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 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
Comment #451 Removed by Moderator

To: Pan Paniscus

Both are sound arguments, and ironically I've watched a program on the latter, which showed a milky volcanic brew from some location in Hawaii. On your side of the debate, here's another with statistics (Kurzweilai is one of my favorite people to read):

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23610

When I was younger (Spock was my hero as a child) and working as an analytical Chemist, I was on your side of the debate. I couldn't rationalize how any sensible person could see things differently. But now that my eggs are in many baskets and I've lived a bit, I see things differently (my home page tells the story). From a scientific perspective, your argument is as sound (if not sounder) than the other chemist.


452 posted on 12/09/2004 8:53:28 AM PST by kipita (Rebel the proletariat response to Aristocracy and Exploitation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

Comment #453 Removed by Moderator

Comment #454 Removed by Moderator

Comment #455 Removed by Moderator

To: Pan Paniscus
PP: Surely you aren't referring to me are you?

You may rest assured you aren't the among those to whom I was alluding..... they know who they are, and so do we.

;-)

456 posted on 12/09/2004 9:49:41 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
Thank you for your reply!

PP: Yet there is no physical evidence for a world wide flood, ever. Remember that the flood supposedly happened during a 1 year span, had these civilizations been damaged by the flood it would have had to have happened within that year. We do not have that acccurate a date for the fall of the civilizations, nor the flood .It would also have taken many centuries for the earth to re-populate enough to have civilizations develop in the same areas. Had the flood been the reason for the fall, those cultures would never have continued in the same or similar direction that they were heading before the putative flood. Historic documents would be in different languages, architecture would be unrelated and in fact we would have no records of their fall, since it would have all been destroyed.

The article link and excerpt that I offered to the discussion at post 243 does not make a supernatural presumption.

It does however point out that evidence shows the centers of civilization around the world were destroyed by “natural” causes evidently simultaneously (as compared to war, etc.). The articles suggests the cause was cosmic debris – floods, tidal waves, volcanic activity, earthquakes are all mentioned as evidence. The article however indicates that the causation is not fully resolved and leaves the subject open for further speculation. Flooding is specifically mentioned in the middle east.

It is interesting that the timing mentioned in the article (” 2300 BC, give or take a century or two”) is correct for the Noah flood. It is also curious that the actual Hebrew word used for “breath” in Genesis 7 and 2 refers to a particular kind of creature, Adamic man. None of the other creatures were made with that breath of life, i.e. made a living soul (neshama).

All of this may be much ado about nothing to you and Young Earth Creationists who believe that Genesis 1-3 occurs at our space/time coordinates. However, some traditions believe that Adam was the first ensouled man, not the first physical man. And some believe that Adam was created in heaven and banished to earth, thus being a peculiar type of man among men.

Why make a supernatural assumption when there are many natural processes which could have been the cause.

You are raising the classic Plato v Aristotle argument and taking the side of Aristotle. Aristotle and Plato couldn’t resolve it, neither could Einstein and Godel, neither could Hawking and Penrose. We will not solve it either.

It is a matter of worldviews. I am on the Plato side of the argument (especially as it pertains to mathematics).

For Lurkers, Aristotle gives priority to the senses and experience, he sees physical reality as fundamental and mathematics as an approximation. He would say that the mathematician invents the geometry to describe the physical world.

Plato on the other hand gives priority to the ideal or the forms, he sees the mathematical structure as the true reality and we are the imperfect observers. He would say that the mathematician comes along and discovers the geometry, e.g. pi, Reimannian geometry, etc.

The Aristotle-minded person is satisfied when the experiment meets the prediction, the Platonist-minded person wants it to make sense, e.g. ”why pi?”.

The Aristotle-minded person’s curiosity ends with the becoming whereas the Platonist-minded person is keenly interested in both the being and the becoming. Or to put it another way, timelessness as well as space/time.

This has been an on-going and very respectful discussion among the brightest mathematicians, physicists and philosophers and it continues even here on Free Republic. The latest thread on the philosophical discussion is: On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science: An Eclectic Meditation

But getting back to your question…

Why make a supernatural assumption when there are many natural processes which could have been the cause.

Answers coming from the scientific materialism corner alone are incomplete by definition to any Platonist and as evidence I assert four Aristotlean materialistic points: a) that regardless of cosmology (big bang, cyclic, epyrotic, imaginary time, multi-worlds, multi-verse) there is always a beginning, b) the unreasonable effectiveness of math especially with regard to geometry, duality and mirror symmetries, c) the highly improbable values of the physical constants, and d) the presence of information (defined by Claude Shannon as the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver) in both the universe and biological systems (e.g. DNA is literally as good dead as alive).

We Christians are even more keen on these issues than mathematical Platonists such as Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose and John Barrow. BTW, Tegmark's Level IV Multi-verse is the only closed theory because of its radical mathematical Platonism, i.e. that all existents are mathematical structures in higher dimensionality (mathematical structures are non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal).

To illustrate the difference, Plato saw the “beyond” as unapproachable, whereas we Christians have the indwelling Spirit – thus, for us, there is revealed Truth (both personally from the indwelling Spirit and in the Scriptures) which cannot be apprehended by reason alone.

For those who are metaphysically naturalist (atheist) and also Aristotlean – neither Plato’s “beyond” nor Judeo/Christian Truth exists in their definition of “all that there is”. Whereas for us, reality or "all that there is" does not begin or end within space/time coordinates.

If you wish to engage on any of these subjects, I welcome the debate - but preferably not on a thread consigned to the "smokey back room" since there would be a great deal of research required and a wide interest in the subject matter.

457 posted on 12/09/2004 10:40:52 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Equating the living God, with Ra or Thor is silly.
There are good factual reasons for believing in Christ, who is God.


458 posted on 12/09/2004 11:39:22 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: All; balrog666

What do you see as the impediment to symbiotic relationships?

Did he ever answer this question?


459 posted on 12/09/2004 11:46:06 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Only biological scientists are concerned with the TOE. Other scientists discoveries have confirmed the TOE, but fields like geology are really not that interested, except in the history of the geology.

Paleontology is a biological science that draws on geology.

But your assertion that every has to believe in biological evolution is only true so far as to be considered sane and rational, one must. I would be leery of hiring anyone that was so divorced from reality they thought Noah could get millions of animals on a boat, feed them, shovel out their waste and care for them (including their diseases and parasites) over the period of a year. I think I could find a better employee with a more stable mental state.


460 posted on 12/09/2004 11:51:53 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

cc:Negative. I am saying atheists have nothing to gain from a god if one exists. Not that people who believe in evolution. Personally I accept that however the universe was created, is secondary to the need of salvation. It does not matter if the creation was literal or figurative, it happened and must have happened.

Atheists have nothing to gain from god is a given.

"Not that people who believe in evolution", is incoherent.

I agree with your last thought, but know by the evidence for biological evolution that creation was not the literal nonsense espoused by the various classes of creationuts.


461 posted on 12/09/2004 12:07:02 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

Comment #462 Removed by Moderator

To: js1138
However, my point is, that the atheist would be in trouble if indeed there is a god, but if there is a god then the atheist's chances of reward are infinitely lower than the chances of a believer would be.
463 posted on 12/09/2004 12:53:13 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Did he ever answer this question?

Indirectly, yes.

His answer was "abject ignorance and personal incredulity".

This is, of course, insufficient.

Grade: F

464 posted on 12/09/2004 12:57:03 PM PST by balrog666 (The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: stremba
If there are laws that do not hold true before the BB took place, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," is not one of them. In order for anything to happen there must be a cause. If ever there is a reaction without a reaction, not only is it a violation of this law, it is also a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
465 posted on 12/09/2004 12:57:22 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: stremba
I care about truth. I can assemble facts and still tell a lie. I can easily Google "alleles" I remember something from college: Here is the dictionary meaning:

Allele- Alternate forms of a gene which may be found at a given location (locus) on members of a homologous set of chromosomes. Structural variations between alleles may lead to different phenotypes for a given trait.

Once again I know dedicated priests of TOE will find all manner of the creation of new species in this...the latest in an ever changing stream of myopic focus on physiochemical process. It simply bores me.

I know there is variety of species. You can geographically isolate species and over time they will develop distinct traits, there is some plasticity within life. Look at dogs, which man has been breeding for thousands of years. But stop breeding for certain traits and within a few generations dogs will revert back to the wolf.

Evolutionists just carry the role of man (in isolating traits in dogs so you get all the different breeds...from Saint Bernard's....to Toy Poodles) to an indescribable physical force that not only produces various breeds...but creates whole new species. At least man represents a directing intelligence and has to work with what is already here just to get his toy poodle's.

But evolutionists give us a poorly explained hodgepodge of "forces?" without any objective intelligence that simply works by a happy conspiracy of physical laws and chance. A marvel that such an ignorant blind force could even create the dim intelligence of the proponents of TOE!
466 posted on 12/09/2004 1:09:02 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
Good try, but I've proved over and over again that #2 must apply, whereas you and your surrogates, have yet to prove that evolution is even a significant idea.

And #5 is the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. If it's not entirely stated you ought to know better than to debate a technicality.
467 posted on 12/09/2004 1:10:12 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: shubi
""Not that people who believe in evolution", is incoherent."

Sorry about that, I think what I meant to say was: "Not that people who believe in evolution can't believe in God."
468 posted on 12/09/2004 1:13:19 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: shubi

On the other hand I am leery of voting into office any man that thinks his greatest accomplishment is to get a blowjob from the help.

I thought that would make as much sense as your reference to Noah.


469 posted on 12/09/2004 1:18:44 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
The fossil record and irreducible complexity are better evidence for special creation. The life sciences are the equivalent of the medieval church.

Priests that speak in unintelligible riddles and mumbo jumbo.

They both worship relics and bones.

They both built big huge nearly empty buildings to house their relics and propagate their religion.

They are both intolerantly of other views.

They both claim exclusive knowledge of the truth.

They both suckered the innocent into the order, only telling them of the problems once their lives are vested in preserving the order.

Speak ill of the doctrine and you are ridiculed, scorned and defrocked.

They both labor mightily to obscure the truth, all the while pretending to be the sole defenders of the truth.

The both cause men to become suspicious and hostile to God.

The comparisons are endless. Squawk, squawk, "evolution is a fact" "evolution is a fact!"
470 posted on 12/09/2004 1:30:56 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Noah was a reference to literalist nonsense they are attempting to use to argue against TOE.


471 posted on 12/09/2004 3:21:28 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

Now, we are getting somewhere. Biological evolution is not a belief. It is a rational decision based on mountains of intertwining evidence that leads any honest person to see it as "scientific fact". It is reality.

Unless you can falsify the TOE, you cannot substitute the literal Bible interpretation or put a creator in the mix that is not in the TOE to begin with. So, your task is to falsify the biological theory of evolution. So far, your attempts have been largely philosophical, attacks on cosmology and physics. While these subjects have confirmed parts of the TOE, they are not in the TOE themselves.

No one has been able to falsify the TOE, since its inception. They have been able to get the TOE modified since Darwin proposed it, because that is how science works. As we learn more, we modify. However, Darwin was essentially correct in the main concept, that life has diverged from some single primary source, probably a unicellular organism.

If you want to say this primary organism was "designed" by God, there is no one to contradict you. However, that is an argument of abiogenesis which is not in the TOE. You also run the danger that if science discovers that abiogenesis did create the first life form, you are left without a god. This happened when the world was proved round, to those that asserted the Earth was designed flat.


472 posted on 12/09/2004 3:30:59 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Because you don't want to study the real TOE, or are unable to understand the science behind it; is not falsification of the fact of biological evolution.

Your position rivals the Flat Earth Society in embarrassing stubbornness.
473 posted on 12/09/2004 3:33:35 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
On the 2000 year bible and literal interpretation post... I seriously doubt that you consider the bible to be the authoritative word of God. Therefore, using it to prove or disprove evolution is moot and useless, unless we could both agree upon it's origins. I seriously doubt the poster of this thread believes in it either, and is simply using the concept of creation from a christian perspective to generate a heated argument.

On your second post to me...
Perhaps you should learn something more about the Bible, if you intend on using it to support evolution.

On your third post to me....
You just so happened to stumble into the very point i've been making all along.
Tell me... is there ANYTHING you DONT understand?
Is there or has there ever been any man or woman who understands everything? (omniscience)
Is there any being in the universe more intelligent than man?
At what point do you break away from what you know in order to accept what must be accepted by faith? If man is not intelligent enough to understand everything, then logic suggests that there must be SOME intelligent being who does, and is more than likely responsible for the creation of man.
It is illogical for anyone to use a book they believe to be written by man to prove the existence of God.
It is just as illogical for the same person to use the same book to prove or disprove arguments made by another man.

It all boils down to who YOU consider to be the authority on the origins of life. If your authority is Darwin, then don't violate the very charges you bring against me by using incredulous arguments about God.


474 posted on 12/09/2004 3:35:33 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

Comment #475 Removed by Moderator

Comment #476 Removed by Moderator

Comment #477 Removed by Moderator

Comment #478 Removed by Moderator

Comment #479 Removed by Moderator

Comment #480 Removed by Moderator

Comment #481 Removed by Moderator

To: Pan Paniscus

Placemarker


482 posted on 12/09/2004 5:56:16 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

Yeah, I told him it was Pascal's Wager and gave him a link so he could read about it.


483 posted on 12/09/2004 5:59:29 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
Where exactly did I try to prove or disprove evolution through the use of the Bible?

It pertains to the question presented in the title of this thread. Your defense of the thread's author places you on that side of the debate. If this is not the case, then the first point in my previous post is validated.

Break it down into a syllogism for me so I can see how you come by that statement.

Lets use man's historical quest for the creation of artificial life as an example... In fiction as well as in real life, man has demonstrated both his desire and capacity for creation, but has yet to successfully create something from scratch that equals let alone surpasses his own existence. Only in fiction has man been able to re-create anything remotely comparable to his own being. Man has the capacity to understand that he cannot re-create himself, because he does not have the intelligence nor knowledge to accomplish such a task. Clone? maybe... but not create. This realization once made leads man to the conclusion that there must be an intelligence greater than his own to explain self existence... it is therefore natural and logical for one to seek out that intelligence. Rejection of this conclusion and response leads to the opposite conclusion that man is supreme in the universe by way of natural selection, or whatever you want to call it.

What was that one movie called?... where astronaughts traveled to mars to investigate the facial image anomoly...
If you are familiar with the movie, the astronaughts were forced to demonstrate a certain level of intelligence (they completed the dna sequence of man in a transmission). Once done, the superior intelligence revealed itself and disclosed the mystery of life on earth.
Of course, the conclusion of the movie offered the evolution theory as valid, but re-affirmed the conclusion that the creator (alien dna seed planter) was of superior intelligence to man. Fictitious yes... but the conclusion of a higher intelligence was real in the author's mind.


484 posted on 12/09/2004 6:15:44 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
Break it down into a syllogism for me so I can see how you come by that statement.

Try this one too... from one of your own
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1298027/posts


485 posted on 12/09/2004 6:44:28 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: stremba
You do know that the big bang is an expansion of space-time and is not an explosion, don't you?

I do know that it becomes anything God haters want it to be. If you want it to be a space-time expansion, an explosion, or a simulation, then it will be that. We do know one thing, no matter what the evidence it will never be allowed to be anything like Creation or ID. Big Bang has never been theory, and doens't even pass itself off well as a hypothesis. It does make for some interesting science fiction. Still you have the problems with Big Bang violating the uncaused cause and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (plus a ton of other things). So if you can write off basic laws of physics, why not invent any explanation that defies the obvious?

486 posted on 12/09/2004 6:56:22 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: shubi

"Does evolution contradict creationism?"

Absolutely.

It is clear in the Bible that God created all in 6 twenty-four hour days and on the 7th day He rested. We are also NOT in the image of an "ape". God created us in His image so clearly evolution is a contradiction of what God states. Like it or not, it is a FACT that evolution contradicts creation. Ah, Lucifer is laughing his arse off at silly Christians with "itching ears" and atheists that push this trash - evolution.


487 posted on 12/09/2004 6:59:30 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Methinks thou art a troll. LOL


488 posted on 12/09/2004 7:38:17 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Define Troll


489 posted on 12/09/2004 7:41:32 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

"why not invent any explanation that defies the obvious?"

You mean like each "kind" was poofed into existance or

dino bones were put in chronological order in the strata to fool us into thinking the Earth is old and forms changed and disappeared over time or

the Earth is only 6000 years old or

the term day in Gen 1 means a 24 hr day and not an indefinite period of time like Gen 2:4 says or

What?


490 posted on 12/09/2004 7:41:38 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Re-defining what God says about reality so that it will fit into the confines of what man can comprehend is like a three year old rejecting the laws of physics because he cannot spell 'Apple' yet.


491 posted on 12/09/2004 7:50:29 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: shubi
"No one has been able to falsify the TOE, since its inception."

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium. Just because we are ignorant of anyway to disprove TOE, does not make it so. I am not denying TOE, I am merely saying that it is neither absolute, nor neccesarily "scientific fact."


"However, that is an argument of abiogenesis which is not in the TOE. You also run the danger that if science discovers that abiogenesis did create the first life form, you are left without a god."

I'd like you to forgive me, but I'm not sure exactly what abiogenesis is. Please enlighten me. From the context of the sentence, it would seem that you are suggesting that the original organism (if there was one) spontaneously generated. But then again I don't know what it is.
492 posted on 12/09/2004 8:09:17 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

Falsifying a theory is hardly done from ignorance. It would take a lot of knowledge to falsify biological evolution, considering the mountain of evidence that has accumulated supporting the ToE.

Abiogenesis is basically the hypothesis that first life originated from naturally occurring chemicals without any intervention by God or any living entity. You must have heard the arguments against life forming from slime from whatever creationcrapsites you have been getting your information from.


493 posted on 12/09/2004 8:58:14 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: shubi
"Falsifying a theory is hardly done from ignorance. It would take a lot of knowledge to falsify biological evolution, considering the mountain of evidence that has accumulated supporting the ToE."

I didn't "falsify" it per se, rather I claimed that just because we can't disprove it, does not make it true.

"You must have heard the arguments against life forming from slime from whatever creationcrapsites you have been getting your information from."

Okay, this is yet another fun argument, even if abiogenesis is accurate you cannot say, that God or a god did not cause these "chemicals" to meet and cause the reaction creating life. The idea of abiogenesis does not contradict creationism.
494 posted on 12/09/2004 9:24:58 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: shubi
sorry, I didn't catch the part of the definition that says "without God," thats my mistake. Let me rephrase that. The Idea of those natural chemicals reacting to create life, does not necessarily contradict creationism.
495 posted on 12/09/2004 9:34:59 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

... PP: You have no idea what Pan paniscus is?....

oh big words!! run away!!

worse than that, I couldn't care less what it means.

but your views of a godless creation...


496 posted on 12/09/2004 9:45:45 PM PST by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus; Safrguns

I'll be glad to read it, given time. (which would not be midnight). Spare me the condescenscion, though, if you would. I understand quite well, although unlike the materialists here I am comfortable admitting I don't have all the answers.

You did not address the content, however, while feeling the need to substitute links for a response.

interesting.


497 posted on 12/09/2004 9:52:51 PM PST by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: gdc61
isn't the term "godless creation" an oxymoron?
If a being -creates- another being, is not the creator -god- of that created being? (whether the being believes it or not)

If a being comes into existence without a creator, how can it be said that it was created at all?

This seems to be central to the question at hand.
498 posted on 12/09/2004 9:59:33 PM PST by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus
Well, I wish you the best. Perhaps we'll run into each other on other threads later on.
499 posted on 12/09/2004 11:14:08 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Pan Paniscus

There is always someone to talk to...........and always someone who listens.


500 posted on 12/10/2004 12:25:19 AM PST by kipita (Rebel the proletariat response to Aristocracy and Exploitation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 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