Jump to content

The Mushroom Kingdom


Clair

Recommended Posts

Completely reversed. Here's the

 

Oh god, I loved the original Song of Healing... but that is just beautiful. It sounds amazing still, and it has a sense of spookiness to it. Wow, that's a pretty kick-ass funeral song; I can already imagine people tearing up if they actually realized what song that was. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/202275-comparing-the-pokemon-metagame-to-ecological-biology/

 

I don't feel the thread has gotten the recognition it deserves. If you would like, please read through it, and if you really must bump it back up, apologize for it beforehand. I don't want anyone getting banned because of me.

 

Lol. You really are proud of that, aren't you? ;D

 

I'll post tomorrow, because I'm going to bed very soon. And I'm feeling quite brain dead, atm. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. You really are proud of that, aren't you? ;D

 

I'll post tomorrow, because I'm going to bed very soon. And I'm feeling quite brain dead, atm. xD

 

I quite am. That took me an entire fifteen minutes of writing and fifteen minutes of thinking. And it came out so well.

 

You're always brain-dead, Clair. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, I loved the original Song of Healing... but that is just beautiful. It sounds amazing still, and it has a sense of spookiness to it. Wow, that's a pretty kick-ass funeral song; I can already imagine people tearing up if they actually realized what song that was. :/

 

I know. People have started calling it The Song of Unhealing. I for one think it's just wonderful.

 

All this talk about death is making me really sad.I'm going to play Clock Town on the piano if and when I ever decide to have a baby. SO SPOOKY AND HAPPY AT THE SAME TIME, GRAWR.

 

CLOCK TOWN SONG IS AWESOME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a 4-month necrobump: not as bad as things I've seen. Damn, how can one be retarded enough to necro something that is clearly two years old? YCMorons, of course.

 

It does get boring if you aren't into competitive battling, but you have to admit it's awesomesauce. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a 4-month necrobump: not as bad as things I've seen. Damn, how can one be retarded enough to necro something that is clearly two years old? YCMorons, of course.

 

It does get boring if you aren't into competitive battling, but you have to admit it's awesomesauce. ;D

 

YCMorons as you said. They just don't care.

 

I'm not into competitive battling, but it wasn't boring. It was a little more 'eh' for me due to my lack of Pokemon meta-game/whatever they call it knowledge.

 

It is pretty cool though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GUISE, NOX ARCANA VS. CLAIR IS IN POLLS, GO VOTE NOW.

 

I could care less about me and Tainted, but oh my god, Eury vs. Clair, that is major bullshit.

 

And yeah, I can see how it's not as interesting if you aren't into the metagame, or if you aren't into ecological biology in general. I just thought it was a cool correlation, and no one has ever written anything like that before (to my knowledge).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GUISE, NOX ARCANA VS. CLAIR IS IN POLLS, GO VOTE NOW.

 

I could care less about me and Tainted, but oh my god, Eury vs. Clair, that is major bullshit.

 

And yeah, I can see how it's not as interesting if you aren't into the metagame, or if you aren't into ecological biology in general. I just thought it was a cool correlation, and no one has ever written anything like that before (to my knowledge).

 

I WILL NOT VOTE. IN ANY OF THEM.

 

Eury vs. Clair really is. What's next? Winner of this round vs. Ice?

 

Indeed. It was still an interesting read though.

 

I'll be logging off soon to record more videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every religious text in the world says that a god or gods exist. Surely not all of them can be fully false, and the probability that at least one of them is partially correct about supreme beings is very high, and as such, I don't need to prove god exists. In fact, you need to prove every religious text incorrect to prove that god doesn't exist.

 

(Huge flaw in that, let's see if you are smart.)

 

I DON'T HAVE A COURT RECORD I CAN'T*shot*

 

Godot quote number 5, "Men who are trapped in the chains of 'Maybe' ...can never reach their dreams!"

 

 

Partially correct isn't enough. You need decisive evidence to prove that God exists, not a book with words in it.

 

There is no decisive evidence that God exists. Only books. Following that line of logic, if I write books about God not existing, he must not exist, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I DON'T HAVE A COURT RECORD I CAN'T*shot*

 

Godot quote number 5, "Men who are trapped in the chains of 'Maybe' ...can never reach their dreams!"

 

 

Partially correct isn't enough. You need decisive evidence to prove that God exists, not a book with words in it.

 

There is no decisive evidence that God exists. Only books. Following that line of logic, if I write books about God not existing, he must not exist, right?

 

No, the books themselves were written by a god or multiple gods. So the probability that at least one book is correct is very high, and denying that is going against what you consider "conclusive science".

 

Are you an omniscient god? No, so if you write a book, you have to prove those words correct.

 

Also, you did not find the logic flaw I was looking for. Which I why I was still able to refute your points.

 

Gogogogogogogo

 

http://forum.yugiohc...35#entry4732535

 

Yep, I know this will hurt me, but whatever.

 

Also:

 

http://forum.yugiohc..._1#entry4732355

 

Being an ass doesn't get you votes. ;D

 

Told you it'd be close, and now I suspect you're going to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the books themselves were written by a god or multiple gods. So the probability that at least one book is correct is very high, and denying that is going against what you consider "conclusive science".

 

Are you an omniscient god? No, so if you write a book, you have to prove those words correct.

 

Also, you did not find the logic flaw I was looking for. Which I why I was still able to refute your points..

 

 

 

Strange, I didn't know a god would use factories to make books.

 

Oh, by the way, if one of the books are correct, which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was right; I'm getting crushed by Tainted. ^_____^

 

Strange, I didn't know a god would use factories to make books.

 

Oh, by the way, if one of the books are correct, which one is it?

 

No, the god or the gods simply sent down the message to man, and to spread the word of god, man created factories to mass-produce books. It is the same process as science; man mass-produced chemistry textbooks so more people could learn about the atom.

 

I never stated that it has been determined that a single book is correct. You are not understanding my point. Let me reiterate:

 

Many books, all of them being the apparent word of omniscient god(s), have been written. While not a single book can be proven correct with conclusive evidence, the probability that at least one of them is correct is very high. As such, proving a god or god(s) incorrect would require you to disprove every religious text out there. I do not need to prove any of them correct because probability dictates that there is a high chance for at least one to be true.

 

There, find the logic flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many books, all of them being the apparent word of omniscient god(s), have been written. While not a single book can be proven correct with conclusive evidence, the probability that at least one of them is correct is very high. As such, proving a god or god(s) incorrect would require you to disprove every religious text out there. I do not need to prove any of them correct because probability dictates that there is a high chance for at least one to be true.

 

There, find the logic flaw.

 

Not sure on this.

 

But doesn't that conflict with the theory of one or multiple gods?

 

The books that have one god say that he is the only one, which conflicts with the god of other books, whilst the books that talk about multiple gods pretty much do the same that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure on this.

 

But doesn't that conflict with the theory of one or multiple gods?

 

The books that have one god say that he is the only one, which conflicts with the god of other books, whilst the books that talk about multiple gods pretty much do the same that.

 

Not at all, it does not matter if the book says that one god or multiple gods exist. The fact is that every religious book is the word of god(s), and these god(s) are omniscient, meaning the book must be correct. However, we all know that only one (maybe two, it depends) can be correct.

 

HOWEVER, the probability that at least one is correct is very high.

 

Dude, I made the logic flaw so obvious. Look at my first paragraph, and think about how I got to my second paragraph (hint: I didn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...