/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3724547

I can't believe you're that naive.

Moon landing, the Holocaust, where your socks disappear to... Jesus, pick one.

There is a certain subset of the human race that is completely gone. They sustain it on confirmation bias and little else.

>>3719836

I'll give you one bit of credit: this is new... definitely definitely new...

>>3714914

Equality doesn't exist.

Read that in Hawking's voice. Thanks!

>>3712558

I'm sure there are studies out there somewhere done by people for exactly these reasons. It's not an area of study I particularly care about, so I don't have any free and handy research.

Like any drug, though, there's going to be some sort of benefit and there's going to be a consequence.

>>3712569

And bingo, there chimes in the cannabis supporter.

Over the years, I used to be anti weed, then I got over it. I realized the problem wasn't the drug, but the people who do it. Like so many other things... political ideals, religion, sports... the problem isn't the concept or the item but the people involved with it.

>>3712514

Sounds like horseshit theories by cannabis supporters continuing to try to spin their habit in a positive way, actually.

Even if it did have any positive effects, nobody is using it for that reason.

>>3710310

I honestly don't see why in the fuck you care about this.

>>3710301

Believe what you want, not like I can stop you.

I am going to think differently of you for doing so, tho.

>>3710293 Then we have the other thing, that our planet is only 4 billion years old while the universe is roughly 16, life as we know it could have occured 4 times over.

Kindly remember that life has been developing on this planet before now. It didn't take four billion years to develop. Once life started to develop, it went much faster than that. To expound, there's only ~65 million years between us and the last dominant life forms here. Life doesn't have a particular time road map.

>>3710280 How is this not relevant to 9/11?

It's not relevant to the topic here, I meant, since this is involving truther conspiracy theories.

>>3710265

Edited out?... by the same guy who added in the border lines?

>>3710266

Yes, we know this. It's not relevant.

It would also not be the first time that US meddling in foreign affairs has come back to bite them.

>>3710257

Stop.

>>3710248

Good answer.

>>3710242

What's the point?

>>3710219

No. Because we know the intent of the creators of the Smurfs and Cap'n Crunch. This seems to be a rather interestingly ignored point. Age has nothing to do with it. This is simply evidence. We have evidence, tangible, non refutable proof, that these things do not exist.

That is, unless you want to conceptualize their existence with an even more broad fictional concept of human ideas having form and existence in some alternative universe or plane. But that requires a whole lot of necessary evidence to even begin to prove. Not only that, but that the creators have been lying to us all these years.

The Bible is also not necessarily a useful piece of evidence on the existence or non existence of God nor is the intent of the people who wrote it. God may still exist despite all that. After all, theistic concepts exist outside of the Judeo-Christian based faiths.

>>3710216

Using >>3710196's solution:

f^-1(7) = 7 - 2 - LambertW(5e^7-2)

And I don't have my calculator handy to mess with Euler's number.

>>3710184
>>3710193

Neither of these things work, because you begin with the knowledge that these things are not real. You know man created them, thus your bias against them existing is already in place. You also have evidence that they don't exist, since the creators were known to have created those caricatures for the purpose of entertainment and advertising.

You cannot use any of these same arguments for the existence or non existence of God.

Same way you find other inverses to functions. Don't let the "e" scare you.

Change f(x) to y then change all x's on the right side to y's and all the y's on the left side to x's. Solve for y.

So start like this:

x = 5e^y + 1y + 2

Go from there.

>>3710163

"Get this wreckage over to Area 51 for examination immediately!"

"But sir, that's where we're building the fake moon landing..."

"Then we'll have to REALLY land on the moon! Invent NASA and tell them to 'Get off their fannies!'"

>>3710156

I don't think they dismiss parts they don't like as metaphorical. I think they dismiss parts they don't like, period. There's nothing metaphorical about commandments telling you not to lust after another person's wife, but Christians do it anyway. Just like there are Christians who believe that torture and murder are justified.

The truly devout are rare. The rest accept what is convenient for them.

>>Atheism has not to be proved. I don´t believed in anything not proved. God have not been proved.

I'm an agnostic. I accept that possibilities on a spectrum exist until they don't. That includes the possibility of God and the non possibility of God. So while you can sit there and say "God hasn't been proved", what you should be saying is that "God hasn't been proved... yet".

>>3709858

Well, it's also fermented... so it contains quite a bit of bacteria.

>>3709864

See >>3709845

Go away.