Christianity exists. Religions don't tend to spring up from nowhere. Every myth has its nugget of truth. Was there a preacher back then whose followers later spread around the world? Almost certainly. Where else could Christianity have come from?

Was he the son of god though? Was he capable of all the miracles the bible claims? Is the god he preached even real? There is no evidence that the answer to these three questions is anything but no I'm afraid.

Actually yes. Or well sort of. I believe some tax forms even have boxes for illegal income. This is because there is an odd interaction between two very important laws; you must report all income truthfully for tax purposes and you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. Tax law cannot overwrite the 5th amendment. This means they have a choice; either they can prosecute anyone they see as having an illegal income but make it so people writing nothing but "I plead the 5th" on all their tax paperwork is perfectly valid. Or they can choose not to prosecute reported criminal income and retain the ability to go after people who refuse to do their taxes. The only way the tax system can work is if reporting your own illegal income doesn't legally incriminate you.

The things you write on your taxes cannot be used against you in a court of law unless you are lying in some way. So it is legally safe. Practically perhaps not. Both the police and many of the security agencies love using something known as 'parallel construction'. It's where they get some information they shouldn't have access to or shouldn't be using and build an investigation that explains how they got that information legitimately so they can use it in court.

Seeing as how it's a single patient with no controls on the tests where they tested a variety of different methods on the same person I don't think those peer reviews are going to support this study's findings.

That's part of it another is that the right offers some easy answers to some very complex questions. They aren't the right answers but they're easier to wrap your head around. As prosperity drops, the time, effort and resources the average person can commit to understanding the complex problems facing their country also drop. This means the easy answers take root easier, and spread further and faster because the less informed are less resilient to them.

50% of the population of Gaza was under 18 based on Israeli numbers for Gaza prior to October. This means 50% of the population wasn't even alive when that vote happened since it happened 18 years ago! Fun fact about that vote; Hamas represented themselves as significantly more moderate in the run-up to the election only to drop that the moment they got elected and murder all their political opposition. They have since continued to murder outspoken political dissidents and quash any efforts for new elections.

A twenty-year-old election that was run on lies tells us nothing about the feelings of the people of Gaza in the current day. It doesn't tell us how much they support Hamas now and it certainly tells us nothing about how much they value their lives.

Though your twisted rationlisation tells me a lot about how you value their lives.

It's a shame their definition of Hamas includes all Palestinians.

So if your home was invaded in a war that became an unrelenting meat grinder you'd advocate surrender and submission? You'd happily allow things to degenerate into a decades-long insurgency? You'd happily endure the heavy-handed crackdowns the invading government enforced on anyone and everyone who held even the slightest shred of sympathy for the insurgents? You'd accept that the bloody and brutal insurgency was better than the full-scale war despite the constant uncertainty? No, you wouldn't, would you? You'd advocate surrender and submission again. You'd tell the insurgents to lay down arms because people were dying, you'd tell them that enduring the invader's harsh rule was better than the suffering inflicted in the fight. You'd tell them to give up.

I do not understand how you do not see the stance you take as the insult it is. I do not understand why you think people should stand down as their freedom is stripped away from them. Putin has made it clear, in a great many speeches, that they resent and reject the idea of Ukranian identity. Yet you tell the Ukranians to surrender and hold no ire to the Russians who levelled so many Ukrainian cities with artillery.

I should really proofread my comments before I post them but then again you don't strike me as worth the effort. I am well aware eastern Ukraine speaks Russian and has for a long time, I was talking exclusively about the rebels coming from nowhere.

Oh the Russian speaking population that sprang up in rebellion from nowhere in pretty much a single day with a clear and organised command structure from day one, with matching gear, uniforms and weapons and a bizarrely poor understanding of the local geography despite supposedly being locals. You know they attacked a movie theatre because they thought it was a local government center? Those rebels? The ones the locals didn't recognise? The ones whose casualty numbers had a weird correlation with Russian servicemen dying from unexplained causes? Those rebels?

Now I normally don't call 'Russian bot/troll' too often but Russian propaganda about this is so poor I have a hard time coming to any other conclusion.

Given that the speed of light is the upper limit for changes to propagate through the universe; if you had a four light-year long indestructible rod and you move one end of the rod how long until the other end moves?

It makes them upset that there are any caualties

I'm not merely sceptical I know this is bunk. Not because they're claiming they accidentally stumbled onto something akin to cold fusion, or the incredible claim that they've found a new fundamental force that everyone else completely missed. No I know it's bunk because they're already talking to the press about and releasing statements with their claims before the paper is ready.

Every credible organisation if they stumbled on something like this would lock things down. They wouldn't make any statements until they have double, triple or quadruple-checked everything. Making a massive claim that can make world news but quickly gets debunked is poison to a group's credibility. So every group that cares about their credibility would only officially confirm anything once every single i is dotted and every t is crossed.

The fact that they're already talking to the press means they don't have the real evidence to prove their extraordinary claims and they know it. This is a scam and the whole "We don't know what causes it" is simply a tactic to make it harder to debunk while they fish for gullible investors to sink money into their scheme.