Darwinism lacks explanation for new discovered life that has not evolved for >2 Billion years - GoFuckYourself.com

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 09:58 AM

An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported — a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years.

“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth,” J. William Schopf, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, and the study’s lead author, said in a statement.

“Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years | UCLA

michael.kickass · 02-04-2015, 10:01 AM

Just quotin'

"Research actually provides further support for Darwin,..."

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael.kickass

Just quotin'

"Research actually provides further support for Darwin,..."

just re-quoting the study's lead scientist's comment I included in my OP

“Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

Harmon · 02-04-2015, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael.kickass

Just quotin'

"Research actually provides further support for Darwin,..."

It's at the top of the article

Amazing how people read into shit and forget the bullet points.

Ama-ZING!

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 10:07 AM

From your link:

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?

420 · 02-04-2015, 10:08 AM

When one organism "evolves" into another the original isn't wiped out. If the newly adapted organism doesn't consume all the resources, they'd both have a chance for survival. I don't believe evolution always happens out of necessity.

MaDalton · 02-04-2015, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

From your link:

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?

^^^^^this

crockett · 02-04-2015, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

just re-quoting the study's lead scientist's comment I included in my OP

“Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

To further quote...

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

ie their environment didn't change, so there was no stimulus to inspire any need to evolve.

ottopottomouse · 02-04-2015, 10:13 AM

Once you evolve to being perfect for your environment and the environment isn't subject to any changes there is no need to continue to mutate.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:13 AM

lolz, it appears y'all are not familiar with the socratic method of creating dialogue around critical thinking.

the simple fact is that this discovery allowed further proofing of the theory. FYI, it's still a fucking theory and consequently, this discovery allowed further discussion amongst the intelligent.

y'all are all too busy playing gotcha. have fun with that!

MaDalton · 02-04-2015, 10:15 AM

god does not approve this thread

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

It's at the top of the article

Amazing how people read into shit and forget the bullet points.

Ama-ZING!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

From your link:

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

^^^^^this

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

To further quote...

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?

ie their environment didn't change, so there was no stimulus to inspire any need to evolve.

it's as if y'all think I stopped reading the article on this right after the quote I used.

the fact is (from the article)::::::::::::

Quote:

Charles Darwin?s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn?t. So how do scientists explain a species living for so long without evolving?

can you brainiacs see the difference here?

aka123 · 02-04-2015, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported ? a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years.

?It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years ? nearly half the history of the Earth,? J. William Schopf, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, and the study?s lead author, said in a statement.

?Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.?

Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years | UCLA

So, how this contradicts with evolution?

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:24 AM

Darwinism explains evolution, it does not directly explain the lack of evolution.

420 · 02-04-2015, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

So, how this contradicts with evolution?

It doesn't contradict evolution or god. God created everything and then it started changing for mostly unknown reasons.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

So, how this contradicts with evolution?

where did I say it contradicts evolution?

MaDalton · 02-04-2015, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's as if y'all think I stopped reading the article on this right after the quote I used.

the fact is (from the article)::::::::::::

can you brainiacs see the difference here?

it says right there - no pressure, no evolving

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 10:26 AM

^^^^^this ?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,?

aka123 · 02-04-2015, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

From your link:

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?

That depends what is counted as "environment", as the competition inside the specie is one primary driver for evolution. You know, bigger penises, feathers, more bright colours and so on. That was sexually oriented, but also competition for food etc. Evolution is not just that you adapt into some environment and live happily ever after in some harmony.

michael.kickass · 02-04-2015, 10:30 AM

Maybe the organism reached its 'evolutionary peak' and can't evolve any further.

BTW, I believe you read the whole article, and I also believe that it'd be wise if someone hands Harmon a dick.

aka123 · 02-04-2015, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

where did I say it contradicts evolution?

I kept the "lacks" part as that kind of argument.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,?

that's what's so fun about this discovery. Darwinism is the theory of evolution not the theory of the lack of evolution. By making this amazing discovery, science works from the exact opposite view to add proof to the theory. By creating dialogue and asking questions re: Darwinism, science worked.

I like that.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:33 AM

OK, I'll add some more to the dialogue now.

This life form survived 5 mass extinction events.

Are we to believe its environment was so completely protected from these events that consequently, absolutely zero evolution was required?

Grapesoda · 02-04-2015, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported ? a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years.

?It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years ? nearly half the history of the Earth,? J. William Schopf, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, and the study?s lead author, said in a statement.

?Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.?

Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years | UCLA

simple explanation: the environment did not change hence the organism did not change

420 · 02-04-2015, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's what's so fun about this discovery. Darwinism is the theory of evolution not the theory of the lack of evolution. By making this amazing discovery, science works from the exact opposite view to add proof to the theory. By creating dialogue and asking questions re: Darwinism, science worked.

I like that.

What's to say this thing didn't actually evolve into a whale and there was never enough competition for resources to wipe out the original creature?

I can't see how evolution would work where every human for instance would instantly change (evolve) into a new species. I assume there'd be a small pack of mutated humans that could theoretically evolve, reproduce and eventually wipe out the original humans.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael.kickass

Maybe the organism reached its 'evolutionary peak' and can't evolve any further.

BTW, I believe you read the whole article, and I also believe that it'd be wise if someone hands Harmon a dick.

it would be interesting to find out how much this organism did evolve prior to not evolving..

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

simple explanation: the environment did not change hence the organism did not change

5 mass extinction events during this 2 billion years. I'm guessing it was deep enough under whatever each and every time that its environment was completely unchanged. food sources, everything.

michael.kickass · 02-04-2015, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Are we to believe its environment was so completely protected from these events that consequently, absolutely zero evolution was required?

Why not? Stromatolites were the dominant form of life on Earth for over 4 billion years and their environment did change since then. However, stromatolites have remained the same anyway. Fortunately for all complex life forms something happened that forced evolution to take a leap forward.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

What's to say this thing didn't actually evolve into a whale and there was never enough competition for resources to wipe out the original creature?

I can't see how evolution would work where every human for instance would instantly change (evolve) into a new species. I assume there'd be a small pack of mutated humans that could theoretically evolve, reproduce and eventually wipe out the original humans.

exactly. I'm with you,

there are so many different types of discussions to have over this discovery.

1/2 the time of Earth's existence and these guys chilled out that whole time! I would bet there is a lot to learn from this/

aka123 · 02-04-2015, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

OK, I'll add some more to the dialogue now.

This life form survived 5 mass extinction events.

Are we to believe its environment was so completely protected from these events that consequently, absolutely zero evolution was required?

Protected? How about fit already? You know, for example humans have habitated most of the Earth, at least in terms of areas not under water. That hasn't happened by having significant evolution, we were already fit. Main thing that has changed has been skin colour; that is pretty much it.

420 · 02-04-2015, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

5 mass extinction events during this 2 billion years. I'm guessing it was deep enough under whatever each and every time that its environment was completely unchanged. food sources, everything.

Some inventions are timeless and others need tweaking. Evolution probably works like earth gods. Lots of random chance is involved.

aka123 · 02-04-2015, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it would be interesting to find out how much this organism did evolve prior to not evolving..

You can see it by looking at it.

crockett · 02-04-2015, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

It doesn't contradict evolution or god. God created everything and then it started changing for mostly unknown reasons.

Do you have any proof of this "god"?

aka123 · 02-04-2015, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael.kickass

Why not? Stromatolites were the dominant form of life on Earth for over 4 billion years and their environment did change since then. However, stromatolites have remained the same anyway. Fortunately for all complex life forms something happened that forced evolution to take a leap forward.

Or in other words, stromatolites might have evolved, but those that did evolve, ain't stromatolites anymore.

Maybe we are the evolved stromatolites.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael.kickass

Why not? Stromatolites were the dominant form of live on Earth for over 4 billion years and their environment did change since then. However, stromatolites have remained the same anyway. Fortunately for all complex life forms something happened that forced evolution to take a leap forward.

don't get me wrong, I *think* I understand how rare life is, but surviving 5 mass extinction events and evolving is crazy enough, to survive all those with absolutely zero evolution is truly astounding !!

Struggle4Bucks · 02-04-2015, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

From your link:

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said..?

This was the same thing that immediatly came into my mind when i read OP's post....
The logic of life is so simple....

crockett · 02-04-2015, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

OK, I'll add some more to the dialogue now.

This life form survived 5 mass extinction events.

Are we to believe its environment was so completely protected from these events that consequently, absolutely zero evolution was required?

It lives in mud.. Mud is an environment of dirt and water. Has dirt & water changed over the last 2 billion years?

MaDalton · 02-04-2015, 10:45 AM

while we're at it someone please explain the platypus

The Porn Nerd · 02-04-2015, 10:45 AM

ADAPTATION is not EVOLUTION.

Love these debates. LOL

Also, the lack of something does not prove the existence of a thing.
Show me the missing link then maybe I will buy evolution.

ANCIENT ALIENS 4EVER!!!

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

Protected? How about fit already? You know, for example humans have habitated most of the Earth, at least in terms of areas not under water. That hasn't happened by having significant evolution, we were already fit. Main thing that has changed has been skin colour; that is pretty much it.

that's a good point, this organism is even more impressive for future study.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It lives in mud.. Mud is an environment of dirt and water. Has dirt & water changed over the last 2 billion years?

at chernobyl it has.

420 · 02-04-2015, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Do you have any proof of this "god"?

I didn't have my camera when I met him. He's a pretty cool guy though; great inventor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

ADAPTATION is not EVOLUTION.

Love these debates. LOL

Also, the lack of something does not prove the existence of a thing.
Show me the missing link then maybe I will buy evolution.

ANCIENT ALIENS 4EVER!!!

I didn't go to school so... This is the first I'm hearing about evolution.

michael.kickass · 02-04-2015, 10:54 AM

Meteorites and asteroids transport living microorganisms throughout space. They don't evolve during this trip (not that we know of). Perhaps something triggers these microorganisms' 'evolution process' and that something has likely not happened.

The Porn Nerd · 02-04-2015, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

I didn't have my camera when I met him. He's a pretty cool guy though; great inventor.

I didn't go to school so... This is the first I'm hearing about evolution.

Oh, then let me explain it to you:

We all came from monkeys - yet monkeys are all around us still. Hmmm....never mind, we all came from monkeys.

PLANET OF THE APES 4EVER!!!

420 · 02-04-2015, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Oh, then let me explain it to you:

We all came from monkeys - yet monkeys are all around us still. Hmmm....never mind, we all came from monkeys.

PLANET OF THE APES 4EVER!!!

I know about that part.

While I was skipping school I watched all of katt williams' stand up. Katt Williams - Evolution & Athiests - YouTube

trevesty · 02-04-2015, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

From your link:

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

ADAPTATION is not EVOLUTION.

Love these debates. LOL

Also, the lack of something does not prove the existence of a thing.
Show me the missing link then maybe I will buy evolution.

ANCIENT ALIENS 4EVER!!!

Darwinism hinges on adaptation.

Harmon · 02-04-2015, 11:05 AM

Oh my God this thread HAS to be embarrassing to OP.

Quick, msg a mod and hope they delete it

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's a good point, this organism is even more impressive for future study.

It would be more to our advantage to intensly study the microbiome living on our species and how it impacts our evolution, then that of deep see mud.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Oh my God this thread HAS to be embarrassing to OP.

Quick, msg a mod and hope they delete it

you're bringing God into a thread about evolution. yes, that's embarrassing to me.

not enough to have my fun chatty thread deleted though.

02-04-2015, 09:58 AM	#1
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,963	Darwinism lacks explanation for new discovered life that has not evolved for >2 Billion years An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported — a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. “It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth,” J. William Schopf, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, and the study’s lead author, said in a statement. “Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.” Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years \| UCLA

02-04-2015, 10:01 AM	#2
michael.kickass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 11,039	Just quotin' "Research actually provides further support for Darwin,..." __________________ NICERATIOS - $30 PPS - 50% Rev Share - 5% WM Referral - High Converting Sites! Any questions about your NICERATIOS account? Vanessa will take care of you: [email protected] Looking to expand your business in general, maybe sell your sites? Contact me: [email protected]

02-04-2015, 10:07 AM	#5
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	From your link: ?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said. ?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.? __________________ Skype: CallTomNow

02-04-2015, 10:13 AM	#9
ottopottomouse She is ugly, bad luck. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 13,177	Once you evolve to being perfect for your environment and the environment isn't subject to any changes there is no need to continue to mutate. __________________ ↑ see post ↑ 13101

02-04-2015, 10:15 AM	#11
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,822	god does not approve this thread __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

02-04-2015, 10:08 AM	#6
420 cuck Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 11,571	When one organism "evolves" into another the original isn't wiped out. If the newly adapted organism doesn't consume all the resources, they'd both have a chance for survival. I don't believe evolution always happens out of necessity.

02-04-2015, 10:24 AM	#14
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,963	Darwinism explains evolution, it does not directly explain the lack of evolution.

02-04-2015, 10:26 AM	#18
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	^^^^^this ?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,?

02-04-2015, 10:30 AM	#20
michael.kickass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 11,039	Maybe the organism reached its 'evolutionary peak' and can't evolve any further. BTW, I believe you read the whole article, and I also believe that it'd be wise if someone hands Harmon a dick. __________________ NICERATIOS - $30 PPS - 50% Rev Share - 5% WM Referral - High Converting Sites! Any questions about your NICERATIOS account? Vanessa will take care of you: [email protected] Looking to expand your business in general, maybe sell your sites? Contact me: [email protected]

02-04-2015, 10:33 AM	#23
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,963	OK, I'll add some more to the dialogue now. This life form survived 5 mass extinction events. Are we to believe its environment was so completely protected from these events that consequently, absolutely zero evolution was required?

02-04-2015, 10:45 AM	#38
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,822	while we're at it someone please explain the platypus __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

02-04-2015, 10:45 AM	#39
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,520	ADAPTATION is not EVOLUTION. Love these debates. LOL Also, the lack of something does not prove the existence of a thing. Show me the missing link then maybe I will buy evolution. ANCIENT ALIENS 4EVER!!! __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

02-04-2015, 10:54 AM	#43
michael.kickass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 11,039	Meteorites and asteroids transport living microorganisms throughout space. They don't evolve during this trip (not that we know of). Perhaps something triggers these microorganisms' 'evolution process' and that something has likely not happened. __________________ NICERATIOS - $30 PPS - 50% Rev Share - 5% WM Referral - High Converting Sites! Any questions about your NICERATIOS account? Vanessa will take care of you: [email protected] Looking to expand your business in general, maybe sell your sites? Contact me: [email protected]

02-04-2015, 11:05 AM	#48
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 19,998	Oh my God this thread HAS to be embarrassing to OP. Quick, msg a mod and hope they delete it __________________ [email protected]