/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6571504
Yeah I read that.
Are you claiming gravity is not real?

The fact that it is still a law means it has never been disproven.
You are starting to sound like one of those "you can't know nothin" idiots.

And you guys think me the fool.

>>6570820
Yeah it is me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
>systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
>gained through observation and experimentation.
>observation

PS
Gravity is a law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

>>6441655
There is an easier version that lets you save at anytime. It also allows you to go back one move.
http://www.crazygames.com/game/2048-save-progress

Or the one that only spawns 2's, and always in the top left corner.
http://www.crazygames.com/game/deterministic-2048

>>6441414
I been playing this game since the last thread.
Still cant get the 8192.

>>6440694
>nothing
This is what atheists actually believe.

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

nb4 thread deleted.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1LLcSwYyCY


Good luck op.

>>6424041
>then the spiral should've said vindictiveness.
I agree.

> tl;dr your original post, what's the skinny?

The heart plays an important role in human emotions.
Having positive emotions is more healthy than having negative emotions.

Or to quote myself >>6423957
>It is to our medical advantage to love rather than hate. Not only will we gain in heath, but those around us as well.


The first video is only two and a half minutes, you really should watch it.

>>6423980
What causes you to feel discouraged?
I would think the knowledge of truth would provide you with hope.

>>6423987
Possibly. I am not qualified to give medical advice.
It is not uncommon to have "mixed emotions", but depending on the severity, you might need professional help.
If you need someone to talk to, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-TALK (8255)
You do not have to be suicidal they will talk to you about any problems you might be having in your life.

If you would rather discuss these emotions publicly. I will do my best to help.
It would probably be better to start a thread on >>>/adv/ if you wish to discuss these matters with me.(and anyone else who might be lurking)

>>6424006
Good for you.
Could you testify to the effects this "euphoria" has had on your life?
It would seem obvious that its better to feel good, than to feel bad.
I honestly don't see how anyone could disagree.

>>6424009
>Revenge isn't an emotion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revenge
6. the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
>the desire to
Logic does not demand revenge, it is an emotional response.

>>6423090
Interesting article.

I am very happy to hear that the heart is confirmed for it's vital role in emotion.
I have heard it said love is from the heart, and I believed it.
I was under the impression that "science" said it was of the brain.
The heart is a major component in emotions.
This video is taken from the previously linked article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kyfm5_LLxow


Could I use this data to validate (pic related)?

I have had people argue against the validity of said pic.
It would seem to me to be confirmed by science.

It is to our medical advantage to love rather than hate. Not only will we gain in heath, but those around us as well.
If anyone should doubt the above. You could view the research for yourself at the following site.
http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-home/research-center-home.html
For a specific example see below.
http://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/emotional-balance-health.html?submenuheader=3


It would also seem a hardened heart is restricting to "coherence".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdneZ4fIIHE


Maybe it's not too late. To learn how to love, and forget how to hate. - Ozzy Osbourne "Crazy Train"

I challenge you all. Do some "science" for yourselves. Put these notions to the test. Share your results with the world.
Would you prefer to not know the truth?
Anyone who does not want to know truth is obviously incoherent, and thus suffering from a hardened heart. see above.

>>6412269
An excellent example in how information is immaterial.
A notion that has been proposed by Dr. Werner Gitt in his "Laws of Information".
http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1

>>6412276
The only difference is a dollar is material, and the idea is not.

>>6412390
>it's much easier to fraud someone when exchanging ideas
If you have an idea that is more valuable than mine, then I suppose in a way you have been cheated in the exchange.
However you will still have your idea, and mine along with it.

>I could post this and then not get any responses.
True, but you could read the replies of others with out even posting your own. i.e. Lurking
In that sense you could have gained ideas, without sharing your own.
Does anyone feel cheated by the presence of lurkers?
I thought it was preferred for one to lurk, if they had no good ideas of their own.

No one has forced you to share your ideas with us.
As you have stated perhaps your gain is self esteem.
You are not trading one idea for another, but giving an idea to demonstrate your own intelligence.

>>6410686
Sorry to say, but most of the people here do not believe in free will.

PS There is a debate on /lit/ on the notion of free will. >>>/lit/4658979
I think I'll stay out of it for now. Good luck.

>>6410732
Do you just make it up as you go?
In order for something to be considered "living matter" it has to have the ability to reproduce.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
Or you can believe your fellow anon >>6410751
>Live matter: matter that replicates, such as DNA. Dead matter: does not replicate.

Its funny how some people act like they know shit, when really they don't.

>>6404588
If there were more people around, we would have multiple lines of relation.

We in fact do not.
Why is that?

Because all humans are descended from one man, and one woman.
If there were other humans they did not have any children that lived.

Perhaps you should go ask your mom about the birds and the bees.

>>6404444
>There is something about the Christian worldview that prevents rapid progress in science.
What makes you say that?

Christians are the founders of science.
Pic related (Thanks /pol/)

Actually our worldview is the reason you can do science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UXhuz764bI

>>6404477
>>6404481
>There was still a significant population of humans before and during the time they would have existed.
Why is it none of those people had any children that lived?
>>6404488
Nice arguments you guys have. Lave is not an argument.

I WILL NOT LEAVE.

>>6404530
Or when I sufficiently demonstrate the particular mod/janitor I am arguing with is an idiot.
PIC RELATED
(It won't let me post the entire thread)
The thread had been up for a day. It wasn't until Mr. "smoking is like religion" was shown to be a fool, was the thread deleted.

How is my explaining my views on any particular subject considered "shitposting"?

I have been avoiding this thread, as I have the uncanny ability to make treads disappear.
However the thread has been up 5 days now, so I'm gonna start defending creationism.

>>6395338
>and it amazed me that there are people out there who genuinely believe we came from Adam and Eve
Science has confirmed all humans descend from one man, and one woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
This is not proof positive, but it is evidence to support the claim.

>and that Noah's ark existed
http://noahsarkfound.com/
http://www.squidoo.com/noahsarkfound
Again not proof positive, but evidence to support the claim.

>>6395351
>It's willful ignorance vs. educated people
I agree. So does the bible. see 2 Peter 3:3-5

>it seems to me creation is more at odds with cosmology than biology
http://www.reasons.org/articles/astronomical-evidences-for-the-god-of-the-bible
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtnHe8vvusE


>>6395434
> wasn't willing to hear a word Nye had to say
The same could be said of your hearing what creationists have to say.

>>6404187
>he also believed in alchemy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
"Alchemists developed a structure of basic laboratory techniques, theory, terminology, and experimental method, some of which are still in use today."

Allow me to post in this thread, so that the Mods might be justified in deleting it.

>>6401406
Your argument (If it could be called one) is fallacious.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise".

i.e. Just because someone says it does not make it true.

In my opinion op is trying to discredit people who believe in God by pretending to be one, and arguing nonsense.

I would only remind him that his own ignorance is just that. (His own)

>>6401327

>>6400944
>That "scientist" in the abiogenesis video commands no respect whatsoever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

>He clearly ignores how many enzymes and ribozymes of random arrangement would be completely functional.
Not so.
He takes functionality into account. see 2:00 mark in the previously linked video.
"We know not every single amino acid combination is functional, but we also know that many of them are"
He gives an example at the 2:27. and confirms accounting for a ratio.
He has also sought help with determining the ratio from a molecular biologist. It was this man who determined the ratio.
What would make you believe this information is inaccurate?
Can you provide contradictory evidence?

>It's not like rolling dice
I admit it does not account for any supposed mechanisms of action.
As of yet no viable naturalistic mechanism of action has been found.
The video demonstrates that it is impossible left to its self.

>Then he states when students disagree about the bullshit stats he's spewing out that the discussion is over and no real scientist would disagree?
Could you rephrase the question?
I don't know what you are asking here.

>>6400963
1 Peter 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
I am supposed to give an answer to every man that asks why I have hope. I have tried to be polite. .

2 Corinthians 10:5 (NIV)
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

>>6400992
>some scientist was able to create viruses from just inorganic compunds
There were no scientists around to create the first life. Just because "some scientist" could make life, that does not mean it could happen on its own.

>>6400893
Now imagine God is that man.

>>6400636
>About abiogenesis
>Miller-Urey
The Miller-Urey experiment yielded amino acids.
In the below video amino acids are a given.
It is mathematically impossible that they come together and form life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE


If you are thinking the probability is improperly applied I would suggest you read.
http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/04/probability-evolution.html

I would also remind you the notion is never been proven, and is in opposition to known law. i.e. Biogenesis.


>>6400713
>No, it was the result of gravity acting on water causing friction and dissolving rock in random paths as it goes from a high to a low elevation. (i.e. natural law)

This entire process is most assuredly not gravity alone, nor is it natural law. It is a combination of factors including law.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion

>All the bible verses that are quoted...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Adoption_in_Christianity
Some people tried to make the bible agree with this notion, or misrepresented it to make it match their theory.
This is known as conformation bias.
PS
It was one verse. Genesis 1:20
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
That part where it says "And God said" that means God did it, not that it happened on its own.

>What is your argument against the current model of spontaneous creation?
Law cannot create.
Universes cannot create themselves.
Something does not come from nothing. Not even from nothing with law.

Laws are descriptive, and predictive, but they cannot create.
Why would you believe such a thing?

>>6399825
>Not a believer in the grand canyon
Natural law has not made the grand canyon.
It was water.

>>6399847
>if the bible was trustworthy, spontaneous generation would still be a valid theory.
What makes you think the bible supports spontaneous generation?
The bible has said God created life. see Genesis

>I don't understand your actual argument against spontaneous creation or origination besides it is not intuitive to you and you don't understand the current theories because you are trying too hard to understand discredited theories created in the distant past from a much poorer understanding of the natural world than we have today?

Could you rephrase the question?
I don't know what you are asking me.

>>6399874
>I hope you aren't basing your belief in God....
I have many reasons to believe in God, this is just one.

>>6399541
Thanks for you example of how people make up nonsense to justify their beliefs.

Smoking is nothing like religion.
What an absurd comparison.

You have shown how smoking has negative long term effects, you have failed to show the negative long term effects of religion.
>Same with religion
Doesn't cut it.
Be advised contradictory evidence has already been posted see THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Religion is good for you. Deal with it.

Are you trolling, or just butthurt?

Reminds me of an experiment I have wanted to do.

Suppose I had 6 squares of 2way mirror, and formed them into a cube in such a way as the mirror was on the inside, and the see through was on the outside.

If you shined a lazer into the cube will it glow forever?
A: The light will increase in wavelength until it is no longer visible.
Also some of the light escapes.
It will not glow forever.

I thought this up when I was a kid, and still would like to try it, although I now know it will not produce the desired effect.

Because GI Joe has taught me "Knowing is half the battle"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pele5vptVgc