# Atheists, what do you think about this intelligent design argument?

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at **Atheist Republic**, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.

Perhaps it is exigent that one peruses the aforesaid passage, rather keenly:

How much acid have you used in the last 24 hours?

That dude is totally insane.

Indeed...

Nyar,

Okay. For a moment I was starting to think "maybe this atheism business isn't for me "!

@JB God's Country

See https://medium.com/@jordanmicahbennett/belief-is-entirely-non-necessary-...

Furthermore, this is perhaps relevant.

PGJordan:

Clear, focused discourse marks the sharp mind; a weak mind excels at confusion born of ignorance and pretentious wording.

JB God's Country: You must have missed the earlier conversation where he claimed to have proved a formula for simplifying certain simple calculus problems which led to the conclusion that 0.26667 equals 0.43701. Sheer madness.

Also he has a nasty habit of filling his post with obscure language; then spends the next several days going back and editing his posts to add additional obscure language.

If reading his posts makes your head hurt; that is a good indication of your own sanity.

Nyarlathotep:

That calculation was a real winner, wasn't it? The great majority of readers, of course, don't have the mathematical ability to check such pretentious stuff, or else don't have the time. Thanks for stepping in with that clutch calculation!

Thanks. I suspected it was totally wrong the instant I saw it because he was integrating a product f(x)*g(x), which screams integration by parts. As I'm sure you know, when you integrate by parts you tend to get two terms (or more if you have to keep doing it). He only had one term.

A simplified explanation for everyone else: typically the solution to that kind of problem involves "something" + "something else". He's solution was missing one of those "somethings" so there was no way it was going to work.

...How quaint :)

NOTE:

Lemma stipulation (0): ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] of mine, is but NOT EQUIVALENT to the standard frame ∫xⁿ·√(xⁿ+aⁿ).

Such starkly contrasts that of your utmost stipulation:

RECALL that ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] is but not of STRICT composition. (..for xⁿ metamorphoses abound √tⁿ ± tⁿ)

As stipulated amid lemma [2013], of mine (and thereafter threads of prior) x^n is NOT STRICTLY BOUND via dx/dθ · dx.

Such was therein, an erroneous presumption of yours.

The collapser lemma of mine reduces amidst 'PARTITIONS'.

Therein, partition dx/dθ · dx is viably applicable, (AS INDUBITABLY OBSERVED AMIDST THE afore-stated SAMPLE IMAGE ) absent x^n.

.

.

.

.

.

It is rather NATURAL, that Nyarlatothep had but generated the INVALID OUTCOME therein, ON THE HORIZON of that of the MISAPPLICATION OF Nyarlatothep's, of lemma of mine.

Albeit, I had long but trivially stipulated of Nyarlatothep's erroroneous application of said lemma, amidst this thread, and in the like, threads of prior :)

PGJ

Could you do me a favor and explain this article to me as though I was an 8 year old?

JB

[A]

The universe's best description [Quantum Mechanics] reduces amidst PROBABILITIES.

.

.

.

.

[B]

Observe scenario (x).

Scenario (x) entails a tuple of actions; ACTIONS (i) and (ii).

By extension, scenario (x) consists of an event (q).

Event (q) consists of probability distributions.

Event (q)'s PROBABILITY is therein OBSERVABLE. (particularly, ABSENT belief)

If probability (q) is negligible, ACTION (i) subsumes.

Otherwise, ACTION (ii) computes.

THEREAFTER, optimal events are computable ABSENT belief.

A deepity a day keeps logic away!

Indeed, for idiocy/belief is logic's opposite: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.abstract

@JB's God Country

(1)

Simply, Nyarlatothep had but MISAPPLIED my equations, absent knowledge of the boundaries in the paradigm of said equation sequence: http://unibrain.deviantart.com/art/Trigonometric-rule-collapser-set-3614...

Albeit, one may QUITE TRIVIALLY, derive Newtonian outcomes, on the horizon of my equations :)

Here is a non-abstruse application, betwixt a scenario's usage of my equation:

*********************

One may QUITE TRIVIALLY (perhaps in a minute's scope) execute my collapser partition, as observed in the image, such that Newtonian outcomes are accurately derived.

*********************

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(2)

Here are a few CLEARLY observed misapplications of nyarlatothep's amidst my equations' application:

1) Nyarlothotep presumed that dx/dθ subsumed the (symbol x =√aⁿ · trig(θ))

2) Nyarlothotep presumed that ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] was but of STRICT COMPOSITION. (..in contrast, xⁿ metamorphoses abound √tⁿ ± tⁿ)

Boundaries are stipulated herein [2013 stipulation]: http://unibrain.deviantart.com/art/Trigonometric-rule-collapser-set-3614...

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\\(','\\)']]}});

You might notice that in your sample calculation; the function doesn't fit your definition!

Your defination:

$$\int x^n\sqrt{a^n - x^n}dx$$

Your sample:

$$\int \sqrt{16 - x^2}dx$$

You set n=2; but that would put an x2 in front of the square root. It is missing. It is funny you accuse me of misapplying your equations (I haven't); then the first thing you do is misapply them!

At least you are always good for a chuckle.

ps: I see you took the time to post this garbage in more places, but haven't taken the time to fix the missing brackets!

(1)

.

.

The resource linked prior, of mine was but postulated in [2013].

http://unibrain.deviantart.com/art/Trigonometric-rule-collapser-set-3614...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(2)

NOTE:

Lemma stipulation (0): ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] of mine, is but NOT EQUIVALENT to the standard frame ∫xⁿ·√(xⁿ+aⁿ).

Such starkly contrasts that of your utmost stipulation:

RECALL that ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] is but not of STRICT composition. (..for xⁿ metamorphoses abound √tⁿ ± tⁿ)

As stipulated amid lemma [2013], of mine (and thereafter threads of prior) x^n is NOT STRICTLY BOUND via dx/dθ · dx.

Such was therein, an erroneous presumption of yours.

The collapser lemma of mine reduces amidst 'PARTITIONS'.

Therein, partition dx/dθ · dx is viably applicable, (AS INDUBITABLY OBSERVED AMIDST THE afore-stated SAMPLE IMAGE ) absent x^n.

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\\(','\\)']]}});

It is really simple to resolve this. Just do an example using your rule; on a function that has the same form as your rule (like I asked you to do weeks ago):

$$\int x^2\sqrt{16-x^2}dx$$

Then just post it here for us to laugh look at.

(1)

Such a problem is trivially reducible, absent use of my lemma:

.

.

.

.

(2)

NOTE:

Lemma stipulation (0): ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] of mine, is but NOT EQUIVALENT to the standard frame ∫xⁿ·√(xⁿ+aⁿ).

Such starkly contrasts that of your utmost stipulation:

RECALL that ∫[xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx] is but not of STRICT composition. (..for xⁿ metamorphoses abound √tⁿ ± tⁿ)

As stipulated amid lemma [2013], of mine (and thereafter threads of prior) x^n is NOT STRICTLY BOUND via dx/dθ · dx.

Such was therein, an erroneous presumption of yours.

THUSLY, dx/dθ · dx is viably applicable absent x^n, amidst said lemma.

The collapser lemma of mine reduces amidst 'PARTITIONS'.

Therein, partition dx/dθ · dx is viably applicable, (AS INDUBITABLY OBSERVED AMIDST THE afore-stated SAMPLE IMAGE ) absent x^n.

This thread is starting to look like Kevin Spaceys apartment in the movie "Seven".

Exactly. Which means we can solve it the "normal way", then solve it with your "lemma". Then you will see they don't give the same solution. Which means your "lemma" is false. It also means you've never really used it; otherwise you would have noticed it was giving false answers.

So please, solve this trivial problem using your "lemma" and post it. It

Albeit, I had but long stipulated, a non-abstrusely observed, ACCURATE sample (NON-TRIVIALLY REDUCIBLE), betwixt that of the application of my lemma:

As clearly observed, my lemma COLLAPSES the default cycle, the LEFTWARD sequence, such that statements 2-5 collapse amidst a mono-line expression as observed in the CONDENSED RIGHTWARD sequence, abound a PARTITION of my lemma.

.

THEREIN, 4cosθ4cosθdθ is attained, synonymously amid my lemma's ABSENCE, and PRESENCE, whence the SAME Newtonian outcome is derived.

.

.

.

.

.

.

THUSLY, as stipulated amid lemma [2013], of mine (and thereafter threads of prior) x^n is NOT STRICTLY BOUND via dx/dθ · dx.

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\\(','\\)']]}});

You did it on the wrong function, AGAIN. Do it on a function that has the form you defined in your "lemma"! For example:

$$\int x^2\sqrt{16-x^2}dx$$

(1)

.

∫xⁿ · √ tⁿ ± tⁿ via lemma [2013] , stipulates a rather QUINTESSENTIAL trigonometric FRAME BOUNDARY.

######### NOTE THE '±' (plus|minus) symbol. Such but non-abstrusely postulates that ∫xⁿ · √ tⁿ ± tⁿ is but of NON-EXPLICIT nature.

THEREIN, my lemma is applicable in MUTATIONS of the aforesaid FRAME, as observed via (2), subsequently.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(2)

But then you did: ∫√(16-x2)dx which means you set n=2; which means you omitted the leading x2 so you used your "lemma" on the wrong form! Look above I made it nice and big for you so you can't miss it. Please repeat the process without omitting it, using your "lemma".

And for what it is worth, the tⁿ ± tⁿ is a mistake as well. But at least you wrote it as an - xn later; but these silly mistakes are a sure fire indication that you have never really used this "lemma".

(1)

As I had very initially stated, tⁿ ± tⁿ is but a GENERAL, NON EXPLICIT FRAME, amidst lemma [2013] .

.

∫xⁿ · √ tⁿ ± tⁿ via lemma [2013] , stipulates a rather QUINTESSENTIAL trigonometric FRAME BOUNDARY.

.

PERTINENTLY, in tandem, lemma [2013] stipulates :

"∫[xⁿ·√(xⁿ+aⁿ)], ∫[xⁿ·√(xⁿ-aⁿ)], ∫[xⁿ·√(aⁿ-xⁿ)] ... manifest as STANDARD trigonometric integral FORMS/FRAMES; whence the structure of said frames, SELF-INDICATE interchange-boundaries."

.

.

.

.

.

(2)

I had not omitted any term.

Simply, as observed via lemma [2013] , said lemma is applicable in PARTITIONS.

THUSLY, partition dx/dθ · dx is viably applicable, (AS INDUBITABLY OBSERVED AMIDST THE afore-stated SAMPLE IMAGE ) absent x^n.

.

.

.

.

.

(3)

Albeit, one may QUITE TRIVIALLY, derive Newtonian outcomes, on the horizon of my PARTITION bound equations :)

Albeit, as clearly observed, my lemma COLLAPSES the default cycle, the LEFTWARD sequence, such that statements 2-5 collapse amidst a mono-line expression as observed in the CONDENSED RIGHTWARD sequence, abound a PARTITION of my lemma.

THEREAFTER, 4cosθ4cosθdθ is attained, synonymously amid my lemma's ABSENCE, and PRESENCE, whence the SAME Newtonian outcome is derived.

No, what you are saying is non-sense. tⁿ ± tⁿ is either 2tn or 0; so you are now failing high school algebra as well as calculus.

In your example you made it 16 - x2; which is not the same form! I assumed tⁿ ± tⁿ was a typo but apparently you are even crazier than you first appeared; which is quite the accomplishment. Also, why don't you just do the calculation I suggested. You've beat around the bush plenty, just do it!

(A)

Simply, tⁿ ± tⁿ absorbs:(xⁿ+aⁿ), (xⁿ-aⁿ), or (aⁿ-xⁿ), for t = a | x.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(B)

It is rather evident, that:

(1) You IGNORE the accurate sample illustrated via (C).

(2) You IGNORE the factum that my lemma is partition bound. (Thusly PARTITION dx/dθ · dx is viably applicable, absent x^n, As stipulated amid lemma [2013] . )

(3) You INGORE the factum that in exemplification, ∫[xⁿ·√(aⁿ-xⁿ)] ... describes a RANDOM FORM, abound SIN(θ) aligned sequences. It is rather SUB-OPTIMAL to enlist all explicit SIN(θ) aligned sequences.

(3a) RANDOM SINE FORM 0 = ∫[xⁿ·√(aⁿ-xⁿ)].

(3b) SINE FORM SAMPLE 1 = ∫√16−x^2

(3c) SINE FORM SAMPLE 2 = ∫3dx/x√4−x^2

etcetera...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(C)

Albeit, one may QUITE TRIVIALLY, derive Newtonian outcomes, on the horizon of my PARTITION bound equations, as non-abstrusely observed amidst the subsequent sample:

## Pages