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

Skip to comments.

Evolution As Catch-All Explanation (give me that old time Temple of Darwin religion!)
CEH ^ | June 3, 2009

Posted on 06/03/2009 9:49:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Evolution As Catch-All Explanation

June 3, 2009 — If you were taught a precise definition of neo-Darwinism in school, it doesn’t seem to matter to many evolutionists in the media. In practice, the word “Evolution” seems to act as a catch-all category for explaining anything and everything – whether or not random mutation and natural selection were involved. Some purpose and design can even be tossed into the mix as long as Evolution is the hero of the story. Here are some recent examples of how Evolution is employed to explain whatever:...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdeisgn; science; spam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 06/03/2009 9:49:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 06/03/2009 9:49:56 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
QUOTE OF THE DAY:

“Intelligent people interpret data differently, largely based on presuppositions and training. Currently, those espousing the undirected natural processes scenarios are in control of the vast majority of scientific clout.... Studies have repeatedly shown that the public holds views that are more compatible with ID, yet undirected naturalism is taught as ‘truth’ in public school systems, despite its lack of scientific evidence. Since Atheism and Secular Humanism have been confirmed as religions by US courts, and Evolution has been declared a religion by evolutionists, this teaching is actually against the First Amendment religious establishment clause and may be addressed in court.”

—Dr. Don Johnson of ScientificIntegrity.net, in his new book Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability, p. 101.

3 posted on 06/03/2009 9:51:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

In yet another equally reliable source:

Hercules Still Struggling To Complete 13th Labor - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hercules_still_struggling_to?utm_source=a-section

Archaeologists Discover World’s First Guy Named Marty - http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/archaeologists_discover


4 posted on 06/03/2009 9:54:39 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

How many of these can you post in one day?


5 posted on 06/03/2009 9:55:42 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Dr. Don Johnson

And a quote from an equally reliable Don Johnson

"Hollywood is very much an industry town. Your life becomes caught up in all of the parties and this list and that list. That's not something that I respond well to."

6 posted on 06/03/2009 9:58:30 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Since Atheism and Secular Humanism have been confirmed as religions by US courts,

I did NOT know that!

Hey, I just thought of something. Sometimes SCOTUS will make a syllabus of the case, which is called Dicta, I think. (I'm not a lawyer)

It's quite a long shot, but is he sure this finding was in a written opinion, and not in Dicta? Probably not, but maybe someone could check?

7 posted on 06/03/2009 10:02:24 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

8 posted on 06/03/2009 10:06:12 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Here are some recent examples of how Evolution is employed to explain whatever:...

Creationists are now talking like Valley Girls?

9 posted on 06/03/2009 10:07:35 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

It is now apparent where the folks believing Darwinianism get their data. Someday, try science.


10 posted on 06/03/2009 10:27:43 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Science is rooted in creative interpretation”.

Indeed, and never so creative and interpretive as when the in The Temple of Darwinism.

That quote was from....well, I’ll say in my next comment.


11 posted on 06/03/2009 10:51:13 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts


The overuse of the word Evolution can be seen all throughout peer reviewed science articles. It's disgusting and adds bias to legitimate scientific research. It's almost like they feel that the more they include the term "Evolution", the better their chances are at being accepted. A short while ago someone posted a peer reviewed article in which the authors noted behavior of bacteria and they referred to it not only as Evolution (there was no proof of Evolution), but they also stated that their study showed how "populations" behave. Which is a unscientific way of saying that if bacteria populations behave this way, then so do other populations of other species. Total garbage and unscientific, yet it obviously passed with flying colors.
12 posted on 06/03/2009 5:56:04 PM PDT by Jaime2099 (Human Evolution and the God of the Bible are not compatible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

GGG, as per your request:

Variations.

1. Variations exist with in all populations.

2. Some of that variation is heritable

3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.

4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over” During meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pair on a chromosome.

5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise; because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.

6. These recombination’s and errors produce a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.

Selection

7. Some of the heritable variations have an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.

8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn; tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.

9. Unrepresentative samplings which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival / reproduction advantages, a process known as” genetic drift”.

10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.

Speciation

11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.

12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

Sufficiency

13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.

14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.

That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect.

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”

Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variations may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture…but without evidence, they aren’t science.

Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.


13 posted on 06/03/2009 8:18:29 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

I said type out your graphic and then post it in YOUR OWN THREAD, and then ping me.


14 posted on 06/03/2009 8:32:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So you do not have problem with any of these 14 points?


15 posted on 06/03/2009 8:35:01 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

I said post it in YOUR OWN THREAD and then ping me.


16 posted on 06/03/2009 8:37:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

These questions are relevant to this thread.

If you need to take some time to conduct a little research I understand.


17 posted on 06/03/2009 8:42:30 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


18 posted on 06/03/2009 8:42:35 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

GGG has spoken.


19 posted on 06/03/2009 8:43:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Your lack of words speaks volumes.

That’s ok take some time, do the research. I am sure these questions will pop up again.


20 posted on 06/03/2009 8:52:18 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099

Isn’t it amazing? They get all the funding, and yet they are so easily destroyed. Yet more proof that the darwin cult has almost nothing to do with genuine science.


21 posted on 06/03/2009 8:52:36 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Like I said, post your little leap of logic in you own thread, and I will be glad to respond.


22 posted on 06/03/2009 8:54:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If you have all these mountains of evidence why wait?


23 posted on 06/03/2009 8:59:53 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Why is it so hard for you just to start your own thread. Are you afraid that nobody will show up to the party?


24 posted on 06/03/2009 9:09:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Big Government Public School worshippers will continue to worship the Public School as long as a liberal policy upholding a Temple of Darwin religious philosophy as its foundation.

The fact that the Big Government Public School monopoly peddles anti-Americanism, sex perversion, unspeakable immorality, Obama marxism, etc. does not matter.

To these worshippers, none of these terrible things matter as long as the worldview of a Creator God as the foundation of America is destroyed as a matter of Public School Policy straight from the far left fanatics who are kings over the Public School indoctrination camps.

25 posted on 06/03/2009 9:11:48 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks

You are quite right. And not only that, they are far more devoted to destroying the source of America’s strength than most Christians are to preserving the same.


26 posted on 06/03/2009 9:16:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If as you stated in this very thread if Evolution is so easy to destroy then here is your chance.

The article you posted states Evolution is a “catch-all explanation” I posted a reply that shows that assertion is not correct.

So with no rebuttal we must assume that the original assertion has in fact been proven to be incorrect.


27 posted on 06/03/2009 9:41:05 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Here’s your chance to defend your own thread. Either you are afraid nobody will show up, or you afraid that you are not up to the challenge. Either way, it is obvious you are too timid to come out of the shadows and stand on your own two feet.


28 posted on 06/03/2009 9:48:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Can you not defend your own thread?

Avoiding the questions are just proving my point.


29 posted on 06/03/2009 10:00:55 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

I quickly read through your list (appears to be getting longer - at least I know I’ve see you post it before).

Are any of the points dealing w/ macro-evolution? If there are they are very subtle. Do you truly think evolutonary science has proved macro-evolution?


30 posted on 06/04/2009 5:44:57 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the amount of time


31 posted on 06/04/2009 4:46:12 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Then I guess the complexities involved in the coding of DNA mean nothing to you. I’m sure you’re also hoping they come up w/ some new age-dating techniques to make the universe and solar system even older to support evolutionary wishful thinking.


32 posted on 06/04/2009 6:57:32 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

So which of those 14 points do you have a problem with, and what evidence do you have to support your position?


33 posted on 06/04/2009 8:05:22 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; BrandtMichaels
“The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the amount of time”
Has this ever been repeatably demonstrated?
34 posted on 06/05/2009 2:01:44 AM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Please see number 14 on the list.


35 posted on 06/05/2009 4:59:18 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; Fichori

So the only insurmountable and non-repeatable problems are that life is NOT increaing in diversity (appearances are deceiving when the DNA code is being limited w/ micro-changes), and by mis-understanding point 13 then point 14 is a non-sequitor.

Not to mention that there are over 100 age-dating techniques that point to a young earth/universe age (thousands, sometimes millions but never billions). And all age-dating techniques have assumptions and show inconsistencies indicating we should trust the simple common sense (Occam’s Razor) rather than the ‘experts’


36 posted on 06/05/2009 6:00:13 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; BrandtMichaels
“The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the amount of time”
Has this ever been repeatably demonstrated?
“Please see number 14 on the list.”
Number 14 asserts that:
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
How do they know that?

Simply put, they don't. (hardly a ‘sufficient explanation’)

So, not only does number 14 not address my question, it is also nothing more than, at best, speculative conjecture.

Your assertion that micro+time=macro is nothing but a statement of faith disingenuously masquerading as scientific fact and has never been empirically demonstrated.
37 posted on 06/05/2009 11:12:58 AM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?


38 posted on 06/05/2009 4:04:00 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Please be specific, what problems do you have with the list
and what supporting evidence do you have?


39 posted on 06/05/2009 4:10:50 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Your unwavering support of a yet to be demonstrated claim.


40 posted on 06/05/2009 4:14:28 PM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

So you have no empirical evidence to support your assertion?


41 posted on 06/05/2009 4:24:05 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Your assertion that micro+time=macro is nothing but a statement of faith disingenuously masquerading as scientific fact and has never been empirically demonstrated.
“What evidence do you have to support that assertion?”
Your unwavering support of a yet to be demonstrated claim.
“So you have no empirical evidence to support your assertion?”
Just your posts.

Of course you are always welcome to try to prove me wrong.

You could either do a demonstration of micro+time=macro, or you could recant and say that micro+time=macro is false.

When you get Escherichia coli to macro evolve into something besides bacteria, let me know.
42 posted on 06/05/2009 4:43:29 PM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence to show that any of those 14 points are not correct


43 posted on 06/05/2009 5:05:08 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
“Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence to show that any of those 14 points are not correct”
I never addressed your 14 points and to suggest that I have is disingenuous.

I asked you to back up your claim in post 31 that micro+time=macro and you referred me to your point 14 which did not address my question.

I have challenged you to provide a demonstration of your assertion and you have (apparently) declined.

Hence my assertion that your claim in post 31 is a statement of faith.
44 posted on 06/05/2009 5:30:34 PM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

At what point does microevolution crease, wouldn’t a million years of microevolutionary changes add up to macroevolution?

The perceived difference between “microevolution and macroevolution” was not one of the 14 points because if you accept “microevolution” then you accept the premise of the evolutionary theory. So we are both in agreement, with the disagreement being of the amount of time involved.

If you have a problem with evolution then it is one of those 14 points.

Which one is it, and what evidence do you have to support your assertion?


45 posted on 06/05/2009 5:55:18 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
“At what point does microevolution crease, wouldn’t a million years of microevolutionary changes add up to macroevolution?” [excerpt]
That is besides the point.

You stated as fact something that has never been observed to be true.

“The perceived difference between “microevolution and macroevolution” was not one of the 14 points because if you accept “microevolution” then you accept the premise of the evolutionary theory.” [excerpt]
Depends on who gets to define micro-evolution.

Something I have not addressed.

“So we are both in agreement, with the disagreement being of the amount of time involved.” [excerpt]
Not by a long shot.

“If you have a problem with evolution then it is one of those 14 points.” [excerpt]
My ‘problem’ is with your apparent lack of scientific objectivity.

“Which one is it, and what evidence do you have to support your assertion?” [excerpt]
Your refusal to demonstrate your claims supports my assertion that your claims are statements of faith.
46 posted on 06/05/2009 6:47:11 PM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Observation is not a matter of faith.

Number 14 does address your point it states that direct observation of living forms and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record support my assertion that there has been sufficient time to account for the diversity of life we see today.

What empirical evidence do you have to the contrary?

What do think the difference is between microevolution & macroevolution?

Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with?


47 posted on 06/05/2009 7:39:59 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
“Observation is not a matter of faith.” [excerpt]
Do you believe that [colloquial] pond scum evolved into four legged land dwelling mammals?

Have you ever observed this happening?

Can you demonstrate it?

“Number 14 does address your point it states that direct observation of living forms and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record support my assertion that there has been sufficient time to account for the diversity of life we see today.” [excerpt]
No. 14 is an explanation based on interpretation of historical evidence (not addressing the validity of said interpretation), and is not a demonstration.

In post 31 you made the forward looking assertion that micro+time=macro, and I asked you to provide a repeatable demonstration.

If you say that, ‘given enough time, micro evolution will lead to macro evolution’ and cannot and/or will not demonstrate it, your claim is only a statement of faith.

“What empirical evidence do you have to the contrary?” [excerpt]
I have not addressed any evidence that might contradict No. 14

“What do think the difference is between microevolution & macroevolution?” [excerpt]
Evolutionists define the words to have little to no difference in meaning.

They also assert that micro/macro is being observed.

However, what is being observed is constrained and does not fit their definition of micro. (contrary to what they say)

Like I said, it depends on who you allow to define the words and facts.

“Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with?” [excerpt]
We can deal with the 14 points once we deal with the lack of objectivity currently inherent to the poster of aforementioned points.
48 posted on 06/05/2009 8:21:24 PM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

You are straying from the topic, and debating things that are not part of the theory of evolution

The pond scum question is a common misconception.

From the 14 points:

“While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things”

As far as the entire microevolution vs macroevolution rabbit trail, I have asked you several times to explain your understanding of the difference between the two.

Microevolution and macroevolution are both forms of evolution so debating the differences does nothing as far as addressing the 14 points that make up the core of the Theory of Evolution.

Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with, and what evidence do you have to support your position?


49 posted on 06/05/2009 10:30:20 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
“You are straying from the topic, and debating things that are not part of the theory of evolution

The pond scum question is a common misconception.”
[excerpt]
I guess you don't know what the word colloquial means.

“From the 14 points:” [excerpt]
Still trying to change the subject I see.

“As far as the entire microevolution vs macroevolution rabbit trail, I have asked you several times to explain your understanding of the difference between the two.” [excerpt]
It depends on how you want to define micro.

My understanding is that Evolutionists [errantly] consider it a distinction without a difference. (or incorrectly attribute what is observed to micro)

“Microevolution and macroevolution are both forms of evolution …” [excerpt]
Would those both be upward evolution?

“Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with, and what evidence do you have to support your position?” [excerpt]
Objectivity first, points later.
50 posted on 06/05/2009 10:53:55 PM PDT by Fichori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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