As for your scientific arguments, TurtleShroom, do yourself a favor and accept reality. There is no evidence of a global flood in the geologic record. In its place we have evidence of an entirely different history; one marred by several global events, such as meteor/comet impacts, but no global floods. The bottleneck observed in human genetics infers that our existing population stems from a population of about a thousand individuals. It does not infer that we stem from less than a dozen. Microevolution and macroevolution describe the same process. The difference is simply a matter of scope. Asserting that microevolution is plausible but macroevolution is impossible is as stupid as asserting that one stair is plausible but a staircase is impossible. Please, stop perpetuating this banal argument.

(cont..) And when we start counting them up Muslim, Wiccan, Hindus, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Unitarians, Native Americans and dont forget us atheists when we count them up we have a serious logistical problem with providing everyone a spot. It recently became a problem here in Washington State, and Ive read it has elsewhere as well. If there is no line that can be drawn between one religion and another then the best course is to draw a line between religion and the state. Separation of Church and State is the logical consequence.

TurtleShroom, Thomas Jefferson had much more to say about the equity of all beliefs in a secular state. If you dont believe me, read his autobiography. But regardless of this, the consequence of secularism is clear Either we allow every belief system (be it religious, non-religious or anti-religious) equal opportunity on government (ie. tax payer) property, or we allow none. If we're going to allow the Ten Commandments on a public lawn then we cannot reasonably deny any other group from planting their own message there as well.

I think that Charles Darwin would be appalled at what has been tacked to his good name. Charles Darwin saw adaptation and survival of the fittest in nature. The Origin of Species, which covers MICROevolution, is not only religiously aligned, but religiously SUPPORTED. MICROevolution states that different creatures have a common ancestor. All turtles from one turtle ancestor, all dogs from one wolf ancestor. When God sent the Flood, Noah had male and female of all species needed to replenish the earth, and seven livestock. From this genetic bottleneck comes every creature today, stemming from a common ancestor. Noah's family and their wives resupplied the human race. Homo sapiens has been deplenished to the point of restart before, look on National Geographic for those past "Mega Disasters". From a few thousand came six billion then, so surely from a few dozen could come millions enough to stand the NEXT bottleneck!

The movie wasn't discussing the Origins of Species, it was discussing a more modern spin off of it, an extremist belief of MACROevolution, that went beyond why species exist and adapt (where Darwin stopped), and on to how life began, with such blasphemy as everything that has and ever existed was a freak accident and that one cell appeared on the earth, and through billions of years, mutated to everything we know. Charles Darwin isn't the demon here, he just made observations. Darwin's Origin of Species does NOT contradict the Bible. In fact, Survival of the Fittest helps explain genetic bottlenecks and Noah's Ark. The beliefs that make me put my foot down are no more extreme than your opinion of faith. Eleventh Dimension? Why not just say God? It takes as much faith to accept things like that as it does to believe in a divine being.

I agree with many of the points made in "Expelled", but I dislike how the movie calls it "Darwinism". Charles Darwin was a Catholic Christian. He saw turtles and noticed how they adapted to their surroundings. He invented the idea that it was a "Survival of the Fittest", what I call MICROevolution. See more in above comment.

I still feel that those who do not believe in God have a foothold in the higher education of a country. For instance, someone made a second "Scopes v. State" because someone had the Ten Commandments on public grounds. That is an attack on religion. Who cares if I have a gigantic cross on my yard, or if my courthouse has the Ten Commandments? Is it HURTING anyone? However, turn it around, and it happens as well. I must accept the Crusades as a grim reality (see my other commentary), for example. Of course, one killed, and one discriminated, but their motives were the same: to get rid of the opposition.

I am a devout Christian myself. I am also a major science fan and I enjoy keeping tabs on all sorts of branches of science. However, I believe in God and therefore that, as stated in the Bible, I believe that God created the Heavens and Earth. I believe that no doctrine should kick another doctrine out. Atheistis should never censor Christians from conducting prayer in public buildings; Christians should never expell someone because they don't believe in God. We have the right to choose. Nobody has the right to discriminate someone from their beliefs OR from sharing their beliefs.

Another example of religious hijacking was when a bunch of wannabe "Christians" went on a power hungry land-grabbing spree, killing innocent Jews, Islamics, and even other Christians, all in the "name of God". They called it the "Crusades". By the way, the Pope actually condemned the Crusades after learning of the slaughter, and in the 1990s, one Pope apologized for the entire sin altogether. Make note I am not Catholic, but Catholics are Christians, and I am a Christian also. Every faith has sinners who twist it to their theories, and it was what the First Amendment tried to prevent. If the state declared an official religion, it would attack others AND start doctoring its state religion to favor its cause.

The religious section of the First Amendment was intended to keep the State out of the Church, not the Church out of the State. The words "seperation of church and state" are not in any framing document of our country. Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in a letter to a reigon trying to force a religion on others, but it was not a federal deal. Do you recall the Church of England? King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the Catholic Church said no, Henry banished the Church and started attacking Catholics. The amendment was set to stop "Religious Hijacking", as I like to call it. Sinful men of all eras will twist any written faith to their ideals. Terrorists like Al-Qaeda and Taliban blow themselves up in the name of Allah, the Islamic God. If a state declared an official religion, it would start getting involved in it, and would eventually corrupt it to glorify the state in God's name.