Amber rose says she no longer believes in God… there’s just too many questions

[Everythingg]

Bro, if you had evidence, you would post it. I think you do, but you are afraid of the ciritism. Look, I don't care for changing your mind, changing the mind of an individual is a fruitless endeavour, my only intention at this point, since you won't provide evidence, is to make you look as foolish as possible. I mean, me asking for evidence was a trap as well, you either didn't post it and look like a loon or you post it and I ridicule it too hell and back. So if put to a poll, I'm sure most would overwhelming see you as the loon that you are. And I'm fine with that, that's the beauty of rhetoric, it doesn't really matter what you think, if you can't convince others to think the same.


But I see you are now doubling up on the emotes to depict "mad" and "laughing", I take an objectivist approach to human behavior, and I would say based on how this discussion has evolved, that you aren't too happy with the outcome. So I will also take a point there as well.

But I will leave you to your devices, it was fun in the last bit of this.

More deflecting. Deflect this too:

St Louis World fair 1904

Chicago World fair 1893

San Fran World Fair 1915

Charleston World fair 1901

Kinda fishy when cacs first showed up this is the style “they” were “building” but as soon as the lights came on with cameras, more people and better tech they stopped?

 

[O.T.I.S.]

If she not arching her ass up in the air I could care less about what she believes

 

[Tair]

Exactly. Let's keep it on this level.

Nah, I want that "smoke".

Go ahead. I am waiting.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Nah, I want that "smoke".

Go ahead. I am waiting.

I'm good. You already exposed yourself. I got videos to make patna.

Imagine being anti-science on a smartphone

I can't with you nikkas. Let me know when Civic wanna debate the shape of the Earth.

 

[Tair]

I'm good. You already exposed yourself. I got videos to make patna.

Imagine being anti-science on a smartphone

I can't with you nikkas. Let me know when Civic wanna debate the shape of the Earth.

No, you had no smoke. You are just hemming and hawing.

Talking about some experiment those of us that took biology 101 did at university. Stop it.

 

[Th3Birdman]

No, you had no smoke. You are just hemming and hawing.

Talking about some experiment those of us that took biology 101 did at university. Stop it.

You got it breh.

Debunk these while you in here pump faking like you've actually done real labwork

The Origin and Genetic Variation of Domestic Chickens with Special Reference to Junglefowls Gallus g. gallus and G. varius

It is postulated that chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) became domesticated from wild junglefowls in Southeast Asia nearly 10,000 years ago. Based on 19 individual samples covering various chicken breeds, red junglefowl (G. g. gallus), and green junglefowl ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The interplay between natural and sexual selection in the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in Sceloporus lizards (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae)

Sexual size dimorphism () evolves because body size is usually related to reproductive success through different pathways in females and males. Female body size is strongly correlated with fecundity, while in males, body size is correlated with mating ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From molecules to mastication: the development and evolution of teeth

Teeth are unique to vertebrates and have played a central role in their evolution. The molecular pathways and morphogenetic processes involved in tooth development have been the focus of intense investigation over the past few decades, and the tooth is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

That's just three. You'll get a reply from me when you can refute these papers.

Hold this L. Can't pumpfake nikkas that watch tape

 

[Reflected]

When people say "I believe in science" they believe someone's word/conclusion generally. They are giving authority to a person whose work/conclusions they don't know all too well and just accept it as being true when it may not be. That is what those in that "I believe in science" cohort are actually saying. "I believe in Sandra the scientist and whatever she says," "I believe in Mark the scientist and whatever he says", etc... They don't actually engage in the work. They just trust someone else's word.

There is a reason why the Royal Society lives by the code:

Nullius in verba

which means, "take no one's word for it."

When anyone says, "I believe in the science" they are usually, if not all the time, taking someone's word for it.

Oh, yeah, colloquially, "belief" is used a bit improperly, like a blind faith. That's why people need to define it, or there should be a standard to do such when one is using the term in argumentation. I don't really hold people for it, because as I mentioned, "belief" is actually a pretty complex topic in the realm of philosophy, and depending on who you run into and what school of thought they come from, that can be a pretty lengthy debate on just the term and what it entails.


But personally, I would never say "I believe in science", only because from my point of view it sounds wrong in its colouqual nature without defining it, and I could get into detail if necessary. I think, to put it simply, the question should be "does science make statements of truth", and the answer to that will typically be "no". And I think if that question is put before all of you, at least the reasonable bunch, you will all agree that science does not make statements of truth, thus a belief in science wouldn't entail a belief in what is true, thus the distinction between a belief in religion and a belief in science. And you guys would be on common ground and can work from there.

 

[Tair]

You got it breh.

Debunk these while you in here pump faking like you've actually done real labwork


That's just three. You'll get a reply from me when you can refute these papers.

Hold this L. Can't pumpfake nikkas that watch tape

I never denied evolution, never even denied science.

So, what do those papers have to do with what I said?

 

[SupaVillain]

Who cares about this air headed, forehead tattooed bytch

 

[Th3Birdman]

I never denied evolution, never even denied science.

So, what do those papers have to do with what I said?

So why we talking?

I literally said to you that you're speaking to a breh that has performed science. You mad because I negged you for anti-science comments.

Like I said-- YOU KNOW the brehs in here saying they "believe in science" are actually saying "I trust science" which is the correct perspective to have because science has given them basically everything they have in life.

No one is saying they believe in the way a Christian believes, and you know this. None of these nikkas are in here praying for science to win them the Powerball. You in here playing smart-dumb nikka, and it's played out.

 

[Reflected]

So why we talking?

I literally said to you that you're speaking to a breh that has performed science. You mad because I negged you for anti-science comments.

Like I said-- YOU KNOW the brehs in here saying they "believe in science" are actually saying "I trust science" which is the correct perspective to have because science has given them basically everything they have in life.

No one is saying they believe in the way a Christian believes, and you know this. None of these nikkas are in here praying for science to win them the Powerball. You in here playing smart-dumb nikka, and it's played out.

Yeah, you guys seems to be in agreement, for the most part. Like I said:

the question should be "does science make statements of truth", and the answer to that will typically be "no". And I think if that question is put before all of you, at least the reasonable bunch, you will all agree that science does not make statements of truth, thus a belief in science wouldn't entail a belief in what is true, thus the distinction between a belief in religion and a belief in science.

 

[Tair]

So why we talking?

I literally said to you that you're speaking to a breh that has performed science. You mad because I negged you for anti-science comments.

Like I said-- YOU KNOW the brehs in here saying they "believe in science" are actually saying "I trust science" which is the correct perspective to have because science has given them basically everything they have in life.

No one is saying they believe in the way a Christian believes, and you know this. None of these nikkas are in here praying for science to win them the Powerball. You in here playing smart-dumb nikka, and it's played out.

You took a biology 101 course. Stop it. I not only conducted that same experiment you spoke on, but I also did transfection (I'll let you look it up).

Oh, yeah, colloquially, "belief" is used a bit improperly, like a blind faith. That's why people need to define it, or there should be a standard to do such when one is using the term in argumentation. I don't really hold people for it, because as I mentioned, "belief" is actually a pretty complex topic in the realm of philosophy, and depending on who you run into and what school of thought they come from, that can be a pretty lengthy debate on just the term and what it entails.


But personally, I would never say "I believe in science", only because from my point of view it sounds wrong in its colouqual nature without defining it, and I could get into detail if necessary. I think, to put it simply, the question should be "does science make statements of truth", and the answer to that will typically be "no". And I think if that question is put before all of you, at least the reasonable bunch, you will all agree that science does not make statements of truth, thus a belief in science wouldn't entail a belief in what is true, thus the distinction between a belief in religion and a belief in science. And you guys would be on common ground and can work from there.

I don't believe in science, I just follow the scientific method when trying to understand observed phenomenon. Y'all make it more complicated than it needs to be imo.

 

[Reflected]

I don't believe in science, I just follow the scientific method when trying to understand observed phenomenon. Y'all make it more complicated than it needs to be imo.

I honestly think that is what people mean to say, or would agree with if explained out. But the complication does have merit, it's just not really fit for the typical discussion on the topic.

 

[Tair]

I honestly think that is what people mean to say, or would agree with if explained out. But the complication does have merit, it's just not really fit for the typical discussion on the topic.

Would it be correct to assume you work in philosophy? If you do, I have some questions.

 

[Th3Birdman]

You took a biology 101 course. Stop it. I not only conducted that same experiment you spoke on, but I also did transfection (I'll let you look it up).

My dude, you can try to measure dikks or you can address what I actually said.

You don't even know WHAT lab work I've done. I'm in California homie-- our shyt is cutting edge. Caltech stay on you nikkas necks

I'm not here to prove to you that I know what transfection means, nor provide my credentials. This the Coli. You nikkas don't believe anything but fairy tales lol