- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Tow,
God is powerful and I am an insignificant worm.
He has made a very fair offer based on the work of His Son.
The Son had to die but all we have to do is listen to Peter at Pentecost
and obey.Acts 2
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
Hi acertainchap
In reply to your linked creationist at http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/evidence_for_a_young_world.html
Quote 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars do not ‘rotate around’ the centre of the galaxy, they orbit it. The inner stars do not move faster than the outer ones, they move at the same linear speed. The proposition assumes that stars are fixed, but they move through a life cycle only part of which is visible. The density wave model explains exactly why you would expect the spiral arms to stay looking spiral as they do, even though the composition of them is changing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy
Quote 2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
I can’t find a reference for this calculation. The cited one is unavailable and seems to be a creationist ‘calculation’ anyway. This is not the standard creationist supernova argument.Quote 3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and  other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
Well I think the writer has talked himself out of this being a serious objection!Quote 4. Not enough mud on the sea floor. The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.
The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways — measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.Quote 5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
The authors cited greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt. A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed. Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.Quote 6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with geophysical evidence of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again. Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay.Quote 7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.
How does it imply that? What research shows that particular radii of bending are only possible ‘when wet’?Quote 8. Biological material decays too fast. Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
This confuses chemical degradation with mutation caused by radiation. The DNA itself will in the right ci
rcumstances maintain its chemical structure to an ‘astonishing’ degree. DNA in living things is subject to attack by oxygen and other radicals with are not present in a preserved or fossilised specimen. It also ignores the effect of natural selection on living populations.Quote 9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.
Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks.Quote 10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a “Creation week” or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. The author of the research recognises this “heat problem” but is currently unable to provide a solution.Quote 11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
The process by which radiocarbon dating samples are prepared is subject to contamination. There may be no 14-C in the sample, but you can bet that some is unintentionally added, although not enough to cause unrepeatable or calibratable results.Quote 12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
Burial alone does not preserve a body. In many acid soils, all organic matter can easily decay in 1,000 years. Hot, damp conditions in the tropics will also decay bodies and leech bones quickly. Groundwater, plant roots, digging animals, or a combination of these can also speed decay to the point where nothing would remain after a few thousand years. Erosion or reuse of the land by humans may unbury the body, at least to the point that the bones are subject to greater decay. Sea level rise, volcanism, modern construction, or other processes may make the land unreachable now. All of these are significant factors. Fossilization is not a common process. And we have examined only a tiny fraction of the land where bodies might be buried. The few thousand remains we have found are well in line with a 185,000-year human history. We would not expect the burial of artifacts to be common. There would be no reason to bury cheaper tools, such as pounding stones, with people. More valuable artifacts would not likely be buried with poor people.Quote 13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.
Why is it implausible that humans lived for a long time without agriculture? Agriculture allows higher population densities, but it leads to an overall decrease in the quality of life over that of hunter-gatherers. In particular, agriculture requires much more work for a lower quality, less dependable diet, and it increases disease. There was no pressing reason to adopt agriculture in the first place.Quote 14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.
Agriculture brings with
it many cultural changes, including cities, significant personal property, and trade. All the earliest known writings are recordkeeping for property in agricultural societies. There was no need for such records before the development of agriculture and its consequences. Thus, the origin of agriculture also determined the origin of writing.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 10 2008,21:14) Hi Tow,
God is powerful and I am an insignificant worm.
This attitude has always bothered me about some Christians. Talk about self-esteem issues.Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 11 2008,20:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 10 2008,21:14) Hi Tow,
God is powerful and I am an insignificant worm.
This attitude has always bothered me about some Christians. Talk about self-esteem issues.
I agree we are sons of God. We are temples of the Spirit.We are not worms.
God is Love.
I really enjoyed the first part of this thread. It was very entertaining.
It almost looks to me like stu and son of light are the same person arguing from
two different points of view for our amusement.
Tim
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 11 2008,21:07) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 11 2008,20:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 10 2008,21:14) Hi Tow,
God is powerful and I am an insignificant worm.
This attitude has always bothered me about some Christians. Talk about self-esteem issues.
I agree we are sons of God. We are temples of the Spirit.We are not worms.
God is Love.
Hi SOL,
Jb25
4How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?5Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.
6How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 11 2008,14:24) Hi acertainchap In reply to your linked creationist at http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/evidence_for_a_young_world.html
Quote 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars do not ‘rotate around’ the centre of the galaxy, they orbit it. The inner stars do not move faster than the outer ones, they move at the same linear speed. The proposition assumes that stars are fixed, but they move through a life cycle only part of which is visible. The density wave model explains exactly why you would expect the spiral arms to stay looking spiral as they do, even though the composition of them is changing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy
Quote 2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
I can’t find a reference for this calculation. The cited one is unavailable and seems to be a creationist ‘calculation’ anyway. This is not the standard creationist supernova argument.Quote 3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
Well I think the writer has talked himself out of this being a serious objection!Quote 4. Not enough mud on the sea floor. The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.
The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways — measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.Quote 5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
The authors cited greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt. A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed. Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.Quote 6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with geophysical evidence of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again. Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay.Quote 7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.
How does it imply that? What research shows that particular radii of bending are only possible ‘when wet’?Quote 8. Biological material decays too fast. Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue a
nd blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
This confuses chemical degradation with mutation caused by radiation. The DNA itself will in the right circumstances maintain its chemical structure to an ‘astonishing’ degree. DNA in living things is subject to attack by oxygen and other radicals with are not present in a preserved or fossilised specimen. It also ignores the effect of natural selection on living populations.Quote 9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.
Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks.Quote 10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a “Creation week” or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. The author of the research recognises this “heat problem” but is currently unable to provide a solution.Quote 11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
The process by which radiocarbon dating samples are prepared is subject to contamination. There may be no 14-C in the sample, but you can bet that some is unintentionally added, although not enough to cause unrepeatable or calibratable results.Quote 12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
Burial alone does not preserve a body. In many acid soils, all organic matter can easily decay in 1,000 years. Hot, damp conditions in the tropics will also decay bodies and leech bones quickly. Groundwater, plant roots, digging animals, or a combination of these can also speed decay to the point where nothing would remain after a few thousand years. Erosion or reuse of the land by humans may unbury the body, at least to the point that the bones are subject to greater decay. Sea level rise, volcanism, modern construction, or other processes may make the land unreachable now. All of these are significant factors. Fossilization is not a common process. And we have examined only a tiny fraction of the land where bodies might be buried. The few thousand remains we have found are well in line with a 185,000-year human history. We would not expect the burial of artifacts to be common. There would be no reason to bury cheaper tools, such as pounding stones, with people. More valuable artifacts would not likely be buried with poor people.Quote 13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.
Why is it implausible that humans lived for a long time without agriculture? Agriculture allows higher population densities, but it leads to an overall decrease in the quality of life over that of hunter-gatherers. In particular, agriculture requires much more work for a lower quality, less dependable diet, and it increases disease. There was no pressing reason to adopt agriculture in the first place.Quote 14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lu
nar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.
Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities, significant personal property, and trade. All the earliest known writings are recordkeeping for property in agricultural societies. There was no need for such records before the development of agriculture and its consequences. Thus, the origin of agriculture also determined the origin of writing.Stuart
stuWhy dont you leave the source for your writtings?
Most of what you said is quotes from other sources.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 11 2008,11:37) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 11 2008,21:07) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 11 2008,20:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 10 2008,21:14) Hi Tow,
God is powerful and I am an insignificant worm.
This attitude has always bothered me about some Christians. Talk about self-esteem issues.
I agree we are sons of God. We are temples of the Spirit.We are not worms.
God is Love.
Hi SOL,
Jb25
4How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?5Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.
6How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
Uh, you do know that Job's “friends” didn't always give the best advice.Job is a recollection of the exchange between Job and his friends. Read the last chapter for a clue on what God though about Bildad's advice:
- Job 42:7 It came about after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has.
Job 42:8 “Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you. For I will accept him so that I may not do with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.”
Job 42:9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did as the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job.Hi KJ,
So from God's point of view Job's friends had not spoken truth of HIM.
That does not make any word there a lie
and the words I showed were about manQuote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 12 2008,06:30) Hi KJ,
Are parts of Job not to be trusted as truth?
even Jehovah was upset that Job was listening to his friends council Nick.But it was in relation to God. Again, its all what you want to believe so if you want to be a worm go ahead. I'm not a prideful man but I know God doesn't view me as a worm. Do you love worms Nick?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
