Simple math, ancient Egypt:

Originally posted by @sonhouse
We haven't seen gravitational waves but we have detected them. We have never seen an actual electron, do you think therefore they don't exist? Same with neutrons, protons, and such. Same with electric fields, we can't see them or magnetic fields, does that mean they are unknowable?

Can you see the effect in some way? Are they continuing to be produced even as we speak?

Originally posted by @eladar
Can you see the effect in some way? Are they continuing to be produced even as we speak?

Exactly what is the basis for your anti-science stance? Do you doubt Einstein for instance? Do you doubt that accurate atomic clocks can see the difference in the flow of time when you move one up in the air a meter higher than a second one and the time flow speeds up, how else are we to interpret that other than the flow of time changes with changes in gravity field strength?

Do you doubt the existance of electrons because you can't see them?

Do you doubt the existance of Infrared rays because you can't see them?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Exactly what is the basis for your anti-science stance? Do you doubt Einstein for instance? Do you doubt that accurate atomic clocks can see the difference in the flow of time when you move one up in the air a meter higher than a second one and the time flow speeds up, how else are we to interpret that other than the flow of time changes with changes in gr ...[text shortened]... e you can't see them?

Do you doubt the existance of Infrared rays because you can't see them?

Anti-science? I never said anything anti science. I just said that you can't say that something is true without actually testing it and seeing that it is repeatable.

You can't say something happened without actually seeing it happen. You can say that if we limit it to natural causes, but you can't say that it must have happened this way.

Originally posted by @eladar
Anti-science? I never said anything anti science. I just said that you can't say that something is true without actually testing it and seeing that it is repeatable.

You can't say something happened without actually seeing it happen. You can say that if we limit it to natural causes, but you can't say that it must have happened this way.

By 'see' I assume you mean something detectable with your own eyes unaided. So what about sound? If I hear a rock hit a tree, but don't see it, am I to assume nothing happened?

I don't see radio waves but radio exists. How can that be if I can't see it? I know I will be fried if I go inside an active fission reactor core but I won't see anything. Does that mean I am safe?

Why do you insist you have to see stuff to make progress scientifically speaking?

I asked you once already, do you believe time slows down the deeper you go into a gravity well, like being on top of a mountain with an accurate atomic clock and we have two clocks that were in sync say at the 2000 foot level then take one and go to 1000 foot level and the other to 3000 foot level, we see the one going down to the 1000 foot level slow down compared to the one at now 4000 feet.

We can't see anything so are we to believe now the clocks are just malfunctioning?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
By 'see' I assume you mean something detectable with your own eyes unaided. So what about sound? If I hear a rock hit a tree, but don't see it, am I to assume nothing happened?

I don't see radio waves but radio exists. How can that be if I can't see it? I know I will be fried if I go inside an active fission reactor core but I won't see anything. Does t ...[text shortened]... 4000 feet.

We can't see anything so are we to believe now the clocks are just malfunctioning?

No, something that you can see with a microscope or see with a telescope or whatever.

You really are too bigoted to understand. Bigots are just bigots, they carry too much baggage to have an actual conversation.

Originally posted by @eladar
No, something that you can see with a microscope or see with a telescope or whatever.

You really are too bigoted to understand. Bigots are just bigots, they carry too much baggage to have an actual conversation.

There you go with the ad hominems. I speciifically asked you if you were talking about stuff you see with your own eyes, that was a question, if I knew the answer I would not have asked the question. So do you believe time slows down when you go down hill ?

So if you see something on a meter, RF, IR, UV then you know it happened right?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
There you go with the ad hominems. I speciifically asked you if you were talking about stuff you see with your own eyes, that was a question, if I knew the answer I would not have asked the question. So do you believe time slows down when you go down hill ?

So if you see something on a meter, RF, IR, UV then you know it happened right?

It is the absolute truth. I have corrected your bigotted comments for the last time.

You have too much hate for Christians.

Originally posted by @eladar
You have too much hate for Christians.

we don't hate Christians.
Some of us are Christians.
You have too much hate for science and free thinkers and anyone that doesn't share your ridiculous religious opinions.

Originally posted by @eladar
Anti-science? I never said anything anti science. I just said that you can't say that something is true without actually testing it and seeing that it is repeatable.

You can't say something happened without actually seeing it happen. You can say that if we limit it to natural causes, but you can't say that it must have happened this way.

Have you actually seen your liver? I expect not. Yet you know you have one.

You may have seen ultrasound images of your liver, but do you know that ultrasound exists, since you can't see it or hear it?

Originally posted by @eladar
It is the absolute truth. I have corrected your bigotted comments for the last time.

You have too much hate for Christians.

I disdain hypocrits and pharisees like you, not honest Christians.

Originally posted by @eladar
It is the absolute truth. I have corrected your bigotted comments for the last time.

You have too much hate for Christians.

Not sure why asking that question makes me bigoted. I didn't know where you were coming from about seeing stuff. I think you mean if it shows up on a meter that is good enough as seeing an effect. Is that right?

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
I disdain hypocrits and pharisees like you, not honest Christians.

You mean I don't appear to be a Christian to a child of Satan?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Not sure why asking that question makes me bigoted. I didn't know where you were coming from about seeing stuff. I think you mean if it shows up on a meter that is good enough as seeing an effect. Is that right?

Believing it was an appropriate question at all makes you a bigot.

You have no respect for Christians and it comes across in the vile poison you spit.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Have you actually seen your liver? I expect not. Yet you know you have one.

You may have seen ultrasound images of your liver, but do you know that ultrasound exists, since you can't see it or hear it?

Has anyone seen an actual liver? Yes?

Let me know when someone has seen abiogenesis.

You are really grasping for straws and are making a complete fool of yourself.

Originally posted by @eladar
Has anyone seen an actual liver? Yes?

Let me know when someone has seen abiogenesis.

You are really grasping for straws and are making a complete fool of yourself.

Of course people have seen actual livers, and we extrapolate that you too have one, because that is how nature works. That is exactly why we don't have to see yours to know you have one. We know many things we do not see. We know this because we know how nature works, and laws of nature do not change.

All life forms, both simple and complex, did not appear at once over a short time. The evidence does not confirm Creationism, nature does not work like that. Nature works gradually, from simple to complex forms. The evidence is quite clear: simple life forms are older, complex ones newer, and long periods of time are involved. We need not have observed the beginning to know this; given a) what is observed now and b) laws of nature, we can extrapolate, same as we extrapolate that you have a liver without having to see your liver.

You apparently think extrapolation is not valid, that only what we see now is known. Your view of what is knowable is that of a frog in well. You're missing 90%.

Let us know when you have God-detector up and running.