|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
|Copyright Removal Request|
Rank #21163 on CommentsLevel 168 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
OfflineSend mail to BobertoJoe Block BobertoJoe Invite BobertoJoe to be your friend flag avatar
latest user's comments
|#44 - Good. You should try Canada, though. They have great...um...st… [+] (1 new reply)||04/05/2013 on All Hail Mr.Tickle||0|
|#39 - You should take a summer in some place that's not there. It's fun. [+] (3 new replies)||04/05/2013 on All Hail Mr.Tickle||0|
|#37 - I have 1 counterpoint to that statement: why would you want to… [+] (6 new replies)||04/05/2013 on All Hail Mr.Tickle||-3|
|#32 - Alright, fine. Prove that there is no God. Find me proof. OR f… [+] (27 new replies)||04/05/2013 on All Hail Mr.Tickle||+8|
#143 - N. Korean citizen (04/05/2013) [-]
Ok prove to me the big bang happened. Come on, prove it this 'obnoxious' individual. Your logic is so flawed from all perspectives, religious or not. You cant prove god exists or that he doesnt and arguing solves nothing. The sooner the world (and internet) learns that the happier we shall all be.
#118 - N. Korean citizen (04/05/2013) [-]
So, you're saying that because you believe in god, he is real, i believe in magical rainbow-shitting unicorns, doesn't mean they're real... Your logic doesn't make any sense in the world we live in today, with the amount of information available to you on the internet and the way information can be shared in an instant you have no reason to "believe" in things that make no logical sense.
#55 - N. Korean citizen (04/05/2013) [-]
Actually, many people try and prove God metaphysically or even empirically; some quite well. No offense, but by making the argument that your beliefs are exempt from traditional scrutiny because they're justified with- by definition- lack of evidence (faith) is almost laughable. I mean, believe what you want and all but the fact I can't disprove Mr. Tickle isn't an argument for his existence.
'A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.'
#104 - N. Korean citizen (04/05/2013) [-]
So we read shit out of science books and believe them, too. I believe that the belief in science is a faith as well. I would explain more but it's 2 in the morning and I'm a fucking anon anyways so fuck it.
#92 - ilovehitler (04/05/2013) [-]
I really don't know much about religion, so I'm just gonna take my best guess here.
Is it because any being that created the universe could be undetectable in all forms if it so chose, so trying to find evidence would be completely pointless unless it wanted evidence to be found?
#83 - N. Korean citizen (04/05/2013) [-]
and thats your cop out
#65 - N. Korean citizen (04/05/2013) [-]
That's not true. The Quran is more advanced than science. Scientists go to the Quran for answers when they're stumped sometimes. Things that people are just discovering now, Muslims already knew.
#33 - teranin (04/05/2013) [-]
|#1 - I agree, I hate when people are successful. We should always s…||03/12/2013 on Gotch'ya||0|
|#2 - Cheap and almost free, huh? What a great new way of thinking, op!||03/10/2013 on Life Hacks||0|
|#46 - Dhiraina. I can live with this.||03/10/2013 on Wikipedia||0|
|#126 - Although it does sound much cooler. "Excuse me while …||03/10/2013 on Retarded Protests||+5|
|#5 - No, no, no. Bad, OP. Bad. Rosalind Franklin originally found t… [+] (4 new replies)||03/01/2013 on Yeah Science||+18|
#9 - N. Korean citizen (03/01/2013) [-]
Yes, Franklin only discovered that DNA held a helix like pattern. She had no indication to the double helix. It was because of Watson and Crick's model work that proved the AT and CG patterns would fit on top of each other to form the double helix. So in short, it is you who must do their research.
#21 - N. Korean citizen (03/02/2013) [-]
Have you ever seen Photo 51? With the clear double helix? Or maybe, did you ever actually take a few weeks to learn about this in an AP Biology class? Yeah, I never do research or make informed decisions.
#7 - ipmules (03/01/2013) [-]
That's not right. Did Watson and Crick deserve all the credit? No, but I'm getting sick of everybody calling them a couple of assholes. Photo 51 was very important in seeing that DNA is helical, but it's not like "Oh cool, I just took this photo and it totally shows that DNA is helical!!" Wilkins took the photo on a trip to Cambridge and gave it and some lab data to Watson and Crick. They were then able to deduce the first correct model of DNA, before Rosalind was able to finish. When they were published in Nature in 1953, there accompanied papers by Wilkins, Stokes and Wilson, and then one by Franklin and Gosling.
|#4 - Argh...clip...gaaaah. It's not called a clip. It's a magazine.…||02/24/2013 on Random Movie Bad Guy||0|