Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#77 - thelegitmetalhead (01/26/2013) [-]
Science mofukkas
Science mofukkas
User avatar #74 - viacotwelve (01/26/2013) [-]
honestly, i don't see why religion and science have to be completely separate from each other. i'm a christian, i'll say it, and i firmly believe in evolution and all that. everyone seems to have a science vs. religion mentality, but i think they can coexist pretty well if you let them.
#113 to #74 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Here's the deal. Religion and Nature are butting heads. Science is a methodology for determining truth, both religion and nature are explanations of existence. That said, they are generally separate because science will generally give you the natural world explanation while religion will give you an explanation that is beyond natural occurrence. Once you start drifting toward acceptance of an opposing theory, you're by definition drifting away from your original theory. Science is just the tool that justifies which direction you go.
User avatar #111 to #74 - nucularwar (01/26/2013) [-]
it's because some of the worst examples of your religion DON'T let them. nothing against you or your beliefs, but that's the problem.
#109 to #74 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
because the idea of a god is literally something that transcends the natural world.
#117 to #109 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Whenever I see things like this I die a little on the inside.

If I ever go crazy and start murdering random people, it will definitely be at a philosophy school. (I'm not serious in case anyone freaks out due to recent shootings)

"It transcends human thinking" is the weakest argument in existence. You might as well just scream "I'm right" then plug your ears and repeatedly yell "I'm not listening" like a three year-old having a temper tantrum.
Regrettably, there is no way to counter the argument either, because anyone foolish enough to use it can not respond to sensible, logical discussion.

Goddamn I hate philosophy students.
#129 to #117 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Who said "human thinking"? I said the "natural world" as in, something that did not have something greater than it to create it. But you can go ahead and attack philosophy students (where the **** did that even come from, you must be teeming with buttrage over something). The solid truth is, the principle of a God is, by definition, something which bends nature to its will, something that is beyond the realm of what can occur without outside manipulation.
#163 to #129 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Philosophy students are mostly people like you, who want to make arguments based on nothing. "The solid truth"... Yeah...

So if the big bang were the initial point rather than a conscious god, it would still "bend nature to its will?"
Also note you are staying "the principle of god" not "god." Yes, many things claimed to be done by god are not possible with our current technological and scientific ability, but that has nothing to do with the "idea" or "principle." Your statement reads as claiming a human can not understand the (human-constructed) idea of god because "the IDEA of god transcends the natural world" or "the PRINCIPLE of god bends nature to its will."
(Also note the argument: high-technology appears to be magic to those who do not understand it. Referencing that some Native Americans saw Europeans as emissaries of their gods due to their rather simple technology. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it can't be understood.)

Even when it comes to powers outside the scope of science (ref: Newtonian physics not applying on a molecular scale), new rules can be made to understand it, because after all, it IS part of nature. There is no such thing as "supernatural" or "transcending nature" because anything to which those tags could apply to is simply something that we can not interpret with our rules of science as they are. If it can occur it is NOT "transcending" nature, it's simply out of the scope of our current understanding of the rules of nature.

People thought going at the absurdly fast speed of a train was "beyond natural possibility" too, they didn't understand it.
#177 to #163 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
and if it fits with nature, it is by its very definition not a god. Holy **** , how can you not understand this. A god, by its very definition is beyond what is natural. If there is a natural explanation, it is not a god. A god, by definition, dictates what is natural, thus he is beyond it. It doesn't matter what people THINK is true, it is about what is true, regardless of who believes it. If it is beyond the scope of the actual truth, not the perceived truth, it is a god. If it is not outside that scope, it is not a god.
#231 to #177 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Like I said, "Anyone foolish enough to use this argument can not respond to sensible, logical discussion."
#174 to #163 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
again, I didn't say WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS TRUE I said what IS ACTUALLY TRUE. God damn you're thick.
User avatar #97 to #74 - gammajk (01/26/2013) [-]
But that doesn't stop the fact that god is a hypothesis proposed by people attempting to explain how the universe works and that people will use science to counter it. We aren't just going to ignore one hypothesis because it's "religion".
Plus, I wouldn't care what people believed if it still didn't influence political decisions even when it's in the very basis of this country for it not to do so.
#114 to #97 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Since I predict this guy will be down-thumbed to hell, I'll state my agreement with a comment.

The initial reason for religion to explain that which was not understood. (What's the sun? Why is there day and night or summer and winter? What is life and death?)
While it has taken more of a "moral" standpoint recently as science explains these things, an all powerful creator with rule over everything really isn't necessary for morals. Morals and a god figure are separate, morals are considered a philosophy, while god is considered a religion. (All sects of Christianity believe more or less in the same god, you might even be able to throw Islam and Judaism in there, they just have separate philosophies telling them how to live their life.)

Regardless of that, the Bible still makes claims as to WHY, claims which we know to not be true. So a true Christian would conflict with science.

I'm not going to argue religion here, but realize that the Christian faith says the bible is the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD. That's an all or nothing thing, you can't pick and choose as to what we know to be wrong (now) and what remains undiscovered by science (exactly how life began).
So if you are truly religious, you can not agree with science. If you do combine the two, your religion is illegitimate because you are picking and choosing based on judgement of the flawed man rather than the perfect omnipotent declaration of god.
User avatar #499 to #114 - viacotwelve (01/27/2013) [-]
I don't think the Bible necessarily is the one true word of God, honestly. It was written by several different people. Several different people tend to make mistakes. And I don't think my religion is illegitimate for "picking and choosing." Many different religions based around the same God have different beliefs, and I don't think Christianity necessitates taking every single word of the Bible literally. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything. I'm mostly just trying to justify my own beliefs rather than contradict yours. Really, the whole point of my original comment was to try to make people argue a little less, so I don't want people getting angry over anything I'm saying. I'm looking at the replies now, though, and it seems I actually CAUSED an argument with my comment... That kind of sucks.
#504 to #499 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, and that would be the same argument I would use against someone who did believe the bible is the one true word of god.

The thing is, when you just start picking what you WANT you believe and what you don't WANT to believe, that's all it comes down to. What you WANT, not what is true.

And this is one thing that confuses me about how tied some people are to modern religion. Because ultimately, their beliefs aren't based on any one "word of god(s)" source, but what they personally WANT to be true, drawn from any number of sources.
If you can't trust the biblical god for some things, why can you for others? Who's to say the one god model isn't just what some old fart WANTED back a couple thousand years ago and the reality is that the Roman system of gods is most accurate?
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
Part of science is that it always accepts that it might be wrong and is ready to change as soon as evidence points to another conclusion. So you can say you don't believe in something science concludes because it may very well not be right. We think it is right, from what we know it looks right, but there is no way to be completely sure and thus you can choose to believe it is right or not.
People very often misuse the word "fact"
#78 to #73 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
And religion goes based off of what priests said thousands of years ago, and refuses to accept new ideas.


At least science looks for answers
User avatar #81 to #78 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
I'd rebutle, but you're anon
#125 to #81 - sirchopchop (01/26/2013) [-]
Sorry, forgot to login
User avatar #164 to #125 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
Well then, the basis for science is people(scientists) saying they observed something and think it means this. Religion works the same way, people from ancient times claimed to have observed things that were shown to them by God. It's rather hard to prove that so that's where faith comes in, you decide if you believe them or not, in the same way, when a scientist makes a claim it is up to the individual to decide if they agree and believe what that scientist says or not based on the things he claims
#87 to #81 - AnonymousDonor (01/26/2013) [-]
"rebuttal"   
   
also, while i think anon's statement is retarded and might warrant a rebuttal, i shall instead go to your first one and say that, while i certainly agree with you and you are quite correct, the mere truth that science isnt absolute fact is also an issue;   
when people present the ideas of evolution and global warming, the corporate-funded politicians immediately poke into the natural uncertainties like how evolution is a theory and how global warming is a possibility and they use that to exploit the natural terrified psychology of the average person - namely, that they look only for absolute certainty and will not back evolution or GW unless it's 100% truth   
   
which sucks because a scientific "theory" is as close to 100% fact as you can get, and the political exploitation of the non-science world is the reason why we didn't solve global warming 40 years ago, and why there are still idiots on the internet who think that religion is somehow contradictory to science and evolution   
   
i dont know if thats where you were going with your point, but i felt it needed to be said
"rebuttal"

also, while i think anon's statement is retarded and might warrant a rebuttal, i shall instead go to your first one and say that, while i certainly agree with you and you are quite correct, the mere truth that science isnt absolute fact is also an issue;
when people present the ideas of evolution and global warming, the corporate-funded politicians immediately poke into the natural uncertainties like how evolution is a theory and how global warming is a possibility and they use that to exploit the natural terrified psychology of the average person - namely, that they look only for absolute certainty and will not back evolution or GW unless it's 100% truth

which sucks because a scientific "theory" is as close to 100% fact as you can get, and the political exploitation of the non-science world is the reason why we didn't solve global warming 40 years ago, and why there are still idiots on the internet who think that religion is somehow contradictory to science and evolution

i dont know if thats where you were going with your point, but i felt it needed to be said
#116 to #87 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Most people don't understand the word theory, because the literal context, which is how any scientist worth his salt will use, is vastly different than how it is used colloquially. A theory is the simplest explanation that only needs the given, observed facts to be true. When normal people here the word theory, they think that it's a guess that scientists are trying to find evidence to support.
User avatar #115 to #87 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
i agree with most of what you're saying but the fact that the media uses fear mongering does not take away from the fact that these scientific facts are only the conclusion drawn by people, fallible people. So it is perfectly legitimate to say that you don't believe in evolution because it remains unproveable(probably a word) and so even if people put together evidence. My only point that this man is wrong when he says science deals in fact, science deals in evidence and makes the best guesses it can and to discount anything goes against science.
#120 to #115 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
...........proof is a taboo word in science. Any scientist will tell you that science doesn't PROVE anything, it just comes up with explanations for observable trends. Evolution is the smallest circle that fits around a group of pegs, not a guess. Gravity is a theory, it is an explanation, a very ******* good one I might add, for the phenomenon of objects of mass attracting each other, including rules for determining the strength of the pool and the properties that make these phenomenon occur. Just like evolution, it is the best explanation available given all the evidence that explains how organisms change over time, given that we sure as **** know they do.
#112 to #87 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
and the word is rebut. One rebuts with a rebuttal.
User avatar #59 - DisgruntledTomato (01/26/2013) [-]
Religion should be the motivation to go and make scientific discoveries, the two can work together, following faith and facts to get to the answer at the end. Without faith, there would be no progress, without science there would be no truth. The two are symbiotic, people need to stop following either route and use both to achieve great goals.
User avatar #62 to #59 - daentraya (01/26/2013) [-]
But religion is just fundamentally ******** .. I cant get myself to respect anything that works by deluding people. The wonderful feeling you get when learning something new and understanding your world better and progress and everything should be motivation enough. We dont need religion anymore. In the past, sure. We were dumber. We needed that ******** crutch, but now it's only in the way
User avatar #65 to #62 - DisgruntledTomato (01/26/2013) [-]
You don't know its fundamentally ******** , you don't know if there is a god and you don't know if there isn't. I am not religious, but I can certainly appreciate what it does for science. The motivation to discover how are universe works comes from religion, to really see if what we know to be real is real.
User avatar #68 to #65 - daentraya (01/26/2013) [-]
Considering the way people get into religion, it's ******** . And theres different religions. Since people in most cases dont choose the religion themselves, it's ******** , and something that's just dropped upon people who could do well without it. It's such a big gamble, and even if we have a 'a religion or group of religions are true' it still leaves many fake because theyre incompatible. Blaargh.
We could be in the matrix for all i care, and the movie was simply to test how deep into it were are. There could be highly technological fairies hiding underground. This planet could all be ruled by reptile aliens thru blue bloodlines. Doesnt mean i'll ******* gamble on it. Same kind of ******** , really. Its ******** until proven right.
User avatar #71 to #68 - DisgruntledTomato (01/26/2013) [-]
The majority can get into and out of religion as they please. I did, was raised a Catholic now an Agnostic. Saying that people gain nothing from religion is close minded, they do irregardless whether you feel the same, people still gain from it. For many it helps them through daily struggles, whether is be debt, loss or more than that. I believe it is futile to dismiss religion as a practice as it has done a lot for people, and until proven absolutely false it will continue to do so.
User avatar #106 to #71 - daentraya (01/26/2013) [-]
And a greater majority had absolutely no choice, and the way they're raised and influenced by other people will determine the power of a persons faith. Some lucky times it results in agnosticisme or atheism as a backfiring. Placebo sure is a great power, huh.. Because that's basically what it is.
My mind is just completely incompatible with ******** . Try as i might, i cant get it from another perspective, and since i havent been able to get a religious person to talk. One tends to be extra annoyed with stuff one doesnt understand, and i cant for the **** of me believe that a person who has been subjected to reason could still hold onto their faith. Trying to write to people like this is the closest insight i can possibly get
User avatar #57 - lamarsmithgot (01/26/2013) [-]
I'm surprised the room wasn't leveled by the sheer epicness exerted by these two legends.
#53 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Actually Science is only true in the current context we have. What's a 'fact' now could be completely ruled out once there is more context.

There is an infinite amount of hypotheses, our truth only comes out of those which we have currently explored and proven right or wrong. So technically you could say that no science is true, it's just what our best information points to right now.

Posting as anon in case I get moronic hate from the 'hurr durr I'm a science genius' crew. I swear that Scientists (or 'scientists') can be as closed minded as religious people, if not often much more so.
User avatar #61 to #53 - daentraya (01/26/2013) [-]
If our science, or indeed whatever we think we know, works in our favor, and makes us able to do stuff that could potentially save our goddahm lives, then it's limited how much i care about whether it's true or not. Whatever floats our boats
#50 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Everything about Science is called a 'theory' which means it isn't true, so if a lot of science is just theories then that must mean it doesn't prove anything . Oh wait a minute...I took the path of faith and don't need proof...maybe i should shut my mouth and not confuse believe and science and religious traditions since they can all co-exist together with an open mind.
#40 - HARTATTACK (01/26/2013) [-]
Global Warming my ass. It was 7 degrees by me in new york on tuesday
Global chaos is more like it
#124 to #40 - icouldgetsome (01/26/2013) [-]
The warming ocean is causing the jet stream to weaken which sends the North Atlantic Oscillation spinning into lower latitudes than normal, which means more freak cold snaps. Global chaos probably is a better description of what's happening to Earth's climate
User avatar #63 to #40 - daentraya (01/26/2013) [-]
That's just how wonderfully ****** up some major butterflying can inflict on a global scale. The weathers been acting weird. In Denmark we had a ******* hot spring, coolest summer for the past.. 20 years, and then the winter coming late. And snow in eqypt of something. Oh this is great fun
#38 - emazegenociide (01/26/2013) [-]
Proving science with science is no better than proving religion with religion
Proving science with science is no better than proving religion with religion
#58 to #38 - GumbyTheStud (01/26/2013) [-]
I must know the sauce of that gif
I must know the sauce of that gif
#79 to #58 - emazegenociide (01/26/2013) [-]
Wish I could tell ya, unfortunetly I don't know, sorry
Wish I could tell ya, unfortunetly I don't know, sorry
#51 to #38 - accolgate (01/26/2013) [-]
Is that so?
#45 to #38 - nickmandemon (01/26/2013) [-]
Umm yes it is... wtf is wrong with you? Science can be proven because it exists right in front of us and we can see it. Every fact (fact not theory) that you hear a scientist say has been tested and retested and re-examined like 20 times. I'm not saying that religion isn't real, but you definitely cant prove it, because no one, at least no one alive can account for the incredible stories that religion claims actually happened. Science on the other hand is completely provable because we interact with it everyday.
User avatar #39 to #38 - arziben (01/26/2013) [-]
actually it is better since you use things called facts
User avatar #27 - pinesol (01/26/2013) [-]
And yet he still refuses to believe Pluto is not a planet
User avatar #32 to #27 - smellykidagain (01/26/2013) [-]
Pluto is not a planet. There are many other "planets" the same size, if not bigger, than pluto. Pluto was just one of the first ones we found and we thought it was a planet.
User avatar #36 to #32 - pinesol (01/26/2013) [-]
My point here was that Neil DeGrasse does not accept Pluto is not a planet and yet says it doesn't matter if you believe science of not. I am saying he is being hypocritical
#90 to #36 - klondikemonster (01/26/2013) [-]
What are you talking about? Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the black scientist in the image, was one of the men who decided that Pluto wasn't a planet. He knows it's not a planet and he believes that it's not a planet.
What are you talking about? Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the black scientist in the image, was one of the men who decided that Pluto wasn't a planet. He knows it's not a planet and he believes that it's not a planet.
User avatar #69 to #36 - nightmaren (01/26/2013) [-]
No, planet is just a word used by humans to describe the balls of varying substances an size floating around in space. He's not hypocritical by helping disprove Pluto as a 'planet'. It's now classified as a dwarf planet, so it's not a fact that he's ignoring that it is a planet.
It's just words and classifications. It's not a fact the Pluto's a planet. The only fact there is to what Pluto is, is that it's a big rock orbiting a star. In fact, Pluto is officially recognized as a dwarf-planet, not a planet, so Neil isn't being hypocritical whatsoever.

I'm not sure why people make such a big deal over what Pluto's officially recognized as. Yeah, Pluto has a cute charm to it, but I don't see the need to get all butthurt that it's not officially recognized as a planet anymore. If anything, I think it being a dwarf-planet is cuter than it being a full planet.
User avatar #37 to #36 - smellykidagain (01/26/2013) [-]
Oh my apologies, I rea your comment wrong. lol Yeah I guess he is hypocritical.
-57
#21 - niralius has deleted their comment [-]
#101 to #21 - doctorhorrible (01/26/2013) [-]
im not going to comment on your religious bs, but i have to say. I live in Canada, and in the middle of January i went outside in shorts and a t-shirt.............ITS ******* JANUARY, THE COLDEST TIME IN CANADA
User avatar #41 to #21 - ThatsMyJizz (01/26/2013) [-]
You use the term theorie sarcastically. You do realize that theorie, used in scientific context is actually proven? It is very different from a hypothesis, which is unsupported.

Here's a link I found within 5 seconds of googling "scientific theory definition"

http://www.livescience . com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
-2
#34 to #21 - Killasoup has deleted their comment [-]
#25 to #21 - Rellikthebrit (01/26/2013) [-]
You are literally to stupid to insult   
Scientist believe in their theories because science is about falsifiability. Therefore for a theory to be accepted people need to try and disprove it.  Now please stop wasting your time.
You are literally to stupid to insult
Scientist believe in their theories because science is about falsifiability. Therefore for a theory to be accepted people need to try and disprove it. Now please stop wasting your time.
#35 to #25 - emazegenociide (01/26/2013) [-]
too*
too*
#43 to #35 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
That was an amazing movie.
#22 to #21 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
**** , you're an idiot.
User avatar #23 to #22 - niralius (01/26/2013) [-]
no please, not the wrath of Anon!!! anything but that!!
#26 to #23 - rubanio (01/26/2013) [-]
I'm sure most users would agree, I'm one of them
User avatar #24 to #23 - LemonNADE (01/26/2013) [-]
Would it make you feel better if a user told you that you're a ******* idiot?
#19 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
i am very shy on the internet, because i'm a lil pussy, so i keep anonymous. (I still dont care is you thumb me down, so please shut up about it). but read my post before you act.. or just ignore it.

i am scientist (meteorologist). i studied in the best institution for meteorology and physics in europe. global warming is my main topic. so stop arguing with me. scientifically the global warming is undeniable, but whats going on in media is a political issue and NOT a scientifical.

Neil DeGrasse is in my opinion completely wrong. He missed the important fact, that science should question things and try to prove them wring. this is how science work. if we wouldnt question science, we would still believe aristoteles. To question things imply that you dont believe them. doesnt matter if you are scientist or not. This ignorance he is showing is the same the church uses. "it is true, stop thinking about it, because we proved it". i am sorry for everyone here who doesnt fall for this. Neil DeGrasse evolved to a entertainer and lost his credibility to science.
#319 to #19 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/27/2013) [-]
I think what he was trying to say is that science is true BECAUSE it questions things. It's true whether you believe it or not, so long as the evidence is there.
User avatar #169 to #19 - jimimij (01/26/2013) [-]
Science has been completely wrong in the past (spontaneous generation, most of the darwinian model of macroevolution). It is simply a model to explain what is observed. If it was wrong in the past, it may very likely be wrong now. It is the height of arrogance to say that it is indisputable now.
#167 to #19 - nofunzone (01/26/2013) [-]
Except science is always right regardless, it is our attempts to find out what science is that is wrong.
#370 to #167 - wadethegreat (01/27/2013) [-]
science is not right or wrong its the process of seeing if something is one way or another so saying science is indesputably right dosnt make sense its like telling me that science says that a tv show is stupid when in fact science only is saying we dont know we only tested it... ask the scientist!.... you see what i mean? if not dont please message me and we can talk and ill try and explain better
User avatar #138 to #19 - robopuppy (01/26/2013) [-]
"is NOT scientifical"
"scientifical"
...
#143 to #138 - partnerintroll (01/26/2013) [-]
well, he didnt major in english
well, he didnt major in english
#139 to #138 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
sorry for not beeing native english speaking.
#184 to #139 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
now wait just a minute buster how do we know youre the same guy
User avatar #210 to #184 - pwoneill (01/26/2013) [-]
How do we know that you are a different person?
User avatar #141 to #139 - robopuppy (01/26/2013) [-]
No hard feelings. It just popped up to me.
User avatar #132 to #19 - bulbakip (01/26/2013) [-]
I knew I didn't like him for a reason.
User avatar #64 to #19 - alleksi ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
there have been so many ******* times where people have misquoted neil degrasse tyson just so they could have a "legitimate authority" behind their religion debates, that I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those times.

neil degrasse tyson is a smart man and he's not an ignorant man, so I am fairly sure that he either misspoke or this was misquote.

pretty much all Neil DeGrasse Tyson related content on sites like tumblr, funnyjunk and reddit are complete misinterpretation and misquotes of what he has said for them to act like " **** yeah atheism" when, in fact, he is agnostic
#18 - KungFuZerO (01/26/2013) [-]
Maher: I have faith a show featuring Tyson will be a good show, because he's been a good guest before.
Tyson: No, you have evidence that it will be a good show.

Maher, wut are u doing
Maher, stahp.
User avatar #10 - anonionbagel (01/26/2013) [-]
To the Neil to the Degrasse to the Tyson
User avatar #6 - thepastryistrue (01/26/2013) [-]
Never doubt the prophet, I know. But that's just wrong.
It's clear what he meant, but still epistemology should tell us otherwise.
#3 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
False. Science is not always correct.
User avatar #60 to #3 - mostlyshits (01/26/2013) [-]
Scientists aren't always correct
Science is.
#17 to #3 - angelious ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
yes but the good thing is when science is wrong they dont start to claim the right theory as wrong and burn the man who brought the subject up in a stake.they admit their mistake and are happy it was corrected and go on with their lifes
#12 to #3 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
False, science is always correct, individual theories may come and go but scientific method transcends them.
#5 to #3 - curses (01/26/2013) [-]
Those few instances where it was wrong only meant the real truth got out because it was scientist that proved the previous statement wrong.

Religion just fails all around at everything.
User avatar #4 to #3 - deltoraquest (01/26/2013) [-]
but science is still trying to prove itself right or wrong
#7 to #4 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
...Methinks you don't quite 'get' science.
User avatar #75 to #7 - asmodeu (01/26/2013) [-]
Methinks the captcha for posting as anonymous or creating an account should be an IQ test. Anything less than 50 is excluded from posting.
0
#9 to #7 - SILENCEnight has deleted their comment [-]
#2 - lempersy (01/26/2013) [-]
I'm making this my profile picture.
User avatar #428 to #2 - CapnInterwebz (01/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe you
User avatar #46 to #2 - arziben (01/26/2013) [-]
yes you are
#11 to #2 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
that guys a freaking psychopath
User avatar #296 to #11 - bothemastaofall (01/27/2013) [-]
How so
 Friends (0)