Page 4 of 4
#121
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis though (a hypothesis has to be falsifiable for it to be taken seriously in the science community), but it's also been proven to be accurate many, many times thanks to mountains of observable evidence. So I don't see your point.


I think we're in violent agreement.
#122
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis though (a hypothesis has to be falsifiable for it to be taken seriously in the science community), but it's also been proven to be accurate many, many times thanks to mountains of observable evidence. So I don't see your point.

That's pretty much exactly what he said
^lol
#123
Then why even post a comment to give a justification for his comment when you agree with me? The thing i wanted to point out in my comment was how what I said last year has been twisted beyond belief by his 'contribution'
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
#125
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Then why even post a comment to give a justification for his comment when you agree with me?

Because you misunderstood his comment. You wrote in your original comment that "The question is irrelevant. Evolution is irrefutably factual regardless."

and he replied

>Science
>Irrefutable

Thereby implying that you had neglected to consider that nothing in science is technically irrefutable.
#126
I did understand, that's what I told him to stop being a mong. I thought I made that clear.

I said that evolution is irrefutable, not science.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
#127
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
I did understand, that's what I told him to stop being a mong. I thought I made that clear.

I said that evolution is irrefutable, not science.

#128


I'd like to see that guy try to refute it. Fact is that he blatantly twisted what I said into something else.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
#129
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE


I'd like to see that guy try to refute it.


Let me spell it out for you:

1.You admitted that for a hypothesis to progress to a theory, it must be falsifiable, which means the same thing as "refutable"
2. You claimed that evolution was "irrefutable"

So the only possible interpretations are these:

1. You believe evolution to be unscientific
2. You were lying when you said you believed that something has to be falsifiable to be considered scientific
3. You're an idiot
4. You're trolling

The third interpretation seems increasingly likely.
#130
I wanted to point out that the chances of evolution actually being refuted are virtually nil at this point.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
#131
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
I wanted to point out that the chances of evolution actually being refuted are virtually nil at this point.

Something I explicitly expressed in post #123

You then argued with me by rephrasing exactly what I said.
#133
Perhaps my original point was biased, but it almost certainly isn't going to be refuted any time soon.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
#134
as an addendum to my post, you also claimed that things can be proven in science ("proven to be accurate" in post #124). This is not so, things can only fail to be disproven for a significant amount of time under a considerable amount of scrutiny and critical examination.

I just don't understand how you can justify calling the guy a "mong" when in fact it is you who was wrong by your very own admission. Seems a bit shitty to me.
Last edited by TooktheAtrain at Jun 23, 2013,
#135
Quote by TooktheAtrain
as an addendum to my post, you also claimed that things can be proven in science ("proven to be accurate" in post #124). This is not so, things can only fail to be disproven for a significant amount of time under a considerable amount of scrutiny and critical examination.

> All hypotheses are true unless disproved

By that logic, spaghetti monsters cannot be seen or touched do legitimately exist because they haven't been disproven to exist.

But whatever, this conversation is going around in circles. I'm going to bed, it's 6:20.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
#136
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
> All hypotheses are true unless disproved

By that logic, spaghetti monsters cannot be seen or touched do legitimately exist because they haven't been disproven to exist.

Typical theologian view


You idiot. You idiot. You idiot.

That's where falsifiability enters! The example you posted is unfalsifiable

GAH **** HOW DO YOU BREATHE??? DO YOU NEED INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO?
#137
I think we do hold the same view, its just that we are looking into it from opposite sides.
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
#138
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
I think we do hold the same view, its just that we are looking into it from opposite sides.

Yep, I'm looking at it from the right side and you're desperately backpedaling. I really hope you reread this thread when you're not drunk/stoned/tired/trolling.
#139
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
> All hypotheses are true unless disproved

No, that's not what he meant. Scientists make assumptions that certain things are true, but we don't (shouldn't) make the mistake of saying that they absolutely are so.
#140
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE


I'd like to see that guy try to refute it. Fact is that he blatantly twisted what I said into something else.

Welcome to UG, brah. The land of straw-man arguments.
-The Crimson Fucker, aka PonyFan #376121
#141
Quote by TooktheAtrain
as an addendum to my post, you also claimed that things can be proven in science ("proven to be accurate" in post #124). This is not so, things can only fail to be disproven for a significant amount of time under a considerable amount of scrutiny and critical examination.


That's a bit unfair. I'd rather say that hypotheses can be proven to account for more variables than any other, which is our barometer for truth.
#142
Quote by progdude93
That's a bit unfair. I'd rather say that hypotheses can be proven to account for more variables than any other, which is our barometer for truth.

Yes, but even then that hypothesis can be displaced by another with superior explanatory power, which means the original was incomplete or flat out wrong, so it's not "proven" in the sense that it is an ultimate explanation.
#143
Quote by TooktheAtrain
Yes, but even then that hypothesis can be displaced by another with superior explanatory power, which means the original was incomplete or flat out wrong, so it's not "proven" in the sense that it is an ultimate explanation.


Well that's exactly my point, as new accounts must then always be compared to the so-called "ultimate account" in order to establish supremacy. The best account is that which explains more than any other. As soon as new accounts arise, it must be discerned whether or not they account for more than the current model.
#144
Quote by mattmakaha
Are we naturally evil?

Is it proof that we evolved from animals?


Why are you assuming animals are naturally evil?

Are you a fool of some sort?
#145
Quote by hriday_hazarika
Why are you assuming animals are naturally evil?

Are you a fool of some sort?


You ever seen cats? Satan in an adorable furry package.
#146
Probably due to the fact that as cavemen who had to club our food to death before we ate it.

ron666
#147
Agriculture has a lot to do with it.
Last edited by TUXGUITAR at Jun 23, 2013,
#148
Science is never irrefutable because that's literally the entire fucking philosophy behind the scientific method. Evolution is no different. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is in favour of it, there is always the chance that something will be discovered which doesn't fit, and then the theory would no longer be valid. I don't see how I twisted your argument, you just stated something which was wrong. You might see it as pedantry or whatever but the difference is really quite significant.

You fucking mong.
#149
For the most part, extremist religious people.
"I think the most important thing about music is the sense of escape." - Thom Yorke
#150
Quote by Caaarrl94
For the most part, extremist religious people.


This post explains precisely nothing.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.