Post by JRowe on Jan 31, 2018 21:02:18 GMT
1. Not an answer. There are multiple traits of the whirlpools you would need to justify and multiple properties of the monster that go unmentioned. You are being foolish, intentionally so I suspect as you know full well it is a ludicrous idea. Put it like this: if one person was to say to you that there was a spaghetti monster up in the sky that causes the coriolis effect, tears apart meteors, grabs and rips apart spaceships etc, and another person was to say that there was a solitary strand of spaghetti somewhere in the sky that did nothing but was just there and probably falling, would you believe those two statements were equivalently dumb, or is one rather more stupid than the other? And yet according to your logic here, they're both just one assumption. Stop this blatant trolling, I have had enough. Don't act like this is some minor, innocent misunderstanding when a child could see through this timewasting.
2. Blatantly not an answer. You know the two ways to demonstrate an issue with my definition, how does that even come close to either of them?
3. So, you cannot. Hence, I trust those motivations.
So, when at last you are pushed to actually provide an answer, you evade two and concede one. I just want you to realise that. That is what you insist is unreasonable, and yet when asked to explain why you have nothing to say.
4. Assuming you mean 'and survive intact,' already answered as you well know. We had this discussion, it ended up at question 2, I will not repeat it and waste yet more time with you.
5. First off, science isn't meant to stand alone, the impossibility of space travel is part of the model so will be accepted so long as DET is the logically preferred position, thus any indication otherwise would suffice. if you want to be specific to space travel though, let's tie this back to question 3: motive. When it becomes possible for an amateur rather than organisation to observe a rocket ascend to space and not break apart, or for that matter go to space themselves, and they are in a situation with no motive to lie, that's satisfactory evidence.
So, this is where we are. You waste time, evading two questions still, agreeing I was right on one, and then asking me to repeat myself twice more.
2. Blatantly not an answer. You know the two ways to demonstrate an issue with my definition, how does that even come close to either of them?
3. So, you cannot. Hence, I trust those motivations.
So, when at last you are pushed to actually provide an answer, you evade two and concede one. I just want you to realise that. That is what you insist is unreasonable, and yet when asked to explain why you have nothing to say.
4. Assuming you mean 'and survive intact,' already answered as you well know. We had this discussion, it ended up at question 2, I will not repeat it and waste yet more time with you.
5. First off, science isn't meant to stand alone, the impossibility of space travel is part of the model so will be accepted so long as DET is the logically preferred position, thus any indication otherwise would suffice. if you want to be specific to space travel though, let's tie this back to question 3: motive. When it becomes possible for an amateur rather than organisation to observe a rocket ascend to space and not break apart, or for that matter go to space themselves, and they are in a situation with no motive to lie, that's satisfactory evidence.
So, this is where we are. You waste time, evading two questions still, agreeing I was right on one, and then asking me to repeat myself twice more.