I found this to be exactly true in my pedaling around supposedly civic-minded Claremont: the more time I spent at an intersection, the more time some other driver had to catch up to me, not see me, and then cut me off in the driver's haste to be elsewhere. I wasn't running a stop sign; I was getting out of Doofus Driver's way.

"teaching 'one view of what is not settled science about global warming'" is EXACTLY the problem. These so-called "scientists" (religious extremists) should earn the label "scientist" and admit they don't know everything and they're conclusions are mere probability, not certainty. Instead, we get these people teaching it like I would inist God is real, and being angry at anyone who has the unmitigated gall to disagree (of which there are many.)

What I call the "suffering quotient": if 1 person dies, that 1 unkonwn person's death is largely ignored. If 50 or 100 die, we might do something about preventing the next accident (we might not.) Conversely, if a famous person dies, we pay attention and deal with the problem that killed our celebrity. We need to get some famous people killed by these crude oil spills or nothing will be done.

Obviously because writing involves the kinesthetic as well as auditory learning. The rule is is that you don't konw what you hear or see, but only what you DO. Writing (not typing) is DOING something with the knowledge, and that's what's remembered.

God did the same thing with a "5,000,000,000" year old earth: let us believe that malarkey, then hands us additional evidence folks had been willfully ignoring to slice years off that. The whole doctrine of life-by-incremental-changes was predicated on having (at least) 5,000,000,000 years. Now we've 500,000,000, maybe. But the ridiculous belief that required so much more isn't dumped. Aren't humans weird?

Then the NSA wouldn't even need to ask to snoop on all Internet traffic exactly as the CHP needn't ask to drive up to my house, peer in my windows.

Isn't that the place that punked National Geographic with that other "missing link" fossil a couple decades ago? Why are we to think they aren't pulling the same scam. Then there's the repeatedly demonstrated gullibility of evolutionists over the last century. This is not news; this is tragic deception. I have a better idea: let's have these people HOLD THEIR OPINION for the complete data.

Duplicating all pagan religions. They start with water because Genesis starts with the Holy Spirit hovering over the water. The obvious implication is that this is the point when Lucifer was created and he decided at that point that both he and God came out of that water there. The reason this is ridiculous is that it ignores Crick's, Franklin's, and Watson's work proving the mind-boggling complexity of life that could never be duplicated but by a mind-boggling intelligence. "Random processes"? Any randomly assembled amino acid randomly disassembles as well; even Miller proved that. This is our tax dollars being spent on a national religion.

No it doen't. " For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. ... " That's what we call circular reasoning. Your argument is literally invalid for tripping over the common-to-"scientists"-lately fallacy of using the conclusion for the premise.

If it does, there never was a faith there to begin with. What happens STRENGTHENS what's there, in these cases, that the person thinks more of other humans' opinions than of God's. "One with God is a majority" (Martin Luther.) The Internet has shown me how crucial is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord as I've seen how lost and darkened is the thinking of so many people ("water is complex"? really? Is that what passes for "science" now?)

"religious ignorance" = you are the ignorant one: the first to use the insults loses. Fact is, there is no evidence of life-by-incremental-changes. Darwin RAILED against jumps but there it is: life with neither the time nor the ability to exist. Instead of insulting those who choose to not repeat unproven theories (i.e., lies), commend them for thinking for themselves instead of believing what everyone else says.

Absent from your 1-sided post is any sense of the multiple errors and outright lies that glut teaching life-by-incremental changes. If you wanna call it "creationism," you wanna slap a "religion" label on it when the real religion is the state religion of atheistic humanism. How about these guys are merely teaching the facts of how things really work?

"key physical attribute associated with life" = silly and deceptive. The KEY attribute of life is complexity, not water nor energy. And you can't fake complexity--you have an intelligence putting that into the system or you have random chaos. Deal with it.

How about because these folks have already made so many breathless claims that they have zero credibility . . . no one was believing them 6 years ago, either. Many people are simply tired of hearing half lies so they believe nothing at all--it's safer that way.

There is very much doubt about the age of the earth, solar system., universe, and all the "dating" methods used to obtain these numbers. What you don't want to admit is that this doubt exists because if you do, you have a huge amount of work ahead of you in re-writing everything you believe. Dr. Hugh Ross made an interesting comment about this: let y'all have those 6 or 9 zeroes and say, "So what?" You need HUNDREDS of zeroes to even get your life-by-incremental-changes started. Or do you not know the actual probability of randomly assembling a DNA molecule with ALL laevo-rotary amino acids? If you don't like "creation," who cares? At least it doesn't self-contradict.