The ancient Hebrews certainly understood the concept of "year," as well as "ten," "hundred," and "thousand," and multiples thereof. There would have been no reason that divine revelation couldn't have included something like "for over a hundred thousand thousand years, no life moved on the land, but only in the water." Our ancestors weren't idiots, they just didn't have the knowledge we do. Saying "well, they said 'day' when they really meant 'millions of years'" strikes me as a subtle form of denigration.

Your "we can never be completely sure" argument isn't the one that motivates creationists, and you know it. Yes, of course it's possible that evolutionary theory is wrong. It's possible that anything we think we know about how the universe works is wrong. Acknowledging this basic fact is required for any kind of scientific inquiry. But creationists are completely sure that their explanation is right, and they will continue to be sure of this no matter how much evidence accumulates against their position. By invoking "the idea of evolution as a religion," you're arguing against a straw man; the beliefs based on faith rather than science are entirely on one side of this argument, and it's not the side of evolutionary biology.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the ancient desert nomads who told and retold the collection of folktales which eventually got written down as the Book of Genesis meant anything at all other than the literal meaning of the word "day." The Hebrew "yom" has exactly the same meaning as the English "day," and while it can be used poetically to indicate other periods of time ("in those days," "a day will come," etc.) there is nothing in Genesis to indicate such a usage.

... "I hope you're right. I really do." But we know how that worked out.

Leakey is being wildly optimistic. The evidence for evolution is already overwhelming (and no, "intelligent design" is not required.) There is a large and noisy group of people who have made it very plain that they will not accept this evidence. It's an ideological issue for them, not a scientific one. And they will continue to maintain this position in the face of any new evidence that is presented to them. There's no way to win them over with appeals to logic. The only solution, AFAICT, is to continue to shower them with the mockery they so richly deserve, and hope that they're driven back to the lunatic fringe where they belong.

Right, because it's a boolean attribute. Frequency and degree aren't relevant.

Do you seriously believe that? There is absolutely no way the terrorists ever had even the remotest hope of overthrowing our government. Your statement is one of the most ludicrous I've ever read on this whole topic -- and mountains of idiocy have been spouted.

It is his first, only and final option. She can then take appropriate action. He acted 100% appropriately. Please note that this "attorney" has multiple infractions. She has been using other peoples work with a complete disregard for ownership.

Not really. In case number two, the owner was deprived of some cheap paint and a canvas, not much else. If it was a Picasso, that paint and that canvas was valued at zero compared to the value of the work that went in to the painting. Picasso reportedly once made a quick sketch at someone's request and then asked an exorbitant amount of money for it. The requester protested stating that Picasso only spent about 3 minutes on the sketch and that it could not possibly be worth that amount of money. Picasso answered that this was not the case. He had spent thirty years on that sketch. He was right.

It's like stealing software and claiming that nobody lost any money. It is bullshit. The photographer lost money he was owed due to her actions, or at least recognition. Both are valuable commodities if you try to make a living as an artist, which even with photographers is damned hard. Creating the picture took him years and years of work. She stole it. She needs to suffer for that.