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

[Sccit]

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.





You keep playing with your drosophila flies.

FACTS ONLY

 

[Kyle C. Barker]

See maybe had you started like “I haven’t heard that before, where you’d see this?” It would have went better. But instead you started out with ad hominems then went to deflecting to flat earth till you were in that corner. You can stay in that corner thinking that cacs have the world when it’s at its most advanced state it has ever been in. That’s on you

If you want to say that all this was created rudimentary tools:


Then that’s on you. Personally I think that’s BS that when the lights were off and there was no cameras this is what cacs was doing but now that they’re on and their are cameras they aren’t building in this style at all. Despite having “more” tech and man power than the people that built this did

Don’t worry I don’t expect you to address that either like the others in the thread who mock people who question official narratives that were pushed on them

"Don’t worry I don’t expect you to address that either..."

The fukking nerve of this guy



I'll address it once you provide the citations that @Reflected requested.

 

[Reflected]

"Don’t worry I don’t expect you to address that either..."

The fukking nerve of this guy



I'll address it once you provide the citations that @Reflected requested.

He might be talking about this:

 

[A Tribe Called Quest ™]

I have no problem with someone actually questioning religion instead of blindly following it if that’s how they feel in their heart

 

[xCivicx]

Why do people on this website and IRL conflate God with the Abrahamic religions? They don't have a monopoly on what God is supposed to be.

Its a strawman

 

[xCivicx]

Be anti-science on a platform that literally only exists due to science brehs.
Question the science as a scientific illiterate but don't question your own narratives brehs.
Don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory brehs.
Deny we went to the moon brehs.
Be a flat earther in 2022 brehs.

Be dumber than your ancestors brehs.

You seem to want to get something off your chest

Feel free to bump a flat earth thread. Y'all seem to love to bring the topic up everywhere else but in the actual threads

 

[Reflected]

You seem to want to get something off your chest

Feel free to bump a flat earth thread. Y'all seem to love to bring the topic up everywhere else but in the actual threads

You think the earth is flat?

 

[Everythingg]

"Don’t worry I don’t expect you to address that either..."

The fukking nerve of this guy



I'll address it once you provide the citations that @Reflected requested.

See how I was right on the money?

If someone came up to me saying they built a mansion only using one arm and one leg you’re essentially saying I need a source to cite why I don’t believe them. There’s no reason to source skepticism but that’s your way of ducking

Yes. It was great for that period. You give me those exact tools and leave me to my devices, i will create shyt that will wow you too. Technology be damned.

That’s great in any era. Just as those buildings you don’t seem to want to address are great any era. But If you don’t want to address how you think they were doing that kind of quality work but when we have cameras and more man power then I don’t think there’s much else to say.

 

[Th3Birdman]

You think the earth is flat?

Hit dogs hollering

You seem to want to get something off your chest

Feel free to bump a flat earth thread. Y'all seem to love to bring the topic up everywhere else but in the actual threads

Oh no, buddy we can debate right here.

You make way too many positive claims on this board about the shape of the Earth, and then when questioned, you run away, putting nikkas on ignore or when held to the same standard you try to hold others, you say "I don't know".

So since you call yourself trying to check me, provide for me a Flat Earth model that all at the same time:

-- accounts for the day/night cycle
-- accounts for the seasons
-- accounts for eclipses, solar and lunar
-- accounts for the stars in the Northern Hemisphere being different from the Southern Hemisphere
-- accounts for why we see the sun setting

REMEMBER: Your model needs to explain all of these things AT THE SAME TIME. Do not provide for me multiple models, I'm asking you for ONE.

While you are at it, explain what causes things to fall down if not gravity. Density and buoyancy are not answers because density and buoyancy do not work without gravity. When you say "density and buoyancy", you are literally making a case for gravity, because if it weren't for gravity, a ball would fall to the side or even up because a ball is more dense than the air above it and around it, but it only falls down. Explain why that is.

I'll be waiting, and I'll be waiting a long time because you don't have a model and you can't explain why things fall down specifically.

 

[xCivicx]

Hit dogs hollering



Oh no, buddy we can debate right here.

You make way too many positive claims on this board about the shape of the Earth, and then when questioned, you run away, putting nikkas on ignore or when held to the same standard you try to hold others, you say "I don't know".

So since you call yourself trying to check me, provide for me a Flat Earth model that all at the same time:

-- accounts for the day/night cycle
-- accounts for the seasons
-- accounts for eclipses, solar and lunar
-- accounts for the stars in the Northern Hemisphere being different from the Southern Hemisphere
-- accounts for why we see the sun setting

REMEMBER: Your model needs to explain all of these things AT THE SAME TIME. Do not provide for me multiple models, I'm asking you for ONE.

While you are at it, explain what causes things to fall down if not gravity. Density and buoyancy are not answers because density and buoyancy do not work without gravity. When you say "density and buoyancy", you are literally making a case for gravity, because if it weren't for gravity, a ball would fall to the side or even up because a ball is more dense than the air above it and around it, but it only falls down. Explain why that is.

I'll be waiting, and I'll be waiting a long time because you don't have a model and you can't explain why things fall down specifically.

You seem to be confusing me with someone else, or maybe you're imagining me, which is weird

1. Ive never put anyone on ignore in a flat earth discussion. I have 2 people on ignore, because of their disrespectful stance on 9/11

2. Ive never shied away from a question in a flat earth thread, ever

3. I dont use multiple models to explain why we are on a flat eath plane. I never have

4. You clearly have never read any of the flat earth threads on here. I suggest you search my name alongside every keyword in your post, because i answer every single one of your questions in depth

5. After you're done reading, @me because then I'll have some questions for you(that I'm positive that you wont be able to answer)

6. You slick tried to derail this thread. I peeped that

 

[xCivicx]

You think the earth is flat?

My stance on that subject has always been very clear

There are a lot of posters who lurked those flat earth threads but were too scared to debate me directly in them, so they passive aggressively call me out in unrelated threads hoping that I'll come in and derail, so then they can call me the "unhinged flat earther"

The poster in here knows that there are only like 2 flat earthers that post on here. He was passive aggressively calling me out

 

[Diondon]

So she was a devout believer when her vagina was all over the place?

 

[Zime]

If she becomes Muslim all her sins will be wiped

 

[Th3Birdman]

You seem to be confusing me with someone else, or maybe you're imagining me, which is weird

1. Ive never put anyone on ignore in a flat earth discussion. I have 2 people on ignore, because of their disrespectful stance on 9/11

2. Ive never shied away from a question in a flat earth thread, ever

3. I dont use multiple models to explain why we are on a flat eath plane. I never have

4. You clearly have never read any of the flat earth threads on here. I suggest you search my name alongside every keyword in your post, because i answer every single one of your questions in depth

5. After you're done reading, @me because then I'll have some questions for you(that I'm positive that you wont be able to answer)

6. You slick tried to derail this thread. I peeped that

No, I'm aware of exactly who I'm talking to my dude.

1. You HAVE put people on ignore because you couldn't outdebate them. I have personally seen you do this, please stop lying my dude. There is literally evidence in your post history that I could pull-- every time someone gets in your ass, you dismiss what they say as "sassy" and then eventually put them on ignore.

2. What does that have to do with anything?

3. Yeah, because you can't, because they don't exist. That's the point my dude-- you make claims about the Earth yet you have no model. You can't claim the Earth is flat if you have no model for the shape of the Earth. Every time you're pressed on this, you go "I don't know", but you can't do that when making positive claims. Positive claims require positive evidence. Provide a model please, or admit the Earth is spherical.

4. Lol-- wait, so you make the claim that you're one of two Flerfs on this board, but then claim I've never read a thread featuring you? I'm not going to let you deflect and direct to other threads. You're in this one, right now, being taken to task. Answer the questions here please.

5. Oh you got the right one today my nikka. I ain't your average Coli dude that doesn't know what he's talking about. Please ask your questions, but after you've answered mine.

6. I called out all you conspiracy theorists. Your ego is showing-- I didn't even realize you were in the thread.

The poster in here knows that there are only like 2 flat earthers that post on here. He was passive aggressively calling me out

Lmao-- fam, there are multiple Flat Earthers on this website, Swagnificent and Kingsman being prominent ones. But look at you, already trying to lay the seeds of "sass" " babble" and "passive aggressiveness".

Nikka, I addressed you directly, and you're deflecting from my post. Here, I'll post it again:

You make way too many positive claims on this board about the shape of the Earth, and then when questioned, you run away, putting nikkas on ignore or when held to the same standard you try to hold others, you say "I don't know".

So since you call yourself trying to check me, provide for me a Flat Earth model that all at the same time:

-- accounts for the day/night cycle
-- accounts for the seasons
-- accounts for eclipses, solar and lunar
-- accounts for the stars in the Northern Hemisphere being different from the Southern Hemisphere
-- accounts for why we see the sun setting

REMEMBER: Your model needs to explain all of these things AT THE SAME TIME. Do not provide for me multiple models, I'm asking you for ONE.

While you are at it, explain what causes things to fall down if not gravity. Density and buoyancy are not answers because density and buoyancy do not work without gravity. When you say "density and buoyancy", you are literally making a case for gravity, because if it weren't for gravity, a ball would fall to the side or even up because a ball is more dense than the air above it and around it, but it only falls down. Explain why that is.

I'll be waiting, and I'll be waiting a long time because you don't have a model and you can't explain why things fall down specifically.

Report back with a model.

 

[Th3Birdman]

So while Civic is busy ducking this post, I'm going to dispel a few of his talking points real quick.

One thing this dude always tries to say is that the images of the Earth don't exist, and the ones that do are "CGI". He clearly doesn't understand what CGI actually means, because those images are composite images, not "CGI".

CGI stands for computer generated imagery, or images that have been fully rendered in a CPU/GPU. Iron Man's suit, for example, is CGI-- something that doesn't actually exist.

The images of the Earth are sometimes composite images, or images that have been stitched together or have had the color emphasized. The reason you would stitch an image of the Earth together is because the Earth is MASSIVE compared to us, so our cameras have to be extremely far away from it to get a full image of the Earth. So, you take photos of the Earth and put them together to get a complete picture, exactly the same process as a panoramic photo.

According to this guy's logic, panoramic images are also "CGI" and "not real" because they're multiple images stitched together to form a composite.

However, here is a non-composite image of the Earth in 1972, before CGI even existed:

Spoiler

Here is the original publication of this photo, complete with the date (Dec. 7. 1972) and the fact that image was printed on Kodak photo paper, proving this was on REAL FILM, meaning you COULDN'T fake this image:

The “Blue Marble”, first photograph of the full Earth seen by human eyes, December 7-19, 1972

Harrison Schmitt, or Ron EvansThe “Blue Marble”, first photograph of the full Earth seen by human eyesApollo 17, December 7-19, 1972, 005:06:24 GETVintage chromogenic print on fiber-based Kodak paper, 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10in), with “A Kodak Paper” watermarks on the verso, numbered...

onlineonly.christies.com

The first commercial usage of CGI in films was in a movie called Westworld, in 1973. This is what CGI looked like at that time:

Spoiler

Four years later, in 1977, Star Wars also used CGI in their film.

This is an example of CGI in the late 70s:

Spoiler

As you can clearly see, this is not even CLOSE to being as intricate and detailed as the picture of the Earth.

So, if CGI was used for the photos of the Earth back in 1972 (even though the technology for CGI didn't even exist at that time), why are movies that won Oscars for their digital effects no where near as detailed as the image of the Earth?