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

Skip to comments.

Ho-Hum, Another Feathered Dinosaur
CEH ^ | September 25, 2009

Posted on 09/27/2009 2:04:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Ho-Hum, Another Feathered Dinosaur

--snip--

Last January when the most recent flap about feathered dinosaurs made the rounds (01/21/2009), we listed 18 questions that should be asked before believing the claims made about bird and feather evolution. It would be a good time to review those again (see also footnote 3). The rush to judgment and eagerness to prove dinobird evolution should raise red flags...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catasrophism; catholic; christian; creation; dinosaurs; evangelical; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; origins; peleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-261 next last
To: count-your-change

See you later. I enjoyed watching the game with you.


201 posted on 10/04/2009 5:23:04 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

O.K.,Good night.


202 posted on 10/04/2009 5:29:11 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; Boogieman; count-your-change; GodGunsGuts; tpanther; OneVike
My point exactly. GGG and others here are fond of saying "Creationists and IDers ..." lumping them together. That was my question. Since they have certain incompatible beliefs, why do certain posters lump them together.

Ask the evos. They're the ones lumping them together more than anyone.

For that matter, IDers and evos ought to be lumped together because they share a great many beliefs, like evolution. The only difference there is that the IDers see intelligence and design in life while hard core evos deny it.

Otherwise, they have far more in common with each other than IDers have with creationists.

203 posted on 10/04/2009 7:26:25 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Ask the evos. They're the ones lumping them together more than anyone.

This goes back to GGGs #33 where he links them three times in one post.

204 posted on 10/04/2009 7:30:58 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; count-your-change; tpanther; GodGunsGuts; OneVike; YHAOS; betty boop; Agamemnon
That’s ludicrous. Haven’t you ever heard of “agreeing to disagree”?

That just doesn't fit with the agenda of getting all the differing opinions at each other's throats.

What fun is it if someone can't pit everyone against the other and get the OEC, YEC, and IDers infighting so that DC has something to keep it going?

205 posted on 10/04/2009 7:36:44 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

That may be the case on this thread, but in general, that’s not the case.

Normally, it’s the evos lumping creationists and IDers together, with the usual accusation that ID is creationism in disguise and just a way to sneak creationism in the back door (of schools, primarily).

So, no one is going to believe your nonsense to the contrary.


206 posted on 10/04/2009 7:45:16 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: lefty-lie-spy
No credible people believe in that God pointed a finger at Earth and living creatures appeared suddenly, and no one believes the Earth is 6,000 , 10,000, or whatever-have-you years old.
It passes my mind to ask, LLS, if you have a definition of "credible" that is external to this topic, or whether your definition is self-reflexive and tautologous; IE, your definition for credible is whether or not they accept the word of God and its scientific support.
207 posted on 10/04/2009 7:57:13 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (My country, right or wrong. But BOY...!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What fun is it if someone can't pit everyone against the other and get the OEC, YEC, and IDers infighting so that DC has something to keep it going?

Where are anyu IDers? You are the closest thing I have seen but you have not come out of the closet.

208 posted on 10/04/2009 8:29:50 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Normally, it’s the evos lumping creationists and IDers together, with the usual accusation that ID is creationism in disguise and just a way to sneak creationism in the back door (of schools, primarily). So, no one is going to believe your nonsense to the contrary.

Usually, I am the one trying to correct the creationists that identify with ID.

209 posted on 10/04/2009 8:31:38 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Just updating the tag line... there must be an easier way!


210 posted on 10/04/2009 9:19:40 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
“I assume that you are referring to the “punctuated equilibrium” branch of evolutionists?”

When I read the Origin of the Species ... (it's a long and interesting title), I was struck by how much Darwin emphasized an evolutionary process that was very slow and uniform. It wasn't just a detail of evolution, it was the essential nature of the evolutionary argument. At one points, he says that rapid evolution would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

Then Gould and Etheridge came along with their rapid evolution theory. Is the difference just a non-essential detail of timing? Or is it something more?

Let's say that Darwin's hangup (if you will) with slow evolution is not central to the argument. (That would put one at odds with Darwin, but a modern evolutionist would say that's O.K., that's just how science works.). Still, there are implications. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not support his theory. But he thought that, in time, new discoveries would prove him right.

Doctrinaire evolutionists simply say the evidence supported Darwin. Gould and Etheridge admitted that the evidence still did not support Darwin's slow theory of evolution. They came up with rapid evolution with smaller populations. By their theory, we wouldn't really expect to find transitional fossils.

It seems that Darwin's original theory has not been supported by the evidence. The punctuated equilibrium theory of Gould and Etheridge is a theory that protects itself from the evidence.

211 posted on 10/04/2009 9:20:32 PM PDT by ChessExpert (The unemployment rate was 4.5% when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Nice...now if we can just find you a few more writers!


212 posted on 10/04/2009 9:25:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

6. Common errors in discussion of PE
Many errors can be found in discussion of the concept of PE. G&E 1977 point out several of these.

PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.

PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which “punctuations” are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.

PE is by no means either synonymous with “saltationism”, nor did Gould’s essay on Richard Goldschmidt “link” PE with Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. “Return of the hopeful monsters” sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.

Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism for PE. PE does not require large scale mutations.

PE is not a saltational theory of evolution. The emphasis upon applying consequences of peripatric speciation to paleontology shows this critique to be unfounded. PE is no more saltational than peripatric speciation is in study of modern organisms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors


213 posted on 10/04/2009 9:28:36 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)

Interesting tag line for one that places all his faith in something for which there is no proof.

214 posted on 10/04/2009 9:29:30 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
...then wait for my article next Sunday...

I'm not sure if you're going to construct a ping list, but if you do, put me on it. I may or may not participate in the debate, but I do however want to read the thread...

215 posted on 10/04/2009 9:35:43 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

And how did reason come into the world? As is only befitting, by accident. One must guess at it, as at a riddle. - F.N.


216 posted on 10/04/2009 9:38:12 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You’re a master of irony, CW. There’s no way I thought of that!

Now, thank you for agreeing with the fact you have no proof for evolution. We’re finally getting somewhere.


217 posted on 10/05/2009 4:18:39 AM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Now, thank you for agreeing that you have finally agreed that the evolutionary theory is a valid theory.


218 posted on 10/05/2009 5:03:03 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

All it takes to be a creationist is a low IQ, and a mind invulnerable to facts and rational thought.


219 posted on 10/05/2009 5:05:58 AM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Well, it’s later.
Then does Darwinism make a case or include some thought that life has purpose and came in existence with direction to some purpose? Conversely do the Scriptures NOT make the statement that life has purpose and direction? So where is the bias or lack of understanding?

You said “In the above.” What’s the bias? What’s the lack of understanding?


220 posted on 10/05/2009 7:38:51 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; Boogieman; count-your-change; tpanther; GodGunsGuts; OneVike; YHAOS; betty boop; ...
Usually, I am the one trying to correct the creationists that identify with ID.

Wow, how condescending of you.

And just how are they wrong?

What criteria do you use to set yourself up as some sort of absolute standard of truth?

IOW, who put you in charge and why?

221 posted on 10/05/2009 9:04:23 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Good post, you are right that the evolutionist’s own disagreements are good evidence that their theory is not as unquestionable as they like to portray to the public.

It’s funny that you mention Origin of the Species. It wasn’t until I actually read the book that I really started questioning the theory. Until that time, I had just assumed the evidence must be there, since all my science teachers and professors taught it like it was set in stone. When I read the book (for Humanities class, ironically), I was almost immediately struck by how much was pure speculation and outright fantasy.

The biggest flaw in his reasoning, in my mind, is how he based the entire theory on the assumption that there is no concrete demarcation between species, but that they are all constantly changing forms. Not only does this fly in the face of all observations, but it allowed him (and his followers) to offer up evidence of what are simply new breeds of animals as new species “created” by evolution.

Though the definition and classification of species was undoubtedly quite flawed in Darwin’s day, he “threw the baby out with the bath water” and effectively made the definition of species completely malleable and meaningless in order to avoid having to deal with the very real problems presented by the divisions of animals (and plants) we see in the real world. Had he found a series of fossil representing domesticated dogs, and they had been unknown to him, he would have undoubtedly assigned most every breed to a separate species based on the trivial differences that have been bred into them.


222 posted on 10/05/2009 9:14:48 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“Now, thank you for agreeing that you have finally agreed that the evolutionary theory is a valid theory.”

Oh, but I don’t agree that it’s a valid theory. I agree that it is a theory, but valid? Notsomuch.

It’s as flawed an idea as was Darwin flawed as a man... It was the musing of a man who wished to not believe in God and moral absolutes. It was an excuse to disbelieve more than it was a thing to believe. Much as it is to many others. Like you?


223 posted on 10/05/2009 5:12:18 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And just how are they wrong?

They disagree with you!

224 posted on 10/05/2009 7:14:43 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: lefty-lie-spy
"No credible people believe in that God pointed a finger at Earth and living creatures appeared suddenly"

Childish strawman; nobody has ever said that he did.

"and no one believes the Earth is 6,000 , 10,000, or whatever-have-you years old"

Stated either in complete ignorance (for which there is no excuse) or childish antagonism. - Either way no intelligent person would waste any measurable amount of time on one as devoid of basic knowledge as yourself.

If you wish to engage in discussion here, get educated; if not continue as you are.

End of engagement.

225 posted on 10/05/2009 7:25:09 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Link?


226 posted on 10/05/2009 7:25:55 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Think.

(just don’t hurt yourself)


227 posted on 10/05/2009 7:38:26 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Think.

I think you don't have a link.

228 posted on 10/05/2009 7:43:22 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

1. If you’re looking for a particular link of course there’s not one.
2. If you study the man and his psyche it’s not hard to see.
3. I used to engage you guys but you’re generally more caustic and annoying than I care to entertain.
4. If you were truly open minded and interested in truth I’d be more interested in dialogue... I’m certainly capable.
5. Go study then come back. Maybe then you’ll be able to provide me with the links to support your deity.

In short, I grow tired of providing arguments and getting nothing but blank stares from the other side of the monitor. Thanks, but no.


229 posted on 10/05/2009 7:51:43 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
1. If you’re looking for a particular link of course there’s not one.

As I said before. You don't have one.

230 posted on 10/05/2009 8:03:34 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
If you were truly open minded and interested in truth I’d be more interested in dialogue... I’m certainly capable.

Oh. I have to be open minded to your ideas but you are closed to mine! Your words below.

Based on that I completely agree that debate is useless.

231 posted on 10/05/2009 8:16:46 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Say what you like... but you don’t have an argument for evolution. And you’re apparently unwilling to look up anything for yourself.

If you’re so smug and arrogant you want to consider the lack of a single link to summarize the motives of Darwin some strange sort of victory then congratulations. Now you can go hug yourself or some such thing. It’s indicative of the kind of wierdness that defines evolutionists.

Now treat yourself to a glass of wine and a Start Trek movie marathon to celebrate. If you ever want to have an honest conversation regarding the subject please let me know.


232 posted on 10/05/2009 8:19:30 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
If you ever want to have an honest conversation regarding the subject please let me know.

Why would I waste my time with someone that has already declared that 'debate is useless'.

233 posted on 10/05/2009 8:21:55 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“I have to be open minded to your ideas but you are closed to mine!”

Nope. Open minded to logic and facts. I am open minded to both and logic and true science dismiss Evolution theory. I didn’t come into this world believing in God or Creation nor disbelieving Evolution. Seems to me I have fewer preconceived notions than yourself, but you’se guys are so good at pigeon-holing folks based on your own preconceived beliefs you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the nether regions.


234 posted on 10/05/2009 8:24:02 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I am open minded to both and logic and true science dismiss Evolution theory.

Looks like a definition of a closed mind.

235 posted on 10/05/2009 8:25:23 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Seems to me I have fewer preconceived notions than yourself, but you’se guys are so good at pigeon-holing folks based on your own preconceived beliefs you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the nether regions.

Huh? You are the one that declared that debate was useless and had already made up his mind on the issue and wouldn't be influenced by anything that didn't support your position.

236 posted on 10/05/2009 8:27:48 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“Why would I waste my time with someone that has already declared that ‘debate is useless’.”

Context, my friend. Debate is useless not when there are pre-determined opinions, but when the dialogue is so decidedly antagonistic that no progress is possible as with most of your debates. I refer to my previous posts. The offer is open should you ever learn to offer reasoned discourse.


237 posted on 10/05/2009 8:28:28 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“and had already made up his mind on the issue and wouldn’t be influenced by anything that didn’t support your position.”

That’s the issue. I never said anything of the sort. That’s the way you play every post... by reading things in to everything that is said. Now; tell me how your statement above differs from your OWN opinion, pray tell?


238 posted on 10/05/2009 8:31:29 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Now; tell me how your statement above differs from your OWN opinion, pray tell?

I can go where the facts lead me. You cannot go outside the limits set by your church leader.

239 posted on 10/05/2009 8:47:06 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
That’s the issue. I never said anything of the sort. That’s the way you play every post... by reading things in to everything that is said.

Your words. You are NOT open to anything that does not support your position because you have already declared that anything that does not support your position is both illogical and false science! Your words:

I am open minded to both and logic and true science dismiss Evolution theory.

240 posted on 10/05/2009 9:38:47 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Education and faith are mutually exclusive. I’m educated, and you are therefore...?

End of engagement for sure.


241 posted on 10/05/2009 11:07:43 PM PDT by lefty-lie-spy (Stay metal. For the Horde \m/("_")\m/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You sir, do not understand. Your bias’ keep you ignorant and your posts misrepresenting the facts..


242 posted on 10/06/2009 2:25:36 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“I can go where the facts lead me. You cannot go outside the limits set by your church leader.”

Not sure if that was a tweak or just more of your typical arrogance. Or maybe your like all the ignorant evos who believe all Christians are Catholics.

I’m not here to defend myself, but just so you know what you’re dealing with I don’t depend on my “church leader” to set the tone for what I believe... I start and end with scripture. So wrong answer there, Chachi. I’ll address your other drivel this evening when I have more time now that you’re avoiding debate and making it personal as usual.


243 posted on 10/06/2009 8:10:17 AM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“I can go where the facts lead me. You cannot go outside the limits set by your church leader.”

Not sure if that was a tweak or just more of your typical arrogance. Or maybe your like all the ignorant evos who believe all Christians are Catholics.

I’m not here to defend myself, but just so you know what you’re dealing with I don’t depend on my “church leader” to set the tone for what I believe... I start and end with scripture. So wrong answer there, Chachi. I’ll address your other drivel this evening when I have more time now that you’re avoiding debate and making it personal as usual.


244 posted on 10/06/2009 8:10:56 AM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

[Meanwhile, back here in reality, polls over the last generation show an ever growing proportion of America favoring biblical creation. The latest polls having been consistently showing the proportion of Americans believing in mankind being less than 10kya old is over 50%. How’s it feel being in the minority?]

What polls are these? Can you cite evidence from a legitimate and scientifically conducted poll that shows these results?


245 posted on 10/06/2009 4:02:25 PM PDT by spinestein (The answer is 42.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

I posted a specific critique regarding how creationists view the nature of scientific evidence for evolution and I get a lengthy response that is mostly Bible quotes and telling everyone about God.

That is the only thing important about the debate of creationism versus evolution. Creationists believe that the contents of the Bible are literally true and evolutionists rely on science to understand truth. It’s no more complicated than that and it’s the reason why there can be no real debate because there can be no compromise when deciding which standard to use - the Bible or science.


246 posted on 10/06/2009 4:14:42 PM PDT by spinestein (The answer is 42.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: spinestein; GodGunsGuts
What polls are these? Can you cite evidence from a legitimate and scientifically conducted poll that shows these results?

I started a blog some time ago when I thought I might start getting more spare time, and several of my posts deal with this topic. Here is one in particular that discusses the trends since the early 1980's:

http://ebliever.blogspot.com/2008/02/trends-in-creationevolution-belief-in.html

247 posted on 10/06/2009 5:39:08 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I start and end with scripture.

Which 'version' do you start and end with?

248 posted on 10/06/2009 6:57:06 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Not sure if that was a tweak or just more of your typical arrogance.

Neither. Just a statement.

Or maybe your like all the ignorant evos who believe all Christians are Catholics.

I have never heard such an ignorant statment before.

Usually, it is the Christian fundamentalists screaming that Catholics are not Christians.

249 posted on 10/06/2009 6:59:11 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“Which ‘version’ do you start and end with?”

Problem is you don’t have the ability to post anything without a personal affront.

My mother told me not to play with jerks, so adios.


250 posted on 10/06/2009 7:31:34 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-261 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