Well then maybe you'll make us a favor and float the fuck away

i dont believe in gravity.

THANK GOD! You're absolutely right, the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.! Creating the illusion of gravity! Check out the links below!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/170192-prove-earth-flat-challenge?Offset=30

Edited 2/11/2017 01:34:51

>hur dur muh evolution b reel n shiet

*tips fedora

a theory is the highest and most advanced degree of explanation for a natural fenomena. It doesn't mean a mere hypothesis, like we can use in common language.

to be frank, theories can greatly vary in how upheld they are, but this is not a hardship for evolution.

Uru-salem must have evolved from a bird or something cause he sure has a bird brain

buh dum tss

No, birds are way smarter than him

*tips fedora

no uru-salem did not evolve since evolve is to be not true so he has always been ladybird

I won't say that historical science is as solid as theories about the present.

There is no such thing as historical science, just science. Historical science is a bullshit concept invented by Ken Ham and his answer in genesis crew to basically reject every scientific fact that contradict his creationism fantasy.

Here is how valid Ken Ham historical science "were you there?" argument is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LW06dav7KA&t=1s

The is no such thing as historical science. Everything we observe has already happened. When you look at the sun, you observe it as he was 8 min ago. And with this observation, and the scientific theories revealing the laws of nature, you can predict how it will be 8 min from now, and how it was 8 min before that.
When you look at the cosmic microwave background, you look at how the universe was 13.7 billion years ago. We can actually observe directly how the universe was at its infancy.
So again, making a difference between "historical" and "observable l" science makes no sense. Science just doesn't work that way

If historical science was a thing, then every scientific observation made at this precise moment, aka observable science, would fall under historical science the moment after. Making a distinction between historical science and observable science makes the assumption that the laws of nature can change between one moment and another. Except science operates on the premise that the laws of nature don't change. The most concrete evidence that this is a correct premise is that science works. We got to the moon, pluto, and everything we ever built was engineered on this premise

Edited 2/11/2017 18:31:52

>muh laws of nature n shiet

nice shitpost kike

>nice shitpost kike

nice roast goy

>nice roast goy

nice buyling slavshit

Muh fungi r reel n shied

Mushrooms are plants, stop believing the fungus lobby

PFSs (Paid for Scientists) spread nonsense about Mushrooms all the time, and there's also IFDFs like that communist frenchie who shills about evaporation and aneurysms or something like that in addition to attacking the unequivocal fact that fungi don't exist.

Edited 2/13/2017 21:48:38