My family owned three Chargers, two with 440's, a Challenger with a 340 and Plymouth Fury with a 383. I like the Chargers for power, style and room, but that Challenger was the most fun to drive. The Hemi is a great engine, not only in myth, but in reality, but it is a detuned race engine and the 440 was more well behaved in daily driving. The Hemi had a thicker block and was about 100 lbs heavier than the 440. I nearly bought a 426 Hemi engine from a family friends auction, but missed it by a smile. Didn't know it was on the block until too late. My old adviser had and probably still has two 392 Hemis. I should get in touch with him come to think of it. If a person wanted a big Mopar to restore and drive, I would recommend the 440 for its temperament, power, price, availability and maintenance costs. I have only ridden in and not driven a Hemi-powdered car, a 1970 Superbee. I thought I was going to end up in the trunk. Sorry, I am meandering and reflecting.<quoted text>
In the lower 48 they let me drive a 440 Charger,- once. As a kid from Alaska they made me sit in the back after that, smart move. We only had 20 miles of roads in my town and I didn't own a car, so funny you bring that up. Look, everyone here should read up on the clotting process and then read Behe's version. Seem those here put Behe's work down because it's fashionable in evolutionary talkorigins fed circles and not from an informed position. The topic of discussion was Behe and blood clotting, not brought up by myself. I think the Hemi did fine when it hit the power band and the 440 was better of the blocks, is that correct?
No one here is refuting Behe's work on the basis that it is fashionable. That is ridiculous and I am surprised to hear that. I shouldn't be, but I am. I do believe you were the one that brought it up, but it doesn't really matter, because it is another example of irreducible complexity that failed.
Talkorigins is a very well supported source of information, but you are assuming none of us have read Behe's work and again that would be the wrong conclusion.
I have no issue with a person's religious beliefs. I have my own, but they are not science. Trying to supplant science with religion in a poorly veiled facade of science is not the answer.