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

Skip to comments.

Cornell president condemns intelligent design
2005 Syracuse.com ^ | 10/21/2005, 12:03 p.m. ET | By WILLIAM KATES

Posted on 10/21/2005 10:26:36 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines

ITHACA, N.Y. — Cornell University Interim President Hunter Rawlings III on Friday condemned the teaching of intelligent design as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."

"Intelligent design is not valid science," Rawlings told nearly 700 trustees, faculty and other school officials attending Cornell's annual board meeting.

"It has no ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing, modification of the original theory based on experimental results and renewed testing through more refined experiments that yield still more refinements and insights," Rawlings said.

Rawlings, Cornell's president from 1995 to 2003, is now serving as interim president in the wake of this summer's sudden departure of former Cornell president Jeffrey Lehman.

Intelligent design is a theory that says life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. It has been harshly criticized by The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which have called it repackaged creationism and improper to include in scientific education.

There are brewing disputes involving evolution and intelligent design in at least 20 states and numerous school districts nationwide, including California, New Mexico, Kansas and Pennsylvania. President Bush elevated the controversy in August when he said that schools should teach intelligent design along with evolution.

Many Americans, including some supporters of evolution, believe intelligent design should be taught with evolution. Rawlings said a large minority of Americans — nearly 40 percent — want creationism taught in public schools instead of evolution.

For those reasons, Rawlings said he felt it "imperative" to use his state-of-the-university address — usually a recitation of the school's progress over the last year — to speak out against intelligent design, which he said has "put rational thought under attack."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: academia; atheist; cityofevil; cornell; crevolist; evolution; hellbound; intelligentdesign; ithaca; scumbag
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-454 next last
To: hawkaw

I will never, ever believe humans descended from apes until I see irrefutable proof, which I don't believe exists.


51 posted on 10/21/2005 11:40:46 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mach9
Am I missing something? When did Big Bang and pseudoDarwinism become "valid science"?

When we were able to repeat them in a laboratory.

52 posted on 10/21/2005 11:43:36 AM PDT by DrDavid (Support Global Warming: Surf the Hebrides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
You can't hide God.

Check under your bed. Then your closet. Let us know what you find.

53 posted on 10/21/2005 11:44:13 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Well I guess there has been global warming and cooling over the past. I guess what you mean is that present human activities are not causing a significant increase in the temperature of the earth.

I think what I would like Rawlings to say is that experiments need to be carried out pursuant to scientific principals and based on those observations, scientific hypothises should be confirmed or thrown out.

54 posted on 10/21/2005 11:45:15 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DrDavid

The Big Bang theory was repeated in a laboratory?


55 posted on 10/21/2005 11:45:52 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

You imagine yourself clever, don't you?


56 posted on 10/21/2005 11:46:16 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Again, we didn't decend from apes. We and certain present day apes decended from an ape like create that is now extinct.


57 posted on 10/21/2005 11:47:26 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

"Competition is welcome in the form of *falsifiable* hypotheses. ID does not meet this standard and is therefore not a valid scientific theory. It is not even a hypothesis."

As I asked in #26, should we ban teaching string theory in physics for the same reason?


58 posted on 10/21/2005 11:47:37 AM PDT by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

I believe microwaves were used as a testible way to demonstrate the bigbang theory.


59 posted on 10/21/2005 11:49:06 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

You mean you don't determine the worthiness of a person based on their church attendance?!?

The horror.


Please tell me I don't need a /sarc for you...


60 posted on 10/21/2005 11:50:45 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
You imagine yourself clever, don't you?

Perhaps your viewpoint suffers from your severe braincell deficiency. Or a lack of education. Or maybe you are just limited by the poor selection of your parents.

61 posted on 10/21/2005 11:52:04 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
So why are they talking about it?

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) says creationism violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
So if IDists want to teach "Intelligent design" as a alternative scientific theory to evolution they'll have deny who that designer is.

62 posted on 10/21/2005 11:52:30 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

What exactly is an "ape-like creature"? Teddy Kennedy?


63 posted on 10/21/2005 11:52:40 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

You are absolute proof of devolution. I bet you don't have many friends.


64 posted on 10/21/2005 11:53:22 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine's brother
The problem is that it is not being taught as theory but as a natural law.

Natural law? Can you explain this further?
65 posted on 10/21/2005 11:53:47 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Once again, a CrEvo thread has degenerated into name calling.

I can sum it up for all of you:

Darwinist: You're an idiot!

Creationist/IDer: No, you are!


66 posted on 10/21/2005 11:53:55 AM PDT by Disambiguator (Making accusations of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Ping.


67 posted on 10/21/2005 11:54:04 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (We DARE Defend Our Rights [Alabama State Motto])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
oriental sunrise
breath taking color
stillness silhouetted in an image

bentfeather

Question: Who did it? Personally I believe both; 1) a creator who created dinosaurs which in time became extinct. We know they walked this planet, we have seen their bones.
2) a creator who created this universe and its planet(earth) to evolve into a planet which would sustain human life.
3) Just my humble opinion.

68 posted on 10/21/2005 11:54:40 AM PDT by Soaring Feather (If down is up, is up, down. Feathers in the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I will never, ever believe humans descended from apes until I see irrefutable proof, which I don't believe exists.

In other words, you hold common descent to a standard that no scientific theory will ever meet.
69 posted on 10/21/2005 11:55:16 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
String theory is part of protoscience. String theory and the other similar theories "are better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism".

"Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency".

"While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory".

Go to wikipedia.org to learn more about scientific theory and how it releates to the different disciplines.

70 posted on 10/21/2005 11:56:23 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Sorry - I still don't reply to you.


71 posted on 10/21/2005 11:56:36 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
You are absolute proof of devolution. I bet you don't have many friends.

You don't love me any more? Oh, what will I ever do?

72 posted on 10/21/2005 11:56:45 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

"I believe microwaves were used as a testible way to demonstrate the bigbang theory."

As a byproduct through expansion?

I'm not sure how this could prove the theory!

It may show a 'possible' effect of it, but proving the event actually happened seems more like a guess.






73 posted on 10/21/2005 11:57:57 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Would it strike any conservative (any true conservative - I'm not referring here to Patrick Henry) unusual that a far left CommuDem liberal "educator" who, as a secularist, is a firm believer in social Darwinism and doesn't believe in God, would make a statement like this???

Certainly seems normal to me. Cornell, one of the most evil secularist schools in the world, populated by anti-American socialist maggots, would certainly gravitate towards any theory that promotes randomness versus design.

Always wondered how many drunk, drug-addled, depressed students commit suicide at the Falls each year? At least it would get them out of that hell hole!

74 posted on 10/21/2005 11:58:15 AM PDT by Doc Savage (...because they stand on a wall, and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

God-hating evolutionists misrepresent I.D., while scientifically illiterate I.D. proponents misrepresent evolution.

Same thing as every other Crevo thread.


75 posted on 10/21/2005 11:58:16 AM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
What is "pseudoDarwinism"?

I'm thinking that it's the cartoon version of evolution (and everything else that creationists ignorantly lump together as "evolution") that creationists trot out and knock down as "proof" that the last 150 years of research in biology are bunk. It's that claim that life emerged from dead rocks, and that nothing exploded and became the universe.
76 posted on 10/21/2005 11:58:17 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
I'm not sure how this could prove the theory!

You're right to be skeptical. Scientific theories are never proven, so nothing will ever prove any theory, no matter what it is and no matter what theory is referenced. Theories can be strengthened with evidence, but they will never be "proven".
77 posted on 10/21/2005 11:59:08 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Why aren't Darwinists happier people? Probably because they see no value in human life since they consider it is no more than random DNA thrown together. How sad.


78 posted on 10/21/2005 11:59:45 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

And yet you accept the existence of God without irrefutable proof.

How do you decide which things need proving and which don't?


79 posted on 10/21/2005 12:00:34 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

"So if IDists want to teach "Intelligent design" as a alternative scientific theory to evolution they'll have deny who that designer is."

That's assuming the 'designer' was God..

If I lived during prehistoric caveman times and I 'designed' say, a watch, I might appear to be 'God'. But in the end I would only be a more Intelligent being.


80 posted on 10/21/2005 12:00:44 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I hear ya. I think you are right on the money.


81 posted on 10/21/2005 12:00:47 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

LOL


82 posted on 10/21/2005 12:00:48 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dmz

I have proof - look around you.


83 posted on 10/21/2005 12:02:10 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

How are you ever gonna prove string theory?


84 posted on 10/21/2005 12:02:54 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why aren't Darwinists happier people? Probably because they see no value in human life since they consider it is no more than random DNA thrown together. How sad.

No, no, you misstate the obvious yet again. Feel free to try again when you graduate from the third grade.

85 posted on 10/21/2005 12:04:14 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Go read about it.


86 posted on 10/21/2005 12:04:36 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

Well, you certainly took the fun out of it!


87 posted on 10/21/2005 12:04:52 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
That's assuming the 'designer' was God..

So you're a Raelian.
Cool.

(I've never met a Raelian before)

88 posted on 10/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Please - practice your insults. They are just so juvenile. Maybe you should watch reruns of Rodney Dangerfield.


89 posted on 10/21/2005 12:05:55 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Probably because they see no value in human life

I have a great value for human life!!

"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

90 posted on 10/21/2005 12:06:17 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

I've missed you on these threads. Glad you're back.


91 posted on 10/21/2005 12:06:58 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

proof of what? I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but evolution is out - no proof. God is in - the proof is, what, existence, nature? I really don't understand your reply.


92 posted on 10/21/2005 12:07:53 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Thank you! I have been very busy as of late. Was up for a strait 26 hours last weekend trying to get stuff done.


93 posted on 10/21/2005 12:09:06 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why aren't Darwinists happier people? Probably because they see no value in human life since they consider it is no more than random DNA thrown together. How sad.

The sociological implications of a theory do not invalidate the theory itself.

Heck, I'm sad because gravity means I can't just fly around like Superman. Scientists don't factor my squashed dreams of being a superhero into the Theory Of Gravity, however.

(Stupid scientists.)

94 posted on 10/21/2005 12:09:16 PM PDT by bobhoskins (The x-ray vision makes up for it, though.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

>>>Always wondered how many drunk, drug-addled, depressed students commit suicide at the Falls each year?

Not as many as one might think given the ample opportunities the gorges provide.
From 1990 to 2000, nine students killed themselves at Cornell, representing 5.7 student deaths per 100,000 per year. With eleven suicides in the same number of years, a student death rate of 10.2, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) far surpassed Harvard University (7.4 deaths per 100,000 per year) and Duke University (6.1 suicides per 100,000 per year). MIT's suicide rate is also 53 percent greater than the national average among college students, which is 7 per 100,000 per year.


95 posted on 10/21/2005 12:09:31 PM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

" So you're a Raelian.
Cool."

Nope.

Just putting forth a 'theory' that the current intelligent civilization may have not been the first.

Besides. Try as I may, I just can't seem to get my tinfoil hat to stay on straight!


96 posted on 10/21/2005 12:11:00 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: dmz

He's using argument by "because I said so". He's made it clear in the past that he's not interested in rational discussion, but rather interested in assuming the truth his position, assuming the position of anyone who accepts evolution (note that he rather clearly implies that all who accept evolution are atheists, even though he knows that this is a lie), and ranting accordingly.


97 posted on 10/21/2005 12:13:27 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Cornell University Interim President Hunter Rawlings III on Friday condemned the teaching of intelligent design as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."

I have a feeling that if 'religion' embraced evolution as the best explanation, as a science, Cornell Univ Interim President Rawlings would 'condemn the teaching of evolution as science, calling it "a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."' It's religion they hate, along with rational thought, and they seem bent on redefining 'rational thought' to suit their needs, especially their need to attack religion.

98 posted on 10/21/2005 12:13:51 PM PDT by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Nope. Just putting forth a 'theory' that the current intelligent civilization may have not been the first.

No, you're putting forth a hypothesis, not a theory. And that's the problem with "ID" -- it doesn't rise to the level of an actual scientific theory, and should not be (mis)represented (especially in schools) as if it did.

99 posted on 10/21/2005 12:17:44 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

The CrevoSci Archive
Just one of the many services of Darwin Central
"The Conspiracy that Cares"

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

    OpenTag Date link Title closeTag Notes
  1. 2005-10-21 A test nobody wants to take
  2. 2005-10-21 Cornell president condemns intelligent design
  3. 2005-10-20 1st Euro Conf. on Intelligent Design Features Scientists From Biology, Paleontology & Astrophysics
  4. 2005-10-20 A test nobody wants to take [more ross exam, Dover Evolution trial, 20 October]
  5. 2005-10-20 Barf Alert: ACLU's 'intelligent design' in Dover case
  6. 2005-10-20 Being Stalked by Intelligent Design
  7. 2005-10-20 Darwin Takes the Fifth: What Really Happened at the Kansas Evolution Hearings
  8. 2005-10-20 Geoscientists and educators take on antievolutionists (Say Evolutionists: 'Don't debate')
  9. 2005-10-20 Intelligent design not science: experts [70,000 Aussie Scientists liken I.D. to 'spoon bending']
  10. 2005-10-20 Kangaroo Court (Professor Michael Behe, appearing at the left's verision of the Scopes trial...)
  11. 2005-10-20 The Republican War on Science
  12. 2005-10-20 UCSD Study Shows 'Junk' DNA Has Evolutionary Importance (Evolutionists don't get it)
  13. 2005-10-19 Anti-ID stance is good old intolerance again
  14. 2005-10-19 Behe backs off 'mechanisms' [Cross exam in Dover Evolution trial, 19 October]
  15. 2005-10-18 Alternative Theory to Evolution Sparks Debate
  16. 2005-10-18 Evidence of Swimming Dinosaur Found
  17. 2005-10-18 Harvard researcher ready to wash her hands of space aliens
  18. 2005-10-18 Professor [Behe]: Design not creationism [Evolution trial, 18 October]
  19. 2005-10-18 "Rape, Evolution, and ""Right to Life"""
  20. 2005-10-18 Scientists Study Gorilla Who Uses Tools
  21. 2005-10-17 Cyborg cells sense humidity
  22. 2005-10-17 'Hobbit' tools found near remains
  23. 2005-10-17 Ichthyosaur bones found off U.K. coast
  24. 2005-10-17 Intelligent Design is not Science (Kenneth Miller Speaks at Lehigh)
  25. 2005-10-17 Jurassic Bark: Tree Thought Extinct Returned to the World
  26. 2005-10-17 New Planetoid Discovery Sets Off Feud
  27. 2005-10-17 Prof Speaks at 'Intelligent Design' Trial
  28. 2005-10-17 "Scientists Back Dover - [85 scientists request scientists, not Judges, to define ""science""]"
  29. 2005-10-17 Spitzer's Stunning Portrait of Andromeda
  30. 2005-10-17 Supernova Storm Wiped Out Mammoths?
  31. 2005-10-17 Tracks of Swimming Dinosaur Found in Wyoming
  32. 2005-10-17 University separates itself from professor in Dover intelligent design suit
  33. 2005-10-16 An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
  34. 2005-10-16 Bad Frog Beer to 'intelligent design'
  35. 2005-10-16 Evolution debate unchanged over time
  36. 2005-10-16 Grown Man in the Stellar Crib: Now What? (Discoveries require rewriting the Astronomy books)
  37. 2005-10-16 Museums take up evolution challenge
  38. 2005-10-16 "Museums take up evolution challenge (because ""biology classes have faltered"")"
  39. 2005-10-16 Pa. professor [Behe] to testify in landmark case [Dover evolution trial, 16 Oct]
  40. 2005-10-16 The Separation of the Church of Darwin and State
  41. 2005-10-15 God and global warming
  42. 2005-10-15 Tracing the whale’s trail [Evolution trial, daily thread for 15 Oct]

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of October:
 

2005-10-12 Alice au Wonderland
2003-10-09 antiRepublicrat
2004-10-10 Antonello
1998-10-18 AZLiberty
1999-10-14 blam
2000-10-19 cogitator
2001-10-21 Coyoteman
2004-10-26 curiosity
1998-10-29 Dataman
2000-10-29 dila813
2005-10-07 Dinobot
2004-10-13 DoctorRansom
2001-10-14 dread78645
2005-10-14 EasyBOven
1998-10-03 Elsie
1998-10-17 f.Christian
2002-10-08 FairOpinion
2001-10-26 Genesis defender
2000-10-09 Gil4
2000-10-08 guitarist
2005-10-01 holeinchilada
2004-10-10 joeclarke
1998-10-03 js1138
2001-10-24 k2blader
2001-10-22 kanawa
2000-10-08 LibWhacker
2002-10-25 m1-lightning
2001-10-10 Michael_Michaelangelo
2001-10-09 Mother Abigail
2004-10-25 MRMEAN
2004-10-03 Nicholas Conradin
1999-10-28 PatrickHenry
1998-10-01 Physicist
2003-10-19 Pipeline
1998-10-25 plain talk
1998-10-12 Restorer
2005-10-04 ret_medic
2001-10-23 RightWingNilla
2005-10-08 SmoothTalker
2004-10-09 snarks_when_bored
1998-10-04 Southack
2002-10-22 sumocide
2004-10-21 WildHorseCrash
2001-10-23 yankeedame
2002-10-20 Z in Oregon
1998-10-29 zebra 2

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:


ALS
Area Freeper
Aric2000
Askel5
bluepistolero
churchillbuff
ConservababeJen
DittoJed2
dob
Ed Current
f.Christian
followerofchrist
general_re
goodseedhomeschool
gopwinsin04
gore3000
Jedigirl
JesseShurun
Kevin Curry
kharaku
Le-Roy
Marathon
medved
metacognative
Modernman
NoKinToMonkeys
Ogmios
peg the prophet
Phaedrus
Phoroneus
pickemuphere
ret_medic
RickyJ
SeaLion
Selkie
Shubi
Tomax
tpaine
WaveThatFlag
xm177e2

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!

Glossary of Terms

CrevoCreation vs. evolution
CrevoSciCreation vs. evolution/Science
Freepday:  The day a Freeper joined Free Republic


The
official beer
of Darwin Central

100 posted on 10/21/2005 12:18:31 PM PDT by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-454 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