U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 08-15-2009, 07:44 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,551,617 times
Reputation: 483

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Are scales mentioned? I had a look at 'Behemoth'.



Job also speaks of leviathan



So it seems that it is behemoth that eats grass (hippo ... is a large, mostly plant-eating mammal. Wiki)and leviathan that has the teeth and scales. So I wonder why behemoth can't be a hippo and leviathan a crocodile? True a hippo doesn't have a cedar - like tail but the claim that following 'tail' with a reference to 'stones' may indicate a reference to the genitalia of the mammalian hippo. A crocodile, of course, has scales. "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook" "Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears" (implies it is a river-or sea - dweller) "the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?" (the duck bill dinosaurs did not have teeth of course, but a croc, has)
"His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together; each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. They are joined fast to one another" (would describe a crocodile which has chunky 'shields' wheras a hadrosaur or Iguanadon just had the normal bony scales and nodules, as I reacall)

Of course, the "mummified" dinosaur is a fossil and the preserved stone skin does show scales. However, a crocodile has scales too. can you say why you rule out Hippo and crocodile as behemoth and leviathan?
In Job 40 it speaks of the Behemoth, yet there is no mention of scales. However, it does state that the Behemoth's strength was in its loins. It's loins indicates that this animal had a very muscular belly. This would not be found in an elephant. The Bible also states, that the Behemonth's tail moved like a cedar tree. If that was the case, this would rule out a hippopotamus as well.

The Leviathan, which is spoken of in Job 41 could not be a crocodile for a number of reasons. First, I would point out, that the Bible clearly tells us that neither spear or arrow could kill Him. A crockodile can be killed in this way. Second, the scales described in the Bible do not match the skin we find on a crockodile, for the scales mentioned in Scripture state that they are so near one another that no air can come between them. A crockodile does not have skin anything like this. Thirdly, the Bible tells us, that the Leviathan cannot be bound. So hear again this could not be a crockodile, because crockodiles reguardless of size have been routinely bound. And forthly, the Bible indicates that there is no one so brave that would dare to stir him up. So clearly, the Bible is describing a beast of such power, that there was no one out there who wanted to mess with this thing. And that is why the Bible tells us in Job 41:33 Upon the earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. And in Job 41:25 it reads. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2009, 08:26 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,551,617 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
My question to C34, back on post #654, was:

Tom, do you believe this report?



So.. you believe the report, and you even mention the academic qualifiers as well, huh? Very good, Tom. I agree.

Which part do you selectively disbelieve then? The find? nope; you agree on that. The scales? You brought it to our attention specifically because of that, to prove the biblical case for co-existance.

That leaves, The age? It was, if I recall, 77 million years old.

Sooooo..it'd be just that one selective, tiny (but nontheles critical) part that's a hoax by the faker, biased, ignorant assumptive scientists, Tom?
Well we can see the scales in the fossil, was there also a date stamped on the fossil that we can all see? Your 77 million years is an assumption. The Bible was correct about the scales, and the fact that such a beast with scales was written about just thousands of years ago, and not millions, pretty much rules out millions of years. And the fact that we have ancient art that depicts dinosaurs from people that lived thousands of years ago, and not millions, also confirms the Biblical account. It's to bad that modern science ignores this evidence because of their obvious bias.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 08:59 AM
 
Location: South Wales, Yes, I'm, back!
15,606 posts, read 7,827,058 times
Reputation: 2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
In Job 40 it speaks of the Behemoth, yet there is no mention of scales. However, it does state that the Behemoth's strength was in its loins. It's loins indicates that this animal had a very muscular belly. This would not be found in an elephant. The Bible also states, that the Behemonth's tail moved like a cedar tree. If that was the case, this would rule out a hippopotamus as well.
I think you are unjustified in moving 'loins' to 'belly' and then saying that rules out elephant when as far as we know prehistoric animals' bellies were no more muscular than elephant's or any other belly. Also the mention of 'tail' implies that 'loins' is in the same physical area.

However, I do have some doubts about 'tail'. I don't feel that the relatively small tails of elephants or hippos would filt the description. As I say, the text doesn't clear up the matter. The sheer lack of any examples of prehistoric animals about in the human context is a stronger argument against behemoth being a dinosaur or any other prehistoric mammal, for that matter.

Quote:
The Leviathan, which is spoken of in Job 41 could not be a crocodile for a number of reasons. First, I would point out, that the Bible clearly tells us that neither spear or arrow could kill Him. A crockodile can be killed in this way. Second, the scales described in the Bible do not match the skin we find on a crockodile, for the scales mentioned in Scripture state that they are so near one another that no air can come between them. A crockodile does not have skin anything like this. Thirdly, the Bible tells us, that the Leviathan cannot be bound. So hear again this could not be a crockodile, because crockodiles reguardless of size have been routinely bound. And forthly, the Bible indicates that there is no one so brave that would dare to stir him up. So clearly, the Bible is describing a beast of such power, that there was no one out there who wanted to mess with this thing. And that is why the Bible tells us in Job 41:33 Upon the earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. And in Job 41:25 it reads. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid:
It is rather amusing that one of those apologists who are so quick to play the 'metaphor' card when Bible problems crop up is insisting that this passage, which has some indication of poetic hyperbole, hould be taken literally.

"His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds."

Obviously this is not literally applicable either to a crocodile or to any prehistoric beast. In fact it tends to suggest some fire-breathing dragon and I certainly can't rule out that they are simply mythological animals used as examples of what is way beyond humans to cope with.

Point is, that it is not unreasonable to read it as relating to an animal which is rather too much for the everyday bod to tackle.

"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?"

This certainly suggests a river - dweller suggesting a consideration, at least, of fishhooks and the idea of tying up a jaw, like a crocodile.

And you are simply wrong in saying that a crocodile skin is nothing like airtight. If anything, it is more so than the fossil skin of dinosaurs indicate.

http://www.arkive.org/media/E3DFAFFC...ng-texture.jpg

There are arguments for and against, but again, the strongest argument against behemoth or leviathan being prehistoric animals is that there are no organic remains in context with man. I know you reject all the dating evidence and insist that, if it doesn't have a 'best before' date on it, rocks might as well be only a few thousand years old. But the fact is that the dinosaur - bearing rocks don't have human remains and human bearing deposits don't have prehistoric animal remains. The hard evidence is lacking, the anecdotal evidence is highly arguable, the Ica stones are dodgy, The Ta Phrom stegosaur is really neither here nor there, any more than coelacanth, and the supposed human and dinosaur footprints are misinterpreted to the point of hoax.

Remember, that you are trying to convince us, and this is just nowhere near enough to convince anyone who wasn't already determined to be convinced.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 11:08 AM
 
4,110 posts, read 4,672,737 times
Reputation: 1809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think you are unjustified in moving 'loins' to 'belly' and then saying that rules out elephant when as far as we know prehistoric animals' bellies were no more muscular than elephant's or any other belly. Also the mention of 'tail' implies that 'loins' is in the same physical area.

However, I do have some doubts about 'tail'. I don't feel that the relatively small tails of elephants or hippos would filt the description. As I say, the text doesn't clear up the matter. The sheer lack of any examples of prehistoric animals about in the human context is a stronger argument against behemoth being a dinosaur or any other prehistoric mammal, for that matter.

I agree with your point that the small tail of an elephant would not be likely described like a cedar tree. We don't know what the circumstances were of the sighting of whatever kind of animal the behemoth was.

For the sake of sheer speculation, if an elephant had never been seen before, and if when it had been seen it was from a good distance, it's possible the trunk of an elephant could have been described as being a "tail". I know, that sounds weird, but again it assumes never having seen such an animal before, seeing it from a distance, and seeing a long "tail-like" appendage on the beast hanging down and moving around. I say 'at a distance' because just how close would you really want to get to such a large and strange looking creature? When you think about it, elephants look pretty odd.

Also, if someone had seen this thing from a distance, and saw it rampaging (a bull elephant in must) destroy village huts and wipe out crops, that too would be a fearsome sight to see.

One might argue that elephants are from Africa, probably no where near where Lot may have lived. The range of the African elephant would probably have been much farther south on the continent, pretty much as they are today. Regardless, Asia also has elephants (Indian elephants).

Although the Indian elephants would be more abundant in South and Southeast Asia, I don't doubt some could've easily ranged farther west, at least close enough for a sighting in the vicinity of Lot's area.

Another possibility is that the translation or the account of the behemoth could have been jumbled up a bit over the passage of decades and centuries in retelling the tale generation after generation by word of mouth. There's no indication that the original account was written by Lot himself on a scroll or clay tablet.

At best, to link the behemoth as a dinosaur, it's possible the fossils of dino bones had been found, conjuring up all kinds of speculation as to what kind of beast such bones must have belonged to.

Whatever the case was, I completely agree that claiming the behemoth was a living dinosaur at the time of Lot, not to mention more modern assumption of dinos existing in more recent times, is nothing more than a wild stretch of modern imagination. And calling the Angkor Wat carving a stegosaur is nothing more than pareidolia. In fact, calling it a stegosaur is incorrect, because steggies didn't have a bony head plate, nor did they have three horns, nor did they have a short neck. That's more of a description of triceratop. And the links to the claims by so-called experts clearly shows they were no experts if they made such a significant identification error. A quick Google of images shows the difference between a stegosaur and a triceratop.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,880,983 times
Reputation: 3627
Default Lies, damn lies, and C34's logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Well we can see the scales in the fossil, was there also a date stamped on the fossil that we can all see? Your 77 million years is an assumption. The Bible was correct about the scales, and the fact that such a beast with scales was written about just thousands of years ago, and not millions, pretty much rules out millions of years.

Nope. There were, certainly, no argument, big fish thousands of years ago. Just no dinosaurs. Sorry; no points for your side on this one!

And the fact that we have ancient art that depicts dinosaurs from people that lived thousands of years ago, and not millions, also confirms the Biblical account. It's to bad that modern science ignores this evidence because of their obvious bias.

Hey; it was your link, not mine! And yes, in fact, there WAS a date stamped on his tail. You just choose not to read it, else God is Dead.


So... you're selectively denying the other information and observations provided by these scientist people you happily lauded a few posts ago. What if I told you that this was all a fake, made out of plasticene, by a bunch of prankster University kids? Why would you deny that? What's your proof? That you like this "find" and the conclusions of the team, but only partially?

You need your "scales" to somehow prove that the highly ambiguous bit in Job refers to dinosaurs, and not just some other big fish *(again, dinosaurs do not have 'scales" in the sense of a fish's separate scales, and as some biblical person who caught and ate fish daily would have meant it.)

It doesn't prove any such thing. Sorry. Your "proof" and my "proof" are not the same. I'm on the side of rational science, BTW. You're on the side of dance-around-the-fire mumbo-jumbo anti-science.

Forget your other art works and cave drawings, unless you want me to forget the other tens of thousands of paleontological studies done to date that prove multi-millions-of-years old dinos. We're still waitnig for you to provide real evidence of human co-existance; a spear-point imbedded into some T-Rex's body, saddles in the caves, human artifacts found alongside dino bones. Hasn't happened, and it won't.

Nuclear isotopic dating is highly reliable, and you know it, but that scares you senseless. The Creationist websites tell you lies, as they must, to defend against the elephant in the room, the incoming ballsitic missle of scientific knowledge. Their so-called technical theories that discount such dating techniques are all flawed, but then, they had to write something bad about reach one, didn't they?

But then you happily quote their use in substantiating your faker Acambara figurines, where they were mis-used (or not used at all is my best guess; they just picked one from the list that they'd heard of, and wrote up another lie. Because any lab worth it's salt would have told them you can't date rocks with C14! THat's a FACT, Tom! And you know it.)

These techniques have all been "proofed" on items of known age (a mummy, a vase, a rock of recent volcanic deposition), but oddly, it's all wrong when applied to a dino or a mammoth tusk. Independant "blind" tests using different methodologies have all come up with the same time range estimates, reliably.

And why is that? Because when these various methods prove to be accurate, your life's belief system is gone, "poof", in an instant. So I do understand your fight to the death in the face of such irrefutible proof, your patently obvious "Selective Acceptance" of scientific findings. But why then, did you stupidly and gloatingly reference their credentials in your original post? You apparently love scientific findings when it suits you. Else, you hate them.

How trite! How intellectually dishonest! How typical.

Last edited by rifleman; 08-15-2009 at 12:14 PM.. Reason: typoz, adds.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 12:48 PM
 
Location: South Africa
1,319 posts, read 1,263,561 times
Reputation: 293
When speaking of a cedar tree, which of these are we supposed to correlate to?

Cedar trees

Assuming Job was a ME goatherder, would he not have had this in mind?



Cedar of Lebanon

More here
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 01:11 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,551,617 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think you are unjustified in moving 'loins' to 'belly' and then saying that rules out elephant when as far as we know prehistoric animals' bellies were no more muscular than elephant's or any other belly. Also the mention of 'tail' implies that 'loins' is in the same physical area.

However, I do have some doubts about 'tail'. I don't feel that the relatively small tails of elephants or hippos would filt the description. As I say, the text doesn't clear up the matter. The sheer lack of any examples of prehistoric animals about in the human context is a stronger argument against behemoth being a dinosaur or any other prehistoric mammal, for that matter.



It is rather amusing that one of those apologists who are so quick to play the 'metaphor' card when Bible problems crop up is insisting that this passage, which has some indication of poetic hyperbole, hould be taken literally.

"His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds."

Obviously this is not literally applicable either to a crocodile or to any prehistoric beast. In fact it tends to suggest some fire-breathing dragon and I certainly can't rule out that they are simply mythological animals used as examples of what is way beyond humans to cope with.

Point is, that it is not unreasonable to read it as relating to an animal which is rather too much for the everyday bod to tackle.

"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?"

This certainly suggests a river - dweller suggesting a consideration, at least, of fishhooks and the idea of tying up a jaw, like a crocodile.

And you are simply wrong in saying that a crocodile skin is nothing like airtight. If anything, it is more so than the fossil skin of dinosaurs indicate.

http://www.arkive.org/media/E3DFAFFC...ng-texture.jpg

There are arguments for and against, but again, the strongest argument against behemoth or leviathan being prehistoric animals is that there are no organic remains in context with man. I know you reject all the dating evidence and insist that, if it doesn't have a 'best before' date on it, rocks might as well be only a few thousand years old. But the fact is that the dinosaur - bearing rocks don't have human remains and human bearing deposits don't have prehistoric animal remains. The hard evidence is lacking, the anecdotal evidence is highly arguable, the Ica stones are dodgy, The Ta Phrom stegosaur is really neither here nor there, any more than coelacanth, and the supposed human and dinosaur footprints are misinterpreted to the point of hoax.

Remember, that you are trying to convince us, and this is just nowhere near enough to convince anyone who wasn't already determined to be convinced.
Job 40:16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly. The verse in question clearly tells us that this animal had great power and strength found in his (BELLY). And elephants belly is one of his most vulnerable spots. I was justified here to suggest his strength would be found in his belly, because the Text clearly points this out.

And there is no poetic hyperbole when the text suggest that this beast snorts out flashes of light. This beast was truly a fire breather. That seems impossible to you, only because it was never taught to you in science class. Yet the Bible is a Book of Truth, and that knowledge comes to you because the Bible was one of the few Books to record this. The Bombardier beetle shoot out 212 degree boiling hot acidic spray to fend off attackers. Such exotic defenses can still be seen in nature today. There are numerous historical accounts that speak of fire breathing dragons. Todays science dismisses all of this as nothing more than fables. Yet such scientific denails cannot explain why such fables were believed on a global scale. Just as they cannot explain why there are so many global flood stories found in oral traditions.

To suggest that there is no organic remains in context with man is simply to fall into the same camp as so many everyday scientist. Just ignore the evidence, claim it's a hoax, do this without any scientific review, and then claim science is on your side.

And no, I don't reject all the dating evidence. I believe in carbon dating, especially when they use it on dinosaur bones. Of course then, it is science that rejects those dates, because they (ASSUME) dinosaur bones are millions of years old. Yet, when they do mistakenly carbon test dinosaur bones, they always show them to be thousands of years old, and not millions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 01:41 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,551,617 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Hey; it was your link, not mine! And yes, in fact, there WAS a date stamped on his tail. You just choose not to read it, else God is Dead.

So... you're selectively denying the other information and observations provided by these scientist people you happily lauded a few posts ago. What if I told you that this was all a fake, made out of plasticene, by a bunch of prankster University kids? Why would you deny that? What's your proof? That you like this "find" and the conclusions of the team, but only partially?

You need your "scales" to somehow prove that the highly ambiguous bit in Job refers to dinosaurs, and not just some other big fish *(again, dinosaurs do not have 'scales" in the sense of a fish's separate scales, and as some biblical person who caught and ate fish daily would have meant it.)

It doesn't prove any such thing. Sorry. Your "proof" and my "proof" are not the same. I'm on the side of rational science, BTW. You're on the side of dance-around-the-fire mumbo-jumbo anti-science.

Forget your other art works and cave drawings, unless you want me to forget the other tens of thousands of paleontological studies done to date that prove multi-millions-of-years old dinos. We're still waitnig for you to provide real evidence of human co-existance; a spear-point imbedded into some T-Rex's body, saddles in the caves, human artifacts found alongside dino bones. Hasn't happened, and it won't.

Nuclear isotopic dating is highly reliable, and you know it, but that scares you senseless. The Creationist websites tell you lies, as they must, to defend against the elephant in the room, the incoming ballsitic missle of scientific knowledge. Their so-called technical theories that discount such dating techniques are all flawed, but then, they had to write something bad about reach one, didn't they?

But then you happily quote their use in substantiating your faker Acambara figurines, where they were mis-used (or not used at all is my best guess; they just picked one from the list that they'd heard of, and wrote up another lie. Because any lab worth it's salt would have told them you can't date rocks with C14! THat's a FACT, Tom! And you know it.)

These techniques have all been "proofed" on items of known age (a mummy, a vase, a rock of recent volcanic deposition), but oddly, it's all wrong when applied to a dino or a mammoth tusk. Independant "blind" tests using different methodologies have all come up with the same time range estimates, reliably.

And why is that? Because when these various methods prove to be accurate, your life's belief system is gone, "poof", in an instant. So I do understand your fight to the death in the face of such irrefutible proof, your patently obvious "Selective Acceptance" of scientific findings. But why then, did you stupidly and gloatingly reference their credentials in your original post? You apparently love scientific findings when it suits you. Else, you hate them.

How trite! How intellectually dishonest! How typical.
So, could you please show me a link that would confirm this dinosaur was only a fake fossil? Or could you show me a link that would prove this mummfied dinosaur had no scales? Now, did the dinosaur have scales or not. YES or NO?

And does it scare you when they carbon test dinosaur bones, and test returns show them to be thousands of years old, and not millions?
Or are you saying nuclear Isotopic dating is highly reliable, only when such tests agree with your worldview?

I agree with the evidence, I do not agree with their assumptions about the evidence. And that is not trite at all, it's just common sense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 02:01 PM
 
4,110 posts, read 4,672,737 times
Reputation: 1809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Job 40:16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly. The verse in question clearly tells us that this animal had great power and strength found in his (BELLY). And elephants belly is one of his most vulnerable spots. I was justified here to suggest his strength would be found in his belly, because the Text clearly points this out.

And there is no poetic hyperbole when the text suggest that this beast snorts out flashes of light. This beast was truly a fire breather. That seems impossible to you, only because it was never taught to you in science class. Yet the Bible is a Book of Truth, and that knowledge comes to you because the Bible was one of the few Books to record this. The Bombardier beetle shoot out 212 degree boiling hot acidic spray to fend off attackers. Such exotic defenses can still be seen in nature today. There are numerous historical accounts that speak of fire breathing dragons. Todays science dismisses all of this as nothing more than fables. Yet such scientific denails cannot explain why such fables were believed on a global scale. Just as they cannot explain why there are so many global flood stories found in oral traditions.

To suggest that there is no organic remains in context with man is simply to fall into the same camp as so many everyday scientist. Just ignore the evidence, claim it's a hoax, do this without any scientific review, and then claim science is on your side.

And no, I don't reject all the dating evidence. I believe in carbon dating, especially when they use it on dinosaur bones. Of course then, it is science that rejects those dates, because they (ASSUME) dinosaur bones are millions of years old. Yet, when they do mistakenly carbon test dinosaur bones, they always show them to be thousands of years old, and not millions.
Quote:
...the text suggest that this beast snorts out flashes of light.
Perhaps the beast isn't the only one that's been snorting things.


Quote:
Yet such scientific denails cannot explain why such fables were believed on a global scale.
It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out.

- There are lots of animals around the world.
- There are lots of things people don't understand.
- People can be afraid of things they don't understand.
- People often describe things they're afraid of as being larger than life.
- Presto! You have handy legend about an animal described to be larger than life.
- Sometimes parents scare naughty kids by saying things like, "If you don't behave yourself, a gigantic fire-breathing behemoth or leviathan will get you!"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2009, 02:13 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,551,617 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Perhaps the beast isn't the only one that's been snorting things.



It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out.

- There are lots of animals around the world.
- There are lots of things people don't understand.
- People can be afraid of things they don't understand.
- People often describe things they're afraid of as being larger than life.
- Presto! You have handy legend about an animal described to be larger than life.
- Sometimes parents scare naughty kids by saying things like, "If you don't behave yourself, a gigantic fire-breathing behemoth or leviathan will get you!"
So people don't understand a lot of things, and theres a lot of animals around the world, so presto, now almost every oral tradition on earth speaks of a global flood. Wow, that makes a lot of sense. LOL
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top