Exactly. If we actually protected our industries from being sent overseas, we would have plenty of things to "engineer." It's kind of hard to need engineers if you don't make anything. We make it easy to import cheap goods from countries like China, but it is almost impossible to sell our own goods to those same countries.

"anti-gay"... oh, you mean the laws that defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the laws that existed as long as this country existed (adopted from the countries that the colonists originated from)?

"anti-abortion"... oh, you mean upholding the law against murdering an innocent human? It's not a Choice, it's a Child.

It's interesting how modernists have taken basic rights and turned them around into negative terminology, and using euphemisms for things that used to be morally wrong but now are okay because you put a "pro-" in front of them and demonize the opposing view by putting an "anti-" in front of them.

It's interesting how (and I don't mean this to stereotype; there are all types of motorcyclists) some motorcyclists drive like they want to be killed.

Sharing the road simply means driving in a way that allows other motorists to get out of potential conflicts. Right-of-way is an implied system, not a hard set of rules. If someone decides to give up their right-of-way to you, then you are entitled to slowly and safely proceed to accept the right-of-way from the other motorist. If two motorists get in an accident because of right-of-way issues, most officers would at the very least give the driver with the right-of-way a warning to not insist on their right-of-way (as most states laws have a clause to this effect).

Cutting in a line of traffic should be a non-issue... following (tailgating) another car so closely that it prevents a motorist in another lane going in the same direction from merging/cutting in is against the law. Every state has a law to the effect that you must keep a reasonable space in front of you taking into account your speed. Although it isn't specifically written in the law, police officers will often cite two- to four-second following distance as reasonable. This should leave at least a couple of car lengths ahead of you, and thus room for another motorist to merge into. If all motorists on the road obeyed this law, "cutting in" would be a non-issue and not a cause for a conflict.

Right. They think they are better not in the sense that they can equitably share the road with other motorists, but because they believe they are have l33t skills at handling their car and have cat-like reflexes that allow them to tailgate and whip around slower motorists with precision.

What they don't realize is that these qualities are exactly what a good driver isn't. Good drivers are defensive drivers who have a larger awareness of the roadway than just simply their selfish needs to get to point B as quickly a possible; good drivers tend to "share the road" with other motorists. Collisions are caused by conflicts in the roadway. Aggressive drivers who think they are good drivers cause more conflicts than defensive drivers. When you get two aggressive drivers causing a conflict at the same time, you have an accident. (I'm not saying that this is how all accidents happen, just preventable ones)

I think this also stems from people passing judgement on other motorists when they do something unexpected to them. They think they are a better driver because they are appalled at all these other drivers pulling out in front of them, driving too slowly in front of them, taking their time making a right turn, etc. They conveniently forget all the other times they pulled something stupid in front of someone else because they were either too busy focusing on getting to point B, or think themselves above other motorists. The automobile is a powerful psychological device that gives people their only opportunity for power trips, so to speak, since they feel powerless in the stresses of their life off the road.

Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden before Cain and Abel were born. Eve likely conceived and bore females also (as Hebrew writings usually focus on male decedents and often leave out details of females). Cain likely married his sister (although Mosaic Law would later prohibit this practice, in-breeding was a requirement for the advancement of Adam and Eve's race).

The side-effects of in-breeding, mainly genetic deficiencies in offspring, would have little effect on the first offspring of genetically perfect parents. This could point to one explanation of why humans initially had longer lifespans, which decreased over time as human genetics degraded gradually because of further in-breeding in Noah's time after the flood (which seems to be the point in time which human lifespans reduced to near where we are today).

I personally think there is more to Genesis than metaphors.

Which is more plausible, even as a fictional work, to reality than some of the fanciful imaginations of staunch evolutionists that have been passed on as "scientific" theory and pushed in the academic community as absolute fact (and laugh anybody who disagrees with them out of the journals).

We have written evidence of a 6,000-year-old Earth, and we have pseudo-scientific evidence of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth (where not a single dating method works in this time scale, hence it is pseudo-science, not science). The only people who can't conceptualize a 6,000-year-old Earth are those who assume that decay rates and geologic deposition processes are constant rather than slowing down due to entropy. I observe a car slow down to a stop light, so therefore all cars drive 10 MPH.