to impact the dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

This dating test rests entirely on knowing exactly what the original ratio mix of C14 to C12 is or was.

Tree rings can be dated to an exact year, often to within two or three weeks of the date a given cell was created. An oak calendar from Europe now reaches back 17,059 years. The University of Arizona has one for Wisconsin that reaches back 11,000 years. I have, on this computer, the White Mountain Chronology that reaches back to 5141 BC. By knowing the year the ring was laid down and applying the known rate of radiocarbon decay, we can calculate the exact carbon ratio at the time the ring was formed. Then we need only compare that with the measured ratio to determine the extent and direction of the error.

Tree rings have been used to double-check the accuracy of carbon dating and that is how the people you are quoting know that those inaccuracies exist. From numerous dates obtained using tree rings the means and standard errors of the carbon ratio have been calculated for each year going back into the Ice Age.

(Through tree-ring analysis the end of the Younger Dryas Cold Period, the official end of the Ice Age, has been dated to the year 9619 BC. That is the year the Holocene (sub-Boreal) began. And that makes a very good estimate for Creation. That far in the past, radio carbon dates are only accurate to +/- 330 years. FYI: the ancient Irish calendar sets the date for Creation at 5200 BC.)

In short, we know that the carbon ratio has changed over time and exactly what those changes were. Thus, we can easily correct for them.

Evolutionists believe that there has been no change

Flat out WRONG, as I have just expalined. Lingenfelter's experiment was already obsolete when he did it.

You listed a nice bunch of numbers, but the individual who wrote them made the same mistake he accuses evolutionists of making: assuming that a given rate remains fixed over time. Suppose his 38% acceleration in the carbon ratio actually changes with time (The tree-ring record says it does.). Last year it may have been lower, next year it may be higher. That alone demolishes his argument.

Another little detail: atomic testing. Tests in the atmosphere have screwed up the carbon ratio in horrific ways. Astronomical amounts of 14C were added to the atmosphere by those tests (Did your man forget to correct for that when he calculated his numbers?). Because of them, dates in the 1950s and 1960s are easy to identify because of the huge amount of 14C, but once enough time passes to bring 14C in the atmosphere down to ambient levels, there will be a large piece of time in the 20th, 21st, 22nd centuries and beyond where 14C is useless for dating. Fortunately, that time is still centuries away.

Carbon dating is currently considered unreliable beyond 40,000 years BP because the carbon ratios cannot be measured accurately enough to make the data useable. The University of Awkland in New Zealand has located a coastal swamp on the north side of South Island that has buried logs, some of which date back 60,000 years. A tree-ring chronology for that swamp is now in progress. When complete, it can be used to double-check carbon dates going back to 60,000 BP. That will result in the extension of carbon dating back a few more thousand years, but just how far, we don't know yet.

3. Problems with the Fossil Record.

Another criticism is that the layers of strata used to date the fossil record are inconsistent throughout various regions in the world. Apparently the argument is that due to upheaval, tectonic activity, whatever forces, the layers of strata intermingled making correct timeline correlation dubious.

In some places they don't even exist. Erosion has removed a lot of the record.

There's a bluff in Wyoming(?) where the strata are upside down (Older strata on top). It's part of the overthrust belt; as the two plates pushed together, some strata were pushed back, then overturned. Erosion removed the surrounding rock, leaving a bluff with upside down strata.

Dating is done using numerous methods. No one method is relied upon entirely. So, if you date tidal rhythmites you get one date. If you use geomagnetism, you get a similar date. If you use potassium-argon decay, you should get a similar date and if you use a fossil-sequence, you should get something in the same ball park. My daughter (a geologist) told me of a new technique that allows some strata laid down tens of millions of years ago to be dated with an accuracy that even tree-rings would find hard to match.

So what say you? Can you prove that a young earth is impossible, or is possible but unlikely?

That depends on how old the earth has to be before the designation of "young" is discarded.

If the earth is any less than 7149 years old, the White Mountain Chronology, which I have on this computer, wouldn't go back that far. If it is any less than 11,978 years old, the HOC and PPC chronologies likewise could not go back that far. And if it is any less than 17,059 years old, the European oak chronology couldn't go back that far.

If it is any less than a quarter-million years old, the GISP and GISP2 ice cores wouldn't be as long as they are.

If tidal rthymites (sedimentary rocks deposited under the influence of lunar gravity) are not hundreds of millions of years old, then the moon's orbit has changed and your sources need to explain how that happened.

If the earth's continents didin't take hundreds of millions of years to open the Atlantic, then the magnetism in rocks would not point to places thousands of miles away from the pole's current position.

In short, your Young Earth Creationists aren't even addressing most of the issues they need to to disprove the extreme age of the earth.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Bumblebees suppossedly lack sufficient power/weight ratio for flight, yet we've all seen them buzzing around.

Bumblebees can fly because they can move their wings, thus creating a miniature vortex that provides lift. The statement that they can't is based on obsolete science of fixed-wing aircraft. That's a trap YECs often fall into: using research that may be a hundred years or older; even the work that updated it has been updated, perhaps several times.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Maybe your right about the bumblebee; that's not one of their points. I just threw that in for color and that was just heresay on my part. How would you refute the criticism regarding C14 and dating errors as mentioned as point #2 in the OP?

Glad to see you're doing some studying, Guyver. I had written you off; looks like I may need to revise my opinion.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Tree rings can be dated to an exact year, often to within two or three weeks of the date a given cell was created. An oak calendar from Europe now reaches back 17,059 years. The University of Arizona has one for Wisconsin that reaches back 11,000 years. I have, on this computer, the White Mountain Chronology that reaches back to 5141 BC. By knowing the year the ring was laid down and applying the known rate of radiocarbon decay, we can calculate the exact carbon ratio at the time the ring was formed. Then we need only compare that with the measured ratio to determine the extent and direction of the error.

Tree rings have been used to double-check the accuracy of carbon dating and that is how the people you are quoting know that those inaccuracies exist. From numerous dates obtained using tree rings the means and standard errors of the carbon ratio have been calculated for each year going back into the Ice Age.

(Doug

Well, I'm actually glad to hear you respond Doug. I thought of you just before I got kicked off their site. I was going with your tree ring analysis arguments from earlier clashes you and I had, as well as Assyrian Cunneiform and it's predecessors. Anyway, I thought that Old Methuselah was the oldest tree in the world and it goes back 4,768 years.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF_Methuselah_The_Worlds_Oldest_Tree

They have stated that there are no fossilized trees showing ages in excess of 1700 years. Could you elaborate further on the "Oak Calendar" you mentioned that goes back 17000 years? What does oak calendar mean? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

so what is the prize for who is right?...and what difference will it make to the world?...it will only change the arguement to another form of disagreement and Godly vs godless will go on and on...those who believe will continue and those who don't believe will still not believe...

randomhit10

The prize is the truth. That's what I want - absolute truth. Seems it's hard to find in this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Well, I'm actually glad to hear you respond Doug. I thought of you just before I got kicked off their site. I was going with your tree ring analysis arguments from earlier clashes you and I had, as well as Assyrian Cunneiform and it's predecessors. Anyway, I thought that Old Methuselah was the oldest tree in the world and it goes back 4,768 years.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF_Methuselah_The_Worlds_Oldest_Tree

They have stated that there are no fossilized trees showing ages in excess of 1700 years. Could you elaborate further on the "Oak Calendar" you mentioned that goes back 17000 years? What does oak calendar mean? Thanks.

Pine Alpha is located in Methuselah Grove. It's the oldest LIVING tree in the White Mountain Chronology. There was one that was cut down to obtain rings for study; this was before they had cored it to learn how old it was. It turned out to be the oldest-known living tree at the time. Since then, old-growth trees are not cut down for tree-ring studies.

In the White Mountains, wood doesn't decay. The climate is too cold and dry for fungi. Pieces lie on the ground until they erode. Those pieces are collected and cross-dated with living trees to extend the calendar back in time. That's how the White Mountain Chronology was extended back to 5141 BC.

The Wisconsin chronology makes use of trees buried under glacial till during the Valders and Two Creeks glacial advances. The European oak chronology does the same thing, but includes wood preserved by the acid in bogs.

Tree ring calendars are made species-by-species. An oak calendar contains only oak trees. I work with shortleaf pines, so my calendars are shortleaf pine calendars. This is because different species react to the climate differently and cross-dating between species is not always possible.

NONE of the chronologies make use of fossilized wood - all of them are made with wood preserved in highly-acid and/or air-free conditions. My own are obtained from still-living trees. I have been tempted to approach the folks at Petrified Forest about doing a chronology there, but the result would be a free-floating series with no way to tie rings to specific years (Besides the expense of collecting and polishing dozens of petrified wood samples.). We could describe the climate, rainfall, temperature regime, etc. but wouldn't know exactly when it happened.

Pine Alpha may well be the oldest single-stemmed tree (Did somebody rename it?), but there is a creosote bush in the Mojave Desert that, based on size and rate of growth is about 15,000 years old. A huon pine in Indonesia with dozens of stems is estimated at about 10,000 years. Papyrus clones reach estimated ages of 5000 years (Moses' bulrushes might still be alive!). There is a still-living cypress in Libya that is about 4000 years old. Based on size and rate-of-growth, as aspen clone in Utah, known as the Pando clone, is about one million years old. The world's largest (and maybe oldest?) living thing is a fungus in Oregon that covers 80+ acres and weighs thousands of tons, but its age probably can't be determined (I'll see if I can dig up an article for you.).

In Oklahoma, our oldest living tree is an eastern red-cedar about 600 years old. Unfortunately, it has been lost. Not like that. The guys who found it and took a sample core, couldn't relocate it. So while we have a 600-year old tree, we don't know where it is.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Pine Alpha is located in Methuselah Grove. It's the oldest LIVING tree in the White Mountain Chronology. There was one that was cut down to obtain rings for study; this was before they had cored it to learn how old it was. It turned out to be the oldest-known living tree at the time. Since then, old-growth trees are not cut down for tree-ring studies.

In the White Mountains, wood doesn't decay. The climate is too cold and dry for fungi. Pieces lie on the ground until they erode. Those pieces are collected and cross-dated with living trees to extend the calendar back in time. That's how the White Mountain Chronology was extended back to 5141 BC.

The Wisconsin chronology makes use of trees buried under glacial till during the Valders and Two Creeks glacial advances. The European oak chronology does the same thing, but includes wood preserved by the acid in bogs.

Tree ring calendars are made species-by-species. An oak calendar contains only oak trees. I work with shortleaf pines, so my calendars are shortleaf pine calendars. This is because different species react to the climate differently and cross-dating between species is not always possible.

Doug

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure I still fully understand your 17000 years for oak calendar. I know that certain trees, like Redwood and Sequoias exist as "groves" meaning that their root systems are entwined and so, although they look like a dozen trees or so, they are really one organism. If one tree dies, another takes it's place. So, if the wood that you're finding preserved but not petrified is laying in a grove of other living trees, then that makes sense to me. But, we're still back to the oldest confirmed living tree being 4700 years old.

The other specimens that you mentioned are still living so determining age is a problem. The reason is that variations in environment, climate, moisture content, or humidity, etc. can affect growth rates. Also, it is possible for certain trees to produce more than one growth ring per year under certain conditions, right?

I guess an example of what I'm talking about would be the year with no summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

How would that effect tree ring growth? Or would it? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

The prize is the truth. That's what I want - absolute truth. Seems it's hard to find in this world.

But will you recognize it when you see it or dismiss it if it doesn't fit your beliefs??

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.