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

Skip to comments.

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
answersingenesis ^ | Ken Ham

Posted on 02/24/2008 4:18:12 PM PST by no nau

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.

2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1

3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

2. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: christians; creation; crevo; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 441-442 next last
To: no nau
Right here...



Oops... thought the headline read, "poof"... Sorry.
341 posted on 02/26/2008 9:52:49 AM PST by LIConFem (Thompson. Lifetime ACU Rating: 86 -- Hunter Lifetime ACU Rating: 92 (any combo will do, fellas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

A lot of the other posters have said the same thing. I agree that once a scientific principle is accepted, there are a lot of conclusions the scientists draw based on nothing more than faith in that supposedly established principle. But in theory, at least, it’s the evidence that’s paramount, so that if someone comes up with scientific evidence that refutes those conclusions or the original principle, then they are bound to acknowledge that the theory is either wrong or must be modified. In short, in science, scientific evidence prevails over orthodoxy, or as you call it, faith.


342 posted on 02/26/2008 9:59:14 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Captain Pike

[[Obviously the Catholic church itself cannot agree on the meaning of Genesis.]

Again- MOST of hte church can- your are condemning the whole instutitute based on the comments of htose few who choose to call God a liar- just for the record- anyone doing so is NOT a CHristian REGARDLESS of what they self proclaim to be- don’t put your trust corrupt instututions who have abandoned God a long time ago- put your trust in God and you will find that there are indeed many many people and instutituions that do infact agree on almost every single major theological issue- This agreement has endured for many thousands of years.

[[All of this merely proves my point, that there cannot be a an “all powerful” God, if He can’t consistently communicate some basic facts to humans.]]

You are making a big mistake here Pike- The failings of folks who have abandoned God do NOT reflect on the power of God at all! MOST catholics and priests infact do NOT agree with the few Popes who have decided to deny God by declaring Him a liar. If you beleive all the diocese just blindly follow a corrupted leader, then you are sadly mistaken- there are many many catholic churches that have remained TRUE CHristians, who have put hteir faith in Jesus Christ instead of hte pope for salvation, and who beleive the trustworthy God and His word and who haven’t sold their souls to appease a fickle generation who finds God too prickly to approach while hanging onto their sins.

[[Along with the fact that people across the planet accept a wild variety of faiths, so quite obviously the only common denominator is that humans believe stuff with zero factual basis to do so.]]

I and you yourself should NOT concern yourself with what other peopel choose to put hteir faith in- your ONLY concern should be with hte fact that God is who He says He is, He WILL do what He said He will do, We WILL be judged on whether or not we chose to obey Him by accepting the FREE gift through the sacrificial brutal death of His Son, and that The God of hte Bible has proven time and time again that He is the only TRUE God, and that those who put hteir trust in Him will NEVER be let down by Him. Pointing out to the failings of man under the guises of some sefl proclaimed spirutualities in NO way undermines the omnipotence and supremacy of God.

One thing you have to keep in mind Pike, is that people will always, and infact, have always, abused hteir positions for hte sake of pride and power and position. You correctly point out that htere are many religions in the world, but all the differing ‘offshoots’ of Christianity, came about for one reason and one reason only- human pride- it isn’t God’s fault that those people and denominations refuse to beleive Him anymore- and you should NOT be basing your evaluation of God on the ill actions of others- You won’t be able to use their actiuons as an excuse when you stand before God and have to explain to Him why you willfully chose to reject Him when you were given so many chances to accept Him in htis life.

[[How is it you know that your faith is correct, and other faiths are wrong?]]

Because I took GOD (and NOT man) at His word, and I personally found Him to be EVERYTHING He claiemd to be- I found Him True to His Word- I find Him to be the ONLY God who takes a personal and very real interest in His Children, and the only True God who answers prayer.

You know, the priest of Baal asked Elijah that very same quesiton, and Elijah told them point blank (paraphrased) “Tell you what folks- you pray to your gods of wood and stone, and you aks them to burn the sacrifice upon an alter- in the meantime, I’ll soak my sacrifice on this alter over hear with water, and I’ll pray to my God and ask Him to burn my alter up supernaturally- may the best God win” Guess who’s God won\ Pike?

Nowe, God doesn’t do such supernatural miracles these days, s this is the age of ‘the Church” in which God clearly stated that it iwll be much more difficult for us to beleive than it was for the disci0ples and people of hte old testament who had God actively and physically present and performing miracles- but I assure you, God still does miracles and answers prayers in just as personal ways, but different today. You can spend your time chasing rock and wood gods and trying to see if they answer prayer if you like, but I assure you that my God ‘wins’ everytime. He IS who He says He is, He DOES exactly as He says He does, and We all would be wise to take Him at His word- NO other god can save Pike- REGARDLESS of what people who;s intent it is to deceive tell you.

I’ll tell you point blank- My God does NOT dissappoint- in any way shape or form. Everyother god dissappoints. Regarding schsims in the Christian denominations, People and leaders can choose to sell their soul and twist hte major theological issues of the word and call God a liar if htey like, but I’ll believe God all the way to the grave because I could care less about fame or furtune as some of the people who choose to pervert God’s word to appease others and recieve accolades do. Their reward is here on earht- theier reward is a USELESS instant puffing up of pride, and appointments to power- My reward, as promised by God Himself- is incorruptible, and awaits me in heaven- that’s good enough for me because the One who promissed it has shown Himslef ot be absolutely trustworthy once I took that leap of faith and put my trtust in Him.

[[You believe what you believe because the people around you in your community and church believe it too, and for no other reason than that]]

No Pike- that is a lie- I beleive what I beleive because hte Holy Spirit convicted my soul and made me aware that I was lost and needed to be saved- it was the Holy Spirit- the Very Holy Spirit that is at work in your soul as well, that convinced me to bow before God and ask Him to forgive me for sinning against Him. Noone coerced me Pike- noone drilled ‘religion’ intop my mind -infact, I had nothign to do with religion when I was running from God bwefore salvation- You know full well that the Holy spirit is working on your heart and in your conscience, but accusing otehrs of simple blind acceptance won’t dull the conviction of the conscience- Beleive me- I used all the excuses you yourselv use to try to shut up the convictions in my own heart- guess what? It didn’t work- The more I ridiculed people of faith- them ore the Holy Spirit convicted my heart- the angrier I got- the more pateince the Hoyl spirit showed. I hope that one day you will get to experience the fact that God is EXACTLY who He says He is, and that He is wholly Trsutworthy and true to His word. In the meantime though- don’t deceive yourself by accusing others of things that aren’t true. God proved Hismelf to me personally- and He will do so for you- but it is YOU alone that have to make that move toward Him- noone else-


343 posted on 02/26/2008 10:28:31 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
in·con·tro·vert·i·ble

adj.
Impossible to dispute; unquestionable:

Again, the fact you controvert my post is further evidence that nothing is incontrovertible.

344 posted on 02/26/2008 12:21:18 PM PST by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
No replies.

No one has to worry about spelling faux paux for you.

345 posted on 02/26/2008 12:25:04 PM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
You reverse sellling of McCain does not work with me

when someone is terrorized it is usually to late

You may infer to much.

Show me a human who can hit a moving aircraft at 4 miles wiht a 50

You are consistently bellicose as well as one who exhibits garbled syntax along with poor spelling.

I didn't want to waste much time on you, but after reading some of your unkind rants to others decided you were, indeed, small potatoes.

346 posted on 02/26/2008 12:40:14 PM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
To: fweingart I have one watching your spelling and the work is great!!! 336 posted on 02/26/2008 9:29:26 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

So your are a poor sport to?

347 posted on 02/26/2008 12:49:58 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
So your are a poor sport to?

Too many martinis before lunch? Or no lunch, just the martinis?

I know. You're like me. A retired multi-millionaire who has nothing to do all afternoon but putter around on FR.

My second car is a Bentley.

348 posted on 02/26/2008 1:04:24 PM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: fweingart

No Bentley’s here. Do not Like them. Hummers and Vette’s.


349 posted on 02/26/2008 1:21:47 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

In the Book of Acts. The issue came up several times and the Apostles and church leaders discussed it quite thoroughly. It was something the early church wrestled with and settled long ago.

Peter also had a vision where God declared all foods clean.
The account is in Acts Ch 10 but is a bit much to cut and paste.

Here’s a link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=31


350 posted on 02/26/2008 1:25:35 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Captain Pike
As for myself, I could try as hard as I might, but I could never believe a rock was a god. I can't believe your God either. No difference.

Big difference. My God isn't a rock.

Your faith is no different. Belief in empty promises, because believing feels good. Obama is simply the new messiah, while yours is very old and the truth of his humanity is lost in the mists of time.

They're not empty promises because God is God, not a lying, fallible man.

Even if what you say is true, and there's nothing after this life; I still haven't lost anything by believing. I lead a content secure life, don't hurt anyone, will look back at the end with few regrets. I've lost nothing by believing. If I'm right, I've gained everything by believing.

351 posted on 02/26/2008 1:31:42 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

The faith involved in evolution is that since variation within species (micro-evolution) can be observed, then speciation/macro-evolution must have happened.

THAT has never been observed. For all the experiments that have produced variation, there have never been any that have produced enough change to support macro evolution. That’s always extrapolated. *Well, if we had enough time to run the experiments, then we’d see it.*


352 posted on 02/26/2008 1:35:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Egad!

We're both rich.

Come on over and I'll mix the martinis!

353 posted on 02/26/2008 1:37:06 PM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: fweingart

Do not do martini’s - tequila, straight no handlebars.


354 posted on 02/26/2008 1:46:19 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

bttt


355 posted on 02/26/2008 1:48:23 PM PST by petercooper (Sure, Americans don't want Muslims running a couple U.S. ports, but they're fine with a Muslim Prez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I beleive what I beleive because hte Holy Spirit convicted my soul and made me aware that I was lost and needed to be saved- it was the Holy Spirit-

And the preacher at the front of the church was silent this whole time? Didn't say a word. Right. The Preacher "made you aware", obviously because if he and others had not been telling you what to believe, you wouldn't have done so.

Tell me when and where you accepted Jesus. If you were alone on a deserted island with no communication and no Bible, then maybe you have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

the Very Holy Spirit that is at work in your soul as well, that convinced me to bow before God and ask Him to forgive me for sinning against Him.

Been there. Done that. Figured out I was wrong.

Every faith has it's own "Holy Spirit", and none of them are the same, they all disagree with each other, just like you disagree with Catholics that accept evolution. Even among creationists, they don't agree whether it's old-earth creationism, young-earth, or directed evolution. All they can agree on is that it's not "random chance", but after that, none agree.

When God gets His act together and communicates well enough so that it's obvious and all of humanity can agree on how to worship Him, then get back with me.

356 posted on 02/26/2008 1:49:13 PM PST by Captain Pike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Not to worry. I have many bottles of Tequila (Agave) and make the best Marguerita! No sweetened lime juice....just juice and a splash of Cointreau.


357 posted on 02/26/2008 1:53:38 PM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: metmom

>>The faith involved in evolution is that since variation within species (micro-evolution) can be observed, then speciation/macro-evolution must have happened.

THAT has never been observed.<<

Direct observation of historical scientific events is not the standard we use. If it were much nuclear, astronomical, biological etc advancement would not have been made.

So much of the worlds economy is based on electrostatics and so much of the is not directly observable.

Instead we have learned to use to the idea of scientific certainty - where theories are used as long as they are supported by evidence and not contradicted and continue to be useful. For example the famous spaghetti monster, while not contradicted by evidence is not a useful theory because it doesn’t predict anything.

Developmental biology, is, however, quite useful as it has and continues to predict many things - from the internal workings of life to where oil is found to how to treat evolving diseases.

That’s a long winded way to say its not really faith - its more... the best working theory, subject to change but darn useful in the mean time.


358 posted on 02/26/2008 1:54:46 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

O.K., fine, but do look up ‘preussposition’ while you are flipping through the dictionary.


359 posted on 02/26/2008 2:00:08 PM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: no nau

The proof you exist is proof enough of Creation.

Proof of God’s existence is effectively the first mover... nothing changes without first being acted on by an outside force... so, if you follow any change backwards in time something else caused that etc etc etc.. all the way back to the first mover.

So, what is the first mover? To the monotheist, the answer is God... to the secular humanist, the answer is “Uh, I don’t know.”

Now, God as the God of Abraham is another step, but first mover is a pretty good visibile indication of God.


360 posted on 02/26/2008 2:00:25 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 441-442 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