Weird. Just weird.

But then I believe Hank is the embodiment of the experiences Chang Wufei had in American class rooms.

Even if Hank didn't make things up himself it wouldn't matter. I'm pleased to say that many religious people - and, at least from my POV, even very religious people - are perfectly able to distinguish between science and religion. While religion certainly seems to be a prerequisite for rejecting science despite the fact that, given the chance, it could be easily understood, it would be quite absurd if atheism was a prerequisite for actually understanding science.

I hate to burst your bubble but representation of 100’s of millions of people in America can not be shown by News Week poling 100’s of there liberal reading audience.
Don’t Google, argue logic. You will find no truths on the enternet.
Darwinism is a Marxist movment from the 1960's, nothing more.

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

Atoms only last a few thousand years...

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

If you saw the way what you call science was pushed into the academic world by the young socialist democratic party when Nam ended your opinion would change. Everything you think you know is wrong. Planetary orbits don’t even work for more then a few thousand years, billions is just stupid and of blind following (I really don‘t think you people know how big that number really is.).
Ah, just for the record if there's an orbit there’s drag (You know, force vector acting against velocity vector and all… Tides and shit are drag.).

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

I'll bite, where did this come from?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

How is that possible? The Origin of Species was published in 1909.

What's the "logic" that we're supposed to be arguing here? Remember, most of us weren't even alive in the 1960s.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Are you insane?

Where did you get this crap from?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

And your authority on this is, what, exactly?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It's in the Bible..........

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Which has much more basis in fact than that hogwash "science."

__________________

Unless you have information that shows that the data I've found is false, I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't have a real argument.

__________________

Shit! I hope they hold out a little longer, so I at least get to see the start of football season, before the universe spontaneously degenerates into a formless soup of sub-atomic flotsam.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I agree that many do not believe in evolution and you may be experiencing higher rebuttal because of your location....Not sure.

It has been my personal faith that the Bible offers hints to the theory of evolution; the book of Genesis “IMO” relates to the big-bang theory


and also the evolution theory.

So if these people are religious, you may be able to use the argument that the Bible hints to evolution. Being that the books contained in the Bible were written well before people could comprehend nor imagine the two theories; causes me to think that a God/Superior being was involved in the writings.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

I hate this, because I am a Christian, But please, "couldn't comprehend?". If you think that creation vs. evolution is a new debate: think again! Darwin didn't begin the argument anymore than Newton "invented" gravity. Go back, read your Aristotle, your Plato. Read what they say about the different "ancient" schools of thought. For that matter, just read the first 20 pages of Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy" and you'll work it out.

Perhaps, and I'm just spitballing here, the writer(s) of Genesis was(were) neither writing a tretise on on the physics of the origins of the universe nor of the biology of the origin of the human species. Old earth theory isn't enemy of the scripture - The true enemy of the scripture is the literalist who will tear sacred hebrew poetry from its cultural context and dash it to peices against the monolithic conversations of Physics and Biology.

The Genesis account doesn't leave room for evolution. It's a hymn of invocation to the Creator-God Yahweh and as such, with its beautiful repetition and balanced imagery lays the Glory of creation at his feet. Just as the begginning of the gospel of (attributed to) John rewrites the genesis hymn of invocation to give THAT glory to Christ.

Evolution as a theory doesn't deal with such eschataological concerns and thus isn't a competing theory. Secularism perhaps, materialism certainly. But not evolution. Science never asks "to whom does the final honour and glory belong?" It only asks what are the biological mechanisms involved in X.