Sayonara

It probably helps that the Pope recently declared evolution to be the true state of affairs, too.

I've read plenty of arguments that the bible doesn't actually specify such a date. Iirc, the 4-6000 years old figure comes from adding the approximate ages of the generations in the Old testament. There's also a small chance that radioisotope ageing is a pile of foetid dingoes kidneys. The fossil record will always be a work in progress: there are entire species in it attributable to one fossil. I realise that there is more to the the record than "something once living died", but as far as the bible goes that's all that matters since you can argue the toss over interpretations of the scripture and semantics until the cows come home. As for your final point, no. I don't see that that is relevant. Since you seem to be lecturing me on science, I should point out I do not believe that the bible is "more correct". Not by a long shot. I am simply pointing out that Judaeo-Christian beliefs and evolution are not necessarily polar extremes. You should read the numerous other threads on this.

It was implied - you just didn't intend for it to be. Which parts of the bible does it directly contradict? Normally the Christianity vs science flames are being fanned by people who are largely ignorant of either of the two camps, so identifying it as a "sticking point" is not evidence of anything. "It is representative of science" does not mean the same as "it is a representative of science". The latter is quite correct, you'll get no argument there, but the former is not. What about the fossil record? The fossil record is evidence that things once living have since died. Habitats and the biome change, and so do populations and communities. Organisms without a mechanism for adapting to these changes would all die. Therefore it would not be a massive leap to suggest that the alleged all-powerful, benevolent creator* of all life might have wanted to include some biological functionality for dealing with change. * If you believe in that kind of thing, that is.

If you are going to stick your oar in, I suggest you come up with something much better than that. The post was in direct reply to Cap'n Refsmmat. Whether or not you find it to be coherent is not important to anyone.

(2/3 * 1) + (1/3 * 0)

I have not agreed with ATM nor have I commented on his post, and I don't see how "stop trolling" is any kind of argument. Recant or you will go to hell.

Unless one reads the other thread where he brought this up, in which I demonstrated relevant and specific rebuttals.

You said yourself that "recruiting new scientists is the aim of such a position". Since you are implying that having Dawkins fill the role will strengthen the filtering process, I still don't see why it's a problem. You don't "recruit" new scientists by selling them super-friendly dumb science that panders to randomly selected beliefs or attitudes.

Oh for the love of... Stop trolling.

randomc, I don't see what Dawkins' views on religion have to do with his ability to carry out duties in the role of Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. Presumably, one would expect such a person to have an excellent understanding of science, and the ability to make that information accessible to the widest possible audience. His track record suggests that he is eminently qualified.

You can't patent an academic formula. Any original intellectual work your create is automatically protected by copyright law, no matter what medium you first record it in.

So, to summarise: We can make arguments for 0, 1 or 2 depending on the definitions we are using, but no good argument for "infinite".

The implication was fairly clear. No, I most certainly was not joking.

Read the other thread, then this one.

He is recognised as one of the greatest scientific minds ever because of the science he worked on, not because of his personal beliefs. What has evolution got to do with anything (in the sense of Christianity vs science)? - It is not representative of "science" - It does not contradict Christian scripture - Any godly being worth its salt would have built it in to life anyway, unless it was a sadistic twat

Don't confuse "side" with "surface". People for some reason 'decided' that the angle between any two radii of a sphere can be halved without limit, and therefore that the arc described by the distance between the radii at the surface of the sphere had an infinite number of possible locations. My argument was that such a construct would be a mesh, not a sphere. The only reason I could find for the "1 side" argument was from the dictionary definitions, which isn't great reasoning. A "side" is the extrusion between two vertices. Spheres don't have vertices unless you artificially and arbitrarily apply them.

Yeah, that sort of came up. Lots.

I thought we established it was 0 or 1 in the other thread. You know, the thread that was locked because we'd finished with it.

Yes, I'd imagine spreading the dosage out over time is the only advantage of the tablet.

I once used sub-lingual nicotine therapy tablets. Afaik these are still in production, even though they are a bit like sucking brimstone. Basically anything that needs to get through to the bloodstream quickly could be applied by diffusion through the sub-lingual dermis. The added advantage is that by altering the composition of the tablet, you can change the rate at which the absorbtion occurs. Aerosol delivery is effective because it introduces the drug to a massive diffusion area (the surface of the alveoli) through which it can be rapidly absorbed, so it has a range of applications - again, the focus is on rapid delivery to the blood stream.

Have you just woken up or something?

You will only post on forums where you're free to stick two fingers up at the rights of other people?

Yeah ok.

I'm convinced you can't read.