/sci/ - Science & Math

>mfw exponential growth

Troll harder

>>2167662
>exponential growth

the fuck?

Learn how a cell population grows: EXPONENTIALLY!

OP can't math because OP is a stupid faggot.

>assumes average reproduction of human cell = average reproduction rate for all cells
>assumes present-day cell reproduces at same rate of first cells
>never heard of cancer; never heard of yeast
>has nothing to do with theism

I'm a Christian but I must point out that that is on average!

>>2167667
If you fail to understand basic science you can gtfo. Dont expect to come to /sci/ and expect everyone to baby talk you.

>>2167662
>>2167667
>>2167668
>>2167673
>>2167675
C'mon, guys, it's a joke.

>surprised and pleased at the number of sages in here...

>>2167686
lolitrollu.jpg

>>2167675
>assumes average reproduction of human cell = average reproduction rate for all cells

I am talking about human cells though........

>>2167656

Ahahahahahahah!

Go back to arts.

>>2167667
if you don;t know exponential growth then stop coming to /sci/

>>2167686
hahahahahaha...

Just stop posting, OP this is stupid, so either
1) You're stupid, or
2) You think anyone cares about this stupid sort of humour.

>>2167690

>Digging my own grave.

clearly OP hasn't passed biology yet.

Christian here as well, but...
you get 2^81 000 000 000 000, not 81 000 000 000 000.... a lot larger number...
you gotta lrn2math

>>2167656

we were all created by one cell that was the queen cell and the other cells it made were sterile everyone knows this lol

Op here.

look up exponential growth

see this
"The number of microorganisms in a culture broth will grow exponentially until an essential nutrient is exhausted. Typically the first organism splits into two daughter organisms, who then each split to form four, who split to form eight, and so on."

That doesnt make sense because where did the first cell come from???
Did a billion atoms just line up that way one time?

HUH?

>>2167697
He'd be right to think people care, since even you read it.

>>2167703
No, you have <span class="math">2^ t/ \tau[/spoiler], were <span class="math">\tau[/spoiler] is the doubling time.

be as smug as you want, but proving that extraterrestrial life lacked sufficient time to form should have clued in the "scientists" that life on earth similarly could not randomly occur in the given timeframe.

but i've seen science, and i know its secret: MOVE THE GOALPOSTS

>>2167712
*<span class="math">2^(t/ \tau)[/spoiler]

>>2167700
agreed, OP doesn't even count as living, but is instead a mineral

>>2167713
>extraterrestrial life

Oh lawdy.
This thread is a riot.

The actual number is so large that my calculator won't do the computation.

Fuck off.

>>2167706
>where did the first cell come from

your math fail is astounding, but this is a valid, though separate question

answer is no one knows for sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

>>2167706
lol, giving up on your initial argument completely?

>>2167713
The winning euro lottery numbers are 08 19 28 32 46 04 07, the chance of these particular numbers happening is astoundingly low, therefore it must have been set up.
The probability of life to earth randomly is astoundingly small, therefore god done it.

>>2167733
>Abiogenesis
Mfw they use a bunch of big words to make it seem legit... Regardless of the reason of how the first cell came to be think about how did the thing that made the first cell come to be? and so on forever

Check and mate.

OP is a subtle troll. He makes an obvious troll then watches as retarded atheists believe it's real and make an ass out of themselves. This in turn proves that /sci/ is full of stupid teenagers who are atheists because they want to rebel against mommy and daddy

Don't be idiots guys, you have nothing to prove by posting here.

You are retarded.

erfvwerqegr

First "cell" was a self catalysing chemical, probably DNA in primordial soup. It came together by chance.

>>2167706

Yes

>>2167758
More likely it was a crystal

>>2167719
>>2167712
yes... I took the that from the number given by OP (81 trillion)

>>2167680

>>2167763
>More likely it was a crystal
want to know more

>>2167758
In fact, it was probably RNA, but nobody knows for sure.

Also, sage

>>2167758
>It came together by chance.
There was nothing random about it, everything was following the laws of physics in a perfect order of cause and effect.

hello

>>2167784
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith#Clay_theory

>>2167789
mfw you cant tell me where the building blocks for that rna/ dna came from

science is flawed severly

Hey christians
You acknowledge that Earth is at least 3.5 billion years old, yet your bible says that that it's about 6000 years old.

Check and mate.

>>2167656
>81,000,000,000,000!
>!
>the exclamation point is important
>it proves OP wrong

herp durr i learned about this in pre algebra in 6th grade

how did the thing that made the first cell come to be?

>>assumes there's something/someone that made the first cell

please either read up the article on abiogenesis, or die.

"Im no scientist"

Check and mate.

>>2167818
So the first cell just popped into existence did it? No, it was made by naturally occurring phenomena

>>2167813
Your face when I never said it wasn't 3.5 bill years old...

Maybe the guy who wrote that part of the bible didn't know????

>>2167801
science is flawed -> yep, one of the fundamentals of science is that it's falsifiable, unlike yer jew god that's so purrrfect /sarcasm/

>>2167834
But I thought that the bible was the word of god?
If that part is not correct, how do you know that the rest of it is?

>>2167837
>yep, one of the fundamentals of science is that it's falsifiable

Exactly so by being an athiest you confirm that you are an idiot. Because science could be false .

>>2167841
I don't know whats true in the bible and I have no way of knowing....

haha, ooh the amount of fail from OP is amusing.

It's cute how he's trying to do science.

This entire thread

>>2167851
I think its cute how scientists devote there life to finding out pointless things that I can disprove in 5 seconds...

^.^ cuties

>>2167841
you do realize that the bible is not a history textbook.. I do hope you also realize that there are 2 separate creation stories in the Bible, both of which are not written as a historical piece of writing, but rather poetic.

>>2167849
So you are just guessing?

You are saying that guessing makes more sense than believing the people who have devoted their lives to trying to figure out how the world works through logic?

Search your feelings, young idiot.. you know that this doesn't make sense.

>>2167867
thanks bro for the backup

>>2167864
>thinks he disproved our many years of scientific advancements

>>2167871
>trying to figure out how the world works through logic

Implying human logic is significant at all and any discovery will ever explain our existence.

Id rather just think that someone made us.

>>2167878
I admit I was trolling in the OP but I can literally disprove any scientific theory in seconds...

>>2167874
I'm hardly backing you up... just sayin... I don't think you can make a case about evolution like you are trying to..

>>2167880
And that is why we spit upon people as simple minded as you.

OP, using his math and considering he started as a single cell, must be made of far fewer than 100 trillion cells. This would not even make OP human...

>>2167887
Nope. You don't have the skills, the aptitude, the training....the list goes on.

>>2167880
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I know that you're trolling.

At least I really REALLY hope so for your sake.

>>2167893
>as simple minded as you.

That makes me lol because science is the most simple minded thing you could do in my opinion... You spend your life observing things that your eyes are processing... All this shit might not even be significant at all...... When you find out discoveries you get a satisfaction and your just grinding out satisfaction like a child with autism. There is no point and you are going to die soon like everybody else and all the discoveries will be down the drain...

>>2167916
Yeap. Everyone's going to die. And there's no afterlife.

Best to live it up while we can!

>>2167739
there is no probability that there is life on earth; there is a confidence of 1

the "chance" there is extraterrestrial life has been "disproven" by "random" "scientists" who are blind to the fact that they disproved life on earth appeared spontaneously.

God said He did it, so He did it.

If something is not falsifiable it is not science, science is constantly changing and becoming more refined or sometimes a revolution happens and a whole new understanding comes into play that changes everything before it. Non scientific truth is inherently stagnant thus Christians have been believing the same basic schtick for 2,000 years, even when heliocentrism, germ theory and whole bunch of other scientific advances has trimmed the biblical worldview to just morality, which is subjective.

There's actually a good similar argument about the creation of some amino acids or proteins, and that it would take longer than the age of the universe for them to arrange themselves like that (sorry I don't know much about this if anyone has a link to wikipedia that would be good).

The point is, the way cells reproduce evolves, there's evolutionary behavior in cell production too, so it's not just random or straight forward.

>>2167930
>cannot into logic

>>2167813
I reject your ridiculous proposition that the earth is any older than it appears in recorded history, which is approximately 6000 years from Adam & Eve to now.

OP, please take a Biology class.

>>2167936
There are no photographs of me younger than age 2, so I must never have been younger than 2.

>>2167967
According to science ...

>>2167974
No, faggot. That's according to Christian logic!

>>2167934

You're talking about Levinthal's Paradox.

But that's only a thought experiment with the condition that all protein folding is random. But protein folding is not random.

Anybody who actually cites that doesn't know shit about chemistry.

>>2167974
No, according to idiots.

>>2167985
O really because I remember just about every athiest telling me that there is no evidence of god so he must not exist

>>2167967
could i reject the claim that you personally are 3.5 billion years old?

yes, i think so

>>2167993
And he doesn't, because there is no evidence for it and there never has been evidence for it.

Do you actually think you could win on this board? Go back to /b/

>>2167656
I know it's troll but seriously try and be original and funny.

Ever heard of a Hayflick limit?

how can a christian know maths?

>>2168003
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE 2 YEARS OLD EITHER...

YOUR SO SIMPLE MINDED YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF SO HARD.

>>2168011
I am here now, at the age of 18. Therefore, there must have been a time when I was at the age of 2.

Checkmate, dumbfag.

>>2168006
Ever heard of telomerase?

There was some research recently into reactivating it to counter aging, but I'm fine without systemic cancer, thank you very much... :)

>>2168018
I am here now, at the age of 18.

You dont have proof for that you could be 1 years old right now... You have no way of proving anything... What are you going to show me your birth certificate, thats a piece of paper with words on it and it doesnt mean anything.

>>2168026
Well, gee, I'm intelligent enough to operate a keyboard, to spell correctly, to not to fall for your trolling....

Anyhow, I am of age x. Therefore, there must have been a time where my age was (positive number less than x)

Some cannot into critical thinking.....

>>2168041
>I am of age x

No your not. Thats all I have to say.You dont even have to exist. I could be talking to a robot. You cant prove otherwise.

>>2168018
I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but you are actually a Cylon. FTFU

>>2168052
Even if I am a robot, that robot still has an age. What that age is depends on where you start (since assembly was completed, since fist use, etc.), but the logic still holds.

>>2168058
BTW....why so paranoid?

>>2168058
>that robot still has an age

No it doesn't. The robot lives in another dimension where time doesn't exist.
You cant prove otherwise. Doesn't matter how crazy I sound... You cant.

>>2168068
You have absolutely no idea how absurd you sound, do you?

Alright, let's stop applying this to me and start to something else. Let's say....a cat. A completely normal cat, living in our dimension. The cat is currently x years old; therefore, there must have been a time when the cats was (positive number less than x) years old.

There. Refute that!

OP is a troll and a MASSIVE ( note the emphasis on massive) faggot

>>2168068
>The robot lives in another dimension where time doesn't exist.
Prove it.

<span class="math">2^{81~trillion}[/spoiler]

>>2168084
>The cat is currently x years old

This cat could have a different theory of time behind it at all times. Where the cat just does not apply to our standard of time.

>>2168117
You are a faggot, sir. A massive, massive faggot. If the cat had a different theory of time behind it at all times, it would not be a normal cat, which I specifically stated it was. You have ignored Occam's Razor and shitposted countless shitty arguments. We only allow you to remain on this board because your stupidity amuses us.

>>2168098
prove it doesn't exist, you can't LOLOLODSXDDDDDDDDDDD

You are an idiot. The number of cells that divide doubles at each moment of time .. so this gives us al least 2 ^ (8 trillion) cells. pwned.

>>2168084
It's Schroedinger's Cat.

Checkmate, bitch.

>100 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

God damnit.

>>2168136
>cannot into Occam's Razor

>>2168133
Well first you would have to define a normal cat. Which cant be done. Then you would have to take your eyesight of what you visualize as a normal cat and apply it to everyone elses vision to get the exact defined cat in every single human on the earth. If it cant be applied to every human than its not fact. Its only a fact in your opinion.

Then after you define the cat by switching everybody in the worlds eyesight with yours then you would have to change there brain to match your of what you recall a cat as being. Then you have to think about the word cat is just a english word and doesnt necesasirly have a clear definition.

etc etc i can go on forever

>>2168138
That.....that doesn't change anything. That just means we don't know whether or not the cat is dead; the logic still holds.

>>2168149
Silly theist, normal can't be defined. 'Normal' means 'average'.

>>2168157
Ok there is no definition of an average cat.......
You would have to take every cat in the world and find the middle one ... but the middle of what standard?

here you go

i can't tell who it applies too, you all seem equally silly

FFS, stop replying.

>>2168163
How should I know? I am no expert on cats! Though I do know enough about them to say that the average cat does not have a different theory of time behind it at all times

>>2168136
I know that you're trolling, but this is what most retards do.
The burden of proof lies with the person claiming something. Why is this so hard to understand for someone?

/sci/ Rule 2:
Ignore all threads related to religion and/or beliefs, otherwise; sage your post. No more, no less.

Atheist fag here. Does anyone else almost admire biblical teachings for their attempt at an initial, almost scientific account of the world? Minus the bullshit, creation with adam and eve shows an extrapolation of time having a beginning. This means someone recognized the concept of time and hypothesized that in reverse we shall see a cause for everything.

Not amazing by today's standards, but the concept of time is far from evident to the uneducated.

>>2168171
Face it theres no such thing as a fact.
" Though I do know enough about them to say that the average cat does not have a different theory of time behind it at all times "

You know in your head you can not say that with 100% certainty. Even if you are certain (based on human observation )its still only a fact in your opinion because of what I said before that your perception is way different than everyone else and a fact can not be defined.

>>2168183
>shows an extrapolation of time having a beginning. This means someone recognized the concept of time and hypothesized that in reverse we shall see a cause for everything.
>mfw

>>2168185
>Face it theres no such thing as a fact.
>blawblawblaw nothing is real it's all about perception
You're a hipster, a theist and a faggot? Go home and suck your fathers dick.

O and I forgot to say that time might not even exist itself. We might just be on one instance of the universe every "second"

>>2168197
Not the poster, but isn't everyone's perception different?

If there was one man alive on the Earth, he could only create concepts from his perception, therefore to him, wouldn't it be correct?

>>2168206
>create concepts from his perception, therefore to him, wouldn't it be correct?

Thats what im saying but its ONLY correct to him.

A person cant define something to somebody else, it is impossible.

>>2168206
If a man sees 4 swirly symbols painted onto a rock, there are 4 swirly symbols on that rock according to his perception, but there might be more in a spot on the rock he cannot see.

>>2168198
depends what you mean by time then

>>2168213
>A person cant define something to somebody else, it is impossible.

Nope, I've had people define things to me before and I've defined things for other people.

Ever read a dictionary?

>>2168206

Science says we can declare two differing perspectives as both factual, even if they disagree. See relativity. Though two events may not occur at the same time in two different frames of reference, they can both be correct if one is careful in comparing them.

>Im no scientist
>I just proved that evolution doesn't even make remote sense

0/10, try harder.

x*2^81 cells
some other organisms replicate at the scale of seconds
The first life where not multi-cellular organisms.
Souls don't exist, GOD doesn't either.

Were Fucking MACHINES, programmed by our environment. Deal with it.

Mfw cells can multiply in seconds or minutes not 22 minutes

>>2168228
>Nope, I've had people define things to me before and I've defined things for other people.

When people do this you guys are simply coming to a compromise on a definition. Person 1 is defining something that he percieves and you percieve it also with the chosen sense and you guys come to a compromise on the definition. If you heard a bird chirp the person 1 could have ear sensitivity that is higher than yours and is perceiving it in a totally different way than you. If you guys dont have the same ears than you are settling for a less clear definition .

sage for the sake of sage

>>2168248
So? We can fucking agree which species of bird it is. Our definition also agrees with everyone who has a half decent sense of hearing. For all intents and purposes, the definition is accurate enough. You're the one moving the fucking goalposts, not us.

Now shoo.

>>2168183
it's even more amazing when you realize that there really was an Adam and there really was an Eve

>>2168259
the definition is accurate enough.
the definition is accurate enough.
the definition is accurate enough.

derp

Facts are things that are accurate. If something is not 100% accurate nothing is a fact.

If you are perceiving it one way and teh other person is perceiving it another way... Which one is right?

>>2168228
dictionaries don't define things they more historical records of what most people meant most of the time they used a particular word. Meanings might stay much the same or they might change over time (see 1920s gay)

HOWEVER as a general rule of thumb if two people agree what a word means then for them, in their comunications, at that point, it's a pretty good approximation. You can't always very easily prove they both think EXACTLY the same thing when the same word is used, there are subtleties and nuances even in the most basic concepts, but GENERALLY we're good to go when we agree we're good to go.

capcha: virtually unpiked

Qouting myself:
"well since you're no scientist, let me explain this for you, The cell reproduce and produces a sequence of 1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 8 -> 16 -> 32 etc etc, like binary.

Now we have a formula, ak = ar^(k-1)
a = 1, and r = 2.
so assuming these values
using k as the 8.176x10^13
a8.176x10^13 = 1 x 2^((8.176x10^13)-1)
which makes:
a8.176 x 10^13 = 2^8.176x10^13
a8.176 x 10^13 = 1.6352x10^14

meaning it has 14 zero's making it 100 trillion, making a final count of 163,520,000,000,000 trillion cells.
Check and mate."

now someone told me this is wrong, and i have a feeling it might be, if so, someone GOOD at maths care to share my error with me?

> theres no such thing as a fact
Fact spotted

>GENERALLY we're good to go when we agree we're good to go

HAHAH Thats how flawed science is... Its just a bunch of people with autism making compromises.... Well fuck if I can see it working like this it must be true for everyone even if its just a general agreement

must be 100% true

>>2168279
57% of facts are made up on the spot

>>2168266
If we recognize it as the same bird call, it doesn't matter that it sounds different to him than it does to me.

Facts must be taken from something that has no interference in perception...but even the most complex of machines have that. Therefore, we must minimize our errors to a point that they are so small that they will never make a difference.
>Pertery science,
INDEED

Sci cant disprove it you all just say its wrong with no evidence.

Go on, give one post where everything i said is disproved.

christfags 1
Stupid sciencetists 0

>>2168287
You are moving the goalposts to a place that they can never be achieved, while we are content and satisfied with having a small margin of error.

Who's the REAL autistic, hipster, theist, homosexual and incestuous faggot?

>>2168290
>Facts must be taken from something that has no interference in perception

Implying humans are capable of justifying something outside of what their senses observe.

>>2167743
cells evolved, replicating proteins came first

>>2168297
0/10

You are in a fight you cannot win.

>>2168303
>fight you cannot win.

Implying atheists have ever won an argument

>>2168303
see you refuse to prove scienfailtist you just say im wrong

>>2168310
MANY OF THEM.
>>2168312
ALL OF THEM. SURE, THEY MAY NOT HAVE CONVINCED YOU WITH YOUR RETARDEDLY DETERMINED GRIP ON YOUR PATHETIC OPINION, BUT ANY LAYMAN SURELY WOULD'VE BEEN CONVINCED.

>>2168321
Your still refusing to post an arguement

Ya post on argument on how athiesm and science arent retarded

>>2168310
>implying there's an "argument" that needs "winning"

>>2168323
I don't need to. All of your arguments collapse in on themselves when looked at by a rational person. You can't see it because you are clearly irrational. I am going to do the work that you have distracted me from so long now. You will now doubt see this as a victory and praise yourself for 'defeating the scifags' and being a champion of your so called god. But the truth is I'm just refusing to wrestle with a pig because I don't like getting dirty.

Have fun with your masturbatory ego rubbing.

>>2168324
because they make claims and assumptions with evidence not thought through which can be easily disproved like in the picture. and youre still refusing to post an arguement

>>2168331
you dont need to because you cant because you know you are wrong.


if you were right you would be able to prove it until then you are wrong

>>2168331
>I don't need to. All of your arguments

REFUSES AGAIN AND

YOU SAID YOUR ARGUMENTS

ATHIESTS NEVER SAY A REASON THEY ALWAYS JUST SAY HOW OUR REASON IS IRRATIONAL

Give me a rational reason athiesm makes sense.

>>2168333
Enough about atheists

>>2168331
I disagree with OP and am on your side but you are being silly.

You cant do a statement without evidence.
You cant say he is wrong without proving it or you are no better than the christfags

>>2168331
> But the truth is I'm just refusing to wrestle with a pig because I don't like getting dirty.

That's a good one. Like me saying that I won't fight a mental duel with someone who's unarmed.

i didnt read all the posts b4 i posted this but i hope some one already has said this...

a single cell can reproduce 81trillion times in 3.5 billion years... lets say thats accurate.
that being said that is only a single cell.
after the first 22.5 minutes you will have 2 cells reproducing, another 22.5 minutes you will have 4, then 8 then 16 etc...
each reproducing therefore doubling and squaring at the same time.

i believe your calculations are a bit off.

First of all, atheism is not an idea like faith in some godness.
If you born unaffected by religious people and your don't create your own godness that storms the sky then your an atheist.
Btw that equasion does not count (TLDR but I beleive not) something like 1 cell -> 2 cells -> 2^2 -> 2^4 -> etc. Also lifetime of one cell is limited. If it was like you are claiming new children would'nt be able to born as their cells or mother die faster than emryo can develop (ofc this is troll forum :D)

I am sorry for all of these people that were taught to believe in something instead of trying to understand, experience and find new ways of doing something. Damn religions keep us back (not sure whether it is good or not). As an atheist I just don't give a s**t about muslims, christians any1 else, normal atheist have no need to shout at loud that he is (in some countries like the USA and muslim countries one can be even punished for that, either socially or physically).

I rather accept bad luck than the god is pissed of me (yes that forgiving god). Bad thing is that whether we want or not, we pay taxes to servantsd of god, that sucks as atheists can not decide (in germany you pay extra taxes if you believe in god, believe me or not, number of people that believe in god reduced to half)

>>2168437
Atheism: The belief that there are no gods

Source: Every reputable dictionary

Chocolate Rain
Some stay dry and others feel the pain
Chocolate Rain
A baby born will die before the sin
Chocolate Rain
The school books say it can't be here again
Chocolate Rain
The prisons make you wonder where it went
Chocolate Rain
Build a tent and save the world as dry
Chocolate Rain
Zoom the camera out and see the light
Chocolate Rain
Forecast to be falling yesterday
Chocolate Rain
Only in the past is what they say
Chocolate Rain
Raised your neighborhood insurance rates
Chocolate Rain
Makes us happy 'livin in a gay
Chocolate Rain
Made me cross the street the other day
Chocolate Rain
Made you turn your head the other way
(Chorus)
Chocolate Rain
History quickly crashing through your veins
Chocolate Rain
Using you to fall back down again
[Repeat]
Chocolate Rain
Seldom mentioned on the radio
Chocolate Rain
It's the fear your leaders car control

Godamn OP the ability to filibuster does not mean you are correct. What are you, a republican ?


Kinda unrelated, but anyone think it's funny that cells multiply by division?

>>2168461
Atheism is not directly a belief, but the lack of a belief.
...though there are atheist churches.

Come on, OP, you're not even trying