Every hypothesis is "an assumption". But some stand up to scrutiny and offer a lot of explanatory value.

As for evolution, what you said isn't heresy - it's a claim that you didn't try to back up.

That's one spin you could put on it.

Another choice is "How is a country full of people that believe nonsense going to survive the 21st Century?"

I guess that means I'm not a Slashdotter, because I don't believe any of those things exist (or are possible).

(Too bad...)

You're trying to pee in the punch with a "both sides do it" argument. The not-so-subtle difference is that "the left" doesn't deny that nuclear power and GM foods exist. To paraphrase the famous saying, everyone is entitled to their own policy opinions, but not to their own realities.

But then the Republicans aren't generally as bad as they get a rap for. Their only substantial reality-denying party positions are on evolution and global warming, and both of those are for easily understandable political reasons (the former too keep the dwindling numbers of the faithful faithful, the latter to please their corporate masters).

Like Prolog, where anything you can't prove is taken to be false?

Yeah, they would have gotten so much better a deal on gay rights if they had supported McCain & Palin.

Is there any empirical evidence that information can't be destroyed?

If not, what would be the consequences of just ditching the law(?) that creates the paradox?

And if they can get the data, there's no expectation of privacy.

Circular reasoning at its best.

Don't you know you have to use monkeys if you want to type Shakespeare?

But neither party is interested in ending the intrusive, ineffective "War on Drugs".

Law enforcement personnel don't think about these things the same way the rest of us do.

It''s called "telegraphic speech", as if the writer didn't want to pay for the extra characters.

Newspapers do it for space: the bigger the typeface, the less room for text.

I suspect it carries over to internet articles because of cognitive side-effects: if every headline was a complete sentence they would take more effort on the readers' part. You want something that will instantly grab (or lose) a reader's attention without any mental effort on their part.

(Look at how many people don't RTFA, or even RTFSummary. Full sentences would lead to people who don't even RTFHeadline.)

However, telegraphic speech can cause problems for readers.

Why does the crew have the capability of turning essential equipment off?

They were hoping a little blonde girl would be kidnapped or murdered, but they had to settle for a missing airplane mostly full of foreigners.

And with it missing at sea, they can't even pose a teddy bear in photos of the wreckage.

They usually post something to drive up hits on weekends. This weekend global warming, next weekend evolution.

Tomorrow we'll be back to Tesla and Bitcoin.