Search results

Science is not an authority, nor is it considered as such (i.e. something to be worshipped) by scientists. It is a method, a tool, for discovering knowledge/truth/whatever. Science is not a religion.

More safe for the occupants, but for other drivers on the road? I doubt it.

Jealous? Lmfao, I've driven one (Toyota Landcruiser and a Lexus something or other), and it's like driving a boat. Hate hate hate. Look, I understand having a 4WD if you actually DO a lot of offroading/have a farm/whatever. But I'm willing to bet that MOST 4WDs/offroaders/faux-offroaders...

I fucking hate 4WDs, or more importantly, the poor drivers who drive them (I'm looking at you, soccer mums - get a station wagon or a van, ffs, you don't need a 4WD). I can't see around them, they're intimidating and driven intimidatingly, and they have no place in the city.

Then don't call it God. I wouldn't call that "other force" supernatural, either. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Sir Arthur C. Clarke

I'm sure, and I'll check it out. But ignosticism seems to me to be belabouring a point, a somewhat pointless point, that kind of depends on... well, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, except that to call it a God implies certain characteristics, including those of the supernatural. As a...

Why, then, call it "God"? I'm pretty sure that when people argue the existence of God, they argue it in the context of religious texts, such as the Bible/Koran/etc whathaveyou, in which their characteristics (and supernaturality) are clearly defined.

I'm busy psyching myself up (and training my team) for the Elite Four in Platinum.

I wouldn't really care if you're positing a God living in a different, idk, physical frame of reference. It's still a God, and therefore, supernatural.

I... don't understand the point you're attempting to make. By definition, God is supernatural.

Alas :(

Doesn't it come out in the US in December?

Why would you care what others think? Reality check: no one is going to give a damn if you sleep with your boyfriend.

Perhaps because it's the only way the laws can be. I think the teleological argument begs the question "who made these laws the way they are that somehow allows life?" which is a bit fallacious. I guess what I'm saying is that I think you're addressing this point arse-backwards, obsessing on the...

And what's wrong with that? Multiverses aren't impossible, nor particularly implausible. It'd certainly answer your question about chances.

Thorium reactors, anyone?

You're missing the point that humans, too, are apes. There's a train of thought that both species of chimpanzee - Pan troglodytes & Pan paniscus are closely enough related to us that they should be inducted into our genus, Homo, which would make them human. But that's neither here nor there.

Lol okay, stupid comments about Wikipedia aside (you do realise that all of these articles have citations? They're summaries of existing research. Don't be an idiot), Synroc You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? There's no "long term risk" of burying waste in...

Yes, yes and yes. Synroc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The fact that there have only been two meltdowns in the entire history of civilian nuclear power (and 8 partial meltdowns, with 5 of those being military) just goes to show how safe nuclear power is. It is very sustainable (given...

True, but there's a difference between questioning science and ignoring the weight of scientific evidence to come to your own flawed conclusion.