~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 Most colors have different brightnesses by default though. Well, they'd have the same sets of brightness levels, some would just have darker or brighter appearances in nature and would be considered that brightness by default for crayon sets, paint.exe, et cetera. Just because yellow is often considered a bright colour doesn't mean it doesn't itself have darker shades. But yeah, default ideas of colour brightnessess would vary, but they could still be completely different colours in different peoples' eyes, they'd just more often than not see your "blue" as a very bright colour in nature and around them and call it "yellow". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 This is my theory. I have evidence, which are emeralds. Right now they are green, however, my theory predicts they will be blue after 4000 A.D. So you have one of two options: 1) Use proof to explain why emeralds cannot be grue2) Stop trying to troll. What evidence? Your theory states, if I comprehended this correctly, that: "Currently, all emeralds are green. When the year hits 4000 AD, all emeralds will be grue. Therefore, I can combine the words green and blue to say that all emeralds are grue." The only evidence you currently have is that all emeralds are green. You have absolutely no evidence that all emeralds will turn blue by 4000 AD. Just because part of your theory is true doesn't automatically make the other part true as well. For example: Dark's New Theory: By 2011, Dark will be 6 feet tall. By 2011, Dark will weigh negative 50 pounds. Sure, the first part of my theory could very much be true, but that doesn't make the second true. In fact, your theory could be 100% wrong and all emeralds could be destroyed by 4000 AD. So why should we have to provide proof to prove your theory wrong, when you are the one making the stupid claim that emeralds will change color? Do you have any proof of this? Is there a chemical in emeralds that is slowly changing the pigment? You obviously aren't telling us that. You are just making a stupid claim with nothing to support it. I can make stupid claims, too, and because you cannot prove them wrong, they are automatically right. Right? Also, I love how, when I make a comment that contradicts you, you call me a troll. :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 I claim that Dark is Darkrai IRL and he is also Pedobear AND he will change color in 2000 years. His name is then Blue and he is Wobbuffet IRL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 I claim that Dark is Darkrai IRL and he is also Pedobear AND he will change color in 2000 years. His name is then Blue and he is Wobbuffet IRL. How the hell am I going to be alive in 2000 years? Surely Pokemon die, Nintendo just never said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted November 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 Science can never prove something 100%. Raelen was right. Science can't prove something 100%. It can. What about humans existing? Science says they exist. And they do. 100% Proof. Humans do exist. And Hydrogen. Science says Hydrogen powers the Sun' date=' and it does. 100% proved.[/quote'] Do you have proof that we exist? Hmmm, I wonder, maybe we are just the dream of some thinking machine. How did scientists prove hydrogen powers the sun? This is my theory. I have evidence' date=' which are emeralds. Right now they are green, however, my theory predicts they will be blue after 4000 A.D. So you have one of two options: 1) Use proof to explain why emeralds cannot be grue2) Stop trying to troll.[/i'] What evidence? Your theory states, if I comprehended this correctly, that: "Currently, all emeralds are green. When the year hits 4000 AD, all emeralds will be grue. Therefore, I can combine the words green and blue to say that all emeralds are grue." The only evidence you currently have is that all emeralds are green. You have absolutely no evidence that all emeralds will turn blue by 4000 AD. Just because part of your theory is true doesn't automatically make the other part true as well. For example: Dark's New Theory: By 2011, Dark will be 6 feet tall. By 2011, Dark will weigh negative 50 pounds. Sure, the first part of my theory could very much be true, but that doesn't make the second true. In fact, your theory could be 100% wrong and all emeralds could be destroyed by 4000 AD. So why should we have to provide proof to prove your theory wrong, when you are the one making the stupid claim that emeralds will change color? Do you have any proof of this? Is there a chemical in emeralds that is slowly changing the pigment? You obviously aren't telling us that. You are just making a stupid claim with nothing to support it. I can make stupid claims, too, and because you cannot prove them wrong, they are automatically right. Right? Also, I love how, when I make a comment that contradicts you, you call me a troll. :3 A) My Evidence is that Emeralds are green. Because the emeralds are green right now, they will be blue in 4,000 A.D. They will be blue, because of the nature of emeralds. B) Your theory is flawed. Something cannot have a negative weight. C) You have to proof my theory wrong, because I have provided evidence in which my theory is right. Now, if I were to use the theory of gravity instead of the theory of grue, would that change anything? D) Go ahead and make stupid claims. Depending on the type of claims you make, I can either 1) Disprove it or 2) Disagree and show why your theory does not make sense. E) You were trolling. Calling me a pedophile was a blatant attempt to try to troll me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kizzi Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 @Title: Correct. They are emerald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORUS Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 It is my theory' date=' HORUS, not my scientific law.[/quote'] And your theory is baseless and without evidence and can therefore be dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 It is my theory' date=' HORUS, not my scientific law.[/quote'] And your theory is baseless and without evidence and can therefore be dismissed. Everything starts with an idea does it not? Even to see if something is provable.While it can be dismissed, don't be so blunt lol. God... Be more lightened up, you might see something new. Ooh and because this thread has gone far past its pinnacle... Locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.