It's possible that Ptolemy had some familiarity with the prior work of Aristarchus, who had postlated a heliocentric model of the solar system centuries before. The book in which he did so has been lost (though it probably existed in Ptolemy's time) but correspondence survives discussing it.
This model had been rejected by other philosophers at the time, but the meme was out there even then.
When completely burned, ethanol produces 26.68 MJ/kg, while gasoline is typically in the 42-44 MJ/kg range. One way to think about this is that the process of combusion is the combination of hydrocarbons with oxygen, so burning ethanol instead of hydrocarbons is analogous to using fuel which has already been partially burned(oxidized). Using an engine designed for 87 Octane, your MPG should be higher if you use the 87 Octane without ethanol, as that fuel simply contains more energy per gallon.
It may be that other considerations you mention result in you still choosing the partially-ethanol 89, but you should realize that you do so at a price.
#5 is a 1936 x 1.5 GHz Itanium2 processors linux cluster with an Rmax of 8633 #6 is a 2816 x 2.0 GHz Opteron processors linux cluster with an Rmax of 8051
It's just one benchmark which depends in part on other aspects of the systems, but it seems to me to be as good a one as any. At least in this case the numbers are published and are comparable.
Like a lot of other decisions, it really all comes down to what you want to use it for. For some jobs Itanium2 is enough better than the competition that it is cost-efficient, for others the choice should be Opteron (or Cray, or Xeon, or G5, or a truly custom system...) The top 6 supercomputers on the top500 list each use different processors at the moment!
Not necessarily. Most supercomputers are not used to run a single job taking months, but rather they run lots of smaller and shorter jobs. On the p690 cluster where I do my stuff, I (and apparently most users) mostly run jobs using about 8-16 cpu:s , with a runtime of a few hours to a day. If one node would fail, the jobs that are executing on that node would also fail. It's no big deal, just resubmit the job to the queue when you get around to it.
I expect it'll fall somewhere between the two extremes. On the linux cluster of Itanium2 processors as similar as it gets to this new one (mpp2), there are 1794 processors currently running jobs-
one 600 processor job three 256 processor jobs one 120 processor job ... and 16 more jobs ranging from 2 to 40 processors totaling the remaining 306 processors.
The largest job currently in the queue requests 900 processors for 24 hours. (it's rare for people to request more than 72 hours for a single job)
So, it's true that the majority of the jobs running are small (40 processors or less)... but three quarters of the processors are doing jobs of at least 256 processors. Most of the clock cycles do go to larger jobs, but it's far from a single job using the whole machine for months limit. Some of the few-processor jobs are run on mpp2 because of unusually large memory/disk requirements which make them impossible or inefficient to run on smaller, cheaper clusters; many also are test runs for larger jobs. (Most people running on mpp2 also have access to more typical smaller clusters and use those for easier calculations.)
The US debated adopting a decimal measurement system in 1790, before the French adopted what we now call the metric system. It's not "The Metric System" as the unit sizes differ, and the standardized prefixes aren't yet there, but it was a proposal to make measurements based on decimal units- which is at the core of the advantage of using the metric system. Alas, the US didn't follow through with that, though if it had it might even have competed with the existing metric system as a logical way of doing things.
Another proposal in that linked document did result in a related early US innovation which was unknown at the time but is now universally standard: decimal money. I suspect the UK was one of the last nations to give up non-decimal currency partially because we colonials were the ones who came up with it.
It is: "The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis is the biggest medical fraud in human history." Hope this helps.
It is a positive claim. It was advanced without context, on its own. No one (including myself) has thus far in this thread argued the contrary position, but have rather asked you to back up your claim.
Let us look to define the terms: a google search for "HIV definition" gives as its first hit a site from the CDC which states:
HIV - human immunodeficiency virus, the virus that causes AIDS
It defines AIDS as:
AIDS - acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, a disease in which the immune system is weakened and therefore less able to fight certain infections and diseases; AIDS is caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
Do you have an alternative definitions? Those appear to be the standard definitions of those terms, and are echoed on may other sites. The two are defined in reference to each other. If you mean something radically different by those terms than is the common definition you should have stated that up front. If a given virus does not cause AIDS it is not HIV, by the definitions of the two terms.
If a virus detected by a given test does not cause AIDS, then it is not HIV, by the very definitions of the terms. Your claim was specific and was contradicts to the very definitions of the terms.
The veracity of the HIV test is one of many problems in the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Besides, it is your responsibility, not mine, to defend your claims about this alleged disease and this alleged virus.
I made no such claims. Enjoy beating on that strawman. You made a claim, someone else called you on it, you talked about something unrelated to your claim, I pointed out that that post didn't address your own claim. That's it. You still haven't supported your claim. Don't try to project someone else with whom you've argued onto me.
No. Insetad, why don't you defend the HIV==AIDS hypothesis.
I didn't make that claim, you made a claim related to it and are now attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I know very little about the state of the art in medical research on the subject-that's one reason I didn't make any such claims and have little interest in that discussion.
Your rebuttal does not address your original claim. No where in the parent post do you make any factual claims about the relationship of HIV to AIDS; you discuss a related topic (the accuracy of HIV tests) which does not have any relevance to your stated claim of "HIV==AIDS", as HIV is defined as a particular virus, not as the veracity of one test. Are you saying that we should not read your words at face value, but should rather 'interpret them in context', or some such?
I think we need some vague, occasionally contradictory accounts including some parts of the same story from your contemporaries to argue over...
Perhaps your sig should read '"A positive HIV test == AIDS" hypothesis..." ' if that's what you actually mean.
There was a short story in a Poul Anderson collection (The Gods Laughed) in which humans had met a large civilation of many alien types, all of whom had psychic-like abilities and could literally speak to the souls of their dead. The humans were tremendously frustrated because the aliens adamantly refused to discuss how they did this. They were friendly otherwise and were actually somewhat behind humans in physical sciences, mostly because they didn't work on them much.
The humans finally managed to trap some aliens and force them to talk. The aliens claimed they were withholding the information for humans' own good, but refused to elaborate. Finally after much pressure, they told them they were doing these things using their souls. The reason they wouldn't and couldn't teach any of this to humans was finally revealed: humans lack a soul.
Until we find out that soldiers have been filling mass graves and mutiliating genitalia, I'm not sure it is fair to claim that Iraq is no better off. That does is disservice to those who REALLY suffered.
Ah, so this is all a matter of degree? Because others do evil, it's acceptable for us to do evil, so long as it's not quite as large in scope?
I do not accept that. As a patriotic American, I hold my nation to a higher standard than that. It's unfortunate that unamerican, unpatriotic individuals such as yourself seek to justify heinous acts because they are too cowardly to behave with honor. There is no valor in arguing that others should fight nor cowardice in arguing that others should avoid combat- the true cowardice lies in those who are willing to do evil (or order others to do so, or attempt to justify evil) merely to make themselves feel safer.
Yeah, like most of the rest of the world, I was horrified by how many Iraqis were imprisoned and tortured by Saddam's brutal regime.
Also, like most of the rest of the world, I am horrified by how many Iraqis were imprisoned and tortured by the brutal "Coalition of the Willing" regime.
It's only natural that Microsoft would want to call attention to all of these security problems with applications which can run on linux- such as this one!
They're both 44th and 48th- for some reason they benchmarked the halves separately. Those have 1176 and 1080 processors each, so I guess it doesn't include the new 1000. There are more than two supercomputers with more processors, as well- in addition to the Earth Simulator(5120 processors) ASCI Q at LANL (8192) there's also ASCI White at LANL (8192), Seaborg at LBNL (6656) ASCI Red at Sandia (9632), ASCI Blue at LLNL (5808), ASCI Blue Mountain at LANL (6144).
Not even by their own silly measure of number of processors are they third.
There is no victim -- no one who was hurt by the actions of someone buying or selling on inside information. Maybe it seems obvious to you that an insider can't profit without someone else being hurt, but that simply isn't the case. When Martha Stewart was indicted last year, I explained why "insider trading" is a crime without a victim.
I'm not going to address the specifics of the Martha Stewart case, but I have an issue with this paragraph.
The act of buying and selling stock does not by itself create wealth. If trader A gains $N, some set of other traders must therefore lose a corresponding $N to make everything even out. The fact that the way the market works makes it hard to point at a specific set of people who lost that particular money does not mean that those individuals do not exist- they must, as that capital did not miraculously come into existance from the ether.
The existance of (and to a greater extent the perception of the existance of) insider traders strongly discourages non-insider potential investors from becoming investors. If a potential investor suspects that the person wishing to sell stock is acting on insider information (and thus knows that the price of that stock will go down after it is sold) the potential investor is discouraged from investing. The more insider trading prodominates the stock market the more it would resemble a poker game where if you don't know who the sucker at the table is, it's you.
A major purpose of the SEC is to encourage investment, and an important tool in this is maintaining at least the appearance that trading is 'fair' and that non-insider traders aren't merely suckers for the insider traders to unload bad stock on.
Bullshit. Do you have a cite for the 65% figure? I everything I've read contradicts it.
Since you're Canadian, here's some data from MacLean's survey of 15 Canadian "Medical/Doctoral" Universities - the relevant category is "Student Retention", which is exactly what you're talking about (% of first year students who return in 2nd-year)- this percentage ranges from 95.3% for Laval to 80.4% for Manitoba. None are even close to the 65% rate you're claiming most have.
If anything, retention rates are higher at major US universities- a few years ago, when the US News & World Report rankings added a "graduation rate" category, Caltech was the worst in this category and downgraded because "only" 85% of freshmen graduated within 5 years. This notably low-retention-rate school currently has 91% of its freshmen return for a second year- a more typical rate among top US schools is Stanford with 98%.
9,369 murders were committed using firearms in 2002, and the trend has been heading downward since 1993. Where did you obtain the 12,000 statistic, or were you meaning something else by the awkward phrase "gun murders"?
These statistics are somethat dated now, but in 1997 the US had 187 violent deaths per million population, compared to Japan with 176 in 1996. (Note that family members murdered in murder-suicides were classified as suicides in Japan.)
Self-replicating robots for use in the mining of asteroids was initially proposed by von Neumann more than 50 years ago. These days self-replicating robots (now also known as von Neumann machines) are more commonly proposed for nanotech, but asteroid mining using normal-scale robots was the first application for which they were suggested.
Like a lot of other natural products, it's currently produced where it's cheapest to do so (and where they've installed the apparatus to seperate it from the natural gas). If the Texans were to start to act monopolistically, or if the price were to rise for other reasons such as increased demand, many other places where it would be slightly more expensive to produce would retool to do so. Helium just isn't that rare.
or maybe propose a theory that could explain the results another way
Okay, one explanation for why more heat energy might be given off in the deuterium case over the hydronium case is a well-known chemical phenomenon- an isotope effect. Here's an example of how a reasonable scientist might study an initially inexplicable temperature anomaly which was found when using different isotopes in the same chemical environment.
Instead of saying 'we don't yet fully understand the isotopic effects of hydrogen in a palladium lattice' the "Cold Fusion" crowd is begging the question and assuming any energy they don't immediately understand the source of must be caused by cold fusion, and when they find "extra" energy they proclaim their preconceived supposition of fusion as fact.
I hope DOE doesn't squander any of its limited research budget on these quacks.
Bringing in possible precident from earlier drafts of Amendments is interesting but not conclusive- I've been on the opposite side of this argument in Second Amendment debates, where contemporary proposals are squarely on the side of an individual rights interpretation. The counterargument others made against me there applies here as well- the framers made their final edits to the Bill of Rights reasons they felt were good at the time, therefore the existence of more favorable-to-your-position language in early versions shouldn't be construed as the 'real' meaning of the amendment- if they'd really wanted the earlier phrasing they'd have kept it.
One other note on language usage at the time- note the phrase 'the Christian Religion" is singular rather than "Religions"; this is relevant to the "under God" debate as it shows that they thought of it in a collective sense. One defense of the "Under God" phrasing (though I don't recall if you've used it) is that its general to a group of religions- but if the founding fathers thought of religions in the collective (i.e. "the Christian Religion") then they would have regarded something pertaining to all christian religions as pertaining to "the Christian Religion" and not as allowing a choice of religions.
As to religion versus not-religion, my personal definition of the dividing line is faith, which in turn is based on whether the position is about something which is possible to know.
For example, the global warming debates are not religious, because the causes of global warming and the extent to which it occurs are fundamentally knowable. We don't actually have enough information to conclusively nail down the answers and heated debates and reasoned disagreement is possible given our incomplete information on the subject- but it's theoretically possible to actually get factual answers.
There certainly are people who are irrational on both sides of many environmental issues, and I'd say they that there exists a dogma in many cases- but there are factual answers to the questions even if we don't know the answers yet, so I wouldn't classify it as a religion (there are religious environmentalists as well- but in their case no rational argument is required. "Gaia doesn't want you to ____", e.g., is a sufficient reason.)
Much political debate, as the differences between Democrat and Republican, tends to fall into the theoretically knowable but not currently known categories. The economic effects of taxation, what the best stategy is to combat terrorism, what to do in Iraq, how to best spend federal money- all of these questions have factual answers but are too difficult for us to actually know for certain. Given the uncertainty, different people can rationally evaluate the existing inadequate evidence and come up with different conclusions. There certainly are a lot of preconcieved notions and dogma on these topics, but it's not religion for the most part.
Religion involves questions which are fundamentally unanswerable by facts. The origin of the universe, the nature of god(s), the nature of the 'soul'- any topic which is fundamentally unmeasurable or unprovable. (To answer a possible objection, if a god (or God) were to appear and demonstrate conclusively his existance, his nature might now be provable- but a belief in this entity would no longer be considered a religion by my definition as it wouldn't require faith, merely observation.) There is a grey area which I consider unfortunate, when a Religion makes falsifiable statements...you cite the example of evolution. In my opinion a potentially factual topic such as this should not rightfully be considered a religious area as it is theoretically factual. It is problematic for a Religion to decide on an answer to a factual question whether or not that religion happens to be correct in a particular instance. To do so is to restrict rational thought on the topic.
>But regardless, is "under God" all that is required to establish a national religion?
No, it does not... but that's not what the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"under God" is respecting an establishment of religion, so it is forbidden for congress to pass such a law.
>Or is it that Christianity has pretty much always been the de facto national religion even though individual freedom of religion is protected?
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...
This treaty was published in newspapers of the day with a note:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
They rejected certain popular Christian dogma, true. But is what they rejected defining of what you would consider Christianity? In the most generic sense, Christianity means a follower of Christ or his teachings. Deists, Unitarians (as opposed to Trinitarians), etc are all generally considered to be Christians by modern definition.
I would say yes, many of them would not be considered Christians today. Thomas Jefferson, for example, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Though he would not have agreed with the title 'Christ' applied to him, he did revere his philosophy, and wrote an edited version of the New Testement entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
(a.k.a. the "Jefferson Bible") from which all the supernatural parts (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection) were removed, leaving principally the philosophy.
Does respecting the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth while denying divinity and the "Christ" title constitute Christianity? I don't think so, but I suppose your milage may vary on that.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in the Western US (Washington State) and I had no idea what SBC or CWA were. It's not just you.
This model had been rejected by other philosophers at the time, but the meme was out there even then.
It may be that other considerations you mention result in you still choosing the partially-ethanol 89, but you should realize that you do so at a price.
#5 is a 1936 x 1.5 GHz Itanium2 processors linux cluster with an Rmax of 8633
#6 is a 2816 x 2.0 GHz Opteron processors linux cluster with an Rmax of 8051
It's just one benchmark which depends in part on other aspects of the systems, but it seems to me to be as good a one as any. At least in this case the numbers are published and are comparable.
Like a lot of other decisions, it really all comes down to what you want to use it for. For some jobs Itanium2 is enough better than the competition that it is cost-efficient, for others the choice should be Opteron (or Cray, or Xeon, or G5, or a truly custom system...) The top 6 supercomputers on the top500 list each use different processors at the moment!
I expect it'll fall somewhere between the two extremes. On the linux cluster of Itanium2 processors as similar as it gets to this new one (mpp2), there are 1794 processors currently running jobs-
one 600 processor job
three 256 processor jobs
one 120 processor job
... and 16 more jobs ranging from 2 to 40 processors totaling the remaining 306 processors.
The largest job currently in the queue requests 900 processors for 24 hours. (it's rare for people to request more than 72 hours for a single job)
So, it's true that the majority of the jobs running are small (40 processors or less)... but three quarters of the processors are doing jobs of at least 256 processors. Most of the clock cycles do go to larger jobs, but it's far from a single job using the whole machine for months limit. Some of the few-processor jobs are run on mpp2 because of unusually large memory/disk requirements which make them impossible or inefficient to run on smaller, cheaper clusters; many also are test runs for larger jobs. (Most people running on mpp2 also have access to more typical smaller clusters and use those for easier calculations.)
Another proposal in that linked document did result in a related early US innovation which was unknown at the time but is now universally standard: decimal money. I suspect the UK was one of the last nations to give up non-decimal currency partially because we colonials were the ones who came up with it.
It is a positive claim. It was advanced without context, on its own. No one (including myself) has thus far in this thread argued the contrary position, but have rather asked you to back up your claim.
Let us look to define the terms: a google search for "HIV definition" gives as its first hit a site from the CDC which states:
It defines AIDS as: Do you have an alternative definitions? Those appear to be the standard definitions of those terms, and are echoed on may other sites. The two are defined in reference to each other. If you mean something radically different by those terms than is the common definition you should have stated that up front. If a given virus does not cause AIDS it is not HIV, by the definitions of the two terms.If a virus detected by a given test does not cause AIDS, then it is not HIV, by the very definitions of the terms. Your claim was specific and was contradicts to the very definitions of the terms.
I made no such claims. Enjoy beating on that strawman. You made a claim, someone else called you on it, you talked about something unrelated to your claim, I pointed out that that post didn't address your own claim. That's it. You still haven't supported your claim. Don't try to project someone else with whom you've argued onto me. I didn't make that claim, you made a claim related to it and are now attempting to shift the burden of proof.I know very little about the state of the art in medical research on the subject-that's one reason I didn't make any such claims and have little interest in that discussion.
I think we need some vague, occasionally contradictory accounts including some parts of the same story from your contemporaries to argue over...
Perhaps your sig should read '"A positive HIV test == AIDS" hypothesis..." ' if that's what you actually mean.
The humans finally managed to trap some aliens and force them to talk. The aliens claimed they were withholding the information for humans' own good, but refused to elaborate. Finally after much pressure, they told them they were doing these things using their souls. The reason they wouldn't and couldn't teach any of this to humans was finally revealed: humans lack a soul.
Ironically, one of the objections making the locations of hikers public(e.g. by RFID) is that it would lead to footpads(first definition) in the area.
I do not accept that. As a patriotic American, I hold my nation to a higher standard than that. It's unfortunate that unamerican, unpatriotic individuals such as yourself seek to justify heinous acts because they are too cowardly to behave with honor. There is no valor in arguing that others should fight nor cowardice in arguing that others should avoid combat- the true cowardice lies in those who are willing to do evil (or order others to do so, or attempt to justify evil) merely to make themselves feel safer.
Also, like most of the rest of the world, I am horrified by how many Iraqis were imprisoned and tortured by the brutal "Coalition of the Willing" regime.
It's only natural that Microsoft would want to call attention to all of these security problems with applications which can run on linux- such as this one!
Not even by their own silly measure of number of processors are they third.
The act of buying and selling stock does not by itself create wealth. If trader A gains $N, some set of other traders must therefore lose a corresponding $N to make everything even out. The fact that the way the market works makes it hard to point at a specific set of people who lost that particular money does not mean that those individuals do not exist- they must, as that capital did not miraculously come into existance from the ether.
The existance of (and to a greater extent the perception of the existance of) insider traders strongly discourages non-insider potential investors from becoming investors. If a potential investor suspects that the person wishing to sell stock is acting on insider information (and thus knows that the price of that stock will go down after it is sold) the potential investor is discouraged from investing. The more insider trading prodominates the stock market the more it would resemble a poker game where if you don't know who the sucker at the table is, it's you.
A major purpose of the SEC is to encourage investment, and an important tool in this is maintaining at least the appearance that trading is 'fair' and that non-insider traders aren't merely suckers for the insider traders to unload bad stock on.
Since you're Canadian, here's some data from MacLean's survey of 15 Canadian "Medical/Doctoral" Universities - the relevant category is "Student Retention", which is exactly what you're talking about (% of first year students who return in 2nd-year)- this percentage ranges from 95.3% for Laval to 80.4% for Manitoba. None are even close to the 65% rate you're claiming most have.
If anything, retention rates are higher at major US universities- a few years ago, when the US News & World Report rankings added a "graduation rate" category, Caltech was the worst in this category and downgraded because "only" 85% of freshmen graduated within 5 years. This notably low-retention-rate school currently has 91% of its freshmen return for a second year- a more typical rate among top US schools is Stanford with 98%.
Why, write it in Assembler, of course!
These statistics are somethat dated now, but in 1997 the US had 187 violent deaths per million population, compared to Japan with 176 in 1996. (Note that family members murdered in murder-suicides were classified as suicides in Japan.)
Self-replicating robots for use in the mining of asteroids was initially proposed by von Neumann more than 50 years ago. These days self-replicating robots (now also known as von Neumann machines) are more commonly proposed for nanotech, but asteroid mining using normal-scale robots was the first application for which they were suggested.
Like a lot of other natural products, it's currently produced where it's cheapest to do so (and where they've installed the apparatus to seperate it from the natural gas). If the Texans were to start to act monopolistically, or if the price were to rise for other reasons such as increased demand, many other places where it would be slightly more expensive to produce would retool to do so. Helium just isn't that rare.
Instead of saying 'we don't yet fully understand the isotopic effects of hydrogen in a palladium lattice' the "Cold Fusion" crowd is begging the question and assuming any energy they don't immediately understand the source of must be caused by cold fusion, and when they find "extra" energy they proclaim their preconceived supposition of fusion as fact.
I hope DOE doesn't squander any of its limited research budget on these quacks.
One other note on language usage at the time- note the phrase 'the Christian Religion" is singular rather than "Religions"; this is relevant to the "under God" debate as it shows that they thought of it in a collective sense. One defense of the "Under God" phrasing (though I don't recall if you've used it) is that its general to a group of religions- but if the founding fathers thought of religions in the collective (i.e. "the Christian Religion") then they would have regarded something pertaining to all christian religions as pertaining to "the Christian Religion" and not as allowing a choice of religions.
As to religion versus not-religion, my personal definition of the dividing line is faith, which in turn is based on whether the position is about something which is possible to know.
For example, the global warming debates are not religious, because the causes of global warming and the extent to which it occurs are fundamentally knowable. We don't actually have enough information to conclusively nail down the answers and heated debates and reasoned disagreement is possible given our incomplete information on the subject- but it's theoretically possible to actually get factual answers.
There certainly are people who are irrational on both sides of many environmental issues, and I'd say they that there exists a dogma in many cases- but there are factual answers to the questions even if we don't know the answers yet, so I wouldn't classify it as a religion (there are religious environmentalists as well- but in their case no rational argument is required. "Gaia doesn't want you to ____", e.g., is a sufficient reason.)
Much political debate, as the differences between Democrat and Republican, tends to fall into the theoretically knowable but not currently known categories. The economic effects of taxation, what the best stategy is to combat terrorism, what to do in Iraq, how to best spend federal money- all of these questions have factual answers but are too difficult for us to actually know for certain. Given the uncertainty, different people can rationally evaluate the existing inadequate evidence and come up with different conclusions. There certainly are a lot of preconcieved notions and dogma on these topics, but it's not religion for the most part.
Religion involves questions which are fundamentally unanswerable by facts. The origin of the universe, the nature of god(s), the nature of the 'soul'- any topic which is fundamentally unmeasurable or unprovable. (To answer a possible objection, if a god (or God) were to appear and demonstrate conclusively his existance, his nature might now be provable- but a belief in this entity would no longer be considered a religion by my definition as it wouldn't require faith, merely observation.) There is a grey area which I consider unfortunate, when a Religion makes falsifiable statements...you cite the example of evolution. In my opinion a potentially factual topic such as this should not rightfully be considered a religious area as it is theoretically factual. It is problematic for a Religion to decide on an answer to a factual question whether or not that religion happens to be correct in a particular instance. To do so is to restrict rational thought on the topic.
Does respecting the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth while denying divinity and the "Christ" title constitute Christianity? I don't think so, but I suppose your milage may vary on that.