but languages change a lot slower than science, you'd be out of date within 6 months.

(PsychoChomp, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:28, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

wouldn't matter.
I'd have the recipe for a pill to get back up to date, wouldn't I?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:29, Reply)

and duplicating a pill that's already been metabolised is going to be a tough one even for you "so called" scientists.

(PsychoChomp, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:30, Reply)

don't need to worry about that.
It was made by some form of science, I now know everything about science, so therefore I could re-create it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:31, Reply)

What if they didn't record the method correctly.
Only had a vague equipment list, WHAT IF IT WASNT A PEER REVIEWED TECHNIQUE
(PsychoChomp, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:37, Reply)

I didn't ask for access to all scientific journals
I asked for knowledge of everything in science. Even if they did it in a secret cave, never wrote it down, and killed themselves after posting it to me so the secret can never be known, it's science that happened before I took the pill. So I know it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:39, Reply)

Well what if it was made by God?
And don't tell me it can't be because you just pointed out that I can't prove God doesn't exist.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:39, Reply)

I totally didn't.
I pointed out that when you proved God doesn't exist, you still wouldn't convince religious people of it. It's a genius one-way tenant, the religious are allowed to point out the flaws in scientific arguments but the opposite is not allowed as "it's beyond human understanding"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 4 Dec 2012, 12:41, Reply)