What percentage of information posted online is factual, in your scientific opinion?
>>17016391If you take sci board as an example, if every science post requires a religion reply, plus vouchers, you could estimate 40% or lessIf you pick pol board, maybe you could estimate 1%
>>17016420Yeah it wasn't science when newton, maxwell, Planck, Pauli, Einstein and Shrodinger said it. Just had to cut the God of it to get it all juiced with science. Note, none of this required changing the equations in any way; just the attribution for the origin of the concepts.
>>17016454Do you think science is a forbidden fruit that you should not know to keep favor with your god?
>>17016460Nah. It's just not what saves you. Nor is faith. Faith can falter, knowledge can be too difficult or too demanding to traverse; the CNOT gate is the decision to Love God; the rest can be learned.
>>17016462I think you are talking about conditioned behavior
>>1701639150%some of it is, some of it isn't
>>17016391Only factual if it's on Wikipedia which the guy in your pic loves using as reference material
>>17016391via MWI and paradoxical chronology and locality, all information is true and false simultaneously
>>17016391>scientific opinionthis board is cooked and I hate you all. The mods need to sweep in here and ban all of you immediately for the level of retardationGo listen to quantum eraser youtube channel hes live nowhttps://www.youtube.com/live/x-9XCjKA4S4?si=W-JQzbQssc2s4DGE
>>17016784Ummm no. How about I don't go watch your grift on YouTube.
If you actually understood anything you could explain it right here instead of using insults and buzzwords
10/0 = -20i
