Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Best Disagree Content

  • What is Devil's Tower?

    That science has a poor explanation for this. There is zero evidence for the claim and you continue proving that. I'm not ignoring scale, "evidence" (or lack thereof), or material. I'd be willing to consider evidence, but so far you've given me snowflakes (crystals) and crystals...

  • Dear Evolutionists

    I started to type up a full response to the OP, but I soon saw that the poster is so disingenous and dishonest that there was no point finishing.

    A quick trip to will reveal that evolutionists place their faith in human-to-ape evolution of primarily 3 things : AL 444-2, A fossil named Lucy,  Taung child.

    If you actually click on the link, the OP's claims are not substantiated. Nothing on the page backs up his claims and in fact it's a gallery of over 100 different fossil specimens. It is also patently false. A quick google can show plenty of other evidence from dna comparisons to atavisms to embryonic development and more.

    Anybody with two brain cells looking at AL 444-2 ( AL444-2 sq.jpg?itok=bxPqi7X6) will notice that the entire thing is mostly just a cast. Where is the "evidence", a few white non-definitive bones that could literally belong to ape, man , baboon. It is confirmation bias that whoever reconstructed this, made it fit the cast of an ape-like creature.

    This is a logical fallacy. The OP thinks it's absurd, so obviously his unsupported unevidenced opinion matters. He also asks "where is the evidence" like that isn't patently obvious. A 5 second search of the records shows that scientists have published peer reviewed journals analysings and explaining why they come to their conclusions. See for reference Brunet, Michel, et al. "A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa." Nature 418.6894 (2002): 145.

    This is supposedly claim to be the child of Lucy which is also a hoax. 444-2 refuted&f=false

    Putting his poor syntax aside, if you follow the link you'll see that it doesn't support his claims. It says that it was popularily called that, not that it was ever claimed to be Lucy's child. Calling someone a real son of a gun does not mean that you think the person is the literal child of a gun. The basic context of what is meant here is clear and does not support the OP.

    Lucy, the fake hoax that turned out to be a baboon and not even close to ape or man.

    The OP's own article explicitly states the skeleton is real. When the scientists who discovered it were putting the peices together, they did at one point include a baboon bone before it was analysed and removed as it didn't fit and as the OP's own article says "the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage." Again, the OP has completely misrepresented his source.

    Taung child looks like a baby human. Scientists confirmed it has a flat face which is what humans have. they can not make out what its skull shape is like because they supposedly can not find the back part of the skull.

    An unsupported claim and to be honest, so badly written that I'm struggling to parse the meaning.

    All in All : Darwin said "“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”"

    The OP presents this as Darwin presenting some insoluble problem that exposes a flaw in Darwinism. In fact he was asking a rhetorical question, answered it immediately after and went on to dedicate a chapter of his book to explaining the answer to this.

    "It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural connections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time."

    Scientists confirm that we have a realy ridicolous rare amount of fossils. 

    Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist says: "“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” -

    Stephen M. Stanley says : "“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” -

    IN fact, here the OP does a complete 180 and starts advocating for evolutionism!

    The OP presents these points as valid. Although he does not quote them, if he thinks they are valid - that the conclusions are right -  then he must agree that the preconceptions, evidence and logic that lead up to and support those conclusions are right. The only problem is, all those logic and that evidence show the existence of evolution! These two quotes come from supports of different types of evolution from the norm such as punctuated equilibrium. They are raising issues not because they think the evidence shows no evidence or poor evidence for evolution, just that they think it shows evidence for a slightly different type of evolution. By endorsing their arguments, the OP is endorsing arguments for evolution!

    At this point the misquotes and false claims were too much. M_abusteit is obviously not arguing in good faith and is being as manipulative, false and deceptive as he can be to provide a biased picture and there is no point continuing because this isn't an open and honest debate.
  • Is the Earth flat?

    So here we see some typical Flat Earther responses.

    Now you will immediately notice how they avoid arguing with the central core of the topic.

    SilverishGoldNova's posts is smaller, but probably the most relevant. Showing that my analysis was completely correct he posts exactly the argument that I've claimed would likely be made. Of course I've already pre-rebutted this argument and he offers no counter to my rationale for why his argument is pointless.

    He is at least clear and consistent in his beliefs unlike Erfisflat who likewise ignores most of my argument, only focusing on a few bits. Some parts of his response are unique to him and not part of more general flat earther beliefs. For instance he asks "Where is this bountiful amass of pictures of a globe earth?" when in my previous post I directly linked to a gallery of over a thousand images of earth as a globe. Such comments are simply stupidity. Equally despite his claim that images aren't evidence, that he has claimed multiple times in the past, he now claism they are verifiable.... if they're on Youtube. What amazing properties YouTube has that renders it and only it's videos verifiable and not other videos - like those of respected expert agencies whose work is checked and verified by people and organisations all over the globe - he doesn't say

    A few points are fairly typical though and his videos are great examples of this. The first is a 45 minute video by a conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings were faked. You'll note Erf doesn't present a single argument for why anything in the video matters, any particular bits he thinks are relevant, why he believes an unsourced video making unsupported claims should be believed, etc. The idea here is that with a minimum effort (getting a video from a conspiracy theorist) he can force people to spend hours responding to a video. It is an attempt to at least score a draw, not by actually out debating your opponent, but simply by boring them. Of course this is easily avoided by simply placing the onus on them with a simple question of "Why should I believe in the video" which is a fair point to make. The Flat Earther will then need to actually engage with the arguments in the video and support them, not simply posts a link. Of course the very obvious logical flaw in the argument of "I have a video that agrees with me, therefore I'm right" is that there are also videos (in fact a lot more video from a lot more reputable sources) which show the moon landing as read. Therefore it comes down to actually debating the nuances either way - otherwise the argument just devolves in to two people providing videos and shouting at each other like children about how their video is totally right.

    His other video is shorted so it can be worthwhile actually dealing with it. In this case it is usually a load of nonsense unsupported claims, which is the case here. There isn't a single claim that is actually supported, just leaps of logic and wild insinuation. The only insinuation that they come close to trying to actually address and substantiate is that apparently the Dscovr probe doesn't take pictures on full moons and new moons! Except of course you can check the link I provided in my previous post against a moon calendar and see that yes, it does take pictures on days with full and new moons. Indeed this should be obvious when you look at a month and see that every single day has images available.

    Lastly the image of earth covered in satellites is of course absurd. Firstly he is trying to make an accusation, but as he lacks any evidence he presents it as a question. The correct answer is "why would we"? Do we have any particular reason to expect we would? Why stop there? Why not ask why we can't see people on the streets or microbes?

    The Flat Earther of course provides no evidence or logic for why you would expect to see satellites. Most satellites are a few metres by a few metres. You will not be able to see something a few metres across from one and a half million kilometres away. Even the ISS is only a hundred metres wide. For most people common sense would be enough, but if a Flat Earther - lacking common sense - insists then you can plug in the necessary details to a size by distance calculator (or even do the maths yourself if you fancy) and show how large a satellite would be expected to be. The answer? 0 pixels.

    Of course the very idea is so absurd. it reminds me of that old sketch.
  • The earth is flat

    Erfisflat said:
    @Coveny You haven't seen any requests from me! I was just sitting here realizing that I'm usually the one standing alone, but I see nobody agrees with anything you say!
    Several people have agreed with what I've said as usual you haven't been paying attention. As for sending me friends request one of you three guys keeps calling me your friend, and I keep tilling you I'm not your friend, but you keep saying it. I thought it was you but maybe I was wrong and it's the other E named cult guy who really wants me to be his friend.
  • Is the Earth flat?

    The companies, both private and public which are investing billions of dollars into the space industry wouldn't be doing so most likely, if the Earth was flat.
  • The earth is flat

    Coveny said:
    I think Im going to have a seizure from the amount of times the liar said "liar" and "stupid" aka you. 
    If you don't want to be called a liar stop responding like you said you were going to. As for the stupid part, sorry if the truth hurts. (oh and you didn't do any "thinking")
    I have no problem with being called a liar

    "Sorry if the truth hurts" "sorry about the stupid part"

    Here we go again with the ad homs. Geez, you love those damn ad homs. 
    Strawman fallacy 101 don't incorrectly quote the guy when what he said is right above it, it makes you look like a fool. (you really need to do better than this)
  • The earth is flat

    @SilverishGoldNova You have only explained to me why NASA is fake. There are many other organizations which have picture evidence. I could give you a fallacy for that as well. The picture of Earth I posted is not from NASA. Also explain what type of fallacy it was. My WWII argument and Russian empire argument was refuted by your map.

    Here are a couple of things I don't understand about the map however.

    Image result for flat earth gif

    lets look at it from a sideways perspective:

    Image result for flat earth sideways view

    Flat earth is only possible if the sun is 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface, due to the measurement of varying shadows. In this case, we should be able to see differences in size when looking at the sun throughout the day, but we don't. Why is that? Also, why in the world do we see sunsets? This model doesn't explain sunsets. The Sun never dips behind anything.

    According to this model, the Sun should never go through a sunset, and just slowly fade away throughout the day as it goes further away. Nothing close to this happens.

    Since the Earth is a circle, the heat is more diffused in the outside, since the heat there is dispersed unlike the inside. This means that the temperature should decrease at a faster rate when going outward from the equator than going inward from the equator. But there are no such reportings.

    Please answer my question: "And what is causing the sun to go in a spiraling movement?"
  • The earth is flat

    @Coveny ;
    "just keep it to yourself if you want me to leave you alone."

    Eh, I was really questioning if I should bother responding to a guy who uses constant cherry picking, strawman and ad hominem attacks anyway.  
    I get this whole baselessly accuse the other guy of things before they get a chance to accuse you of them mentality, it was a great defense mechanism in what 8th grade or so?
  • The earth is flat

    Erfisflat said:
    Most of what I bring here is verifiable information, no conclusive ball earth science is verifiable, which makes it all pseudoscience. 
    @WoodenWood none of what Erfisflat brings here is verifiable or information, and he's against science... making him nothing BUT pseudoscience.
  • Do you wish to switch places with Donald Trump?

    @mjhhjm90 I think just the opposite is true, Donald Trump is the first president to to be elected that really cares about the people in a very long time.  Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were all allies of the administrative state, deep state, establishment, swamp, whatever else you want to call it.  Trump is the first president since at least Reagan that actually cares more about what the people want and need than what the establishment wants.  As reported elsewhere;

    According to Marini, Trump alone among last year’s presidential candidates understood this state of affairs, even if only instinctively. His campaign exploited the weakness of our political parties to appeal to a citizenry that has grown dissatisfied with Congress and frustrated by the power of administrative agencies and the attendant special interests. The Republican Party establishment meanwhile, was not only unwilling to endorse Trump but even to concede that he had grasped a genuine political problem.


Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch