doG

But it's not irrelevant. How can certain people believe the bible is inerrant and divine AND call themselves scientists? A scientist would treat the bible as subjectively as everything else. Sure, there as scientists like Einstein whose work reflects adherence to scientific principle yet claim to have some deist or theist belief, but they're not bible thumpers. Then there are those that claim the Earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says so and that man walked with dinosaurs and they want to call themselves scientists. Their belief in the bible makes everything they claim questionable.

You're missing his point. You should not put your words inside your quotations of another members post. See how my comments are outside the part of my post that quotes you. There is no ambiguity on what you have said or what I have said.

Get something like the Radioactive Source Kit AP8796 from Flinn Scientific. Their description says:

Really? You think this planet can be occupied by a primate species with a population of more than 7,000,000,000 and not have any more effect on the environment than erosion? Mankind certainly contributes to climate change, only the magnitude of that contribution is debatable. One thing is not debatable though, the magnitude of mankinds pollution of the environment that we depend on for life. We're not just pissing in our bathwater, we've consumed an overdose of laxative so that we can make it toxic to life as we know it. As a whole we're proving to be a very irresponsible species on our host planet.

I'm not swansont but generally you need to post a link and a credit in the post where you post excerpts from a news piece. In this case your link needed to be in the first post where you posted all of the excerpts from the news story itself, not later in the thread.

This reminds me of the frozen light experiments from over a decade ago...

I'd like to mention that translations are a secondary to problem to the fact that what is written in the first place is hearsay, hand-me-down rhetoric that already lacks depth of meaning and accuracy. Translations just distort the story even further...

I think the appearance of Cosmos is an example of what the thread is about, a proclaimed theistic scientist. His exemplary display of accepting hand-me-down hearsay as evidence is exactly what makes the subjectivity of a theistic scientist questionable.

More salt will cause it to quench faster....

he said he said is not testimonial evidence, it is hearsay... I believe there was a man we call Jesus of Nazareth but I do not believe he was any kind of deity as there is no evidence to suggest he was.

Hand-me-down hearsay claims are not evidence...

Are you missing the point on purpose? The point is not that corn dog pooping dragons are god(s) or vice versa, but that the evidence in support of the existence of either is the same, zero, zip, nada, none. It is no different than the evidence in support of the existence of unicorns or leprechuans for there is none. There is exactly the same amount of evidence that supports the existence of any of these imaginary things, none. Yes, someone could also claim that god is a corn dog pooping dragon but no one here has done that, they have merely said the lack of supporting evidence for either is the same. Can you really not see the difference?

What evidence is there of any kind to believe anything else? The whole ideology that there is any afterlife is one of man's imaginations and there is no reason to give it any consideration without supporting evidence. I freely concede that it is possible but the fact that i don't have any belief in such does not make it religious.

That's like saying popular myths are not myths because they are popular. Popularity IS NOT evidence of truth!

Yes, and you've provided a perfect example. Abiogenesis IS NOT evolution and vice versa so don't try to define either in terms of the other. Your attempt to do so is a common creationist mistake.

This gives rise to an interesting thought. Often when one looks to invalidate or disqualify a patent they look for existing works to show the mechanism already existed prior to the patent, making the mechanism unpatentable for the purpose of proprietary protection. Are existing mechanisms in nature therefore unpatentable? If not, should they be? To copy nature does not produce an original work.

I find that keeping the following values in memory allows me to approximate closely enough for most needs without a calculator:

A copper sulphate solution will turn green when sodium chloride is added to it...

Ummmmmmmmmmmm......NO! You've argued one is more popular than the other. You seem blind to the fact the the evidence for either is the same. Why? I for one feel that my belief in Humanism is religious. I could also be labeled to some extent a Jeffersonian Christian in that I believe in the life and morals advocated by the man, Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not of the belief that being atheist means one cannot be religious. Contrary to many I believe Buddhism to be a religious belief and it is free of deities as well.

Why? The amount of evidence supporting either is comparable, ZERO = ZERO!

You don't have to actually use a 16 foot column of water to simulate the equivalent pressure you would have at the bottom of the column. One foot of water with 6.5 pounds of additional air pressure (the weight of a 15 foot column of water) on top of it would simulate a pressure at the bottom the same as a 16 foot column of water.

You can get a 1 foot piece of pipe with caps for both ends and use air pressure to simulate the depth of any size water column. For 16 feet use about 6.5 psi of air pressure.

What hypocrisy!!!

Discussion? With someone that can't tell the difference between a question and a statement? Perhaps one of your friends has a better command of english that could help you understand. Yes, by the way. There is as much evidence for corn dog shitting dragons as there is for any god(s).

Who made a statement? I asked a question. That's why I put one of those ? things at the end. Maybe I could ask more plainly to see if you understand. Do you think belief equals evidence? (btw, that's a question)