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

Skip to comments.

SETI and Intelligent Design
space.com ^ | posted: 01 December 2005 | Seth Shostak

Posted on 12/02/2005 8:35:59 AM PST by ckilmer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 last
To: Question_Assumptions
"At the core, IC will go around identifying things that haven't been explained yet, inviting their explanation."

At the core, your definition of IC can't exclude a natural way of reaching an IC status.

"All you really said was that you don't believe that a gene combination that can't be explained by natural processes exists."

No, I didn't say that. I only said that it is impossible to verify a designed process via your definition of IC.


"Like I said, it's entirely possible that intelligent aliens develop on a planet with lots of interference, develop in the oceans of their world, are blind to the EM spectrum, and so forth."

We are also blind to most of the em-spectrum. Radiation of heat is also part of the em-spectrum. If their shamans allow them to study physics they will discover em-waves.

"Suppose SETI searches 100% of the sky and finds no EM signals of the sort they are looking for. Then what? Do they give up or look for something different? Would anything have been proved either way?"

They will keep on searching. Why? The possibility for live is not zero in the universe. If something happened once, it could happened twice, three times ... .


MHalblaub:"The next step after detecting an ET-signal would be a call back. This step is impossible for IC."

"I think many religious people would disagree with you on that point. For a religious person, the presence of God can be as real as those signals. If you are an atheist or agnostic, I don't expect you to get it. Just accept that ID advocates don't consider God hypothetical."

That is the point where scientists draw the line between science and faith. Observations have to be reproducible no matter the observer is religious or not.

"I suspect that if they found good IC candidates, they'd try to find 'purpose' or 'meaning' in those genes just as SETI would look for 'purpose' or 'meaning' in any signals that they detect. Assuming intelligence, that's the logical next step"

As I told you before, you don't need to know purpose or meaning of any em-signal. It's the physical structure of the signal itself.
201 posted on 12/07/2005 3:12:51 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: All; Sun

The curious thing about the SETI arguement is that he makest the point that the sign of intelligence is its artificiality. Artificiality being defined as a 1.)relatively simple, and 2.)out of context -- signal.

This pretty much describes the Garden of Eden.

The question from a decade or two ago went like this. "What evidence do we have of God in the Garden of Eden."

The answer is: The Garden.

The Garden of Eden is a relatively simple & out of context-- that is, artificial place.

Now of course the SETI people, the materialists and the atheists will say that the Garden of Eden is evidence for man--just as a simple -- out of context ie artificial signal from space might be.

Similiarly, ID people will say that that proposition ie that the Garden is Evidence for man -- is what the snake said. (And that's what got everyone into trouble.)

The old joke on skitzophrenia went like this: what do you think of skitzophrenia: Answer: I'm of two minds about it.

But its better to be single minded.


So maybe the SETI people are looking for snakes in space.

That still begs the question of origins. Because even if you have a complex organism ie a snake in space creating simple out of context signals in space--just like humans here on earth...you still have the question of where did the complexity of the space snake come from--just as the question here on earth remains--where did the immense complexity of the human organism --not to mention all the other critters here on earth--come from.

At this point we're talking about everything outside of the garden of eden that is the wilderness or in modern terms -- the space through which the space snake's artificial signal contends--- as also being evidence for God. Not to mention the biological complexity of the dna of man and woman. And then of course there's that snake.

On the matter of origins science has given us two breaks in the history of the cosmos which map over very well onto the book of genesis--and require leaps of faith. The first is the creation of the elements in the big bang. The second is the creation of complex organisms out of simple elements.

ug...this is too much for me before my morning coffee.


202 posted on 12/07/2005 7:36:56 AM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
At the core, your definition of IC can't exclude a natural way of reaching an IC status.

Back to the original topic, neither can the SETI test for signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence. It's looking for signals that are likely artificial. IC is looking for systems that are likely created. But I should also point out that science accepts all sorts of ideas based on their probability of truth rather than certainty. That's why there are so many more theories than laws in science. In other words, from the other direction, science can't exclude a supernatural explanation or some other non-evolutional explanation for life on Earth, either. I think the level of certainty your demanding simply doesn't exist very often, even in real Science®.

If you've ever debated philosophy with a postmodernist, you'd realize that about the only thing we can really prove is "cognito ergo sum" -- "I think therefore I am". Almost everything else is conjecture because you can't exclude the possibility that everything you experience is artificial, a point played to great effect in movies like The Matrix.

No, I didn't say that. I only said that it is impossible to verify a designed process via your definition of IC.

It's only impossible if you rule out the ability to identify and understand the mutation paths necessary to get between two points. Given not only our growing understanding of genetics but our ability to reconstruct DNA from very old remains, it's no unthinkable that we will someday understand the starting point, the possible intermediate points, and the end point of a sequence of mutations and determine whether there is or there isn't a natural explanation of how to get between those two points because of the complexity of the changes. Essentially, you are making an appeal to ignorance here (which Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kid defines as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") -- we can't ever know if ID is true, thus we must assume it is false.

We are also blind to most of the em-spectrum. Radiation of heat is also part of the em-spectrum. If their shamans allow them to study physics they will discover em-waves.

We are blind to most, but not all. That's important. I again reference science fiction author Larry Niven's Kdatlyno, a race that uses sonar and touch but has no sight. They look up at their night sky to see only the end of their world because no stars or moons shine down on their eyes. Imagine doing electro-magnetic physics while totally blind.

As for "shamans", there are plenty of those in the sciences, too. Don't think that there isn't an orthodoxy and dogma in science. Scientists are human, after all.

They will keep on searching. Why? The possibility for live is not zero in the universe. If something happened once, it could happened twice, three times ... .

The possibility of God is not zero, either. The possibility that we are all brains in a vat, living life Matrix-style, is not zero. All you are really saying is that having one example of intelligent life crosses your own personal level of probability such that a search for intelligent life on other planets seems prudent to you. Against your single example, there are plenty of things pushing the odds in the other direction, including the Fermi Paradox and the large number of factors that could make a planet unsuitable for the development of life (remember that just because current life forms can exist in some very hostile environments does not mean that life could have started out in those same hostile environments -- the environment needed for life to first form could be so specialized that Earth is unique).

Going back to the original topic, that's why I said it's all about a gut level assessment of the odds. You believe that the odds were good that life evolved naturally on Earth and, thus, could have done so on other planets, even if you can't prove it beyond any doubt. Other people look at the same things you are looking at and assess the odds differently. You aren't being unreasonable, but neither are they. So long as it remains a guess, educated or not, one is not necessarily superior to the other.

I also want to know that if they failed to find an obvious EM signal, what other things might SETI search for?

That is the point where scientists draw the line between science and faith. Observations have to be reproducible no matter the observer is religious or not.

And that's fine. What ID is looking for is observable evidence of God via IC. Like I've said, that may be a fool's errand, but they are attempting to do exactly what you claim they should be doing to do Science®.

As I told you before, you don't need to know purpose or meaning of any em-signal. It's the physical structure of the signal itself.

And as I've told you, finding an EM signal with no known purpose or meaning only proves that you've found an EM signal that may not be natural. Applying your own test of validity, such a signal, without a known purpose, meaning, or method of creation, could not exclude that idea that it may have been formed naturally through some yet-unknown natural process. Thus, it would prove nothing. All it might do is increase the odds in favor of ET intelligence. Prove it? No.

203 posted on 12/07/2005 8:48:38 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: All; ckilmer

I just noticed your post before my bed time, so I better not have any coffee if I want to sleep. :)

Since I'm getting sleepy, here's just a quick post - an excerpt that I thought was interesting:

"The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical--perhaps even theological--what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great initial impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way round this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely" John Gribbin, "Oscillating Universe Bounces Back," Nature, Vol. 259, 1976: 15.

“In spite of other successes of the general theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and in particular the idea that the universe had a beginning, was fought bitterly every step of the way.” Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, 1992, Cambridge University Press.
The reluctance to consider a beginning to the universe adversely affected scientific research in this area for several decades. Though the Big Bang Theory has philosophical and religious implications, it does not have any religious or philosophical premises, just as is the case for ID. Yet, the Big Bang is taught and discussed in science classes. Furthermore, the Anthropic Principle, states that the universe appears to be designed for life based on the fine tuning discovered in the physical laws and constants that govern the universe. Clearly, this could be viewed as a design argument for the cosmos, and valuable research regarding this design is routinely discussed in scientific peer reviewed articles for several decades now. Recent research by ID proponents Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez and Dr. Jay Richards related to this field has provided great insight into the curious correlation between habitability and measurability. In other words, not only is the Earth a great place to live, it also is a wonderful place to make scientific discoveries about the cosmos; to use some of their words, it is as if “our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery.” (This is discussed thoroughly in the recent book, The Privileged Planet – see http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ for further information.)

I find it rather curious that while many neo-Darwinists wish to reduce things down to brute physical and chemical laws, with no intelligent design involved, many physicists already agree that the physical laws and constants are themselves evidence of design.

excerpt http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1386


204 posted on 12/07/2005 9:33:01 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
"Essentially, you are making an appeal to ignorance here ... -- we can't ever know if ID is true, thus we must assume it is false."

I wasn't talking about ID. I was talking about IC and the impossibility of IC to show a designed process. So IC is no evidence for something like ID.
We can't ever know if anything is "true" but we can work with well supported theories. I don't assume ID as false but as a worthless explanation to research problems.

"I again reference science fiction author Larry Niven's Kdatlyno, a race that uses sonar and touch but has no sight. They look up at their night sky to see only the end of their world because no stars or moons shine down on their eyes. Imagine doing electro-magnetic physics while totally blind."

Well, this is a nice idea but magnetism oder static electricity is a force you can fell with your fingers that the magnets are attract or repel each other. This may be the first step to em physics. You can transform em-waves very well to sound. I estimate the problem with zealots as bigger.


"The possibility of God is not zero, either."

We have one civilization in space using em-waves for communication - our. We have no scientific evidence for god. So it is still possible that there is no god.

"The possibility that we are all brains in a vat, living life Matrix-style, is not zero."

Yes, but then there will still be something "real" outside the matrix.

"Against your single example, ..., including the Fermi Paradox and the large number of factors that could make a planet unsuitable for the development of life (...-- the environment needed for life to first form could be so specialized that Earth is unique)."

One example is enough if you can prove something as false like there is no civilization using em-waves for communication. Fermi, Drake and others just made guesses other the unknown. Be careful with your claim the Earth is unique. The source for methane on Mars is still undiscovered.

"You believe that the odds were good that life evolved naturally on Earth and, thus, could have done so on other planets, even if you can't prove it beyond any doubt."

You and I will never be able to prove anything beyond any doubt. So if we can detect life on Mars what can we conclude? A second deity promoted life on our neighbor planet?

"What ID is looking for is observable evidence of God via IC."

Once again, your definition of IC is not capable of detecting design. - Sorry for your faith if you need such an evidence.

"And as I've told you, finding an EM signal with no known purpose or meaning only proves that you've found an EM signal that may not be natural. ... Thus, it would prove nothing. ... Prove it? No."

Scientists and engineers know how to create narrow band em-waves. We know how to create a watch. We don't know until now how to create life. Until now we never detected any narrow band em signal from a natural source. The researchers at SETI know what they are looking for. IDers don't even know that. They are looking for something with IC but they can't prove properly that something is IC or even that IC implies ID.

Until now we can say you need something with physical knowledge to create a narrow band em signal. That is the hypothesis the boys at SETI are working with. If they find some signal they'll try to make a call back.

Would an answer from ET to us be prove for you or not?


ID and IC are Trademarks of the Discovery Institute (DI).

205 posted on 12/08/2005 2:40:00 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
I think we've hit the point where we are going around in circles. For the record, I think that the search for God in biology may very well be a fools errand. The value I see in ID and IC has less to do with religious faith than in an interest in ending the battle between science and religion. It makes it an all or nothing battle between Fundamentalist Creationism and anti-God Evolutionism in which all of the moderate positions in between are trampled. It forces people to the extremes by demanding that they make a choice between God and Science.

ID and IC may never prove anything, as you claim, but they are at least asking scientifically legitimate questions. And I think it's useful to tell kids that science doesn't have all the answers yet, to encourage them to take an interest in it. I suspect that you see ID as a slippery slope to full-blown 6,000 year-old Earth, Noah's Flood Fundamentalist Creationism in schools. Maybe that's exactly what the Discovery Institute wants, too. But I think that slide is far more likely to gain traction if scientists insist on alienating deeply religious Christians by telling them that science has no place for God. ID is a compromise and I think it's a good one because it still encourages a deeper understanding of how biology works and encourages people not to treat science as unquestionable dogma. People should be asking how certain biological systems evolved, regardless of their motivation for doing so.

206 posted on 12/08/2005 10:09:11 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Last circle?

"ID is a compromise and I think it's a good one because it still encourages a deeper understanding of how biology works and encourages people not to treat science as unquestionable dogma."

Science isn't about compromises. It's about testing your hypothesis and theories. Therefore science as researchers understand it today is and will never be an unquestionable dogma. "It's to complex ... therefore it's designed" is a dogma because "It's to complex" is dogmatic. The ID hypothesis is a dogma.
207 posted on 12/09/2005 12:57:44 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
Science isn't about compromises.

Perhaps not, but in a republic that lets people vote on school boards and laws, what gets taught in public schools is a matter of compromise.

It's about testing your hypothesis and theories. Therefore science as researchers understand it today is and will never be an unquestionable dogma.

In theory, that's fine. In practice, science is clouded by politics and other agendas. Some theories are more strongly supported than others, but they tend to get taught and absorbed as facts in public schools to many students who will never test or think deeply about those theories. As such, what's taught to most children, be it evolution and general relativity or global warming and enviro-pseduo-science, does get absorbed as unquestionable dogma, particularly if dissenting viewpoints are never presented.

And please don't forget that looking for evidence of irreducable complexity, even though no broadly convincing candidates have been found, is an attempt to test a hypothesis. Basically, it's looking for a system in which the odds of natural development are 0% since evolutionists assume that any chance greater than 0% is sufficient to assume that natural development through evolutoin occurred, thus placing all competing theories in the position of proving a negative. Is demanding that competing theories prove a negative (that the development of life didn't happen naturally through evolution) really testing a theory or is it assuming the theory is already proven and putting the burden of proof and testing on others?

"It's to complex ... therefore it's designed" is a dogma because "It's to complex" is dogmatic. The ID hypothesis is a dogma.

"It's too complex" is not dogmatic. It's a valid odds assessment when dealing with the unknown. So is your belief in the validity of evolution. You believe, that the preponderance of evidence makes evolution a legitimate explanation for all life on Earth. Other's look at the preponderance of evidence and, for a variety of reasons, do not. Similarly, SETI advocates look at the preponderance of evidence and think the odds are good enough that there is life on other planets that they actually go look for it. Others do not and think it's a waste of money. Some people think that the preponderance of evidence proves global warming while others do not.

You make it seem as if there is one right answer and one wrong answer when, in truth, the evidence does not provide 100% proof of any answer. Is it foolish to play the lottery? Someone looking only at the odds will usually tell you that it is. Yet some small number of those people foolish enough to take the bad gamble do walk away with millions while those too smart to play the lottery have no chance of winning. Similarly, the odds are slim that one will die in an airplane flight yet people do die in air accidents. Whether one considers air travel "safe" or not will depend on whether they emphasize or dismiss the risks.

As long as evolution remains a theory and not a fact, it's not unreasonable to buck the odds based on a gut feeling any more than it's unreasonable to play the lottery or avoid air travel. It's only seems unreasonable if your focus is only on the odds of winning or loosing rather than the pay off if you win or the cost if you lose.

208 posted on 12/09/2005 10:31:50 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
"Perhaps not, but in a republic that lets people vote on school boards and laws, what gets taught in public schools is a matter of compromise."

A school board is not above the law. Teaching some mythology as science harm the rights of others. ID has no scientific merits. You and others can call back if you got some.

"As such, what's taught to most children, be it evolution and general relativity or global warming and enviro-pseduo-science, does get absorbed as unquestionable dogma, particularly if dissenting viewpoints are never presented."

You have problems to differ some foundations. There are observed facts like time dilatation or evolution. There are theories like the theory of general relativity or the theory of evolution. Global warming is not a theory. It's just a possible outcome then you fit several theories together to one computer model.

"Is demanding that competing theories prove a negative (that the development of life didn't happen naturally through evolution) really testing a theory or is it assuming the theory is already proven and putting the burden of proof and testing on others?"

You probably know something about Ockham's razor. Then you claim life didn't happened through natural process you have to show an unnatural process. IC is not a proof for an unnatural process because you can reach an IC status via natural steps as I have shown you.

"You believe, that the preponderance of evidence makes evolution a legitimate explanation for all life on Earth."

Science is not about believes. It's about facts and explanations. Evolution is as long "a legitimate explanation for all life on Earth" as it fits to all evidences. Furthermore the theory of evolution will never be totally retracted like Newton's theory because its declarative power is so strong in many ways. ID needs an undetected unnatural causation where the theory of evolution only needs available natural laws.

The guys at SETI never forced or try to persuade someone to teach pupils their hypothesis that there are aliens out there in space.

"As long as evolution remains a theory and not a fact, it's not unreasonable to buck the odds based on a gut feeling any more than it's unreasonable to play the lottery or avoid air travel."

Evolution is a fact. Don't mix it up with the theory of evolution. We are talking about science and not a gut feeling. Every scientist needs to know a theory is only a description of mother nature. Trying to find something unnatural is not offensive just strange. The people at DI want to find a trace of god. That is strange.
209 posted on 12/12/2005 3:12:32 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
I think I've said what I want to say and you've said what you want to say so I'll leave you with the last word on the subject.
210 posted on 12/12/2005 10:04:14 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Strange


211 posted on 12/13/2005 1:41:36 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub


For the science room, no free speech
By Bill Murchison

Dec 28, 2005


Will the federal courts, and the people who rely on the federal courts to enforce secular ideals, ever get it? The anti-school-prayer decisions of the past 40 years -- not unlike the pro-choice-in-abortion decisions, starting with Roe vs. Wade -- haven't driven pro-school-prayer, anti-choice Americans from the marketplace of ideas and activity.

Neither will U.S. Dist. Judge John Jones' anti-intelligent-design ruling in Dover, Pa., just before Christmas choke off challenges to the public schools' Darwinian monopoly.

Jones' contempt for the "breathtaking inanity" of school-board members who wanted ninth-grade biology students to hear a brief statement regarding Darwinism's "gaps/problems" is unlikely to intimidate the millions who find evolution only partly persuasive -- at best.

Millions? Scores of millions might be more like it. A 2004 Gallup Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in evolution unaided by God. A Kansas newspaper poll last summer found 55 percent support for exposing public-school students to critiques of Darwinism.

This accounts for the widespread desire that children be able to factor in some alternatives to the notion that "natural selection" has brought us, humanly speaking, where we are. Well, maybe it has. But what if it hasn't? The science classroom can't take cognizance of such a possibility? Under the Jones ruling, it can't. Jones discerns a plot to establish a religious view of the question, though the religion he worries about exists only in the possibility that God, per Genesis 1, might intrude celestially into the discussion. (Intelligent-designers, for the record, say the power of a Creator God is just one of various possible counter-explanations.)

Not that Darwinism, as Jones acknowledges, is perfect. Still, "the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent scientific propositions."

Ah. We see now: Federal judges are the final word on good science. Who gave them the power to exclude even whispers of divinity from the classroom? Supposedly, the First Amendment to the Constitution: the odd part here being the assumption that the "free speech" amendment shuts down discussion of alternatives to an establishment-approved concept of Truth.

With energy and undisguised contempt for the critics of Darwinism, Jones thrusts out the back door of his courthouse the very possibility that any sustained critique of Darwinism should be admitted to public classrooms.

However, the writ of almighty federal judges runs only so far, as witness their ongoing failure to convince Americans that the Constitution requires almost unobstructed access to abortion. Pro-life voters and activists, who number in the millions, clearly aren't buying it. We're to suppose efforts to smother intelligent design will bear larger, lusher fruit?

The meeting place of faith and reason is proverbially darkish and unstable -- a place to which the discussants bring sometimes violently different assumptions about truth and where to find it. Yet, the recent remarks of the philosopher-theologian Michael Novak make great sense: "I don't understand why in the public schools we cannot have a day or two of discussion about the relative roles of science and religion." A discussion isn't a sermon or an altar call, is it?

Equally to the point, what does secular intolerance achieve in terms of revitalizing public schools, rendering them intellectually catalytic? As many religious folk see it, witch-hunts for Christian influences are an engrained part of present public-school curricula. Is this where they want the kids? Might private schools -- not necessarily religious ones -- offer a better alternative? Might home schooling?

Alienating bright, energized, intellectually alert customers is normally accounted bad business, but that's the direction in which Darwinian dogmatists point. Thanks to them and other such foes of free speech in the science classroom -- federal judges included -- we seem likely to hear less and less about survival of the fittest and more and more about survival of the least curious, the least motivated, the most gullible.






Find this story at: http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/billmurchison/2005/12/28/180478.html


212 posted on 12/28/2005 2:55:40 AM PST by 13Sisters76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]


 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Note: this topic is from 12/02/2005. Thanks ckilmer.

Blast from the Past.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


213 posted on 07/21/2012 5:31:14 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

From the 1970s -- Thomas J Gold: "But I am not really willing to accept your premise, because it may well be that the means of communications they have are of a kind that we do not know how to receive, and that they would not have the means of communicating with sufficiently powerful radio or optical signals. That is something which, technologically, is too difficult for them but they would have some other means we would not recognize." and "What we can conclude from this is that we must think very widely as to what it takes to develop intelligence and not take us so much as a model of what is necessary." [Communication with Extraterrestial Intelligence, p 123; Sagan editor -- CETI was the old acronym]

214 posted on 07/21/2012 5:33:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 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