d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Russian Scientist Regenerated > A 30000 Year Old Fossilized Plant
Prev1234567Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1251Replies: 68Track Topic
Member
Posts: 5,908
Joined: Feb 12 2007
Gold: 18,018.95
#31
Feb 26 2012 11:23pm
Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 11:16pm)

obviously i do think youre wrong (as does most of the scientific community), but I realize you can't prove it thats why i said SUGGESTS



Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 10:15pm)
the statistical nature of quantum mechanics suggests otherwise


Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 11:02pm)
where in any of my post do you see the word disprove or any derivative of it?
all I said was quantum mechanics suggests what you said isn't true
That statement is completely true, accurate, and theres nothing paradoxical about it.


Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 11:05pm)
all i ever said was you were probably wrong


Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 11:57pm)
yea, i think science is quantifiable as an absolute. Thats why ive used words like "SUGGESTS" and "PROBABLY" for the entire conversation. /facepalm

and actually its a big yes yes for the scientific community. yes there are different theories, but MOST of the field believes its random. if everything were predetermined or controlled there would be no wave function to collapse

i never presented anything as emprical, all i ever said was that you were PROBABLY wrong.

And guess what, YOU'RE STILL PROBABLY WRONG. You can try and run from it all you want, but you're still PROBABLY wrong. And honestly the probably part is understated. Really you're almost certainly wrong, but I'll be generous and keep saying you're only probably wrong.


Okay so would you say youre completely retarded or only like 70%? Have you not read anything I said? You keep saying Im trying to disprove and that I claim my method to be absolute

okay try and stay with me:

FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.

THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDs DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDs DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.

Do i think you wrong? Yes, but I understand theres an extremely small chance you're not wrong. Thats why I said suggest and probably.

If anything seems cyclics it you refer to what i say as absolutes and saying i tried to disprove you.

Like do you even know what disprove means? Did set up an experiment or something? Or did I just say you're probably wrong? Hint: its the latter

bottom line:

YOURE STILL PROBABLY WRONG. deal with it
Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
#32
Feb 26 2012 11:28pm
Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 11:23pm)
Okay so would you say youre completely retarded or only like 70%? Have you not read anything I said? You keep saying Im trying to disprove and that I claim my method to be absolute

okay try and stay with me:

FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.
FROM MY FIRST POST I HAVE USED THE WORDS SUGGESTS AND PROBABLY.

THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDs DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDs DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.
THOSE WORDS DO NO IMPLY ABSOLUTES.

Do i think you wrong? Yes, but I understand theres an extremely small chance you're not wrong. Thats why I said suggest and probably.

If anything seems cyclics it you refer to what i say as absolutes and saying i tried to disprove you.

Like do you even know what disprove means? Did set up an experiment or something? Or did I just say you're probably wrong? Hint: its the latter

bottom line:

YOURE STILL PROBABLY WRONG. deal with it


Quote (piddywiffle @ Feb 26 2012 11:10pm)
In a nut shell:

You attempted to disprove something unquantifiable with something else that is unquantifiable through implied suggestion.


I applaud your recognition skills. Really.
Member
Posts: 5,908
Joined: Feb 12 2007
Gold: 18,018.95
#33
Feb 26 2012 11:36pm
Quote (piddywiffle @ Feb 27 2012 12:28am)
I applaud your recognition skills. Really.


Quote (piddywiffle @ Feb 27 2012 12:10am)
In a nut shell:

You attempted to disprove something unquantifiable with something else that is unquantifiable through implied suggestion.

You presented a cyclic argument and claimed your method to be absolute in its own right in an effort to break the cycle with failed inductive reasoning.

When that fell apart, you resorted to childish name calling, which only hampered your argument and, eventually, ground it into dust by asking me to transpose the recent events.



Mind you, I am not disputing your right to counteract my idea, only the method in which you proceeded to do so.


I never tried to disprove anything, and you cant disprove something with suggestion anyway, so that whole statement you quoted doesnt make since.


Hey, guess what, youre still probably wrong. cool stuff
Member
Posts: 5,908
Joined: Feb 12 2007
Gold: 18,018.95
#34
Feb 26 2012 11:37pm
Quote (piddywiffle @ Feb 26 2012 09:14pm)
God has a plan for everything and that encompasses its extinction.



the statistical nature of quantum mechanics suggests otherwise


hey, what do you know, that statement still holds true
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
#35
Feb 26 2012 11:40pm
Quote (novocane @ Feb 27 2012 12:37am)
the statistical nature of quantum mechanics suggests otherwise


hey, what do you know, that statement still holds true


gods plan was for quantum mechanics to suggest otherwise.
Member
Posts: 5,908
Joined: Feb 12 2007
Gold: 18,018.95
#36
Feb 26 2012 11:46pm
Quote (Subwoofer @ Feb 27 2012 12:40am)
gods plan was for quantum mechanics to suggest otherwise.


maybe so

but quantum mechanics does suggest otherwise. thats all I'm saying
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
#37
Feb 26 2012 11:53pm
Quote (novocane @ Feb 27 2012 12:46am)
maybe so

but quantum mechanics does suggest otherwise. thats all I'm saying


you can't use quantum mechanics to argue "gods plan" is the point. you are trying to apply logic and science to an unprovable/disprovable faith based idea.

This post was edited by Subwoofer on Feb 26 2012 11:54pm
Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
#38
Feb 27 2012 11:03am
Quote (novocane @ Feb 26 2012 11:36pm)
I never tried to disprove anything, and you cant disprove something with suggestion anyway, so that whole statement you quoted doesnt make since.


Hey, guess what, youre still probably wrong. cool stuff


You failed to quote the sentence whole. You picked it apart in an attempt to further your failing angle.

Quote (Subwoofer @ Feb 26 2012 11:53pm)
you can't use quantum mechanics to argue "gods plan" is the point. you are trying to apply logic and science to an unprovable/disprovable faith based idea.


Ding ding!
Member
Posts: 48,261
Joined: Aug 1 2008
Gold: 1,819.09
#39
Feb 27 2012 08:29pm
Quote (novocane @ Feb 22 2012 10:27pm)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/ice-age-plant-regenerated-after-30000-years-in-fossilized-squirrel-burrow/article2344028/



pretty school stuff, hopefully we can bring back some dinosaurs soon


It's something science fiction rarely lookis at beyond Jurassic Park, but cloning dinosaurs is a very real possibilty we could see "dinosaur" parks in the very near future (20-75 years)

This post was edited by Caedus on Feb 27 2012 08:29pm
Member
Posts: 5,908
Joined: Feb 12 2007
Gold: 18,018.95
#40
Feb 28 2012 08:59pm
Quote (Subwoofer @ Feb 27 2012 12:53am)
you can't use quantum mechanics to argue "gods plan" is the point. you are trying to apply logic and science to an unprovable/disprovable faith based idea.


im not argue Gods plan, I'm arguing that events are random

you guys can wallow in your ignorance all you want
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1234567Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact