Emeralds are not green

[BehindTheMask]

Suppose, you were to say "All emeralds are green."

This is wrong.

Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue.

Can you prove me wrong, YCM?

Also, discuss how science is not completely true.

[Luna Lovegood]

No.

[BehindTheMask]

Edited first post, thinking it will be locked.

[Luna Lovegood]

Oh, you want me to put effort into my posts? Well then, science is useful, but fails occasionally

[Welche]

Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

[.:Raelen//:Reborn:.]

Science can never prove something 100%. There is always a level of educated guessing.

[BehindTheMask]

(11-21-2009 12:33 AM)Welche Wrote:  Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

But, what makes your theory any better than mine?

[Welche]

(11-21-2009 12:35 AM)BehindTheMask Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:33 AM)Welche Wrote:  Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

But, what makes your theory any better than mine?

[insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!!

[.:Raelen//:Reborn:.]

(11-21-2009 12:36 AM)Welche Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:35 AM)BehindTheMask Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:33 AM)Welche Wrote:  Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

But, what makes your theory any better than mine?

[insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!!

Wow, you're trying REAL hard. >_>

[BehindTheMask]

(11-21-2009 12:36 AM)Welche Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:35 AM)BehindTheMask Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:33 AM)Welche Wrote:  Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

But, what makes your theory any better than mine?

[insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!!

Gtfo if you are going to spam my thread.

Any other takers?

[Star Child]

I don't know much about emeralds, but I agree with Raelen.

[Welche]

(11-21-2009 12:37 AM).:Raelen//:Solo:. Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:36 AM)Welche Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:35 AM)BehindTheMask Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 12:33 AM)Welche Wrote:  Can I prove you wrong? Yes.

You see [insert random BS here] and there you have it.

But, what makes your theory any better than mine?

[insert really good come-back here]! I WIN!!!

Wow, you're trying REAL hard. >_>

[insert a good come-back, wait maybe I should write one.]
I know I am. BTW, the random BS would look something like this...

Random BS Wrote:the tangent degree of emerald minus green does not equal the X intercept in the factored equation of 4000, so therefore it is not OVER 9000 and therefore I can conclude that you are wrong and I have just scientifically proved the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster

I win.

[Icyblue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_bleen
Eeeh... If it exists, then shouldn't all Gems colors etc change? This would prove some sort of color decay theory I'm sure...

[Revolver Amethyst]

I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

[Willieh]

Will saphires turn green?

[Infinitus]

(11-21-2009 01:30 AM)Revolver Amethyst Wrote:  I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it, something to do with proving things, possibly.

Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.

[CeDeFiA]

THEY'RE GREEN RIGHT NOW, THATS ALL THAT MATTERS

[Fickó]

I'll be dead by 4000 A.D.
Therefore, I will not care what color my emeralds are.

[BehindTheMask]

(11-21-2009 01:30 AM)Revolver Amethyst Wrote:  I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon.

(11-21-2009 01:35 AM)awesome66 Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 01:30 AM)Revolver Amethyst Wrote:  I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

I believe it has some deeper meaning behind it, something to do with proving things, possibly.

Interesting, but, is there any research you can find? A link, a copypasta'd article? This seems quite interesting.

First Part: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER

Second Part: I'm not actually saying Emeralds are green, I'm here to discuss what seperates Science from non-Science. What makes any theory better than any other. Not really a debate, more of a friendly discussion.

[Revolver Amethyst]

(11-21-2009 01:47 AM)BehindTheMask Wrote:  

(11-21-2009 01:30 AM)Revolver Amethyst Wrote:  I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

I'll consider a rebuttal when you stop being a pompous watermelon.

*morphs into pompous pear*

Can has rebuttal =3