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

Skip to comments.

Using “Evolutionary Algorithms” by Intelligent Design
CEH ^ | May 8, 2009

Posted on 05/08/2009 4:25:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Using “Evolutionary Algorithms” by Intelligent Design

May 8, 2009 — Evolution can’t be all bad if scientists can use it to optimize your car.  Science Daily said that scientists in Germany are “simulating evolution” to come up with ways to optimize difficult problems.  Using “Evolutionary Algorithms”, they can discover solutions for engineering problems like water resource management and the design of brakes, airbags and air conditioning systems in automobiles.  The simulated evolution program searches through a large number of random possibilities to make numerous successive slight improvements.

“The algorithms are called ‘evolutionary’ because the characteristics of evolution – mutation, recombination and selection – form the basis of their search for promising solutions,” the article claimed.  Solutions that show promise are mutated and further selected.

Conferences on Evolutionary Algorithms are held each year and the interest in them is spreading into other disciplines.  “The Evolutionary Algorithms are therefore a collective term for the various branches of research which have gradually developed: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms and genetic programming.”

Every once in awhile we need to give a refresher course about these reports, to show why the terminology is ludicrous.  This has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with intelligent design.  Calling these

“evolutionary algorithms” is like calling Eugenie Scott a creationist.  Evolutionary Algorithm is an oxymoron – if it is evolutionary, it is not an algorithm, and if it is an algorithm, it is not evolutionary.  Why?  Because the essence of evolution, as Charles Darwin conceived it, has nothing to do with intelligent selection.  Evolution is mindless, purposeless, and without a goal.  These scientists, by contrast, have clear goals in mind.  They are consciously and purposefully selecting the products of randomness to get better designs – intelligent designs.  They may not know what the computer program will produce, but they sure well programmed the computer, and put in the criteria for success.  Employing randomness in a program does nothing to make it evolutionary.  The hallmark of intelligence is having a desired end and pulling it out of the soup of randomness.  This is something evolution cannot do – unless one is a pantheist or animist, attributing the properties of a Universal Soul to nature.  Undoubtedly, the NCSE would decry that.  They can barely tolerate theistic evolutionists – the well-meaning but misguided Christians who try to put God in the role of the engineer who uses evolutionary algorithms for his purposes (e.g., man).

Remember – if it has purpose in it, it is not evolution.  We must avoid equivocation.  To discuss evolution with clarity it is essential to understand the terms and not mix metaphors.  Charlie lept from artificial selection (intelligent design) to natural selection (materialism) only as a pedagogical aid.  He did not intend for natural selection to have a mind like the goal-directed farmer or breeder uses.  To think evolution, think mindless.  Notice that itself is a one-way algorithm.  You can think mindless, but the mindless cannot think.

For a definitive, in-depth treatment on why evolutionary algorithms cannot be mixed with evolution, see the book No Free Lunch in the Resource of the Week entry above.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
To: PugetSoundSoldier; GodGunsGuts

Huh, link didn’t activate... It’s post 66 of this thread.


151 posted on 05/10/2009 4:22:04 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
GA’s also factor in natural impossibilites- simply ASSUMING they ocured naturally ‘at soem time in the past’-

How do you know what they're factoring in is impossible? You don't, and can't. But you'll say it anyway because it sounds good.

152 posted on 05/10/2009 4:45:44 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“I still maintain it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.”

Well, in that case, I take back some of the stuff I’ve said about you.


153 posted on 05/10/2009 4:51:58 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“How about this question? Can a person accept evolution without rejecting Christ? A simple yes or no is enough.”

How about this question? Are science and religion different things, mutually exclusive? A simple yes or no is enough.


154 posted on 05/10/2009 4:54:40 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I was born at night but it was not last night.

I do have basic reading comprehension and I know what Roger Lewin is saying

Just face it you were busted using a quote mine that you thought I would not know.

You are only making it worse; we both know that all science is based on assumptions. You can never prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it.

Nice try.


155 posted on 05/10/2009 5:17:42 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Usually are different things but NO, not mutually exclusive.

O.K., your turn and if you care to elaborate, that’s o.k. too.


156 posted on 05/10/2009 5:43:55 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; GodGunsGuts
Hey, I pointed out three specific criticisms of the article, and no one countered those criticisms.

No you made a general statement about the author "that he is ignorant of how they work." You said it was obvious. Later you presented links as some sort of support for what you stated. I quoted the site to show that intelligence is required.

I'm not arguing about how genetic algorithms work. I'm arguing that a genetic algorithm is in the same class as the "To be or not to be" program I cited in post 65. The solution/search/state space is exactly the same for it as any other genetic algorithm for that particular problem. It just goes about finding the "fit" ones in an overtly obvious way.

157 posted on 05/10/2009 6:15:54 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; GodGunsGuts
Oh, and no one has addressed the issue of Cain's wife - there are NO other people in the world when Cain slew Abel save for those two, Adam, and Eve.

So Cain was referring to Adam and Eve here?

14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

158 posted on 05/10/2009 6:21:01 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

I think science and religion are two different things that are mutually exclusive. One’s scientific views generally have no reliable bearing on one’s religious views.

Folks that mix them are really having a different argument - fundamentalist Christianity vs. non-fundamentalist Christianity.

The exception, of course, is creationism - a sect of fundamentalism that is anti-science, yet seeks to use science to advance their dogma. They claim faith, but need some sort of scientific proof that God exists.


159 posted on 05/10/2009 6:22:03 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

I won’t go to what creationists need but it appears they oppose the ideas of Darwinism instead of science per se.

Yes, I know, but there is false science or science elevated to religious belief too.


160 posted on 05/10/2009 7:06:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

[[You are only making it worse; we both know that all science is based on assumptions.]]

No- assumptions are based on assumptions- science is based on evidence

[[Just face it you were busted using a quote mine that you thought I would not know.]]

Not hardly- the statements stand on their own merrit- they say exactly what they say- period-


161 posted on 05/10/2009 8:23:47 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
162 posted on 05/10/2009 9:10:46 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

lol silly little assumption driven charts- Macroevolution is impossible- aint ya heard the news? Chemically, biologically, and mathematically, not to mention it violates the second law- not just in a few instances or singular events’ but in trillions of steps- no amount of ‘singular examples of static instances’ such as ice crystal formations will overcome these impossibilities either-

Hey- I set a round rock next to an orange the other day and by golly they looked similar too- spose they too evolved one from another? Homology is NOT an evolutionist’s best friend I’m afraid

I take it you pilferred those charts from coyoteman?


163 posted on 05/10/2009 10:32:45 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I'm not arguing about how genetic algorithms work. I'm arguing that a genetic algorithm is in the same class as the "To be or not to be" program I cited in post 65.

Which shows you do NOT understand genetic algorithms - implementation or application. You say you're a programmer, go and LEARN about them. I've posted excellent references to them, and on that Java site there are even code samples you can examine to disabuse yourself of your notions about GAs.

It's really fruitless to argue about GAs; you don't understand them, you admit you don't understand them, and apparently you have no desire to understand them.

164 posted on 05/11/2009 6:09:48 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Tell me who else existed at the time Cain slew Abel, other than Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve. Please. There is NO record.

Short of showing where anyone is born between Abel and Enoch, you have NO choice but to admit the Bible is lacking in details and is NOT a historically accurate recording of what happened.


165 posted on 05/11/2009 6:14:55 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Macroevolution is impossible- aint ya heard the news? Chemically, biologically, and mathematically, not to mention it violates the second law

Then you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. Please tell us what you think it is, and why it is being violated.

166 posted on 05/11/2009 6:16:51 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Better yet, why don’t you tell us all how static non living systems such as Ice crystals and metal and mineral formations allow for serious violations of the second law trillions of times- we need a good laugh here-

I must warn you- Tim Wallace made a scientist run away crying and whining about ‘being bullied’ because the scientist couldn’t defend his silly notion that static non dynamic systems and an ‘open system’ were conducive to life seriously violating the second law not just a couple of times, but literally trillions of times when there are NO excamples of dynamic systems violating hte second law in nature. If you wish to try to advance the silly notion that life ‘could have’ violated the second law, I’ll be more than happy to indulge your sense of self-inflicted abuse. Care to engage?


167 posted on 05/11/2009 8:50:44 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; AndrewC

==Oh, and no one has addressed the issue of Cain’s wife - there are NO other people in the world when Cain slew Abel save for those two, Adam, and Eve.

I believe AndrewC answered your question just fine.

But you have still not addressed my answer to your question. You asked:

==So, give me the Biblically-based reason why evolution cannot be.

I replied:

Jesus Christ said we were made both male and female at the beginning of creation. We can’t be made both male and female at the beginning of creation and evolution be true at the same time. The Bible also says death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution, on the other hand, requires that death has been present since the beginning of life.

PS you have yet to demonstrate why the O.P. and the David Abel link are invalid.


168 posted on 05/11/2009 9:05:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

[[Then you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.]]

LOL- You might want to try another line of Macroevolutionist parroting talking points- Trust me, Creationists understand it far better than those silly scientists who insist life could have violated the law- Hint- Open systems are even WORSE for your side’s claims- NOT better.

As well, it was suggested that mathematics ‘couldn’t factor in all possible angles when determining whether or not species could evolve’ (I think it was tactic logic that suggested that) and it was suggested that ‘If you bought all possible combinations of hte lottery numbers every day of the week, you could win hte lotto every day’ and apaprently they htought this was representative of Macroevolution evidently because nature throws a myriad of mutations at a species, and htis is supposed to be equivilent of buying all or most combinations of numbers of hte lottery to ‘increase the chance of winning’ (or getting it right’- however, this is a silly silly notion because akin to claiming that static examples of negative entropy equate to dynamic violations of hte law- Mutations are NOT ‘buying combinations of numbers’ in a word as they are ADDING noise, causing LOSS of information, NOT adding legible info of non species specific info that is absolutely required for the hypothetical process of Macroevolution- the anaology between species Macroevolution and lottory tickets is a rediculous analogy (and one that the fella in the link I provided should not have really used except to show, although inneptly, that hte odds are overwhelming against mutaitons adding any non species specific info necessary for macroevolution)

I find it odd that macroevolutionists cling to such overwhelming odds agaisnt their hypothesis, and hten turn right aroudn and claim Creationists practice ‘faith and not science’- but whetver, think what ya like, just don’t expect us to sit silently when such faith in overhwelming odds agaisnt the hypothesis of Macroevolution is on display- Especially in the face of a complete lack of real world evidence supporting such overwhelming odds. And we’re talking/asking for just a few examples of real world evidences, and they can’t even provide those- Yet we’re to beleive the odds were beaten not just a few times, but literally trillions of times? Talk abotu devotion to a religion!


169 posted on 05/11/2009 9:05:49 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

The second law of thermodynamics states for a closed system; in an open system entropy is not reduced. A good example of this would be a volcanic mountain range. The energy from the core of the earth continues to add to the volcano over time, causing multiple eruption events that continue to build the mountain range.

There’s an example, and one that uses a non living system, to show now it builds and expands on itself over time given additional energy input.

Your turn, tell us how the second law negates the theory of evolution.


170 posted on 05/11/2009 1:22:24 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe AndrewC answered your question just fine.

AndrewC made up words and facts that do NOT exist in the Bible, so that he can resolve the inconsistencies within. And that is your answer to the problem about Cain's wife? To make up stuff?

How is that different than the theory of evolution, to you?

Jesus Christ said we were made both male and female at the beginning of creation. We can’t be made both male and female at the beginning of creation and evolution be true at the same time.

Please show where the theory of evolution says that mammalian species must arise asexual in nature!

The Bible also says death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution, on the other hand, requires that death has been present since the beginning of life.

The Bible also states that Cain married a woman who didn't exist.

PS you have yet to demonstrate why the O.P. and the David Abel link are invalid.

Please see post 66 in this same thread. If you choose not to learn about GAs, that's your problem, not mine. But any programmer who's ever used GAs will discount anything you say about GAs if you use Abel's work because it shows a complete lack of understanding of GAs.

171 posted on 05/11/2009 1:28:58 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
LOL- You might want to try another line of Macroevolutionist parroting talking points- Trust me, Creationists understand it far better than those silly scientists who insist life could have violated the law- Hint- Open systems are even WORSE for your side’s claims- NOT better.

Yet I notice that, for all your bluster and bravado, you do not define the second law, nor state how it is violated by the theory of evolution!

Please state how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated by the theory of evolution.

172 posted on 05/11/2009 1:31:58 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; AndrewC; CottShop; BrandtMichaels

==AndrewC made up words and facts that do NOT exist in the Bible, so that he can resolve the inconsistencies within.

I didn’t see AndrewC making anything up. He merely quoted Gen 4:14 to demonstrate that the Bible clearly states that there were others around who Cain thought might slay him.

==And that is your answer to the problem about Cain’s wife?

I really don’t see a problem. Adam and Eve had other children:

Gen. 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

Is it really your contention that Adam and Eve did not have any more children between the time Cain and Abel were born and Cain’s murder of Abel? They could have had a dozen or more children by the time Cain and Abel were grown up.

==Please show where the theory of evolution says that mammalian species must arise asexual in nature!

Hmmm...so you won’t accept the rest of the biblical creation account, but in order to save evolution you will accept that God specially created us male and female right from the beginning?

==The Bible also states that Cain married a woman who didn’t exist.

Boy, you sure are willing to twist the Bible in order to allow for Darwin’s materialist creation myth.

==Please see post 66 in this same thread. If you choose not to learn about GAs, that’s your problem, not mine. But any programmer who’s ever used GAs will discount anything you say about GAs if you use Abel’s work because it shows a complete lack of understanding of GAs.

Somehow I doubt that Abel lacks a thorough understanding of how GSs work:

Dr. David Abel:

University of Maryland (C.P.), Virginia Tech (Blacksburg), University of Georgia (Athens) Doctorate 1972

Research interests: Dr. David L. Abel is a theoretical biologist focusing on ProtoBioCybernetics. He is the Program Director of The Gene Emergence Project, an international consortium of scientists pursuing the natural-process derivation of initial biocybernetic/biosemiotic programming and control.


173 posted on 05/11/2009 3:17:31 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Which shows you do NOT understand genetic algorithms - implementation or application. You say you're a programmer, go and LEARN about them.

You keep stating that without addressing the arguments. It was your citation to genetic algorithms which states that these programs are searches through solution space. The program I listed does that albeit in a fashion which seems to bother you. Simply, its selection criteria is that only "solutions" having an intial "T" are selected to pass on to be tested for the second letter "O" and so on. The programmer cheats since he does not check for spaces, but that really would be another solution space. The fact that the "genetic" algorithm bothers you(it uses "elitism") does not make it different in class then what you consider a genetic algorithm. I stated this before and you have failed to see it, so this time I will put it in all caps so that you can hardly miss it.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN TOUTED THIS PROGRAM AS SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION.

NOw did you see that? You got a problem with it, argue with Scientific American. The real point being is that the solution space is generated by the programmer

174 posted on 05/11/2009 6:06:30 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; GodGunsGuts
Tell me who else existed at the time Cain slew Abel, other than Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve. Please. There is NO record.

I don't have to tell you that since it is your assertion that no one else exists. He could have been Elmer Fudd, but that would make no difference. By your reckoning, nothing is a historically accurate recording of what happened, since they don't list all persons names.

175 posted on 05/11/2009 6:11:53 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; GodGunsGuts
AndrewC made up words and facts that do NOT exist in the Bible,

Put up or shut up.

176 posted on 05/11/2009 6:13:51 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Put up or shut up.

Cain's wife was born of Adam and Eve; that is your assertion.

Enjoy!

177 posted on 05/11/2009 6:24:18 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Scientific is hardly a bastion of computer programming! In this area they are simply wrong.

You’re a programmer, go and learn. If you choose to remain ignorant, I see no reason to continue.


178 posted on 05/11/2009 6:26:12 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Gen. 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

Is it really your contention that Adam and Eve did not have any more children between the time Cain and Abel were born and Cain’s murder of Abel? They could have had a dozen or more children by the time Cain and Abel were grown up.

If you take a strict reading of the Bible, then yes my contention is that Adam and Eve did not have any children between the birth of Abel and the birth of Seth. Genesis 5:4 is unequivocal. AFTER the birth of Seth, Adam lived for 800 years AND he had more children. NOT before the birth of Seth, AFTER the birth of Seth.

The structure of the verse is simple and direct, and there cannot be any question about the timing in that single verse.

If your premise is that Adam and Eve had children after Abel but before Cain slew Abel, then the Bible leaves those facts out. That much we can agree on?

And if the Bible leaves such facts out, then why do you reject the notion that the Bible leaves out some of the scientific details about how Creation may have happened?

Somehow I doubt that Abel lacks a thorough understanding of how GSs work:

Yes, Dr. Abel, a biologist is the authority on genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Wonderful to know such a degree conveys such a wide range of knowledge!

I am sure you will readily accept Dr. Francis Collins as a respected and solid biologist. He's a devoted Christian convert, a world-wide leader in genetics, and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner (from George W. Bush).

Perhaps the fact he also is a supporter of the theory of evolution makes him a whackjob in your mind?

179 posted on 05/11/2009 6:33:23 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I will say it again; we both know that all of science is based on assumptions

You can never prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it.

Repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not make it true.

As far as the thermodynamics misconception please see my post # 50 in this thread

· “You really need to brush up on your talking points
Even one of GGG’s favorite web sites “Creation Minstries International” is advising against using the Thermodynamics argument.

This is listed under “Arguments we think creationist should not use”

‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.’ This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

You seem to overlook the fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.


180 posted on 05/11/2009 8:00:27 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

[[This is listed under “Arguments we think creationist should not use”]]

There’s NO reason to avoid it- The second law PREVENTS evolution- if you care to find out how, lemme know- neither friction nor digestion nor any of those examples eve3n come close to representign hte problems evolution faces concernign hte law as you’;ll find out if you wish to continue this- I warned you that it makes the position that evolution could have escaped the law of entropy look silly, but if you wish to continue- lemme know


181 posted on 05/11/2009 8:08:05 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

[[You seem to overlook the fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.]]

LOL NO I didn’t overlook this, and as I mentioend in previous post, an open sysytem is even WORSE for evolution, and there is absolutely NO need for creationsits to avoid these arguments because the second law is devestating to Macroevolution when you KNOW what you’re talkign about- As I said Timothy Wallace sent that scientist whining and crying back to his own blog because he was made to look so foolish and obviously had NO answers to the questions which proved entropy was devestating to dynamic living systems DESPITE the silly examples of ‘positive’ ‘disorder’, which again- have absolutely nothign to do with the issue of Macroevolution.

Again- you’re hitchign your wagon to a distant star when the REAL WORLD evidence shows overwhelmingly that Evolution can NOT escape nor ‘turn entropy into a positive situation’ trillions of times- the odds are overhwelming AGAINST Macroevolution- bottom line= impossible


182 posted on 05/11/2009 8:13:06 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You should discuss this with your fellow creationist over at Creation Ministries International. They are the ones advising against using that argument.

If you noticed I copied and pasted the text directly from their site with a link.

BTW exactly how many peer-reviewed papers have you had published?


183 posted on 05/11/2009 8:13:22 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; GodGunsGuts
Cain's wife was born of Adam and Eve; that is your assertion.

Oh no buddy. This requires proof. I want your evidence that I stated such. You badgered me for a while and I told you "I don't know and I don't care". I finally posted something because you made such a big issue about it with everyone else. I posted the reference at the time of Abel's death where Cain indicated more people in the world. I made no suggestion as to their genesis, I only posted the verse and asked if Cain was then referring to Adam and Eve as those who kill him their only remaining child(according to you--- to me, I don't know).

184 posted on 05/11/2009 8:13:33 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

[[The second law of thermodynamics states for a closed system; in an open system entropy is not reduced.]]

Oh good golly- now you’re making up rules of science as you go? Do you really wish to push this issue? Because you wil lfind out open systems are WORSE for evolution- not better


185 posted on 05/11/2009 8:15:04 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
If you choose to remain ignorant, I see no reason to continue.

You keep saying that without defending your position in any way.

I'm glad you agree that Scientific American doesn't know from peanuts.

The simple program, "reproduces", mutates the population, and selects(elitism) and uses this process to "step through" the solution space.(albeit in ways that make you unhappy)

186 posted on 05/11/2009 8:23:14 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

I don’t need to discuss anything with htem- if they wish to avoid these discussions, that’s fine, but they need not do so

I suggest you and Puget give the following a good read before you decide you wish to discuss this further, and also note that many prominent scientists won’t even touch the issue, or try to make the case that evolution could have escaped the second law because they know AND admit how devestating hte law really is for Macroevolution— and do note the exchange between Wallace and Schneider (the links are on the right in the box- I’ll post an exerpt here- but you owe it to yourself to read the whoel article and hten the exchange between Wallace and Schneider before you decide you wish to tread where even scientists won’t go-

“The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end. This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only “problem” is that creationists “misunderstand” real thermodynamics.

Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp


187 posted on 05/11/2009 8:23:46 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

After reading htrough those- lemme know if you want more- there’s plenty more- the case for Macroevolution defeating the second law is a doen deal- didn’t happen


188 posted on 05/11/2009 8:25:32 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; CottShop

==Even one of GGG’s favorite web sites “Creation Minstries International” is advising against using the Thermodynamics argument.

The argument CMI is advising creationists to avoid is the idea that the Second Law began at the Fall. If I understand CottShop correctly, he’s not making that argument. Rather, he’s pointing out that the Second Law makes Darwinian evolution impossible.


189 posted on 05/11/2009 9:14:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

[[If I understand CottShop correctly, he’s not making that argument. Rather, he’s pointing out that the Second Law makes Darwinian evolution impossible.]]

That is correct- CMI was advising agaisnt arguing that the second law began after the fall, and yep- I’m aruing that the second law is our friend, and not somehtign Creationists need to avoid discussing as pointed out in the trueorigin’s links I provided, as it renders Macroevolution impossible despite htere being examples of negative entropy that don’t relate to to a hypothetical process of ever icnreasing complexity that literally woudl have taken trillions of isntances of violations to the law which governs every other living system known- (But apparently we’re to ignore the fact that the vast majority of everythign is subject to it? And that evolving life supposedly wasn’t trillions of times?)

No- Wallace exposes the myth very well that Macroevos like to parrot that supposedly Creationists ‘don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics’. As well I’ve links to several other sites showing quite a bit more concerning this issue


190 posted on 05/11/2009 10:21:12 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>>The argument CMI is advising creationists to avoid is the idea that the Second Law began at the Fall. If I understand CottShop correctly, he’s not making that argument. Rather, he’s pointing out that the Second Law makes Darwinian evolution impossible.<<

The 2nd law doesn’t apply to the earth because the earth is not an isolated system.

Not to mention the 2nd law only applies to total entropy, some areas can become more ordered while others become less ordered, even in a completely isolated system.


191 posted on 05/12/2009 4:07:47 PM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

[[Not to mention the 2nd law only applies to total entropy, some areas can become more ordered while others become less ordered, even in a completely isolated system.]]

Lol- entropy isn’t about ‘order’ While a species can experience ‘order’, entropy still takes it’s toll while the ‘order’ is working it’s function.

As well your ‘isolated/non isolated’ system falls apart at hte seams (and the open systems is infact even worse than a closed/isolated system- contrary to popular Anti-Creation opinion, open systems do NOY nullify the effects of entropy, and infact increase the problem for Macroevolution. Pointing to moot irrelevent static examples of DECREASED Entropy, and asserting those examples thusly translate to living dynamic systems is a losing argument as seen in the links I provided- not sure why Anti-Creationists keep makign hte claim that open systems allowed trillions of violations in Dynamic living systems- but whatever- The evidence and real world facts do not match the claim

Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

“We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.”
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

“Closely related to the apparent ‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.”
[J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]


192 posted on 05/12/2009 8:07:45 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To stress the point that open systems allowing macroevolution to violate hte second law on such a grand scale (literally trillions of times- life apparently, accordign to anti-creationists, just thumbed it's nose at the second law whilel ife supposedly evolved, and hten, somewhere along the line, all life became mysteriously subject to the second law) is a futile argument:

Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

193 posted on 05/12/2009 8:13:23 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
It has the same moral imperative as does the Pythagorean Theorem or the Electro-weak Theory: none at all.

The Pythagorean Theorem has immense moral imperative! It describes the indisputable truth about the relationship in terms of ratio of the hypoteneuse of a right angled triangle to it's other sides. It would be a violation of our conscience to deny the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem. If you needed to calculate distance within a plane, given the length of two sides, you would never use anything else. It would be an absurd and meaningless sin!

Truth is the only moral imperative in the universe.

194 posted on 05/12/2009 8:29:37 PM PDT by Theophilus (The people who were going to buy your home got aborted 30 years ago.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; CottShop

CottShop, GGG, your posts are Epic Science Fail. Lay readers will come away with less knowledge than if they didn’t read your posts. In summary, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.


195 posted on 05/13/2009 5:32:58 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: doc30; GodGunsGuts; CottShop
[Doc30, your post is an]* Epic Science Fail. Lay readers will come away with less knowledge than if they didn’t read your posts. In summary, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

*Substitutions---mine

  1. You do not address a specific claim.
  2. You provide opinion and not a single shred of "evidence".
  3. Your first and only post is an arrogating statement representing a class to which you apparently do not belong(they vs we).
  4. Therefore, I think your post is self-referential.

196 posted on 05/13/2009 5:55:26 AM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: doc30

[[CottShop, GGG, your posts are Epic Science Fail.]]

Per usual Doc- you offer NOTHING but ad hominem ‘content’ Per usual you offer nothign to refute ANYTHING. Those reading my posts will see how silly the arguments about living in an open system allows for macroevolution claims really are- I’d say that if you have evidnece refuting it, then present it, but really, I’m tired of your games and glaring generalizatiosn which do absolutely nothign but attack without substance- such ‘arguments’ are better suited to lesser sites that care nothign for science or evidence like TO or DC

*Substitutions-—mine

You do not address a specific claim.
You provide opinion and not a single shred of “evidence”.
Your first and only post is an arrogating statement representing a class to which you apparently do not belong(they vs we).
Therefore, I think your post is self-referential.

(Thanks Andrew- too tired to respond to his petty post)


197 posted on 05/13/2009 9:13:45 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To stress the point that open systems allowing macroevolution to violate the second law on such a grand scale (literally trillions of times- life apparently, according to anti-creationists, just thumbed it's nose at the second law while life supposedly evolved, and then, somewhere along the line, all life became mysteriously subject to the second law) is a futile argument:

Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

Let's repeat that last line- a line that Doc DENIES with a glib hand-wave and a smile- for everyone to see:

This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

It is a scientifically observed phenomenon- Not a theory- scientifically observed phenomenon- not simply a hypothesis based on nothing more substantive than an assumption- scientifically observed phenomenon, not some assumption based on dogmatic opinion formed to prop up a failing hypothesis.

Doc apparently doesn't want anyone to read up on established scientific phenomenon, and apparently doesn't want anyone learning the truth about the claims of Macroevolutionists, and the silly idea that an 'open system' allows for serious violations of the second law. It's just simply amazing the level of discourse that crops up everytime someone posts something a macroevolutionist doesn't like- Well done Doc- At least you're consistent, if nothign else

198 posted on 05/13/2009 9:25:56 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Your are proving my point that evolutionary theory uses the cloak of “science” to attack the foundations of people's faith. You know all the chemicals it takes to produce life, and the correct formation. And yet, even with the direction of the finest minds in the world, it can't be reproduced. That tells me something, Ira, even though you refuse to see it. And that something is that macro-evolution is a fraud. Cordially, Bob
199 posted on 05/14/2009 12:47:37 PM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

You are confusing abiogensis with evolution.

They are two different aspects of science. Evolution does not address the origin of life only how life has changed since its inception.

That is a common misperception


200 posted on 05/15/2009 9:57:02 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 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