The idea itself, that lack of religious views make these places well-adjusted and happy, seems to ignore some basic groundwork about other factors involved-it may well turn out to be location, strategically and otherwise, cultural history, and any number of other factors. I suspect a priori opinion, and then fact-checking to support said opinion, rather than any actual research. By religious, I mean polytheistic and monotheistic.

It seems either side, athiests or christian, engage in far too much research to support their way of looking at things-we need more individuals on either side, who are willing to suspend personal opinion or belief, willing to place the way of looking at things, on the backburner, and engage in actual research. I suspect, this is only personal, unresearched opinion, that the debate itself, you know the one, has been reduced from actually looking into various possibilities, and into mud-flinging and crappy research based on entrenched positions.

And there goes the elitism of science...at this rate, Wall-E will be seen as prophetic.

Well now, sounds in space-if I remember right, I could be hallucinating the way I remember this, but, the star wars guys replied to Phil Plait (who has done the ultra-awesome '101 Things I would NOT do if I was an evil super-villain) about the no sounds in space-yeah, hey, we kinda know that-how about you try and sit through a couple of hours of dead silent space battle! And, as concerns Star Trek, Gene Rodenberry originally said "You don't want Kirk to stop, and suddenly explain how a phaser works. You just assume it does." Basically, what works in reality, doesn't work too well on the silver screen

I ride a singlespeed too-yeehah! Hey, singlespeed man, ya'll are making some pretty hefty assumptions, so let me educate yas-numero uno, I'm not a theist, pagan, agnostic, polytheist, or athiest, as I don't self identify with stupid labels of any kind. Secundo: I happen to believe in adaptation, with a little evolution thrown in-or maybe it's a lot of evolution with a little adaptation thrown in. Anyways, my comment was not about evolution not being real, my comment was very simply, so you might understand: our understanding of evolution is somewhat limited, due to lack of DNA evidence from the past. This is not a problem, cause we do this cool thing called learning. Got it?

Well now-if it walks like a land animal, and gives birth like a land animal-then it's probably a land animal. The problem with evolution is not that it's wrong, or full of lies, it's that DNA evidence doesn't really exist, so one is compelled to look at an animals morphology, and make what are at best, educated guesses. I suspect evolution to be real, and somewhat verifiable, and that the reasoning for some choices of species, genus, phyla, are a bit flawed.

Wow, i fit wasn't for those amazing scientists decoding stuff that's obvious to a ten year old-yup, without science there's no way I would have known something as deep and mysterious as "Brain remember good stuff." Real journal of irreproducible results kinda material, there.
Now can we see some real science?

Note that when Nist ran their little simulation, they could only go to the point of collapse, on account of some serious difficulty with, oh hey, those pesky laws of physics...a simulation can ignore the laws of physics, thus does not constitute proof. does not answer the freefall speed question, nor WTC Seven, which even Nist had to back off from. A simulation is just that-a simulation. Not proof. And now only 25% of the building can precipitate a never before seen collapse, of any skyscraper, anywhere in the world? Nice try, though. I think some hill billies might buy it. Man, the offical explanation has changed it's pants, er data, more times...