|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 14:38:47 GMT -5
I have another question for those who support evolution? Where are all the transition fossils to support the thoery that things.. whatever evolved over millions of years? There is not one transition fossil to be found? Evolution is just a fairy tale thats all
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Sept 8, 2007 14:39:04 GMT -5
Just passing through and I have a question for those who believe in evolution. Where are all the fossils of the partially evolved animals, people, etc? Therein lies the problem. There are no 'half evolved' organisms unless you consider that ant organism is 'half evolved', i.e., it may continue to evolve and give rise to some new specie. There are organisms that have evolved from another and may, or may not, evolve further. There are fossils of animals that are no longer alive. And there are animal alive that evolved from these animals. Humans, I guess, could be considered to be 'half evolved'. In two million years who knows what will have happened. I think some people view evolution as suddenly a chipmunk will give birth to a new half animal that will give birth to a completely new animal. No one is saying this is how evolution works. As far as transitional fossils go, there is a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 14:41:26 GMT -5
Just passing through and I have a question for those who believe in evolution. Where are all the fossils of the partially evolved animals, people, etc? Therein lies the problem. There are no 'half evolved' organisms unless you consider that ant organism is 'half evolved', i.e., it may continue to evolve and give rise to some new specie. There are organisms that have evolved from another and may, or may not, evolve further. There are fossils of animals that are no longer alive. And there are animal alive that evolved from these animals. Humans, I guess, could be considered to be 'half evolved'. In two million years who knows what will have happened. I think some people view evolution as suddenly a chipmunk will give birth to a new half animal that will give birth to a completely new animal. No one is saying this is how evolution works.As far as transitional fossils go, there is a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps. How does evolution work then?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 14:43:24 GMT -5
Evolution is like the book of Mormon not one thing ever checked out
|
|
|
Post by silent fool on Sept 8, 2007 14:44:20 GMT -5
Las have you searched for the fossils you refer to? I guess not, in which case how can you xclaim that they don't exist. Your argumens are rather juveile - even the most simple minds understand that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. I suggest you try to grasp the basics of the evolution argument before making a complete fool of yourself n a public space such as this. The old adage better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt still applies.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 14:45:26 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for an answer from the evolution supporters before I make a fool out of myself..Did Adam & Eve Evolve
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Sept 8, 2007 14:51:02 GMT -5
The question is at what stage did God suddenly take an interest in saving one particular branch of the evolutionary chain? I imagine that He doesn't require the orangatang or gorilla family to serve him in the same manner as the human family on threat of everlasting punishment, but did He require our common chimpanzee ancestor to serve Him? And what about neanderthal man? I wonder did God just wake up some day and realise that a certain branch of the ape species had developed a slightly larger brain than the others and say "ok that's it - from now on those guys descendant's souls will go to hell if they don't serve me". And what happened to the souls of our common chimpanzee ancestors - if they had souls? I wonder was the soul a later development - perhaps linked to the development of the brain? All very puzzling isn't it? I think I'll stick to believing all that Adam and Eve in the garden caper - it makes it all so much easier to explain. You could look at it from the other side. At what point did an organism find the thought of dying so terrible that they decided there must be something after death and set about creating a whole after life world to set their sights on. The development of gods is fairly straight forward. In the world there were many things that man could not control nor understand. If you upset the god of the sea there were storms. If you upset the big guy there was lightning to deal with as well as thunder. Best sacrifice to Zeus and Thor just to be safe. Things go well - you thank god and offer gifts. Things are not going so well - you sacrifice and pray for protection. And there are always those who will make a buck off it. "I am tight with god. He said you should bring me a goat. I will put in a good work for you." "Look I have written down the words of god. See, he said I am the only one he wants to talk to. Build a large structure. But only a select few can go in. Bring us good things and we will make things right with god." "Things didn't go well? Must be you sinned. You need to be better. Bring us more things". Maybe god didn't choose humans. Maybe we chose him.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 8, 2007 14:52:46 GMT -5
What is a soul? What evidence is there that we have one? Might not The orangetang have one too? Haw about my dog? does he have a soul? He seams to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of good and bad! Ed
|
|
|
Post by silent fool on Sept 8, 2007 14:54:59 GMT -5
The story of Adam and Eve is merely a story, one that the ancients in their ignorance came up with to explain the origins of man. Most of us have since moved on. This may be hard for you to take but no such two people as Adam and Eve ever existed. The question you ask is therefore futile.
I suggest therefore a period of silence while you take this in.
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Sept 8, 2007 14:59:06 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for an answer from the evolution supporters before I make a fool out of myself.. Did Adam & Eve EvolveIt could be too late. The first question would be did Adam and Eve exist or is it just one of many different creation myths. Las, this is sort of like me asking you if the Easter Bunny can feel pain. But generally speaking, individuals do not evolve, species do. So Adam and Eve did not evolve. However if they did exist (and that is a huge if) perhaps their progeny was somewhat different and so they might have experienced some evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Sept 8, 2007 14:59:34 GMT -5
Ed / Junior member.
I''m with you guys on this one. I'm hoping for a response from the evolution supporting Christian persepective.
|
|
|
Post by How it works on Sept 8, 2007 15:05:19 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem. There are no 'half evolved' organisms unless you consider that ant organism is 'half evolved', i.e., it may continue to evolve and give rise to some new specie. There are organisms that have evolved from another and may, or may not, evolve further. There are fossils of animals that are no longer alive. And there are animal alive that evolved from these animals. Humans, I guess, could be considered to be 'half evolved'. In two million years who knows what will have happened. I think some people view evolution as suddenly a chipmunk will give birth to a new half animal that will give birth to a completely new animal. No one is saying this is how evolution works.As far as transitional fossils go, there is a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps. How does evolution work then? It works like this. You are alive. You have a certain set of characteristics. Will those characteristics help you procreate(do you have any children)? See? That is how it works. Characteristics that help a species procreate are preserved. Those that do not are extinguished.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 8, 2007 15:09:35 GMT -5
Adam And Eve are purely mythical beings.IE they never really existed! But, in the simple anwer to your question is ,yes, they did evolve, at least mankind has evolved. how else could you account for the differences of the varied races? Ed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2007 17:43:13 GMT -5
Las! This is a transition fossil[/img][/center] He is the transition between archaic homo sapiens and us.You can take all the "human" skulls going back two million years, and sort them in order of transition - with hardly any difference between any two of them. How many transition fossils do you require?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 19:31:06 GMT -5
If we come from monkeys how come we don't look like em?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Sept 8, 2007 19:34:27 GMT -5
and why are there still monkeys around?
|
|
|
Post by Ed Servicex7cjm52 on Sept 8, 2007 20:00:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 8, 2007 20:03:28 GMT -5
Lloyd wrote: "and why are there still monkeys around?"
When you were born your cousins didn't have to stop living did they! Think of the monkey as your far distant cousin. Ed
|
|
|
Post by ievolved on Sept 8, 2007 21:20:48 GMT -5
At one time I bought into the whole evolution stuff too. Eventually my education brought me to the point that it took more faith to believe in evolution than it did to believe in a creator. (Understanding the inherent limitations and fallacies of evolution have nothing to do with being a Christian or not.)
Remember, many people went to their grave believing the earth was flat...simply because it was "accepted scientific fact" at that point in history.
And before you write me off as a simpleton, let me assure you I am highly educated in the physical sciences and open minded.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 23:22:59 GMT -5
I have a suggestion, Las. You need to read a book about evolution to see just what it is all about instead of repeatedly making a fool of yourself.
Most popular books on evolution present the theory as though it were fact, notwithstanding the many problems with the concept which scientists cannot explain. Most scientists will not even touch the tough issues - such as demonstrating the development of the primitive cell; how does a hot mix of non-living chemicals suddenly bind together to form a living, reproducing cell with an elaborate DNA code?
No one has ever suggested that a whole body part evolves in a single swoop. Consider eyes. The most primitive eye is a a single photoreceptor.
This sounds like a good argument, until you start to deconstruct the implications. (Please note, this is with few deviations, precisely the same developmental pattern asserted by Darwin in 1863 in the Origin of Species. Darwin was most uncertain about the complex structure of the eye.):
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (Darwin, pg 167)
The problem with most evolutionist's "just-so-stories" is that they presuppose an enormous level of complexity to begin with. A single photoreceptor cell - a "light sensitive spot" - requires a staggering array of biochemicals in order to make it functional; dozens of proteins to control the structure of the cell, and molecular supports to hold the structure in place.
Then of course is the other argument, that a light sensitive spot is useless if the organism does not have the machinery to interpret the information and react to it. Let us assume, for example, that our resistent TMB evolutionist is correct, and somewhere in some ocean billions of years ago, a single celled organism evolved (improbably thought that might be) a light-sensitive spot; a photoreceptor organelle.
It would confer no advantage on the organism at all in the great biological arms race of Natural Selection, because the organism needs to also develop an ability to respond to the information the organelle recieves. It needs to know, for example, to move toward the light. Or away from the light. Without this information also concurrently evolving, the photoreceptor is actually less than useless - it requires energy to maintain and operate, which places a greater burden on the little organism to feed.
(Feed on what, one might well ask, in a chemical soup with no organic matter).
Organisms such as euglena find this useful for locating sunlight for photosynthesis.
A nice "just-so-story". But as I pointed out above, the organelle is worthless without the ability for the organism to react appropriate to the data provided by the photoreceptor.
Moving along, planaria have photo-receptors in slightly indented 'cups' which allow some perception as to the direction of the light.
Again, a worthless adaptation without the instinctual element - to respond to shadow, to light, to know to move forward, or away. To imagine that all of this suddenly emerged like a "pop-out-of-nowhere" with the cup-like structure is more than a little improbable.
Gradual changes in this structure, covering with a clear membrane, increase in the number and types of photo-receptors, the thickening of the covering into a lens, etc. could all happen gradually oner time and end up with the variety of eyes that are now in existence.
Again, evolutionists tend to gloss over the complex and innately delicate structures which are required for the membranes and lenses. You'll be hard pressed to find any scientist with a plausible explanation for the development of a single photoreceptor, let alone the irreductable structures of an eye.
And I think we can all agree than an eye with even a single missing structure is absolutely worthless.
One of your problems, Las, is that you listen to the people who do not support nor, from what you are telling us, understand what evolution is and isn't.
The problem with so many die-hard evolutionists, is that they are committed to the Theory come what may, because it is required for their particular worldview.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 23:40:36 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem. There are no 'half evolved' organisms unless you consider that ant organism is 'half evolved', i.e., it may continue to evolve and give rise to some new specie.
This argument is nothing more than a clever sleight of hand.
We all know that evolutionists maintain that human beings - homo sapiens - are descendents of a long lineage of other ape-like bipedal creatures. We have all seen the charts in the textbooks that show a little chimp changing into a slightly more upright creature, and then more upright and clean-cut again, with the final result of a human being.
Likewise the pictures that show the development of genus equinus, with a little rat like creature, slowly changing into differnt forms until, poof-bingle-bangle, we have a carthorse.
The question is valid. If evolution is the correct interpretation of the origin of species, we should expect to find dozens of fossils which closely resemble creatures with which we are familiar. Calling them "transitional forms" may be semantically less-than-accurate, but scientifically, such forms should nevertheless abound. In 2005, the National Geographic published a big article on evolution in which they asserted the whale evolved from a four-legged land mammal. If this is true, we should find little skeletons of a mammal with half-grown fins, or with a jutting spinal cord, or with thickening legs.
We should expect to find all kinds of bizarre forms. We know the end result - the kinds of animals we have today - and so therefore we should be able to build up a beautiful picture of structural development and change. But where are the Giraffe ancestors with the shorter necks? (The neck did not appear wholesale; it evolved over time). Where are the fossils of little runty elephants with spindly legs and developing trunks? Where as the fossils of the original "raccoon-like" ancestor of the Australian Kangaroo, developing legs, tail, pouch and the muscular system required for locomotion via jumping?
These forms are entirely fictional; speculation. The fossil evidence cannot be found, even though men have been searching high-and-low for a hundred-and-fifty years.
There are organisms that have evolved from another and may, or may not, evolve further. There are fossils of animals that are no longer alive. And there are animal alive that evolved from these animals.
So you say. But the linking forms between a primitive fossil found in the Cambrian Layer, to the moden forms we see today should be in abundant evidence. It is not unreasonable to expect evolutionists to roll out a bunch of similar looking fossils and to demonstrate the slow development of a certain structure (even one, please!). After all, there are thousands of creatures to pick from. It shouldn't be a difficult request, if evolution was the correct interpretation of our biological history.
Humans, I guess, could be considered to be 'half evolved'. In two million years who knows what will have happened.
Total obfuscation.
I think some people view evolution as suddenly a chipmunk will give birth to a new half animal that will give birth to a completely new animal. No one is saying this is how evolution works.
No one is saying that. Not a single poster has asserted such a ridiculous concept in this thread.
As far as transitional fossils go, there is a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps.
Oh really! I follow evolutionary news with a zeal. I would be deeply interested to know the genus, and the name of this set of transitional fossils. Could you direct me to a link, please?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 23:48:24 GMT -5
Las have you searched for the fossils you refer to? I guess not, in which case how can you xclaim that they don't exist. Your argumens are rather juveile - even the most simple minds understand that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
Unless you are claiming your views are Scientific Theory, and virtual fact. The fact that there is hardly any fossil evidence; and the fact that transitional forms cannot be demonstrated; and the fact that plausible explanations for the appearance of the primitive cell, and the fact that many biological structures are irreductible complex (in total contradistinction to the assertions of Neo-Darwinism), I think is significant.
You seem to be saying that although evolution is due to be proven very soon (Ed Service's comment) and although evolution cannot lay claim to a strong basis in evidence, it is still worthy of belief, and elevation to the status of fact?
For goodness sake! It's schizophrenic.
I suggest you try to grasp the basics of the evolution argument before making a complete fool of yourself in a public space such as this. The old adage better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt still applies.
The old "sage-on-the-stage" routine: "We know all about real science, son. You just pipe down until your knowledge is comparable with ours."
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 23:51:22 GMT -5
I''m with you guys on this one. I'm hoping for a response from the evolution supporting Christian persepective.
I'm presenting a Christian argument. But I don't see any response.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Service on Sept 9, 2007 0:29:18 GMT -5
Evolution IS proven to over 99 % of the scientists who have studied it. There are many transitional fossils, I don't understand why Christian punters keep saying there is none. the Human chain is quite well documented. you can look them up as well as I can. I know there is no point in discussing this with you git as it is obvious that, far from an open mind about it your mind is quite made up! Ed
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Sept 9, 2007 0:37:29 GMT -5
Most popular books on evolution present the theory as though it were fact, notwithstanding the many problems with the concept which scientists cannot explain. Most scientists will not even touch the tough issues - such as demonstrating the development of the primitive cell; how does a hot mix of non-living chemicals suddenly bind together to form a living, reproducing cell with an elaborate DNA code? Wouldn't you agree that reading anything would help? Quoting Darwin at this point is like quoting Rutherford to verify the design of the atomic bomb. Science has moved on. The story could just as well start at a lower level. The euglena was not the first organism to have a photorecptor. But not useless to an organism that can move and then develops a means of locating light. The organism doesn't need to know anything. Anymore than bacteria with magnetic bits embedded in them need to know how to follow the magnetic fields. Like iron filings, they initially line up. Any movement at that point gets them in the right direction. What makes you think there was no organic matter? It certainly was not plentiful but there were enough sources for a limited food supply until the photosynthesis started. The heterotrophs were happy for a while but had the autotrophs not got working we might never have been. No, this is incorrect. As I said, none of this appears 'pop' out of nowhere. Plants respond to light and dark with out learning how. In plants it is a simple reactions of auxins to light. Among their many features they act as hydrogen ion pumps on the dark side which lowers the pH and triggers growth. This is wrong. An eye without a lens can still sense fuzzy images. An eye with only rods can still see in B&W. In fact, a single photoreceptor with most parts missing will still allow the organism to know light from dark. You are assuming the eye cups came first but that may well have not been the case. Again the organism does not have to know how to respond. Light hits the right side and inhibits the swimming action. The organism turns to the right, just as a plant does when light falls on one side of the stem. And the theory fits the facts. Certainly it is not all proved and the theory will change as more data is made available. But that is better than ignoring the data in order to support an inflexible theory. First there was the claim from creationists that there was no evolution. When it could not be ignored the terms micro and macro evolution were invented to protect the theory.
|
|
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by on Sept 9, 2007 1:22:13 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem. There are no 'half evolved' organisms unless you consider that ant organism is 'half evolved', i.e., it may continue to evolve and give rise to some new specie. This argument is nothing more than a clever sleight of hand. No, this is not slight of hand. Living things are evolving as we type so who is to say if any one of them is 1/2 or 1/3 evolved? This is the problem. The fossils do exist. Complete sets. Detailing the change from ground walking creatures to birds. Continuing to state they don't doesn't make them go away. Yes it did. And there are the fossils. Short necked giraffes are talked about here: www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/june/fossils.htmHere is a brief discussion regarding giraffes: Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.Yet they have them. Photos and all. A quick search on Google should give you what you want. Here is one fron Scientific American: www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=527675D9-E7F2-99DF-3265F1A19B72042FWant to explain that? What makes you think all living things are not continuing to evlove? Dinosaurs were around for 8 million years and their change can be traced. Humans have been around less than a million years. If we are around as long as the dinos were I think stating we are "1/2 evolved" is a true statement. someone posted: If we come from monkeys how come we don't look like em?I guess it is a little different but just as far fetched. As far as transitional fossils go, there is a complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps.Sure, I have to get off but here is a quick search: hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm#Birdswww.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.htmlwww.amnh.org/learn/courses/dinosaurs.phpA little off the fossil trail: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6548719.stm
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 9, 2007 4:53:02 GMT -5
Giraffe EvolutionNo, this is not slight of hand. Living things are evolving as we type so who is to say if any one of them is 1/2 or 1/3 evolved?This argument is entirely beside the point. I could say that all living things are degenerating and becoming corrupt this minute, even as I type, due to the contamination of Original Sin. But that assertion no more proves the existence of Original Sin than your argument proves the truth of the macroevolutionary process. This is the problem. The fossils do exist. Complete sets. Well that's very interesting. You of course will furnish me with links and I will, of course, investigate. My understanding, however, is that fossils are extremely rare (since most of them are marine, not terrestrial). For example, the fossil evidence for the variety of horse ancestors rests entirely on a collection of teeth, not bones. Detailing the change from ground walking creatures to birds. Continuing to state they don't doesn't make them go away.I'm stating they don't because they don't. You have claimed a string of fossil discoveries of ancestor forms to the giraffe. But as I discovered, this is absolute bunk. Nonetheless, it is certainly convienient to run about talking of fossils and hard evidence, when in reality, it is merely a string of conjecture, hypothesis, and speculation. Half of the giraffe ancestoral forms were named in the 19th century, and one, in fact, before the publication of the Origin of Species. Yes it did. And there are the fossils. Short necked giraffes are talked about here:You didn't read the article did you? I imagine you simply typed "short-necked giraffe" into Google, opened it up, and pasted the link. On the other hand, I actually took the time to read it, and the entire text had absolutely nothing to do with evolution: it was all about the study of enamel defects in extinct African herbivores, a condition called enamel hypoplasia and the theory that the cause of these defects was the result of environmental changes. It did mention short-necked giraffes ( sivatherium hendeyi), and once again, I did some research on the genus mentioned. According to several websites, it is an animal supposed to have emerged 5 million years ago and lived (quote) " until comparitively recently" (BBC, 2000). Scientists conclude that the modern giraffe (giraffa camelopardalis) emerged 1 million years ago. It does not take a Charles Darwin to recognise that the chronological distance between the development of the two species is much too short for one to have evolved into the other. The death knell of the assertion that sivatherium hendeyi is an ancestor of giraffa camelopardalis is the fact that for a time, both animals lived side-by-side. Sivatherium hendeyi cannot therefore be considered either a transitional form, or an ancestor to any of the 12 sub-species of African giraffe: I cite: Sivatheres lived from around five million years ago until comparatively recently. As giraffes go they were unusual in appearance, and are often placed in a separate family from the rest. They were heavy-bodied, short-necked and carried horns (called ossicones) that were much more elaborately developed than those of other giraffes. They originated in Africa and later extended their range into Eurasia. The genus was first discovered on the Indian subcontinent, though. There are indications that sivatheres survived well into civilized times. (BBC, 2000)One concludes, therefore, that sivatherium hendeyi is simply an extinct variation of the giraffe, having had a short-neck and cannot be considered a transitional form at all. Let us now turn to the supposed ancestor forms, which you have asserted in no uncertain forms to be based on actual existing fossil discoveries: Eumeryx. I spent almost an hour trying to find images of this ancestor form on the Internet, or any record of it having been discovered. Eventually, I discovered the reason why. According to the Paleobiology Database, it was named by Matthew and Granger in 1924, and is not (quote) " an ichnofossil or a form taxon", which means, there is no fossil. It is a hypothetical creature. Climacoceras. The Paleobiology Database simply has this comment: " Named by MacInnes (1936). It is not extant". Once again, there is no fossil evidence. Once again, it is a hypothetical creature which is simply assumed to exist. Canthumeryx. " Named by Hamilton, 1973. It is not extant". Palaeotragus. " Named by Gaudry, 1861. It is not extant." Samotherium. " Named by Forsyth Major (1888). It is not extant". Okapia. This is a living species. Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.Here we have the the lineage of the modern giraffe according to evolutionary science. The lineage is comprised of five hypothetical creatures, for which there exists absolutely no fossil evidence. After that, we have the Okapia and then the modern giraffe. This is hardly what a reasonable person would call overwhelming evidence for giraffe evolution. What is more, you asserted - without qualification - that these ancestors existed, and that there is real evidence for them. That claim is proven to be completely false. You check it out for yourself at paleodb.org. Or, on the Taxinomicon at sn2000.taxonomy.nl. You have claimed something to be absolutely rock-solid proven, when in fact your claim rests on a string of conjecture, speculation and hypothesis. Yet they have them. Photos and all. If you could provide a link with photographs of the fossil collection for the superfamily Cervoidea (Systema Naturae Classification, 2000), then I should be most grateful.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Sept 9, 2007 6:11:50 GMT -5
|
|