The cat cafe in melbourne 24 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
... in the ones we've visited.
3
Good Grades Pepe 8 comments
The future 3 comments
Kim jong un 12 comments
Dam this is so true 2 comments
Kim jong un 12 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
Maybe, I don't know as much as a French teacher, so go by their pronunciation
Kim jong un 12 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
The french word 'un' sounds more like 'a', or the un from 'under'.
The spanish word sounds more accurate to me
1
·
Edited 8 years ago
The spanish word sounds more accurate to me
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
Not only that, the matter from the Big Bang must have travelled faster than the speed of light to account for the uniform background radiation we observe today. By definition, that is a supernatural event: it is not possible within the natural laws.
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
It cannot be proven because it is not observable, testable, repeatable or predictable, unlike the other three. Therefore it is a historical belief, which can be guessed as correct, based on scientific facts we can observe, like fossils. The guess may be wrong because it is not a scientific fact. I would say it is wrong, and that the Creation model fits the evidence much better than Evolution. But both are world views; based on faith.
·
Edited 8 years ago
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
Oh whoops I said theories back there... I meant old ideas that are based on faulty assumptions, that do not line up with new observable evidence.
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
It can get better, but if there is found to be a major flaw in one aspect of the theory, it will be replaced by a theory better fitting it, or it will be reworked to account for the new data.
6
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
Each of these theories are true (as far as we can observe today). But only if by "Evolution" they mean "micro-evolution". The other 5 types of evolution are not fact, just a world view. Define the type of evolution before labelling the whole overarching group as true. If Newton were wrong about a sigle part of his theory of gravity, for example, it would call into question the legitimacy of his whole theory. So why is "evolution" falsely labelled as undeniable fact when an enormous portion of it is just hypothesized faith? And even then, why is it called undeniable fact? Isn't it one of the major tools of science to come up with opposing theories that can disprove old ones? That advances our understanding. Ignorantly clinging to old theories does not.
▼
It's Not About Believing 30 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
^^ this!
Science should be updated immediately, with theories that are known to be wrong thrown out. Yet for some mysterious reason, this does not happen, I think mostly because of people's hidden agendas.
1
Science should be updated immediately, with theories that are known to be wrong thrown out. Yet for some mysterious reason, this does not happen, I think mostly because of people's hidden agendas.
Cool zoom effect 3 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
I'm feeling spoiled on beautiful, cool landscapes and ideas like this
1
·
Edited 8 years ago
Holy shit I'm about to do it 5 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
Words are confusing with these sort of descriptions.
The last bomb is touching the two 2's (row 2, col 5)
The last bomb is touching the two 2's (row 2, col 5)
Ape and shit 2 comments
sublimegamer
· 8 years ago
Sounds like one of those wars where they eventually forget why they are fighting.
3
They could've just named it titin protein 10 comments
