Apotheosis275

she said that, that actually wasn't taken out of context.

The force of gravity of the top part was not fighting against a force of gravity of the bottom, like in something like a teeter-totter. The structure of the bottom part had to equalize the change in momentum of the top part. But it could not; it was only designed to hold up the part above it in a static state.

I don't think you fully grasp Newtonian physics, vehicle collisions are clearly not analogous to forces applied to bodies in a broken truss structure. Go study some architecture plz

I like doing shield breakers from time to time but all too often they just wise up and stop shielding and I can't seem to take advantage of that.

PewPewU really understands DI mixups in Marth combos, I aspire to be that good at those. DI towards against Fair and DI away against Uair puts you in an easy spot to get hit again, but DIing away enough times against Fair can end the combo and DIing toward against Uairs can sometimes only lead to weak Fsmash, Utilt, and grab which will end combos.

Guessing DI-away on that Fsmash was genius.

What happened at 1:24?

He got daired in the air, bounced on the ground, and was able to up-B AFTER missing the tech? This would be normal if he missed the tech and bounced off the edge or a platform, but he's only close to edge, not off of it.

Quick Google query:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who is Joseph's father, Jacob or Heli? Surely not both?

Read some counter-conspiracy material, please.

Stuff like what's said in that movie Zeitgeist? Seems to make sense but often relies on false premises or speculation, and are plausible but without proof at best.

If the objects and methods aren't showing in blue, retype it and it should work. All else fails, retype the whole thing.

In comparison, scientific fact meets a higher standard of certainty, since it uses evidence to substantiate claims, though it is on a lower standard than statements that are true by definition. The more evidence for claim, the more certainty. The more certainty, the less faith required. So, the more evidence for a claim, the less faith required. Scientific fact/theory has evidence and religious dogma does not, so it requires more faith to be religious than to believe scientific fact.

It was an assumption, but a quick Google solves everything.

Prevalence_of_circumcision article on Wikipedia has many links to studies confirming it, though it seems to have declined in the past few years.

Next time just Google it

How do you know that what you experienced is what you think it was? How do you rule out other explanations, like various well-known processes of our psychology that make us see faces that aren't there? My car is smiling :)

haha fanatical youtube atheists are Zionist? Why would they necessarily approve of a Jewish state in Israel?

Yeah no shit there's no scientific theory that life and atoms exist by chance, scientific theory simply models causes and effects which is the antithesis of chance!

lol saying betrays a "history's 'smartest' atheist" misunderstanding of intelligence. Smartest how? Highest IQ? Knew the most things? How would you judge that?

Though many regard Einstein to be the smartest person ever

all Christians are wrong. completely they are so desperate to cover the failure of faith to determine anything "hiding behind faith" here bud give me one theory that proves the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist or one anything that proves a god exists... i bet you cant. wow lost your burden of proof card. hey come back with...it's called faith...your a weak Christian. real Christians don't spend there days talking about religion! by now

The atheist guy said the scene was "on the seat of government," though it was a bit difficult to catch with the guy talking there. So maybe the scene was on government property? You can't do that in the U.S.; the government can't represent support of any one religion.

It sends the message that you aren't a true citizen or member of the social order unless you're a Christian, that's why it's hurting people's feelings.

The question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" doesn't make sense. "Why" either asks "what is an person's reasoning/motivation for...?" or "how did it come to be that...?"/"what is the cause of...?" The first "why" makes no sense unless we pre-suppose a creator. Nobody decided there should be something. The second "why" is an inquiry about what caused something or how it came to be, which is explain by the big theory (beyond that -- we don't know, other than wild hypotheses).

Not everyone has little asian hands... tons of people would say the xbox controller feels better.

mhmm :)

So we can know nothing about the past? What if you evaluated god beliefs in the same way? Would it stand up?

Either way, that premise is demonstrably false. By the theory of gravity, we can deduce that masses have always been drawn toward each other. Why not for the theory of evolution?

It might also be helpful to clarify: the theory of evolution makes claims about how life has changed, but the origin itself is merely speculation; they're not nearly as certain about that.

Dawkins failed to establish the irrelevance of social darwinism to the scientific theory evolution and the irrelevance of the effects of a conclusion and the conclusion's truth value.

I guess maybe you're looking to reach gnostic atheists? Gnosticism is the belief that the nature of the gods can be known, so gnostic atheist will claim to know that no gods exists. However, nobody can know with any certainty that a god doesn't exist, the same way we can't go everywhere in the universe and confirm the nonexistence of the flying spaghetti monster. So, most atheists are agnostic atheists, and put god beliefs in the same category of certainty as unicorn beliefs.

LOL choosing scratch over water gun to save text and frames... meanwhile variation and bad luck is causing loss of thousands of frames....

Uncertainty of what's real or not is layered on top of the uncertainty about the qualities of matter, existence of the universe, and even the basal assumptions of logic.

Every statement that's made overshadows hidden assumptions: Given the idea of matter, given that two statements that contradict each other aren't both true, [...].

But does this mean we know nothing? No, we simply redefine the idea of "knowing" to mean to hold something to be true at an "acceptable" degree of certainty.