Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; general_re; longshadow

Don't thank me, thank longshadow for all of the hard work of finding it. I just posted the reference. :-)


151 posted on 12/04/2004 1:47:43 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Give it up, man - you're busted. F-minus.

"He's dead, Jim!"

152 posted on 12/04/2004 1:51:06 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Don't thank me, thank longshadow for all of the hard work of finding it. I just posted the reference.

Very kind of you to give attribution, something which your interlocutor seems unable, or unwilling to do.

;-)

153 posted on 12/04/2004 1:53:59 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Not so much fun since ALS got busted for his phony Darwin Quotes.


154 posted on 12/04/2004 1:54:26 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
"He's dead, Jim!"

"Rube" Hicks -- b. Nov 28, 2004, d. Dec 3, 2004 ...

WHETHER HE EVER ADMITS IT OR NOT!

155 posted on 12/04/2004 2:02:56 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Dec 3, 2004

Dec 4, 2004. (Not as expensive as messing up a real tombstone, anyway.)

156 posted on 12/04/2004 2:04:32 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Give it up, man - you're busted. F-minus.

I contend that I never read that document prior to it being posted here today. Actually I personally know the source of the information in question. The document referenced here is borrowed from that.

Nevertheless, I never called any of it my own which is a requirement for plagiarizing, and I believe that ThinkPlease was looking for any excuse to avoid having to debate the topic because ThinkPlease is intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument.

I am also not surprised to see that all the other evolutionists in this thread are totally incapable of dealing with issues and must resort to pointless side shows, lies, insults and other foolishness. You have learned well from your masters.

I bet it must really bother you that a Creationist has you folks reduced to scrambling for anything to silence the opposition. Typical.

I just feel the love from you God haters... :)

157 posted on 12/04/2004 2:14:34 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
Nevertheless, I never called any of it my own which is a requirement for plagiarizing, and I believe that ThinkPlease was looking for any excuse to avoid having to debate the topic because ThinkPlease is intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument.

Since you have your name signed to the post, I can only assume that you called it your own. No matter what you think, since you have not actually dealt with any of my arguments since last night, the latter part of your statement isn't very believeable.

158 posted on 12/04/2004 2:18:02 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
Nevertheless, I never called any of it my own ...

I gues that depends on the meaning of "called". Always good to see the clinton defence in action.

159 posted on 12/04/2004 2:28:44 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
I contend that I never read that document prior to it being posted here today.

You cut and pasted it without reading it? Why would you do that?

Actually I personally know the source of the information in question.

If true, this helps you how?

The document referenced here is borrowed from that.

Without attribution. Which was then falsely denied. Now you seem to be backpedaling.

160 posted on 12/04/2004 2:45:06 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; general_re; js1138; balrog666
**** ....and I believe that ThinkPlease was looking for any excuse to avoid having to debate the topic because ThinkPlease is intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument. ****

Am I the only one here whose Irony Meter just blew up after reading the above statement?

He's accusing "ThinkPlease" of being "intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument" while HE's the guy who cribbed HIS argument from someone else, WITHOUT GIVING ATTRIBUTION for it.

Now THAT sounds suspiciously like someone who is "incapable of forming make a cogent argument" of their own.

161 posted on 12/04/2004 2:59:55 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
He's accusing "ThinkPlease" of being "intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument" while HE's the guy who cribbed HIS argument from someone else, WITHOUT GIVING ATTRIBUTION for it.

But he only SAID he didn't READ it first. So prove he did, Mr. Smartypants!

162 posted on 12/04/2004 3:01:39 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Looks like Creationists win by default. The opposition failed to show up. LOL!

Keep beating the drum of "plagiarizing". It is pointless, it isn't true, it doesn't address the issue.. hmmm seems like the classical evolutionist debate technique.

163 posted on 12/04/2004 3:02:27 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; longshadow
No, no - see, it's all okay because he and this other author both apparently lifted it without attribution from some third party. Or something.
164 posted on 12/04/2004 3:08:05 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

To me it is not that you copy from some creationist crapsite. That has always been obvious. Your whole thought pattern is drenched with that horrible cult.

What is so sad, is that you use ruthless debate tactics against science, tactics that if any other Christian would approach them, you roundly criticize and squeal like a stuck pig when they do.

How do you like some of your own medicine?

God doesn't need a moronic defense for His Word. Read the Bible for what it really says, or you will start to slip into darkness of the soul that is irreparable.


165 posted on 12/04/2004 3:11:58 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

LOL


166 posted on 12/04/2004 3:13:14 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
So often we see this funny "I'm floating on air with no support" act. Never mind the stuff you copied is nonsense. The words are the same, long passages of them. You either wrote the passages yourself or you copied them. You could hardly have borrowed them from someone you know if you've never read them, even if the "someone you know" is yourself.

It is impossible that everything you have said is true. Your denials and admissions are incompatible. You have denied reading the statements and admitted borrowing them.

167 posted on 12/04/2004 3:21:49 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
So often we see this funny "I'm floating on air with no support" act.

Sometimes known as the "Wyle E. Coyote" Syndrome..... in which the cartoon character doesn't actually fall into the the bottom of the canyon unless they look down.

168 posted on 12/04/2004 4:15:49 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Thrashing about frantically (lots of arm-waving and even-leg-waving) can also generate enough traction for a character to make it back to solid ground. Anyway, it works for Roadrunner sometimes, if never for Wile E.

Yeah. I think that's where they're getting their approach to these debates.

169 posted on 12/04/2004 4:20:15 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Anyway, it works for Roadrunner sometimes, if never for Wile E.

On further review, I think Roadie's main trick is to go from 60 to 0 in 0 seconds right on the very, very edge of the precipice. He probably never gets out on thin air. Wile E. has a problem stopping that fast, etc.

170 posted on 12/04/2004 4:23:35 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; longshadow

171 posted on 12/04/2004 4:30:44 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
For the record, here's my alma mater's definition of "plagiarism":

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, failure to indicate the source with quotation marks or footnotes where appropriate if any of the following are reproduced in the work submitted by a student:

  1. A phrase, written or musical.
  2. A graphic element.
  3. A proof.
  4. Specific language.
  5. An idea derived from the work, published or unpublished, of another person.
[emphasis added]

source: http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/Cheating.html

The reader will note that a specific claim of "ownership" of material that is in fact attributable to another is NOT necessary for plagiarism to have taken place. The mere submission of the material in the absence of the appropriate attribution is sufficient.

172 posted on 12/04/2004 4:52:07 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
man, you can always be relied upon to furnish the genuine article when it's called for!

Nicely done!

173 posted on 12/04/2004 4:53:44 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I must say you drew that very quickly!
174 posted on 12/04/2004 4:56:05 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I must say you drew that very quickly!

No doubt someone will now show up to accuse PH of claiming the cartoon as his own......

.... of course, to do so, one would have to ignore the artist's SIGNATURE on the cartoon itself, thus denoting attribution.

;-)

175 posted on 12/04/2004 5:00:28 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

Comment #176 Removed by Moderator

To: longshadow; VadeRetro

That's a tough definition. I don't think many of us credit our non-original ideas. I don't even remember where I first read most of the stuff I know.

Am I mistaken, or has the exact post in question been made before on FR? I have a distinct visual memory of a post made a year or so ago that was several paragraphs long, mostly a quotation, but had an odd sentence or two added in.


177 posted on 12/04/2004 5:03:56 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Images are something of a sore point on the internet. Particularly when altered. Life will suck when the image police get control of the internet.


178 posted on 12/04/2004 5:05:48 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; VadeRetro

I was already searching for Wile E. Coyote pics, so the timing was fortuitous. I couldn't find one with him running on air without realizing it.


179 posted on 12/04/2004 5:07:14 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Am I mistaken, or has the exact post in question been made before on FR? I have a distinct visual memory of a post made a year or so ago that was several paragraphs long, mostly a quotation, but had an odd sentence or two added in.

An excellent question. It looked strangely familiar to me, which is why I initiated a Google search which led to the discovery of the referenced URL.

As far as having been used on FR before, I can't be sure; if it had, it should show up in a google search. It didn't on the phrase that I searched last night, but it might on others.

180 posted on 12/04/2004 5:09:17 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I neverthless insist somebody or other (Bugs? Elmer Fudd?) swims the air to safety once in a while by milling frantically.
181 posted on 12/04/2004 5:10:35 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Ideas are not subject to copyright. Words are. I want to say that it takes stringing a few of them together, but I think Nike copyrighted "Just do it!"
182 posted on 12/04/2004 5:12:48 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Maybe the post is not identical to one used before, but the technique is identical. Take half a dozen paragraphs from an outside source, toss in a few phrases of expansion and comentary, and suddenly it's yours. I wonder if this works on college essays when they are checked by internet robots.


183 posted on 12/04/2004 5:13:40 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Copyright violation is definitely different from plagerism. Changing the wording gets you off the copyright hook, but not the plagerism hook. Standards are a little different in editorial writing; stealing ideas is SOP. Academics are a bit twitchier.


184 posted on 12/04/2004 5:17:01 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Take half a dozen paragraphs from an outside source, toss in a few phrases of expansion and comentary, and suddenly it's yours. I wonder if this works on college essays when they are checked by internet robots.

It might slip by if you're checking for the whole sentence, but maybe not if it's specific phrases you're searching for. In any event, when it's discovered, the intent to steal by changing a word here and there becomes obvious. At least if you copy word-for-word, you can always claim that you innocently "forgot" the footnote. But this doesn't really save anyone.

185 posted on 12/04/2004 5:20:55 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: general_re; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; js1138; RadioAstronomer

Yet another source for some of the text has been located! Behold:

http://www.thecolefamily.com/letters/ed042988.htm

At least two of the five arguments appear in this source, dated 1988, with minor changes in phrasing.

It is unclear who is copying from whom, but it sure looks like there's lots of unattributed ideas being cribbed in the anti-Evolutionary/anti-Big Bang landscape.


186 posted on 12/04/2004 5:23:39 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Changing the wording gets you off the copyright hook, but not the plagerism hook.

Plagiarism, like copyright law, is generally exposed by the "parallel text" method used on this thread. It shades rather smoothly into other intellectual property areas, as you point out, but it's about words.

When I say what I think, I'm not claiming I invented all that. No one can keep a name tag on every idea.

187 posted on 12/04/2004 5:27:07 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
I should have been clearer. You don't have to reproduce the Big Bang or the seven-day creation in order to prove a theory about how these events occured, and how they have shaped are universe since inception (or creation if you like). We don't have to fly to Alpha Centauri to know that's it's 4.35 lightyears from our Sun. We can employ simple trigonometry to calculate a parallex value and apply an algebraic equation to measure the distance at just over 9.46 trillion kilometers.

This has proven to be a very reliable method for determining stellar distances, and its accuracy makes it a reliable way to check the accuracy of observations and methods used in astronomy and other areas of physics. We long ago established (through Earthbound expirements) the speed of light, at about 300,000 km per second. This is a constant (like those discovered by Newton, Planck and Hubble) that we us to explain a 13.7 billion year old universe, the process of radioactive decay that gives us approx. ages of fossils, rocks and the Earth and most other phenomena treated by science. These very same constants show up in equations behind every tech. advancement of our time (like superconductors, mircroprocessors and cellphones). The value of the scientific process can be measured not only by the advancement of theory, but by its applications in every industry and endeavor in the world.

Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot challenge theories like evolution or the big bang because they cannot use the language of mathematics to engage the science. Alternative theories must explain the shortcomings of standing theories (beyond inspiring spirited debates about religion, morality and politics). This failure doesn't reflect on the character or intelligence of science's detractors, it reflects the complex and seemingly contradictory nature of the human experience.

I don't discourage critiques of science from any quarter, but it is my experience that proponents of ID and Creationism cannot (or will not) acknowledge the differences between the study of science and the experience of faith. Revelation of faith is subjective, it depends upon the personal experience of an individual, that cannot be quantified or tested by science. The same holds for the power of prayer in one's life.

Scientists may explain faith and prayer as hallucinations caused by chemical triggers in the brain, or even mental illness. They may be atheists who think religious people are nuts and who deny an afterlife or miracles. They be born-again Christians who believe that what is truly real in life is their relationship with Christ. Whatever their subjective beliefs, they must remain true to the objectivity of the scientific process if they value their life's work.

The value of science and its successful applications in technology is the reason that doctors study evolutionary biology when they study anatomy and astronomy grad students work with published PhDs to make their own meaningful impact on our understanding of the universe. I'm not ashamed that I read Scientific American and visit academic websites (like Cambridge U) to learn about inflationary cosmology. I have read essays on Creationism and grew up with some fundamentalist Sunday school teachers who preached disdain for science and especially evolution in a very paranoid tone. My biology teacher in high school discussed Creationism, and encouraged classroom debate, but he understood the differences in how we subjectively experience faith and how we objectivly apply science to study our universe.

I never discuss my faith when defending evolution as a theory and science as a fruitful process because I don't view religion and science as opposite worldviews in perpetual contradiction. As Martin L. King stated, "science and religion are not enemies, science tells us about our universe on the outside, religion tells us about our souls on the inside." Science is no more a religion, than Creationism or ID viable science. So I'll leave it at that.

I get a kick out people who argue for Creationism in these forums, and after a round or two of posts, cast their opponents in political stereotypes, and allege agendas and paranoia, so forth. So I'm not even going to answer false assumptions about my politcal views with an intelligent rebutle.

I'm no expert on natural selection and viruses, or the fossilization of prehistoric fish or the intricate processes of stellar fussion and nucleosynthesis. I'm content to accept science as a magnificent tool for undertanding our universe and impoving our lives here on Earth. And I realize that advances in genetics do not lead to a Hitlerian future in which the government decides whose genes are worth reproducing and whose should be extinguished. Science is a tool and it's up to man to decide how it is applied. People who hold up science as a religion (whoever these people are) are not much different than those who put forth Creationism and ID as science, in that they insult the all of us who put the roles of religion and science in their lives in proper perspective.

188 posted on 12/04/2004 5:28:51 PM PST by eagle11 (Once a people invents a word for "liberty", they are restless until they win if for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I don't think many of us credit our non-original ideas. I don't even remember where I first read most of the stuff I know.

There's a bit of a gray area in between ideas that need citations and background knowledge that "everyone knows". As a general rule, the more unique, novel, or specific the idea is, the more likely it is to require citation if it's not your own original thought.

189 posted on 12/04/2004 5:28:58 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
It is unclear who is copying from whom, but it sure looks like there's lots of unattributed ideas being cribbed in the anti-Evolutionary/anti-Big Bang landscape.

You can have fun tracking misspellings around. Somebody quote-mined a Lubenow book (creationist, anyway) and misspelled "Turkana" as "Tukana."

A Google on "boy from Tukana".

Of course, the list grows a little more every time I post about it.

190 posted on 12/04/2004 5:31:45 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Well, hell - there really isn't any such thing as an original creationist thought, is there?


191 posted on 12/04/2004 5:33:52 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

Comment #192 Removed by Moderator

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator

To: ex-snook
When the evolutionists explain how the universe evolved then we can pay attention to them.

When the Christians can explain where God comes from, then maybe we can pay attention to them. Until then, it's obvious that there can't be a god.

Hey, I'm just employing the same logical fallacy that you did...

194 posted on 12/04/2004 5:38:43 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eagle11
Everything has to start with a theory on the creation of the universe. A starting point of how life started begs the question.

Scientific laws and the order of the universe exist. Just because things can't be scientifically verified yet by mathematics does not mean they are not true.

195 posted on 12/04/2004 5:42:21 PM PST by ex-snook (Moral values - The GOP must now walk the talk - no excuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

"Evolution is such a powerful theory that fear motivates opinion and actions against it that are generally not directed against other sciences."

A lot of it is their fear of being shunned by their friends in the same church (cult). If they admit that science is true, they risk isolating themselves. I have been in churches where belief in evolution makes you suspect as to your faith.

This is the type of coercion that easily reveals what is Christian and what is not.


196 posted on 12/04/2004 5:44:59 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Everything has to start with a theory on the creation of the universe.

OJ could not have murdered Nicole. The prosecutor didn't go back to The Beginning.

197 posted on 12/04/2004 5:45:14 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
"When the Christians can explain where God comes from, then maybe we can pay attention to them. Until then, it's obvious that there can't be a god. "

Get real. Why did you leave out Jews? That's where Christians got the idea.

198 posted on 12/04/2004 5:46:33 PM PST by ex-snook (Moral values - The GOP must now walk the talk - no excuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Well, hell - there really isn't any such thing as an original creationist thought, is there?

I'm beginning to wonder....

199 posted on 12/04/2004 5:46:50 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

200, another prime number!


200 posted on 12/04/2004 5:47:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson