/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3931006
>(and disappeared so he must have been on to something )

People with sub-par intelligence should not be able to make threads. Discuss?

>mfw they're just circles mashed together in a rather-efficient design
are you also gonna argue that circles being formed in nature are too good to be true? (evolutionarily speaking)

noone?

>>1970772
You don't believe in the self, and yet you believe in reincarnation. Who, then, would be reincarnated?

If we are all one, and the things that make up 'you', such as matter, energy, etc. are all going to be recycled back into the system, great. What was used in you during your life will be used in countless other lives. That does not constitute 'you' respouting from your mother's cooch.

If there is no 'you' in reality, who would be reincarnated?

>>1956032
>create energy

>>1950222
bah. i understand your point, as (some)creationists are unable to see that they are only refuting analogies and simplifications, but for the most part, every science and every discipline except mathematics are simplifications and approximations. Even a lot of mathematics is based around making good and simple approximations for complex problems.

but insisting on using general relativity for the usual square block on inclined plane thing. and a variyng g constant over a few meters are all nescessary for the "most correct" picture.

But simplified models are nescessery both to be able to explain and understand what is going on, and making useful predictions. otherwise timing a ball drop from a roof would be an impossible task.

count the ones you see.
multiply by two to get the "surface layer"
multiply by 1,5 to fill it up

>implying you can get actual replies after posting that image
>mfw, you sir are and idiot

>>1802935
Then you would become the very thing you are trying to insult, making you look like a hypocrite and a fool

>>1763356
that's the joke.
are you fucking dense?

>>1753622
>zoom in
>stretch marks all over hips and ass

>>1730916