Do you trust the Science?

Do you trust the Science™?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we trust the plan, not the science.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only if the science aligns with my preconceived notions.

      these

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can't do rudimentary mathematics

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only if the science aligns with my preconceived notions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why do christians literally always project?
      The only reason you dislike science is because it's proven evolution i.e. it doesn't align with your preconceived notions. Scientists do not behave this way.
      >"Y-yes they do!"
      Extreme cope

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and the science says there's more than two genders amen

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's precisely through the scientific methods of biology, physiology and taxonomy that we can measure that sexual dimorphism is a reality and that men can't be women. It's only through metaphysical mumbojumbo philosophizing what the essence of gender is that trannies become validated. Seethe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >scientific methods
            No no, your method is trusting the science. You have to believe in more than two genders because the authority figure said so. Are you an expert?
            I just have the humility to accept some people know more than me, so I believe in ridiculous bullshit like more than two genders because the smart people told me to

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You literally can't do basic algebra
            You are only mad at science because of a perceived strawman you have of it, and because you're angry that you evolved from a monkey.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're only mad at the Science because it disagrees with your preconceived notion of two genders. Grow up
            Hey, we're not all cut out for this. Some people have to flip burgers, champ

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gender doesn't exist scientifically.
            Sex does, and it's binary. This is called "anisogamy". All animals and plants are anisogamous.
            I have a master's degree in bioinformatics you idiot lmfao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Gender doesn't exist scientifically.
            So I can choose to be a woman

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Woman is a sex-class not a gender class

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Trust the experts.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anisogamy doesn't necessitate binary sexes or even sexual differences, go back to school. It only requires that different types of gametes are produced, even by the same organism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anisogamy is the binary system of gamete production where males create small gametes and females create large gametes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that's your delusion. The definition of anisogamy doesn't care who produces the different gametes.
            If you stubbornly disagree, that means many plants and a few animals are not actually anisogamous (since they're hermaphrodites and such)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, anisogamy means 2 morphologically distinct gametes are produced, the small gametes are defined as the male gametes and the large as the female. This contrasts with, for example, Isogamy where only 1 gamete morphology is produced.
            Hermaphrodites are anisogamous and are both male and female at once. They are anisogamous as they produce 2 morphologically distinct gametes (the sperm and egg)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's what I said, you dunce:

            Anisogamy doesn't necessitate binary sexes or even sexual differences, go back to school. It only requires that different types of gametes are produced, even by the same organism.

            It's incredible how you somehow think you're disagreeing with me while repeating my point.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By the way, to save you further embarrassment the term you're looking for is dioecy. Species that have unisexual individuals producing different games are dioecious. The opposite is monoecious, who only have a "bisexual" (hermaphrodite) individuals producing two different gametes, an arrangement commonly seen in flowering plants.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But if science determines that a person suffers from a mental condition that tears him from reality, and the only way to treat him is to remove an organ and/or inject him with substances that cause physiological changes, that is what science has decided.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bro believes he’s related to monkeys and bananas lmao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not a belief. I can prove that you're related to monkeys and bananas.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then prove it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A book said so. Checkmate, believers.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You literally pretend that DNA evidence isn't real despite it doing the very thing you're asking for.
            We shre 99% of our genome with chimps.
            All mammals share the mammalian homeobox.
            We share over half our genome with bananas.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sharing DNA with monkeys and bananas doesn’t mean you evolved from monkeys or bananas, you fricking monkey. You are assuming it does. Now prove evolution is a fact.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, it proves you evolved from a common ancestor. And modern humans are primates.
            >Now prove evolution is a fact.
            This has already been done, a litany of times. Every time we genetically modify an organism it's proof of evolution. But again you shit for brains morons just pretend this isn't true because your coping child-minded crybaby homosexuals who are angry that you're not created by a god.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it proves you evolved from a common ancestor.
            Again, you are assuming it does. If you truly trusted science you would not push evolution as a fact but a belief. Evolutions love to shit on creationist but themselves believe in the supernatural. Tell me where the very first organism came from without making a supernatural claim like it just came into being from nothing, like magic. You can’t.
            >And modern humans are primates.
            Keep believing that the descendents of the gorilla you saw at the zoo will, after x amount of time, look like you.
            >>Now prove evolution is a fact.
            >This has already been done
            Saying it has been proven already is not an argument.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, you are assuming it does.
            No, I'm not assuming anything. The DNA evidence confirms the relationship.
            >If you truly trusted science you would not push evolution as a fact but a belief
            No, you have literally no idea what you're talking about. We have the entire mechanism down. We know how RNA polymerase synthesizes RNA from the DNA template, we understand how proteins are created and form into their ternary and quaternary structures, etc
            >Evolutions love to shit on creationist but themselves believe in the supernatural
            No, we don't believe in anything supernatural. The mechanisms of evolution are all entirely physical.
            >Tell me where the very first organism came from without making a supernatural claim like it just came into being from nothing, like magic. You can’t.
            It didn't "come into being from nothing". It itself developed from a rudimentary RNA proginator, which itself is also a physical structure made of atoms etc. Nothing metaphysical, nothing magical.
            >Keep believing that the descendents of the gorilla you saw at the zoo will, after x amount of time, look like you.
            That's another strawman which you attack because you can't actually attack the model.
            >Saying it has been proven already is not an argument.
            I'm not "saying it's been proven already". I'm telling you that it has already been proven, and you're just pretending otherwise because you're a coping moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It itself developed from a rudimentary RNA proginator, which itself is also a physical structure made of atoms etc
            Sounds like magic

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The christian mind truly works in mysterious ways.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not Christian bro. What you described sounds like magic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How does that sound like magic? if you have a high school education you should understand what at least some of those things are.Is it just that some places have much worse science programs than others? Are their places that do not teach basic cellular biology to highschoolers?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it proves you evolved from a common ancestor.
            Again, you are assuming it does. If you truly trusted science you would not push evolution as a fact but a belief. Evolutions love to shit on creationist but themselves believe in the supernatural. Tell me where the very first organism came from without making a supernatural claim like it just came into being from nothing, like magic. You can’t.
            >And modern humans are primates.
            Keep believing that the descendents of the gorilla you saw at the zoo will, after x amount of time, look like you.
            >>Now prove evolution is a fact.
            >This has already been done
            Saying it has been proven already is not an argument.

            You low IQ creatonist morons have literally been given a perfect opportunity to shill your moronation in the seeming impossibility of abiogenesis, but unfortunately you are too much of a bunch of drooling homosexuals to do anything with it. Denying the evolution that happened after is too fricking stupid and anyone can instantly debooonk you, so it's weird how you don't use abiogenesis more often as an argument

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, it doesn't.
            How the frick does it "sound like magic" you sniveling shit for brains moron? Atoms exist, atoms combing and doing chemical reactions exist, there is nothing in this situation which requires anything magical or nonphysical. You just don't like it so you pretend it's on the same level as believing a fairy created humans out of mud 6000 years ago.

            Not Christian bro. What you described sounds like magic.

            No, it doesn't sound like magic at all. You're just an idiot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            have you ever seen a atom anon?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you just pretending atoms aren't real now? Is this what evolution deniers have been reduced to?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            just a question my man, I'm curious to see how you verified that information. you could even just say you trust some guy, or your gut instinct, whatever

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did you not have chemistry class in highschool?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where did the first atom come from?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I literally cannot imagine not knowing the answer to this and asking IQfy instead of looking it up on physics and chemistry sources. The components of atoms are attracted to eachother

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tag me in please!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You are assuming it does
            No, we know it does because of how those genes interact and replicate over generations. If we were just created similarly we would not share errors in our DNA that come from viruses.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            True. It means that God is a lazy homosexual who couldn't make unique genome for humans even though he made them in his image

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We share many features with rocks, therefore rocks are our ancestors

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do we share many hereditary features with rocks?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So a true scotsman wouldn't put sugar on his porridge?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >argument for evolution concerning hereditary homologies in genetic code
            >christian brings up rocks
            I don't know what you expected to achieve.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Technically, yes. Or at least the early amino acids and stuff could be considered tiny rock-like things that eventually formed into the RNA world and eventually into DNA and life.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists be like "my ancestor"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christians be like "this boulder is basically an amino acid".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was just going with your moronic comparison.
            And again, this is basically in the same vein as "if monkeys became humans why don't they birth a human right now?"

            Do you guys seriously not understand evolution or do you just pretend not to understand it because you want to believe in the creation mythology?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And again, this is basically in the same vein as "if monkeys became humans why don't they birth a human right now?"
            It's a great question, if rocks can magically spawn living things why can't they do it again even in a lab?
            >you want to believe in the creation mythology
            He says right after calling rocks his ancestors lmao you embarrassing clown

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're the idiot who believes that a magical fairy made humans out of mud. You're religious mythology is literally that your ancestors are mud. I was just playing along with the rhetorical question.
            Anyway, the twenty natural amino acids can be synthesized in the lab using the Strecker amino acid synthesis protocol.
            And yes, you're related to chimps and bananas, and yes, you descend from a common ancestor with all the other primates, and mammals, and life.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You're the idiot who believes that a magical fairy made humans out of mud
            I wouldn't call them magical but the only fairies I believe exist are atheists who go to special clubs and have their own parades
            >You're religious mythology is literally that your ancestors are mud
            Dirt was formed into man. Adam wasn't a descendent of dirt.
            >twenty natural amino acids can be synthesized in the lab using the Strecker amino acid synthesis protocol.
            Amino acids aren't living things.
            >And yes, you're related to chimps and bananas, and yes, you descend from a common ancestor with all the other primates, and mammals, and life.
            Dude that's so epic I f*king love science

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Dirt was formed into man. Adam wasn't a descendent of dirt.
            Yea no that means adam is directly descended from dirt you idiot
            >Amino acids aren't living things.
            The nucleotides which formed into RNA and the amino acids which formed into proteins formed and evolved into the last universal common ancestor which went on to evolve into all the lifeforms today.
            >Dude that's so epic I f*king love science
            Again, you being flippant and angry at this doesn't mean anything.
            God is not real and he did not create adam out of mud. Life is real, physics and chemistry are real, and humans evolved on this planet from a universal common ancestor.
            We have proven this. You getting angry doesn't mean anything. You have not proven the creation myth because it isn't real and you can't.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hello, I'm not the anon you're talking to, but there's something that's been on my mind lately regarding Christianity so I thought I'd ask.
            Do you believe in magic? Like an old woman casting a spell or ingesting a potion to turn herself invisible, breaking into someone's house and casting a hex on their bed to make them have nightmares. Or maybe an occultist drawing a magical pentagram and summoning a demon to do his bidding, stuff like that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that's pagan superstition. Would-be sorcerers may cavort with demons, but there is no magic to enable the casting of spells.

            >Dirt was formed into man. Adam wasn't a descendent of dirt.
            Yea no that means adam is directly descended from dirt you idiot
            >Amino acids aren't living things.
            The nucleotides which formed into RNA and the amino acids which formed into proteins formed and evolved into the last universal common ancestor which went on to evolve into all the lifeforms today.
            >Dude that's so epic I f*king love science
            Again, you being flippant and angry at this doesn't mean anything.
            God is not real and he did not create adam out of mud. Life is real, physics and chemistry are real, and humans evolved on this planet from a universal common ancestor.
            We have proven this. You getting angry doesn't mean anything. You have not proven the creation myth because it isn't real and you can't.

            >Yea no that means adam is directly descended from dirt you idiot
            Are my turds descended from my food?
            >We have proven this.
            Lol no you didn't, this post is a series of proclamations of faith. You have no self-awareness

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Lol no you didn't, this post is a series of proclamations of faith. You have no self-awareness
            Lol yes we have, you just pretend we haven't and pretend that our models are the same as your faith because you're literally a moron who believes in demons.
            You don't belong on this board. This is for an actual discussion of history and not your religious fairytales

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a great question, if rocks can magically spawn living things why can't they do it again even in a lab?
            Your framing is moronic, so I'll answer
            >If abiogenesis can occur, why can't scientists spawn living things in a lab?
            The answer is we have produced essentially every building block of life in laboratory conditions meant to mimic the early earth. No we have not produced life this way, but it's a work in process. Abiogenesis is a fairly new field of scientific study.
            But also the processes that life developed occurred over millions of years. You can't replicate that amount of trial and error of RNA strands forming from naturally occurring nucleotides, being embedded in a "proto-cell" (which is essentially just a tiny lipid bubble), with some RNA happening to form proteins that function just well enough to produce another RNA copy.
            Essentially, the properties of RNA allow for an early stage of evolution to occur before there is really what we would call life, and this occurred potentially over millions of years before we had the first real life.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No we have not produced life this way, but it's a work in process.
            Two more weeks
            >But also the processes that life developed occurred over millions of years.
            You should be able to make it happen in an instant
            >that amount of trial and error
            Inanimate, unliving things do not experience "trial and error"
            >the properties of RNA allow for an early stage of evolution to occur before there is really what we would call life
            With 0 empirical support

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You should be able to make it happen in an instant
            Why? I don't care about your arbitrary standards.

            >Inanimate, unliving things do not experience "trial and error"
            Yes they do lol. Say that it's a windy day and you have a bunch of items on your patio. A gust of wind comes, and blows away some light items, some papers, clothes left out, but not all of them. Over time, through repeated gusts of winds (through trial and error), only the heavier items will be left.

            Similarly, small strands of RNA embedded in a lipid bubble can form small proteins just from their physical properties. These proteins can aid in the duplication, or partial duplication, of these RNA strands.
            Therefore, through random chance, RNA strands with the best odds of being able to produce a duplicate will become more common. This is the first step towards forming an early cell, ability to replicate genetic material.

            >With 0 empirical support
            Oh I didn't realize we needed empirical support for every claim. This is a hypothesis I'm summarizing.
            Abiogenesis is a work in progess like I said. It has already discovered natural processes by which basic components of life are formed, which is a huge discovery. In the past few years we've even found amino acids and nucleotides on comets.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why?
            Because you believe it happened in an instant
            >I don't care about your arbitrary standards
            Only your own arbitrary standards?
            >Yes they do
            Atheism really is just modernized animism. Here you are, attributing agency to a puddle of chemicals.
            >Over time, through repeated gusts of winds (through trial and error), only the heavier items will be left.
            Anon, that's not trial and error
            >Similarly, small strands of RNA embedded in a lipid bubble can form small proteins just from their physical properties
            Prove it
            >Oh I didn't realize we needed empirical support for every claim
            You didn't? Weird, seems like the central dogma of every atheist I've ever encountered
            >Abiogenesis is a work in progess like I said
            Decades in progress. The first failed attempt to create life in a lab was decades and decades ago, and it will just keep failing because it's a pursuit of fantasy.
            >In the past few years we've even found amino acids and nucleotides on comets.
            They found rocks on Mars

            Whoah, looks like me shitting on an airplaine is magic.

            That's something you could just go do right now though isn't it?

            >Lol no you didn't, this post is a series of proclamations of faith. You have no self-awareness
            Lol yes we have, you just pretend we haven't and pretend that our models are the same as your faith because you're literally a moron who believes in demons.
            You don't belong on this board. This is for an actual discussion of history and not your religious fairytales

            >Lol yes we have
            No you haven't, but keep telling yourself it until it becomes true.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because you believe it happened in an instant
            I very clearly said I did not think that so...

            >You didn't? Weird, seems like the central dogma of every atheist I've ever encountered
            Maybe you should talk to more people then, preferably offline.

            >In the past few years we've even found amino acids and nucleotides on comets.
            >They found rocks on Mars
            Anon this is a pretty huge discovery because until less than a century ago, we only knew how living cells formed these molecules, we had not seen them produced by natural processes.
            How dismissive you are of this just shows your ignorance.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I very clearly said I did not think that
            No, you said it took billions of years for it to happen. You still believe it takes an instant.
            >How dismissive you are of this just shows your ignorance.
            Yes, the discovery of inanimate objects in space proves that life on earth was created by lightning striking a puddle, silly me.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes we have. It we didn't we wouldn't be able to build the NCBI or UniProt database nor would we be able to genetically modify organisms or create phylogenetic trees.
            Also, are you capable of arguing with anything that isn't a strawman?
            >Atheism is modern animism!
            >You believe that it happened in an instant!
            >you're attributing agency to a puddle of chemicals! What do you mean trial and error under evolutionary selection pressure doesn't require agency, yes it does because it just does okay!?!?!?

            God and demons aren't real. Chemistry and DNA, RNA, and proteins are real.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It we didn't we wouldn't be able to build the NCBI or UniProt database nor would we be able to genetically modify organisms or create phylogenetic trees.
            Yes we would.
            >God and demons aren't real. Chemistry and DNA, RNA, and proteins are real.
            Do you feel the spirit of science overcome you when you say this?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes we would.
            No, we wouldn't, as the modern synthesis only works because evolution is true.
            >Do you feel the spirit of science overcome you when you say this?
            No, I don't, because there is no "spirit of science". Again, are you able to argue with anything other than strawmen and just denial?
            We know the exact mechanism of mutation and therefor evolution. That's the end of it. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's done. We also have the enormous fossil record. All of this is done. It's over. You just don't like it because it disproves your religious fairytales.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Awomen

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a great question, if rocks can magically spawn living things why can't they do it again even in a lab?
            >why can’t an event that happened once in several billion years across the entire earths surface be replicated in a lab in the duration of an experiment

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an event that happened once in several billion years across the entire earths surface
            Sounds like magic

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Whoah, looks like me shitting on an airplaine is magic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        rent free

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based and Liberal-pilled

      why do christians literally always project?
      The only reason you dislike science is because it's proven evolution i.e. it doesn't align with your preconceived notions. Scientists do not behave this way.
      >"Y-yes they do!"
      Extreme cope

      Lmao we're only 4 years removed from the pandemic and people out here still believe scientists don't have agendas and would never lie about their results

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why wouldn't I?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      'Cause IQfy is Shit Tier, not God Tier.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Basedence is in itself meaningless. Knowing that a chemical creates another chemical is, by itself, inconsequential to what or why to live. What people believe is in scientific materialism, that through science every part of human life can be made happy and excellent. The evangelists of this ideology are psychiatrists and their priests are self improvement gurus. I do not trust them because they have proven themselves time and time again to be grifters

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, the more I learn the more I get closer to instrumentalism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Instrumentalism still has confidence in the models

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As useful fictions, it doesn't seem like science is bringing is any closer to metaphysical truths

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't trust you, Shlomo

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No way. For instance, some science nerds are saying an eclipse will happen next month. Think how much money town's in the "eclipse path" will make when all the sheeple flock to see it. Oh but I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right? I for one won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes, and perhaps not even then, after all I wouldn't put it past the deep state to somehow fake an eclipse.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This picture just proves Christians will simply deny material reality that doesn't conform with their israeli fairy tales. Literally no different than radical feminists smashing weight scales, symbolizing the rejection of the concept of objective measurements.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no because my faith in the peer review method has been shattered. scientific institutions have ruined themselves and destroyed at least two generations worth of credibility. Sadly, they show no signs of trying to fix their corrupt system and instead are doubling down by demonizing anyone who questions their absolute authority and infallibility.

    This makes me very sad, because I am a rationally minded person who very much understands the good which had been accomplished by the application of the scientific method of inquiry.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and no. Science is but a tool. It cannot explain everything.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even people who trust the science don’t really trust the science.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Trvke, they do it for money, lifestyle and institutional support.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't trust the Science™, I trust picrel.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I trust the Science™ when it is logical, reasonable, fair and uninfluenced by dogma.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, I firmly accept Deus Sciencius as my Lord and Savior. There is no god but Knowledge, and Pythagoras is the Prophet of Knowledge

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Pythagoras
      He was an actual cult leader.
      He didn't even come up with the method that he's synonymous with.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Excuse me, but God Know It All told me you're sinning against Him, so you must now solve a math problem to make up for it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Damn. Alright.
          Would it involve using the Pythagorean theorem?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that has already been revealed, you must produce an equation that is as beautiful as the ones we have, or else your sin will remain Q.E.D.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, here I go.
            loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding ⋅ guilt ⋅ shame ⋅ failure ⋅ judgment n=y where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is that the anti-life equation from superman comics?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The "™" part is a problem of capitalism, not science.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Saying it has been proven already is not an argument.

    these are the people you argue with.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Someone can say it has been proven already that 6 million israelites died in the Holocaust. Doesn’t mean 6 million really did.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I trust science because science doesn't ask me to trust it. It shows me the evidence.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends what you mean by that. Do I think the scientific method is a useful tool in understanding the natural world? Yes! Do I think science should be the only tool used to acquire knowledge? No! Science doesn't tell us about right and wrong.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being an actual scientist puts me in a difficult spot. I am not welcome on /misc/ because I realize man made climate change is real and significant. However I am not welcome on r*ddit because I do not believe men can be women and recognize the genetic differences between races with a significant affect on ability.

    If you want to make yourself unpopular, speak the truth.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well, here goes: shouldn't it be "effect" instead of "affect"?

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >We share many features with rocks

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >christcucks try and mock science by portraying it as deference to objective measuring tools
    I hang my head high because my existence pisses you wienersuckers off. It’s actually a bad thing to agree and align with you people

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >portraying it as deference to objective measuring tools
      You have IQ of an AI

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s not my fault that you think it’s an insult to defer to measurement tools, but it does say a lot about you

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ?si=uHAyNJGQH5bu6SNS
          This is your appearance

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the truth is that besides anon, Christians don't think about you at all, ever

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t live in a shithole so I don’t know any, I’m glad that you morons basically just exist online and out in the fentanyl wastelands outside of town.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          here we see the atheist proving his moral superiority

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    only when it comes to vaccines.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >amino acids and stuff could be considered tiny rock-like things

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not if it's incredibly convenient to their plans. In that case, it's almost certainly bullshit.

    >captcha: H2SO4

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't believe in science

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you mean by that? Do you think the scientific method is inherently invalid? Why?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, I used the scientific method and deduced that science, based on repeated observation, is gay and moronic

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I trust the science of Marxism-Leninism

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Science™ is legally distinct entity from science.
    >Only for novelty use. Science™ Inc. takes no responsibility if used to replace actual scientific method.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    11th page bump

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      beastly

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *