Message from @AltHarrington

Discord ID: 593253354679828501


2019-06-26 01:34:44 UTC  

this discussion of semantics is a deflection from the things you have no answer for, and the theories you have not proven

2019-06-26 01:34:45 UTC  

The theory of evolution

2019-06-26 01:34:52 UTC  

<@330401359507619840>

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/484514023698726912/593252813417742336/Screenshot_2019-04-25-21-03-152.png

2019-06-26 01:34:55 UTC  

lol, encyclopedia britannica is proof

2019-06-26 01:35:00 UTC  

Loool

2019-06-26 01:35:34 UTC  

You going to pick NASA's definition

2019-06-26 01:35:36 UTC  

Man i just came here to argue about vaccines, i know more about that than this 😑

2019-06-26 01:35:43 UTC  

Or the original theory of gravity

2019-06-26 01:35:49 UTC  

Ignore them for a minute, Alt. Let me tell you how to prove something.

2019-06-26 01:35:49 UTC  

Vaccines are gud

2019-06-26 01:36:03 UTC  

the basis for you entire model of the universe has not been proven through the scientific method, which is extremely ironic.

2019-06-26 01:36:16 UTC  

The scientific method.

2019-06-26 01:36:20 UTC  

You still haven't picked

2019-06-26 01:36:24 UTC  

Is taught one of two ways.

2019-06-26 01:36:28 UTC  

Nasa definition

2019-06-26 01:36:34 UTC  

Or regular definition

2019-06-26 01:36:36 UTC  

The first is the google definition.

2019-06-26 01:36:48 UTC  

Observation, hypothesis, measurement, and experiment.

2019-06-26 01:36:52 UTC  

The second.

2019-06-26 01:36:55 UTC  

so jack, do you just regurgitate the words of others, or do you speak the language of English? just curious

2019-06-26 01:37:01 UTC  

@Abe Lover both are equally good. Nasa just had to dumb it down a little so people would understand

2019-06-26 01:37:22 UTC  

No they changed the definition entirely

2019-06-26 01:37:36 UTC  

First definition DELETES force

2019-06-26 01:37:42 UTC  

Second one adds a force

2019-06-26 01:37:48 UTC  

not really. The non-nasa definition goes more in-depth

2019-06-26 01:38:01 UTC  

The second, is simply observation, measurement, and experiment.

2019-06-26 01:38:03 UTC  

The earth is clearly flat if it was round how did nasa take this picture

2019-06-26 01:38:08 UTC  

No it literally says NO FORCE

2019-06-26 01:38:15 UTC  

You don’t actually need to hypothesize shit.

2019-06-26 01:38:20 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/484514023698726912/593253682657755138/Screenshot_20190625-213814.png

2019-06-26 01:38:23 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/484514023698726912/593253697677426689/FlatEarthEatIt3.png

2019-06-26 01:38:30 UTC  

See no force

2019-06-26 01:38:36 UTC  

you cannot prove the concept of orbits through experimentation. your bickering over semantics is a pointless deflection. @Mystery NASA had absolutely no real pictures of earth. what you think are “pictures” are CGI images

2019-06-26 01:38:42 UTC  

The blue marble is a very artificial image in any case

2019-06-26 01:38:49 UTC  

Oh, the meme army is here too?? Yeah, composite is a real thing

2019-06-26 01:38:57 UTC  

and it does not make them fake

2019-06-26 01:38:57 UTC  
2019-06-26 01:38:57 UTC  

You can if you want after, but at any rate, what’s important is that you’re able to make an observation, measure the observation, and experiment with it.

2019-06-26 01:39:03 UTC  

Which one

2019-06-26 01:39:24 UTC  

composites can be easily faked. you could use them to make a flat or globe model. it proves nothing