71 posts / 0 new

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

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.

ProgrammingGodJordan - (3a) RANDOM SINE FORM 0 = ∫[xⁿ·√(xⁿ+aⁿ)].
(3b) SINE FORM SAMPLE 1 = ∫√16−x^2

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)

Nyarlatothep stipulation:

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.

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)

Nyarlatothep stipulation:

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.

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.

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.

Nyarlatothep stipulation:

Indeed.

Albeit, my partition bound lemma, postulates accurate Newtonian outcome sequences, as observed amidst that of the priorly promptly expressed stipulation of mine:

ProgrammingGodJordan stipulation:

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.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
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.

As a web designer myself, I have found this blog to be an invaluable source of inspiration and knowledge. It has broadened my understanding of the design world and allowed me to incorporate fresh ideas into my own projects. I encourage you to dive into the rich content offered this site find more here https://limeup.io/blog/it-companies-london/ . Explore the endless possibilities of web design and unleash your creativity with the help of this remarkable resource. Happy designing!

It's fascinating how the ongoing progress in science has shed light on the history of life on Earth. The debate between theists, intelligent designers, and proponents of abiogenesis remains thought-provoking. While some argue that biology's current inability to explain abiogenesis points to intelligent design, others question whether a supernatural creator is more plausible than the accidental emergence of life from a primeval chemical mixture.

The concept of a super-intelligent, all-powerful being spontaneously coming into existence does raise intriguing questions. The complexity of such a proposition certainly invites further exploration.

As for the scrabble experiment, imagining it conducted across numerous locations over hundreds of millions of years is a captivating thought experiment. It prompts us to ponder the role of chance and the potential outcomes of such a sustained effort. It's a reminder of the intricate interplay between time, randomness, and the emergence of patterns.

Overall, these discussions emphasize the dynamic relationship between science, philosophy, and the mysteries that still captivate our imagination.

Elevate your fintech app with Qubstudio https://qubstudio.com/blog/fintech-app-design/ . Our design expertise ensures a user-friendly, visually captivating experience that sets your financial solution apart. Choose excellence in fintech design. I used it myself and recommend it to you

## Pages

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.