n

uh?

Angry was here

no he wasn't

Uh huh

All trees are blue.

wtf

did you delete my post?

Banjod was here.

God exists.

yes

Prots r dumb

finally someone with a brain

who deleted my first post, you sore loser

in which I gave the proof of god and jesus, i guess you'll never know now

There's proof of Jesus?

yes

it's called this BIBLE

<:dab:395562678153904128>

The Bible is proof of Jesus like Spiderman-Comics are proof for Spiderman. It is a proof of a story which does not necessarily took place in the real world.

wasn't there even other suff ther proves that Jesus lived??
ike other historical documents

Yes.

Historical facts:
- After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
- On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
- On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
- The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Even if you don't believe in the miracles, it's widely acknowledged by historians that a man called Jesus did exist in the flesh and blood around 2k years ago

bruv just hit the emojis

alot of the stories ascribed to said man might not even be him, or true

the bible is the jj abrahams version of a bunch of urban legends 500 years earlier

I personally think Jesus may have been heir to the Hasmonean throne.

I personally think Jesus may have been a mushroom

Badgers

There is no true Scotsman.

Prove me wrong.

Fallacy.

Done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL6CDFn2i3I

ol skool

mushroom MUSHROOM

Newgrounds gang-gang

I can honestly see why God would save Catholics over Protestants

Not on their own, @The Eternal Swede , but if every conventional measure of normal evidence gets undermined by technology, they eventually CAN use that to argue the case for...say, state enforced DNA banks. Or tracking software.

They can use that to argue for those things already, as they know about the existence of deep fakes

Where the tech goes from here, publicity-wise, doesn't affect that very much

They can and will make whatever arguments they like, and if not these arguments, they will make other ones

I don't think the existence of deep fakes *meaningfully* affects their ability to create a deeper police state, is what I'm trying to say

We'll see if this won't be used past making porn video's about AOC

no such thing as state overreach

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't have any numbers on it, but i'd be curious to know what are the predominant evidence methods currently used to convict criminals.

None of you believe there will be a transition period for stuff like this? People will be instantly redpilled? I dont buy it. Especially in Europe where people get convicted for tweets they cant even prove were written by them.

I bet the jews love this though, it means soon you can personify your stepmom pornhub fantasies

no people are selected by the redpill

and people like u and i will only propogate if the redpill selection machine helps with fertility and lifestyle

haha, soon™

I am Muslim ama

When will you leave our countries

does your mother make good curry?

<:basedmama:396156349676781569>

Her mother is in the curry

Hey what’s up guys

I believe global warming is a real phenomenon

Debate me

Explain how historic levels of atmospheric CO2 did not contribute towards runaway warming. Then I might consider debating.

I'm specifically talking about periods in history when atmospheric CO2 was at levels ~1500ppm

@oojimaflip can you give me one instance of this? There are different reasons for different time periods.

Carboniferous period will do. As far as I can see the contention of climate scientists is that increased atmospheric CO2 will lead, via the greenhouse effect, to Earth becomming more like Venus.

if this were true, Earth would already look like Venus.

What was the carbon dioxide ppm at that time

~1500ppm

I mean Venus has an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide it says I’m not sure having a atmosphere of 1500 ppm would make it turn into Venus

not in terms of atmospheric compostition, no. But that's not the contention.

What

"atmospheric CO2 levels >400ppm (current) will lead to catastrophic temperature rise."

that's the contention, is it not?

So there is a difference between these things. In ones instance the temperature gain were slower. The ecosystem is able to adapt over the 100,000 or what ever time period. 10000 years maybe. Human beings are raising co2 levels a lot more a quickly and this is why it will lead to catastrophic effects

it's also a fallacy that "Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is 96% CO2"

Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's

Well it’s actually 2 things. It’s high co2 levels and it’s thicker atmosphere. We can observe the green house effect of co2 in experiments. High schoolers do this.

So we know co2 has this effect

the rate of temp change does not explain why 1500ppm would not cause further (increasing) temp rise

where's the runaway greenhouse effect?

What do you mean? What it seems is the carbon dioxide increased more plants started to over grow took the carbon dioxide out of the air.

And the temperature went down

whilst CO2 is correlated to temp quite well, data clearly shows that CO2 increases as a result of increased global temp

not the other way round

Why would higher temperature cause higher co2 levels

This doesn’t make any sense

What is the phenomenon

CO2 is exhaust from animal life, higher stable temps mean more life.

It also means a lot more plants that take carbon dioxide out of the air and it seems plants have more an effect on co2 levels then animals do at least on land. For the time period you have shit tons of plants grew took carbon dioxide out of the air and the world almost ended up in an ice age

Do you deny that carbon dioxide has a green house effect? Do you deny the high schoolers experiments done that show this effect on heat retention? @oojimaflip

plant cycle for captuuring CO2 is much slower to react and time between max plant biomass (governed by CO2 levels) and min plant biomass is muuch longer

So for example

it is a false equivalence to equate a greenhouse and Earth's atmosphere

If you take a jar fill it with carbon dioxide and put it under a heat lamp it is hotter then the jar with lower amounts of carbon dioxide

our atmosphere is not a jar

No of course not but it shows in the small scale the effect that carbon dioxide traping light energy and because of this higher temperature

a greenhouse retains heat because warm air inside cannot leave and equalise temp with the outside air

You have a misunderstanding

it's a lack of convection, nothing to do with radiation

Green house effect is not the same as a green house