dude thinking someone couldn't disprove it is ARROGANCE people used think THE EARTH WAS FLAT
[img]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b75/AlasdairC/water.png[/img]
[color=blue][b]WATER[/b][/color]
[b][url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8224]THIS IS XYTHAR HE MOVED TO JAPAN TO WATCH ANIME[/url][/b]
1. I didn't come here specifically to fuck with people, but to communicate with them
2. I'm willing to accept at least the possibility that the scientific community may be wrong on any given subject, and that I may be similarly mistaken
3. 2+2=4 is mathematics. The terms "2", "4", "+" and "=" were not discovered but defined such that the statement "2+2=4"
is
true. Science is tentative, maths is absolute.
4. Your final statement doesn't seem to relate to anything... at all.
Adele wrote:1. I didn't come here specifically to fuck with people, but to communicate with them
2. I'm willing to accept at least the possibility that the scientific community may be wrong on any given subject, and that I may be similarly mistaken
3. 2+2=4 is mathematics. The terms "2", "4", "+" and "=" were not discovered but defined such that the statement "2+2=4"
is
true. Science is tentative, maths is absolute.
4. Your final statement doesn't seem to relate to anything... at all.
LOL YOU BELIEVE IN GRAVITY LOL DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUVE READ was you like literally 4 posts back.
And as to 4. I can't help you if you don't understand simple logical argument. I guess that's why you don't believe in gravity.
Member of Team chillax, Fellow brosefs (and Sisef) of the chill: Tuckfard, Braki, Golden Zucchini, Kloaked, Wuntvor,[/color] [color=blue] and Alasdair[/color]
Adele wrote:It's fun being completely misunderstood!
reread my post and you'll see I'm clearly not a Christian.
Read all my posts in this thread and you'll see where I stand on Evolution.
However, you clearly don't understand what science
is
, since the word "tentative" is apparently not part of your vocabulary.
The fact is that there are scientists who don't agree with the "theory of gravity"
(if you are referring to the Newtonian construct, it'd be most; if Einsteinian, fewer, but still plenty). The word for those people is not "silly" but "potentially groundbreaking".
You are dogmatic in your approach to this matter, and condescending besides. It makes me think that your understanding of the subject is limited to the first - or perhaps second - round of "lies to children" you got fed. Newsflash: Reality is more complex and elegant than is dreamed of in your philosophy.
Adele wrote:1. I didn't come here specifically to fuck with people, but to communicate with them
2. I'm willing to accept at least the possibility that the scientific community may be wrong on any given subject, and that I may be similarly mistaken
3. 2+2=4 is mathematics. The terms "2", "4", "+" and "=" were not discovered but defined such that the statement "2+2=4"
is
true. Science is tentative, maths is absolute.
4. Your final statement doesn't seem to relate to anything... at all.
LOL YOU BELIEVE IN GRAVITY LOL DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUVE READ was you like literally 4 posts back.
And as to 4. I can't help you if you don't understand simple logical argument. I guess that's why you don't believe in gravity.
-Ninth
Which point did the first sentence relate to? Can you quote me?
as to 4. "Hey guys the earth isn't 6000 years old, btw I have no proof but yeah facts could be wrong!" is not a "simple logical argument". You see, a logical argument presents one or more premises and then presents a conclusion that follows from these premises.
It's your bad luck that the person you accused of not understanding a simple logical argument has studied the subject of logic in some depth. It would be unfair to hold that against you. I'm willing to pretend from here on in that that didn't just happen
Adele wrote:1. I didn't come here specifically to fuck with people, but to communicate with them
2. I'm willing to accept at least the possibility that the scientific community may be wrong on any given subject, and that I may be similarly mistaken
3. 2+2=4 is mathematics. The terms "2", "4", "+" and "=" were not discovered but defined such that the statement "2+2=4"
is
true. Science is tentative, maths is absolute.
4. Your final statement doesn't seem to relate to anything... at all.
LOL YOU BELIEVE IN GRAVITY LOL DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOUVE READ was you like literally 4 posts back.
And as to 4. I can't help you if you don't understand simple logical argument. I guess that's why you don't believe in gravity.
-Ninth
Which point did the first sentence relate to? Can you quote me?
as to 4. "Hey guys the earth isn't 6000 years old, btw I have no proof but yeah facts could be wrong!" is not a "simple logical argument". You see, a logical argument presents one or more premises and then presents a conclusion that follows from these premises.
It's your bad luck that the person you accused of not understanding a simple logical argument has studied the subject of logic in some depth. It would be unfair to hold that against you. I'm willing to pretend from here on in that that didn't just happen
You give credence to the idea that gravity isn't real. Lots of logic itt
Can you define gravity, and explain it in a logical way that tells us exactly what it is, besides a force that attracts objects the more mass it has? Can you explain why gravity works the way it does?
yay.
Untrod Tripod (7:27:18 PM): you enjoy whoring
xcaykex (7:27:24 PM): yes
xcaykex (7:27:26 PM): i know that
Adele wrote:It's fun being completely misunderstood!
reread my post and you'll see I'm clearly not a Christian.
Read all my posts in this thread and you'll see where I stand on Evolution.
However, you clearly don't understand what science
is
, since the word "tentative" is apparently not part of your vocabulary.
The fact is that there are scientists who don't agree with the "theory of gravity"
(if you are referring to the Newtonian construct, it'd be most; if Einsteinian, fewer, but still plenty). The word for those people is not "silly" but "potentially groundbreaking".
You are dogmatic in your approach to this matter, and condescending besides. It makes me think that your understanding of the subject is limited to the first - or perhaps second - round of "lies to children" you got fed. Newsflash: Reality is more complex and elegant than is dreamed of in your philosophy.
Okay it was 5 of his posts ago I'm sorry.
-Ninth
Oh, you were referring specifically to my posts. I didn't realise. If you check that quote again, you'll note what I'm really saying is not that I don't believe in gravity, nor that gravity doesn't exist, but that both the major predecessor to and the current theories of gravity (as in, the working of it) have their detractors within the scientific community. We don't have a Grand Unified theory, because the best theories we have for how things work on the micro- (quantum physics) and macro-level ("the theory of gravity" among others) are contradictory in their nature.
So that I may more preciesly address your points, would you be willing to describe the theory of gravity as you understand it? Thanks
"This should be an absolute car crash, but let's try it." - CDB
"did you get ces to look disgusted by their offer? i thought that might work" - Patrick Cracking Idea Mafia
Member of Team chillax, Fellow brosefs (and Sisef) of the chill: Tuckfard, Braki, Golden Zucchini, Kloaked, Wuntvor,[/color] [color=blue] and Alasdair[/color]
Anyway you're defending people that don't believe in gravity (I'm sure you could find "scientists" that believe in dragonkin and things like that) more or less for the sake of doubt, so basically in mafiascum terms your argument is based on wifom.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." -Reiner Knizia
