Jump to content


Photo

Requesting Help From Old Universe Believers


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#41 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:32 AM

The problem is that accelerated decay via plasma in stars of material on earth would only be possible in a old universe which is what the idea of acclerated decay is attempting to counter.


LOL! I wonder if the guys in the Ukraine and Sandia Labs are operating in some sort of parallel, old universe! See prior post. Miles is another poor soul who has his dial stuck on PBS's Science Friday, you know, the program that parodies our Real Science Friday show. There is a cure for your bad science beliefs, change the dial! :acigar:

Fred

#42 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 23 March 2012 - 05:52 PM

The problem is that accelerated decay via plasma in stars of material on earth would only be possible in a old universe which is what the idea of acclerated decay is attempting to counter. If the universe were young you couldn't use the idea of stars causing accelerated decay so you're stuck either way.


What I am saying is that if you claim all the radioactive material on the earth came from star dust, then your radiometric dating is already on rocky ground, so the theory defeats itself. Thanks for playing along.

The solar rate change is almost certainly an artifact of comparing 30 year old data from multiple studies that used different equipment. More recent attempts to see if neutrinos (pretty much the only way the sun could change decay rates) had any effect showed no change. Recent attempts to test a correlation between the sun and radioactive decay have also shown no measurable effect. http://donuts.berkel...rs/EarthSun.pdf


Fair enough, I know that not every scientific hypothesis will turn out to be true.

We don't need to know everything to know something. Don't you think we can have a reasonable degree of certainty without perfect knowledge?


For some things, yes, but then when we build a tower out of assumptions, it is quite easy for our tower to come toppling down.

Do you think there's any historical revelation or evidence that points to the earth staring out as a micro-ball of superdense superhot plasma?


No, as I stated in the first post I mentioned the plasmoid theory, it is purely speculation based on the historical evidence not ruling it out explicitly. As Fred pointed out there is a large amount of electricity generated during earthquakes which cause plasma states. This would actually be a much better and more naturalistically observable explanation.

What's wrong with plausible answers?


Nothing, the emphasis was on the idea that the foundation of your claim, naturalism, is an unprovable philosophy.


I was treating the earth as starting out solid, which I felt was more realistic than the idea of it starting out as a ball of plasma. A plasma earth is questionable from both a scientific and biblical standpoint.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

Plasma is generally not recognizeable as anything even remotely like water.


I was focusing more on "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now that you mention it, yes you are right. Good thing I no longer need that flawed hypothesis to be true...

However, miracles make it impossible to disprove any idea including this plasmoid concept.



True, but miracles frustrating scientists from being able to fully describe history and origins has no bearing on whether God exists, and whether miracles can happen. No we actually have objective proof of God and His miracles. The one thing I am not clear on is whether or not all miracles leave behind some naturalistic evidence. It would make sense that they do, but we would need special revelation to be able to properly interpret that data. It's a good thing God gave us such special revelation.

#43 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 23 March 2012 - 09:31 PM

No, as I stated in the first post I mentioned the plasmoid theory, it is purely speculation based on the historical evidence not ruling it out explicitly. As Fred pointed out there is a large amount of electricity generated during earthquakes which cause plasma states. This would actually be a much better and more naturalistically observable explanation.

It's pretty easy to show that earthquakes and lightning don't work as Fred suggested. Here's a couple ways that idea is wrong.

Problem 1:
The type of accelerated decay proposed requires the atoms to be fully ionized.
The energy required to fully ionize a heavy atom like osmium will also fully ionize lighter atoms.
Fully ionized atoms cannot form molecules (no electrons to share or create bonds)
If an earthquake or lightning bolt could fully ionize osmium, all the molecular substances made of elements lighter than osmium (aka rock, soil, water, animals, etc.) exposed to the earthquake or lightning bolt would be rendered into their constituent atoms.
Since earthquakes and lightning do not cause large portions of the earth to vaporize into atomic gas we can conclude they do not produce osmium plasma and do not accelerate osmium decay.

Problem 2:
Fault lines and high lightning areas do not appear to be any more or less radioactive than non-earthquake and non-lightning prone areas.

Problem 3:
The temperatures involved in ionizing osmium are on the order of 600 million degrees. Lightning and earthquakes don't come close to that temp. Subjecting large portions of the earth to that temperature would end all life on earth.
http://www.gsi.de/do...03-Jun-21-4.pdf (temp found on last page)

Problem 4:
5 billion years of radioactive decay consolidated into one year would release enough heat to at minimum boil most of the oceans. Noah would not have survived.

Problem 5:
Meteorites and moon rocks show the same dates as earth rocks despite not being subject to a global flood. Earthquakes and lightning don't occur on meteorites so their dates couldn't have been accelerated that way. Lightning doesn't occur on the moon so there's no reason for the dates to match between earth and the moon.

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:33 AM

It's pretty easy to show that earthquakes and lightning don't work as Fred suggested. Here's a couple ways that idea is wrong.

Problem 1:
The type of accelerated decay proposed requires the atoms to be fully ionized.
The energy required to fully ionize a heavy atom like osmium will also fully ionize lighter atoms.
Fully ionized atoms cannot form molecules (no electrons to share or create bonds)
If an earthquake or lightning bolt could fully ionize osmium, all the molecular substances made of elements lighter than osmium (aka rock, soil, water, animals, etc.) exposed to the earthquake or lightning bolt would be rendered into their constituent atoms.
Since earthquakes and lightning do not cause large portions of the earth to vaporize into atomic gas we can conclude they do not produce osmium plasma and do not accelerate osmium decay.

Problem 2:
Fault lines and high lightning areas do not appear to be any more or less radioactive than non-earthquake and non-lightning prone areas.

Problem 3:
The temperatures involved in ionizing osmium are on the order of 600 million degrees. Lightning and earthquakes don't come close to that temp. Subjecting large portions of the earth to that temperature would end all life on earth.
http://www.gsi.de/do...03-Jun-21-4.pdf (temp found on last page)

Problem 4:
5 billion years of radioactive decay consolidated into one year would release enough heat to at minimum boil most of the oceans. Noah would not have survived.

Problem 5:
Meteorites and moon rocks show the same dates as earth rocks despite not being subject to a global flood. Earthquakes and lightning don't occur on meteorites so their dates couldn't have been accelerated that way. Lightning doesn't occur on the moon so there's no reason for the dates to match between earth and the moon.


These are my ideas, just ideas

1. All the elements that are used for radioactive measuring of millions of years are metals.. Metals have a higher affinity for electricity, thus are more likely to be ionised first before the other elements...

2. The global flood is claimed to be global and to cause the pressures required for this to occur.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5034&pid=82275&st=0&#entry82275

However perhaps that should be an area of study I am sure no-one has studied that before.

3. As is said in the link labs have been able to create all the elements and their radioactive states via electricity, I would assume that electricity being used would reduce the amount of heat required.

4. How would you have "5 billions years of decay"... How is this quantified.. Remember a half life is dependent on the initial amount of the element.

5. This is also covered in the link.

#45 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:04 PM

These are my ideas, just ideas

1. All the elements that are used for radioactive measuring of millions of years are metals.. Metals have a higher affinity for electricity, thus are more likely to be ionised first before the other elements...

That's not how metallicity or ionization works. Conductivity of metals is mostly a factor of the electron behavior in the outer uncompleted orbitals. Remember we are discussing removing all the electrons, not just the valence (outer layer) electrons. Once you strip the valence electrons, the leftover completed orbitals are extremely stable and similar to a noble gas configuration.
You may want to look up ionization energy. The more protons an atom has in it's nucleus the tighter it holds on to any given electron. A hydrogen atom takes 1312 kJ/mol to remove it's S1 electron. The same electron in a oxygen atom (non-metal) takes 84,078 kJ/mol to remove. The same electron in a potassium atom (metal) takes 476,061 kJ/mol to remove. Metalicity doesn't change the fact that it takes an enormous amount of energy to break apart completed orbitals, nor does it change the fact that the energy needed to fully strip all the electrons from rhenium would be enough to fully strip the electrons of any lighter atoms as well.

You can look at ionization energies here. For large atoms they only list the first couple energies.
http://www.webelemen...dium/atoms.html

2. The global flood is claimed to be global and to cause the pressures required for this to occur.

http://www.evolution...t=0

However perhaps that should be an area of study I am sure no-one has studied that before.

There are plenty of maps of radiation levels around the world, you could also use cancer rate maps as a crude proxy for radiation levels. Neither show any unusual peaks or dips around fault lines. A possible exception would be cases where radon gas is released from underground.
http://www.blackcats...RadMap/map.html

You can get a geiger counter and a piece of granite relatively cheaply if you want to test the idea yourself. Hit or apply pressure to the granite, see if the geiger counter clicks any more or less than normal.

3. As is said in the link labs have been able to create all the elements and their radioactive states via electricity, I would assume that electricity being used would reduce the amount of heat required.

An electronvolt is the energy gained by an electron as it moves across a potential of 1 volt. Electronvolts and temperature are equivalent when discussing particle physics. If you are using high voltage on atoms to energize electrons you are raising their temperature.
The field of plasma physics deals with phenomena of electromagnetic nature that involve very high temperatures. It is customary to express temperature in electronvolts (eV) or kiloelectronvolts (keV), where 1 eV = 11605K

I feel I should also point out that there's no mention of the amount of current produced by earthquakes in the links you've provided. High voltage by itself is easy to produce (walk across a carpet on a dry day and you can build a charge of thousands of volts, Tesla coils can produce sparks of over a million volts). Labs use high voltage and high current in fusion "pinch" experiments like those that have been mentioned because voltage by itself won't cause fusion

4. How would you have "5 billions years of decay"... How is this quantified.. Remember a half life is dependent on the initial amount of the element.

The whole reason creationists argue for accelerated decay is because they acknowledge the need to account for billions of years of radioactive decay.
Isochron dating is independent of the initial amount. Other forms of radiometric dating rely on the chemical properties of the parent and daughter products to determine what events cause resets of the clocks. For example if the daughter product has a low vaporization point compared to the parent it will escape as gas when the containing rock melts while the parent will remain, this sets the initial daughter amount to zero or close to zero and means that any dating will show time since last melt. Uranium-lead dating relies on certain minerals being strongly exclusionary to the daughter product during crystallization, meaning most or all of the daughter product found inside these minerals will have been produced after the minerals formation.

5. This is also covered in the link.

The link suggests that all comets and meteorites originally came from earth. The problem is that the orbits of many of these objects are incompatible with originating from earth. For example, long period comets will travel much further from the earth/sun than the proposed initial speeds would allow. There's also still the problem of the moon having old dates. Since the bible says that the "lesser light" was created prior to the flood you can't say that the flood produced the moon. Since quartz isn't a major component of the moon's crust you can't use piezoelectric moonquakes to accelerate the dating there. Lightning doesn't exist on the moon either.

#46 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:19 PM

The magnetic field is decaying with a half life of 1.400 years? That's a bold statement. I'd love to see the science behind that. Knowing that even today, we don't know all that much about our magnetic field, and that the book is 30 years old, I'm having a lot of trouble believing it tbh.

Has there been any progress on that variable the last 30 years? Any idea how much that variable varies? I've read that there are variations of 3% (but without sources) which would mean that C-14 dating is wrong by 3%. That is acceptable imo.



The field has decreased 10% over the last 200 years. So, it would make carbon dating wrong by 10% for organic matter of that age, but what about 2,000 years ago? Are you still going to say 3% is acceptable?

"Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then."

The Earths Magnetic Field Is young


The author of the paper is the scientist that predicted the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus two years before they were measured and also the diffusivity rates of helium in zircons, so he is one of the leading scientists in the field.


Enjoy.

#47 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:02 AM

The link suggests that all comets and meteorites originally came from earth. The problem is that the orbits of many of these objects are incompatible with originating from earth. For example, long period comets will travel much further from the earth/sun than the proposed initial speeds would allow. There's also still the problem of the moon having old dates. Since the bible says that the "lesser light" was created prior to the flood you can't say that the flood produced the moon. Since quartz isn't a major component of the moon's crust you can't use piezoelectric moonquakes to accelerate the dating there. Lightning doesn't exist on the moon either


No, but temperatures hot enough to vaporize rock does occur during entering our atmosphere, which could produce a plasma state not to mention the pressure. The surface of the moon itself has been melted from all of the impacts that hit it.


Enjoy.

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:54 AM

No, but temperatures hot enough to vaporize rock does occur during entering our atmosphere, which could produce a plasma state not to mention the pressure. The surface of the moon itself has been melted from all of the impacts that hit it.


Enjoy.


I think a test that has been proposed is to go to the moon and drill a deep hole and extract some moon rock from inside the moon. This rock would not have interacted with the meteorites and thus haven't been exposed to the plasma that causes radioactivity.

If I had the money I'd fund that test since it seems to be a good empirical experiment to test this claim :)

#49 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:01 PM

No, but temperatures hot enough to vaporize rock does occur during entering our atmosphere, which could produce a plasma state not to mention the pressure. The surface of the moon itself has been melted from all of the impacts that hit it.


Enjoy.

There's a enormous difference between melting, vaporizing and fully ionizing heavy elements. Meteorites only reach a few thousand degrees on atmospheric entry. Completely ionizing Rhenium requires hundreds of millions of degrees.

http://science.howst...question308.htm
Re-entry temperatures can reach as high as 3,000 degrees F (1,650 degrees C).

The pressure experienced by a meteorite is limited by the pressure it can withstand before breaking up, this limit is far below what is required for fusion.

I think a test that has been proposed is to go to the moon and drill a deep hole and extract some moon rock from inside the moon. This rock would not have interacted with the meteorites and thus haven't been exposed to the plasma that causes radioactivity.

If I had the money I'd fund that test since it seems to be a good empirical experiment to test this claim :)


There's no need to go to the moon when basic physics shows that the energy available is insufficient to cause the effects proposed.

Just fyi however, they took core samples during the moon missions.
http://www.lpi.usra....s/apollo/tools/
To obtain material from greater depths, an electric drill was used on Apollos 15, 16, and 17. This drill collected a core that was 2 centimeters in diameter and up to 3 meters deep. In this photograph, the drill is used in crew training on Earth. NASA/Johnson Space Center photograph S70-29673.

#50 Ceeboo

Ceeboo

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Troy, Michigan

Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:51 AM

Hey all (OP author just checking in)

Just wanted to offer a thank you to all who have contributed to the thread.

Although I have little to add, I am indeed reading reading these communications and do appreciate them. (Interesting stuff, IMO)

Peace,
Ceeboo

#51 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:12 PM

Just fyi however, they took core samples during the moon missions.
http://www.lpi.usra....s/apollo/tools/
To obtain material from greater depths, an electric drill was used on Apollos 15, 16, and 17. This drill collected a core that was 2 centimeters in diameter and up to 3 meters deep. In this photograph, the drill is used in crew training on Earth. NASA/Johnson Space Center photograph S70-29673.


I wonder what that data showed? Let's take a look:

The supposed age of 4.5 billion years of the earth is actually based on radiometric age determinations of meteorites. Radiometric dating methods are based on a series of assumptions, and thus the accuracy of the method depends, of course, on the reliability of these assumptions. These assumptions have been questioned, and the vastages thus derived have been challenged. 10-12 Even if such methods were reliable, the catastrophic effects and reworking of the surface of the moon brought about by the bombardment of the moon by planetesimals and meteorites, especially as envisioned by evolutionary scientists, would render the dating of the origin of the moon by these methods impossible. It is often claimed that the age of the earth and of the solar system of about 4.5 billion years was confirmed by ages obtained for the moon. Actually, ages obtained for various moon rocks showed a very large spread, some giving a sample age of 20 billion years.

Posted Image

In his summing-up of the Kona conference on the origin of the moon, Wood states that the shift of confidence by lunar scientists in favor of the collision ejection model did not occur because strong evidence was presented that the moon was formed that way, or even that it was possible, but simply because the coaccretion model, most widely favored up until that time, was effectively disproved. 16 As Hughes stated, astrophysicists are actually embarrassed because of their admission, following the Apollo visits to the moon, that they still have little idea where the moon came from.

http://www.icr.org/h..._tracts_apollo/ (date unknown)


Interesting...I am not sure if we can determine whether or not these samples were undisturbed by meteorites.

#52 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:58 AM

There's a enormous difference between melting, vaporizing and fully ionizing heavy elements. Meteorites only reach a few thousand degrees on atmospheric entry. Completely ionizing Rhenium requires hundreds of millions of degrees.

http://science.howst...question308.htm
Re-entry temperatures can reach as high as 3,000 degrees F (1,650 degrees C).

The pressure experienced by a meteorite is limited by the pressure it can withstand before breaking up, this limit is far below what is required for fusion


I'm talking about accelerating decay rates from heat and pressure not fusion into other isotopes.

Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.


Enjoy.

#53 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 30 March 2012 - 12:44 PM

I'm talking about accelerating decay rates from heat and pressure not fusion into other isotopes.

Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.


Enjoy.


There's now at least three different claims being made in this thread.
Post #44. Earthquakes/lightning cause the production of radioactive materials (aka fusion)
Post #15. Accelerated radioactive decay occured via full ionization (aka destroying all molecules on earth)
*new* Post #52. Pressure and heat cause accelerated radioactive decay without full ionization (fission due to cavitation)

Problem 1:
Here's a link to the full version of that paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp...3/0903.3104.pdf
Fission (what your link is claiming occured) is not the same as radioactive decay (which is what you are claiming occured).

For example, U-235 can fission into Krypton and Barium but it decays into Thorium. The link claims to have fissioned Iron, which doesn't undergo radioactive decay at all. Since the products of fission are different in most cases from radioactive decay, you can't use "piezonuclear" fission to explain the abundance of radioactive decay products.

Problem 2:
The experiments by Cardone's group are considered to be very questionable at best. They are literally claiming to be working with entirely new types of physics (always a big warning sign).

From that paper:
Obviously, we are well aware that the probability of such nucleolysis or piezonuclear “fission” of iron (5) is strongly suppressed in the context of quantum and relativistic mechanics which both work on a flat Minkowski’s space-time. For that we needed a new theoretical framework [13,20,21] for representing new phenomena.

At least some of their claims regarding cavitation can't be reproduced (another warning sign)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.1387v2.pdf (different experiment by Cardone, same cavitation concept)
We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water does not induce its transformation at a faster rate than the natural radioactive decay. We measured the activity of a thorium-228 solution in water before, and after, it was subjected to a cavitation at 44 kHz and 250W for 90 minutes in order to observe any change in the thorium half-life. The results were compared to the original activity of the sample and we observed no change. Our results and conclusions conflict with those in a recent paper by F. Cardone et. al.


And there are several problems with their experimental designs and methodology (yet another reason for skepticism)
http://adsabs.harvar...PhLA..374.3957S (comments about the same paper you quoted)

http://arxiv.org/ftp...7/0907.0623.pdf (different experiment by Cardone, same cavitation concept)
My favorite part, where the detectors were placed so they couldn't possibly detect what they were supposed to:
The authors write that the CR39 detectors were “placed underneath the vessel”. This means the detectors were placed outside of the borosilicate vessels containing the thorium solution. We note that the range of the emitted a particles in glass is in the order of tens of micrometers and that it thus would be impossible for a particles, and of course even more so for the thorium nuclei themselves, to penetrate the vessel.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3501v1.pdf




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users