I'm not sure what you're expecting here in terms of a solution.

If btc/usd price stays the same but there is either an increase in difficulty and/or a drop in alt-coin/btc value, then you will make less money.  

Also, mining at profit-switching pools that mine the most profitable coin doesn't necessarily mean that you'll end up getting the most profit, especially if that's what the majority of people are doing.

The evidence which supports evolution can be used to equally support alternative theories, e.g. one in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather adaptations of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer.

1)  To me, the major problem with the peer review system it that it prevents grant funding for anything that isn't backed by academia, e.g. the hobbyist genius who fucks with explosives in his methlab and sent his cat on a round trip to outer space.  Consequently, this leads to 'business' science in which the vast majority of grant money is funneled to corporations and product research.  Basically, keeping the peer-review system as the staple for scientific progress is a good way to ensure that progress happens slowly.

2)  Not even "life as we know it." All it's about is adaptation and the mechanisms that cause it.  One of the reasons for this is that a theory on the evolution of specific species requires a good definition of species.  The problem is that there's currently no known (at least, I've never seen it) definition of species that includes every single living thing, without exception.  My personal opinion is that the best definition of species is "the offspring of the same species."  For example, I am human because I have two human parents.  Science has yet to figure out a way to model a theory of species on top of evolution.

3)  No, you always have theories in science.  The only proof in science is 'proof within a margin of error'.  A sound math proof or a logical tautology contains no margin of error.

4)  Science makes assumptions it can't even study via its own methods.  And, interestingly, every scientific theory ever produced contains assumptions; this is self-evident because of the statistical margin of error I mentioned in point #3.

5)  Science itself is simply a theory about knowledge acquisition.  Any discipline is such a theory, but they range in scope.  Philosophy is the most broad and it provides the tools necessary to analyze both abstract and empirical information.  Mathematics and physics represent the abstract and empirical descendants of philosophy.  Math then branches off into other abstract disciplines (e.g. geometry, calculus, trigonometry, etc.), and physics branches into other empirical disciplines (e.g. biology, chemistry, anthropology, etc.).  

Referring to bolded sections:

1) Stone cold for empirical study; useless for abstract study.

2) Peer-review is great...

3) ...ad-populum is not.  The peer-review system is the scientific community's greatest asset, and largest weakness.

4) The theory of evolution has basically nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth.

5) You can have proof without empirical evidence -- that's what philosophy and math are all about.  Don't fall victim to false dichotomies.

Referring to comments about "non-material" aspects of a human, etc....

...Another word for "non-material" is "abstract," and a close relative of "abstract" is "mental."  An abstract or mental component *must* exist in order to facilitate communication -- information is absolutely unintelligible unless there is something to process that information in an intelligible way, such as a mind.

It's an unsound leap to state that the material world exists and could exist independent of all minds because there would be nothing intelligible about the leftover information so as to even allow it to be described as material or existent.  

BitChick has some valid points, and even a few downright compelling arguments that are too easily dismissed by this crowd.  While I don't agree with all ideas she has put forth, I'd encourage some of her critics to refuse the impulse to dismiss all of her ideas as invalid.  Seriously, blasting Creationists seems to have become the dumb scientist's favorite joke.  I think that many of you simply believe that one or several false statements renders all of her arguments invalid.  That's stupid.

Referring to bold highlights:

1) No, it doesn't.  Communication skills maybe, but good at logical deductions, no.

2) Do you know what a straw man is?  I'm telling you its a straw man, and yet you still managed  to come up with more nonsense.  If pointing out your logical fallacies implies bias, then I'm biased as f***.

I would point out that, independent of other evidence, it's an unsound leap to claim the fossil record is evidence of evolution.  Evidence is "that which is apparent," and using the fewest assumptions, we could at best say fossils are evidence of...fossils.

As soon as we interject even a single assumption, e.g. a particular fossil was once a living thing, we immediately jump from "sound" to "plausible."  Science seeks to gain the most accurate understanding of something by changing as many of these plausible assumptions to sound ones as is possible through logical deductions based on evidence (e.g. things that have DNA were alive, this fossil has DNA, this fossil was alive).  What science can't do is prove its own assumptions.  Because philosophy *is* capable of exploring these and other assumptions, we quickly find that there is a lot that can be known that is beyond the scope of science. This is commonly known as 'the problem of induction' in science; science cannot explore beyond its empirical limits even though its own assumptions reside there.  Science cleverly states conclusions to a certain degree of probability to avoid this problem, but it's unfortunate how almost every scientist -- and certainly all of those I've met -- dismiss the problem of induction as an afterthought.

In short, here are the scientific methods weaknesses that make absolute scientific proof an impossibility:
1) Science cannot escape the problem of induction.
2) Science cannot incorporate a purely abstract proof into any theory it produces.
3) Science cannot account for rare cases (e.g. brute forcing a private key)
4) Science cannot account for extremely small (e.g. quantum-level) or extremely large (e.g. the Universe as a a single system) cases.

It's interesting to note that a known probability of brute forcing a private key is born of a purely abstract, mathatical proof, and that this proof acts as the foundation upon which scientific tests can be performed.  But, conclusions produced by those tests could never produce a known probability of an event.  Actually, it would be impossible for science to ascribe a known probability to *any* event, for even if you simulated a billion coin-flips, you're conclusion would include a degree of uncertainty (and no peer-reviewed journal would publish claims of absolute certainty).

Chance is another way to say 'unknown causation.'

You didn't score anything -- we're not even playing on the same board.

I'm not going to debate against someone who adamantly claims he understands the arguments I present when he clearly does not.

The reason that it's clear you have no idea what I'm trying to say is because you pulled the "he said something that doesn't epitomize the glory of the scientific method, so he obviously must hate anything and everything resulting from the scientific method" straw man of of your you-know-what.

Science leads to technological developments which are arguably the greatest contributor to the continually-improving quality of life on Earth.  I would never deny its utility.

I suggest you reread what I said, recognize that you're simply framing my arguments into a context you're more familiar with, and then apologize.

Any chance you'd care to offer compensation for the horrible pool launch?  Who the hell sets stratum share difficulty to 4.1k when the block difficulty is 1?

On average, I could've solved 4,100 blocks in the time it would take me to submit a single share.  Your pool rendered any small miner virtually incapable of mining anything successfully at launch.

I'm switching pools due to this specifically.

I couldn't get my first r9 290x, an MSI card (Twin Frozr), to run stable for the life of me above I=13.  I exchanged it for a Sapphire brand card and it solved all my problems.  Needless to say, I went back and bought three more Sapphires the next day.  All work beautifully.

Don't worry, my pool set a share difficulty of 4.1k when difficulty was 1.  Awesome.

I love how the pool share difficulty at zeuscoin set for my workers was about 100x higher than needed to solve a block.

Um, stupid?

I'm not going to debate anything when it's clear you have no idea what I meant in the first place.  You don't get to tell me what my position is, that's my job!

Look, if you want to debate a point, that's fine.  But can you at least debate against something relevant to my position?

It would've made sense if I said that the scientific method was useless.  But, I didn't.  So, no, it makes no sense.

If you're going to jump in to defend someone, you shouldn't assume they understand what they're responding to.

Please stop having thoughts.  Thoughts are non-empirical and therefore useless.

^^ See?  I can say stupid things that don't make any sense, too.

The foundation has a few good eggs on board, but that being said, it's mostly worthless in terms of its contributions.  I would not like them to be considered as a representative for the bitcoin community because it's not freely open to the community.

What would this coin do that separates it from the rest?

I'd agree.

My problem with the theory of evolution is that it is born purely out of the scientific method which conveniently chooses to ignore, and in fact *must* ignore, any philosophical, mathematical, or other kinds of non-empirical facts or truths in the process of theory-making.  And it does this despite absolutely depending upon certain philosophical and mathematical truths to have any kind of consistent methodology at all.  In other words, the same philosophical and mathematical foundation upon which science is built is not permitted in the actually process of scientific theory-making.  Hence, science is an incomplete methodology.

Edit: It seems that, based upon what you said, if you did formulate a new theory to fit both the evidence and the proofs, then you would essentially be doing the exact same you accused me of doing. Certain proofs negate certain assumptions held by a scientific worldview upon which the theory of evolution was built, so the theory needs adjusting.