Not true. You can use "reasonable" force to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force. You will be arrested, but that's standard procedure for anyone who has killed another person whether murder or in self-defence. The definition of reasonable force is exactly that, what any reasonable person might think was reasonable at the time - including what in the cold light of day might be thought of as unreasonable, but in heat of moment, when in fear of the intruder, seemed appropriate.

I would expect that they'd suspend impartiality regarding spherical vs flat earth, or gravity vs intelligent falling too. At some point you have to decide that when the vast majority of scientists in the field support one conclusion that giving equal air time to the very few who don't agree is not appropriate. Otherwise you do a disservice to your audience.

You are correct.

No, it's a dollar that the government has to raise through other tax measures, such as the tax rate you pay (if you are an american citizen), or that the local companies in your area have to pay since they can't offshore their businesses and take advantage of these loopholes.

You know, maybe they get together so that they can be with like minded individuals who they have something in common with. Perhaps they want a break from socialising with people who frequently treat them like second class citizens and despise them for their lack of faith and constantly tell them that they are going to hell.

As far as I know, science does not yet have a solid theory for how this came about. There are some interesting hypothesises, for example one is that that the universe actually has a net zero energy state. The energy in the matter is balanced by negative gravitational energy - see this article. Of course this is just one hypothesis, there are others. However, just because we don't yet have a complete answer for the origin of the universe doesn't mean that it's acceptable to say "god did it".

Also the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution as taught in school and college. The origin of the universe is more properly part of cosmology and physics. Evolution is biology and ONLY deals with how organisms change over time, it doesn't even address how life might have come about in the first place. So if the argument is that we shouldn't teach evolution because science does not yet have a theory about the origin of the universe, you might as well say that we shouldn't teach ANY science at all. Should we not teach chemistry because we don't know where the matter came from, should we ignore physics as well?

So while it's true that science only goes so far as you say that is still not an excuse for not teaching it. Science it can only address topics where, by definition, the scientific method can be applied. Religions' claims are, again by definition, not scientific. One cannot apply the scientific method to supernatural claims - since no hypothesis can be tested; a god could always use its supernatural power to ensure any result it wanted.

Your first misunderstanding is that the reproductive system needs all of it's current complexity to give an advantage. Being able to combine DNA without having different sexes gives a huge advantage in terms of natural selection, and then once you have that then selection pressure will evolve fitter and fitter mechanism until one has the full complexity that we see today. The system evolved in very very gradual steps. If you are thinking that sexual reproduction is an example of irreducible complexity, then I suggest that you do a little bit of research into it. For example, a quick look at Wikipedia provides a useful starting point for the layman.

So if you discount all theories until there is full and fully defensible explanation, then I guess you discount gravity. That can't be useful at all since we don't yet have a full explanation. Oh wait, yes it's still useful to use Newton's equations even though they've been superseded by Einstein's, and it's useful to use Einstein's even though they don't work so well at the quantum level.

Okay, I'll feed the troll.

White people did "evolve" from black people as you say, however your complete misconception appears to be that evolution means "better", i.e. that white people are better that black people. Yes white people are "fitter" for an environment that it far from the equator. However, black people are "fitter" for an equatorial environment. That's it, that's the only conclusion that you can draw, nothing about any other traits. One cannot draw any conclusion about which is "best" from this evidence - except that black people are "better" for equatorial regions and white people are "better" for non-equatorial regions.

Also don't forget that the black population that remained near the equator also continued to evolve based on fitness for their environment, just as the population who moved away from the equator evolved paler skin based on fitness for their non-equatorial environment.

Strange, so a "vast majority" is about 15% right? This 2009 survey shows that 72% of philosophers from major academic institutions lean towards atheism as opposed to the only 15% who lean towards theism.

Evolution is a proven fact. There is a huge amounts of evidence, for example DNA. Evolution is the fundamental basis of all of biology and medicine, so you say "it doesn't push forward science", I guess you don't consider the medical breakthroughs that save millions of lives every year as worthwhile or pushing science forward?

You seem to think that a scientific theory means it's just a guess. A scientific theory is the 'gold standard' of science. The theory of evolution through natural selection (that's the theory not evolution itself, which is an observed fact), is the theory that best fits the huge amount of a facts and evidence that science has collected over the centuries.

I see no scepticism in "believers". They rely on faith rather then evidence for their beliefs, which is pretty much the antonym of scepticism.

There is no way that anyone can prove or disprove what happened to Jesus (assuming an historical Jesus existed), and even if there were incontrovertible evidence that Jesus did exist and was crucified and was seen alive a couple of days later that would still not prove that it was a supernatural event.

For example, which is more likely, that a god brought him back to life, or that he was not actually dead.

Now, let's say that he did actually die (by their definition at the time) and his heart had stopped. We now know that people can be resuscitated from that condition and we don't consider it a supernatural miracle. It's perhaps unlikely that it could have happened in the first century, but unlikely is not impossible and it is much more probable than a supernatural cause.

Finally, Let's say that his heart stopped and he was brain dead. If he then recovered, it would still not be evidence of a supernatural cause. It would be evidence that something had happened that we don't yet understand. It might well be that in certain circumstances there is a natural process by which someone in this state can be resuscitated. We have no evidence that this can happen, but lack of evidence is not a evidence that it is impossible.

Of course the real question is why you'd be trading in Hong Kong from the US when you can co-locate your servers in Hong Kong and run your trading algorithms there.

Why try and save yourself 100ms latency by going through the centre of the earth with neutrinos when you can save all 150ms by putting your computers in the same data centre as the exchange itself! After all you're not going to have a human at the end of the data feed making decisions if you're worried about shaving off milliseconds, it's computers making those decisions based on parameters that humans set. And even if your were, you'd have those humans sitting in Hong Kong.

It seems to work for movies, books and music. Why not TV shows.

The author has said that he was inspired by the English War of the Roses though.

Except in Marks and Spencer where all prices are to the whole pound. To me that always seem more honest and it saves them having to have a lot of pennies in their tills. They just need notes and pound coins.

At least in the UK, the government are wise to that dodge. VAT is charged on the value of the goods or services transferred regardless of the actual price paid. They would certainly look at the car and see that you are selling it for $1, they would adjudicate that it was worth say $50,000 and charge VAT on that value rather than the $1. Most people don't realise this since for the vast majority of the time the price and value are deemed to be the same.

(This is ignoring a single sale between two individuals for which VAT is not applicable, however once you start doing a lot of sales to private individuals you are deemed to be trader and therefore liable for VAT registration).