Srane!

Bloody oncologists…

Yes: Pluto's demotion is the only thing of scientific importance to have happened recently.

IT'S LIKE THEY ARE WRITING THESE THINGS FOR KIDS OR SOMETHING!!!

I'm going to guess that you didn't actually get the type of influenza the vaccine protects against.

Protecting yourself in only half the point. What about those around you that are more susceptible than you are? You're increasing their chances of getting it by not vaccinating yourself.

Uhh, what kind of flu are you talking about?

You might not be at-risk, but by failing to vaccinate yourself, you're increasing the chances that others around you will get sick. Especially young kids.

There is no way for either side to win this debate.

Oddly enough, it's the very service you mention that makes me feel worried whenever I use Google Maps. The thing is a neglected data-integrity nightmare.

Yes, I would seriously consider dismissing such a murder trial if local CCTV cameras filming the spot alongside a combination of other videographic sources all showed there to be no such activity.

I don't think you quite understand the publication - the entirety of theoretical physics is nothing more than postulation based on mathematics and the currently known laws. Most ideas (including published ones!) in theoretical physics are wrong; conjecture. This is expected. The trick is to design experiments that…

Ouch - right in the childhood. Damn, that link was painful to read.

Wait a second…

I'm not interested in having other people believe what I believe.

If the last post was mostly meaningless, then we can play this out differently. At some point, you had to accept the reality of your theology. Why did you do that? What made you "know" that your theology was correct? What makes the opposite side of the world wrong?

Religion looks at a different aspect of the world than science.

But surely the core ideas of them should cause some mental conflict? Their philosophies are radically different - one proclaims knowledge by investigation and actively rejects claims without strong evidence (let alone any evidence), and the other proclaims knowledge by one or more of whatever makes you feel better…

But surely the whole point of science would have faith thrown out the nearest window, and only allow it back into the room once it's climbed the steps of rigorous testing? If someone could objectively demonstrate that the god popular in whatever region they happened to grow up in does in fact exist, then it's not…

It's not splitting hairs - it's a very important distinction. One is simple enough to be fully and decisively answered in a single sentence, and the other has volumes of books written about it.