So are you saying that Anthropology is not science? I guess anthropology and the study of those who came before doesn't matter, is that what you are saying?

It is an anthropological fact that every human culture, not matter how far removed or isolated from the rest of humanity, has a history of a belief in a God like higher power and has a belief in visits from the heavens.

So should this anthropological fact not be taught in an anthropology course just because it goes against the theory of evolution?

Any true scientist will tell you that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence, making it approach fact but it is yet to be fact. Only presumptuous know-it-alls would dare say it was fact yet.

I totally get that is fine to teach the theory of evolution. However, until it is a proven, it is a theory. Don't get me wrong, it has a lot of evidence, even an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it is not the amount of evidence that is the only factor.

There is also other evidence of creationism. Saying that every person from the time of recorded history to now who has claimed to have been visited from the heavens has lied is a pretty tough pill to swallow. Had it been only one religion in one area, sure, but every group of humanity no matter how remote or isolated believes in creationism and has records and stories of visits from beings the heavens (angels, aliens, whatever).

Ok, now add our DNA studies to the mix. We are actually manipulating DNA today. So we actually have as much proof (or more) that evolution was caused by DNA manipulation (which actually supports the theory of creationism) than we do that it was just natural selection. Scientists are making guesses based on fossils at best. Our knowledge of DNA is growing rapidly.

I find it odd that as humanity gets closer and closer to being able to perform the act of creationism, the belief in creationism is some less likely. That doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view. Also, what about the missing link? Kinda seems like there are jumps in evolution, as if species make major leaps in short periods of time (scientifically short at least) and there is no reason behind it and no evidence of the missing link between the two species. Are those jumps in evolution caused by DNA manipulation. Is it caused by God or a visiting race that is more advanced than our own?

Now that we can travel in space, it is somehow less likely that visitors from elsewhere (angels or aliens) visited this earth in its history? Despite enough eye witnesses throughout history that if it were a crime with that many witnesses, no court of law would fail to convict.

Evolution also fails to take into account infinity. No beginning and no end. Is it more likely that life started from nothing or is it more likely that life has always existed and there was no beginning to life and there will be no end. Our view is still too limited for us to be calling this theory a fact.

Whether you believe in God or in an Alien species or whatever, is it more likely that we just randomly appeared or that evolution was somehow guided?

Believe that God created the world and that evolution occurs are not mutually exclusive beliefs. God is not going to break the laws of nature. So maybe he created mankind by guiding evolution.

I believe in creationism and I believe in evolution. I believe in both. I also believe that species could have been transplanted here by God (or if you prefer, a superior alien race). I also believe that evolution could have been guided in many ways.

5 million is plenty especially if you only spend the interest. If taxes takes it to just more than half, and he only gets 3 million. Any relatively good money manager can make 5% a year on money that size by going conservative. That means he could get interest of 150K a year. If he blows a million on a house, cars, and stuff, that leaves 2 million. He could still get interest of 100K a year (without a house payment).

So selling for 5 million requires only minimal prudence to live on the rest of your life and still increase your wealth every year.

This may be true in some places, but there are a couple of states growing fast. Oregon, and Utah. They are going to need new highways and their current infrastructure does include building trains and railways to help too.

Imagine a toolbox of tools. When you are young, you fill it with what you need to get a job done. Over time, your toolbox gets full enough that you can do every task with your current tools so you don't buy more. Ten years later, all your tools start dying at the same time and you have a huge cost to replace them all.

When you learn .NET 2.0, you put a lot of .NET 2.0 tools in your toolbox. You probably didn't take time to add the .NET 3 tools to your toolbox or the .NET 4 tools in your toolbox (WPF, WCF, LINQ, XML Serialization, etc.). Now .NET 4.5 is coming out and you need to update your entire toolbox.

All I can say, is you have caching up to do. The problem isn't that you are too old to learn, it is that you have such a lot to learn it seems overwhelming. When you were young, you didn't know everything you needed to learn, so you didn't have that overwhelming feeling. You couldn't see the hill you were climbing. Now you are older and you understand what you don't know. Now you see the hill you are climbing. It isn't any bigger, in fact it is likely smaller, but you can see it so it is daunting.

You need to take two hours a week to learn as part of your job. If you do this your toolbox will fill back up with new tools and you will never find yourself in this situation again. Don't worry about your company losing those two hours to your education, they will gain so much more. You will be more productive and something that would have taken two days, takes you a few hours. For example, my previous company I joined a team that had spent over a month working on custom code to build an XML file only to find it didn't work with WPF and binding. I learned XML Serialization and recreated their entire code in eight hours (code that took them a month). I didn't do anything impressive. I didn't write the XML serialization technology, MS did. My code involved simple classes that any new college grad could have done. I just added a new tool (XML serialization) to my toolbox. If they had added XML Serialization to their toolbox and used it, they wouldn't have wasted a month on code that didn't integrate. So you see, your two hours of self study a week will pay off big for your company and is a wise investment.

What should you do to start? Well, since you are a .NET Developer, go with this:
Learn WPF and LINQ: http://windowsclient.net/learn/

I believe in God. I enjoy science. There is no contradiction between science and the belief in God.