By that reasoning you could choose units such that all measurements are in exact integers, which is ridiculous.

Are you suggesting irrational numbers can't arise in a "quantized" world?

Maybe he gained a delusion of talent.

No, he's not. There isn't any reason to expect that the ratio of radius to circumference of a physical circle is raional, especially if Planck's constant is irrational. There is also no reason to expect such a ratio to be the same for all such "circles", hence no single constant pi. Personally I prefer the purely analytical definition of pi...

I write things for myself, which I will likely never read again. People often write things for the purpose of documenting details which will likely not, but may, be used in the future.

I think different people are studying the origins of the universe vs the general population's understanding of science. I for one am interested in both. It bothers me greatly that the people running the country don't generally have much understanding of science. I think it might be handy, esp. for things like the dept of energy, but what do I know?

Very nicely put!

I think you are being a bit hard on Dawkins. Most of the time he's debating people who refuse to look at any of the evidence, and often claim it doesn't exist. He's not speaking to open minded people who are simply trying to learn. I think you'll find that he is very good at getting ideas across, in the right setting. He did some very interesting tv shows, for example.

Your logic is off there. It doesn't have to be either or. AGW and increased solar output aren't mutually exclusive. Proving the latter doesn't disprove the former.

It IS inconsistent with a rapid deposit. The depth isn't correlated with density, or weight or buoyancy. Instead it's correlated with complexity. Organisms survive because they are still well adapted to their environment. Anyone with the slightest education in evolution would be able to answer that. Also, a few strata have isotopes that aren't found on earth anywhere else, but are found on meteors, and these strata perfectly partition fossil - just as if a large meteor broke up in the atmosphere and was distributed over a large area, somewhere between two ages with different animals. This is completely inconsistent with all the strata being deposited at once. Not to mention we have a very good idea of the rate of sediment deposits which is consistent with the estimated ages of the fossil records. Also consistent with documented volcanoe eruptions which have caused identifiable deposits. Also, the types of plankton and krill have changed over time in ways that leave different variants in different strata, but inconsistent with a sudden deposit, since these species all were essentially the same, and wouldn't be expected to differ in buoyancy. That's just off the top of my head - and I'm no expert. If you want to attack the science, at least learn some of it first.

Give us a few examples of evidence that's willfully ignored?

The big bang is the theory most consistent with available data.

If it was a feature they'd put it in fine print, and make it more secure. Then they're legally covered. This is not some remote management hack.

Then why didn't you simply say "a supernatural entity cannot be ruled out"? It's obvious on the face of it. It's fairly useless, though. Just because you can't rule it out doesn't mean you should assume it exists. Just as you can't rule out invisible pink unicorns. But suppose you do suppose there exists something that has no measurable or detectable effect on the universe. Then in what way can it be said to "exist"? And in what way does it help us to know it does exist?

Actually, in our technoligical terms, simulating quantum mechanics would require an insane amount of compute. Quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. One method would be the sum over histories, which means integrating over every possible way of getting to each possible outcome. Of course, if our universe is being simulated the stimulator wouldn't necessarily be constrained by our technology. But your argument was that the simulator was trying to save cycles, whereas classical mechanics is far easier to simulate.