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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: sasafras

You mean like the fish that crawled out of the ocean and evolved into mammals, like dogs?


151 posted on 09/27/2006 12:33:55 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: smartymarty
Speed of light is a quantifiable provable known, doppler shift as well. We know the stars are very far away and took a very long time for that light to reach us. A much longer time than some faiths will accept as fact.
I have not seen evidence convincing me that a supernatural force created an aged looking universe.

There are *thousands* of religions on this planet. With many varying creation and nature of the universe beliefs.
They all have one thing in common. Faith in unseen supernatural forces.

"a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"
To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."
152 posted on 09/27/2006 12:34:07 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Similarity does not always imply identity.

True, not always or even often. Yet in this instance they are one in the same.

153 posted on 09/27/2006 12:37:04 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Sorry, the concept of "species" was unknown. You'd best believe ancient herdsmen tried their best to crossbreed animals, and where they succeeded they got mules and jennies, thereby encouraging futher experimentation, so "kind" simply wasn't the sort of thing we've come to expect out of our modern word "species".

"Kind" merely reflects what's going on in your head when the braincells catch and store images in memory. Doesn't have a darned thing to do with what the critter or the plant has in it's innards.

154 posted on 09/27/2006 12:39:25 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I was not aware of that. Do you have references supporting your claim regarding the motives of the original author(s) of the theory of evolution?

It is not my claim. It is a logical consequence of the claims of the author. If it is indeed as he describes it, "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then that would be the primary motive of the author in constructing it. The author's basis for making such an implicit claim remains unknown.

155 posted on 09/27/2006 12:41:44 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The author's basis for making such an implicit claim remains unknown.

Fact that he has his head up the Reverand Moon's moonpie is a clue.

156 posted on 09/27/2006 12:43:17 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"The theory of evolution neither states nor implies that "life was created by nothing", thus your request makes no sense."

I would disagree that progressive secularists would agree with your assertion. Evolution is used as a means to dissuade our population that God had a hand in creating life. This is the argument being played out. Secularists vs. Christian Fundamentalists. Secularists have won because Christians have not been willing to challenge their assertions on Evolution and the Big Bang. Two theories which have no proof or are mathematically impossible.

Cant evolution be used a scientific theory, to describe how a single cell would evolve into a more complex (many cell) organism? If so what is the natural selection process to create the first strand of DNA? These have to be answered before evolution can move from theory to fact. A theory should be open to challenge; if not then it is dead. The more we know the more we understand that life is not a series of random chance events.

Evolutionists have used their theory to "disprove" God - to say otherwise is refuting the current debate being waged in our schools. Evolution is a tool to claim something that is not provable.
157 posted on 09/27/2006 12:46:06 PM PDT by sasafras (("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

"And yet in all that space and time we are the only known life in the universe. Funny how two people take the same data and develop different opinions. "

We have only listened and looked for others a tiny fraction of a heartbeat of time. We are infants yet in exploring space. The tiniest of steps have been taken so far.
And yes, it is quite possible we are the only ones too. But only looking for others will bring answers.
Perhaps radio is a very primative technology. They could use something far more advanced, maybe quantum modulation or who knows what. It would be as if we were using smoke signals and they were using radio. Space is quite vast afterall. A serious search for evidence for anyone else has only just begun.

Now if the "Zagon Empire" or whatever greets us one day, and explains their religous belief that matches one of our many earth beliefs. That just might make a believer out of me. I just hope they dont greet us with an "Allah Akbar".


"No you assume it looked the same. Unless you have a time traveling gizmo in your pocket there is no way to "prove" your statement."

If I see dogs. I know there are puppies too.
Observed data of the physical world around us has never produced any evidence of complex systems of anykind simply appearing from nothing. That requires faith in supernatural forces.

"We agree that freedom to believe differently is whats great (one thing) about this country."

Agreed! Our saving grace so to speak.



158 posted on 09/27/2006 12:48:57 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

"You mean like the fish that crawled out of the ocean and evolved into mammals, like dogs?"

Oh you have an example? great please share with us.


159 posted on 09/27/2006 12:50:25 PM PDT by sasafras (("Licentiousness destroyes order, and when chaos ensues, the yearning for order will destroy freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
I'm a Deist. We are agnostics. We believe that the question of God's existence isn't answerable. To answer the question of God's existence would require proof. Do you have that proof?

God by definition is a matter of faith - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

160 posted on 09/27/2006 12:51:13 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: sasafras

Fish did not magically turn into mammals. That sounds like some kind of creationist fantasy.

Vertebrates evolved into tetrapods and then amniotes which spawned mammals. there is tons of evidence to support this.

http://amnh.org/exhibitions/hall_tour/spectrum/flash/



161 posted on 09/27/2006 12:51:31 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Fashions change. Dogmas pass. I remember when science was telling us with utmost confidence that tomatoes are bad for one's health. Communism is the ultimate destiny of the human society. What is it that you wanted to do to your mother Oedepus? Science: 10% of population is homersexual. Science: Margaret Mead is the Man! Science: the Turin Shroud is from the XIV century. No, wait: science: the Turin Shroud is from the I century. Science knows...


162 posted on 09/27/2006 12:52:56 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
10% of population is homersexual


163 posted on 09/27/2006 12:55:52 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

What "lie" is exposed?


164 posted on 09/27/2006 12:57:14 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Fact that he has his head up the Reverand Moon's moonpie is a clue.

Do you actually believe a personal attack is an intellectual retort?

165 posted on 09/27/2006 12:58:41 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: razzle

You have a problem with science?


166 posted on 09/27/2006 12:59:11 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #167 Removed by Moderator

To: Buck W.

I agree with you that Gould was absolutely wrong.


168 posted on 09/27/2006 1:03:47 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It is not my claim.

I apparently misread the intent of your statement. My apologies.
169 posted on 09/27/2006 1:05:39 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Do you actually believe a personal attack is an intellectual retort?

Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities.

Is this the usual and customary way to start a scholarly Discussion of a science topic?

170 posted on 09/27/2006 1:08:19 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
got mules and jennies

Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce? The evo logic seems flimsy.

I believe it is hinnies - jennies are female donkeys

171 posted on 09/27/2006 1:08:52 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TOWER

FINISH HIM!


172 posted on 09/27/2006 1:08:53 PM PDT by Boxen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
What "lie" is exposed?

Psst, psst. evolution.

173 posted on 09/27/2006 1:14:57 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm
People who believe in creation are against abortion in far higher numbers than people who believe in evolution.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that evos are having all the abortions.

174 posted on 09/27/2006 1:16:11 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Most of them end up as bitter atheists.


175 posted on 09/27/2006 1:16:41 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Is this the usual and customary way to start a scholarly Discussion of a science topic?

What do you claim is invalid or "un-shcolarly" about the statement and was it scholarly for you to retort with ONLY a person attack (with a helping of mind-reading)

Are you big on the "monkey see, monkey do" philosophy of life?

176 posted on 09/27/2006 1:16:43 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

SHUT UP, EVERYONE! THE MISSING LINK HAS BEEN FOUND! DARWIN HAS BEEN VINDICATED!!!

Or maybe a mudskipper was always a mudskipper?....

177 posted on 09/27/2006 1:18:11 PM PDT by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frwy

Accepting reality shouldn't damn you.


178 posted on 09/27/2006 1:18:48 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
... "kind" simply wasn't the sort of thing we've come to expect out of our modern word "species".

Agreed. Of course, I don't know of anyone who believes that Straw Man.

At the same time, I have to disagree with your argument that "kind" merely refers to "animal" or "plant" (large categories). Scripture is clear (as I mentioned earlier) that there were a variety of "kinds" of "animals," for example....

179 posted on 09/27/2006 1:18:57 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

ALWAYS ALWAYS include sarcasm tags when dealing with this issue.

You are representing conservatism to lurkers.


180 posted on 09/27/2006 1:20:47 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

He's also a Moonie.


181 posted on 09/27/2006 1:22:50 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

So he belongs to a cult. That shouldn't be a reflection on his mental faculties at all! (/sarc)


182 posted on 09/27/2006 1:25:03 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

What do Moonies think of Jesus anyway?


183 posted on 09/27/2006 1:25:32 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Frwy

Do you know what the "peril" is to a Moonie?


184 posted on 09/27/2006 1:26:55 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
So we are to assume that you have a full understanding of the universe based on your stated beleive in Darwinism. And further that anyone questioning the science of people with an obvious agenda are ignorant? Just wondering not attacking.

NO! absolutely not. and in Darwinism I believe that although the basic tenant is correct, there is so many twists and turns to both human and animal evolution, that no-one can really know the whole story....ever.

people who question the science of people with an obvious agenda, could also be scientists. thats one thing scientist do...question.

I for one question global warming as bad science.

Global Warming

185 posted on 09/27/2006 1:28:04 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; DannyTN

Quit dismissing the YEC's.

They are not strawmen.


186 posted on 09/27/2006 1:29:34 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Muddy Mudskipper!

187 posted on 09/27/2006 1:31:32 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: sasafras
I would disagree that progressive secularists would agree with your assertion.

Evolution is a field of biologists, not "progressive secularists", thus such a disagreement is not based upon valid authority.

Evolution is used as a means to dissuade our population that God had a hand in creating life.

The theory of evolution neither states nor implies this. Attempting to "use" the theory to promote such a claim is impossible without lying about what the theory states.

This is the argument being played out. Secularists vs. Christian Fundamentalists.

The ideological debates between "secularists" and "Christian Fundamentalists" has no bearing on a theory in biological science.

Secularists have won because Christians have not been willing to challenge their assertions on Evolution and the Big Bang.

If, as you suggest, "secularists" are attempting to use the theory of evolution as an attack against "Christian Fundamentalists", then the correct response is to point out that the theory has no bearing on a debate over religious ideology. Attacking the theory itself shows only that the Christian Fundamentalists are falling for the lie that the theory of evolution has theological implications.

Two theories which have no proof

No theory in science "has proof". Theories are never proven.

or are mathematically impossible.

Please cite the relevant calculations to show this impossibility.

Cant evolution be used a scientific theory, to describe how a single cell would evolve into a more complex (many cell) organism?

Yes.

If so what is the natural selection process to create the first strand of DNA?

If DNA emerged from natural selection, it did so as a result of imperfectly replicating chains of molecules being viable enough to continue forming in longer and longer chains, possibyl emerging from RNA strands. However, information on this subject is insufficient to state that natural selection is directly responsible for the emergence of DNA.

These have to be answered before evolution can move from theory to fact.

Theories do not "move" to fact. A fact is a single data point, a description of an observation. A theory is an attempt to explain the cause for a collection of facts. An explanation does not "move" to an observation.

A theory should be open to challenge; if not then it is dead.

The theory of evolution is open to challenge. Thus far no challenge has successfully falsified it.

Evolutionists have used their theory to "disprove" God - to say otherwise is refuting the current debate being waged in our schools

Please demonstrate that the theory of evolution is used to "disprove" God in schools where it is taught.

Evolution is a tool to claim something that is not provable.

All theories in science are "not provable". Why do you single evolution out for attack on this basis?
188 posted on 09/27/2006 1:31:44 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
God by definition is a matter of faith - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not barking up any tree. Put my statement back in context.
.
189 posted on 09/27/2006 1:32:15 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Personal attack alert.

Is that all you have?


190 posted on 09/27/2006 1:32:27 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

There are gnostic deists.


191 posted on 09/27/2006 1:35:18 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

If the first lifeforms were created by a God or "nothing", how would that change the mechanics of evolution?


192 posted on 09/27/2006 1:38:04 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Not to a gnostic.


193 posted on 09/27/2006 1:48:18 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

"but don't call me anti-science!"


194 posted on 09/27/2006 1:50:23 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce?

Wrong.

Different species are defined as groups who do NOT reproduce, not those who CAN'T.

You might want to read up on the subject a bit more.

195 posted on 09/27/2006 1:52:36 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

No it isn't.


196 posted on 09/27/2006 1:53:15 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

Wow. That's so insightful.


197 posted on 09/27/2006 1:54:24 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

And hen I will take you on a tour of the same museum and reexplain it...from a creationist perspective.


198 posted on 09/27/2006 2:01:22 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
If the first lifeforms were created by a God or "nothing", how would that change the mechanics of evolution?

It won't

199 posted on 09/27/2006 2:02:29 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Different species are defined as groups who do NOT reproduce, not those who CAN'T.

Can you provide supporting evidence for this claim?

So me and Pamela Anderson are different species because we do NOT reproduce (it is not because we can't) I think your statements are not very well "fleshed out"

You might want to read up on the subject a bit more.

You might want to provide some supporting evidence for YOUR claims - we are not going to take you word on it.

200 posted on 09/27/2006 2:07:27 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,151-1,195 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