The earth is flat

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

This is make believe 


This is reality

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Why are all the pool balls spherical, but the table is flat?

Speaking of analogies. Earth is a planet...

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Why are all the pool balls spherical, but the table is flat?

Speaking of analogies. Earth is a planet...

So the Earth being a ball is a " analogy"? 

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova if you use the meme, you have to take responsibility for it....

You know, I do take responsibility for this smaller version of it.

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Why are all the pool balls spherical, but the table is flat?

Speaking of analogies. Earth is a plane...

There is fixed that for you

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat 

I would normally believe nobody can be as desperate as Coveny but apparently you can be. He did make logical arguments when he started, I will admit that, but after that was refuted he turned to trolling.

Erfisflat

Coveny

SilverishGoldNova said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Why are all the pool balls spherical, but the table is flat?

Speaking of analogies. Earth is a planet...

So the Earth being a ball is a " analogy"? 

"pool balls spherical, but the table is flat" is an analogy where the earth is a pool table, not a pool ball. Obviously a pool table isn't the same thing as a pool ball so it's a bad analogy.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

SilverishGoldNova

@Coveny Well I also found your rant about us so.

SilverishGoldNova

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Coveny Well I also found your rant about us so.

It was basically "Blah blah blah Debateisland is toxic even tho Im a blatant t roll blah blah blah I want Neil Degrasse Tyson to say we live on a Shittake Mushroom blah blah blah"

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

Considering he and every other globetard will believe anything as long as you put "Scientists say" in front of it, He probably believes that is true. Maybe his secret god Neil deGrasse Tyson said so.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

Christ

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

You haven't provided evidence for your claim. Unevidenced claims are pseudoscientific. 

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

You haven't provided evidence for your claim. Unevidenced claims are pseudoscientific. 

I have provided evidence NUMEROUS times on a wide variety of points and topics. That is an out and out lie. What does that put you up to like 5 or 6 now?

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

I've answered this several times now. Page 1.

Erfisflat

This specific claim:
"Now had he put the magnet in the water, and positioned the second magnet you would notice a mirrored effect on the other side, but the glass prevents this."

Goes, so far, unevidenced. Assumed. Pseudoscience. 

Christ

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

You haven't provided evidence for your claim. Unevidenced claims are pseudoscientific. 

I’m not making any claims, I’m asking a question.

Do you know how to answer a question?

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

You haven't provided evidence for your claim. Unevidenced claims are pseudoscientific. 

I’m not making any claims, I’m asking a question.

Do you know how to answer a question?

How do you keep missing my response?

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

This specific claim:
"Now had he put the magnet in the water, and positioned the second magnet you would notice a mirrored effect on the other side, but the glass prevents this."

Goes, so far, unevidenced. Assumed. Pseudoscience. 

You can see the oblonging effect in the video so there is evidence of this, so this isn't pseudoscience. I will give you there is an assumption that the glass prevents the distortion, but that doesn't change that I have in fact presented evidence to support my claim, and refute your "picture".

Erfisflat

@Coveny
"You can see the oblonging effect in the video so there is evidence of this, so this isn't pseudoscience."

The claim you made specifically, stop dodging the question and building strawmen. The "oblong effect" was between the magnets, your claim is that 
"...had he put the magnet in the water, and positioned the second magnet you would notice a mirrored effect on the other side, but the glass prevents this."

You are begging the question, literally dodging the main point that would prove your claim. You can't possibly be this fallacious. Perform the experiment to provide the evidence for your claim if you can find it being performed. Or will I have to do it for you? At least you finally concede that it's pseudoscientific with: "I will give you there is an assumption that the glass prevents the distortion"


Thank you, finally you've conceded the main argument. I'm screenshotting this and framing it.

Christ

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

You haven't provided evidence for your claim. Unevidenced claims are pseudoscientific. 

I’m not making any claims, I’m asking a question.

Do you know how to answer a question?

How do you keep missing my response?

I just joined and have been having some difficulty getting things to work, but the site owner is working on fixing my issues as we speak.

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

The amount of stalking you do of me and wasting time making memes to ridicule me is pretty impressive. It would be SO much more impressive if you had decent arguments, and science rather than pseudoscience on your side.

You can't produce those results with two magnets and ferro fluid. Or with anything. That's why it's pseudoscientific. 

That statement proves that you are not about science, and you are about faith. When you say I can't produce result with anything, you've already closed your mind to the results. You are trying to get proof of a bias answer you had before you even asked the question. That's not science, that's faith.

You haven't provided evidence for your claim. Unevidenced claims are pseudoscientific. 

I’m not making any claims, I’m asking a question.

Do you know how to answer a question?

How do you keep missing my response?

I just joined and have been having some difficulty getting things to work, but the site owner is working on fixing my issues as we speak.

Read page one of this debate.

Christ

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

I've answered this several times now. Page 1.

I can’t find where you answered the question.

Would you be so kind as to copy and paste your answer into your response to this post?

Erfisflat

@Christ

Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway. When I say the earth is flat, I mean the entire heliocentric model is false. We've all been duped. There's nowhere else to go.

Wake

@Evidence - the bunching up of liquids in zero g conditions only occurs to those liquids with sufficient surface tension. Water does have this. Virtually all liquids have surface tension that I'm aware of but alcohols and such have low enough values that they tend to break up into small bubble-like formations instead of staying in one large mass in zero g conditions.

The reason that the oceans have a high tide twice a day is because of a standing wave that is set up by the moon pulling the moon-side of the oceans over. The Earth rotates while the moon orbits much slower.

The Earth like all other masses above a certain weight (and hence strength of gravity) was pulled into a ball by two forces - initially the gravity. But then the compression of the mass caused core to melt and the surface tension of the core caused it to form into a ball. In fact we can see these things occurring with the small moons of the various planets today.

The interior of the sun is something in the neighborhood of 27 million degrees Kelvin. This causes the sun to be almost a perfect black body emitter so the outer layers of the sun exude heat in vast quantities and cool it to 5,778 degrees Kelvin. The nuclear forces cannot generate sufficient heat to keep the emissions in check.

Likewise at one time when compressing into a ball the entire Earth was pretty molten but over time emitted heat off until while the inner core temperature of the Earth is 6,300 degrees Kelvin and almost entirely iron the other much lighter elements flowed to the top as it cooled to a mean global temperature of about 290 degrees Kelvin.

The basics of these things are pretty easy to understand if you aren't a flat-earther (corrected because wrong term) believing the the Earth is the center of the universe.

Evidence

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter. 

@Coveny neither does NASA have an 8,000 mile diameter object for their example, OK!? All I asked is that ISS put a bowling ball and a small marble out in Spacetime and watch the uneven distribution of mass cause a consequence that will force, .. umm not force, gravity is not a force, but umm, .. oh yeah, to mathematically fuse the three dimensions of space, and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum that will consequence the marble to orbit the bowling ball? Is this too much to ask?

How long? Oh for the next, umm, .. not millions of years, but I will be happy to se a few days of it!?

Interesting... so the flat earth isn't 8,000 miles in diameter. How small is the earth in your thousands of year old text created by desert people?

Of course not. We haven't even begun to explore our world. By having reached enough advancement in technology, this is when we could be exploring whole new worlds past the ice wall. But noooo, .. BB-Evolutionary atheists would rather make a treaty so they can claim "overpopulation" and kill the "few" people (mere 7 billion) that we do have on the Earth.

God gave us simple instructions: "Fill the Earth".
Snake-tongued NASA says: "Fill the imaginary space first"
Jesus said: "Love one another"
NASA says: "Poison one another, chem-trails, water, air .."
Jesus said: "You are the Temple of God, take care of your body"
NASA/CERN says: "Our body is poorly made, use it as a scratch pad"



Besides, you keep ignoring my simple request to NASA/ISS. I'll even provide the bowling ball and the marbles. I'll provide their whole solar system with marbles that will look just like all the paintings of their planet gods.
Matter of fact, I'll even try to find someone, like a Flat Earther who is doing another weather balloon experiment to show everyone just how flat the Earth is, and have him bring the bowling ball right to the door of their ISS! All the Astronauts have to do is; stop playing with their perms, do a few backflips to the door of the ISS, open the plastic door, .. reach out and take it!

So what do you say @Coveny? Will you help put all this Flat Earth evidences/proofs to rest, or just keep making excuses and keep clicking that "fallacy button"?

SilverishGoldNova

@Evidence Well isn't it clear by now he'll pick the second option? You know @Coveny , why not prove what I just said wrong? Address the proofs. They're all " and " right? It should be far more easy to address them than click on a Disagree or Fallacy button then hide.

Christ

Erfisflat said:

@Christ

Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway. When I say the earth is flat, I mean the entire heliocentric model is false. We've all been duped. There's nowhere else to go.

If the table was spherical too all the balls would roll of it!

It's got nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

Evidence

SilverishGoldNova said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

I'm not satisfied with modern scientism's explanation for the "universe". I've searched the internet for two years now and the only proof I've found for such is pseudoscience and other logical fallacies. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is actual curvature or axial rotation from independent, non-manipulated imagery or logic. Such from government sources and space agencies are demonstrably unreliable.

How come all the planets are round, but Earth is flat?

Because nobody was ever making that argument. What we view as space is just the firmament 

Besides, @Christ there are no "planets", those are stars, some round, some flat, some wibbly-wobbly, some wondering, some dark etc. (please look up F.E. YouTube, of actual videos of stars) or brows through Erfisflats O.P. on the subject.

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

@Christ

Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway. When I say the earth is flat, I mean the entire heliocentric model is false. We've all been duped. There's nowhere else to go.

If the table was spherical too all the balls would roll of it!

It's got nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

You are trying to make a false comparison. You, for whatever reason, assume that the tiny light in the sky is another physical terra firma, like the ground below your feet. 

Christ

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

@Christ

Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway. When I say the earth is flat, I mean the entire heliocentric model is false. We've all been duped. There's nowhere else to go.

If the table was spherical too all the balls would roll of it!

It's got nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

You are trying to make a false comparison. You, for whatever reason, assume that the tiny light in the sky is another physical terra firma, like the ground below your feet. 

Well, no, I am simply pointing out that your explanation has nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

What is an Erf anyway?

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

Christ said:

Erfisflat said:

@Christ

Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway. When I say the earth is flat, I mean the entire heliocentric model is false. We've all been duped. There's nowhere else to go.

If the table was spherical too all the balls would roll of it!

It's got nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

You are trying to make a false comparison. You, for whatever reason, assume that the tiny light in the sky is another physical terra firma, like the ground below your feet. 

Well, no, I am simply pointing out that your explanation has nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

What is an Erf anyway?

I am simply pointing out that the shapes of lights in the sky have nothing to do with the shape if the earth. I really can't put it any simpler.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

@Coveny
"You can see the oblonging effect in the video so there is evidence of this, so this isn't pseudoscience."

The claim you made specifically, stop dodging the question and building strawmen. The "oblong effect" was between the magnets, your claim is that 
"...had he put the magnet in the water, and positioned the second magnet you would notice a mirrored effect on the other side, but the glass prevents this."

You are begging the question, literally dodging the main point that would prove your claim. You can't possibly be this fallacious. Perform the experiment to provide the evidence for your claim if you can find it being performed. Or will I have to do it for you? At least you finally concede that it's pseudoscientific with: "I will give you there is an assumption that the glass prevents the distortion"

Thank you, finally you've conceded the main argument. I'm screenshotting this and framing it.

I'm not begging the question because you can see the oblong effect on one side. There is no assumption of proof, that oblong is proof. The only assumption being made is that if the glass were not in the way it would affect the other sides form as well, which I feel like is a valid assumption, and you haven't refuted that assumption you've simply wrongly accused me of fallacies. I have proven the oblong effect. period. end statement. Logically the side of the glass prevents the ferrofluid from taking the shape it desires. period. End statement. You may disagree with the assumption that the oblong effect would continue if the glass wasn't in the way, but that doesn't make my proof begging the question. I will however admit it's not a full proof, or the best proof that could be made. The video was not created to show the balling properties of liquids around an object that it's attracted to. I have NOT conceded my "main argument", I have conceded that my assumption is an assumptions. You have not disproved this assumption, and I have presented evidence to back up my claim. (even if it's not great evidence) 

Coveny

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

Coveny said:

@Evidence sadly I don't have the ability to use an 8,000 mile in diameter object for my examples. As for everything working regardless of the scale, please prove that claim. I'd like to see you start with ants ability to support 5,000 times their body weight, and apply it to other larger creatures. Because does size matter. 

@Coveny neither does NASA have an 8,000 mile diameter object for their example, OK!? All I asked is that ISS put a bowling ball and a small marble out in Spacetime and watch the uneven distribution of mass cause a consequence that will force, .. umm not force, gravity is not a force, but umm, .. oh yeah, to mathematically fuse the three dimensions of space, and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum that will consequence the marble to orbit the bowling ball? Is this too much to ask?

How long? Oh for the next, umm, .. not millions of years, but I will be happy to se a few days of it!?

Interesting... so the flat earth isn't 8,000 miles in diameter. How small is the earth in your thousands of year old text created by desert people?

Of course not. We haven't even begun to explore our world. By having reached enough advancement in technology, this is when we could be exploring whole new worlds past the ice wall. But noooo, .. BB-Evolutionary atheists would rather make a treaty so they can claim "overpopulation" and kill the "few" people (mere 7 billion) that we do have on the Earth.

God gave us simple instructions: "Fill the Earth".
Snake-tongued NASA says: "Fill the imaginary space first"
Jesus said: "Love one another"
NASA says: "Poison one another, chem-trails, water, air .."
Jesus said: "You are the Temple of God, take care of your body"
NASA/CERN says: "Our body is poorly made, use it as a scratch pad"



Besides, you keep ignoring my simple request to NASA/ISS. I'll even provide the bowling ball and the marbles. I'll provide their whole solar system with marbles that will look just like all the paintings of their planet gods.
Matter of fact, I'll even try to find someone, like a Flat Earther who is doing another weather balloon experiment to show everyone just how flat the Earth is, and have him bring the bowling ball right to the door of their ISS! All the Astronauts have to do is; stop playing with their perms, do a few backflips to the door of the ISS, open the plastic door, .. reach out and take it!

So what do you say @Coveny? Will you help put all this Flat Earth evidences/proofs to rest, or just keep making excuses and keep clicking that "fallacy button"?

Your proof is "god told me" yet you ridicule people who trust science over blind faith. (such as what you have for your uncreated creator)

If there were proof for the flat earth I would help you, but there are MOUNTAINS of evidence against the flat earth and the book desert dwellers created thousands of years ago who didn't know anything. I make no excuses, and yes I will continue to click fallacy. Those don't get deleted like my posts do.

Erfisflat

@coveny
"You have not disproved this assumption, and I have presented evidence to back up my claim. (even if it's not great evidence) "

I have nothing to disprove, let alone your idiotic assumptions. You claimed that the fluid would bulge on the opposite side of the attracting magnet, this is your burden to prove. Coincidentally this is also the conclusion that you're assuming. 

Shifting the burden and assuming the conclusion.

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

Christ said: 

Well, no, I am simply pointing out that your explanation has nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

What is an Erf anyway?

I am simply pointing out that the shapes of lights in the sky have nothing to do with the shape if the earth. I really can't put it any simpler.

@Christ you have to understand that any pictures of the earth as a globe are lies to flat earthers. Even though the planets can be seen from earth with telescopes, and have colors, objects, etc that goes against what the bible says about "holes in the filament that light comes through". You could take them to Mars, and they would still deny it exists. And anything they can't explain (like no pictures of the edge, flight times, time zone, etc is a conspiracy. It's unfalsifiable because of their cognitive dissonance, but they've been ridiculed for their beliefs so much that they've turned to mocking, name calling, and just calling anyone who disagrees with them exactly what they are called like a kindergartener. (I know you are, but what am I?!?!?) You can provide no proof they will accept, no science they can't twist, and they are VERY happy trying to get others to join them in their anti-science cult.

Erfisflat

Scientific method:  noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I do not see assumption anywhere in that definition, which means you are ignorant of the scientific method. AKA a pseudoscientist.


Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Christ

Just so everyone knows what they are dealing with here, the Flat Earth movement is a religiously motivated group whose goal is to discredit science, education and rational thought.

Those most likely to fall prey to their brand of manipulation are the vulnerable people who aren't very smart or educated and therefore easy to exploit.

This also creates a pathway to people who may not be religious when they encounter the Flat Earth movement and think that it is scientific in nature.

Unfortunately many religious people see science, education and rational thought as a threat to their way of life when in reality it has brought them all of the benefits of the way of life we enjoy today.

SilverishGoldNova

Christ said:

Just so everyone knows what they are dealing with here, the Flat Earth movement is a religiously motivated group whose goal is to discredit science, education and rational thought.

Those most likely to fall prey to their brand of manipulation are the vulnerable people who aren't very smart or uneducated idiots and therefore easy to exploit.

This also creates a pathway to people who may not be religious when they encounter the Flat Earth movement and think that it is scientific in nature.

Unfortunately many religious people see science, education and rational thought as a threat to their way of life when in reality it has brought them all of the benefits of the way of life we enjoy today.

There are 4 fallacies here, do I need to make 3 more accounts to mark it as fallacy for all 4?

In my experience with globers, they atleast try but fail miserably to construct logical arguments (usually boiling down to NASA photos and the Eratosthenes experiment) and ultimately when this is refuted they turn to fallacies.

Ad hominem= Refering to flat Earthers as "uneducated idiots". It's interesting you act like you feel bad for flat Earthers for disagreeing with you then proceed to call us "uneducated idiots"
Guilty by association/Hasty Generalization= Just because some flat Earthers are religious does NOT make the flat Earth a religious movement.
Strawman= So instead of addressing ANYTHING we have said, you have instead decided to refer to the flat Earth as a movement designed to discredit "science, education, and rational thought". This is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one. This is not only a strawman of the flat Earth but also religious movements. I couldn't laugh harder when someone calls the globe "science, education and rational thought". The heliocentric globe model as a whole is based on contradictory pseudoscience. Clarify if you need an explanation.

SilverishGoldNova

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

Christ said: 

Well, no, I am simply pointing out that your explanation has nothing to do with whether or not the Erf is flat.

What is an Erf anyway?

I am simply pointing out that the shapes of lights in the sky have nothing to do with the shape if the earth. I really can't put it any simpler.

@Christ you have to understand that any pictures of the earth as a globe are lies to flat earthers. Even though the planets can be seen from earth with telescopes, and have colors, objects, etc that goes against what the bible says about "holes in the filament that light comes through". You could take them to Mars, and they would still deny it exists. And anything they can't explain (like no pictures of the edge, flight times, time zone, etc is a conspiracy. It's unfalsifiable because of their cognitive dissonance, but they've been ridiculed for their beliefs so much that they've turned to mocking, name calling, and just calling anyone who disagrees with them exactly what they are called like a kindergartener. (I know you are, but what am I?!?!?) You can provide no proof they will accept, no science they can't twist, and they are VERY happy trying to get others to join them in their anti-science cult.

"you have to understand that any pictures of the earth as a globe are lies to flat earthers" That's because they are. NASA has admitting to faking images but even then they've been debunked, and things like red bull fall, airplane windows, etc. have already been debunked

"Even though the planets can be seen from earth with telescopes, and have colors, objects, etc that goes against what the bible says about "holes in the filament that light comes through" Perhaps you've never looked through a telescope before?

"You could take them to Mars, and they would still deny it exists" My only hope of being a heliocentric glober again is for you to show me the globe in person. Take me. Up high.

"And anything they can't explain (like no pictures of the edge, flight times, time zone, etc is a conspiracy" Yes, well we've explained on multiple occassions the "pictures of the edge of the Earth" (there is no "edge of the flat Earth) "time zones" (I showed that circle timezones work, but you keep ignoring that) "flight times" (we showed why they make more sense on a flat Earth), etc, but you don't like that it's irrefutable, so you just want to pretend it never happened.

"It's unfalsifiable because of their cognitive dissonance, but they've been ridiculed for their beliefs so much that they've turned to mocking, name calling, and just calling anyone who disagrees with them exactly what they are called like a kindergartener" I would say the person who has ridiculed us the most is you. You spent half of this debate insulting us, and lecturing us on how we were "crying" for calling you out, and then tried to blame me and Erfisflat for the insults. And when I said you were most likely a t roll, you got very, very emotional.

"You can provide no proof they will accept, no science they can't twist, and they are VERY happy trying to get others to join them in their anti-science cult."- The reason we won't accept the proof is because most of the "proof" we've been given is just so easy to refute. 

@Coveny If you spend your time needlessly flagging every opposing opinion as spam or fallacy, and then insult them, and then trying to deflect it, you won't get anywhere. Why are you on a debate website again? 

SilverishGoldNova

@Coveny So you just decided to take everything and replace it with "flat Earth" and "perspective"

Very persuasive...

"Guilty by association/Hasty Generalization= You don't know if I've looked through a telescope" Explain how EITHER of these are association fallacies. Also, which ad hom is worse? Calling someone "" and "retarded" then crying a river of crocodile tears OR calling the person who is most likely a t roll a t roll?
 
This is the only thing you've significantly changed.

Evidence

Wake said:

The reason that the oceans have a high tide twice a day is because of a standing wave that is set up by the moon pulling the moon-side of the oceans over. The Earth rotates while the moon orbits much slower.

The Earth like all other masses above a certain weight (and hence strength of gravity) was pulled into a ball by two forces - initially the gravity. But then the compression of the mass caused core to melt and the surface tension of the core caused it to form into a ball. In fact we can see these things occurring with the small moons of the various planets today.

The interior of the sun is something in the neighborhood of 27 million degrees Kelvin. This causes the sun to be almost a perfect black body emitter so the outer layers of the sun exude heat in vast quantities and cool it to 5,778 degrees Kelvin. The nuclear forces cannot generate sufficient heat to keep the emissions in check.

Likewise at one time when compressing into a ball the entire Earth was pretty molten but over time emitted heat off until while the inner core temperature of the Earth is 6,300 degrees Kelvin and almost entirely iron the other much lighter elements flowed to the top as it cooled to a mean global temperature of about 290 degrees Kelvin.

The basics of these things are pretty easy to understand if you aren't a flat-earther (corrected because wrong term) believing the the Earth is the center of the universe.

Thank you @Wake ;you said: - the bunching up of liquids in zero g conditions only occurs to those liquids with sufficient surface tension. Water does have this. Virtually all liquids have surface tension that I'm aware of but alcohols and such have low enough values that they tend to break up into small bubble-like formations instead of staying in one large mass in zero g conditions.

Yes I see, thanks. We can also see this by putting a drop of water on the table, vs. alcohol. The thing is, can you show me how quantum dust particles would bunch up like that into a ball in Zero-G?

Wake - The Earth like all other masses above a certain weight (and hence strength of gravity) was pulled into a ball by two forces - initially the gravity. But then the compression of the mass caused core to melt and the surface tension of the core caused it to form into a ball. In fact we can see these things occurring with the small moons of the various planets today.

Oh yes, .. I can see how those moons on those various planets are forming with my 10" Celestron, .. truly amazing. The "compression" is also phenomenal, especially knowing that gravity is not a force!
So how did "gravity" pull those quantum gas particles into a ball so tight that it created molten lava, .. all while "expanding the vacuum of Spacetime" after the Big-Bang?? I tell you, I sure would like to get my hands on a jarful of gravity! Maybe the perm-lady on the ISS can reach out and collect some in a jar for me?

Wake - The interior of the sun is something in the neighborhood of 27 million degrees Kelvin. This causes the sun to be almost a perfect black body emitter so the outer layers of the sun exude heat in vast quantities and cool it to 5,778 degrees Kelvin. The nuclear forces cannot generate sufficient heat to keep the emissions in check.

Yes, I guess we can even see into the core of the sun (YouTube Flat Earth videos), but get an accurate temperature reading of 27 million Kelvin?? Oh well, I guess that Jesuit  LUCIFER telescope here on Mt. Graham would know all about Heat-Fire-hell, right? And the nuclear forces cannot generate sufficient heat, .. you mean 27 million degrees Kelvin is not hot enough? Just add more gravity, .. whic seems to be the answer to everything in the universe! I still want that jar of gravity before they close shop on the ISS

Wake - Likewise at one time when compressing into a ball the entire Earth was pretty molten but over time emitted heat off until while the inner core temperature of the Earth is 6,300 degrees Kelvin and almost entirely iron the other much lighter elements flowed to the top as it cooled to a mean global temperature of about 290 degrees Kelvin.
The basics of these things are pretty easy to understand if you aren't a flat-earther (corrected because wrong term) believing the the Earth is the center of the universe

OK, so let me picture this? Space right now outside the ISS is - 2.7 Kelvin and a vacuum. The average temperature of Earth surface is 16 C. The Earth is loosing heat through radiation (like the sun is) yet after 4.2 billion years (since the Earth reached this ideal temperature to sustain life) it has not frozen? Core of the earth is as real as the pictures of your planets billions of light years away. Please, ..

Evidence

@Coveny said:  Your proof is "god told me" yet you ridicule people who trust science over blind faith. (such as what you have for your uncreated creator)

If there were proof for the flat earth I would help you, but there are MOUNTAINS of evidence against the flat earth and the book desert dwellers created thousands of years ago who didn't know anything. I make no excuses, and yes I will continue to click fallacy. Those don't get deleted like my posts do.

God told me?
OK Coveny, show me one, .. that's right just ONE thing from the MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence against the flat Earth, .. just ONE, .. without referring to:  "Einstein told me, the 70's answering machine named Stephen Hawking's told me, Lawrence Krauss told me, the Priest George Lemaitre told me, Maxwell, Hubble, the 'Perm' , the back flipping astronaut from the ISS told me etc." .. and remember it has to be scientific evidence against the flat Earth!

Let's hear it?

Wait, .. whose deleting Coveny's posts?

Evidence

@Coveny said
@Christ you have to understand that any pictures of the earth as a globe are lies to flat earthers. Even though the planets can be seen from earth with telescopes, and have colors, objects, etc that goes against what the bible says about "holes in the filament that light comes through". You could take them to Mars, and they would still deny it exists.



Yes, that too "Christ"! NASA will take you to Mars even if they have to build a $2.3 million dollar school bus to get you there! No expense spared when it comes to their deception, it's not just the fake photos, cartoon films, Inflatable Space shuttles, but threats, murders, government takeovers, there is no limit to their deception, and no line they wouldn't cross. Please watch this film?

Erfisflat

I was going to respond to some of the ignorant posts last night but quite a few got deleted. 

Coveny

Evidence said:

@Coveny said:  Your proof is "god told me" yet you ridicule people who trust science over blind faith. (such as what you have for your uncreated creator)

If there were proof for the flat earth I would help you, but there are MOUNTAINS of evidence against the flat earth and the book desert dwellers created thousands of years ago who didn't know anything. I make no excuses, and yes I will continue to click fallacy. Those don't get deleted like my posts do.

God told me?
OK Coveny, show me one, .. that's right just ONE thing from the MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence against the flat Earth, .. just ONE, .. without referring to:  "Einstein told me, the 70's answering machine named Stephen Hawking's told me, Lawrence Krauss told me, the Priest George Lemaitre told me, Maxwell, Hubble, the 'Perm' , the back flipping astronaut from the ISS told me etc." .. and remember it has to be scientific evidence against the flat Earth!

Let's hear it?

Wait, .. whose deleting Coveny's posts?

Yes god told you, or do you now recant, and say that you believe what is written in the bible to be the inventions of man?

Evidence:
Flights times over antarctica only work if the world is a globe (or prove that only those commercial flights are going mach 2)
The line that goes from the north to south pole only works on a globe (or prove how the circle of light creates a line from the north to south poles)
The height of the sun in the sky only works on a globe (or you'll need to explain how it is that it doubles the speed of its circle rotation in winter, and cuts it in half in summer with such precision)
We can't see the back of the moon (or eclipses)
The stars are flipped in the other hemisphere (and don't tell me it's because of perspective magic)
etc

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Evidence said:

@Coveny said:  Your proof is "god told me" yet you ridicule people who trust science over blind faith. (such as what you have for your uncreated creator)

If there were proof for the flat earth I would help you, but there are MOUNTAINS of evidence against the flat earth and the book desert dwellers created thousands of years ago who didn't know anything. I make no excuses, and yes I will continue to click fallacy. Those don't get deleted like my posts do.

God told me?
OK Coveny, show me one, .. that's right just ONE thing from the MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence against the flat Earth, .. just ONE, .. without referring to:  "Einstein told me, the 70's answering machine named Stephen Hawking's told me, Lawrence Krauss told me, the Priest George Lemaitre told me, Maxwell, Hubble, the 'Perm' , the back flipping astronaut from the ISS told me etc." .. and remember it has to be scientific evidence against the flat Earth!

Let's hear it?

Wait, .. whose deleting Coveny's posts?

Yes god told you, or do you now recant, and say that you believe what is written in the bible to be the inventions of man?

Evidence:
Flights times over antarctica only work if the world is a globe (or prove that only those commercial flights are going mach 2)
The line that goes from the north to south pole only works on a globe (or prove how the circle of light creates a line from the north to south poles)
The height of the sun in the sky only works on a globe (or you'll need to explain how it is that it doubles the speed of its circle rotation in winter, and cuts it in half in summer with such precision)
We can't see the back of the moon (or eclipses)
The stars are flipped in the other hemisphere (and don't tell me it's because of perspective magic)
etc

"Mountains"??? Looks like you're licking the bottom of the bowl on this. None of these actually prove curvature or axial rotation. Look I've explained all of these strawmen to you, it's not my fault you can't understand simple concepts like perspective and refraction.

Erfisflat

Christ said:

Just so everyone knows what they are dealing with here, the Flat Earth movement is a religiously motivated group whose goal is to discredit science, education and rational thought.

Those most likely to fall prey to their brand of manipulation are the vulnerable people who aren't very smart or uneducated idiots and therefore easy to exploit.

This also creates a pathway to people who may not be religious when they encounter the Flat Earth movement and think that it is scientific in nature.

Unfortunately many religious people see science, education and rational thought as a threat to their way of life when in reality it has brought them all of the benefits of the way of life we enjoy today.

Enough talk, more evidence. You think it's a religious movement? You think we're idiots? Show me some evidence.