Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism
Crevo thread: Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs ^ | 24 March 2003 | PatrickHenry

Posted on 04/01/2003 8:12:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry

This vanity thread was inspired by a provocative question that Junior directed to a creationist: "Biblical prophesies notwithstanding, what biological predictions does creationism make?" The creationist didn't respond, but I did, as follows:

I can think of a few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:

1. There should be no transitional species.
2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
I shall call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.

In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 -- Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Shock and awe ... conservatism ---

schlock and bluster --- spin // lies ... liberalism // ideology (( evolution // puke )) !


51 posted on 04/04/2003 4:43:02 PM PST by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
g3 ...

evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.

The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.

This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.

Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.

In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.

That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.

It is ... pseudo-science --- for morons.

With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.

We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.

sop ...

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.

g3 ...

It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'.

Such is not science.

539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000

52 posted on 04/04/2003 4:58:03 PM PST by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: All
Note that no creationoid has yet challenged any of the "Five Failed Predictions." They're avoiding this thread in droves. Hee hee.
53 posted on 04/04/2003 5:32:15 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
This thread seems to be going nowhere. I guess it's possible that the topic (my little vanity essay) isn't very interesting, but ...

Is it just my imagination, or are the "Five Failed Predictions of Creationism" simply too much for the creationoids?

54 posted on 04/05/2003 1:39:38 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Note that no creationoid has yet challenged any of the "Five Failed Predictions." They're avoiding this thread in droves. Hee hee.

Uhmm, you put the thread in the smokey backroom and only ping fellow evolutionists, what did you expect!

Let's see:

1. There should be no transitional species.
There are not any. What transitional species is there between reptiles and mammals? What evidence is there for it? As often pointed out it is in the greatest changes that there should be the most evidence. For this the greatest change in the supposed evolutionary tree of life there is absolutely no evidence.

2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
The origin of humans - homo sapiens - has never been determined in any credible way. The closest species to homo sapiens in chronology - Neanderthals - has been proven not to have been a possible ancestor of man.

BTW - the statement is one of the rhetorical nonsenses used by evolutionists. Bacteria are pre-human.

3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
There is not. There are numerous fossils and numerous gaps in the fossil record. Species appear fully formed in numerous places with absolutely no ancestry. The Cambrian explosion is a complete refutation of evolution and led Gould and other evolutionists to break with Darwinian evolution.

4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
There is no such requirement in creationism. In fact, that all life is based on DNA is abundant proof that abiogenesis (life from non-life) is impossible. Thus the materialistic basis of evolutionism is totally discredited since it leaves as the only possible source of life the intervention of a Creator.

5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
Nonsense. Another total non-prediction of creationism. Evolution proposes constant changes in environment and constant mutations as the source of the transformation of species. That many species have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years without change shows the evolutionist predictions to be false.

55 posted on 04/06/2003 10:03:45 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: All
Daily bump. Alas for my unloved vanity thread.
56 posted on 04/07/2003 4:34:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Daily bump. Alas for my unloved vanity thread.

What happened? You were asking for refutations to your post, now you have them. What's the matter, you cannot defend your position with anyone who is not one of your sycophants?

57 posted on 04/07/2003 6:32:12 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Science ... evolving ? ? ? --- lies !
58 posted on 04/08/2003 1:01:19 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: All
Daily bump. Perhaps the last.
59 posted on 04/08/2003 5:02:45 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Daily bump. Perhaps the last.

Might as well, neither you nor your friends can respond to my posting. You guys can only talk to yourselves. It is not the first challenge you have failed to accept nor the last. Once taken out of your 'placemarker' mode, you have not much to say at all.

60 posted on 04/08/2003 6:55:03 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: postmodernism_kills
Before you can legitimately claim anything in the "Five Failed Predictions", you have to first explain and demonstrate how dead chemicals became the first living organism in violation of elementary biological law, ie-that life comes from life, and not from non-life.

Evolution does not begin until life has already begun; thus the theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life, nor does it need to. Life's origin is an interesting problem, to be sure, but the theory of evolution does not require its solution.

The simple fact is that "evolution" is not empirical science at all, failing to meet any criteria for empirical science, but is in reality a "religion" of pure conjecture based in blind faith.

I see that you are new to these threads. This point of yours has been addressed countless times. For example:
The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification.
Is Evolution Science?

62 posted on 04/09/2003 1:54:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills

pmk ...

based in blind faith.

fC ...

based in blind hate // ignorance (( wanks )) .

63 posted on 04/09/2003 3:16:57 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: postmodernism_kills
Wanks is an English word for playing with him self ... going mad // blind !
66 posted on 04/09/2003 3:24:33 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
Sorry, but there is no reason for me to continue with such an intellectually dishonest illogic such as those copouts.

I agree. A person of your intellectual standing should not engage in discourse with me.

67 posted on 04/09/2003 4:38:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You've gotta admit, it's much easier to beat the stuffing out of a version of evolution that you get to invent. Don't rob people of their needed crutches...


"How about a little fire, strawman?"

68 posted on 04/09/2003 6:39:42 PM PDT by general_re (If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
Someday, when you stand before God, you will know the truth.

Acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a prerequisite for salvation.

69 posted on 04/10/2003 2:12:07 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Thanks for clearing that up.
70 posted on 04/10/2003 2:17:37 AM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills; PatrickHenry
That's a copout and intellectually dishonest at best. You cannot have "evilution" unless you first have "life", and for the "time" element of gradualism to be advanced one has to begin in the beginning, but I'm glad you agree that "evolution" is mere conjecture.

The Theory of Evolution no more needs to account for the origin of life than Meterology needs to account for the origin of water. Both work regardless of the actual mechanism of origin. Or, to put it another way, the Theory of Evolution is not contingent upon the mechanism by which life originated; it works regardless of what the actual mechanism is.

71 posted on 04/10/2003 8:45:36 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Copout!
</flaming idiot mode>
72 posted on 04/10/2003 11:47:32 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
This sounds like a vacuum ...

more like an intellectual black out -- coma -- epilepsy !

The Theory of Evolution no more needs to account for the origin of life than Meterology needs to account for the origin of water.

Meterologist weather reporting and forecasting w/o knowledge of the earth revolving on an axis around the sun ... swamp gas (( evolution ))!

Both work regardless of the actual mechanism of origin.

Assteroids work too -- uncharterable // nonsense ... babble // gas science !

the Theory of Evolution is not contingent upon the mechanism by which life originated; it works regardless of what the actual mechanism is.

Evo mythology

73 posted on 04/10/2003 2:01:59 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a prerequisite for salvation.

Starting that nonsense again? We already now that you in particular and most of your friends are atheists. Your statement is an absolute lie specifically designed to lead people out of their religion.

74 posted on 04/10/2003 9:13:48 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
You cannot have "evilution" unless you first have "life",

Very true. If life was made by God, then evolution is totally ludicrous. Evolution is an atheistic/materialist philosophy specifically designed to attack religion. That is why the evolutionists fight so hard and insult so much, it is their faith that is being attacked. As their posts show, they know beans about science.

75 posted on 04/10/2003 9:17:50 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Copout!

Yup, all you do is copout. I answered your questions, and now you ignore the answers. You are not here to discuss anything, just to insult.

76 posted on 04/10/2003 9:19:18 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
To borrow a phrase from your book: You are a liar and a slimer. You are not the arbiter of who is, or is not a good Christian. Your consistently-inaccurate statements on religion and science and the errant conclusions you draw from your faulty premeses are clearly indicative to lurkers of the reasons most rational people ignore you.
77 posted on 04/11/2003 4:10:06 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You are not the arbiter of who is, or is not a good Christian.

No, I am not the arbiter, you are. Your own words, your constant attacks on Christians show your atheism. Your lack of belief in anything Christian shows you to be a total phony. We have been through this before and you have shown very well that you prefer Darwin to Christ.

78 posted on 04/11/2003 4:13:12 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
You are an idiot. Attacks on creationism do not equate to attacks on Christians. That you cannot tell the difference between the two indicates a complete lack of mature reasoning abilities. Either grow up and get a clue or be relegated to the virtual ignore list of everyone who can perceive such differences.
79 posted on 04/11/2003 4:16:45 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Attacks on creationism do not equate to attacks on Christians.

Ah, but that's precisely what he has been claiming. Over and over, he says that Christianity is creationism. Were that even remotely true, Christianity would be the most foolish and discredited religion on earth. Fortunately, that is not the case; but he is the most foolish and discredited poster in these threads.

80 posted on 04/11/2003 4:28:23 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Attacks on creationism do not equate to attacks on Christians.

You constantly attack fellow Christians. Fundamentalists are Christians, they are followers of Christ and you constantly attack them. A good Christian does not visciously attack fellow believers.

Anyway, let's do it again. What part of Christianity do you believe in? What part of the Bible do you agree with?

81 posted on 04/11/2003 9:20:15 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ah, but that's precisely what he has been claiming. Over and over, he says that Christianity is creationism. Were that even remotely true, Christianity

Nope, what I claim is that evolution is atheism and I can back it up unlike you who just hurl totally unfounded garbage.

82 posted on 04/11/2003 9:21:43 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Idiot. I attack the views held by some Christians -- namely the literal interpretation of Genesis. You are a different case. You're constantly wrong on so many things (should I dig up your famous "circles are not elipses" argument from last year?). You are one of the densest folks to ever post on these threads, and your inability to differentiate between an attack on a view and an attack on a person proves that you lack even the fundamental reasoning skills required of these discussions.
83 posted on 04/11/2003 9:35:32 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You are one of the densest folks to ever post on these threads ...

Consider how he first invents his own fantasy version of evolution, one where all members of a species decide one day to all switch together into something else, with not a single member of the old species left behind. Then he carries on and babbles and screeches for a year or two about how ridiculous [his perverse version of] evolution is, and how only an idiot could believe such a thing. It never penetrates his intellect that no one but him thinks of that as evolution.

Then he invents a private version of Christianity, one in which creationism is central, and Genesis is really good, solid science, and anyone who doesn't blindly accept his silly notion of things is not only an atheist, but is actually attacking Christianity. (And is also a fraud, slimer, liar, communist, Hitler supporter, etc.)

So, in his mind, he is the sole judge of what evolution is (although he knows nothing about it, not even what it is); and he is the sole judge of what Christianity is (presumably he thinks that he alone follows the true path to heaven); and as all the world can clearly see, he is utterly confused, misguided, and incurably wrong in both matters.

84 posted on 04/12/2003 7:51:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Junior; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; general_re; jennyp
So, in his mind, he is the sole judge of what evolution is (although he knows nothing about it, not even what it is); and he is the sole judge of what Christianity is (presumably he thinks that he alone follows the true path to heaven); and as all the world can clearly see, he is utterly confused, misguided, and incurably wrong in both matters.

So, what did you expect from someone who thinks that:

1) "a circle is not an ellipse"

2) the planets have "wildly elliptical" orbits

3) "1720" is a really big number

His behavior is somewhat curious, until one realizes that we now can, for the first time anywhere, reveal his likely identity:

Remember how we've all noticed that English is not his native language? Notice how he's been MIA for the past few weeks until today.

It's obvious who he really is: the Iraqi Minister of Dis-Information, "Baghdad Bob." Both use English as a second language, and both misrepresent the truth over and over again, even when the "evidence" is shoved right under their noses.

Notice the similarities:

LBB: "The evolutionists are running like rats; they have been thrashed by the Brilliant Creationists every-time they challenge us."

"Baghdad Bob": "The infidels are running like rats; they have been thrashed by the Republican Guards every time they cahllenge us."

I rest my case.

85 posted on 04/12/2003 10:51:43 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Notice the similarities ... I rest my case.

The similarities are very striking, especially in style and reasoning ability. But I don't think they're the same person. Baghbad Bob at least had the good sense to vanish when the US took over Baghdad. He knows when he's beaten. If he were really LBB, he would still be there in the square, where the toppled statue of Saddam once stood, and he would still be declaring victory, even while surrounded by the infidels. So you see, I think you dishonor Baghdad Bob when you declare that he is LBB.

86 posted on 04/12/2003 4:34:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: All
Daily bump for my lonely thread.
87 posted on 04/14/2003 6:50:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: All
Why I No Longer Debate Idiots.
90 posted on 04/14/2003 1:02:13 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
Jesus knew the audience to whom He spoke. Also, you seem to be saying that, even if evolution is true and Genesis is an allegory, to believe so means we marginalize God. In other words, it would be better for our eternal souls to believe a lie. Are you certain you and I worship the same deity?
91 posted on 04/14/2003 1:05:33 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
Baghdad patrick (( secret science // weapons ))!
92 posted on 04/14/2003 1:06:34 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
In most circles that is called, cognitive dissonance.

In "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy," he argues that the prevailing vision in the press, academy and politics has become so ... dogmatic --- that it has lost touch with reality.

Mr. Sowell labels the competing visions "constrained" and "unconstrained." The constrained vision argues that perfection is impossible, that social policy consists of structuring incentives for self-centered men, that life is a series of trade-offs. This vision is represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton (and of course, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration mindset).

93 posted on 04/14/2003 1:26:50 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry; All
Interpretations of the bible, time, and translations have all either destroyed the clear truth to what really happened or we're slowly understanding it as we gain new technology. For instance, the translation from the hebrew version has given us 'rib' as what was taken from Adam to make Eve. Because no one could understand what curve God was talking about, the translation was left as rib. The true Hebrew to English translation is 'curve'. Now we can take newly learned technolgy and accurately interpret it as the cuvre of the helical 'DNA' rather than 'rib'. It would make more sense. With the help of science, the Bible gives a lot of hints that science may have been involved. If you read real closely in Genesis you will see that God created 'man' twice. He first created man then he created Adam. Adam was the bloodline to Jesus. It's really hard to understand being thousands of years later when even English has changed many of the meanings of it's words and has even lost some words from the language. You will truly know all the answers when you die or you will know nothing. It's up to you if you want to believe or not.
95 posted on 04/14/2003 1:31:41 PM PDT by m1-lightning (The War Protest is a Quagmire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m1-lightning
Evolution is a quagmire !
96 posted on 04/14/2003 1:35:18 PM PDT by f.Christian (( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

To: f.Christian
Evolution has yet to be proven. Darwin only showed similarities between species of the past. Man has been trying to fly forever and has yet to sprout wings. And yes evolution is a quagmire.
98 posted on 04/14/2003 1:41:00 PM PDT by m1-lightning (The War Protest is a Quagmire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
It is apparent that you have already believed the lie of evilution.

Rationally, evolution does a far better job at explaining the evidence than creationism does. Why do you think creationists are fighting a rear-guard action? It isn't because of some "conspiracy" -- face it, no conspiracy of such monumental proportions could survive. Instead, rational people, Christian and non-Christian alike, have looked at the evidence and accepted the theory of evolution as the best fit for that evidence. Hell, even the head of my church, the Pope, has accepted the scientific validity of evolution.

Creationists do not even have a dog in this hunt; y'all are reduced to sitting on the sidelines carping at the folks actually doing the research (we posted a thread last year on why creationists do not do research. We could resurrect it for your edification, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate the conclusions). Until such a time as creationists come up with a theory that is a better fit for the evidence, you won't be taken seriously. And, BTW, nit-picking evolution is not considered evidence for creationism. It ain't an either-or game.

99 posted on 04/14/2003 1:49:56 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: postmodernism_kills
What I meant by "Jesus knew His audience" and which you could deduce given a few minutes of actual thought: just as a kindergarten teacher would use a well-known fairy tale to illustrate a point to her students, Jesus would have used the stories known and understood by his audience. This does not mean the fairy tale had any corporal validity, and the same could be said of Genesis.
100 posted on 04/14/2003 1:54:08 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 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