/sci/ - Science & Math

>Get deemed heretic for trying to spread "the works of the devil"
>burned at stake

>2012
>not cutting out the middleman and selling your own plasma on the corner

>>4287026
>mfw the decline in progress is caused by virtual reality being invented and everyone stopping to give a shit

bump

herp derp derp
his thread isn't interesting.
there is no need to reply to it.

>>3083783

Cramming at the last minute only shows you didn't try. I'm beginning to understand why you came to /sci/ for help with such an easy question. Because you're intellectually lazy.

You don't pass math classes by cramming(sci will claim to do this, but some of us are very talented with math). You pass them by effort concerted in small amounts every day.

Enjoy your life flipping burgers.

>>3083783

Cramming at the last minute only shows you didn't try. I'm begging to understand why you came to /sci/ for help with such an easy question. Because you're intellectually lazy.

You don't pass math classes by cramming(sci will claim to do this, but some of us are very talented with math). You pass them by effort concerted in small amounts every day.

Enjoy your life flipping burgers.

>Finance
>I like making a shit ton of money

>>2972561

Is brown coal the hardest type of coal to get energy out of then? Like requiring the most expertise in terms of specialized chemical proceses developed to squeeze the most calories out compared to the "easier" types of coal out there

Human minds are VERY susceptible to fallacious reasoning. The scientific method is our best attempt to model reality, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

Sure, it can require evidence to justify the acceptance of a claim, but what alternative would your propose?

The problem with invoking Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of species, is that the dramatic speciation seen in the fossil record takes place 100'sof times too fast for Darwinism to make sense. That's being absurdly generous, just for the sake of debate. It's much, much worse than that. Further complicating matters, there is zero evidence that Darwinism is progressive and ample evidence that it is merely breaking things down, like burning bridges to keep the enemy out. It gets much, much worse, when we see new phyla being produced.

Sure, intelligent life may be "inevitable" given infinite time, but even that is unlikely. The conditions of early earth were such that the dice rolling that was necessary (and you needed to roll a thousand 6's in a row) couldn't occur due to naturally occurring deterioration of amino acids. Meyer compares it to trying to get all those 6's in a row, but your dice are made of melting chocolate. No amount of time will fix it, because every time, the dice will melt.

The problem is, the fossil record only spans very limited time, when it would take many times the age of the universe via Darwinian processes, to create the changes that are known to have occurred in extremely short periods of time, e.g. 30 million years for a brand new species.

Most of us don't consider it a science. You can apply the scientific method to any area of human study, but that doesn't mean the stuff you find is scientific.

>>2832980

>>2775145

What about a fiat money supply?

>>2699296

A space race that we won 42 years ago.

How about a doubles board?

Define your god and give me your evidence. Your the one who makes the claim.