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

Skip to comments.

Fossil turtles confound evolutionists (Creation vs. Evolution)
Answers in Genesis ^ | April 18, 2005 | Dr. Terry Mortenson

Posted on 04/18/2005 9:37:46 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Fossil turtles confound evolutionists

by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–USA

April 18, 2005

Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.1 However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!

The fossils are “;believed”; to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “;basically the same as sea turtles do today.”;1

Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “;dated”; at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “;remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,”; Discovery reports.

How do the evolutionists explain this? The Australian researchers are quoted as saying that the “;sea turtles have hit on the winning design … [and] cracked the winning code.”; Notice how the evolutionists describe the turtles—as if they are highly intelligent, creative, forward-looking engineers, which they are not, of course. Evolution is supposedly based on natural selection and mutations, which are mindless, directionless, blind natural processes.

Not only are these turtle fossils contrary to the theory of perpetual and gradual evolutionary change, they also simultaneously refute the notion of millions of years. It is simply unbelievable that these turtles could remain unchanged for over 100 million years, given that information-degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things, generation after generation (a consequence of the Curse of Genesis 3).

But these are not the only living fossils that refute evolution and millions of years. Many examples could be cited. Regarding salamander fossils recently found in China, we learn that “;Despite its Bathonian age, the new cryptobranchid [salamander] shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives. This similarity underscores the stasis [no change] within salamander anatomical evolution. Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160 million years.”;2

Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old, that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.3 Microscopic algae didn’t change over 3.5 billion years of evolution? Who’s kidding whom?

All this evidence fits perfectly with the Bible’s teaching that these algae, along with the rest of the creation, are only at most about 6,000 years old.

Once again we see evolutionists digging up the evidence that, when removed from the restriction of having to be forced into an evolutionary framework, actually refutes their theories and confirms the truth of the Bible. Thanks, Australian evolutionists—and keep up the good work!

References

  1. animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20050221/seaturtles.html. Return to text.

  2. Ke-Qin Gao & Neil H. Shubin, Earliest known crown-group salamanders, Nature 422:428, March 27, 2003. Return to text.

  3. www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html. This is the website of the Museum of Paleontology at the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. Return to text.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-572 next last

1 posted on 04/18/2005 9:37:48 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; plain talk; ...

(((Creationist Ping List)))

You have been pinged because of your interest in matters of Creation vs. Evolution, Creation trumping evolution, and evolutionary fraud. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.


2 posted on 04/18/2005 9:38:26 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. (1 Corinthians 16:13))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Surely evolutionists have an explanation for this.


3 posted on 04/18/2005 9:40:03 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Pfftt...this isn't science. No Intelligent Design theorist has any data...blah, blah, blah...

Thought I'd save evolutionists some time :-)
4 posted on 04/18/2005 9:41:37 AM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Genesis 3 is not about a literal serpent, it is another name for the devil.


5 posted on 04/18/2005 9:41:38 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Not only are these turtle fossils contrary to the theory of perpetual and gradual evolutionary change...

Whose theory is that? That's not a part of evolutionary theory, this idea that organisms must always undergo change.

6 posted on 04/18/2005 9:41:39 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I believe that evolution is nothing but a fraud and it is something that is not worth believing in. As a Christian, I tend to believe in the Creationist side of things.


7 posted on 04/18/2005 9:41:41 AM PDT by GOPXtreme20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
All this evidence fits perfectly with the Bible's teaching that these algae, along with the rest of the creation, are only at most about 6,000 years old.

** groan **

8 posted on 04/18/2005 9:42:34 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

If pressures on survival such as food supply, mating, population size and density, and environment remain fairly stable, as they would do for an aquatic creature that travels great distances through a variety of conditions, then the impetus for change would not be nearly as great as for land animals that face changing local climates, predatory threats and food supply issues. It makes good sense that the main line of turtles have not changed much over a long period.


9 posted on 04/18/2005 9:43:14 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (When we are tolerant, we should be careful to note whether it stems from convenience or conviction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

BTTT


10 posted on 04/18/2005 9:44:54 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Not just turtles, look at cockroaches, sharks and alligators/crocs, they are pretty much the same as well. Whelp you sure proved us wrong. Way to ignore everything but sea turtle fossils to stick to the evolustionsists.Now if excuse me i need to go rethink my interpretation of how the world was started.


11 posted on 04/18/2005 9:45:55 AM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It's no more surprising that a well-adapted species would remain essentially unchanged for a hundred million years than it is to see parallel evolution of species to fill similar niches in highly separated locations, such as the rabbit-like marsupial that evolved in Australia.

I am not interested in arguing about evolution. An infinitely powerful God could do creation any way he chose.

The Resurrection is the defining event of Christianity. Arguing over lesser issues is pointless.

12 posted on 04/18/2005 9:46:21 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The fossils are “;believed”; to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “;basically the same as sea turtles do today.”;

I don’t think “evolutionists” are the confounded ones.

It’s just a particularly successful and resilient species of turtle. It’s found it’s niche and has been successfully exploiting it for 110 million years.

He’s probably not a very tasty turtle, which works out well for him.

13 posted on 04/18/2005 9:46:26 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Evidence? Everything else in the chapter is rhetorically literal. I believe it is there as well- it's a physical form he took. OTOH, Revelation, which is primarily figurative after chapter 1, refers to satan as "that serpent of old"-- an allusion to his appearance in Genesis but not his current physical state.


14 posted on 04/18/2005 9:47:18 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Amen.


15 posted on 04/18/2005 9:48:08 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (When we are tolerant, we should be careful to note whether it stems from convenience or conviction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Let's take a look at what the article REALLY says...

Fossils Shed Light on Sea Turtle Evolution
AFP

Feb. 24, 2005 — Australian scientists Wednesday announced the discovery of a dozen fossils from some of the earliest species of sea turtle, which are believed to be 110 million years old.

Paleontologist Ben Kear said the fossils, found late last year in the northeastern state of Queensland, would help scientists understand why sea turtles have remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years.

“ Sea turtles have hit on the winning design and they've stuck to it. ”

"For all intents and purposes, if you were to see one (it) would look basically the same as sea turtles do today," Kear said.

"Sea turtles have hit on the winning design and they've stuck to it. They've cracked the winning code, as it were, and it's enabled them to survive when other creatures haven't," he said.

"They're one of the success stories of marine evolution. If you think about the marine animals that became extinct, well why did sea turtles survive? That's the sort of question we can look at now."

Kear of the South Australia Museum said the initial find in far western Queensland included parts from 12 different turtles, and that excavations were continuing.

The fossils were taken to the museum, where scientists hope to find out about the ancient animals' diets and why they appear to have resisted climate change.

"What are sea turtles related to? Are they threatened by things like climate change?" he asked.

"We're just beginning to find out the basics and build information on the really big picture stuff."

The sea turtle fossils are believed to be the oldest found since a single skeleton thought to be 115 million years old was discovered in Brazil in 1998.

"The earliest fossils we know come from Brazil and this consisted of a single skeleton ... then about five million years later in the fossil record we get them in Australia," Kear told ABC radio.

"But we don't just get one — we get hundreds. So what we're looking at is a really, really good cross section of what (are) the earliest sea turtles in the world."

___________________________________________________________

Let's not forget the sharks, either, or eels, and several other evolutionary strategies that have worked..

And let's not forget that these are the "survivors", those left after catastrophic events that affected life on a planetary scale..

I have no problem with evolution..
It's working exactly the way God planned it to..


16 posted on 04/18/2005 9:49:28 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Don't you worry the atheist nuts will think of something. And believe me the explanation will contain strange words the dictionary will have trouble deciphering


17 posted on 04/18/2005 9:52:50 AM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

More and more, Creationists are coming across in much the same way as UFO nuts. See a light in the sky that cannot be immediately explained? Well, it's PROOF! All those claims of lights in the sky being caused by "airplanes" or "balloons" are all part of the conspiracy.


18 posted on 04/18/2005 9:55:14 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Er...no...most of the sharks living today are pretty much unchanged from 100 million years ago. Sometimes things just got about as good as they could be for their niche real early. Everything else evolved and left a fossil record.


19 posted on 04/18/2005 9:55:44 AM PDT by johnmilken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

"I am not interested in arguing about evolution. An infinitely powerful God could do creation any way he chose."


works for me.


20 posted on 04/18/2005 9:56:04 AM PDT by cripplecreek (I'm apathetic but really don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

> And believe me the explanation will contain strange words the dictionary will have trouble deciphering

What's hard to decipher about: "Sea turtle configuration has not drastically changed because it's a successful configuration."


21 posted on 04/18/2005 9:56:45 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Because Sea Turtles are essentially a satisfied niche and don't need to change?


22 posted on 04/18/2005 9:57:23 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
What's hard to decipher about: "Sea turtle configuration has not drastically changed because it's a successful configuration."

Yea sea turtles are a sucessful configuration. They just love to be eaten by sharks.

23 posted on 04/18/2005 10:00:51 AM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I am totally shocked that there would be an incomplete fossil record of species that live their entire life in the oceans. I mean, it's not like new fossils are discovered all the time. WE have fossil records of every animal that ever existed in the history of the planet don't we? Your argument depends on that, doesn't it?

Also, haven't sharks existed pretty much unchanged for a lot longer than 110 million years?

24 posted on 04/18/2005 10:01:11 AM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I remain on the creation side of this because I still don't think something so perfect could have happened by accident.Experience tells us that perfection is never the result of a mistake or accident.We might get favorable outcomes from random acts on occasion but they never produce perfection.Behind every complex creation there is an intelligent mind that built it.
25 posted on 04/18/2005 10:01:18 AM PDT by rdcorso (The Democratic Party Has Become An Abomination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

I sometimes think if when 'creationist' read things about 'evolution' they would simply substitute the word "God" for the word "nature" (and the scientists would do the same thing in reverse when reading Genesis), that both sides would see that what they perceive as a conflict of ideology is really just two ways of describing one phenomenon, namely the glorious beauty of the universe.

that would still leave a problem for those who think the universe is 6,000 years old, I guess.


26 posted on 04/18/2005 10:03:50 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It is simply unbelievable that these turtles could remain unchanged for over 100 million years, given that information-degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things, generation after generation (a consequence of the Curse of Genesis 3).

If you believe that's part of biology, I have a bridge for sale. If you believe it happens, I have two bridges for the price of one.

27 posted on 04/18/2005 10:04:13 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdcorso

I'm afraid that is much too logical for evolutionists. lol


28 posted on 04/18/2005 10:06:10 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Little Ray
Because Sea Turtles are essentially a satisfied niche and don't need to change?

According to evolutionary theory, Sea Turtles are now undergoing a change in order to be able to digest latex balloons---something previous generations of Sea Turtles could not tolerate.

30 posted on 04/18/2005 10:06:32 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (9-11 is your Peace Dividend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Evolutionists are just making less and less sense as time goes by.


31 posted on 04/18/2005 10:08:47 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"It is simply unbelievable that these turtles could remain unchanged for over 100 million years, given that information-degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things,..."

Just look at the shark and ask how long they have been around in essentially the same form. A good bit longer than Sea turtles if I'm not mistaken.


32 posted on 04/18/2005 10:09:14 AM PDT by roaddog727 (The marginal propensity to save is 1 minus the marginal propensity to consume.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Genesis 3 is not about a literal serpent, it is another name for the devil.

Then why did the Lord tell the serpent that he was cursed above all the livestock, and all wild animals?

He also told the serpent that he'd crawl on his belly and eat the dust.

33 posted on 04/18/2005 10:10:22 AM PDT by Preachin' (Keep the Kerry/Edwards tags on your cars so we can identify the root of your disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Because Sea Turtles are essentially a satisfied niche and don't need to change?

Have you ever see a sea turtle up close. Believe me they need to change.
34 posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:26 AM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

> Evolutionists are just making less and less sense as time goes by.

Well, sure, to those who think that digging up yet more evidence of the massive age of the world somehow bolsters the lunatic notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Reason sounds like nonsense to those incapable of reason. Hense, the constant IDiot bleat about how evolution doesn't make sense to them.


35 posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:29 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rdcorso

Experience tells you that the sun revolves around the earth.


36 posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:29 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
All this evidence fits perfectly with the Bible's teaching that these algae, along with the rest of the creation, are only at most about 6,000 years old.

I believe creation was last Thursday, at 9:00 AM (PDT of course). Everything was created in place, fossils and all the rest. Makes as much sense as anything the creationists/ID folks have come up with. And, just like their ideas, it cannot be disproven.

37 posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:43 AM PDT by Machkas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'

Snakes don't eat dust.


38 posted on 04/18/2005 10:13:13 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; mike182d; mlc9852; gdani; GOPXtreme20; tfecw; SlowBoat407; E. Pluribus Unum
As I said on the other thread, the 6,000 yr thing is one of the things that the archbishop Usher postulated. Moreover during this time there were also debates on the shapes on angels wings, the gender of angels and such crock. Fortunately (or maybe not) only the 'young earth' argument survived.

The earth is older than 6,000 yrs.

And since you say it is 'Biblical' show me where it says the earth is 6 millenia old in the bible. You cannot! All you can is try and calculate backwards, or merely quote Usher's assertion that the Earth was created circa 4500BC.

The whole 6,000 yr age is neither religion nor science. It is basically people repeating the flawed logic of a person who was interested in things ranging from wing shapes to 4500BC creation dates. And while some may say it is 'Biblical' it is not! There is no difference between these 'calculations' and the folk who say that the description in Ezekiel is an 'alien space-craft.' They are both equally loony (and un-biblical) assertions based on people assuming things.

Again, show me where it says the Earth is 6,000 yrs old in the bible. The thing is you cannot. All you can is give me the same sort of 'logic' that i received from a person a couple of years ago who was trying to 'assure' me that there is a description of an alien vessel in Ezekiel (the spinning circle thing). Oh .....and that reminds me of a book i read, that was actually written by a preacher, where he claimed that the 'hornets with a sting' in Revelations were Apache helicopter gunships. I believe i stopped reading his book at that point.

39 posted on 04/18/2005 10:13:21 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Don't you know the waters of reality will part if you say the magic word?


40 posted on 04/18/2005 10:14:16 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Don't you know the waters of reality will part if you say the magic word?

A turtle transforming into a bird. Now thats real magic.
41 posted on 04/18/2005 10:18:25 AM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
"Snakes don't eat dust."

That sure fits well as a figure of speech though when one matches it with the fact that the serpent was also told that he'd move on his belly, doesn't it.
42 posted on 04/18/2005 10:18:40 AM PDT by Preachin' (Keep the Kerry/Edwards tags on your cars so we can identify the root of your disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

It seems to me that the evolutionists are the ones tossing Frisbees in the air to get a picture of their latest “UFO”. Evolutionists have, for a very long time, used needle and thread, glue, doctored drawings, dental drills, and outright lies to manufacture evidence. It must be quite a cottage industry doctoring fossils.


43 posted on 04/18/2005 10:22:06 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mulch

Sounds Biblical.


44 posted on 04/18/2005 10:23:10 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

That would be "hence"


45 posted on 04/18/2005 10:25:02 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
"Again, show me where it says the Earth is 6,000 yrs old in the bible."

For one to make the earth billions of years old with the biblical record in hand, he must mysteriously enter the time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

There is no other way for that to occur.

The bible records Jesus' family 42 generations, all way back to Noah. They apparently took it serious about keeping records of time and events.

I seriously doubt one living person today can go back half that far in their family tree.
46 posted on 04/18/2005 10:25:28 AM PDT by Preachin' (Keep the Kerry/Edwards tags on your cars so we can identify the root of your disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I never saw a conflict between evolution and my religion, as I understand each of them.

Evolution describes a method, a process. Religion tells us WHO created the world, but not necessarily the details of the method or process used.


47 posted on 04/18/2005 10:26:25 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I'm still trying to get my head around the concept that the discovery of a 110 million year old fossil proves that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Nope, can't do it.

48 posted on 04/18/2005 10:27:11 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution. However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution.

We have always been at war with EastAsia...

49 posted on 04/18/2005 10:27:12 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
More lies from the anti-science industry.

Here's some actual information.

And yes. There's still a lot that's unknown.

50 posted on 04/18/2005 10:27:37 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-572 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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