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

Skip to comments.

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer

BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.

Photo
AP Photo


Missed Tech Tuesday?
Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget


The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.

The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.

"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."

Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.

A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.

Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.

The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.

When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.

The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.

"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.

The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.

India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.

In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.

Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; antarctica; australia; catastrophism; crevolist; dino; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; ichthyostega; india; madagascar; narmadabasin; narmadensis; paleontology; rajasaurus; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 2,151-2,2002,201-2,2502,251-2,300 ... 3,101-3,129 next last
To: DittoJed2
There is no such demarkation as "fully man." Even in the modern human genome there is quite a bit of genetic variation. There would have been a point at which the population that would become human would no longer be able to mate with its contemporaries. It's a population thing, not an individual thing. I wish I could make you understand this.
2,201 posted on 08/22/2003 6:39:22 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2198 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Perpetual evolution professor placemaker !
2,202 posted on 08/22/2003 6:41:17 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2201 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
No, as being portrayed as the lowest form of human in the line of evolution. Darwin taught that species would evolve upward. By portraying blacks as low man on the totem pole (apparently consistent with Darwinism) they (evolutionary artists) are saying not as highly evolved as whites. Darwin, while he personally did not want them mistreated, provided an open door for racism against whomever even in very the titling of his book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. While less racist that some of his followers, Darwin still seemed to believe in the superiority of white Europeans: ""I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

Still, some of his followers took it even further. Thomas Huxley stated ""No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites." Along those lines, justifying his actions upon evolutionary theory, the world was "blessed" with the likes of Adolf Hitler. Hitler believed that blacks were predominantly ape and Jews were close to full ape. Hitler believed the theory about blacks because of Darwin.

So, while Darwin may have not have been a rabid racist himself, his theory provided perfect soil in which the roots of the most hideous kinds of racism could grow. Before you say the Bible promoted slavery, I would say the Bible really didn't make a judgment call on slavery and certainly never said certain people should be slaves upon racist grounds. In the Jewish law, a certain arrangement was set up for slaves, but also an arrangement where they would be freed. Paul, recognizing the situation at the time in Rome in which slavery was widely practiced encouraged Philemon to free Onesimus, his slave, but did not demand he do so (he did do some serious arm twisting). You can't justify racism based on Scripture. But racist ideas have flourished in a Darwinian atmosphere, and drawings such as the ones we typically see of evolution, reinforce the idea.
2,203 posted on 08/22/2003 6:47:44 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2181 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Says you. God created man in His image, gave him intelligence and reasoning capabilities unlike any other creature. This makes him FULLY man. I wish I could get YOU to understand that.
2,204 posted on 08/22/2003 6:50:03 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2201 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
There is no single "intelligence" or "reasoning capability." Intelligence and reasoning covers a spectrum from the severely mentally retarded to super geniuses. Which ones were given God's reasoning abilities?
2,205 posted on 08/22/2003 6:54:40 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2204 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
...What's wrong with this scenario: 65+ millions of years ago zillions of dinosaurs roamed the Earth, but something (probably a meteor strike) killed off 99+% of them 65 million years ago. Nonetheless, a few tiny populations of 1-4 different species survived the disaster, and lived in remote (or underwater) areas and had baby dinosaurs and so on until present day, remaining undiscovered (albeit spotted on rare occasions)...

That's approximately the story of the metasequoia (dawn redwood). they were known from cretaceous fossils, but a stand was found in China in the 1940s. http://www.icogitate.com/~tree/dawn.redwood.timeline.ac10.htm

2,206 posted on 08/22/2003 7:06:50 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1775 | View Replies]

To: Junior
There is no such demarkation as "fully man."

Haven't we all met a few geniuses and retarded folks in our lives? Haven't we all met a few "shaved ape" strongmen and humans more classically built? Which ones are more fully human? How would anyone decide that?

2,207 posted on 08/22/2003 7:11:02 PM PDT by balrog666 (Wisdom comes by disillusionment. -George Santanyana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2201 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
"shaved ape" placemarker
2,208 posted on 08/22/2003 7:38:09 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2207 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Also, it appears that the agreement seems to be working. Great job Alamo-Girl and PH!!

Not to detract from them, but a lot of the credit goes to the Admin Mod who canned als.

2,209 posted on 08/22/2003 7:39:30 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1809 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I just finished the "gospel of Thomas" and will go now and read some of the others. That one looked familiar. I might have read it after watching the movie Stigmata.

It was like a notebook of sayings and had recounted a number of Christ's parables and teachings from the Sermon on the Mount along with other sayings which don't comport with the Word. Generally, it did not "ring true" in my Spirit as I read through it - as the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mark and Luke do.

On to the next one!

2,210 posted on 08/22/2003 7:43:54 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2194 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Adam and Eve (who were created in God's image, not given the fullness of God's intelligence. They weren't gods, so they didn't have the benefit of omniscience). Problems with intelligence and reasoning are a result of degeneration which was the result of the fall.
2,211 posted on 08/22/2003 7:46:29 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2205 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Which proves my point made earlier. Darwinism has no foundation for placing value upon human life. We are just seen as more highly evolved forms from an original source that happened by chance. There is no foundation, other than human opinion, for any kind of moral judgment and that opinion could vary from place to place and we legitimately would have no foundatin for stating it is wrong. In the Darwinist world, one can NOT say with a rational basis that Bin Laden was evil. One can say I don't like what he did, but his majority rule may say it was perfectly okay.
2,212 posted on 08/22/2003 7:50:51 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2207 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Right Wing Professor
I just finished the Apocalype of Adam. I recognized it, as I did the gospel of Thomas. So I went to the Pseudepigrapha texts, and sure enough, that is where I first read it!

The Pseudepigrapha however also includes the Midrashic book Life of Adam and Eve which is dated to the first century A.D. That particular book clearly describes Adam and Eve being in Paradise and includes sections which Satan blaming his banishment on Adam, Eve's recounting how it all happened, repentance, etc.

This is quite fascinating - especially the overlapping between the texts of Nag Hammadi and the Pseudepigrapha!

2,213 posted on 08/22/2003 8:06:32 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2210 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
What I also have observed is that, unlike TalkOrigins, creationist websites don't provide links to the 'opposition' or even to the article they are rebuting

I find that telling. If they were confident they were right, they'd post such links.

2,214 posted on 08/22/2003 8:40:05 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1962 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I know evolutionists believe that the changes occurred gradually. My point was at some point man was fully man. Unless every single creature gained that full manness at the same time, he was mating with something that would have been less (even if it only slightly less) human than he was.

Okay, let's see if I can explain it this way...

First, part of your confusion (in this, and in a lot of other topics in this thread) comes from your insistence on declaring that things must be 100% A or 100% B. The living world is not so black and white. The range of living things is a continuum more often than it's either/or. And not just across time, either -- several people have asked you to ponder the existence of "ring species", but I haven't seen you tackle it yet.

Furthermore, creationists often fail to appreciate the significance of the "nested hierarchies" of living things. It's as incorrect to say that a specific creature must be *either* a human *or* an ape as it is to say that a creature must be *either* a lion *or* a cat. Ponder that one for a moment, and then you'll be ready to understand the point of the essay You Are an Ape. Please read it.

Finally, even if you cling to the view that there's some "required" combination of genetic differences which, as soon as they're acquired, turn a "mere ape" into a "human", *bang*, that still doesn't make the evolution of one into the other a problem, or create any "breeding impossibilities". Here's how it works...

First, keep in mind that even if the "special" combination of genes which make primate DNA be considered human DNA has to all be present before *you'd* finally agree to label the resulting organism "finally human", a creature with only, say, 99% of those genes would still look pretty darned human and not so "classicly" apelike, since it would consist of 99% of the things that "separate" humans from apes. It'd only be missing one little thing out of the full set, so only one part of it would still be "apish" -- for example maybe it'd have more of a protruding brow than most people but all other human characterstics.

The other thing to keep in mind is that any one (or five, or fifty, or...) genetic differences is usually not enough to prevent interbreeding. The genetic differences just "mix and match" in members of the popuation, in the same way that both the blue-eyed gene and the brown-eyed gene swirl through human populations without any big deal.

So now that you've got some of the background, the way in which an "ape" population would evolve into a "human" population is straightforward. At some time a mutation X1 appears in the birth of a member of the population which offers some small advantage by virtue of being a small improvement (which in this example happens to bring the individual slightly closer to the advantages of being "humanlike"). The change is likely to be barely noticeable to those around him, perhaps he stands just slightly more upright, or has a slightly larger brain, or his hands are just a bit more talented, or he can voice a slightly wider range of sounds -- whatever. It's due to a small DNA change within him which just happens, by luck, to make a biochemical improvement to a particular protein in his body in a way that makes some function in his body perform just a touch better than was possible without the change. So, unlike many other mutations in the population, which made no difference, or the ones which caused damage to the functioning of the affected individual and got weeded out by natural selection, the individual who was lucky enough to receive X1 does a little better than the others in his species, and passes on his new X1 gene when he has children.

But wait, you ask, he's a "mutant", wouldn't that prevent him from mating with all the rest of the population since they don't have X1? No, it wouldn't, any more than your brown-eyed gene would prevent you from having children with a blue-eyed man. The "owner" of X1 mates with a woman who has the original form of the gene, call it Q1. Due to ordinary genetics, each of their children will have 2 X1's, or 2 Q1's, or 1 X1 and 1 Q1, by random chance. But because X1 gives a survival boost, more of the children who drew X1's from the genetic deck will have their own children than those who missed out. And so on and so on across generations, causing X1 to become more and more prevalent in the population than the competing "obsolete" Q1. Statistically, eventually X1 will "fix" in the population by virtue of being the only variety of that gene existing in the population, the Q1's having gone extinct when the last few individuals who still had a Q1 either didn't manage to have children, or had children but their children drew X1's from their parents genetic "deck".

So now the whole population is made of individuals with X1 genes and no Q1 genes.

Repeat this process for X2, another gene change which is a step along the road from "apeness" to "humanness". Then for X3, and X4, and... Finally, at some point the population will have genes X1 through X(N-1) out of the N genes which you believe are required to make them "fully human". They already look and behave pretty much entirely human, since they have almost every genetic feature which makes a species human, but you're still unwilling to declare them human because they're missing X(N), the last gene of the set. Okay, fine -- repeat the process I described above about X1 to gene mutation X(N). The first individual which gets that mutation is now "fully human" in your book. Hooray for him. However, he really isn't noticeably different from the other members of his species, since he only varies from them by a single genetic difference. So other than being the guy (or girl) who loses that last tiny remnant of "apeness" which is barely even noticeable in the population (maybe jaws on average protrude just 3% more than his or his offspring will), he has no problem having children with the mate of his choice, because they only differ by a single mutation. And eventually his X(N) gene spreads through the population over the next fifty generations until the old-style Q(N) gene gets replaced by it, and all of his kind are now 100% human instead of 99.9% human as they had been before the X(N) mutation.

And note that all the above is *standard* population genetics, *extremely* well established as ordinary processes which occur all the time in nature. It's not just an "imagine if" story.

Also note that I've simplified it somewhat by implying that, for example, mutation X46 wouldn't happen until mutation X45 had finished "fixing" in the population. Instead, it's just as easy for it to occur and be spreading into the population *while* X45 is in the process of doing so as well, for example. But this just makes the process even *more* likely, not less. There are always multiple sets of alleles floating around in populations without ill effect -- if there weren't we'd all be identical and homozygous clones.

Frankly, though, I don't think we're fully human *yet* -- if nothing else, we really need to get rid of the ape genes we still carry that cause these damned wisdom teeth which fit nicely and were useful in the longer ape jaw but just get jammed up and cause health problems in the rear of our smaller more human jaw. It looks as if we're still waiting for X(N) and haven't quite gotten the "full human" transformation finished just yet...

2,215 posted on 08/22/2003 8:46:31 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2198 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; DittoJed2; AndrewC
[vitamin C synthesis].. Something to keep in mind is the original *prediction* of ToE ws that there would be some evidence of the genes needed for ascorbic acid sythesis in those species that can't make it.

Another prediction that turned out to be true.

Reference

2,216 posted on 08/22/2003 9:04:11 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1986 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
Charles Darwin rings up there at the top of my No integrity list.

Why? When did he ever lie, maliciously smear someone he disagreed with, or otherwise act in a way that showed a lack of integrety?

2,217 posted on 08/22/2003 9:09:06 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1998 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Two things come to mind here. First, I Corintians 13:11, and secondly the old saying, "birds of a feather".
Darwin and integrity in my opinion, just do not belong together at all.
Darwin would be a perfect liberal if there is such a thing. He, if alive today, would no doubt be head honcho for the Aclu and would fight with all his might to eliminate God from America, England and the world.
I could give you a long list as long as your arm as to how he lacked integrity, but you would not understand even one of my reasons I have no doubt whatsoever.
2,218 posted on 08/22/2003 9:22:20 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2217 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Okay, let's see if I can explain it this way...

First, part of your confusion (in this, and in a lot of other topics in this thread)
Yes, wise master.

comes from your insistence on declaring that things must be 100% A or 100% B.
Oh, like things must be 100% by chance and 100% non-supernatural???

The living world is not so black and white. The range of living things is a continuum more often than it's either/or. And not just across time, either -- several people have asked you to ponder the existence of "ring species", but I haven't seen you tackle it yet.
I already agreed speciation (sp?) takes place. With ring species you still have types of salamander and types of herring gulls. Mutations may have caused them not to be able to breed with one another any more. However, they are still fundamentally gulls.

Furthermore, creationists often fail to appreciate the significance of the "nested hierarchies" of living things.
Assuming there is a nested hierarchy of thing (it's a man made classification based upon his observance, but his observance can often be skewed or distorted), why would such a thing be a problem for creationists? God could have arranged things in groupings as such and reused certain design ideas in the process. It does not mean that everything in that grouping is descended from the same ancestor. That's what evolutionists don't seem to appreciate. Just because there are similarities, does not equal macro evolution. God, being a very very wise individual, likely knew what design features would work the best for the creatures he was creating and created several creatures with similar features (including similar DNA if need be).

It's as incorrect to say that a specific creature must be *either* a human *or* an ape as it is to say that a creature must be *either* a lion *or* a cat. Ponder that one for a moment, and then you'll be ready to understand the point of the essay You Are an Ape. Please read it.
Says YOU. You say it is incorrect. I disagree.

Regarding the article you linked. The Pekinese is a DOG. It was the result of breeding other DOGS. It will never be anything other than a DOG, and it will never produce anything other than other DOGS. NOT Macroevolution.

Part two of the article:> A giraffe has never given birth > to a horse, as far as we know it. An ape has never given birth to a man.

> I will give a million bucks to anyone who can observe an ape giving

> birth to a human. Even your mother, if such were true.

Apes beget apes, and Man is an ape,
which means that a man's mother is also an ape.
Apes have given birth to man
just as birds beget ducks
cetaceans beget dolphins
and canids beget dogs.

Saying man is an ape does not make it so. A group of bonehead scientists getting in a room and saying he is an ape doesn't make it so. God called him MAN. He is a man.

The rest of the article is a bunch of statements about how modern man classifies man that proves zilch. To that I would answer...

You are a HUMAN.

You were created in the image of God with a spirit and a soul and an ability to discern right from wrong.
You are a man. You were created with an intelligence that exceeds any human being, and intelligence which allows you to create or destroy, to write poetry or music, to make machines, tools, and things which can make life better or worse.

You are a man, you were created with a yearning to know more, to explore, or to just be true to yourself. You know the difference.

You are a man. You are capable of sin, and of acting righteously. You make laws based upon the standards of your Creator and have a basis for valuing each human life within His law.

You are a man, you build buildings to shelter yourself, make clothing to clothe yourself, grow and hunt food to feed yourself, and if you are fortunate, you surround yourself with others who love and cherish you as well.

You are man. You organize, theorize, legitimize, ostracize, idealize, and energize. You have emotions, you have whit, you have creativity, you have imagination. You are built and designed to be the person that God created you to be, in spite of the fall and you are loved by the Creator who made you and died to bring you closer to Him. You may try to theorize Him away, or just innocently explain things without use of mentioning His activity, but you can not be rid of Him and He is ever watching You, drawing You, calling You, and loving You. While He loves all of His creation and will one day cause their groaning to cease, He loves you most of all- for you are man, His special treasure, His jewel, the one He sent His Son to redeem, and the one He wants to save. Oh, you may claim to be something less than what you are, but it will not change the person that God created you to be. No, you are not an ape. You are created in God's image and are precious in His sight. You are man.



As to the rest of your post. Icheneumon, I have already stated that there can be a ton of variation within a species, but not the kind evolution requires. Dogs are dogs. Cats are cats. Fish are fish. Plants are plants. And human beings are human beings.

Incidentally, just because the wisdom teeth don't appear to quite fit- how does that mean they came from an ape mouth? There were giants in the days of Noah. We were probably just bigger back then before the climactic change of the flood.
2,219 posted on 08/22/2003 9:30:06 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2215 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I can understand your misunderstanding from the post which you quoted. I know evolutionists believe that the changes occurred gradually. My point was at some point man was fully man.

I would say that there are people walking around now, dressed in shirts and jeans, that are not fully human. A few examples are; Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and the 2 guys who killed Jesse Dirkhising. So I don't believe we've reached the point yet where we're all fully human.

2,220 posted on 08/22/2003 9:32:04 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2198 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
No, those guys are fully human. They just invited demons to come in and take over the controls.
2,221 posted on 08/22/2003 9:33:54 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2220 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Remember, species is an artificial term designated by men to describe different types of animals.

If you put a herd of 100 stallions and 100 female donkeys on an island, and came back in 100 years, there wouldn't be any equidae at all there. Sounds like different speicies to me, by any reasonable definition.

You acknowledge they have a common ancestor. But now they can't produce fertile offspring.

If they're really the same 'kind', what did Noah save? Donkeys, horses, zebras, what? If they're different 'kinds', how can they have a common ancestor?

2,222 posted on 08/22/2003 9:35:55 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2065 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
just finished the "gospel of Thomas" and will go now and read some of the others. That one looked familiar. I might have read it after watching the movie Stigmata.

Oh, nooooo - not that thing. I despised that movie, I have to say - stories about the eeeevil Catholic church suppressing some revelatory theological truth get really old after a while. Fortunately, my wife restrained me from pulling an Elvis and shooting out the picture tube on the TV ;)

Generally, it did not "ring true" in my Spirit as I read through it - as the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mark and Luke do.

That doesn't surprise me. As the Thomas FAQ suggests, the perspective of the text is a sort of lite-beer version of gnosticism - basically, that the Kingdom of Heaven is all around us, if only we can open our eyes to it, and not in some otherworldly place. An interesting perspective, to be sure, but not exactly orthodox.

I just finished the Apocalype of Adam. I recognized it, as I did the gospel of Thomas. So I went to the Pseudepigrapha texts, and sure enough, that is where I first read it!

I'm not familiar with that collection. Sigh - I really need more reading time, but there's very little chance of that in the near future ;)

2,223 posted on 08/22/2003 9:42:41 PM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2210 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Probably some type of horse. Variation occurred within the species (micro evolution) and much like the breeding of dogs different kinds of horse came about. For some reason, genetically they have been damaged (lost information) so that some of them can no longer breed together or they breed offspring that are infertile. These same group of creatures will not have gained completely different genetic information to turn them into a different KIND.
2,224 posted on 08/22/2003 9:43:35 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2222 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis; Ichneumon
[Nebullis to Ichneumon]

Nice! You put a lot of work into your posts

Couldn't agree more!

Ichy, I am amazed by your patience, hard work, and erudition. I also learn a lot from your posts. Thanks

2,225 posted on 08/22/2003 10:01:50 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2114 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro
[mixing of human populations]

The same question applies to other isolated groups like Australian natives, Amazonian tribes, and highlanders in remote Indonesian areas.

An interesting case is the Basque people. they have the highest rate of Rh- blood in the world. If the parents have different Rh types, (I forget the details), if the first child and the mother have different types the mother can build up antibodies, so that if a second child differs from the mother there is (often) a miscarriage.

I don't know if this has added to the isolation of the Basques or not, but if it were just a bit more extreme (no babies survive) then we'd have human speciation.

2,226 posted on 08/22/2003 10:15:41 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2134 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thank you so much for your reply!

I despised that movie, I have to say - stories about the eeeevil Catholic church suppressing some revelatory theological truth get really old after a while.

No kidding. Seems like many of the scripts out of Hollywood want to paint the bad guy as religious. I'm very glad that Mel Gibson is bucking the trend!

That doesn't surprise me. As the Thomas FAQ suggests, the perspective of the text is a sort of lite-beer version of gnosticism - basically, that the Kingdom of Heaven is all around us, if only we can open our eyes to it, and not in some otherworldly place. An interesting perspective, to be sure, but not exactly orthodox.

I'm certainly not "orthodox" - but I am clearly Fundamentalist Christian because I know the Bible is inerrant. But I find my reading is sometimes out of sync with my brothers and sisters in the Lord, whatever their denominational stripe (which is plenty ok for reasons I've offered several times before.)

Yours is an example. As I mentioned at 2177, I see the firmament as the separation between the spiritual realm and physical realm and not a geometric boundary (space/time.) Hence, I find myself largely in agreement with that statement as Spiritual truth, that the spiritual realm is co-existent.

I do not however see the Kingdom of God as arrived - the Lord's Prayer and the book of Revelation, etc. indicate that all that is not the name of God (person, character, etc.) must be culled before His Kingdom comes.

I do hope you get a chance to read the Pseudepigrapha. It’s in two volumes, edited by Charlesworth. With each ancient text, they go through language, history, provenance, theological importance, relationship to canonical books and apocryphal books and so much more.

2,227 posted on 08/22/2003 10:16:49 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2223 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
...and don't use the alleged hip bones inside the whale as evidence ...

How about the occasional whale that's born with legs? reference

2,228 posted on 08/22/2003 10:22:26 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2158 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I was on a whale-wathching cruies once, and the naturalist shoed us the inner ear bones of a whale. As big as your fist! BTW, only mammals have inner ear bones.
2,229 posted on 08/22/2003 10:24:18 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2158 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks for the recommendation - I'll try to track down a copy, on the off chance I find the time to read it ;)
2,230 posted on 08/22/2003 10:29:55 PM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2227 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Wonderful! It is not the kind of thing you'd read cover to cover in one sitting, but it is great to have on hand - to pick up a text at a time in your leisure!

Hugs!!!

2,231 posted on 08/22/2003 10:38:42 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2230 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
Darwin would be a perfect liberal if there is such a thing. He, if alive today, would no doubt be head honcho for the Aclu and would fight with all his might to eliminate God from America, England and the world.

Based on what evidence? I thought he was a Whig, into free trade, against slavery, and so forth.

I could give you a long list as long as your arm as to how he lacked integrity, but you would not understand even one of my reasons I have no doubt whatsoever.

If you say so.

2,232 posted on 08/22/2003 10:43:32 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2218 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Assuming there is a nested hierarchy of thing (it's a man made classification based upon his observance, but his observance can often be skewed or distorted), why would such a thing be a problem for creationists?

Because some of the evidence of the hieirarchy is things like fossil viruses, which were certainly not put there by God (but I guess they could have been by some less-concientious designer).

2,233 posted on 08/22/2003 10:47:22 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2219 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
How about the occasional whale that's born with legs? reference
How about checking out the full quote by creationist Wieland including his research on the origin of the story of whales born with legs before posting T.O. propaganda. Includes answers to the bones inside the whale which are far from vestigial.
2,234 posted on 08/22/2003 11:19:10 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2228 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Because some of the evidence of the hieirarchy is things like fossil viruses, which were certainly not put there by God (but I guess they could have been by some less-concientious designer).
Read three chapters then we will talk. (incidentally, behemoth and leviathan are dinosaurs).
2,235 posted on 08/22/2003 11:24:44 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2233 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Even if these poorly documented accounts are true, a fist-sized bump

From Talk Origns

In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

Poorly-documented? Rare, but well-documented

Your source (AiG) said

Ignoring for the moment the purely anecdotal nature of the evidence, what is it that is being claimed? Sperm whales are massive — up to about 19m (62 feet) long. A 14 cm (5.5 inch) ‘bump’ on its side would look like an almost unnoticeable pimple. Inside the bump is a piece of bone, some 12.5 cm (5 inches) ‘long’. There is no evidence given of anything which could reasonably be called a ‘leg’.

Whereas TO said

These bones [referring to a photo] are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919.

...The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH. Andrews identified in the remains a shrunken cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal. Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin

So, who to believe? The AMNH journal is not online, and I don't have access to a university library. But the fact is, the AiG article doesn't even address this particular claim, simply calling them all anecdotal. Personally, I don't consider things published in museum journals anecdotes.

2,236 posted on 08/23/2003 12:07:41 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2234 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
...before posting T.O. propaganda...

Propaganda?

Is there an intent to deceive? Are they lying? Be specific.

2,237 posted on 08/23/2003 12:09:48 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2234 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
We were not discussing Adam and Eve; we were discussing your understanding of evolutionary theory and why it wasn't beholding to your misconceptions thereof.
2,238 posted on 08/23/2003 12:12:35 AM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2211 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Darwinism has no foundation for placing value upon human life.

This statement leads me to believe you have very little knowledge of the real world. Nearly all species place an innate value on their members which exceeds that placed on members outside that species. When dogs (or blue jays, or elk) fight, it is never intentionally to the death. Why should humans be any different? Even pre-Christian and non-Christian people had to be taught to kill other humans to make them effective soldiers. Of course, you always have the occasional person who loves to kill (humans appear to be the only critters thus encumbered -- which makes certain arguments about "made in the image of God"), so he'll find any convenient excuse to ply his hobby without being removed by his fellow man.

2,239 posted on 08/23/2003 12:28:21 AM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2212 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Speaking of the cococino sandstones... I came across this little gem in a review of some new creationist coffee-table book on the Grand Canyon:

In another attempt to "come to grips with the creationists' continuing research program at Grand Canyon", I consulted another of the references cited in Vail (2003, p. 103). Dr. Vardiman (1999) offers an even more startling insight into creationists' geological thinking. He discusses the problem of the occurrence of animal tracks in the Coconino Sandstone, just below the rim of the Canyon, as follows:

"Another fascinating mystery is why there were animals leaving footprints so late in the flood. … Dinosaur tracks which are often found in the Morrison formation are located at even higher levels in the geologic strata. It would appear that some animals were able to escape the water until later in the flood. Many were strong swimmers but they may have migrated to higher ground or clung to floating vegetation and were killed later as the waters finally reached them. Dr. John Baumgardner, a research scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has suggested that circulating water inundating the continents may have formed giant whirlpools with dry floors near the center until late in the flood. This may have allowed animals near the center of the continents to initially escape the flood waters but were then overwhelmed when the events of the flood reached their zenith." (Vardiman, 1999, p.17). 

The Morrison Formation occurs approximately 10,000 ft above the crystalline basement rocks. A simple calculation of the centrifugal force necessary to sustain a whirlpool 10, 000 ft deep and with a radius of 5, 000 ft requires its base to rotate at approximately 4,000 ft/sec (27,000 mph)!  We see footprints of dinosaurs, but where are the footprints of these supersonic whirlpools?


2,240 posted on 08/23/2003 1:24:14 AM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Okay, it's four in the morning and I'm in some post-operative discomfort, but where did the part on whirlpools come from? You're discussing animal tracks in sandstone, and then switch to whirlpools.
2,241 posted on 08/23/2003 1:58:27 AM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2240 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Are there mutations that apes have that humans don't have?

Yes there are, because after the (pick an ape species) lineage and the human lineage(s) split and went their separate ways, the apes would continue to accumulate mutations which the human wouldn't have, and vice versa.

What's interesting is that the number and type of mutations which ape species have is consistent with what one would expect if a) we did share a common ancestor with them, and b) the time of the split was around the time indicated by the fossil record.

What's even more to the point though, is the number and type of mutations that we *share*. Those are extremely hard, if not impossible, to explain via "separate creation" scenarios, but very perfectly explained by common descent.

By your reasoning this would argue for uncommon decent.

Then I may not have explained my reasoning well enough. No, it would not.

By my reasoning, the similarities that man and apes have genetically would cause me to think that similar mutations would affect both groups. A creature with very different genetics would be affected by the same mutating function in a different way.

The problem with that idea is that the various "mutating functions" have been studied at great length, and they don't act the way you suggest they might.

We can find some mutations that we share, which would go to our genetic similarities, and some mutations we don't share, which would go to our genetic differences.

The degree to which different species share the same mutation is far, far greater (and of a kind) than could possibly be explained by "similarly susceptible to mutations".

A plague that sweeps the globe like the Bubonic would possibly hammer the ape population in the same way as it hammered the human population, precisely because of our shared genetic designs.

Let's take that example as a case study of what I said above.

Background: Retroviruses reproduce by entering a cell of a host (like, say, a human), then embedding their own viral DNA into the cell's own DNA, which has the effect of adding a "recipe" for manufacturing more viruses to the cell's "instruction book". The cell then follows those instructions because it has no reason (or way) to "mistrust" the DNA instructions it contains. So the virus has converted the cell into a virus factory, and the new viruses leave the cell, and go find more cells to infect, etc.

However, every once in a while a virus's invasion plans don't function exactly as they should, and the virus's DNA (or portions of it) gets embedded into the cell's DNA in a "broken" manner. It's stuck into there, becoming part of the cell's DNA, but it's unable to produce new viruses. So there it remains, causing no harm. If this happens in a regular body cell, it just remains there for life as a "fossil" of the past infection and goes to the grave with the individual it's stuck in. All of us almost certainly contain countless such relics of the past viral infections we've fought off.

However... By chance this sometimes happens to a special cell in the body, a gametocyte cell that's one of the ones responsible for making sperm in males and egg cells in females, and if so subsequent sperm/eggs produced by that cell will contain copies of the "fossil" virus, since now it's just a portion of the entire DNA package of the cell. And once in a blue moon such a sperm or egg is lucky enough to be one of the few which participate in fertilization and are used to produce a child -- who will now inherit copies of the "fossilized" viral DNA in every cell of his/her body, since all are copied from the DNA of the original modified sperm/egg.

So now the "fossilized" viral DNA sequence will be passed on to *their* children, and their children's children, and so on. Through a process called neutral genetic drift, given enough time (it happens faster in smaller populations than large) the "fossil" viral DNA will either be flushed out of the population eventually, *or* by luck of the draw end up in every member of the population X generations down the road. It all depends on a roll of the genetic dice.

Due to the hurdles, "fossil" retroviral DNA strings (known by the technical name of "endogenous retroviruses") don't end up ubiquitous in a species very often, but it provably *does* happen. In fact, the Human DNA project has identified literally *thousands* of such fossilized "relics" of long-ago ancestral infections in the human DNA.

And several features of these DNA relics can be used to demonstrate common descent, including their *location*. The reason is that retroviruses aren't picky about where their DNA gets inserted into the host DNA. Even in an infection in a *single* individual, each infected cell has the retroviral DNA inserted into different locations than any other cell. Because the host DNA is so enormous (billions of basepairs in humans, for example), the odds of any retroviral insertion event matching the insertion location of any other insertion event are astronomically low. The only plausible mechanism by which two individuals could have retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same location in their respective DNAs is if they inherited copies of that DNA from the same source -- a common ancestor.

Thus, shared endogenous retroviruses between, say, ape and man is almost irrefutable evidence that they descended from a common ancestor. *Unless* you want to suggest that they were created separately, and then a virus they were both susceptible to infected both a man and an ape in EXACTLY the same location in their DNAs (the odds of such a match by luck are literally on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1...), *and* that the infections both happened in their gametocyte cells (combined odds on the order of 1,000,000 to 1) *and* that the one particular affected gametocyte is the one which produces the egg or sperm which is destined to produce an offspring (*HUGE* odds against), and *then* the resulting modified genome of the offspring becomes "fixed" in each respective population (1 out of population_size^squared)...

Then repeat that for *each* shared endogenous retrovirus (there are many) you'd like to claim was acquired independently and *not* from a shared ancestor...

Finally, you'd have to explain why, for say species A, B, and C, the pattern of shared same-location retroviruses is always *nested*, never *overlapped*. For example, all three will share some retroviruses, then A and B will both share several more, but if so then B *never* shares one with C that A doesn't also have (or at least remnants of).

In your "shared infection due to genetic similarities" suggestion, even leaving aside the near statistical impossibility of the infections leaving genetic "scars" in *exactly* the same locations in independent infections, one would expect to find cases of three species X, Y, and Z, where the degree of similarity was such that Y was "between" X and Z on some similarity scale, causing the same disease to befall X and Y but not Z, and another disease to affect Y and Z but not X. And yet, we don't find this in genetic markers. The markers are found in nested sequence, which is precisely what we would expect to see in cases of inheritance from common ancestry.

Here, for example, is an ancestry tree showing the pattern of shared same-location endogenous retroviruses of type HERV-K among primates:

This is just a partial list for illustration purposes -- there are many more.

Each labeled arrow on the chart shows an ERV shared in common by all the branches to the right, and *not* the branches that are "left-and-down". This is the pattern that common descent would make. And common descent is the *only* plausible explanation for it. Furthermore, similar findings tie together larger mammal groups into successively larger "superfamilies" of creatures all descended from a common ancestor.

Any presumption of independent acquisition is literally astronomically unlikely. And "God chose to put broken relics of viral infections that never actually happened into our DNA and line them up only in patterns that would provide incredibly strong evidence of common descent which hadn't actually happened" just strains credulity (not to mention would raise troubling questions about God's motives for such a misleading act).

Once again, the evidence for common descent -- as opposed to any other conceivable alternative explanation -- is clear and overwhelming.

Wait, want more? Endogenous retroviruses are just *one* type of genetic "tag" that makes perfect sense evolutionary and *no* sense under any other scenario. In addition to ERV's, there are also similar arguments for the patterns across species of Protein functional redundancies, DNA coding redundancies, shared Processed pseudogenes, shared Transposons (including *several* independent varieties, such as SINEs and LINEs), shared redundant pseudogenes, etc. etc. Here, for example, is a small map of shared SINE events among various mammal groups:

Like ERV's, any scenario which suggests that these shared DNA features were acquired separately strains the laws of probability beyond the breaking point, but they make perfect sense from an evolutionary common-descent scenario. In the above data, it is clear that the only logical conclusion is that, for example, the cetaceans, hippos, and ruminants shared a common ancestor, in which SINE events B and C entered its DNA and then was passed on to its descendants, yet this occurred after the point in time where an earlier common ancestor had given rise both to that species, and to the lineage which later became pigs.

And this pattern (giving the *same* results) is repeated over and over and over again when various kinds of molecular evidence from DNA is examined in detail.

The molecular evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming. The only alternative is for creationists to deny the obvious and say, "well maybe God decided to set up all DNA in *only* ways that were consistent with an evolutionary result even though He'd have a lot more options open to him, even including parts which by every measure are useless and exactly mimic copy errors, ancient infections, stutters, and other garbage inherited from nonexistent shared ancestors"...

2,242 posted on 08/23/2003 2:12:31 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2048 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Read three chapters then we will talk. (incidentally, behemoth and leviathan are dinosaurs).

Behemoth was clearly the hippo (then as now a very formidable animal, hippos in Africa kill more people annually than any other animal).

Leviathan was a local version of the age-old dragon myth, which dates back to at least 5000 BC with the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, the right time and place for the writers of the Bible to have heard and believed it and incorporated it into their writings.

These may be the remains of a biblical monster:


2,243 posted on 08/23/2003 3:09:55 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2235 | View Replies]

To: general_re
[The poster known as LLLICHY wrote:] Good, and please tell me if a deletion, a C , a T, and a G at the same location does not imply 3 mutations?

Argh, yes it does. Thanks for the correction. Yet again, my old eyes were having trouble spotting a difference between a "C" and a "G". Either I start posting with my bifocals on, or I bump up my monitor's font size.

Plus unless the macaque is a kissin cousin to the rat and mouse there is another 3 mutation spot.

Good point, I hadn't noticed that. But then that only pops up during second-order analysis from presumed phylogenies, and I was really trying to keep away from that as much as possible, because that opens up a whole new level of having to explain how we know what and why. It was better to stick with the less controversial relationships, and just lump the primates together, and the ungulates, and the rodents, and then expound on what those can teach us. Cladograms can wait for another day.

2,244 posted on 08/23/2003 3:59:41 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2117 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Okay, it's four in the morning and I'm in some post-operative discomfort, but where did the part on whirlpools come from? You're discussing animal tracks in sandstone, and then switch to whirlpools.

Apparently it's yet another creationist ad hoc'ism for how the footprints might have been possible in otherwise impossible circumstances -- giant whirlpools which held back the oceans and left portions of the seafloor unflooded even during a worldwide flood, just to "reconcile" a) fossil footprints that sure looked like they were made on land, and b) their desire to claim the flood was involved...

At some point, isn't it just simpler to throw up your hands and declare, "and then a miracle occurred because we sure can't invent a natural explanation that makes things work like we want it to"?


2,245 posted on 08/23/2003 4:08:13 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2241 | View Replies]

Well-behaved P L A C E M A R K E R
2,246 posted on 08/23/2003 4:08:41 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2244 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The last verse in the Gospel of Thomas are particularly... odd. One movie (Stigmata?) made a huge deal out of the non-inclusion of Thomas, but I'm glad that God does not think quite this way!:
(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The Gospel of Peter is very odd, too, with a walking and talking cross (!!!!):
X. 38 opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping 39 watch); and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other (lit. the 40 one), and a cross following, after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that 41 was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they 42 heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou (or Thou hast) preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea.
Just a tiny summary. I remember my Bible professor reading the Gospel of Peter aloud in class and acting out the cross's part. Quite hilarious. :-) Still, these extracanonical Gospels are an entertaining read and a photograph into ancient thought.
2,247 posted on 08/23/2003 4:31:07 AM PDT by Nataku X (Never give Bush any power you wouldn't want to give to Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2210 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
I could give you a long list as long as your arm as to how he lacked integrity, but you would not understand even one of my reasons I have no doubt whatsoever.

This is a libelous statement. I think you should produce your long list or shut up. Your charges against Darwin sound exactly like those made by another former freeper.

2,248 posted on 08/23/2003 5:39:35 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2218 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Don't forget the human tail.


2,249 posted on 08/23/2003 5:47:52 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2228 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
Thank you so very much for your post!

Indeed, that last part of the Gospel of Thomas was over-the-top. I hadn't gotten to the Gospel of Peter yet, but the excerpt about the talking cross puts it on the top of today's reading list!

Still, these extracanonical Gospels are an entertaining read and a photograph into ancient thought.

Indeed, this has been very informative! I also strongly recommend the Pseudepigrapha for a view of ancient thought from the Jewish perspective.

2,250 posted on 08/23/2003 6:07:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 2,151-2,2002,201-2,2502,251-2,300 ... 3,101-3,129 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