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

Skip to comments.

Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
Sioux City Journal ^ | 29 September 2005 | Staff

Posted on 09/29/2005 3:36:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be taught in public schools.

Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea.

"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for two newspaper reporters said Wednesday the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case.

Both reporters wrote stories that said board members mentioned creationism as they discussed the intelligent design issue. Board members have denied that.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.

"They're testifying only as to what they wrote," said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record/Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers.

The reporters were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions Tuesday, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two.

The judge's order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify Oct. 6.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; beatingadeadhorse; crevolist; crevorepublic; dover; enoughalready; evolution; itsbeendone; onetrickpony; played; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 551-561 next last
To: Coyoteman
I couldn't wait. I added this one to The List-O-Links, in the section titled: THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM:

Post 315 by Nathan Zachary on 29 Sep 05 . There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD.

351 posted on 09/29/2005 5:43:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Did you know there's no geologic column, either? So, of course there's no fossil record! Where would it live?
352 posted on 09/29/2005 5:47:51 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

What's truly astonishing is that there are several true statements in it. It can give useful results. It needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years.

353 posted on 09/29/2005 5:49:25 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Did you know there's no geologic column, either?

Fool! The bible has several references to the pillars of the earth. Squid pro quo!

354 posted on 09/29/2005 5:51:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The funny thing is, Carbon-14 has almost nothing to do with evolution! For that you have to go to the other radiometric dating methods. I think they don't know the difference, and don't read our responses which explain it to them.

Its really funny when they tell us you can't date fossils with Carbon-14. (Like being told evolution is just a theory.) Duh!

355 posted on 09/29/2005 5:53:39 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

It's the "I learnt everything I know about science from TV" syndrome


356 posted on 09/29/2005 5:56:07 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
What's truly astonishing is that there are several true statements in it. It can give useful results. It needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years.

It's exactly the sort of thing for which Wolfgang Pauli's famous remark: "It's so bad it's not even wrong" seems so apropo.

357 posted on 09/29/2005 5:56:40 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The funny thing is, Carbon-14 has almost nothing to do with evolution!

But the YEC crowd needs to start somewhere. And they've got little to work with.

358 posted on 09/29/2005 6:00:33 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

nothing you say will touch that one.
the almighty would have to come down and tan his hide with a hefty length structural tubing to shift His Ignorance one iota.

what you, I, and the others do here is equivalent to biff-baffing a badminton shuttlecock: we get exercise, sure... but the shuttlecock doesn't give a damn.

on to important matters: why does fresh wet polyurethane varnish smell distinctly like fresh wet pumpkin guts?


359 posted on 09/29/2005 6:09:55 PM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Coyoteman

depending on what we mean by "live clams" you'd better get a reliable age before you try to date one.


360 posted on 09/29/2005 6:13:21 PM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

It is obvious to me that the majority of the people on this thread who oppose ID have not bothered to read any of the literature that is currently available. They buy into what the MSM says, and let that suffice. They would not do that on any other topic than this...amazing.


361 posted on 09/29/2005 6:20:18 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
I never date clams. I've had a nice Italian dinner or two or three with Linguine a la Vongole, but that's as far as I go with bivalve molluscs in public.

The FSM completely blesses such practices as his noodly appendages are all over the place therein.

OK, you caught me. Since I moved back to WV, the closest Italian place features "Spaghetti, white clam sauce." Doesn't sound very exotic, but it's good.

362 posted on 09/29/2005 6:26:57 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
It is obvious to me that the majority of the people on this thread who oppose ID have not bothered to read any of the literature that is currently available. They buy into what the MSM says, and let that suffice.

This isn't "pot ... kettle ... black." This is "mote ... log ... own eye." IOW, pure projection.

363 posted on 09/29/2005 6:28:23 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

If you are right, tell me the basic arguments of the ID position...please provide as much detail as possible.


364 posted on 09/29/2005 6:32:54 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Oh, please. He spent at least as much time ignoring it as you did composing it.


365 posted on 09/29/2005 6:41:12 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Gauntlet accepted. Here are the basic arguments, satire held as far in check as humanly possible. Feeling lazy, I will abstain from going into as much detail as I could or I'd be in stealth cretin mode all night.

  1. Evolution cannot explain irreducible complexity, defined as systems which cannot suffer the removal or disablement of a single component without loss of function.
  2. Evolution cannot explain Complex Specified Information, defined as something so obviously designed that it just has to have been designed. We can tell this by objective criteria which we have not however thus far specified without luxurious recourse to the fallacy of equivocation.
  3. Evolution cannot explain the obvious fine tuning of the universe to accomodate life. Nor does it deal with how mud puddles are always just exactly the right shape to fit in the holes without sticking up out of the ground.
Now, tell me the theory of evolution and give a quick precis of the evidence for it.
366 posted on 09/29/2005 6:41:26 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

A former Governor of the Great State of (clap clap clap clap) Texas supposedly said: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"


367 posted on 09/29/2005 6:43:44 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
That Ann Richards, what a card she was!
368 posted on 09/29/2005 6:45:02 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

ouchies.
that stung.


369 posted on 09/29/2005 6:45:54 PM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: All
That list wasn't a mistake, BTW. Yes, ID is the only theory in history composed entirely of screeches that another theory somehow can't be right.
370 posted on 09/29/2005 6:46:23 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
There are NO actual real fossils found that show evidence of evolution, only drawings of a theory which has yet to be proved.

And NO actual real motion picture frames show evidence of motion. Ha! We just disproved the movies!

371 posted on 09/29/2005 6:49:27 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Some posts to this thread need a blue filter.
372 posted on 09/29/2005 6:55:19 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Nice try, but wrong. Your #1 is backwards; #2 doesn't come close; #3 is really on the edge, but not a major factor. Sorry, you obviously are more interested in satire than truth.


373 posted on 09/29/2005 7:02:39 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; doc30; PatrickHenry; balrog666; Vive ut Vivas
"A common but dangerous approach to the study of any body of unfamiliar material is to begin by adopting a definition of terminology, either one's own or another's, and to apply this terminology to one's findings even if the two are not compatible."

- William Hays

Hays was discussing the problem of "The Troping Hypothesis."

I thought I'd post this again.

374 posted on 09/29/2005 7:06:14 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Your #1 is backwards.

Needs a bit of analysis, there. How so? That one I refrained from satire, totally.

#2 doesn't come close.

Unsupported assertion. It's Dembski on truth serum.

#3 is really on the edge, but not a major factor.

No, that one's not a biggie. But that's about all the quivvers in the ID arrow.

OK, if you include Johnson and Wells, they drag in a bunch of recycled creationist stuff, trying hard to throw out all the YEC material but occasionally forgetting. One or the other (Johnson?) attacks radiometric dating, for instance. Why do that if you accept the age of the Earth?

The expanded version could thus include:

  1. There are no transitional fossils (recycled YECism)
  2. The Second Law of Thermo forbids evolution (recycled YECism)
  3. Textbooks still show pictures of Haeckel's discredited drawings (you got it by now, right?)
  4. Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion (yada yada)
In the earlier post, I was listing all of the ID writers's original contributions to western civilization. Except that ID was first noticed by Muller, CSI was first noticed by Paley, etc.

I notice you didn't answer my counter-challenge. A chance to demonstrate your acumen, and you delined?

375 posted on 09/29/2005 7:16:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Some posts to this thread need a blue filter.

Old posters never die. At least, not until they really DO die.

376 posted on 09/29/2005 7:18:25 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Here ya go - "infinite wire" :-)

Now I am reminded why I never considered majoring in physics. The calculus! All of those letters that you have to write on a crib sheet so you can remember what they mean when you take the exam! Arggh! The most important physical concept I ever learned was "run to red."

(That describes the behavior of biological molecules in an electric field, and has the advantage of saving me the trouble of figuring out which is the positive wire and which is the negative every time I want to electrophoresis something.)

(All the electrophoresis boxes have color coded contacts anyway, so you always plug in the wires correctly. Gee, biologists are dumb!)

Actually, there are a lot of other physical concepts that come into my work. We life scientists don't tend to think of them as physics, though. And most of us don't do calculus.

377 posted on 09/29/2005 7:20:34 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

You still have not gotten the ID position correct - why should I answer your challenge when you have yet to answer mine? Try focusing on your first bullet, but try to get it right this time.


378 posted on 09/29/2005 7:22:07 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Somewhere, taps is playing.


379 posted on 09/29/2005 7:22:35 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Try explaining yourself. Your assertion remains unsupported.

You are called. You are challenged. Got it? This is where you show the hand or fold.

380 posted on 09/29/2005 7:24:05 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
why should I answer your challenge when you have yet to answer mine?

Because 1) I have answered you twice now, and 2) 999 creationists out of 1000 can't state the theory of evolution. Since you wish to be considered one of the ever so rare exceptions, please distinguish yourself by so demonstrating.

Here's a little test on mathematical notation.

2 /= 0.

How many times have I answered you?

381 posted on 09/29/2005 7:31:11 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
the ID position

"THE ID position?"

The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]

"The Quixotic Message", or "No Free Hunch"
382 posted on 09/29/2005 7:36:02 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood...

Well, it's particularly easy to correct for The Flood. An affine transformation yields the most reliable results:

T_correct = A * T_measured + B

where A=1 and B=0 as determined by examining antediluvian pine cones.

383 posted on 09/29/2005 7:39:31 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: All
Out for the night.
384 posted on 09/29/2005 7:44:01 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Nathan Zachary
Did you even read my post #211 to you? I spent over an hour on it and it looks like your comments are identical to what you were saying before I posted.

Now he's spent EIGHT TIMES as long ignoring it as you did composing it. Aren't you ashamed?

385 posted on 09/29/2005 7:44:02 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

You're rambling a bit, and that makes it hard to follow what you have written.

The teaching of science has nothing to do with religion, and vice versa. If you want to argue that it is important to give children a good grounding in moral religious beliefs, then, fine, I have no quarrel with that. We need a moral framework in order to have a decent society.

The problem is, you're trying to mix religion and science. I specifically chose the example of mad cow disease concerns being irrelevant to the logging industry, because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other. Just like science and religion have nothing to do with each other, yet they are both important.

I do feel sorry for you. If you feel that the only way your faith is valid is by "proving" that scientific theory is false, then you have weak faith. That also means that YOU believe that if the world was not created literally according to Genesis, then there is no God, no Jesus, no salvation. It is your weak faith that makes you upset with scientists pursuing science. Scientists do not believe as you do. The faith of religious scientists is not challenged by any scientific data they collect; their faith is strong.

No matter what you keep telling yourself, scientists are not out to disprove the existence of God. We can't do that. We're out to learn as much about the world and universe as we can.


386 posted on 09/29/2005 7:45:19 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
...saving me the trouble of figuring out which is the positive wire and which is the negative every time ...

For lawn sprinkler systems, black=hot, white=ground=common; usually.

387 posted on 09/29/2005 7:45:39 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: All

Notice: I'll be ignoring everything for the rest of the night.


388 posted on 09/29/2005 7:46:35 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

"because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other"

Actually they do - I give you the USDA.


389 posted on 09/29/2005 7:49:05 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Evolution cannot explain irreducible complexity, defined as systems which cannot suffer the removal or disablement of a single component without loss of function.

You have this backward in that ID posits that that irreducibly complex organisms cannot be the product of gradual development over a long period of time. All of the parts must be present from the beginning, not that it will stop working if parts are taken away. It is the origin of the parts and the controlling instructions that are in question.

Mutations over a long period of time would not account for all of the elements of the biochemical processes for blood clotting, for instance. If it takes 11 chemical reactions, in sequence, to produce blood clotting, what would account for the first chemical reaction?
And what would that process do while waiting for the second reaction?
What would the organism do while it was waiting for the reaction that would trigger the process?
More importantly, what would it do while it is waiting for the chemical reaction to turn off the process?
Where would the instructions for controlling this process reside?

ID is not about change, it is about origin.
ID is not just about the origin of the structure, it is also about the origin of the process control, as well.

Evolution says that all of that came about over a long period of time, by random chance, unguided and without purpose. It would also lead us to believe that somehow all of this randomness can account for a highly sophisticated, complex system coming into existence - natural selection assessing each mutation, keeping "useful" changes, rejecting each "un-useful" change. And yet, how does a random chance process define "useful" and "un-useful"? How does the organism "know" what is "useful" and what is not? It doesn't even "know" what the end product/process is going to be...how can it assess usefulness?

This all begs for some kind of controlling intelligence.

390 posted on 09/29/2005 7:52:15 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper; VadeRetro

well, vr, he's got you. crawl under a rock and croak. :)


391 posted on 09/29/2005 7:57:49 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Phooey. You ignore almost everything almost all the time.


392 posted on 09/29/2005 8:03:00 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; exDemMom
For lawn sprinkler systems, black=hot, white=ground=common; usually.

Just remember that if you get it wrong, it'll kill you and your entire family. Cheers!

393 posted on 09/29/2005 8:12:22 PM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
That is what evolutionists always say, whether it be rambling, foaming at the mouth, or whatever other condescending arrogant words. The piety of the priest of evolution do not phase me.

If a Creator created alll things then that includes science, no matter what wee little people claim.
394 posted on 09/29/2005 8:17:03 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: general_re

To disarm the bomb, if made in the US, cut the red, white, and blue wires in that order, but first, disengage the tingler circuit.


395 posted on 09/29/2005 8:34:14 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?


396 posted on 09/29/2005 8:39:38 PM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Hmm - anyone seen VR?


397 posted on 09/29/2005 9:23:40 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
before you embarrass yourself yet again.

Look, my identity is not wrapped up in whether I can disprove your belief that life came from non-life then after a period of a gazillion years we are now having an intelligent(?) exchange of ideas via the internet.

Nonetheless, I am interested in reading about the abiogenesis stuff you refer to - so I hope to look at the links of the two distinguished posters you mention.

Until I do however - Is your position, then, that "science" has a handle on the origin of life?

398 posted on 09/29/2005 9:39:04 PM PDT by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
"Hmm - anyone seen VR?"

See post 384. Some of us have lives outside this forum.
399 posted on 09/29/2005 9:46:21 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
400

Some of us have lives outside this forum.

Me too.

(Or 401 if PH is still around.)

400 posted on 09/29/2005 9:50:36 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 551-561 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