No not, "we". You are going in circles. I already stated that you walk therefore you believe the the the ground exists without science. You already assume a tru

No not, "we". You are going in circles. I already stated that you walk therefore you believe the the the ground exists without science. You already assume a truth with zero rigorous scientific data. Yet you don't counter this claim. You make the same argument again and again stating that anecdotal data isn't truth. But you place each foot one in front of the other whenever you walk assuming the ground exists from purely anecdotal data. Why? Thus my argument is valid. IF you don't respond to this then it is YOU who is going in circles. I have definitively responded to your point here with a contradiction. You HAVE not addressed the contradiction. The opening is laid out by me, but instead of moving forward you decide to repeat the same point. Not trying to be offensive here. But I am clearly laying out exactly what's going on here. It is YOU who is travelling in a flat circle. NOT me.