BehindTheMask Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Suppose, you were to say "All emeralds are green." This is wrong. Emeralds are not green, they are "grue". What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue. Can you prove me wrong, YCM? Also, discuss how science is not completely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Edited first post, thinking it will be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Oh, you want me to put effort into my posts? Well then, science is useful, but fails occasionally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Welche Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Can I prove you wrong? Yes. You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raelen Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Science can never prove something 100%. There is always a level of educated guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Can I prove you wrong? Yes. You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it. But, what makes your theory any better than mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Welche Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Can I prove you wrong? Yes. You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it. But' date=' what makes your theory any better than mine?[/quote'] [insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raelen Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Can I prove you wrong? Yes. You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it. But' date=' what makes your theory any better than mine?[/quote'] [insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!! Wow, you're trying REAL hard. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Can I prove you wrong? Yes. You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it. But' date=' what makes your theory any better than mine?[/quote'] [insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!! Gtfo if you are going to spam my thread. Any other takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Child Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I don't know much about emeralds, but I agree with Raelen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Welche Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Can I prove you wrong? Yes. You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it. But' date=' what makes your theory any better than mine?[/quote'] [insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!! Wow, you're trying REAL hard. >_> [insert a good come-back, wait maybe I should write one.]I know I am. BTW, the random BS would look something like this...the tangent degree of emerald minus green does not equal the X intercept in the factored equation of 4000' date=' so therefore it is not OVER 9000 and therefore I can conclude that you are wrong and I have just scientifically proved the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster[/quote'] I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_bleenEeeh... If it exists, then shouldn't all Gems colors etc change? This would prove some sort of color decay theory I'm sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Will saphires turn green? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinitus Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it, something to do with proving things, possibly. Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeDeFiA Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 THEY'RE GREEN RIGHT NOW, THATS ALL THAT MATTERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroshot Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll be dead by 4000 A.D.Therefore, I will not care what color my emeralds are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon. I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it' date=' something to do with proving things, possibly. Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.[/quote'] First Part: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER Second Part: I'm not actually saying Emeralds are green, I'm here to discuss what seperates Science from non-Science. What makes any theory better than any other. Not really a debate, more of a friendly discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon. *morphs into pompous pear* Can has rebuttal =3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
六兆年と一夜物語 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Emeralds are not green. Their emerald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinitus Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon. I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it' date=' something to do with proving things, possibly. Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.[/quote'] First Part: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER Second Part: I'm not actually saying Emeralds are green, I'm here to discuss what seperates Science from non-Science. What makes any theory better than any other. Not really a debate, more of a friendly discussion. Hmmmmmm, what makes one thing better than the other. Whichever one makes more sense? Whichever one matches up with all the pieces of the puzzle. But, then maybe if it's just a theory, whichever one makes the most sense, whichever one is just more appealing. See, the way I sea it, it's not one is actually better than the other, because they are both theories, which means there are no supporting facts yet, just theories. So, it comes down to the eye of the beholder, and which one makes the most sense to the people listening to the theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon. I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it' date=' something to do with proving things, possibly. Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.[/quote'] First Part: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER Second Part: I'm not actually saying Emeralds are green, I'm here to discuss what seperates Science from non-Science. What makes any theory better than any other. Not really a debate, more of a friendly discussion. Hmmmmmm, what makes one thing better than the other. Whichever one makes more sense? Whichever one matches up with all the pieces of the puzzle. But, then maybe if it's just a theory, whichever one makes the most sense, whichever one is just more appealing. See, the way I sea it, it's not one is actually better than the other, because they are both theories, which means there are no supporting facts yet, just theories. So, it comes down to the eye of the beholder, and which one makes the most sense to the people listening to the theories. Oh thank god, there is still hope for YCM. This post is good. So, theories can't be decided upon fact, what can they be decided upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinitus Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon. I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us. I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it' date=' something to do with proving things, possibly. Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.[/quote'] First Part: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER Second Part: I'm not actually saying Emeralds are green, I'm here to discuss what seperates Science from non-Science. What makes any theory better than any other. Not really a debate, more of a friendly discussion. Hmmmmmm, what makes one thing better than the other. Whichever one makes more sense? Whichever one matches up with all the pieces of the puzzle. But, then maybe if it's just a theory, whichever one makes the most sense, whichever one is just more appealing. See, the way I sea it, it's not one is actually better than the other, because they are both theories, which means there are no supporting facts yet, just theories. So, it comes down to the eye of the beholder, and which one makes the most sense to the people listening to the theories. Oh thank god, there is still hope for YCM. This post is good. So, theories can't be decided upon fact, what can they be decided upon? When there is no facts that support them YET, then we must simply research them both, and see which one makes the most sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altαir Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Science is 33% false. Science is 33% true. Science is 34% BS, and that's what counts. I don't see why I care about the color of emeralds. If they were to change the dollar bill to red, would you care? If they were to change the euro to black, would you care? It's not about the properties that people care about, it's how much it's worth. Heck, if the sky rained blood and cats ate airplanes and fish could talk, then I could understand. But color is not what people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.