It doesn't matter when we run out of oil - we will eventually. It matters that we have to stop burning this crud called "oil" before we muck up the Earth to the point of no-return - which may have already happened.

Nuclear power to produce hydrogen isn't a bad idea - but it's still wasteful. It would be better to produce electricity with it and run electric cars than to produce hydrogen with it and then burn it. Lots of wasted energy there in an internal-combustion engine. Not to mention the transport/distribution changes necessary - the electric grid is already in place.

I'd rather see ethanol production ramp up, at least in the short-term. Engines exist, the technology exists (see flex-fuel vehicles like the Ford Explorer V6's). We're already running "gasahol" like they tried to do in the 70's - gasahol was just plain 90% gas, 10% ethanol. Metro NY and other metro areas are already running it. And I personally see no difference in performance. E85 is 85% ethanol. Again, the technology already exists for ethanol, especially E85. However, there are some pollutants that come from burning ethanol, so it's not the perfect solution.

By the way, about evolution - ever notice how it's called the "Theory of Evolution"? - that's right, it's a THEORY - that one word immediately points out the difference between fact and theory. If the "sheep" can't figure that one out without a teacher going over and over the fact that it's a THEORY, well, they all need to learn English. That goes for people who do not agree with it - it's a THEORY - don't like it? Come up with your own theory that fits the FACTS.