@ Adam,

Some of the most venomous speech I have heard has come against our current President Bush. I hope you would equally speak against the hatred against Bush.

I am not a fan of any of the major candidates. I think they all have major flaws, with Obama's being slightly worse in my opinion.

I think I must clear something up with the anti-creationism crowd here. Creationists/Intelligent Design scientists AGREE that the kind of "evolution" talked about here happens (i.e. variations of bananas).

The difference is whether the fruits we have today merely evolved from other fruits from a long time ago, or whether they evolved from primordial soup or aliens or whatever.

By the way: Intelligent Christians don't get their science from Kirk Cameron or whoever that other guy is in the video. I like Kirk, but he doesn't represent the Christians well is the science department.

I just pay my credit card off at the end of each month, so I never pay any interest anyway. I don't buy it if I can't pay cash. And my card gives me as much as 3% back on thing like gas or restaurants.

My statement clearly says when the rewards expire in a couple years. Don't see what the problem is on this.

Mattie,

I know this story has its share of reporting problems in the media, but I wouldn't trust that blog for accuracy. They seem to be pretty heavily biased over there.

I would buy a car from this guy just to tick off the anti-gun crowd.

We should worry more about fighting crime than about restricting guns. Gun violence is a symptom of a crime problem, not about having too many guns.

Unfortunately, if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, it is a perfectly logical extension that we could and perhaps should attempt to improve the human race by eliminating the "lesser" people.

It is a dangerous notion to promote the idea that there is no God or moral ground to govern our society. Evolutionary theory can logically justify things such as euthanizing unproductive members of society, or the view of certain peoples as more evolved than others.

Fortunately, we still have many people in the USA who are willing to fight these ideals as well as the suspect science of Evolution. It is, however, as hard as ever for Darwinian dissenters to have their voice heard.

Dave has it right.

The USA has huge amounts of oil reserves that have not been tapped for the last 30 years because of environmental concerns. Unfortunately, many environmental activists want to force people to use less fuel for transportation so they like higher gas prices.

There may be a similar issue with the lack of new nuclear power plants in coming years.

Global warming overhype aside, I have no problem with someone trying to save money or recycle using cheaper fuels. But he does have to follow reasonable regulations. It does sound like some of these rules go beyond being "reasonable", like taxing fryer grease.

While the "pro-choice" crowd has been fighting to get federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the actual scientists have been developing incredible treatments using adult stem cells, cord blood, etc.

It's good to know we can stand up for moral beliefs without having to give up scientific progress, despite what some anti-religious folks might think.

It's interesting people think that guns should be banned, even though a ban is explicitly prohibited in the constitution.

But somehow it is a constitutional right to have an abortion, based on a "right to privacy."

Something seems backwards about that.

To "ahw" and others:

The Texas FLDS group (Mormons, by the way) did not marry girls until they reached puberty, not before, as far as I understand it.

Not that I'm defending them at all, but many cultures have seen it as normal for girls to marry younger than we do now, although 8 years old is a bit extreme.

To all of you who are bothered by cutting down forests, spend more energy on countries other than the U.S. The number of trees here is actually growing, unlike most other countries.

Unless you are willing to not buy anything made from trees, you are being hypocritical. Using nature to make our lives better is not a bad thing, especially when it is managed well.

Sure it isn't pretty to look at, but neither is the aftermath of forest fires, which often occur with no human intervention.

What evidence is there that there was a "loss" of the lungs. Who says they ever had lungs?

To anyone who believes we are causing global warming: remember that we came out of the ice age long before the first factory was built.

There's nothing wrong with trying to reduce pollution, but it should be done honestly and without scare tactics.

I am a Christian, and I freely admit I do not understand everything about the Old Testament (or the New one for that matter). First of all, Paul gave those outside Israel (non-Jews) what was kind of a cliff's notes version of the OT Law that should be followed for believers, including things like no fornication. Most Christians agree with him that the OT law is not in any way a requirement for salvation, but was more of a foreshadowing for Christ.

I'm not a scholar (and this is horribly over-simplifying it), but it's basically that the OT is not really important anymore when compared to Christ.

There are explanations for most of the wierd OT stuff too. I understand very few of them.