Scientific proof of flood.

notto · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
Realize however that as you linger, rejecting scientific evidence you will appear to be hypocritical adopting an emotional based belief system which is just what you have criticized YECs for.

Why do you reject all of the evidence we already have that these craters are not the result of a one time non random event? Because of your religious ideas.

By rejecting your ideas, I'm accepting the evidence we do have. You haven't provided ANY original evidence or ANY data to support your conclusions. You have religious beliefs that fly in the face of objective conclusions reached by geologists who have poured over the data, been to the sites, and compiled the website you keep referring to.

You also fail to address the situation in the detail needed and simply put forth one ad hoc explanation after the other to get around this. All the while, failing to provide any evidence or data to support your reasoning.

If accepting objective, well researched science makes me emotionally attached in your eyes then so be it. Just don't try to equate your half baked ideas, ad hoc reasoning, and denial of the actual data YOUR OWN SOURCE REFERENCES with science. You have your conclusion and you are doing everything you can to try to hold on to it in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Your cirucular reasoning doesn't make your approach scientific nor does your lack of evidence.

I reject your ideas because they are not science. Claiming that is hypocritical of me is laughable.

Now, how does your model plan to account for the things brought up here? How will you account for geological activity? Water based activity? Can you be certain that we have found the same percentage of actual sites that exist in all areas of the world? For you model to be valid, you would need to make this assumption. To do so would be unwarrented. Therefore, you model and mathematics (no mater what they show) are based on a flawed premise. If you can't see this, then you are really not approaching the problem objectively.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

duordi · Aug 22, 2005

Tomk80 said:
Before you begin, how do you account for the high past geological activity in Central and Southern Europe? Scandinavia (more specifically Sweden and Finland), which is where the highest number of meteor craters is located, has not been very geologically active in the past (not experienced mountain building and no vulcanoes) and has a low run-off due to water streams at present. On the other hand, Southern and Central Europe show a large degree of mountain building in the past (including many dormant vulcanoes) and large destruction of sediment layers due to large amounts of run-off.

You'll also need to take into account that the plates in Sweden and Finland are very old (precambrian), while those in Spain, Germany, France and Greece (well, all countries in Western/Southern Europe actually) are much younger (Tertiary in many places). This basically means that Finland and Sweden have been collecting craters for over 500 million years, while France, Spain and Greece have been collecting craters for less than 65 million years.

You'll need to take these things into account if you want to make an accurate model.

As you will read in the description of site selection this area was chosen because the concentrated meteor impact location is positioned at the areas of high geological activity to prove geological changes have not destroyed the crater evidence.

The dates you have given are incorrect as is proven by the evidence that the meteor strikes occurred as a common event.

The geological column theory can no longer be considered correct as the different strata containing the meteor impact record are all of identical age.

Radioactive dating which assumes there was time for certain trace elements to evaporate during strata formation or that the trace elements did not exist at the formation of the strata is a void assumption.

The trace elements measured only indicate the process of formation of each strata and how much of the trace elements escape and do not indicate a date.

The theories you have accepted for a life time are incorrect.

It is either an exciting time in history where new information and understanding is waiting to be explored.

Or a depressing time as you watch the slow death of an old theory that has been a friend a long time.

So are you going to stay in the 1900's or are you ready for the 20'th century?

Duane

Oops the 25th hypothetical meteor strike average attempt totals just came in ( 80,330 to 1 ).

It took 8 hours for the 25th to finish, onwards to the 26th.

Darn computers are just to slow, but I think I am going to call this election for the catastrophic party.

leccy · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
So are you going to stay in the 1900's or are you ready for the 20'th century?

Think I'll stick with the 21st Century if you don't mind.

notto · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
A

The dates you have given are incorrect as is proven by the evidence that the meteor strikes occurred as a common event.

You have proven no such thing. More circular logic.

The geological column theory can no longer be considered correct as the different strata containing the meteor impact record are all of identical age.

More circular logic. This is what you are trying to show, you can't use it as a premise. You have shown no such thing.

Radioactive dating which assumes there was time for certain trace elements to evaporate during strata formation or that the trace elements did not exist at the formation of the strata is a void assumption.

'evaporate'?

The trace elements measured only indicate the process of formation of each strata and how much of the trace elements escape and do not indicate a date.

They do when they are cross referenced with other methods of dating. Unless you plan to shoot down the entire process, the curren methods are valid, testable, and confirmable.

The theories you have accepted for a life time are incorrect.

Because they disagree with your religious beliefs? Funny, I though you were trying to do science here.

It is either an exciting time in history where new information and understanding is waiting to be explored.

But that won't be coming from your analysis since you ignore the data behind your picture.

Or a depressing time as you watch the slow death of an old theory that has been a friend a long time.

That must be how creationists felt 200 years ago when their ideas were falsified after being the accepted theory for quite awhile. Why try to resurrect an already falsified theory? Your chances of doing so are the same as convincing the scientific establishment that rats spring forth from rotting grain or that you can turn lead into gold by treating it with salt water.

So are you going to stay in the 1900's or are you ready for the 20'th century?

That's kind of funny coming from someone who is trying to find evidence for a theory that was falsified in the 1800's.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
It would indicate that meteors break up before impact on the moon also.

If it does not cluster then it would indicate that meteors do not breakup before impact.

So the only reason you reject the obvious conclusion is that it doesn't agree with your theories.

I am somewhat disappointed in you Notto, but I did not really expect you to turn your back on ideas you have held for a lifetime.

Realize however that as you linger, rejecting scientific evidence you will appear to be hypocritical adopting an emotional based belief system which is just what you have criticized YECs for.

We are not rejecting scientific evidence. Your analysis of the evidence is faulty for reasons that have been explained repeatedly.

Isnt it amazing that you are just as human as the ones you are criticizing.

Welcome to the club.

Duane

Let's see what the people who actually do the science say on the impact data base home page.
"It must be remembered that impact is a random process not only in space but also in time."

We have explained over and over why the distribution doesn't appear random. More craters have been discovered and documented in populated, well explored, geologically stable areas. Parts of Norway, Finland, Russia and Sweden are on the Baltic Shield.
"An area called the Baltic Shield (*) reaches from southern Norway to Sweden, Finland and a part of Russia (Kola Peninsula and Karelia district). It consists of stable block made in the Precambrian period (after the birth of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago to around 600 million years ago). Metamorphic rocks that some believe to be 3.5 billion years old and the world's oldest class were found in the Kola Peninsula. Since the Cambrian (from 580 million years ago to 510 million years ago) it has eroded without taking crustal changes, and has become flat. Then it came to have the geographic features similar to the Canadian Shield with many lakes that have been eroded by wind, rain and glaciers for many years. Many gigantic impact craters also remain in this area, as you can see in this 250 m resolution GLI image. Every crater of A - E became a lake. The following table shows the order and era each crater was created ".

The high concentration of impacts is found on an area with remarkable geologic stability that is also highly populated and well explored. There has also been a lot of drilling in the area for mineral and geothermal resources which has helped to confirm the craters.

As you will read in the description of site selection this area was chosen because the concentrated meteor impact location is positioned at the areas of high geological activity to prove geological changes have not destroyed the crater evidence.

So then you took out all the ones on the Baltic Shield in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Western Russia? Or did you? Did you take out all the ones on the Canadian Shield in Canada? How about those in the geologically stable area of Central Australia? Please show us your list.

Did you account for the fact that craters in Equatoral Africa, the Amazon, Greenland, Antartica, Northern Siberia Siberia and all of the oceans may exist but can't be confirmed? My distributions were only to show that a random distribution does not alway look random especially when there is collection bias in the data. You need to apply statistical tests to the distribution data to see if it is truely non random and not just try to reproduce the distribution. There is a reason that the people who do these studies have concluded the impacts are randomly distributed in time and space at least over the last 3.5 billion years. It is because they are. It is clear from the moon that there was a major bombardment of the inner solar system in a relatively short time period (~200 million years) about 3.8 billion years ago but evidence of those massive impacts (perhaps as many as 20,000 the size of Chicxulub or bigger) has been lost on earth due to plate tectonics as far as we can tell today.

If the well documented earth impacts in the database, which are almost certainly just a tiny fraction of the impacts that have actually occured during the history of the earth had occured all at once as you claim Noah and his floating zoo could not have survived either the bombardment or its aftermath. Your model falsifies itself.

FB

Tomk80 · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
As you will read in the description of site selection this area was chosen because the concentrated meteor impact location is positioned at the areas of high geological activity to prove geological changes have not destroyed the crater evidence.

The region you have chosen is Europe. The largest concentration of meteor changes is in Finland and Sweden, which is also the least geological active region in Europe. What you are stating above is false or my information is incorrect. So I would like you to support your supposition.

The dates you have given are incorrect as is proven by the evidence that the meteor strikes occurred as a common event.

Not if the event is random, which is what you are simulating.

The geological column theory can no longer be considered correct as the different strata containing the meteor impact record are all of identical age.

You want to simulate the theory that the impact is due to a random event, in which case the above (dating and impact record) cannot be said to be incorrect. So you will need to take conventional geology into account when simulating, otherwise your simulation is invalid from the get-go.

Radioactive dating which assumes there was time for certain trace elements to evaporate during strata formation or that the trace elements did not exist at the formation of the strata is a void assumption.

Unsupported assumption, especially in the light of the model you are testing. Remember, you are testing the model that the events are random.

The trace elements measured only indicate the process of formation of each strata and how much of the trace elements escape and do not indicate a date.

Read up on dating and it's assumption before drawing conclusion.

The theories you have accepted for a life time are incorrect.

They are not, and you ignoring information are not going to valid ways of showing that they are.

It is either an exciting time in history where new information and understanding is waiting to be explored.

Or a depressing time as you watch the slow death of an old theory that has been a friend a long time.

So are you going to stay in the 1900's or are you ready for the 20'th century?

Duane

Oops the 25th hypothetical meteor strike average attempt totals just came in ( 80,330 to 1 ).

It took 8 hours for the 25th to finish, onwards to the 26th.

Darn computers are just to slow, but I think I am going to call this election for the catastrophic party.

Maybe you should check your assumption again, just a hint. You continuously state that the sites with the largest concentration is the most geologically active and unless we are talking about very different sites, you are incorrect.

edited to add: is the region I encircled the region you are talking about?

edited to add more: it is interesting to see that the meteor craters actually largely follow the baltic shield, starting at the Eastern part of Norway, through Sweden and Finland and down through Poland toward the Ukraine. There is a second 'cluster' on the map (numbers 22, 25, 2, 31 and 35) which seems to be located right next to the southern border of the Baltic shield. Although the average yearly run-off is slightly higher here then in Finland and Sweden, it's still low on the scale.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 22, 2005

leccy said:
Think I'll stick with the 21st Century if you don't mind.

What is ironic is that believers in the global flood are stuck in the early 19th century scientifically since the flood was falsified by the mid 19th. The young earth was abandoned by the late 18th.

FB

duordi · Aug 22, 2005

notto said:
Why do you reject all of the evidence we already have that these craters are not the result of a one time non random event? Because of your religious ideas.

This is an emotional responce intended to assign incorrect motives to my person.

I attribute this response to your frustration at finding your ideas challenged.

notto said:
By rejecting your ideas, I'm accepting the evidence we do have. You haven't provided ANY original evidence or ANY data to support your conclusions. You have religious beliefs that fly in the face of objective conclusions reached by geologists who have poured over the data, been to the sites, and compiled the website you keep referring to.

I know I have broke the rule "do not think anything that upsets the accepted norm".

I can't help it, it just kind of happens to me.

notto said:
You also fail to address the situation in the detail needed and simply put forth one ad hoc explanation after the other to get around this. All the while, failing to provide any evidence or data to support your reasoning.

I expected this one,.. you won't accept anything that does not have a few million dollar grant right.

That way it can be "corrected" before someone finds out about it.

Darn this internet, its just so hard to control what everyone is thinking when they have access to the information themselves.

notto said:
If accepting objective, well researched science makes me emotionally attached in your eyes then so be it. Just don't try to equate your half baked ideas, ad hoc reasoning, and denial of the actual data YOUR OWN SOURCE REFERENCES with science. You have your conclusion and you are doing everything you can to try to hold on to it in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

One change and I would agree.

Accepting old 19th century objective,...

Actually "half baked" is a good description of my work as I am only on 25 hypothetical meteors at ( 80330 to 1 ) and I must reach 35 to be complete.

notto said:
Your cirucular reasoning doesn't make your approach scientific nor does your lack of evidence.

To have circular reasoning I must prove something I assumed to be true already.

I made not assumptions about dating at the inception of this process so conclusions about dates can not be circular reasoning.

notto said:
I reject your ideas because they are not science. Claiming that is hypocritical of me is laughable.

Somebody is laughing, but I will not as I know this must be hard for you.

notto said:
Now, how does your model plan to account for the things brought up here? How will you account for geological activity?

The meteor concentration is at the most geologically active area of the location.

notto said:
Water based activity?

The meteor concentration is partially in a water filled area.

notto said:
Can you be certain that we have found the same percentage of actual sites that exist in all areas of the world?

The model only used Europe and craters with a diameter less then 1 KM are not considered..

notto said:
For you model to be valid, you would need to make this assumption. To do so would be unwarrented. Therefore, you model and mathematics (no mater what they show) are based on a flawed premise. If you can't see this, then you are really not approaching the problem objectively.

You didnt read the post all the way through did you.

notto said:
Garbage in, Garbage out.

And of course a final attack on my abilities and motives.

Not to worry, I will not take offence as you digest this new information.

I of course expected this critique and selected my experimental location accordingly.

Duane

LittleNipper · Aug 22, 2005

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
What is ironic is that believers in the global flood are stuck in the early 19th century scientifically since the flood was falsified by the mid 19th. The young earth was abandoned by the late 18th.

FB

This is a very arrogant thing to say! There was not the technology for indepth scientific study and evaluation that we have today. It is presently possible to reinvestigate every aspect of Evolution and Flood Catastrophism anew from angles scholars of the 19th century could not even imagine. We can NOW do computer mock-ups and run statistical information that would have made Darwin wince. You have been living in Wonderland too long. It is time you returned to reality. Darwinism was founded in 19th century humanistic logic and was promoted by men using antique methods. YOU are sill living in the past. Creationism is riding on the crest of new technological research and not sitting on the faded laurels of yesterday...

rmwilliamsll · Aug 22, 2005

LittleNipper said:
This is a very arrogant thing to say! There was not the technology for indepth scientific study and evaluation that we have today. It is presently possible to reinvestigate every aspect of Evolution and Flood Catastrophism anew from angles scholars of the 19th century could not even imagine. We can NOW do computer mock-ups and run statistical information that would have made Darwin wince. You have been living in Wonderland too long. It is time you returned to reality. Darwinism was founded in 19th century humanistic logic and was promoted by men using antique methods. YOU are sill living in the past. Creationism is riding on the crest of new technological research and not sitting on the faded laurels of yesterday...

be specific
name one antique idea from your choice of sciences, that Creationism while riding on its crest, debunked and refuted.
if you'd like to, show one piece of Creationism data that shows the earth to be less than 10k years old.
either one would make me a YEC as soon as i was persuaded you were on to something.
so go for it, rather than these sweeping generalities present 1 piece of substance we can talk about.

...

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 22, 2005

LittleNipper said:
This is a very arrogant thing to say! There was not the technology for indepth scientific study and evaluation that we have today. It is presently possible to reinvestigate every aspect of Evolution and Flood Catastrophism anew from angles scholars of the 19th century could not even imagine. We can NOW do computer mock-ups and run statistical information that would have made Darwin wince. You have been living in Wonderland too long. It is time you returned to reality. Darwinism was founded in 19th century humanistic logic and was promoted by men using antique methods. YOU are sill living in the past. Creationism is riding on the crest of new technological research and not sitting on the faded laurels of yesterday...

You are engaging in the the fallacy of the false dichotomy again. The young earth was rejected by Bible believing scientists long before Darwin published anything. The final falsification of the global flood was provided by Agassiz who never accepted "Darwinism". Modern science has shown that the Bible believing geologists who collected the data that falsified their original beliefs were correct to reject their original hypothesis. There is less chance of the global flood making a return as a scientific explanation for the world's geology than there is of the return of phlogiston theory as an explanation of combustion.

FB

notto · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
The model only used Europe and craters with a diameter less then 1 KM are not considered..

If you plan on proving that the meteor's are not random, you would need to show that we have discovered and researched a consistent percentage of actual meteor strikes world wide.

You cannot prove that we have discovered 75% of the actual ones in Europe and also conclude that we have discovered 75% of the rest world wide or even in any particular area of Europe. Your claim would need to have this type of conclusion to be valid. You are basing your possible conclusions on a faulty premise.

The search and confirmation of these meteors is not done in a methodological way combing every inch looking for them. To show that they are non random, you would need to know what percentage we have found out of actual and that the distribution of the ones we have found is consistent with the distribution of actual events.

You can't do that so your model is invalid.

Of course there are other reasons your model is invalid that you have failed to adequately address but those have been addressed by others.

duordi · Aug 22, 2005

notto said:
If you plan on proving that the meteor's are not random, you would need to show that we have discovered and researched a consistent percentage of actual meteor strikes world wide.

Why should I make it harder then it is.

Europe is big enough.

notto said:
You cannot prove that we have discovered 75% of the actual ones in Europe and also conclude that we have discovered 75% of the rest world wide or even in any particular area of Europe. Your claim would need to have this type of conclusion to be valid. You are basing your possible conclusions on a faulty premise.

All that needs to be proven is that there has been a consistent search to use data from an area.

notto said:
The search and confirmation of these meteors is not done in a methodological way combing every inch looking for them. To show that they are non random, you would need to know what percentage we have found out of actual and that the distribution of the ones we have found is consistent with the distribution of actual events.

And you would have to prove that no one looked in vast areas but searched very well in others.

notto said:
You can't do that so your model is invalid.

It almost sounds as if you want me to fail.

You resist new ideas so fervently.

Have you ever considered if you are wrong about anything, you will never be able to accept it?

notto said:
Of course there are other reasons your model is invalid that you have failed to adequately address but those have been addressed by others.

I am satisfied with the results.

I did not actually expect you to accept it regardless of the content.

It would take to much change on your part.

Change in thinking must happen a little bit at a time.

I have no problem watching as the attempts to find the "missing meteors" is undertaken.

By the way be sure to check my responses to the "points addressed by others."

I would not want you to miss anything.

I know you have integrity, that is why this process is so difficult for you.

Duane

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
Why should I make it harder then it is.

Europe is big enough.

All that needs to be proven is that there has been a consistent search to use data from an area.

And you would have to prove that no one looked in vast areas but searched very well in others.

It almost sounds as if you want me to fail.

You resist new ideas so fervently.

Have you ever considered if you are wrong about anything, you will never be able to accept it?

I am satisfied with the results.

I did not actually expect you to accept it regardless of the content.

It would take to much change on your part.

Change in thinking must happen a little bit at a time.

I have no problem watching as the attempts to find the "missing meteors" is undertaken.

By the way be sure to check my responses to the "points addressed by others."

I would not want you to miss anything.

I know you have integrity, that is why this process is so difficult for you.

Duane

Did you take into account the differing geological stability in the different parts of Europe, especially the extreme stability of the Baltic Shield compared to the high geological activity in regions of mountain building such as the Alps. If not your model is totally invalid. Do you know how to calculate whether a distribution is random or not at and what level of significance a distribution varies from random? This is the approach you should be taking after you account for differences in geological stability if you want to do something that actually makes a scientific point.

FB

duordi · Aug 22, 2005

There are several good question in this post.
1. The Baltic Shield is an area that has had all strata removed to the bed rock which was of course caused by the high density of the meteor strikes in the area.

2. Let us just look at the exposed bedrock areas of the Baltic Shield and see if the meteor strikes just in this area are spread or densely packed.

Please see the attached picture.

The commonly accepted dating systems are of course imposed but the indication of where the bedrock is exposed is easily seen.

There are 23 strikes shown by large black dots.

They of course correspond to the original meteor strike locations at this site.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html

Notice how the strikes are collected in the lower half of the area.

Notice also how the strikes also exist in some of the upper strata and not just in the lower strata.
This indicates that a strike in the lower strata is not necessary to preserve the strike record as you had suggested.

I can repeat the probability model by causing any areas designated I wish to reject the random placement forcing the meteor placement to only be in allowed areas which contain bedrock.

It would be a useless effort as it is obvious that the meteors are in the lower half of the bedrock area and the meteor count is high enough to prove this is not a random condition.

If indeed the Baltic Shield has collected the meteor strikes and kept them intact why does only the lower half of the Baltic Shield have meteor strikes to record while the upper half has none but is made of the same strata and material types?

The solution is easy.

An single event with multiple meteor strikes caused a non-random record.

The dates derived and accepted by the current scientific community are incorrect.

The geological column theory is also incorrect.

The event caused the ice ages in recent history.

A world flood is probable.

Hay, dont get upset after all you were the one who brought up Noah.

Have a nice day.

Duane

duordi · Aug 22, 2005

Tomk80 said:
Before you begin, how do you account for the high past geological activity in Central and Southern Europe? Scandinavia (more specifically Sweden and Finland), which is where the highest number of meteor craters is located, has not been very geologically active in the past (not experienced mountain building and no vulcanoes) and has a low run-off due to water streams at present. On the other hand, Southern and Central Europe show a large degree of mountain building in the past (including many dormant vulcanoes) and large destruction of sediment layers due to large amounts of run-off.

You'll also need to take into account that the plates in Sweden and Finland are very old (precambrian), while those in Spain, Germany, France and Greece (well, all countries in Western/Southern Europe actually) are much younger (Tertiary in many places). This basically means that Finland and Sweden have been collecting craters for over 500 million years, while France, Spain and Greece have been collecting craters for less than 65 million years.

You'll need to take these things into account if you want to make an accurate model.

See the post I gave to Frumious Bandersnatch below as I attempted to answer some of your questions there.
I of course would not agree with your date assumptions as the material presented proves they are incorrect.

Duane

duordi · Aug 22, 2005

Tomk80 said:
The region you have chosen is Europe. The largest concentration of meteor changes is in Finland and Sweden, which is also the least geological active region in Europe. What you are stating above is false or my information is incorrect. So I would like you to support your supposition.

Not if the event is random, which is what you are simulating.

You want to simulate the theory that the impact is due to a random event, in which case the above (dating and impact record) cannot be said to be incorrect. So you will need to take conventional geology into account when simulating, otherwise your simulation is invalid from the get-go.

Unsupported assumption, especially in the light of the model you are testing. Remember, you are testing the model that the events are random.

Read up on dating and it's assumption before drawing conclusion.

They are not, and you ignoring information are not going to valid ways of showing that they are.

Maybe you should check your assumption again, just a hint. You continuously state that the sites with the largest concentration is the most geologically active and unless we are talking about very different sites, you are incorrect.

edited to add: is the region I encircled the region you are talking about?

edited to add more: it is interesting to see that the meteor craters actually largely follow the baltic shield, starting at the Eastern part of Norway, through Sweden and Finland and down through Poland toward the Ukraine. There is a second 'cluster' on the map (numbers 22, 25, 2, 31 and 35) which seems to be located right next to the southern border of the Baltic shield. Although the average yearly run-off is slightly higher here then in Finland and Sweden, it's still low on the scale.

I believe I have answered most of this a few posts down.

You had some good points except the Baltic Shield if defined by the strata extends northward causing a concentration of strikes in one portion of the Baltic Shield.

Duane

notto · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
Why should I make it harder then it is.

Because it would make your model valid when under your current conditions it is not. Without being able to make a statistical determination of how the found meteor sites relate to the actual meteor sites, you have no idea if you results will be valid or not. Not that it matters to you. You have already tossed out the data behind your graph in favor of your preconceived religious beliefs.

notto · Aug 22, 2005

duordi said:
There are 23 strikes shown by large black dots.

They of course correspond to the original meteor strike locations at this site.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html

Notice how the strikes are collected in the lower half of the area.

Can you be certain that the northern area has been searched as well as the southern?

It is interesting to note that the density of found strikes correlates to the population density of the area. I wonder why that is?

duordi · Aug 23, 2005

So there should be strikes here.

See attachment and
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html

Scientific proof of flood.

Legend

Senior Member

Active Member

Legend

Contributor

Titleless

Attachments

Contributor

Senior Member

Contributor

avid reader

Contributor

Legend

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Attachments

Senior Member

Senior Member

Legend

Legend

Senior Member

Attachments

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency