Search results

Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize winning Scientist): "We never are right - we can only be sure we're wrong." Contex: on the matter of science.

From what I can see, you are trying to assert me into submission by telling me that my confidence is non-existent and what I don't believe in. hlf Doesn't work on me, bud. Why are you resorting to pretending you have that kind of knowledge?

Because people have egos. The honest ones will admit theory is guesswork. I didn't graduate past the 5th grade and I know that. How about you?

Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feynman on the scientific method: even he had the honesty to admit science is guesswork.

I haven't seen anyone say "Any invested in mapping the solar system are all part of a conspiracy theory to hide a flat earth reality". It seems more like what you're posing here is a strawman argument. In fact, I've seen flat earthers invest themselves in mapping the solar system themselves...

The Bible is more true than a science book. A science book is full of guesswork.

God says He "hangs the earth on nothing", so perhaps there are no physical pillars. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Job 26:7

It would be by God's commandment. The details I wouldn't pretend to know. Shrink the sun until it lights up only part of the earth. Shrink the sun until it lights up only part of the earth. I wouldn't know. On the other hand, the idea that the globe is made up of a solid inner core primarily...

It would be above the earth. Above the earth. Maybe pillars? Not sure if the Bible is referring to physical pillars or not. Not sure. Bible mentions circle of the earth and also four corners of the earth. One or both of those could be symbolic.

I told @Adventageous it is possible for people to believe ideas because of NASA while denying NASA is the reason. They replied to that post. Then, they later said: So do they think it is impossible for people to believe ideas because of NASA while denying NASA is the reason? Okay.

I told @Adventageous they seem at least thorough in their replies. Then they replied to that message. Then, they later said: So they think my position that they seem thorough in their replies has no substance? So do they think their own replies are superficial instead? Okay.

I said the sun moves, and @Adventageous replied "Yes". Then, they said: So they do not think my position that the sun moves has substance? And they are writing a book intended to be an authoritative force on the matter of flat earth. Okay.

I told @Adventageous to look at a long stretch of flat road. I said according to perspective, the road goes up. Then, @Adventageous said: So they think a flat road does not make it's way up to the horizon? So they lack basic 3-dimensional perspective? Okay.

I told @Adventageous that when we are talking about raw pictures of the entire face of earth in one photo, stitched together photos are irrelevant. Then @Adventageous said: So they think stitched photos of the earth are raw photos of the entire face of the earth in one photo? Okay.

I told @Adventageous I appreciate them for their coherent attention to detail, and then @Adventageous said: So they think the position that they have coherent attention to detail holds no substance? Okay.

Because you lack the vision required. You apparently cannot even see the significance of the difference between a stitched photo and a raw complete photo.

When we are talking about raw pictures of the entire face of earth in one photo, stitched together photos are irrelevant. Don't be silly and pretend stitched together photos suffice when raw, complete photos are in demand.

You perceive it as throwing out anything and everything. In fact, I apparently had nothing to begin with according to you. It's a good thing you never determined whether I had merit. Then you tell me, what is documentation?

Those photos are irrelevant when the subject is photos of an entire globe in the shot.

Documentation is just another claim. On paper.