Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence for Creation
Christian Research Institute ^ | Christian Research Institute

Posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:42 AM PDT by Lost Highway

CRI PERSPECTIVE CP0103

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?

The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?

The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as “The Big Bang Theory.” Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth’s size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed.

Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial “soup.” For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.

Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.

Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwins Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

We recommend The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution by Hank Hanegraaff (B511/$17.00). Also, Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson (B290/$13.00). These resources are available through CRI's online bookstore by clicking on the title or by calling our Resource Center at (888)7000-CRI or by mailing a check or money order to PO Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.



TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Brief, but I am sure it will stir the pot. ;-)
1 posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:43 AM PDT by Lost Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God..." Jim Robinson

Great article in keeping with the FR philosophy.

2 posted on 04/27/2004 9:47:41 AM PDT by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
They had a committe of evolutionary scientists on a TV program (with Buckley I believe). In the end, 90% of the scientists said but "there is something else" to evolution.
3 posted on 04/27/2004 9:47:49 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
Brief, but manages to encompass all the typical Creationidiot claims and mistakes...

1) Confusing the evolution debate with the origin of life debate. They're two different issues. You can believe God, Yahweh, Allah, gray aliens, Xenu, etc. created life and still be an evolutionist.

2) Claiming "there are no transitional fossils" which is,of course, a flat-out lie. Anyone claiming such is either a liar, or the stupid dupe of a liar.

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
4 posted on 04/27/2004 9:48:25 AM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
"Evolution: the mother of all junk science." - gg188
5 posted on 04/27/2004 9:48:39 AM PDT by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; RadioAstronomer; Ichneumon
Ping.
6 posted on 04/27/2004 9:50:30 AM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gg188; xzins; editor-surveyor; Gal.5:1; Commander8; fishtank; fortheDeclaration; Alamo-Girl; ...
Your# 5...........

"Evolution: the mother of all junk science." - gg188

BTTT

7 posted on 04/27/2004 10:00:27 AM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
Considering that once an object in space moves in one direction it continues on that course and speed unless some other force causes the object to change direction or speed.

If there is an explosion in space (ie Big Bang) and debris is going in all directions at once, all in a straight line away from the center of the explosion. How can bits of matter, that are moving away from each other at a very high rate of speed, come together and form planets and other large bodies?
8 posted on 04/27/2004 10:00:37 AM PDT by woofer2425
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You really think this thread is worth the effort?
9 posted on 04/27/2004 10:01:38 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as "The Big Bang Theory." Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence. - Agreed basically universally.

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been "finely tuned" to make life possible. - Disagree. There are literally billions of stars, and there are ranges of cosmological constants that would cause life for each of them. Besides, you CAN NOT analyze probability from only one case.

Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial "soup." - Agreed. Nobody even claims to have an answer for this.

Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books. - How is DNA like a book or computer program exactly. They both contain information?

Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin's Theory, often in absurd ways. - For one, the fossil record is obviously incomplete. Also, what absurd ways are there.

In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better. - I find their conclusion suspect, and that though there are significant problems with the current theory of the origin of life, there are more significant problems with the biblical account.
10 posted on 04/27/2004 10:01:45 AM PDT by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
YEC SPOTREP
11 posted on 04/27/2004 10:02:02 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation

Ahh, yes.

I eagerly await scientific evidence for:

* People living to be hundreds of years old
* Talking bushes & serpents
* Woman being created from the rib of a man
* "Adam" & "Eve" being the first humans

And other such biblical phenomena

12 posted on 04/27/2004 10:09:06 AM PDT by gdani (letting the marketplace decide = conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maestro
Thanks for the ping!
13 posted on 04/27/2004 10:10:05 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?

No.

And there can't be.

Scientific examination of the history of life, of the earth, of the universe, are founded in the principle of uniformitarism - the idea that the rules under which the universe and the earth and life was formed are the same as those operating today.

This isn't a discovery, or a theory - it's a postulate.

The question scientists ask isn't "what happened?", but "how can we best explain what we observe given our fundamental presupposition that the laws of nature are fixed?".

And the very nature of divine intervention steps entirely outside of that postulated framework.

Could the Universe have begun in a six day act of miraculous creation, 6000 years ago? Certainly. But as a miraculous act operating outside of our observed laws of nature, it is outside the domain of science.

If the Universe was created miraculously, it was created with an apparent history. And the scientists are busy studying how that history would have played out, had the Universe actually lived through it, instead of having been created with it.

Are there aspects of our understanding of the history of the universe that are contradictory or confused? Yes.

But does the balance of the evidence suggest an instantaneous creation some reasonably short time ago? Absolutely not.

There are lakes, in Scandinavia, that have layers of silt on the bottom. We can observe these layers being laid down year by year - one layer every year, delineated by changes in composition from winter to summer.

We can drill down and extract cores, showing 30,000 or more such layers. If the Universe was created 6,000 years ago, it was created with a lake that already had 24,000 layers in place.

14 posted on 04/27/2004 10:10:54 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John H K
You can believe God, Yahweh, Allah, gray aliens, Xenu, etc. created life and still be an evolutionist.

I agree. One cannot logically believe in the literal, all-at-once (6-day) creation story with zero Darwinian evolution, and at the same time believe the literal story of Noah's ark. To do this is to assert that every species alive today (besides sea creatures) exists only because it lived through the flood on the ark. I don't know how many species are claimed to exist today, but I'd bet it's orders of magnitude more than could live several months on a boat built by a small number of men over a few decades. Either the flood did not destroy all land life or evolution occurred after the flood. What do the strict creationists say about this?

15 posted on 04/27/2004 10:12:15 AM PDT by smokinleroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
"Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth’s size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed."

This is a common argument but it puts the cart before the horse. Life forms developed on this planet in a certain manner because it developed and evolved to respond to the existing conditions here, not because God shopped around the universe looking for just the right planet to plunk down humans.
16 posted on 04/27/2004 10:12:57 AM PDT by Gefreiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible.

Finely tuned for life as we know it to be possible. They have it reversed: life evolves according to the situation, therefore life the situation will appear optimized to that life. If the "tuning" were different, then life would be different.

Playing the odds question is very disingenuous. What are the odds that we appeared as we do? Extremely low. Of course, what are the odds of anything else specific appearing? Also extremely low. What are the odds that something would appear? My guess is pretty high. The odds game assumes that we were the target of evolution.

If you don't understand that, think of the lottery. The odds of any one person winning the jackpot are absurdly low, but the probability that someone will win approaches one after a while.

17 posted on 04/27/2004 10:13:07 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
I eagerly await scientific evidence for:

* People living to be hundreds of years old * Talking bushes & serpents * Woman being created from the rib of a man * "Adam" & "Eve" being the first humans

And other such biblical phenomena


That is really not the issue. It comes down to whether or not one believes there really is a God who created everything. If yes, then how would that God have any trouble keeping people alive for hundreds of years or creating a woman from the rib of a man? If no, then of course it's all impossible. That's the issue.

As for whether or not the flood and creation are true, I think Pascal answers it wisely: "Shem, who saw Lamech, who saw Adam, saw also Jacob, who saw those who saw Moses; therefore the deluge and the creation are true. This is conclusive among certain people who understand it rightly."
18 posted on 04/27/2004 10:26:29 AM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Probably not. Just included for the sake of completeness.
19 posted on 04/27/2004 10:27:14 AM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gg188
"Evolution: the mother of all junk science." - gg188

I'll bump that.

20 posted on 04/27/2004 10:28:33 AM PDT by biblewonk (The only book worth reading, and reading, and reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: woofer2425
If there is an explosion in space (ie Big Bang) and debris is going in all directions at once, all in a straight line away from the center of the explosion. How can bits of matter, that are moving away from each other at a very high rate of speed, come together and form planets and other large bodies?

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of space-time.

21 posted on 04/27/2004 10:29:08 AM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Imagine being a greek child 500bc. You ask dad why the sun flies across the sky. Your dad replies the god apollo hooks his chariot to the sun every morning and pulls it across.
God is only defined as that which we don't understand.
As we know more, there is less and less room for God.
Lee Smollin (penn state u)
"Life in the cosmos" answers many of these questions including why the universe is so finely tuned. He goes far beyond the anthropic principle.
The other issue is testability. How do you test the hypothesis "god exists" ?
What laws of physics do spirits use to communicate with the rest of us?
22 posted on 04/27/2004 10:31:24 AM PDT by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
That is really not the issue. It comes down to whether or not one believes there really is a God who created everything. If yes, then how would that God have any trouble keeping people alive for hundreds of years or creating a woman from the rib of a man? If no, then of course it's all impossible. That's the issue.

In other words, science text books could all be reduced down to one page of answers to explain all natural & supernatural phenomena with the answers consisting of any variation of "Because God did it" or "because God wanted it that way".

Sounds like science to me!

23 posted on 04/27/2004 10:34:01 AM PDT by gdani (letting the marketplace decide = conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
But your very own book says: "And God said, 'Let the waters move and bring forth the moving creature that hath life'"

24 posted on 04/27/2004 10:36:17 AM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
I eagerly await scientific evidence for:
* Talking bushes & serpents

For the first, I give you the President;
for the last, I give you Carville.

There is usually not enough levity in these threads.

25 posted on 04/27/2004 10:41:15 AM PDT by Migraine (my grain is pretty straight today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
"A devout clergyman, happening one day to see a crane wading in quest of food, pointed out to his son the perfect adaptation of the crane to get his living in that manner.

'See,' said he, 'how his legs are formed for wading! What a long slender bill he has! Observe how nicely he folds his feet when putting them in or drawing them out of the water. He does not cause the slightest ripple. He is thus enable to approach the fish without giving them any notice of his arrival!

'My son,'said he,'it is impossible to look at that bird without recognizing the design, as well as the goodness of God, in thus providing the means of subsistence.'

"'Yes,' replied the boy, 'I think I see the goodness of God, at least as far as the crane is concerned; but after all, father, don't you think the arrangement a little tough on the fish?'"

-R.G. Ingersoll

26 posted on 04/27/2004 10:52:34 AM PDT by Uncle Fud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokinleroy
> To do this is to assert that every species alive today (besides sea creatures) exists only because it lived through the flood on the ark.

A further problem: if all the world was flooded out... that means the fresh water and salt water sea critters were dumped into the same vast pond. Was that pond fresh or salt? Either way, it would have wiped out vast groups of critters and sea plants... and the survivors then had to evolve specialization into fresh or salt water forms after the flood subsided. Uh.... yeah.
27 posted on 04/27/2004 11:02:39 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
>It comes down to whether or not one believes there really is a God who created everything.

Not really. One can believe in God and understand that God used natural, material forces (including evolution) to create the universe.

>"Shem, who saw Lamech, who saw Adam, saw also Jacob, who saw those who saw Moses; therefore the deluge and the creation are true. This is conclusive among certain people who understand it rightly."

"I heard from my cousin who heard from his neighbor who heard from his girlfriend who heard from her mom..."

> I think Pascal answers it wisely...

Bah. Pascal showed himself to be over-simplistic on the topic with his laughable Wager.
28 posted on 04/27/2004 11:07:54 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation.

With the exception of the Hindus, I think we all agree we're here. The article deteriorates from this point.

29 posted on 04/27/2004 11:09:04 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
Another great source is http://www.answersingenesis.org/
30 posted on 04/27/2004 11:32:24 AM PDT by Southron Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gg188
>"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God..."

What does the one necessarily have to do with the other? Many liberal Christians (Rev. Al, Rev. Jessie, etc.) Many conservative non-Christians, including atheists, agnostics and pagans.

"Conservatism" is a matter of politics/social views, "God" is a matter of religion. These two concepts are not interchangeable.

31 posted on 04/27/2004 11:55:30 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Agreed about the mixing of salt and fresh water.

Read The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder (an MIT physicist).

Schroeder also (this is important!) happens to be a Jew, and correctly points out that the word for world/earth used is aretz, or adamah, IIRC, or some word that carries the implication that the flood disaster may have been a localized REGIONAL event.

A real eye opener of a good book, written by a physicist who holds a Biblical understanding.

Schroeder points out continually that there's less discrepancy between Biblical and scientific understanding than the popular culture would have us all believe.

Sauron

32 posted on 04/27/2004 11:55:43 AM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sauron
> carries the implication that the flood disaster may have been a localized REGIONAL event.

Entirely reasonable. Floods are nasty, horrible things that can sneak up on you; if one is sufficiently big (such as would be expected for 5000+ years ago, with the Earth lurching out of the last ice age), it's easy to see that it could be seen as The End Of The World.

Comnpare that possibility to the patent absurdity of trying to use the Flood to explain mountains and the fossil record...
33 posted on 04/27/2004 12:01:37 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Uncle Fud
Okay, snorting tea through one's nose is not conducive to good health ... but the belly laugh accompanying it should have offset any detrimental effects.
35 posted on 04/27/2004 2:42:25 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Try reading my post next time. Or if you insist on writing about something completely unrelated, don't respond to me at least.
36 posted on 04/27/2004 2:43:46 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: volkercr
> FreeRepublic is not a terribly good forum for evolution debates.

Indeed. Because sound bites like "Evolution: the mother of all junk science" get as much attention as "Let's look at the vast preponderance of the fossil evidence."
37 posted on 04/27/2004 2:47:25 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Not really. One can believe in God and understand that God used natural, material forces (including evolution) to create the universe.

If you belive God created the universe, was that event a natural, material force?

>"Shem, who saw Lamech, who saw Adam, saw also Jacob, who saw those who saw Moses; therefore the deluge and the creation are true. This is conclusive among certain people who understand it rightly."

"I heard from my cousin who heard from his neighbor who heard from his girlfriend who heard from her mom..."


If that's what you take the quote to mean you are completely misunderstanding it.

Bah. Pascal showed himself to be over-simplistic on the topic with his laughable Wager.

Have you ever actually read his Pensees or have you only heard "the wager" (a passing thought, mentioned in a much larger body) regurgitated from high school teachers? If the latter, I recommend you take a look.
38 posted on 04/27/2004 2:48:50 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lost Highway
Bookmark for later. And warming up the buzzsaw.

39 posted on 04/27/2004 4:16:38 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KillBill
In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today,...

I agree with this statement and so do many others.

There's an interesting debate going-on at ISCID:

There is only one problem with Darwinian evolution. It is the same problem that Lamarckian evolution has presented. Both Have failed endless critical experimental analyses. Accordingly, both must be rejected. Lamarckism has been largely rejected. Why Darwinism survives is a mystery. I hope I may be forgiven for introducing my own Semi-meiotic Hypothesis, but the simple undeniable fact is that it has not been subjected to experimental analysis. Until it is it must be considered viable. There is also evidence accumulating from molecular biology that fundamental gene families common to huge groups of organisms have existed since very early in evolutionary history, which certainly is compatible with the notion that chromosome restructuring alone can serve to release novel genetic expressions which were latent and unexpressed perhaps for many millions of years. Both the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the correlated Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis have yet to be even recognized, let alone tested. It may prove that there is really no significant role for micromutational (base pair) genetic alterations in determining evolutionary destiny. In any event, as I and others have indicated, there is no compelling evidence that evolution above the species level is even occurring. That certainly is the perspective of Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and of all people, the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", Julian Huxley, not to mention myself. Godfrey Hardy felt that mathematics existed independent of the human condition and needed only to be discovered. I accept that interpretation and have chosen to extend that prefomed concept to include the whole of science to include evolution which I now regard as essentially an emergent phenomenon prescribed just as certainly as were the conic sections, the periodic table of the elements and all of Newtonian physics and Einstein's relativity. Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there. That is the best evidence against the Darwin/Wallace hypothesis. They discovered nothing. They simply reacted to their common reading experience with the works of Malthus and Lyell. The laws of physics have been discovered. The laws that have driven evolution (past tense) will ultimately be discovered. When that finally occurs, and I firmly believe it will, both Lamarckism and Darwinism, like the Phlogiston of chemistry and the Ether of physics will become nothing but historical curiosities.

~Nosivad (John A. Davison, Ph.D.)

40 posted on 04/28/2004 8:45:36 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
> If you belive God created the universe, was that event a natural, material force?

Can't say, wasn't there. However, we have precisely zero evidence of the supernatural, and lots of evidence of the material.

> you are completely misunderstanding it.

I think not. A multi-generation line of mythology is the sort of thing likely to spawn mutations.

> Have you ever actually read his Pensees

Nope. A few thousand other books to get through before I get to that. If, however, he has something better to say than the "wager," then maybe he has somethign to say on the topic... but the "wager" is less than useless, as it's a 2X2 matrix in a world with vastly more possibilities.
41 posted on 04/28/2004 10:00:12 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Waiting-for-the-chainsaw placemarker.
42 posted on 04/28/2004 10:01:52 AM PDT by Long Cut ("Fightin's commenced, Ike, now get to fightin' or get outta the way!"...Wyatt Earp, in Tombstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud

Nice!


43 posted on 07/11/2006 8:24:07 AM PDT by Comico Atómico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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