Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:39 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Age of life on Urantia
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:35 am +0000
Posts: 562
Anyone here know about the discrepancy between the UB age of life on earth roughly 600 million years and the belief in science that microorganisms have been here 4 billion years?



THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

58:4.1 That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.

58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.



Caino


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
ack well I'll try to sort it some since I did pass Earth Science! ok...first the scientists have gone beyond looking for fossils as evidence of life and now look for "biomarkers" (A biomarker can be any kind of molecule indicating the existence of living organisms). I think the Greenland site is the "newest oldest" and the molecule that they are saying indicates life ~4 billion years ago is carbon-13...but it doesn't sound like the theory holds much water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akilia

Quote:
Carbon in the rock, present as graphite, shows low levels of carbon-13, [3] which may suggest an origin as isotopically light organic matter derived from living organisms. [5] However, this interpretation is complicated because of high-grade metamorphism that affected the Akilia rocks after their formation. The sedimentary origin, age and the carbon content of the rocks have been questioned. [6] [7] [8]

If the Akilia rocks do show evidence of life by 3.85 Ga, it would challenge models which suggest that Earth would not be hospitable to life at this time. Research is ongoing.


When it comes to the oldest fossil evidence of life and structures clearly biologic...well the papers say:

Quote:
58:7.2 Fossils of this era yield algae, corallike plants, primitive Protozoa, and spongelike transition organisms.


and tells where some of the sediments from that era are. Modern science thinks the LUA (Last Universal Ancestor) from which all life on earth descended could be the eukaryotes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotes[url]

The eukaryotes and red coralline algae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_algae#Fossil_record

and these other things and the rock formations would be...well the Hunting Formation in Canada is the one they have dated the oldest at I think it's 1.2 billion years. Which still doesn't jive with the date in the Urantia book but the way they have to try and date rocks that old is just relative observations to other rocks and presupposes some things... The Doushantour Formation in China contains the same type of fossils and they date that to 550 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doushantuo_formation

So I dunno...got a headache lol...I think it jives pretty much except with problems trying to date rocks.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:35 am +0000
Posts: 562
Thanks Makalu

This is what I came up with

Lets take a close look at the issue:


Abiogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, William Schopf of UCLA published a paper in the scientific journal Nature arguing that geological formations such as this possess 3.5 Ga (billion years old) fossilized cyanobacteria microbes. If true, they would be evidence of the earliest known life on earth.In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
What does the UB actually say?

THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

58:4.1 That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.

58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.

58:4.3 500,000,000 years ago primitive marine vegetable life was well established on Urantia. Greenland and the arctic land mass, together with North and South America, were beginning their long and slow westward drift. Africa moved slightly south, creating an east and west trough, the Mediterranean basin, between itself and the mother body. Antarctica, Australia, and the land indicated by the islands of the Pacific broke away on the south and east and have drifted far away since that day.

58:4.4 We had planted the primitive form of marine life in the sheltered tropic bays of the central seas of the east-west cleavage of the breaking-up continental land mass. Our purpose in making three marine-life implantations was to insure that each great land mass would carry this life with it, in its warm-water seas, as the land subsequently separated. We foresaw that in the later era of the emergence of land life large oceans of water would separate these drifting continental land masses.


LIFE TRANSPLANTATION


36:3.1 Life does not spontaneously appear in the universes; the Life Carriers must initiate it on the barren planets. They are the carriers, disseminators, and guardians of life as it appears on the evolutionary worlds of space. All life of the order and forms known on Urantia arises with these Sons, though not all forms of planetary life are existent on Urantia.

36:3.2 The corps of Life Carriers commissioned to plant life upon a new world usually consists of one hundred senior carriers, one hundred assistants, and one thousand custodians. The Life Carriers often carry actual life plasm to a new world, but not always. They sometimes organize the life patterns after arriving on the planet of assignment in accordance with formulas previously approved for a new adventure in life establishment. Such was the origin of the planetary life of Urantia.

36:3.3 When, in accordance with approved formulas, the physical patterns have been provided, then do the Life Carriers catalyze this lifeless material, imparting through their persons the vital spirit spark; and forthwith do the inert patterns become living matter.

36:3.4 The vital spark—the mystery of life—is bestowed through the Life Carriers, not by them. They do indeed supervise such transactions, they formulate the life plasm itself, but it is the Universe Mother Spirit who supplies the essential factor of the living plasm. From the Creative Daughter of the Infinite Spirit comes that energy spark which enlivens the body and presages the mind.

36:3.5 In the bestowal of life the Life Carriers transmit nothing of their personal natures, not even on those spheres where new orders of life are projected. At such times they simply initiate and transmit the spark of life, start the required revolutions of matter in accordance with the physical, chemical, and electrical specifications of the ordained plans and patterns. Life Carriers are living catalytic presences which agitate, organize, and vitalize the otherwise inert elements of the material order of existence.

36:3.6 The Life Carriers of a planetary corps are given a certain period in which to establish life on a new world, approximately one-half million years of the time of that planet. At the termination of this period, indicated by certain developmental attainments of the planetary life, they cease implantation efforts, and they may not subsequently add any thing new or supplemental to the life of that planet.

36:3.7 During the ages intervening between life establishment and the emergence of human creatures of moral status, the Life Carriers are permitted to manipulate the life environment and otherwise favorably directionize the course of biologic evolution. And this they do for long periods of time." UB


* Is the UB saying that the life carriers modified cyanobacteria microbes into what they term "life"?

* Are cyanobacteria microbes naturally occuring on planets such as ours? Did they arrive on a meteoric fragments from another world that collided with earth during it's early evolution?

Caino


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
hmm well no the book wouldn't say that the life plasm was formed from previous existing life (cyanobacteria). My limited (but learning) understanding is that the stromatolites were interpreted to be formed by "biofilm" AKA slime capturing accretions and cyanobacteria were the bio picked to explain changes in the earths atmosphere or something. Anyway stromatolites have now been found around deep-sea vents and also duplicated somewhat in the lab and the new theory is these were just viscous slimy accretions. Good write up on that here:

http://oxford.academia.edu/MartinBrasier/Papers/419411/Towards_a_Null_Hypothesis_for_Stromatolites


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
In my opinion, this is the single most damaging error in the UB. Chris Halvorson has argued that our dating measurements are systematically in error, due to changes to the rate of radioactive decay caused by the Master Physical Controllers. He also argues that some of what we regard as early life were not alive at all, but were pre-living forms in preparation for life. I find all of this utterly unconvincing, myself. But you can read his analysis here.

The evidence for life before 550,000,000 years ago is not limited to stromatolites. See, for example, Francevillian Group Fossils.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:35 am +0000
Posts: 562
Does anyone else read this as saying that the life carriers modified life that was original to the planet, thus avoiding the disclosure of yet to be discovered facts in compliance to the revelatory mandate? That is to say that they were careful not to disclose the existence of microbes that may have been deposited on the planet from meteoric impacts?

That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.


Colter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
Quote:
In my opinion, this is the single most damaging error in the UB. Chris Halvorson has argued that our dating measurements are systematically in error, due to changes to the rate of radioactive decay caused by the Master Physical Controllers. He also argues that some of what we regard as early life were not alive at all, but were pre-living forms in preparation for life. I find all of this utterly unconvincing, myself. But you can read his analysis here.

The evidence for life before 550,000,000 years ago is not limited to stromatolites. See, for example, Francevillian Group Fossils.




The new stromatolites theory seems sound...their existence is impossible around deep-sea vents under the old theory...so there's an example of something considered primitive life that seems to not be life at all. Likewise the Francevillian fossils have not been proven to be anything more than simply mineral formations that look like animals.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60696/title/African_fossils_suggest_complex_life_arose_early

and they are an anomaly with no other similarities nor dated to within 1.5 billion years...and the rock dating methods are sketchy.

Really the current scientific theories for the origin of life are are full of contradictions and questionable evidence and scientists admit it...and the theory in the TUB fits with the fossil record which begins in the Proterozoic...all of the Archean evidence is based on biomarkers not fossils.


Last edited by Makalu on Mon May 16, 2011 7:02 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
Colter wrote:
Does anyone else read this as saying that the life carriers modified life that was original to the planet, thus avoiding the disclosure of yet to be discovered facts in compliance to the revelatory mandate? That is to say that they were careful not to disclose the existence of microbes that may have been deposited on the planet from meteoric impacts?

That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.


Colter



well naw i dont read it that way...maybe the paper #36 just on Life Carriers will help:

Quote:
The Life Carriers often carry actual life plasm to a new world, but not always. They sometimes organize the life patterns after arriving on the planet of assignment in accordance with formulas previously approved for a new adventure in life establishment. Such was the origin of the planetary life of Urantia.

36:3.3 When, in accordance with approved formulas, the physical patterns have been provided, then do the Life Carriers catalyze this lifeless material, imparting through their persons the vital spirit spark; and forthwith do the inert patterns become living matter.



36:3.4 The vital spark—the mystery of life—is bestowed through the Life Carriers, not by them.

36:6.4 When the Life Carriers have designed the patterns of life, after they have organized the energy systems, there must occur an additional phenomenon; the “breath of life” must be imparted to these lifeless forms. The Sons of God can construct the forms of life, but it is the Spirit of God who really contributes the vital spark.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Hello Colter,

The Truthbook.com Urantia Book Timeline at http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=2314 contains the following explanation at the top of the timeline; it's titled:

• Scientific Date Discrepancies

The Urantia Book declares that material reality is upheld and controlled by spiritual reality, that it is spiritual reality that makes material reality possible. As such, spiritual intelligent beings administer and control the physical universe; such controllers can and do work from the subatomic level of material reality and above by manipulating forces and fields to perform their tasks, such as the materialization of matter into a star or nebula, and that these manipulations are undetectable by creatures such as we.

One of the measuring devices used by scientists to discern the dates of ancient events is through radiometric dating, measuring the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Physicists have concluded that this is a linear rate — their tests and reasoning can lead them to believe nothing otherwise; they must rely on what is evident, testable, repeatable.

The Urantia Book discloses a different construction to reality, one where the evident, testable, and repeatable is contained and controlled within a spiritual fabric; physical controllers can and do alter the conditions which affect radioactive decay for example.

The article by Dr. Chris Halvorson, The History of Life, found at http://www.PerfectingHorizons.org correlates a descending series of ratios between the linear rate of radioactive decay and the dates provided by The Urantia Book. He speculates that the reason the earlier dates given in The Urantia Book do not correspond one to one with scientific findings, and the reason these dates are revealed in the book in the first place, is to demonstrate that the Master Physical Controllers manipulate the environment in which the solar system and planet earth occupy; that this environment was manipulated to decrease the surrounding higher energy levels in order to allow successively more sensitive and complex forms of life to evolve.

And no, Colter, I think it takes a big stretch of imagination to come up with the idea that there was pre-existent life. It seems to me to be very straight forward -- the blueprints for life were formulated on Jerusem, the Life Carriers came here and using the ingredients already contained on the planet they constructed the primitive life forms that would eventually evolve into human beings.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
well geologists don't use radiometric dating on sedimentary rocks:

Quote:
Of the three basic rock types, igneous rocks are most suited for radiometric dating. Metamorphic rocks may also be radiometrically dated. However, radiometric dating generally yields the age of metamorphism, not the age of the original rock. Most ancient sedimentary rocks cannot be dated radiometrically, but the laws of superposition and crosscutting relationships can be used to place absolute time limits on layers of sedimentary rocks crosscut or bounded by radiometrically dated igneous rocks.


source: http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gla ... ladage.htm

so they use relative dating to piece together a number from superposition, crosscutting and inclusions.

The radiometric meteor dates and TUB dates for the age of the earth/solar system are in relative agreement of ~4 billion years.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Makalu wrote:
The new stromatolites theory seems sound...their existence is impossible around deep-sea vents under the old theory...so there's an example of something considered primitive life that seems to not be life at all. Likewise the Francevillian fossils have not been proven to be anything more than simply mineral formations that look like animals.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60696/title/African_fossils_suggest_complex_life_arose_early

and they are an anomaly with no other similarities nor dated to within 1.5 billion years...and the rock dating methods are sketchy.

Really the current scientific theories for the origin of life are are full of contradictions and questionable evidence and scientists admit it...and the theory in the TUB fits with the fossil record which begins in the Proterozoic...all of the Archean evidence is based on biomarkers not fossils.


The demand for "proof" is inevitably a distraction. The evidence for life prior to 550 million years ago is not final and conclusive, but it's there, and it would be pretty difficult to find a scientist who believes that "all planetary life" is no older than that. What that means to me is that the weight of the evidence known to us at this time says that the UB is wrong on this point.

However, an "error" can be seen from another angle as a "risky prediction", to use Karl Popper's term. That is, if the scientific-historical picture ends up having to be revised in such a way that it turns out to be congruent with the UB, that will be dramatic evidence in favor of the UB's authenticity. But until that occurs, this particular bit of evidence points the other way.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:35 am +0000
Posts: 562
Thanks for all the feedback. I guess when it comes to discussing this with UB debunkers from the humanist, scientific community, arguing that spiritual beings manipulate the material fabric probably won't hold water with them.


Colter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
Quote:

The demand for "proof" is inevitably a distraction. The evidence for life prior to 550 million years ago is not final and conclusive, but it's there, and it would be pretty difficult to find a scientist who believes that "all planetary life" is no older than that. What that means to me is that the weight of the evidence known to us at this time says that the UB is wrong on this point.

However, an "error" can be seen from another angle as a "risky prediction", to use Karl Popper's term. That is, if the scientific-historical picture ends up having to be revised in such a way that it turns out to be congruent with the UB, that will be dramatic evidence in favor of the UB's authenticity. But until that occurs, this particular bit of evidence points the other way.


well yeah if I demand scientific proof from the Urantia papers I'm not gonna get because it's not a scientific work or treatise, just a simplified chronology of events (even if not in gross error on this point). So I demand it from our science and the lack of it at this time says ermmm their guess is as good as mine. The reason you won't find a scientist who believes that life began with the fossil organisms mentioned in the book is probably because science demands that everything has a beginning (and an end) and with no explanation to account for the beginning of cellular life they've had to dig on into the past realm of biomarkers. And as TUB nicely states...the further you progress in any field of science the less certain you become...the more you pass from the realm of facts and into the realm of conjecture.

And of course science will never be able to prove the account in TUB since the miracle of Life is was and will be more than mechanism. :) The best that science will ever do to account for the origin of life on earth is probably exactly what they are doing now...debating which came first, the chicken or the egg...except they call it which came first, metabolism or replication? Good luck with that :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Makalu wrote:
well yeah if I demand scientific proof from the Urantia papers I'm not gonna get because it's not a scientific work or treatise, just a simplified chronology of events (even if not in gross error on this point). So I demand it from our science and the lack of it at this time says ermmm their guess is as good as mine.


You can and should demand as much evidence that the UB is not humanly authored as you demand from science. And the fact that there's no proof that life is older than 550 million years is in no way the same as saying that their guess is as good as yours or mine. It's always a mistake to reason from "they can't prove it" to "anything goes."

It's the nature of science that its claims are permanently open to revision, in the light of new evidence. That's what science is all about. There is never "proof", in the sense of something that is settled once and for all. And that entails that at any given point in time, the most that science can tell us is what the evidence currently favors. At this point in time, the evidence favors the claim that life is quite a bit older than 550 million years.

Quote:
The reason you won't find a scientist who believes that life began with the fossil organisms mentioned in the book is probably because science demands that everything has a beginning (and an end) and with no explanation to account for the beginning of cellular life they've had to dig on into the past realm of biomarkers.


You're assuming that all evidence for life before 550 million years ago is based on nothing but biomarkers. This is simply false. The Francevillian fossils and Grypania are accepted by most scientists as genuine fossils from well over 550 million years ago. The fact that there are disputes about some of the stromatolites doesn't invalidate the entire body of evidence for life before 550 mya.

Quote:
And of course science will never be able to prove the account in TUB since the miracle of Life is was and will be more than mechanism. :)


The UB's account is Intelligent Design, which a few scientists do take seriously. But again, the demand for "proof" is always misplaced in empirical science.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 998
well it may appear to you that I should place YOUR demands on the UB's authorship but I've already stated on this forum that even if the papers were proven to have been written by men it doesn't change anything for me. My proof of the truth of the papers comes from 30 years worth of experience trying to live out the teachings after years of fairly intense searching and the fact that truth satisfies because it unifies and can be lived out and it's "the way" for me regardless of which entity happened to collate it.

What satisfaction is to be found in a pursuit who's ultimate destiny is an eternal debate over which came first the chicken or the egg?

What unity is there in the mind that spouts "nothing is ever settled" out one side of it's mouth and "accepted by most scientists as genuine" out the other side? lol

Why do you fail to put the same demands for proof on mainstream science to cross every T and dot every I that you put on the Urantia book?

Since when were "most scientists" the progenators of new evidence and revised theories? Most simply conform to the paradigm they were born into.

The francevillian "fossils" (lacking any animal remains isn't much of a fossil in my book) are considered genuine by most scientists (according to you with no evidence) and yet they haven't even got a friggin name for the thing or even put it into an animal phyla or kingdom? Even the UB isn't that vague! lol

The Grypania would appear to be eukaryotes and ARE placed in the Proterozoic btw...not Archean. So you were wrong when you called my statement false...not much of a scientist I presume. The dating of the rocks they're in remains sketchy.

My guess is not "anything goes" as you imply. I think I stand on pretty solid ground...the fossil record is literally carved in stone and shows the relatively rapid appearance of most major Phyla during the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group