Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christians Divided Over Earth's Age According to ChristiaNet Poll
Christian News Wire ^ | August 14, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 08/14/2007 8:44:03 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
I wasn't aware of the site until now, and I don't see any word on how scientific the poll was. (Just one of those poll-on-a-page deals, or an actual survey?)

The results are not promising either way.

1 posted on 08/14/2007 8:44:04 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me

2 posted on 08/14/2007 8:44:29 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
From a biblical perspective, no way to know, because the time between God resting on the seventh day of creation, and the fall of Adam, is unknown. When you consider for a period Adam and Eve were in a timeless, eternal state, trying to apply time as we know it is pure speculation.
3 posted on 08/14/2007 8:49:42 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Christ's Kingdom on Earth is the answer. What is your question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The earth is as old as it is, regardless of what percentage of folks believe it to be whatever age.

And, there is no test question on the age of the earth in the “HAT” (Heaven Admission Test), so the whole discussion is interesting but of no import to my eternal life.


4 posted on 08/14/2007 8:52:10 PM PDT by Larry Lucido (Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The results are not promising either way.

I should hope not! The article notes:

Most in this group relied upon the information published by the Science community as evidence for an old Earth such as carbon dating...

Radiocarbon dating is useless for determining the age of the earth. It is useful for once-living things and extends back only about 50,000 years. The age of the earth is determined by several forms of radiometric dating and is about 4.5 billion years old.

Much of the sample population appears to be seriously deficient in their science education.

5 posted on 08/14/2007 8:52:48 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Sounds like a debate between Bible believer’s and non-Bible believer’s to me.


6 posted on 08/14/2007 9:10:30 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

A wise man once told me; God created man, man created time

Welcome back, hope school went well.


7 posted on 08/14/2007 9:17:54 PM PDT by Peacekeeper357 ( When Gore and the rest of the Limousine Liberals Carbon Footprint match mine,we'll talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Much of the sample population appears to be seriously deficient in their science education.

But then: self selected "sample" is not going to have the vaguest approximation to the actual world

8 posted on 08/14/2007 9:19:04 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Well, It appears science has failed again, in face of overwhelming religious evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

It depends how you translate the Hebrew term ‘yom’ from the original texts.

If you think it is literally day and not epoch, then you are a bible believer. If you think it is epoch and not day, then you are a bible believer. As it is not required that you believe either for salvation, it is a moot point.


9 posted on 08/14/2007 9:19:20 PM PDT by Ottofire (O great God of highest heaven, Glorify Your Name through me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; doc1019

wierd. I was sure I was responding to post #5


10 posted on 08/14/2007 9:23:00 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Well, It appears science has failed again, in face of overwhelming religious evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire

Thank you for your insight, Jesus is obviously your Lord and Savior.


11 posted on 08/14/2007 9:36:03 PM PDT by doc1019 (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
If "6 days" are thought of in terms of general relativity, than the universe could easily be 15 billion - or 6000 years old; each epoch of the expansion "relative" to its density as the expansion took place.

Time would have passed at a "slower" rate relative to a hypothetical "earthbound" observer.

Note though, this is "classical" thought which doesn't necessarily discount the multiverse concept of M-Theory where there may be an "infinite" number of "universes".

But neither does any of this undermine the role of God, for our place just a little further from the center of this spiral galaxy in a relatively debris free lane where metals are abundant, in a solar system where the outer planets sweep up a lot of the material that could impact us; where we live with a disproportionately sized Moon which stabilizes our planetary axis and fits just over the Sun in solar eclipses which allows us to test relativity theory; that we have plate tectonics which recycles our oceanic surface and gives us the means for the chemicals of life.

Thank God for it all, every day.

12 posted on 08/15/2007 12:30:48 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Everyone knows the world was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C., at 9 a.m.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm


13 posted on 08/15/2007 12:59:45 AM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
If "6 days" are thought of in terms of general relativity, than the universe could easily be 15 billion - or 6000 years old; each epoch of the expansion "relative" to its density as the expansion took place.

Time would have passed at a "slower" rate relative to a hypothetical "earthbound" observer.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that this hypothetical observer would have aged 6000 years, while the earth beneath his feet would have aged 4.5 billion years?

14 posted on 08/15/2007 1:02:19 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

I am not insightful, just been well schooled. As in, brought behind the gym for some good biblical wall-to-wall counseling by someone that IS insightful.


15 posted on 08/15/2007 4:16:41 AM PDT by Ottofire (O great God of highest heaven, Glorify Your Name through me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

To me this is the only important part:

these Christian voters agreed that, “In the beginning God created...”

As long as there is agreement here, I think this is good news. Whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old has no bearing on my relationship with Christ.

marinamuffy


16 posted on 08/15/2007 6:39:31 AM PDT by marinamuffy ("..pacifism ensures that cruelty will prevail on earth." - Dennis Prager/ www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
As I see it:

I'm undecided on the age of the earth myself and don't believe there is any scientific measure that can provide an accurate age.

I think it's difficult to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth and as somebody else posted, we don't know how much time passed before the Fall; plus can we know for sure the genealogies listed are father/son? Having said that and from my own studies of the entire Bible, it seems to me God wants us to believe a literal account of creation.

Having followed the issue for years and read many books on the subject, I see no evidence for phyletic or gradual evolution. Sure there are many claims but it's the physical evidence that is lacking. Then there's the science of evolution and the politics of evolution and unfortunately, despite the many claims of those on the side of evolution, the politics of evolution trumps the science of evolution.

If the earth is old:

If the earth is young (not quite sure how young): That's my perspective after many years of study and research.
17 posted on 08/15/2007 6:43:07 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

>>43% believed the Earth is less than billions of years old.<<

These numbers seem reasonable.

Compare them with Harris poll numbers:

Americans who believe in God — 90%
Survival of the soul after death — 84%
Heaven — 82%
Resurrection of Jesus — 80%
Virgin birth — 77%
Hell —69%
The Devil — 68%

Then a big drop off
Ghosts — 51%
Astrology —31%

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359


18 posted on 08/15/2007 8:59:41 AM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense
...that this hypothetical observer would have aged 6000 years, while the earth beneath his feet would have aged 4.5 billion years?

"Relative" to his frame of reference, yes. But that phrase "frame of reference" is the fly in the ointment as being part of it we can only "observe" from within the universe.

Though perhaps hopefully for example, conditions on the Sun take place at a "slower" rate than here on Earth owing to it's larger gravitational field. And events on Earth pass more slowly - albeit microscopically - than events on the Moon.

What's interesting is that from our perspective, it takes a photon about 8 1/2 minutes to transit from the Sun to Earth. Yet if we could ride the photon, moving at light speed (which is "equivalent" to a gravitational field approaching infinity [the mathematical "limit"]), we would experience no transit time at all.

This bears on the "quantum" nature of light, which opens the door to so called "quantum weirdness" by which we could never in "classical" terms discern the events in the earliest microseconds of the creation event.

Now M-Theory does seem in some respects to transcend this difficulty. But the energies necessary to test it are thus far, are likely forever unobtainable to us. But it's such an aesthetically beautiful theory, that entire careers in physics are devoted to it.

I think this is essentially the view, though I'd welcome any comments or clarifications.

Best to You and Yours.

Glory to God.

19 posted on 08/15/2007 9:23:53 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Peacekeeper357
God created man, man created time
That doesn't make sense...
Welcome back, hope school went well.
Thank you, it went very well. A's all around for my summer courses. A dark shadow obscured some of the joy of those grades, though; a classmate of mine took his life.
20 posted on 08/15/2007 10:05:48 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Well, it certainly doesn’t make sense to me, but if it happens to make sense to you, then that’s all that matters really....
21 posted on 08/15/2007 11:39:18 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Plate tectonics which recycle.

Hmm,

Why then are there fossils.

Why then is erosion working faster then new ground showing up on some seaboard.

Plate tectonics is a theory that does not fit the observed.
22 posted on 08/15/2007 12:36:02 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution is a faith based science with no proof. Scientist are the prophets, teachers the preacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Christ said, “There will be many who cry, Lord, Lord...” They don’t really know Him. If you don’t believe the Bible in it’s entirety, you don’t believe in God entirely.


23 posted on 08/15/2007 1:25:02 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Plate tectonics is a theory that does not fit the observed.

You're kidding, right?

Plate tectonics are one of the most large scale observable features on the planet.

Note that I said, we have plate tectonics which recycles our oceanic surface and gives us the means for the chemicals of life.

These oceanic subducting slabs can and have been imaged using seismic tomographic techniques along trench systems around the world, specifcally along the west coast of South America, beneath Japan to Indonesia and even the NW coast of the US in the Cascade chain of volcanoes. One can clearly see in the Hawaiian Island chain it's weathered remnants moving at about an inch or two per year toward eventual subduction beneath the Aleution chain, again giving rise to volcanism along it's arch.

Continenetal material on the other hand is less dense than oceanic crust and tends to resist subduction, and in some cases is added to at its edges by various oceanic material along the coast of California where, although subduction took place in the past, it's been altered by rotation of the western part of the continent giving rise to features such as the San Andreas Transform system which has clearly resulted in uplift exceeding erosion in Southern and Central California.

This would also explain how and why many marine fossils are incorporated onto continental platforms with their terrestrial counterparts.

Some good geology and astronomy courses could very much edify and even enhance your understanding of how God works in creation, as these surely have for me. It makes that pilgrimage all the more exiting in being able to fathom a little of His handiwork.

24 posted on 08/15/2007 2:21:15 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire
"It depends how you translate the Hebrew term ‘yom’ from the original texts. If you think it is literally day and not epoch, then you are a bible believer. If you think it is epoch and not day, then you are a bible believer. As it is not required that you believe either for salvation, it is a moot point."

Yeah, as long as you ignore that 'evening and morning' stuff that goes along w/ 'yom', you're fine.

25 posted on 08/15/2007 3:06:47 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scripter
"I think it's difficult to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth and as somebody else posted, we don't know how much time passed before the Fall;"

That argument falls apart quickly since Adam's age at death is given. Unless you don't think the time before the fall counts toward that age.

But hey, don't worry about what the Bible says, make it fit what man says. Man is the ultimate authority, after all.

26 posted on 08/15/2007 3:11:48 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy
"Whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old has no bearing on my relationship with Christ."

Really?

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them [humans] male and female,'..." (Matt 19:4)

Have humans really been around for billions of years and did Christ just not know what he was talking about? If he was wrong about that, what else was he wrong about?

Romans 3:4 - "Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.""

That's the problem with having man as your ultimate authority.

27 posted on 08/15/2007 3:18:29 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy

I agree. Some are so puffed up and try to use their ‘worldly knowledge’ to disprove a supernatural God and His Word. A wise man spends his time in fellowship with his Heavenly Father - where all Truths’ rest.


28 posted on 08/15/2007 3:19:57 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
"Plate tectonics is a theory that does not fit the observed."

As always, when dealing with 'scientific' pronouncements; a huge dose of imagination is required. ;-)

29 posted on 08/15/2007 3:20:10 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Who goes to these sites, anyways?


30 posted on 08/15/2007 3:20:47 PM PDT by x_plus_one (Allah is not Yahweh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Yeah, as long as you ignore that 'evening and morning' stuff that goes along w/ 'yom', you're fine.

Not just that but every occurence of yom with a number.

31 posted on 08/15/2007 4:37:03 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy
To me this is the only important part:

these Christian voters agreed that, “In the beginning God created...”

You win.

32 posted on 08/15/2007 4:39:35 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
That argument falls apart quickly since Adam's age at death is given.

Indeed. I've made the same statement to others.

Unless you don't think the time before the fall counts toward that age.

That was the argument I heard in return...it's an argument I don't think has much merit but it's a possibility.

33 posted on 08/15/2007 4:40:31 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: scripter
"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."

I am a spirit who has a soul within a body.
34 posted on 08/15/2007 6:51:16 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Not everyone can homeschool.

Since the evolutionists control most of the science education, wouldn't that lead us to lay more blame at their feet, than, say, at the feet of creationists?
35 posted on 08/15/2007 7:20:54 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
(Note: my post was about the differences between radiocarbon and radiometric dating.)

Not everyone can homeschool.

Since the evolutionists control most of the science education, wouldn't that lead us to lay more blame at their feet, than, say, at the feet of creationists?

Nice try.

The answer is no.

First, many homeschoolers are fundamentalists/creationists, and they certainly are not going to tell the truth about radiocarbon or radiometric dating -- its too threatening to their beliefs, and they probably either never knew the information in the first place, or have suppressed it for being some form of "Darwinism." *

Second, much of education is still controlled by fundamentalists and creationists. There is a major effort on their part to stifle the teaching of evolution in particular and science in general. What do you think led to the Dover case, and that silly sticker on evolution texts in Georgia? Textbooks are written to avoid trouble, and evolution is almost never taught in much of the southern United States. It is probably not taught adequately in 90% of the school systems. You and yours are much of the reason.

You want evidence? Look at the understanding of evolution and science you received as a homeschooler! Your posting history on this website concerning science is enough proof for anybody.

Pretty pathetic: creationists do everything they can to deride science and then you try to blame the school system for not teaching science. What a pathetic joke!


* Darwinism -- a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.

36 posted on 08/15/2007 7:46:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

#24 re plate tectonics... You too?


37 posted on 08/15/2007 8:00:47 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I don’t see anything in Scripture or in real life to suggest the lengths of time used to measure days in ancient times are any different than today. Did the earth orbit differently? Was its path slower?


38 posted on 08/15/2007 8:18:21 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
...to measure days in ancient times....

Though consider just the first billion years following the creation event - long before the formation of galaxies - when the universe was solid with light before photons decoupled. To a "hypothetical" observer "outside" that system, time would seem to be moving very slowly indeed.

39 posted on 08/15/2007 9:06:34 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
31% believe in astrology? Yikes. It's worse than I thought.
40 posted on 08/15/2007 11:16:49 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You want evidence? Look at the understanding of evolution and science you received as a homeschooler! Your posting history on this website concerning science is enough proof for anybody.

Pretty pathetic: creationists do everything they can to deride science and then you try to blame the school system for not teaching science. What a pathetic joke!

* Darwinism -- a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.

Dang Coyote. You're on the warpath today.

Keep it up.

41 posted on 08/16/2007 8:30:28 AM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing
Everyone knows the world was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C., at 9 a.m.

Which time zone I wonder?

42 posted on 08/16/2007 8:32:44 AM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: scripter
That's my perspective after many years of study and research.

What about the age of the universe? The physics of our galaxy can be studied independent of evolutionary life cycles on Earth. Light from distant stars alone discounts a young universe.

43 posted on 08/16/2007 8:37:03 AM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
31% believe in astrology? Yikes. It's worse than I thought.

two centuries ago it was close to 100%. Now it's mostly politicians and mortgage bankers.

44 posted on 08/16/2007 8:39:32 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them [humans] male and female,’...” (Matt 19:4)

Of course I believe what He said. Don’t misunderstand, I am a Creationist, I just don’t know exactly how long “The Beginning” was and whether or not there may have been a gap between Genesis 1 and 2. I don’t believe in macroevolution and would stand with a God-glorifying young-earth creationist against a man-glorifying evolutionist any day of the week :)

marinamuffy


45 posted on 08/16/2007 9:00:22 AM PDT by marinamuffy ("..pacifism ensures that cruelty will prevail on earth." - Dennis Prager/ www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

“Which time zone I wonder?”

God being British, I’m sure it was Greenwich Mean Time.


46 posted on 08/16/2007 11:25:31 AM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marinamuffy
... I just don’t know exactly how long “The Beginning” was and whether or not there may have been a gap between Genesis 1 and 2.

There is no gap because Genesis 1:1 is not, itself, an act of creation. It is simply God introducing himself as the creator of all things. That's all.

47 posted on 08/16/2007 1:06:30 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
I think that's a great question. I've read some interesting discussions on the speed of light and whether or not it has changed or is changing. And today I was reading about two German physicists who claim to have broken the speed of light but color me a skeptic for now. That's an interesting thread you should checkout if you have the time.

I think there are a lot of possibilities...

48 posted on 08/16/2007 4:08:50 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Hydroplate

Have you ever looked at one of the pictures of the supposed one land mass, where is South America, and why is Africa smaller than it is now.

Did you know that there is land under the Oceans that connect the continents?

Where is the new land.

The rest of your theory is a belief, and is not provable. You assume the small amount of study of the observable is the way it has always happened and therefore it is speculated that is how it came to be. It is history and therefore it must be interpreted, by fallible man who assumes.

If you believe in God's handiwork then Google Hydroplate theory.

As to astronomy the light from the stars getting here is easily explained by the verse

Isaiah 42:5-- Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Like the balloon theory of the Big Dud, if God created the earth first then he created the heavens and stretched them out from the earth to where they are now the light from the stars would not have had to travel all the light years to get here as the light would have started here and as they were stretched away the light would have always been visible.

Like watching a rocket blast into space you can see the trail left as it climbs.
49 posted on 08/19/2007 12:00:08 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution is a faith based science with no proof. Scientist are the prophets, teachers the preacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

what is your problem with the word.


50 posted on 08/19/2007 12:03:47 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution is a faith based science with no proof. Scientist are the prophets, teachers the preacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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