nullmouse

I think I've mentioned a few times in my replies that I know several people that have no problem dedicating their career to science without compromising their religious beliefs, so I agree wholeheartedly with Dave. As good as Dawkins is at raising the public awareness of science, I find his anti-religion diatribes somewhat arrogant and overly dismissive. I'm sure the God Delusion is a thoroughly entertaining personal perspective from Dawkins, but I've read a few articles that really slam his understanding of religion.

I think you're maybe confusing a hypothesis with a theory - Scientists have a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon and then set out to test that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is correct, then it contributes to scientific theory. Theories are always based on observation and fact, and predict how something will behave. Scientific theories, however, can be adapted and changed as the ability to make observsations increases - But they're always based on facts. The first season was by far the best

Semantics! A scientific 'theory' has a different meaning than the standard english usage - For example, normally when someone says they have a 'theory' they often mean a 'hunch', whilst a scientific 'theory' is a construct that explains a group of facts.

Normally I'd explain that my meetings are usually in shitty hospital conference rooms, but this one is in the Natural History Museum in Paris - Fukkin A!

I should make it back in plenty time, my meeting finishes at lunchtime after all. Should be a great gig!

Agreed, but much less relevant to the thread. Let's combine forces and plug their greatness, though. (Even if we're eventually going to fight.)

What we need more of is science.

Is it not a bit naive to expect the original meaning to be maintained when it's been translated into numerous versions, some word-for-word and some using idioms judged to be equivalent? Nuances in languages can alter meaning substantially, and the judgement on how to reflect that would be left to human bias - Pretty far from the word of God, really. The bible is open to many interpretations, as I think we've all touched upon in the rest of this thread - In some highly religious groups (Intelligent Design) it's even being hidden behind countless layers of scientific clap-trap to give the idea of a creator more tangible / plausible integrity. If that's not modifying the content and message to suit a modern goal, I don't know what is.

You don't have to look much further than the Dover trial in the USA to know there is conflict between religion and science, but it's all coming from the religious side. As you rightly point out, Darwin and his theories never excluded god, allowing for relgious believers and scientists to reconcile their own beliefs. However, that's not enough for the bible literalists, who did see Darwin's theories as an attack on religion. ID / Creationism have been putting out misinformation and lies under the guise of scientific credibility, yet provide no scientific proof for any of their claims and observe every opportunity to attack evolution. It's scientific vacuity is damaging to religion - plugging every gap with 'God did it' and using 'irreducible complexity' as the gold standard for a system being hand-made and not evolved. Everytime science can fill one of their shakily defined holes it squeezes God out of the equation. As I said, I work with several highly relgious scientists in biology based research labs - None of them have any trouble reconciling their work to their beliefs. I don't agree with this, I feel you're blaming science unfairly. It's certainly something I've never seen any evidence of - And even on this thread, the only religions that I rant about negatively are those that take the absolute literal interpretation. As a code of morals, the bible has it's advantages. As anything to base science upon, it's meaningless. The beauty of this definition is no one can argue with it. But a being that could change everything and anything removes free will, no? I'm not going to argue which fork he came from, either way is pretty damn impressive, but I think it takes a real fool to mistake a man that's been walking for 6,000 years from one who's been on the go for 4.5 billion years. I'd mention all the radiometric tests that have been done to age the earth and the awfully large pile of fossil data that's kicking around - but as you say, your definition of god allows all this to be accounted for by his whim. Which is where we're obviously going to come to loggerheads - I'll happily support your religion, but if you insist the basis of my career is fabricated lies by your deity then I may become a tad defensive. Why is there any need to take a literalist approach?

Sorry dude, Young Earth Creationism takes a literal view of the Bible and reckons the earth is about 6,000 years old - GraemeC may have been referring to this. Y.E.C. believers are the type that have displays near the Grand Canyon, claiming it was formed in a day as a result of that huge, flash flood Noah had to contend with.

Or, alternatively, the concept of days in the bible is metaphorical (given no bastard was there to watch it, other than the big bloke himself and a eventually a couple of unreliable apple thieves on the last 'day'), which would mean we could apply a much more liberal time scale to the whole creation process. I know a lot of scientists who are religious (hell yes they exist) that choose to believe the metaphorical version and think that literal creationist / Intelligent Design interpretations are crazy. Personally, I think the idea that we could have evolved from chance collisions and synergistic reactions on top of some suprisingly stable and fortuitous conformation of space debris is far more exciting than just saying we're just manufactured by some celestial bloke with too much playdoh and spare time. To me it's like saying 'a wizard did it' every time a plot hole needs to be plugged in a fantasy film.

Just doing my job, ma'am.

Mothboy makes a mammoth appearance on the new Ad Noiseam compilation. And it's a monster: MusicNonStop.co.uk

Really? Wow. I never knew there was a proper word for it. I vow to use this from now on, it'll shorten those text messages - "Sittin @ home cranking to Countdown" EDIT - I can't believe I was bored enough to Google 'cranking':

There goes my guess, which was "Sitting at home, masturbating whilst crying."

Scary but true - I went to High School with Roz from Miss The Occupier, and failed to notice it was her during all the times I saw Josephine live. I'm Mr. Unobservant.

Never caught you guys live, but I obviously recognised the band name: BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Band aims to rock all over world

Sounding pretty good to me, would be more verbose but my muse has left me. Really like the main beat and the miasma of electronic sounds in the background, less of a fan of the keyboard melody - But I struggle to think of any suggestion for what I'd do to change it. God I suck at constructive criticism.

Fudgy fudge fudge - Are you responsible for booking Miss The Occupier on Jan the 6th at The Moorings?

I echo Jim, it's three albums for £25 in lush packaging and will keep you enthralled for ages. As for weekly budgets, there's only the obligatory compilations and granny-pleasing favourites this month to really spend money on otherwise, surely?

Until recently I'd have recommended Pipex too, but since I moved six months ago they haven't once billed me correctly - I set up a Direct Debit initially, which didn't work so I paid arrears by card, set up a new Direct Debit. Which didn't work. Long story short, last month they took four Direct Debit payments from me and had five seperate Direct Debit mandates set up on my account - They've overcharged me from three Direct Debits, totalling over 100 of error. Totally shoddy. My ex-flat mate also went with Pipex, and they've bollocksed up his charging every month too. So aye, great tech support etc but shockingly poor finance department ruins their reputation in my eyes.

Yup, was indeed - Picked up many a nuance second spin through, mainly in the soundtrack (particularily the use of foley for the faun and captain). I'm almost tempted to start a thread with a spoiler warning. But I should be working. So maybe later.

Really? I've not seen anything advertising it as a straightforward monster film. How odd.

Their remix album, released a few years ago, is pretty damn good too in my opinion - "The Hand That Feeds"

Yes, I agree.