Great website addressing just your question at BioLogos. On a base level, they are Christians who believe exactly as you say about evolution. On a detailed level, well, there are lots of details. My understanding is a lot of "real" scientists eventually developed this resource. People like Francis Collins, the guy who decoded the human genome ... currently appointed by Obama to head the NIH, are involved.

Lastly people take risks in the name of discovery and production.

Kind of like all of that awesome energy we get from releasing CO2 as a byproduct? Releasing all that CO2 is a risk we currently take in the name of production.

Your line of reasoning to support this project is perfectly transferrable to someone arguing that it's worth the risk to burn coal and oil instead. The only difference appears to be that you personally support drilling.

You only think the TARP thing was "needed" because somebody told you it was.

How do you know there weren't any banks making loans? To homebuyers? Or to businesses? When the news told you they weren't making loans, did you find out which they were talking about? Were businesses looking for loans in the first place? OR were businesses interested in shoring up their own books before getting more loans? This is all past tense, "were", how do you know businesses want loans now? Home prices haven't gone up, so shouldn't they be in the same situation?

If I sound patronizing, it's because I am. I find that the vast majority of people who state opinions on TARP, like yourself, have no answers to any of those questions. You just think it was good because whoever you voted for told you so.

The parent you replied to actually had rationalizations for how loans and risk work in a marketplace. You should start learning there.

Yes, because the prohibitive cost of textile products is what we desperately need to fix right now.

Averaging is obviously a problem, but the standard number of tests a DUI requires is two. The police take two tests of your breath, and use the resulting number. Done. Hence this averaging error really isn't that serious...

But regardless, what the article doesn't say is that the machines have internal tests on a *known BAC sample* and verify with themselves that they are reading the known number. If the incorrect reading ever comes back, the machine refuses to function. This test is run automatically before every single test on a suspect, it's automatic. So regardless of how crappy the code is, it's kind of a black-box-magic that gets verified, and so you can be confident that the thing works.

Complain about some stupid while loops and if statements, but if it works, it works. No?

Actually your complaint is misguided. You are arguing that there must be evidence to believe something. People who believe in a virgin birth do so without what you would call evidence.

That's fine, but it is entirely different from someone who sees evidence and rejects its implication. "Believing without evidence" and "seeing evidence and believing" are two completely separatable beliefs.

Your linking of virgin-birth-believers to those that reject RNA evidence is totally distinct. Sure, they may be the same class of people, but using one belief to slam the other makes no sense.

Or maybe you're just bitter because you got PWNED by his odd convoluted understanding of what evolution is. He is so far correct on bird flu not reaching humans!

Actually, long lives pollute the planet more than short lives. So do you want less pollution to live longer, or to live longer to pollute more?

You should really figure out what your end goal is first before building straw men.

I'd love to have my own jet plane to get across the country faster too. But I don't have the money to buy it. You see, I stop spending when I'm out of money. $10 trillion in debt, and counting... Sure, let's buy a new shiny train! Weeee!

Why do you want to limit economic improvement to certain people?

I think this is a disingenuous question. Either that, or you have no family, no friends, and don't talk to your neighbors. It's at the core of mankind to form relationships. It easily follows that you want those people who you've formed relationships with to succeed.

I could continue, but it'd repeat what a couple others already said. I find it hard to believe you truly are asking that question anyway.

Well the US has declared CO2 to be a pollutant. So we've already declared the life requirement of exhaling to be a polutant. It's actually a step backward to ban your methane filled booty.

being able to abort a genetically-defective fetus

Wow, really? Tugging on that string are we? You must not know anything about genetics because I guarantee you have "defects" in your genes (e.g. do you wear glasses?). Best of luck in a world that aborts people based on somebody's definition of defective.

You seem to be the only one fooled by the parent's logic. I wish you luck moosesocks. I'm going to pass legislation banning animals with antlers, and when you have trouble coming up with a moose without antlers ... don't complain that I'm banning moose.

Also, contrary to the American non-historian's widely held view of World War I, we (the Americans) were terribly incompetent there, and basically embarrassed ourselves [citation needed]

Considering most of these are top-level positions, you may want to change THOUSANDS to DOZENS. That's not a good record in any context.