Oh how I wish that were true. A 2005 poll has acceptance and rejection of evolution in the US are pretty well tied. The only change over twenty years was a decline on both sides, with an increase in the "not sure" response. I think that indicates some margin of success in their "teach the controversy" tactic.

Note that out of 34 countries, the US came in SECOND TO LAST, ahead of only Turkey.

(If anyone happens to have more recent polling data hand I would be eager to see it, but I don't anticipate any large shift in the numbers)

-

Vacuum, gasses, liquids, and solids reveal different properties in how sound waves pass through them (with vacuum revealed by not transmitting sound at all of course). Sound waves can also be focused to create images, like the way dolphins can see with sonar. Where building a suitable lens is impractical you can use multiple sound sources and/or multiple listening points as a virtual lens to compute an image. Here's a good link explaining a 1998 confirmation of a solid inner core below the molten mantle and molten outer core: Earthquake Provides Proof That Earth's Innermost Core Is Solid.

Another link is: Evidence for Internal Earth Structure and Composition. That one gives more explanation on how seismic waves are used to see the inner earth, but mainly I'm linking it for this image which illustrates how seismic stations at different points on earth see seismic waves passing through different parts of the earth. Seismic stations at the bottom of the image see seismic waves which reveal the inner and outer core. Note that it takes something like a half hour or more for waves from an earthquake to arrive at the opposite side of the planet. Different kinds of waves travel at different speeds and arrive several minutes apart, with the difference in timing between different kinds of waves providing rich additional information of the composition of the earth along various paths. Different kinds of waves can be analyzed separately to compute images of different aspects of the inner earth.

-

I realize this is fanciful, and the odds are really high that this didn't happen, but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?

Wow. It's really impressive seeing someone literally invoking Last_Thursdayism in defense of "merely circumstantial evidence" argument. Usually it's the atheist side that invokes Last Thursdayism to point out how unbelievably stupid it is to dismiss an entire planet of evidence as "merely" circumstantial.

-

*IF* that can indeed be used to tear down their beliefs, then these beliefs are in conflict with reality.

When someone acts based upon misinformation the outcome is at best random. Any benefit derived from acting on false beliefs is pot luck, and it is on average grossly outweighed by the harm that often results from acting on false information.

"Tearing down" falsehoods and misunderstandings is an altruistic social good. It makes it less likely for people to inadvertently cause harm with their well-intentioned acts.

The study and understanding of evolution can potentially do something infinitely better. It may save that child or family member from dying in the first place. Either it may further the advancement of science in general leading to the cure or prevention of the cause of death, or it may keep someone from unwittingly acting in some way that causes or allows the death to happen.

10-year-old Lilly Badger and 7-year-old twins Grace and Sarah Badger are dead. And why are they dead? Because they believed Santa Clause was real. They are dead because some people allowed and encouraged them to believe Santa Clause was real. They are dead because there was not a single adult in their life to stand up and tell them the truth. The children were afraid Santa would be hurt by the burning embers in the fireplace. So the burning embers were hazardously removed from the fireplace, and they were trapped when the house turned into an inferno.

I have a radical proposal. My proposal is that they could have been told the truth, and the family could have still celebrated the holiday, and the children and the parents still could have enjoyed the presents and family time.

Santa-frigging-Claus. Something every adult knows is fiction. When adults believe in a fiction, and act based upon that fiction, the harmful results are infinitely more common and overall cause vastly more harm both large and small. I am not selectively singling out the most extreme results like, as you note yourself, enslavement and torture. I'm not ignoring any positives. I'm saying that in sum total, when people act based upon misinformation the result is at best random. That it is on average harmful. I'm saying the net result is harmful.

it's not going to help them find satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.

Nor does knowledge of evolution prevent people from finding satisfaction in helping to feed and clothe the starving or serving mankind in other ways.

And if we didn't waste so many resources building gold-clad temples to Athena and Zeus, perhaps there would be fewer people in desperate need of food and clothing. If we didn't waste some much time doing rain dances to water the crops, perhaps we could allocate even a tiny fraction of that time building irrigation for crops to feed and clothe people.

-

Any who came up with the idiotic idea that beliefs are inherently entitled to any respect?

If your neighbor has a belief that he's being anal probed by gay alien government agents, are you seriously suggesting that belief warrants any respect whatsoever? Does it warrant any more respect if someone believes in walking talking snakes? Does it warrant any more respect when someone believes God wrote, or divinely inspired, a book which (in part) orders parents to murder disrespectful children?

I respect people's freedom to believe stupid stuff. But that does not mean I have to respect the belief itself, nor does it mean I have to respect a person who believes stupid stuff.

-

The sections of ship are designed to be isolable from each other. Close a door, shut some duct work to isolate air, and you're fat dumb and happy back in the engine room!

Uh, except commenters and Wikipedia both say that's not true - that the Los Angeles class has only 1-2 bulkhead doors and they most likely had cables and plumbing passed through, making them impossible to seal.

I guess you're just full of shit, then, and lying about serving on one of these subs. Nobody knows you're a dog on the internet, huh?

Wrong. With something like a photograph, the right commercial customer may come along and find it ideal for a marketing campaign, etc. The photographer - who has not yet licensed it to anybody else - can then license it exclusively to that company, and charge appropriately. If the image has already been appropriated and used out of context by some other infringing part, that can cause problems for the photographer's later ability to license it as he sees fit. You're not understanding how this works.

And as an attorney and someone who publishes stuff herself, she should know that every work is subject to copyright, and that if she can't see where someone has granted her license to use it without asking, she can safely assume that running off with it and using it as part of her own material is infringement, plain and simple.

I'm sure that the nuclear operators stayed at their watch stations during all this

Why? The reactor's probably completely shutdown in drydock anyway, but....SCRAM the reactor, grab your jacket, and exit stage left like everyone else. It's a PWR reactor - not a liquid metal reactor that would be permanently damaged by shutdown.

Is there really a point to sticking around? I'm genuinely curious.

Isn't that what they said to Neo in the Matrix?