Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are arguing it. You said "we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range", which is exactly what the Hubble does and Spacemonkey pointed out to you. The galaxies and nebulae and other images captured by the Hubble are part of the external world and contain substance, but they are not at all within our "visual range"
|
Noooo LadyShea, what is your problem? Seriously, how many times have I said that light can be seen, but an image of the real world cannot. You are disregarding the point of this thread to make it appear that you know what the hell you're talking about when you don't. This is about arrogance of which you are a poster child because you are putting yourself as some kind of authority when you don't have the capability to do this. But you won't shut up enough to understand why this model works. Please don't respond, which I'm sure you will. It will only be more of the same. You are so in love with yourself that you won't listen to anything I have to say, for who am I in your eyes?  I'm sure my response will surprise you, but I'm tired of your charade and I'm tired of having to kowtow to you because of your lack of understanding. |
Another ad hom hissyfit that doesn't address the point being made.  |
What an easy copout LadyShea. Can't you do better than that? It's very easy to look down a list that philosophy has given you, and name it so you can be off the hook of incomplete or unsound reasoning. You can justify almost anything this way. What a joke this has become. |
I'm not LadyShea. Of course this thread is a joke. You can't even be bothered to pay enough attention to work out who you are talking to. |
Because you all sound the same. It's very easy to mistake one for the other because you all sound alike.