That isn't what I'm talking about. I agree that creationism is not science. I agree you can't simply inject unsubstantiated postulation in to a scientific theory. I understand how you got that impression from the overall context of this article, however I am referring more specifically to how one forms the basis for their interpretation of the facts and formulates a theory that they support. It is not inherently bad science to look at how the facts fit a viewpoint that you believe is accurate, so long as you are willing to abandon that viewpoint when the facts speak contrary to it. If we found out tomorrow that some aspect of quantum mechanics didn't work the way we thought, we wouldn't simply throw out quantum mechanics, we'd look for what needs to change to fit our new observations.

A good religious perspective on science can do the same thing, looking for where science supports our understanding of things laid out in scripture and seeking to refine our understanding when there is an apparent conflict. The science is not in improving this interpretation though, the science is always the facts and what the facts support. Until there is substance to support it, it isn't a scientific theory and the existence of God will never and can never be a scientific theory as near as I can tell. Evidence that suggests that things could have happened in a way consistent with the Bible however is a valid scientific theory, in so far as it is talking strictly about the factual observations that support that direction. The cause or reasoning or creator are not part of the theory, only the understanding of the mechanisms.

I'm also not saying that it isn't an exceedingly fine line between willing the facts to say what you want and going where the facts take you, but that's always a fine line in science. I'm also not saying that large portions of "Christian Science" don't often cross over that line, to its own detriment. I personally agree with the thought process that Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, however it does have a place in a philosophy class. I also think it is worth highlighting in the presentation of evolution (and scientific study in general) that science specifically doesn't make claims about what it can't measure and possibly just in passing using the fact there are some who view evolution as likely being a random process and there are others that view it as being guided, but explaining that since that isn't testable, science can't really speak to either direction. It is mostly valuable as a lesson on what science can and can't do and helps really clarify what science is.

I'm not talking about scientifically proving the existence of God. I'm talking about producing theories which explain the facts we can observe in a way that is consistent with and helps refine interpretation of the Bible. I will further agree that it is not science to simply say that you think something happened without facts to back it up. What I am saying is that using a religious background as your basis for how you look at the facts and what you think is the most logical explanation of those facts (as long as the facts speak to it and you aren't forcing them to fit) then it is not bad science.

I agree on the final part, though I would challenge that that isn't what good religious "science" does. Everyone has preconcieved notions that impact what they see as a likely theory. For an atheist, they are not likely going to consider God as an element of their theory unless the evidence really demands it. How is that any different from a religious individual who doesn't take God out of their theories unless the evidence really demands it. The key is that you still have to go where the evidence leads, even if it isn't convenient to your theory. It doesn't stop being science because you look for theories that include actions by God, it stops being science because you choose to ignore evidence that runs counter to your theory.

Everyone comes from some world view that impacts what they think is most probable. Having a world view that states you think God did it doesn't make it bad science as long as you still focus on going where the evidence leads. If the evidence suggests that an interpretation is wrong, it's time to figure out what other interpretation can make sense of the observations. I don't personally buy the "God made it appear that way" as an excuse since it seems contrary to what the Bible says about the nature of God and revealing himself through creation and I think that is a cop out, but I also haven't seen any observations yet that run inconsistent with carefully selected interpretations of the Biblical account of creation. (That said, I also believe that evolution was almost certainly the mechanism by which life was developed by God, probably including humans. And I say that while still taking a fairly literal view of Genesis.)

I'm not talking depth perception or focus, I'm talking visual acuity. Focal problems for people occur at different depths, which is why the eye chart has to be at different lengths (to detect near and far sighted issues). Properly functioning eyes will have nearly the same, if not exactly the same, visual acuity in angular resolution at any distance. We can certainly tell how large the thing we are looking at is, but we will see the same amount of information. It may not "feel as big" but there isn't any difference in what details you see.

Ah yes, on that we agree. There is a slight perceptual difference though which is a better experience (at least big screen tv vs imax) Is subjective. My point was just that visually you aren't missing anything.

I don't think there is a significant impact of angular visual acuity based on how far away something is. If someone has nearsighted or farsighted problems, they may have reduced acuity due to lack of ability to focus at a particular distance, but for someone with normal vision, it shouldn't make a difference from anything I've heard before or could find just now when I was looking.

I'm not talking math, I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth. It isn't a theory, it is scientifically provable fact. People prefer many things that aren't actually better. That's the job of marketing. Read up on optical acuity and then get back to me.

No laptop screen is imax resolution, but yes, if you had sufficiently high resolution it wouldn't matter. All that matters in vision is the angle of view. If you had an actual 3d display distance would matter a little, but not on a flat display. You will perceive a difference in scale but you won't see anything you would have missed on the small display.

Most of the time the drives are encrypted, however if the drive is lost, it still has to be reported under the assumption that it was compromised.

Going to a 3D movie in my area, at a decent theater with a decent sound syatem, costs around $15 to $18 a person, even before you count any food or beverages.

I am an Audio/Video professional, so I mixed select professional components that I could properly adjust with some really good value consumer components that would give a lot of bang for their buck. I realize not everyone could do it as cheaply as I, but when you figure a family of 4 with popcorn and soda would cost around $100 to $110 per movie and a typical bluray movie only costs $30 to $35. If you do a rental from Redbox, it's only $1.50 and saves you about $100 a pop. That adds up in a big hurry.

Note, I'm not saying that there aren't reasons that people want to go to theaters and I fully expect them to be around for a while yet to come, but they don't offer nearly what they once did and the outrageous prices don't help any. If I could go to a theater for $5 a person and get popcorn and a soda for $3 I would go again. I still love an occasional stop at the drive thru as well. The value proposition for theaters just isn't what it once was and the prices has gone up while giving less value rather than the other way around.

I do have 240hz active shutter. The flickering really isn't noticeable and there is less ghosting and less distortion than at the theater. For the theaters that have gotten around to rolling out 4k, you are correct that there is more detail at the theater, but a lot of theaters are still running 2k projectors last I bothered to go to one.

Hmm, on the flip side, if I bring a date over to watch a movie, the wife is much more likely to notice in the living room.

If you are closer to the screen, it doesn't have to be 50ft across. Angle of view and overall resolution/contrast ratio are what matter.

Or you can build a home theater that will give you a better experience and a be cheaper in the long run and avoid the mess. I can buy 3d movies to watch at home for less than going to the theater and it looks and sounds better than the theater.

I think you mean toe the line.