0
FishyMan420 0 points ago +1 / -1

Christians don't need more visibility. They already have gigantic churches and crosses, Bibles literally everywhere, crosses and shit everywhere, etc. And they've got TWO major holidays in their honor.

-1
FishyMan420 -1 points ago +2 / -3

Found this https://www.reddit.com/r/animecirclejerk/comments/11w9ckd/just_found_out_about_hero_hei/ seems the leftists really hate Hero Hei but can't actually give a single reason why, despite being asked multiple times. The most they can say is he's anti-SJW. Ok?

-3
FishyMan420 -3 points ago +1 / -4

The Bible is loaded with failed prophecies (and what few "prophecies" it does get right are so vague or so predictable that they don't really count). On the other hand the Babylon Bee has made many predictions and satires, in jest, that much to everyone's horror have come true.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2016:28 That's my favorite failed prophecy.

-3
FishyMan420 -3 points ago +1 / -4

A better track record than the Bible, LOL.

-1
FishyMan420 -1 points ago +2 / -3

u/Nurarihyon_no_MAGA

Actually no one can explain it better than me, because I will tell the truth without bias, obfuscation, or lies. A long time ago I posted a bunch of furry memes back to back on c/funny and c/memes. It's no different than when people post racist memes back to back. Except the content being furries offended people and the mods (racist stuff doesn't offend them though). The mods got mad at the furry content (which was never porn, though there were some risque jokes, appropriately marked NSFW), and so since then, and this was many months ago, I now only post at most 1 furry meme a day and then only to c/funny. Haven't posted a single thing to c/memes since then.

You created the board c/lolisho, so I don't believe you that you "accidentally" posted naked cubs. I think you wanted to test the limits of your perversion. I also don't care if E621 classifies it as SFW simply because there's no overt nudity. That same rating system classifies someone sucking a tit (with no between-the-leg genitalia shown) as merely questionable.

Now kindly stop lying about me. And if you do continue, at least have the balls to ping me so I can defend myself.

-2
FishyMan420 -2 points ago +1 / -3

I've got a couple stalkers and downvote bots following me around.

-1
FishyMan420 -1 points ago +2 / -3

This is funny! And why not? If you can change genders why not species?

0
FishyMan420 0 points ago +2 / -2

As a furry this is funny. Although what you describe is very few furries, most of us just like the art, a few of us like fursuits, and a tiny minority believe they have some kind of animal spirit.

-2
FishyMan420 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Where do you get it for the price seen on this chart? And how do you sell it when the price goes back up? Is it really a good idea to buy a bunch of cheap 1oz silver coins?

-1
FishyMan420 -1 points ago +3 / -4

How much religion is in the actual show? I don't care if Pratt is religious, I just don't like it in my shows.

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +2 / -1

lotta science here (fags have bigger dicks, brain differences, finger lengths, etc...)

Lol you're retarded. There is no science for any of that. Plenty of fags with small dicks, no real brain differences, and finger lengths is pure quackery. You obviously don't know a goddamn thing about genes.

I believe homosexuality can be caused by hormonal issues

Also - I’ve thought of homosexuality as a symptom of mental illness.

No, homosexuality is perfectly natural and always present in a small minority of the population of many higher higher animals, including humans. For there to be a mental issue there needs to be intelligence involved, for example trannies who are confused about their gender. This is unique to humans because we alone have sentience, and that alone is a mental and hormonal issue. There's a reason why a good portion of trannies are overweight, because excess fat and an unhealthy diet fuck with the hormones.

No way shits natural

You obviously haven't studied the natural world and how homosexuality, mainly male, is not as uncommon as one might think, even out in the wild.

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

You admit I've never used appeal to authority fallacy, but still insist I've done some other, unnamed, fallacies. All while using ad hominems. Classy, and about what I expect from religious people.

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

I never mentioned a single person as a source, please quote me where I did.

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

Science isn't an authority, nor is that what appeal to authority fallacy means. PLEASE look it up and learn what the definition means. Here, I'll even help you:

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html

"The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true."

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://cs.brynmawr.edu/Courses/cs361/spring2008/Readings/Marshall2006.pdf

Page 9. But just because we can't definitively prove something doesn't mean god did it; that's god of the gaps fallacy.

There is no other scientific theory that opposes evolution. Evolution actually has more evidence supporting it than the scientific theory of gravity.

Supporting evolution is not the same as supporting religion, for reasons I have already explained. Evolution literally has mountains of compelling, falsifiable evidence supporting it, whereas no religion has even a single shred of compelling, falsifiable evidence supporting it.

A belief does not make it so.

Correct. Evolution, big bang theory, and so on are not mere beliefs.

but I think you dismiss information that does not conform to your beliefs.

Not at all. You haven't presented any compelling information for god, so I've had nothing to dismiss. Your information that we don't know everything about the universe, such as science currently being unable to perfectly explain the Cambrian explosion, I have not dismissed because it's true. It's just that information, or lack there of, does not support god.

There are lots of "debunked" archaeological digs that are debunked simply because it does not fit the current accepted theory.

Show me a digsite with scientifically proven fossils or whatever that go against the status quo but are dismissed because science doesn't like it, or something.

The estimate is 4 billion years, but even that is dubious.

Not really dubious, it's based on good science. That doesn't mean it can't change if new evidence is presented, that's what science does. As opposed to religion which ignores evidence that proves it wrong while refusing to show any compelling evidence that proves them right (because there are none).

Even the carbon dating is in question now because of off world deposits skewing the carbon ratio's.

Carbon dating is determined by examining the decay of carbon. After around 50,000 years carbon has decayed too much and can't be used to test. Therefore it's not used for anything older than that like determining the age of the Earth based on rock samples found.

https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-does-carbon-dating-work.html

To state with certainty any point of view on these ancient topics is, by definition unscientific

Science doesn't use certainty for any specific thing except for math, because we never know if there might be some new way to more accurately determine the truth. Consequently scientific theories aren't certainty either, but certain concepts can essentially be undeniable like gravity or evolution. HOW we understand them can and almost certainly will change with time. Again, as opposed to religion which typically never changes (unless conquered by another nation who then integrate the religions like what the Romans did I believe).

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

A scientific theory is vastly different from the colloquially used word "theory".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

So no, the guess or idea of a creator is not just as valid as the scientific theory of the big bang, or evolution.

It's not the responsibility of science nor anyone else to disprove god, but rather the responsibility of the one claiming god exists to prove god exists. And just because science can't currently explain everything in the universe does not mean god did it; that's god of the gaps fallacy.

0
FishyMan420 0 points ago +1 / -1

Like I said, look up what it means. I never make an appeal to authority, I never use the words or ideas of a single person or organization as proof of anything. I only use the preponderance of evidence as proof.

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even if scientists don't have a clue, even if we don't understand every little detail of how precisely the universe works, that's not evidence for god. And that's my whole point. There is no compelling, falsifiable evidence for god. In science it's ok to say "we don't know".

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

I made no appeal to any kind of authority. You however are still using strawmans as well as now using ad hominems.

1
FishyMan420 1 point ago +1 / -0

I literally gave you a link that precisely explains what a scientific theory is, and yet still here you are misrepresenting it. We were having a nice, intelligent conversation and you had to ruin it.

There are no issues to evolution, not a single one.

Darwin had various ideas that if evolution were true, then we would find X fossil and never find Y fossil. So far all of these have been true with us finding hundreds of transitional species and no fossils that break the theory of evolution, such as finding a horse with wings. Otherwise there were no "issues" with evolution that Darwin had. Only some things he didn't, and couldn't, understand at the time, but we have since been able to explain through understanding of DNA ancestry, embryology, and so on. Darwin is also not an authority on evolution, no one is an authority on anything in science, so just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.

I don't know what you're talking about with the Cambrian period, it isn't confusing to scientists nor is it causing problems for evolution (nothing is causing problems for evolution).

DNA has further cemented evolution as being undeniably true. Even if you could prove god, it still wouldn't disprove evolution (conversely evolution doesn't disprove god [not that it's our responsibility to disprove god, it's yours to prove it] although it does disprove young earth creationists).

The Earth is billions of years old, the time is definitely there for evolution. Unless you think the Earth is only 6000 years old which is absurd.

That's not how genes work. It only needs to propagate over countless generations. We've observed this today with the famous butterfly color observations. There's also dogs which have been bred, or controlled evolution, to form all kinds of different breeds over thousands of years. In the wild because there's no outside force controlling who gets to breed and who doesn't, it takes much longer but it still happens.

view more: Next ›