Fucking-Science!. . cadence! We perverse an experiment, and n gives Us evidence, We perform more experiments, and they give Us more evidence We can dats of evid
x
Click to expand

Fucking-Science!

cadence!
We perverse an experiment, and n gives Us evidence,
We perform more experiments, and they give Us more evidence
We can dats of evidence and come up with e Weary.
But here cart be campeche memes ta explain the evidence
Arwe gather more ...
we can eliminate the demonstrably I"
All memes make -.
that make fewer assumptions are more be true.
Se we tend kn focus on the heary with the fewest consumptions.
This snows us us get as accurate a mature as we can
Our Theory The Truth
may not be accurate, but ifs competing .
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+3019
Views: 63286
Favorited: 417
Submitted: 06/02/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to skwirl Subscribe to fucking-science submit to reddit

Comments(352):

[ 352 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - anon (06/02/2012) [-]
My theory
-1
#235 to #92 - pedobearseviltwin has deleted their comment [-]
#40 - thaihooker (06/03/2012) [-]
no explanation necessary
#55 to #40 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
religion in a nutshell
#57 to #55 - bawler (06/03/2012) [-]
you got that right
you got that right
User avatar #7 - MurphyUK (06/03/2012) [-]
Plus we can play dot-to-dot.
User avatar #8 - flashcookies (06/03/2012) [-]
Finally, something that has more to do with science than slow motion HD gifs
#113 - maylage (06/03/2012) [-]
what i thought the theory was going to be
User avatar #130 to #113 - sonicschall (06/03/2012) [-]
   ▲
▲  ▲

:c
#144 to #130 - xuberpwnagex (06/03/2012) [-]

▲ ▲
Damnit I'm a newfag.
#158 to #144 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]

▲ ▲ me too
User avatar #177 to #158 - jetpistol (06/03/2012) [-]
∆ *cough cough*
∆ ∆
#347 to #158 - goodguypacha (06/03/2012) [-]
    ▲
▲▲


Me too...
0
#159 to #158 - xuberpwnagex has deleted their comment [-]
#61 - btfftw (06/03/2012) [-]
+5
#31 to #30 - propelledbanana **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#11 - xkxixnxdx (06/03/2012) [-]
How did they get this theory? Or is it truth?
User avatar #48 to #11 - elbrysobrony (06/03/2012) [-]
Just saying, that's not the Swastika. That's a Sanskrit symbol for peace or something. The Germans merely altered it to MAKE the Swastika.
User avatar #65 to #48 - Chuckaholic (06/03/2012) [-]
It is a swastika, the original meaning and the german meaning both have the name swastika. This one isn't the Nazi symbol as it is inverted. It is still called a swastika
#102 to #48 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
yes that is a swastika because it is tilted onto its side. the sanskrit symbol isn't.
User avatar #60 to #48 - granate (06/03/2012) [-]
He's right, it's not a swastika.
#162 - dalanty (06/03/2012) [-]
i stopped after the first square
i stopped after the first square
#220 to #162 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
thanks for letting everyone know you didnt read it.
#300 - azroth ONLINE (06/03/2012) [-]
<< It loaded as this and I spent 2 - 3 minutes trying to think hard about it being some sort of computer science joke?

I feel like a ******* idiot
User avatar #27 - reptaur (06/03/2012) [-]
what the **** is this dude? why are you posting actual science stuff in the science channel. you just dont do that ****
#51 - jazzd (06/03/2012) [-]
I think that this theory is better
#285 - Loststorm (06/03/2012) [-]
Why's everybody gettin' mad about religion all up in here?

Post never said anything about religion or even science for that matter. Just theories. This chart also applies to my theories as to why my trashcan is always tipped over in the morning. Evidence suggests that my cat is hungry.
#296 to #285 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
Come on, you can't say this post isn't about religion. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have gotten here.
#299 to #296 - Loststorm (06/03/2012) [-]
But it's not.
People are assuming it is; therefore, people thumb it up because they believe it pertains to their beliefs.

Theoretically, let's say that it WAS about religion. Religious people would claim that it's in support of religion, and athiests would say it's against. No true evidence points either way, but people see what they want to see.
#312 to #299 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
Yeah. I've concluded that no, the post itself isn't necessarily about religion, but it just got front page because people are looking at it in the context of religion. So you're right. Thanks.
#350 to #312 - Loststorm (06/03/2012) [-]
I'm glad we've reached an agreement, dear Anon.
#93 - rosietheamazon (06/03/2012) [-]
dance puppets...dance!
#169 to #148 - hugebull (06/03/2012) [-]
Go away mr. religious, nobody likes you.
#23 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
Read to bottom, then realize it's an atheist post explaining that science may not be the absolute truth but it's better than religion.. medals all around.
#47 to #23 - kuros (06/03/2012) [-]
Can anyone prove that god created everything (or anything)? Can anyone actually provide evidence of the big bang theory (or whatever theory they got these days)? No, so science relies on just as much faith as religion does.
#52 to #47 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
Are you trying to troll???
There's a lot of evidence supporting the big bang theory. One can use multiple telescopes and charts and tables regarding light reflection etc, to figure out exactly where the big bang is supposed to have begun. There's also countless studies that show that the universe is still expanding in the same way the big bang theory says the universe expanded at first. Just not as fast of course, because there's not the same amount of energy
User avatar #56 to #47 - krakarot (06/03/2012) [-]
1/10
User avatar #42 to #23 - mynameisnotmike (06/03/2012) [-]
not biting. 0/10 troll
User avatar #196 - trentacles (06/03/2012) [-]
I love how this post had NOTHING to do with religion, yet the atheist douchebags of the FJ community just couldn't pass up the opportunity to bash religion.
User avatar #221 to #196 - Xedan (06/03/2012) [-]
It's not hard to read between the lines of this picture. It even makes a pentagram as the symbol for the "incorrect theory". The post itself was probably made by an atheist.
#239 to #221 - whaleman (06/03/2012) [-]
there are a **** load of lines, so yes its hard to read between them. Furthermore in the context of this explanation, a pentagram would be the second closest thing and wrong.
#217 to #196 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
God is involved in a post therefore it is about religion since that is what you believe, in a science post religion is not involved unless you try to disprove the science.
In a similar point of view..science is involved in a post therefore it is what the atheists believe in (somewhat similar to religion)..in a post about religion, science is not involved unless you try to disprove the religion. :)
User avatar #219 to #217 - trentacles (06/03/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, point out the part of the post that mentioned God? Besides, I love how all of you people automatically think God when I say religion.
User avatar #380 to #219 - jazzd (06/03/2012) [-]
Well, the post does not mention religion, but it mentions the possibility of differents theories to explain the evidence. In this example, God/ Religion / Any Belief is an extra assumption (the inverted star of the post). If we apply Occam's Razor, the simpliest explanation is probably the correct.


Well, atheist on this site are kinda resentful, so they critic religion the first chance they get.
#211 to #196 - anon (06/03/2012) [-]
there's a good sheep, go talk to some snakes or something.
[ 352 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)