Page 4 of 4
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.
RealUnrealRob
Lazy Physicist
Join date: Sep 2008
233 IQ
#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
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#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'
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
RealUnrealRob
Lazy Physicist
Join date: Sep 2008
233 IQ
#124
He was trying to make sure you understood what someone else said, like I'm doing now.
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#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.
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.

T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#128


I'd like to see that guy try to refute it. Fact is that he blatantly twisted what I said into something else.
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#130
I wanted to point out that the chances of evolution actually being refuted are virtually nil at this point.
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#133
Perhaps my original point was biased, but it almost certainly isn't going to be refuted any time soon.
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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,
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#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.
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jun 23, 2013,
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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?
T00DEEPBLUE
Boba FRETT
Join date: Oct 2010
2,246 IQ
#137
I think we do hold the same view, its just that we are looking into it from opposite sides.
Regarding the furry fandom from the man himself:
Quote by Axelfox
Please understand how little we as a community care
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.
RealUnrealRob
Lazy Physicist
Join date: Sep 2008
233 IQ
#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.
metal4eva_22
PonyFan #376121
Join date: Jul 2006
890 IQ
#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
progdude93
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
380 IQ
#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.
TooktheAtrain
Banned
Join date: May 2012
184 IQ
#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.
progdude93
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
380 IQ
#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.
hriday_hazarika
is a Space Lion. ^___^
Join date: May 2007
1,065 IQ
#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?
progdude93
Banned
Join date: Dec 2012
380 IQ
#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.
ron666
Registered User
Join date: Feb 2010
226 IQ
#146
Probably due to the fact that as cavemen who had to club our food to death before we ate it.

ron666
TUXGUITAR
TUXGUITAR
Join date: Aug 2008
366 IQ
#147
Agriculture has a lot to do with it.
Last edited by TUXGUITAR at Jun 23, 2013,
Ninja Vampirate
up the hoods
Join date: Jun 2007
186 IQ
#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.
Caaarrl94
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2012
3,004 IQ
#149
For the most part, extremist religious people.
"I think the most important thing about music is the sense of escape." - Thom Yorke
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join date: Sep 2009
153 IQ
#150
Quote by Caaarrl94
For the most part, extremist religious people.


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