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

Skip to comments.

The self-made universe (Paul Davis tries to explain the fine-tuned universe without God)
MSNBC ^ | 6/20/2009

Posted on 06/20/2009 10:04:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life – including intelligent life capable of asking that “why” question? Believers simply say that God did it, while scientists are trying to come up with complicated extradimensional multiverse theories to explain our lucky break.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies takes a completely different tack in a new book titled "Cosmic Jackpot." He argues that the cosmos has made itself the way it is, stretching backward in time to the very beginning to focus in on “bio-friendliness.”

Davies admits that the idea has theological overtones - but that's nothing new for the London-born deep-thinker. He's perhaps best-known for provocative books such as "The Mind of God" and "God and the New Physics," and for holding forth on speculative topics such as whether physical constants are actually inconstant.

After years of teaching at universities in Britain and Australia, Davies moved to Arizona just last year to start up Beyond, a research center devoted to fundamental scientific questions: How did the universe begin? How did life arise? Where do humans fit into the grand scheme? What does it all mean?

"We've been up and running for only about three months, so it’s early days," he told me Wednesday. "But we have high hopes that this will become one of the world’s leading think tanks for confronting these foundational questions."

He's currently on a cross-country tour to promote the book; on Wednesday, he lectured at George Mason University near Washington, D.C., and tonight he's giving a talk in "the other Washington," at Town Hall Seattle (and I'm planning to see him there). During a half-hour telephone interview, Davies touched upon his key theme of the universe's curious bio-friendliness. Here are excerpts from the conversation:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST OF THE INTERVIEW...

(Excerpt) Read more at cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: intelligentdesign; pauldavis; selfmade; stephenhawking; universe
The blogger at the Intelligent Design website :Uncommon Descent summarizes the entire interview thusly :

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

Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life – including intelligent life capable of asking that “why” question?

Paul Davies of Arizona State University in his new book “Cosmic Jackpot” argues that the cosmos has made itself the way it is, stretching backward in time to the very beginning to focus in on “bio-friendliness.”

When asked by Alan Boyle why the universe is bio-friendly? Is it intelligent design, or blind chance, or none of the above?

Davies replies: “There are three popular responses; the intelligent-design argument; the idea that if we had a final theory of physics, then all of the undetermined parameters in the laws would be fixed by that theory; and the third is the multiverse.

What I find lacking in the conventional intelligent-design argument, is that they appeal to something outside the universe that has to be accepted as given and cannot be proved. I’d like to try to explain as much of the universe, including its bio-friendly laws of physics, from within the universe – and in a way that doesn’t appeal to something outside of it.

Even standard physics says the laws of physics are friendly for no reason, but have just been imprinted upon the universe at the time of the big bang from without, by some unknown mechanism. Again, the argument makes an appeal to something outside the universe, instead of something intrinsic to it.

For most people, the first interpretation is, “Well, God did it.” What I’m saying is that that gets us nowhere at all. It just shoves the problem off to some other realm. But saying “God did it” is no worse than saying “the laws of physics did it.” They both basically appeal to something outside the universe.

The problem with saying God did it is that God is unexplained, so you’re appealing to an unexplained designer. It doesn’t actually explain anything; it just shoves the problem off. But to say that the laws of physics just happen to permit life is no explanation either.”

1 posted on 06/20/2009 10:04:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The problem with saying God did it is that God is unexplained.”

Perhaps this individual should try reading the Bible.


2 posted on 06/20/2009 10:10:49 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

3 posted on 06/20/2009 10:13:17 AM PDT by jessduntno (July 4th, 2009. Washington DC. Gadsden Flags. Be There.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Man goes to amazing lengths and grotesque mental contortions to shut God out of the party.


4 posted on 06/20/2009 10:13:42 AM PDT by RoadTest (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus - I Tim 2:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life

Just a quibble. Is it really fine tuned for life if life has only happened in one place in all this unimaginable vastness?

The problem with saying God did it is that God is unexplained, so you’re appealing to an unexplained designer. It doesn’t actually explain anything; it just shoves the problem off.

Maybe. But it also doesn't take anything away from the scientist's challenge which is to figure out the all-important "how" and then for the more technical minded to figure out the almost as important "and how can we use it, and what can we make with it".

5 posted on 06/20/2009 10:15:45 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life How do we know that it is? The only evidence of life is here on Earth leaving billions and trillions of planets and star systems undiscovered. If life isn't on any of them then this Universe is most definitely not fine tuned for life.
6 posted on 06/20/2009 10:16:08 AM PDT by aft_lizard (One animal actually eats its own brains to conserve energy, we call them liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sad what constitutes a “deep thinker” these days.


7 posted on 06/20/2009 10:16:09 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: SeekAndFind

Is this satire?


8 posted on 06/20/2009 10:16:24 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Dont Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Is this satire?

The professor, Paul Davies ( I apologize for mis-spelling his name in the subject ) is DEAD SERIOUS.

He's so dead serious that he wrote a book about it -- THE COSMIC JACKPOT. He's on a tour to promote the book write now.
9 posted on 06/20/2009 10:19:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life”

That sentence is so inane I simply can’t read past it.

10 posted on 06/20/2009 10:20:36 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (ALSO SPRACH ZEROTHUSTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A Saturday night live Skit to go with Tina’s Stupidity?


11 posted on 06/20/2009 10:21:15 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different: if, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably prevent the universe from developing life as it is currently observed on the earth.

The small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics.”

Astrophycisit John Polkinghorne ( now an Anglican priest) formulates the fine-tuning in terms of six principal constants:

1. N - the ratio of the strength of the electrical forces and the strength of gravity

2. Epsilon - defining how firmly atomic nuclei bind together

3. Omega - which measures the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe

4. Lambda - the “Cosmological Constant”

5. Q - the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull galaxies apart and their mass

6. D - the number of space-like dimensions in the universe

The arguments relating to the fine-tuned universe concept involve the anthropic principle, which states that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. In other words, even if the actual probability of our universe that supports intelligent life may be very low, the conditional probability of supporting intelligent life, given our existence in it, is 1. Even if there could be other universes, less “fine-tuned” and so devoid of life, there would be no one there to observe them.


12 posted on 06/20/2009 10:25:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marron
Just a quibble. Is it really fine tuned for life if life has only happened in one place in all this unimaginable vastness?

Agreed. From what we've observed so far, life is extremely rare.

13 posted on 06/20/2009 10:28:26 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 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“What I find lacking in the conventional intelligent-design argument, is that they appeal to something outside the universe that has to be accepted as given and cannot be proved.”

Well, the little fact that the universe itself - including time and space - started with the Big Bang by definition means that something outside the universe caused the Big Bang...


14 posted on 06/20/2009 10:29:42 AM PDT by piytar (Take back the language: Obama axing Chrystler dealers based on political donations is REAL fascism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Yup. There is a deeper question, too: The universe is very finely tuned for there to even be matter and energy, and on top of that for their to be “clumpiness” (ie, not a uniform blob), and there’s more. But all the necessary constants just HAPPENED to work out perectly for this all to happen. /sarc


15 posted on 06/20/2009 10:33:34 AM PDT by piytar (Take back the language: Obama axing Chrystler dealers based on political donations is REAL fascism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marron

“Just a quibble. Is it really fine tuned for life if life has only happened in one place in all this unimaginable vastness?”

The parameters of the general model are extraordinarily finely tuned for life—and physicists who have played a substantial role in refining the general model concede that. Miniscule changes in any of the parameters make life impossible. Intelligent design follows pretty naturally from this observation. That’s not me speaking, it’s one of the formulators of the multiverse theory.

Hence, all the activity in the physics community on “multiverses.” It’s a way out of having to resort to Intelligent Design. Of course the problem is formulating a falsifiable hypothesis about multiverses.


16 posted on 06/20/2009 10:37:40 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
How did the universe begin?

Maybe it never began? Maybe it just has always been? I think the human mind can conceive of eternity as it applies to the future, but not as it applies to the past.

17 posted on 06/20/2009 10:39:58 AM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No conflict here. Very comfortable with God as the source of existence. Very comfortable with Davies looking around scientifically. ‘Strange and beautiful universe.


18 posted on 06/20/2009 10:41:36 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The problem with saying God did it is that...”

1. Admitting God exists/created means man must bow in humble worship to his Creator, or rebel in open pride, neither of which is a palatable option to many in the “scientific” community.

2. “We” lose “control,” which we really don’t have anyway, but like to think we do.

Why is admitting the truth a problem?


19 posted on 06/20/2009 10:51:58 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I’d like to try to explain as much of the universe, including its bio-friendly laws of physics, from within the universe – and in a way that doesn’t appeal to something outside of it.

Good luck with that. I enjoyed Davies' work in college, especially "God and the New Physics", but he is chasing a great white whale here.

I side with Freeman Dyson and Stephen Hawking on this question. They accept Father Stanley Jaki's argument that Gödel's incompleteness theorem of mathematics must necessarily apply to physics also, and hence to all of science.

This means that the search for a self-contained, self-proving Theory of Everything to explain all of Nature is as futile as the quest for a perpetual motion machine or faster-than-light starship.

There is, was always, and will always be an Uncaused Cause outside the realm of the observable universe.

20 posted on 06/20/2009 10:56:12 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Believers simply say that God did it, while scientists are trying to come up with complicated extradimensional multiverse theories to explain our lucky break.

He lost me when he called it "our lucky break".

21 posted on 06/20/2009 10:58:44 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
That sentence is so inane I simply can’t read past it.

It's not inane. It's a vexing problem. If certain physical constants differed by even a percentage point from their measured values, planets never could have formed from the cosmic dust, much less you and me. This is not a problem for young-Earth creationists, but for everyone else it is a real conundrum. And I would say it's a bigger problem for strict atheists than for anyone else.

22 posted on 06/20/2009 10:59:55 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

That would be a good idea.


23 posted on 06/20/2009 11:00:42 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: layman
Maybe it never began? Maybe it just has always been?

That theory is about 50 years behind the times. The big bang (creation) really occurred around 15.7 billion years ago (from our perspective).

24 posted on 06/20/2009 11:06:27 AM PDT by Mogollon (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi; SeekAndFind
He lost me when he called it "our lucky break".

Read SeekAndFind's post #12.

I think everyone from the stoutest atheist to the most devout believer can agree that we are extraordinarily lucky that the characteristics of the physical world are as they are.

25 posted on 06/20/2009 11:09:20 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Great post!

parsy who wonders about stuff like this


26 posted on 06/20/2009 11:12:34 AM PDT by parsifal ("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
I think everyone from the stoutest atheist to the most devout believer can agree that we are extraordinarily lucky that the characteristics of the physical world are as they are.

We are only "lucky" if the universe and everything else came about by pure chance.

If it was a creation, then the skills required would border on true omnipotence.

27 posted on 06/20/2009 11:18:51 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
No, it's inane. It presumes to know the unknowable. The way to parse the idea, so as not to sound like some breathless know-it-all is to say "If things were different, life as we understand it couldn't exist" - which is, on the other hand, banal.

And no, it's not a problem, it's an "unknowable": unknowables are not necessarily "problems".

28 posted on 06/20/2009 11:50:06 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (ALSO SPRACH ZEROTHUSTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon
The big bang (creation) really occurred around 15.7 billion years ago

And before that there was nothing?

29 posted on 06/20/2009 12:25:19 PM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: piytar
"Well, the little fact that the universe itself - including time and space - started with the Big Bang by definition means that something outside the universe caused the Big Bang..."

What if that's true but whatever caused it has no relation to our concept of religion? What if it's something completely different? Could be anything, right?

30 posted on 06/20/2009 12:38:13 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The problem with saying God did it is that God is unexplained, so you’re appealing to an unexplained designer.

In other words, he's trying to, by using twisted logic, imply God was created...by us, not the other way around...

31 posted on 06/20/2009 12:38:42 PM PDT by NorCoGOP (Recession: friend loses his job. Depression: You lose your job. Recovery: Obama loses his job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There are three popular responses to the fact that the universe does seem to be weirdly fine-tuned for life. And I think all three are found wanting.

The three are the intelligent-design argument; the idea that if we had a final theory of physics, then all of the undetermined parameters in the laws would be fixed by that theory; and the third is the multiverse – the notion that there is a multiplicity of universes, with laws that vary from one to the other.

And now we have his new "jackpot" theory, that we are the cause of our own universe. That makes 4.

Of the 4, I personally am partial to #3, the multiverse view. I think it satisfies the Occam's Razor test (for those of us who don't accept #1, anyway).

As for #2 and #4... caca... and double caca. At least in my view.

I would much sooner accept #1 than either 2 or 4, which seem like slithering mental gymnastics with an aim more to impress the viewer than to get at the truth.

But like I said, I believe the truth lies in #3.

Alan Guth says that a universe is just something that happens once in a while and over an infinite time span (outside the confines of our current BigBang universe) there are an infinite number of universes. Some are going to be "just right" for life. We are in one of those. Pretty simple, when you think about it.

32 posted on 06/20/2009 1:38:40 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In essence, what happens when we make measurements or observations of the universe today, we’re resolving some of the quantum ambiguity that exists in the past, as part and parcel of quantum uncertainty. Stephen Hawking has made this very explicit just in the last few months in a paper published with Thomas Hertog, in which he says that the way to apply quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole is to project backwards in time from our present observations. This brings in the role of the observer in a very fundamental way.
Like I said. Double-caca.
33 posted on 06/20/2009 1:40:36 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: layman

Of course, cuz if the universes existence keeps going back
into the infinite past, we would not have arrived at this
present time. Therefore, because we ARE here(aren’t we?),
the universe must have had a beginning,at a time slightly
after it did not exist.


34 posted on 06/20/2009 1:50:40 PM PDT by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: piytar
started with the Big Bang by definition means that something outside the universe caused the Big Bang...

The Big Trigger?

35 posted on 06/20/2009 1:53:08 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

But absolutely unscientic. Since Guth cannot get to those
epochs, and “spaces” there is no way to prove he is correct.
He may not be able to exist in those spaces, so he could
not even observe them with his 5 senses or augmented
senses(i.e. machines) since those things wouldn’t exist or
work in a space with different physical constants...

I think it was Godel who showed that all science is based
on axioms which are accepted on faith and unprovable...


36 posted on 06/20/2009 1:56:03 PM PDT by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Getready
the universe must have had a beginning,at a time slightly after it did not exist.

This is my point .... the human mind is incapable of comprehending an infinite past.

37 posted on 06/20/2009 1:58:31 PM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

mega-dittoes


38 posted on 06/20/2009 2:44:20 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Getready

Yes, you are right.


39 posted on 06/20/2009 3:13:50 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

If it all was created, then we are lucky beyond measure to have a Creator who loves us.


40 posted on 06/20/2009 3:22:27 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
I personally am partial to ... the multiverse view. I think it satisfies the Occam's Razor test.

That's a rather comical comment, given that the original formulation of Occam's Razor stated "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

41 posted on 06/20/2009 3:26:30 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
What if it's something completely different? Could be anything, right?

Turtles all the way down, Guv'nah.

42 posted on 06/20/2009 3:30:49 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Please explain the following, without relying on scripture: Where did “God” come from?

I find it remarkable that religious people can’t find any other answer to the origins of the universe than that some super guy in the sky made it all from absolutely nothing, and they completely discount any theory that doesn’t include some all-powerful bearded dude in the clouds.

Personally, I just think humankind isn’t advanced enough to know about the origins of the universe. It’s okay to say “We don’t know.”


43 posted on 06/20/2009 3:57:34 PM PDT by Two Kids' Dad (((( ))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

Sure, could be. My point was just that the author rejected theories that relied on something outside the universe, while the Big Bang by definition requires a cause outside the universe...


44 posted on 06/20/2009 6:05:17 PM PDT by piytar (Take back the language: Obama axing Chrystler dealers based on political donations is REAL fascism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Two Kids' Dad

You posted: “Please explain the following, without relying on scripture: Where did “God” come from?”

In other words...Please throw out a perfectly adequate explanation that corresponds with the human condition and human experience...that accords with the created universe and the moral nature of man...and reject even the possibility of acknowledging there is a spiritual (and moral) underpinning to the universe...an origin beyond the capacity of man to measure with physical instruments even though he routinely experiences spiritual phenomena.

Sure, OK.

As Francis Schaeffer titled his book: “God is There, and He is Not Silent.”

Why should we have a problem with His explanation of the universe He created?


45 posted on 06/20/2009 6:57:49 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Two Kids' Dad
...I just think humankind isn’t advanced enough to know about the origins of the universe.

I'm glad then that the explorations of "lesser mortals" has prevailed in the West across history,
who understand the universe better than you think.

"If I knew God I'd be Him."

46 posted on 06/21/2009 6:54:46 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marron
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies takes a completely different tack in a new book titled "Cosmic Jackpot." He argues that the cosmos has made itself the way it is, stretching backward in time to the very beginning to focus in on “bio-friendliness.”

The universe is an immaculate conception?

47 posted on 06/21/2009 9:04:09 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Big Bang by definition requires a cause outside the universe...

Big Bang = immaculate conception

48 posted on 06/21/2009 9:06:22 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Getready

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2276665/posts?page=3


49 posted on 06/22/2009 2:42:33 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

To say that something is “fine-tuned” is to acknowledge that there is a “fine tuner.”


50 posted on 06/22/2009 2:52:33 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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