The Immovable Object vs The Unstoppable Force, who would win?
Well, what seemed to be an unsolvable problem has now been solved with SCIENCE!
And to be honest, I hoped for more fireworks and stuff.
The Immovable Object vs The Unstoppable Force, who would win?
Well, what seemed to be an unsolvable problem has now been solved with SCIENCE!
And to be honest, I hoped for more fireworks and stuff.
This was solved years ago. A gnome dies.
I tried to find the video but it seems it's flagged as private for some odd reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeKSfIL4efE
My name is Cernunnos, I will love you like no other, I have died a thousand deaths, each time I died I thought of you.
That was pretty awesome to watch.
This all sounds like something rigged, that is fueled by wishful thinking, myes.
Yeah MinutePhysics is definitely one of my favourite channels on youtube. When I first heard of them I went on a marathon of watching all of their videos (which aren't very long anyway).
Well, if they pass right through each other, I wouldn't be the one with The Immovable Object. :X
Lol loved the video thanks for sharing!
~Don't just rage the day away, try new things!~
Warcraft: Shando - <FoE> - 110 Druid - Turalyon-US
http://foeturalyon.enjin.com <Foe> Website, check us out!
http://www.twitch.tv/shandi235 live stream my guild's raids, other stuff
crap video. the argument would be best explained by using the Juggernaut running into the Blob. since this video did not included either of those two, it is bad and wrong, in fact it is so bad and wrong that a new word must be used, this video is badwrong or badong.
It's presented in a very straightforward, easily accessible manner... but in the end, it's science based on synonyms, assumptions, and shiny objects. In other words, not science.
He uses valid formulas and his train of thought is clear, but you can't do things like establish the following method (which he does):
-Interpretation 'a' or iA, states truth 'a' or tA
-However, interpretation 'b' or iB, states truth 'b' or tB
Now, following 'x' line of thought, and using the variables tA + tB, we can see the answer is 'answer'.
You can't state that there are two possible meanings for something and then cite BOTH of them to make a point. That's just a shiny logical fallacy.
I could say for example.
-The one person in that room is a boy named Tim.
-Some other people believe that the one person in that room is a girl named Tina.
Then, with shiny pictures, big words, and a glib turn of phrase, I can then say. We can clearly see that Tim and Tina both must like being in that room.
This what he essentially does by giving several possible definitions for 'immovable object' and 'unstoppable force' and then tossing them all in a hat and choosing variables seemingly at random to fit his hypothesis, creating a confirmation bias... kind of, except there was no real experiment.
Anyhow, don't get me wrong, I like the video, as I said, shiny objects and such. I just don't like that we are MORE susceptible than ever to glib demonstrations of nothingness because 'science' is so accessible now. We feel smarter about being dumb.
I think I've had enough of removing avatars today that feature girls covered in semen. Closing.
-Darsithis
Chicken/egg debate has already been solved, man.
It was the chicken
"The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken."
Chicken eggs can only be created inside a chicken.
Science > Philosophy
I am the one who knocks ... because I need your permission to enter.
LMAO! I miss that movie so much.
I will stand for the opposite of badong: gnodab.
---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 11:40 PM ----------
I REMEMBER THAT VIDEO! Oh the good old days...I used to be such a warcrfatmovie junkie. I got most of my current taste in music from wow videos. Now it's all just arena pvp videos.
P.S. OP's video belongs in the off topic/fun stuff forum.
Last edited by Flaks; 2013-01-25 at 11:43 PM.
Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfangi7-6700 @2.8GHz | Nvidia GTX 960M | 16GB DDR4-2400MHz | 1 TB Toshiba SSD| Dell XPS 15
Incorrect, you can't call something without proof science, you can call it a scientific theory at best, at what point is a chicken considered a chicken? What if the beak is too short/long? What if it has more sparse feather coverage? What if it has the ability to fly instead of flap around flightlessly? At what point is it not a chicken?
How can it be proven that the official step that created a CHICKEN, and not a delicious egg-laying, flying birdbeast happened in the egg stage? Seems pretty likely actually that the evolutionary change happened at an embryonic level rather than a living creature level. So your 'science' seems a bit flawed.
ANNNNNYHOW, i agree with the guy you're trying argue against.
I think I've had enough of removing avatars today that feature girls covered in semen. Closing.
-Darsithis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humor
Didn't think a statement like "Science > Philosophy" could be taken seriously
I am the one who knocks ... because I need your permission to enter.
A working link to the WoW answer to this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ysPQRl27uQ
Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfangi7-6700 @2.8GHz | Nvidia GTX 960M | 16GB DDR4-2400MHz | 1 TB Toshiba SSD| Dell XPS 15
I'm not arguing anything about your science > philosophy comment. I replied directly to the claim you made that a solution had been reached about the chicken/egg debate, and the REAL news source you used to back it up. If you meant the entire post as a satirical comment to show your agreement with your the post you quoted, you didn't do a good job showing it was farcical. Usually farces don't post news articles that are serious in nature.
But that's just me being reasonable again I guess.
I think I've had enough of removing avatars today that feature girls covered in semen. Closing.
-Darsithis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-hu...ditional_jokes
Sometimes I forget inflection and intent are difficult to discern via text. Thought it was pretty obvious by my absurd "Science>Philosophy" statement I was portraying a caricature.
---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 11:53 PM ----------
Stating "Science>Philosophy" is an absurd statement. It's like saying apples are better than oranges. I didn't provide any operational definition by which I was measuring the two.
I am the one who knocks ... because I need your permission to enter.