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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It needs to be t = a ^ x, not t = a | x.
But when t = a ^ x you are right back where you started. Furthermore, this implies that x is constant, which is a whole pile of madness.
Right there is the problem I've been telling you about all along. You set a = 4, n =2, that should give you ∫x2√(16−x2)dx. You are missing that x2. Dude, this is basic algebra. Even the members of the forum who don't think they are "good at math" know you can't just throw away parts you don't like.
(1)
Simply, tⁿ ± tⁿ absorbs:(xⁿ+aⁿ), (xⁿ-aⁿ), or (aⁿ-xⁿ), for t = a | x ... where "|" = OR.
Example SINE, for t = a | x (a OR x):
∫[VAR=xⁿ · √(t=(a)ⁿ - t=(x)ⁿ)]
Example TANGENT, for t = a | x (a OR x):
∫[VAR=xⁿ · √(t=(x)ⁿ + t=(a)ⁿ)]
Furthermore, VAR mutates in EXPLICIT form terms, as stipulated amidst lemma [2013] .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(2)
Perhaps it is exigent that you initially observe partition sequences in number theory .
See (3), par partition bound sample.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(3)
Albeit, one may QUITE TRIVIALLY, derive Newtonian outcomes, on the horizon of my PARTITION bound equations, as non-abstrusely observed amidst the subsequent sample:
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.
Pure unadulterated madness. You are an absolute lunatic.
Indeed.
Albeit, my partition bound lemma, postulates accurate Newtonian outcome sequences, as observed amidst that of the priorly promptly expressed stipulation of mine:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Therein, it is perhaps pertinent that you doff beliefs, for beliefs bound intellect.
Completely agree with you that if it contain science, not the intelligent design porosity.
UK Essay Writing
It's the same scientific illiteracy that's always shown by intelligent design arguments. There is no data and only arguments from authority. The only hypothesis given is "god did it". No explanation how he supposedly did it. Also is there not a single attempt to actually disprove the RNA world theory, the author just quotes people with phds that are sceptical of the theory. That's no way to do science, and it certainly doesn't help us getting closer to an answer of how life actually came into existence.
The only arguments made about the processes of life is that life can only be designed and that complexity cannot spontaneously come from simplicity, both of which can easily be disproved. Let me explain:
That life only can be designed and that we can create (design) the building blocks of life would be proof of that is preposterous. Doesn't the author realise that we are just mimicking the process of life's origin? The process is enabled by the laws of nature and we are just recreating the environment in which the process occurred.
The other argument is so easily dismissed it's ridiculous. It's a matter of gradually increasing complexity, not that a single nucleotide becomes a rna strand spontaneously. A single nucleotide rather becomes a rna strand gradually where more and more nucleotides bind to each other over time.
It really strikes me every time I hear someone saying: "Science can't explain X so its only reasonable that it was God"...
Lol, If you accept this as a valid argument, There is nothing one can say to make you understand the secular POV.
Pages