[Tumeni]

So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.

If the geiger counter is reading off the scale, I move away. I can't see the radioactivity, but I'm certainly not going to wander through Chernobyl just to see for myself if I get radiation sickness or leukemia.

If the science tells me the water is stagnant, and laden with E-coli or Cholera, I see no reason to test it for myself.

I can't see the pollen, but know when I'm struck by hay fever.

I've never seen Tokyo, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, or Moscow. Should that lead me to conclude they don't exist?


Faith? Or acceptance of common knowledge?

Man those are weak comparisons, what you proposed are easily experienced and testable.

Not so much moving the goalposts, as getting them to uproot themselves and run around the pitch.

Your original query was not for things which are "easily experienced and testable", but "So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it?"

[gavisthename]

So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.

If the geiger counter is reading off the scale, I move away. I can't see the radioactivity, but I'm certainly not going to wander through Chernobyl just to see for myself if I get radiation sickness or leukemia.

If the science tells me the water is stagnant, and laden with E-coli or Cholera, I see no reason to test it for myself.

I can't see the pollen, but know when I'm struck by hay fever.

I've never seen Tokyo, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, or Moscow. Should that lead me to conclude they don't exist?


Faith? Or acceptance of common knowledge?

Man those are weak comparisons, what you proposed are easily experienced and testable.

Not so much moving the goalposts, as getting them to uproot themselves and run around the pitch.

Your original query was not for things which are "easily experienced and testable", but "So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it?"

Yeah think we are getting lost here. What I'm trying to say {maybe not so intelligently} is that things you can test for yourself you can have faith in ... things that you can't test for yourself, i.e. Big Bang, Gravity, Evolution etc ... take huge leaps of faith.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

You sound like a person who (and I don’t mean to sound offensive) hasn’t taken an interest in what science is up to since you left school, perhaps saw a few articles in a popular paper, but then stumbled across Eric Dubious and his Ilk.
Science is nothing like faith. That you sit there on a computer able to talk around the world didn’t come from prayer, and it won’t be the likes of Duboy that have fashioned a vaccine against Ebola that is being currently employed in the DR Congo. I suggest instead of following snake charmers you look towards perhaps less charismatic but more truthful sources of information and for gods sake cultivate a little discernment.   

[ElTrancy]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

[nickrulercreator]

Gav, do you have any evidence to support your side? We've given you sources and evidence which you conveniently rejected for no reason other than you refuse to believe it. But how about you? Do you have any tested, credible, verifiable evidence that hasn't been proven wrong? And not proven wrong by "oh I think this is how it should be" or "oh I don't think it is real because that's what my gut says," no. Proven wrong through experimentation, logic, math, etc.

[gavisthename]

You sound like a person who (and I don’t mean to sound offensive) hasn’t taken an interest in what science is up to since you left school, perhaps saw a few articles in a popular paper, but then stumbled across Eric Dubious and his Ilk.
Science is nothing like faith. That you sit there on a computer able to talk around the world didn’t come from prayer, and it won’t be the likes of Duboy that have fashioned a vaccine against Ebola that is being currently employed in the DR Congo. I suggest instead of following snake charmers you look towards perhaps less charismatic but more truthful sources of information and for gods sake cultivate a little discernment.

Oh no, you are misunderstanding me, I think science is great ... testable, repeatable and provable science is absolutely essential. The difference I'm trying to point out is when people put all their faith in what some scientists have said.

You dont sound offensive at all ... just have a wrong impression of me thats all.

[gavisthename]

Gav, do you have any evidence to support your side? We've given you sources and evidence which you conveniently rejected for no reason other than you refuse to believe it. But how about you? Do you have any tested, credible, verifiable evidence that hasn't been proven wrong? And not proven wrong by "oh I think this is how it should be" or "oh I don't think it is real because that's what my gut says," no. Proven wrong through experimentation, logic, math, etc.

what specific evidence are you after? What evidence do you want me to produce? What I've been shown in this thread is not evidence that proves anything?

[gavisthename]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

[ElTrancy]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?

[gavisthename]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?

Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others. But, because things are denser than air they fall, if things are less dense than air, like helium, they rise.

[edby]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?

Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others. But, because things are denser than air they fall, if things are less dense than air, like helium, they rise.

I am sure he means 'constant acceleration'.

[ElTrancy]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?

Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others. But, because things are denser than air they fall, if things are less dense than air, like helium, they rise.

I meant acceleration. And density happens because of what? Dun dun dahhh, gravity.

[Tumeni]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?

Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others.

Not in a vacuum, they don't. From which we conclude that air resistance holds larger and lighter objects back, whilst heavier and smaller ones outrun them.

[ElTrancy]

Sigh, but air pressure, aka what you need to get rid of to make a vacuum on earth,works because of Gravity...

[gavisthename]

Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.

Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???

But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?

Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others.

Not in a vacuum, they don't. From which we conclude that air resistance holds larger and lighter objects back, whilst heavier and smaller ones outrun them.

Gravity and vacuums are two separate things ... vacuums don't prove gravity. In the real world environment this doesn't happen

[ElTrancy]

Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.

[gavisthename]

Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.

But you are answering all your questions saying ... because of gravity ... just because you say the word gravity doesn't prove gravity

[gavisthename]

Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.

Maybe you should ask Neil Tyson to explain it lol

[ElTrancy]

Haha, oh wow, bringing up something that most normal people (RE as you call them) think was not the best way to bring about that.

[gavisthename]

Haha, oh wow, bringing up something that most normal people (RE as you call them) think was not the best way to bring about that.

I dont call anyone anything, thats what you've been doing