frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Evolution?

135



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Erfisflat

    "Lucy and Taung child"

    Making up things and then cititng really weak and biased sources is not how things work. Give me an authentic peer-reveiwed journal that says they have been discovered to be hoaxes. Something like the BBC would be reliable not some christian in his basement with interent who decided to make a website, make clams and not even cite sources and references. Even if it is an extinct type of primate, then that is the whole point of evolution that primates evolved into different forms like Lucy over millions of years and finally reaching humans.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141127-lucy-fossil-revealed-our-origins#sthash.bAoptaKx.dpuf


    Could you provide me with the flat earth model including the orbits of the sun and the moon? Both orbits have to be present?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    "Murder and killing"

    Still both are not justified in western secular societies but they are present in the bible meaning that morality is not objective and that the bible is primitive and barbaric.

    "Pick and choose"

    So there is a contradiction because different passages have different implications on the ot.

    "slavery"

    We are talking about the ephesian letter in the first century not the 6th century ad. The ephesian letter condoned the slavery in the first century which was kidnapees (stealing), children and prisoners of war. Later the church realized they messed up and they advocated to give the slaves some rights 500 years later.


    "Beating your wives"

    That verse is in deutronomy. first timothy says they should submit and have no authority over men which still implies inferiority.

    "Silence"

    The same verse says they are not to talk or speak at all in church not even to ask anything. This does not even fit your justification.

    1 Corinthians 14:34 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."  

    Notice how paul appeals to the law.


    "Conceding the rest"

    That's understandable.

    But I want to know the evidence you have for god or creationism or that the bible is true. What evidence do you have for any of those things?


    @SuperSith89
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Erfisflat

    "Transitional fossils"

    Research these and compare them to ape skulls and human skulls


    AL 288-1
    AL 444-2
    TM 266 (Toumai)
    ardi
    DIK-1 (Selam)
    KNM-WT 40000 (Flat Faced Man)
    AL 444-2
    Taung 1
    BOU-VP-12/130
    STS 5 (Mrs. Ples)
    MH1 (Karabo)
    KNM ER 1813
    KNM ER 1470
    OH 5
    D2700 (Dmanisi Skull 3)
    DNH 7 (Eurydice)
    Sangiran 17
    Bodo

    Just a few, I dont want to overwhelm you.

    You must have a lot of empirical evidence for christianity since the tons of fossils we have do not satisfy you. Mind sharing the evidence?
    Erfisflat
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  You really have an excuse for everything I say and argue with these strawmen fallacies in my arguments.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    A peer reviewed article in a scientific magazine based on a 15 year study by evolutionists  is far from "some christian in his basement with interent who decided to make a website, make clams and not even cite sources and references."

    As far as a flat earth model, I don't subscribe to one in full, but this is a rough guesstimate:



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

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Of your three links, 2 of them seem to fit m_abusteit's definition.

    The third link, the only one you are now defending, accepts that evolution occurs. If you believe Zuckerman's logic, evidence and arguments are correct and that the Lucy and Tuang Child fossils aren't direct human ancestors then you still believe in evolution and still believe that humans descended from apes. The entire premise on which Zuckerman criticises the theory of Australopithecus fossils being human descendents is from an evolutionary perspective which still accepts humans descending from lesser forms of ape.

    All you've done is traded one form of evolution for another practically identical form of evolution except with one minor detail changed.

    If you don't believe evolution is real then you cannot accept Zuckerman's criticisms because his arguments rely on evolution being correct. This is a case of you either not reading your own sources, in which case it shows you don't look at the evidence and are arguing an ideological position regardless of the proof, or it shows a lack of critical reasoning which is essential for considering when viewpoints are valid.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Wrong, all three articles point to the same article based on a 15 year study from a biased (evolutionist) source that states clearly that Australopithecus is just a monkey that went extinct. Your appeal to the stone fallacy is duly noted.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    "Transitional fossils"

    Research these and compare them to ape skulls and human skulls


    AL 288-1
    AL 444-2
    TM 266 (Toumai)
    ardi
    DIK-1 (Selam)
    KNM-WT 40000 (Flat Faced Man)
    AL 444-2
    Taung 1
    BOU-VP-12/130
    STS 5 (Mrs. Ples)
    MH1 (Karabo)
    KNM ER 1813
    KNM ER 1470
    OH 5
    D2700 (Dmanisi Skull 3)
    DNH 7 (Eurydice)
    Sangiran 17
    Peking Man
    Bodo

    Just a few, I dont want to overwhelm you.

    You must have a lot of empirical evidence for christianity since the tons of fossils we have do not satisfy you. Mind sharing the evidence?
    This is a moving the goalposts fallacy. When your claim was refuted, instead of recognizing that, you inserted even more hoaxes to defend your position. 

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

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Erfisflat

    Did you bother to read your sources?

    Zuckerman - the author behind the source quoted - used evolutionary logic to construct an argument that evolution occurs pretty much exactly as per the norm in the evolutionary model - with the exception he thinks that humans evolved from a line of apes which didn't include Australopithecus, Australopithecus being a separate off-shoot which would have had a common ancestor with humans.

    If you believe his argument - which you must do because you have cited it as credible - then you believe in evolution, just a slightly different version from the norm. If you don't believe in evolution, how can you cite his work seeing as it relies on evolution being true for his points to make sense and his logic and evidence to work?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I did, and I've learned to read between the lines enough to dismiss evolutionary assumptions. The very clear statement is conclusive enough to dismiss any claims about Lucy being my ape-brained grandmother : "The fact Australopithecus can no longer be regarded as the ancestor of human beings "
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Erfisflat

    That's fine. If you feel strongly enough about the Lucy fossils that you are willing to concede the entire debate on whether evolution is real and accept evolution as fact, that's your prerogative to do so and it is exactly what you have done by accepting Zuckerman's arguments and research as correct.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Erfisflat    Can you please stop making things up without evidence. You said that every single transitioanl fossil you looked into was a hoax or was completly ape or man. You have not provided any evidence to show that they are hoaxes and you have merely made a weak claim with no evidence. You have not even provided the names for those transitional fossils that you have apparently studied. and now when I give you a list with authentic fossils, all you can do because you obviously can not prove them wrong nor prove that they are not transitional is to just make a weak general claim that they are all hoaxes without providing any evidence as to why they are hoaxes. If claims without evidence are proof then I claim that god does not exist and i dont need to provide evidence and I can claim that fairies exist without needing to provide evidence. You need to provide solid evidence that those fossils are hoaxes.

    "Flat earth" 

    Flaws with this ridicolous model

    - The sun is much bigger than the earth much much bigger. Evidence in sources

    https://www.universetoday.com/65583/is-the-earth-bigger-than-the-sun/

    https://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html


    - Heat of the sun

    If the sun was this close we would all die from the extreme heat. 

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/how-close-could-person-get-sun-and-survive

    https://www.inverse.com/article/25572-distance-sun-death-space-travel-passengers

    - Day and night

    The moon being there does not really mean night. With this flawed model where the sun is always in a circle over the flat earth, then the sunlight should be hitting all areas of earth meaning it would be day always everywhere. The sun does not just emit sunlight to the are right beneath it. If the sun is right above the earth in a circle, Every part of the earth should be in day all the time and can never have night. another problem is it means that all the areas should have the same day all the time which would contradict time zones.

    - Seasons

    How does this explain seasons? This would contradict the seasons we observe because the sun is moving in the same circuit which would mean every region should be having the same insolation meaning we should be experienceing the exact same weather everywhere. Even if the sun moves from time to time which is illogical that would only explain two seasons (summer and winter) what happened to the other two seasons ? how would we even get to experience fall and spring in this model buddy if only two seaosns exist?

    - Lunar and solar eclipses 

    How would the moon get between the earth and the sun if they are both in the same circuit on the same level  during the solar eclipse? 

    The harder one to explain is this how would the gigantic flat earth get between the sun and the moon during the lunar eclipse which could last up to several hours so that the earth can cast a shadow on the moon? During those several hours either the moon would be on the bottom, earth in the middle and the sun on top of the earth which is illogical because humanity has never had several hours of straight sunlight / day everywhere on earht or the moon would be on top, earth in the middle and sun on the bottom but then this is also illogical because humanity has never had several of no sunlight / night everywhere on earth. Keep in mind that lunar eclipse is a very common phenomenon that happens multiple times every year. Sometimes, thrice a month.

    http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-solar-or-lunar-eclipses-in-one-calendar-year

    http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/LEprimer.html

    http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/dates-of-next-lunar-and-solar-eclipses

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/128-our-solar-system/the-sun/solar-eclipses/778-how-long-does-a-solar-eclipse-last-beginner

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/143-why-is-the-shadow-on-the-moon-the-shape-it-is-beginner

    https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html

    If they were all on the same level with the sun to the left, earth in the middle and the moon on the right. This would be illogical because it does not follow the orbits presented and since the shadow casted on the moon by the earth during lunar eclipse is always round. If they were all on the same level then the shadow would be a horizontal line across the moon which has never happened.


    - Sun and moon right by each other

    Why is it that no human has ever observed the sun and moon right by each other like in this diagram? Why cant we ourselves observe the sun and the moon right beside each other like in this diagram?

    - Whats on the bottom and the edge of the earth ?

    - pan am flight 50 

    How would this flight happen where it goes north pole, pacific pole, south pole then south africa in a relatively short time.

    - Flights over antartica.  

    Qantas flight QF0027 (Sydney SYD - Santiago SCL)


    The most widely accepted outer circumference of the earth among flat earthers is roughly 78,000 miles. Using the standard flat earth projection , and following the south polar route taken by Qantas flight QF0027 (Sydney SYD - Santiago SCL), the approximate arc would be roughly 48,000 km (as opposed to the roughly 11,265 miles it would take following a spherical projection crossing around 62 degrees S). The 747-400 (the plane which Qantas uses to operate this route) has a range of 13,450 km with the ER variant extending this to about 14,400 km, less than one third the range required to fly the route based on the flat earth projection. No passenger plane currently in service could make such a flight non-stop. Note that on a flat earth projection, the shortest route from Sydney to Santiago would be to travel north over Brisbane, crossing the US west coast, South through Mexico and then on to Chile. Obviously that's not the route that Qantas follow.

    -In 1955 - 58, the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition completed an overland crossing of Antarctica via the south pole.

    How can you map the antartica and go over it without falling off the edge of the flat earth?


    -General relatively 

    This model makes no regard for general relativity, For the sun to be orbiting the earth right above it rather than to following an robit around it would have to mean that there is a huge fixed object with more mass than earth in the north pole for the sun to orbit that object rather than the earth but that object does not exist nor can be observed. The bigger problem is that this invisible object would have to change places and mass and density from time to time to allow the sun's orbit to change and fluctuate in size.

    evidence in source 

    https://www.quora.com/Flat-Earth-Do-short-direct-flights-from-Chile-to-Australia-debunk-the-theory

    - other planets 

    why are other planets not flat but why are they round like mars when wes ent the curiosity rover? What are other planets orbiting? are other planets orbiting a different star? Where are the other planets?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I dont think you know what gish gallop means. Gish gallops means a series of weak plethora of arguments with no evidence. I provided evidence and sources for almost every single one. I only provided ten pieces of evidence against your model from the sea of evidence against your model which were all strong and threatening to your model. Why is your debating style like this? You never provide evidence nor references, you use lots of memes and you never address the evidence and arguments made against your claims.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    "and now when I give you a list with authentic fossils"

    Are you positive? Because the first two on your list are "Lucy" and her Australopithecus buddy, both refuted just a few posts ago. This gives me some insight to your fast-paced research. You are a follower. You were taught what to think, not how to think. 

    I'm working on a rebuttal to your copy/paste list, most of the information is in my previous post. 

    You'll also find each of your spherical earth proofs adequately refuted in my "the earth is flat" debate. If you're suggesting that I revisit these claims, I'll have to respectfully decline and defer you to that debate on the grounds that, while flat earth takes a steamy dump on evolution and big bangism, it is ultimately off topic in an evolution debate. 
    AlwaysCorrectm_abusteit
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    Eh, when someone concedes their point and is forced to resort to image macros I'd just walk away and chalk it up as a win.
    ErfisflatPowerPikachu21
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Whatever helps you sleep at night.  B)
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    If you insist on derailing your own debate, I can copy and paste the rebuttals to your already proven gish gallop here, but it would take much time. Anyone who's actually read the debate can attest to this, with over 2.6 thousand views nobody has proved the ball earth yet, and from the looks of your gish gallop, I don't think you'll have a chance either. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    "Because the first two on your list are "Lucy" and her Australopithecus buddy, both refuted just a few posts ago"

    Not really you just said they are a hoax and you provided no evidence. Making claims is easy.

    "copy/paste list"

    not really, where is the source I copied from? again claims are easy.

    "adeuately refuted"

     :D  :D   That alone was funnier than all the lame memes you post.

  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @AlwaysCorrect  

    I will probably just do that because I dont think his rebuttal is going to be of any essence. I will probs only respond if it is worth it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Not really you just said they are a hoax and you provided no evidence. Making claims is easy."

    If that's the case, that's all you're doing here. The claim was sufficiently sourced three times including a reputable,  peer reviewed scientific magazine. If all you have is "nuh-uhs" "but, but, muh science book!'s" and intellectual dishonesty, I see no rational reason to continue this discussion. My ten year old has a better argument than this. I'll copy and paste my rebuttals to your spherical earth gish gallop soon.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    If you do end up continuing to bang your head against this wall, his latest post is a great example of what I was talking about. The claim he's referencing in his three sources is the work of Solly Zuckerman.

    Erfisflat has stated he agrees with Zuckerman's reasoning and presented it multiple times as proof. The problem for Erfisflat is that Zuckerman's argument is based on evolution being real, it just doesn't think Lucy is a human ancestor.

    So by citing this source and relying on it, he's already shot himself in this foot and lost the entire debate. Feel free to keep on hammering him with it as there's no real defence he can put up against it, he'll just keep on trying to change the subject or refuse to engage like he did with me.
    PowerPikachu21
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect

    "refuse to engage like he did with me."

    Similar to when I asked you twice what the shape of the earth was, and received no response yet? I addressed your assertion and explained that you were grasping at straws.

     Zuckerman, like yourself and your buddy here are under the assumption that evolution, big bangism and the pseudoscience that backs it is infallible. You aren't foolish enough to think Zuckerman would've wrote anything that would've cost their careers, do you?

     The point was that the poor research that went into the claim "Lucy is my ape brained granny" is refuted, and this is only the first claim of evolution that I've addressed, yet. 

    I'm not sure your buddy here will understand this, but flat earth is irrefutable, if you have any common sense and haven't lost your critical thinking, that's probably why you are avoiding it like the plague. Evolution is a byproduct of heliocentrism. Debating evolution is just appeals to authority and popularity fallacies. Flat earth is empirically verifiable. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  Why is it the scientific community puts so much faith in a 40% complete skeleton with a knee that was found in an opposite location.  And it also hinges on the fact that the hip is twisted and it used to walk straight while the other hip is in fact missing and thus unable to be based off of.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    You do not know what faith means. Faith is what christians do because they have no evidence for their god. Scientists look at partial skeletons with full features like femurs and pelvis and they compare it towith apes an dhumans and they find a mixture of similarities like a tall tailbone of primates and an intermediate size between apes and humans and other charactersitics of humans like a peripindicular insertion of the spine for a semi - upright posture expected to be found in an intermediate link. also the femur and pelvis and the entire partial skeleton indicates a bipedal locomotion.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    Sun’s size


    State's that evidence is in the source, couldn't be further from the truth. Sources only give mainstream measurements of heliocentrism’s claims for sun’s size, no verifiable evidence to be found. Appeal to authority/popularity fallacy. Nothing verifiable here that proves axial rotation or curvature, moving on.


    Heat of the sun


    Same as above. If opponent had gotten close enough to the sun to the sun to measure it's tempurature, it would be verifiable. Another appeal to authority/popularity fallacy. Basically his argument is, but, but, muh science book! The same science book that claims the earth is a spinning ball hurtling around an infinite vacuum, imagine that. Nothing verifiable here either, moving on.


    Day and night


    “the sunlight should be hitting all areas of earth meaning it would be day always”


    A small close sun produces the results we see as far as day and night. Light does not travel infinitely far, as demonstrated here, 


    not even taking into account the effects of refraction.


    Seasons


    The sun does not travel on the same circuit in the flat earth model as my opponent claims with this strawman. The sun is on a tighter circuit around the pole in our summer, and moves to a larger circuit during our winter.


     This is evidenced by the sun analemma.


    Sun and moon right by each other


    Another red herring, proving neither curvature or axial rotation, the sun and moon get close to each other in both models. Many accounts are on record of a full moon being visible during the day.

    Whats on the bottom and the edge of the earth ?


    We've only dug about 8 miles deep. So I can't speculate how "thick" the earth is, or what is on the underside of it.


    pan am flight 50


    I've not taken this flight nor has my opponent. The likelihood of this flight ever taking place as it was claimed is about as low as finding some curved water. Another appeal to authority fallacy.


    Flights over Antarctica


    If this flight was verified and widely available, it doesn't refute flat earth, only the map used by some flat earthers. Does not even claim to go over Antarctica as he falsely stated.


    Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition


    Another unverifiable event claimed to have happened over a half century ago.


    “How can you map the antartica and go over it without falling off the edge of the flat earth?”


    Obviously we aren't seeing the map’s actual representation of Antarctica. Please elaborate. Who said anything about an edge? Another appeal to authority strawman.



    General relatively

    An unproven theory entirely dependent on a spherical earth.



    Eclipses


    Scientism claim: A lunar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly behind the Earth into its umbra. This can occur only when the sun, Earth, and moon are aligned exactly, or very closely so, with the Earth in the middle.


    While this would indeed suggest a spherical earth,it turns out to be another red herring. First, this quote for Samuel Rowbotham:
    " that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

    Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? "

    One such occurrence of this phenomenon, since labelled a selenelion was recorded, and can be reviewed here:



    This completely refutes this "evidence" for a spherical earth, if you have some common sense and knowledge of basic geometry.

    Planets

    yet another logical fallacy. 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.
    ImbsterAlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    If you gave it a little thought, you'd see it's logically impossible for you to have refuted the argument for evolution.

    You have based your 'refuting' on a single study which you have said you supported multiple times and have praised for being a peer reviewed scientific article.

    The study explains draws on evolutionary evidence, sources and logic to explain how man evolved from a different line of apes than Austalopithecus, although they would have shared a common ancestor. Therefore if his study and research - which you yourself have touted is right - is correct, then it shows that evolution is real.

    On the other hand, If you believe that the study and it's details and evidence are incorrect and evolution is not real then it in no way supports your argument. You seem to have a very childlike grasp of why scientific studies matter and think "Wow big science man say X is wrong" is the only takeaway. That's not how it works. Scientific studies are believable because they show evidence for their claims and slowly use this evidence to build up a comprehensive argument for how any why something works. If you're saying all the evidence Zuckerman presented was wrong, then his conclusion does nothing to support you because it was the evidence you've just denied which gave the conclusion any weight.

    If you think the conclusion is right for totally different non-evolutionary reasons than the one Zuckerman laid out, the onus is on you to present the how and why of it because it's sure not anything in Zuckerman's study. You need to apply at least a little bit of critical thinking rather than sheepishly agreeing with something that is completely unevidenced just because it fits into your preconceived beliefs.
    ErfisflatPowerPikachu21
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  Apes walk semi upright today too.  Doesn't prove it still.  And even with the pelvis and felmur, apes are the closest thing to humans so of course they may have similar bones.  God may have done that on purpose.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
     @AlwaysCorrect

    That's the point you're missing, or dodging rather. I don't give two sh!ts about Zuckerman, or the study. That is where you put your faith, in the words of men. It's no different than accepting what is said by priests.

     I know it's (evolution) all bullsh!t because I have personally measured the earth, and it's waters, and found that it is NOT a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

    I have personally recorded stars, and they are NOT Brazilians of miles away. This, I have verified empirically. I don't need Google to tell me what to think.

     I now know that evolution, which stems from heliocentrism and big bangism, is a big 500 year old pile of horse sh!t, and no Wikipedia article or arrogant fool parroting them is going to convince me otherwise.


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

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Furthermore, if you're going to mark my post above as fallacious, you could at least give your reason, or even respond to it. At this point, your continued silence on the matter speaks volumes...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

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

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

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

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Incorrect. Your claims you "don't give two sh!ts about Zuckerman, or the study" are obviously wrong when you have cited his work multiple times and talked about how reliable it was being a peer reviewed scientific study, e.g.:

    Erfisflat said:
     Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines along with a team of five specialists coming to the conclusion that all the various specimens of Australopithecus they examined were only an ordinary ape genus and definitely not bipedal. 
    This need to backtrack and try to deny your own arguments is a clear sign that you know you have been caught out and have already logically conceded the entire argument.

    Feel free to make all the unevidenced claims you want about having measured the earth or the stars or how your uncle totally works at Nintendo and has told you everything about the next Mario, it doesn't change the issue a jot.
    Erfisflat
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    "Sun's size"

    The second one was showing why the heliocentric spherical earth measurements make sense? 

    The biggest evidence we have that the sun is very big are Galileo's calculations on sun spots

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002JBAA..112..353M

     and also using angular properties of solar eclipses and lunar eclipses.

    This source is kind of neat and much simpler than any explanation i will provide.

    https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/nasa/measuringuniverse/measure-the-solarsystem/a/size-of-the-sun

    "heat and distance"

    Could not be explained any better than in this sources. actually read them, they are very informative and states that the sun is very far away and it proves that if the sun moved any closer we will burn.

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate

    https://www.universetoday.com/117843/how-did-we-find-the-distance-to-the-sun/

    I have already provided sources above that if the sun was closer we would die.

    Funny how I am the one who is providing evidence.

    "Day and night" 

    Unrealistically close light bulb. The distance between the earth and the sun in the flat earth model is 3,000 miles [1] above the earth not a few inches difference in distance.
    1. Eric Dubay, The Flat–Earth Conspiracy (printed by author, 2014), 87–88.

     If the sun is that high above earth and acts as a spotlight over the northern hemisphere during the summer, the entire northern hemisphere should be able to see the sun at once since the sun acts as a spotlight over the northern hemisphere during summer however, both canada and russia are in the northern hemisphere, it is  1 am here in Edmonton, Canada and there is no sun and no light and just pure night. My friend in Russia said it is 10  am in moscow, russia and the sun there is beautiful.

    Three uestions

    - If the sun is supposed to act as a spotlight and should be over the northern hemisphere during the summer providing sunlight and orbiting it in circles. Why is it that if the sun is right above me and providing sunlight / spotlight / day to the northern hemisphere  that I am experiencing night right now and my friend is experiencing sunlight / day in the exact same hemisphere the sun is providing spotlight for when the sun is 3,000 miles above us both? Why is it that I am experiencing night right now when the sun is supposed to be circling  right above me providing my area with constant spotlight/ sunlight / day but i am experiencing night and I can see no sun or spotlight.

    - according to the light bulb pic, the sun should be providing no spotlight /sunlight / day for the southern hemisphere during the sun's entire northern hemisphere orbit but that is ridolous because when it is summer in the northern hemisphere, there is still day and night in the southern hemisphere. according to your picture, the spotlight should give all its light to that region under it, however that would mean that souther hemisphere countries like australia would have no spotligh / sunlight / day during the northern hemisphere circuit but australia always has day and night even if its the northern hemisphere summertime. If the light can reach the farthest point which is australia, that would debunk the picture and mean that the light should be reach all the areas of Earth all the time providing constant day everywhere. However, it is not always day because there is night and there are differences in day everywhere because of different timezones.

    - If the sun is only orbiting and providing spotlight for the northern hemisphere during summer, then how can you logically explain that the southern hemisphere still gets sunlight / spotlight for day and night? If the sun is providing spotlight for the southern hemisphere while orbitng the northern hemispehere, there is no reason why there should be differences in day and night in the northern hemisphere like between Russia and canada because if the sun is orbiting the northern hemisphere and providing spotlight for far southern hemisphere places like australia, (to prevent total night for that region and to still establish day and night in those places since day and night happen everyday), there is no reason to think that should be differences in spotlight in northern hemisphere regions when some areas in the far souther hemisphere are still receiving spotlight which would mean there should  be no differences in sunlight/spotlight in the northern hemisphere regions like canada and russia but there are differences in day and night.

     Here the argument is weakest. Imagine you are sat on an enormous flat plate. A spotlight slowly moves around the plate illuminating the area slowly. If you look up you will be able to see the spotlight despite it not shining onto your eyes because it is always visible. This is not the case for those on planet earth, evidenced by the hidden sun during night time.

    "seasons"

    Spring and Fall have dramatically different properties to be thrown into the same circuit. Spring is much much hotter than fall which would be impossible for both to be in the same circuit.

    we know the sun's circuit does not change location because no human has ever recorded this drastic change of location of the sun in the sky. also, buildings and major towers cast the same shadow in the same place during summmer and winter which indicates no change in the location of the sun. If the sun's location changed so radically in the sky during summer and winter surely it should have been recorded or observed by someone.

    "Sun and moon" 

    being right by each other is a serious claim you have made that nobody observes. Definetly not a red herring.

    "underside"

    So we can go to mars and find other galaxies but we cant find whats on the other side of our flat pancake?

    "pan am flight 50"





    "antartica"

    http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

    This entire websitde would not be possible on a flat earth where antartica is not something you can go over.


    "expedition"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/Crossing-Antarctica-photos-of-the-195758-Commonwealth-Trans-Antarctic-Expedition/

    "general relativity" 

    general relativity is experimental

    https://frontierfields.org/2014/05/29/visual-proof-of-general-relativity/

    http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/

    "eclipses" 

    uoting others is not proof, its appeal to authority

    Your video is only possible on a spherical earth. It is impossible on a flat earth where the earth never gets between the sun and the moon. On a flat earth, the sun and the moon  should never be on the side and should always be above earth like your friend in the vid explained. On a flat earth, the sun and the moon are circling the flat earth from above and should never be to the side like your friend explained. this was only possible on a sphere earth

    http://wonderdome.co.uk/communities/3/004/011/194/063//images/4599450009.gif

    This is a partial lunar eclipse The sun casts its sunlight on a part of the moon and the entire earth and the earth casts a partial shadow on the moon. This would be impossible on the flat earth where the sun and the moon can never sandwich the earth and are always orbiting the earth from abbove. You jjust provided a video of a lunar eclipse which does not prove the flat earth nor prove eclipses can happen on flat earth
    Erfisflat
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    This debate is  going nowhere so I am probably going to  take alwayscorrect's advice and just stop banging my head against a wall. I am done here, this debate is not fruitful.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Anyone with $50  can measure the earth! I'm not even telling you to take my word on it! Be your own scientist! Do you know how much water should curve away at 10 miles distance?  
    AlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    This debate is  going nowhere so I am probably going to  take alwayscorrect's advice and just stop banging my head against a wall. I am done here, this debate is not fruitful.
    i predicted you wouldn't understand. I'll just take that as a concession then.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017


    @m_abusteit

    Sun's size"

    “The second one was showing why the heliocentric spherical earth measurements make sense? “

    Maybe you can explain it, in detail. An internet page that just agrees with anything you say isn't evidence. If that were the case, i wouldn't be here.


    “The biggest evidence we have that the sun is very big are Galileo's calculations on sun spots”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002JBAA..112..353M


    It seems this is just a means of measuring sunspots using a false axiom. Like the assumed size of the sun… maybe you can elaborate for me if i misunderstood it.

    “and also using angular properties of solar eclipses and lunar eclipses.”


    Please elaborate. This is not evidence by any means. “it's easy to make a claim.” if your evidence is just “science says so” I can see why you believe in evolution.

    “This source is kind of neat and much simpler than any explanation i will provide.”

    https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/nasa/measuringuniverse/measure-the-solarsystem/a/size-of-the-sun


    Quote from your source:

    “distance to sun / distance to moon = sun diameter / moon diameter
    We’ve already determined these values so we can simply plug them in!
    149 600 000 / 384 400 = sun diameter / 3474
    sun diameter = 1 352 004 km”


    What in the Sam hill.

    You can't be serious. False axiom/ false axiom = false axiom / false axiom? Well done, you've proved the sun’s size by assuming it's (and the moon's) distance!


    "heat and distance"

    “Could not be explained any better than in this sources. actually read them, they are very informative and states that the sun is very far away and it proves that if the sun moved any closer we will burn.”

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate

    https://www.universetoday.com/117843/how-did-we-find-the-distance-to-the-sun/

    I have already provided sources above that if the sun was closer we would die.


    Those same sources assume that we are on a spinning globe. I thought you had evidence for a spherical earth, all you have is “study these indoctrination pamphlets about the sun”. Seriously, I went to school, I've studied the heliocentric model, probably more than you have. I don't need to be taught what to think. Maybe an explanation for how this is even relevant would be helpful.

    “Funny how I am the one who is providing evidence.”


    You call that evidence? Lololol. So far, all I've seen is logical fallacies about the sun. I've  60 miles of nearly perfectly flat water, this is an impossibility on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Anyone can verify this.


    With the curvature calculator found here: https://dizzib.github.io/

    you can see that an observer at 1000 feet looking at an item 163 miles away would find that object 10,631 feet below the horizon. This would place the peak of Canigou well over 1000 feet below the horizon however not only it, but other peaks near it are clearly seen. In the videos below you will see several, sometimes 6 or 7 noticeable and very clear distinct mountain peaks. Even peaks 4000 feet high can be seen and this peak should be over a mile below the horizon.

    https://youtu.be/CIIDhOb8MZ0


    https://youtu.be/mzD-vGDAWIk


    You can point at the sky all you want. The things you can't understand about the flat earth model can be perfectly explained by a more intelligent designer than you can comprehend, optics and refraction. I'm pointing to the common sense everyday observation that water, in any experiment, over any testable scale, is always flat. That's what the claim, and this entire debate is about, and where your “evidence” falls flatter than the surface of the ocean.


    "Day and night"

    “Unrealistically close light bulb. The distance between the earth and the sun in the flat earth model is 3,000 miles [1] above the earth not a few inches difference in distance.
    Eric Dubay, The Flat–Earth Conspiracy (printed by author, 2014), 87–88.


    My name is not Eric Dubay and he does not speak for me. I cannot tell you how big or exactly how far, or what the sun is. I'm claiming that I've measured the earth, and it is flat.

    “ If the sun is that high above earth and acts as a spotlight over the northern hemisphere during the summer, the entire northern hemisphere should be able to see the sun at once since the sun acts as a spotlight over the northern hemisphere during summer however, both canada and russia are in the northern hemisphere, it is  1 am here in Edmonton, Canada and there is no sun and no light and just pure night. My friend in Russia said it is 10  am in moscow, russia and the sun there is beautiful.”




    Three uestions

    - If the sun is supposed to act as a spotlight and should be over the northern hemisphere during the summer providing sunlight and orbiting it in circles. Why is it that if the sun is right above me and providing sunlight / spotlight / day to the northern hemisphere  that I am experiencing night right now and my friend is experiencing sunlight / day in the exact same hemisphere the sun is providing spotlight for when the sun is 3,000 miles above us both? Why is it that I am experiencing night right now when the sun is supposed to be circling  right above me providing my area with constant spotlight/ sunlight / day but i am experiencing night and I can see no sun or spotlight.


    The sun is not close enough to you for you to see it.

    - according to the light bulb pic, the sun should be providing no spotlight /sunlight / day for the southern hemisphere during the sun's entire northern hemisphere orbit but that is ridolous because when it is summer in the northern hemisphere, there is still day and night in the southern hemisphere. according to your picture, the spotlight should give all its light to that region under it, however that would mean that souther hemisphere countries like australia would have no spotligh / sunlight / day during the northern hemisphere circuit but australia always has day and night even if its the northern hemisphere summertime. If the light can reach the farthest point which is australia, that would debunk the picture and mean that the light should be reach all the areas of Earth all the time providing constant day everywhere. However, it is not always day because there is night and there are differences in day everywhere because of different timezones.

    Nobody is claiming spotlight sun. You don't see the sun all the times because of the law of perspective, atmospheric refraction and atmospheric blocking.


    - If the sun is only orbiting and providing spotlight for the northern hemisphere during summer, then how can you logically explain that the southern hemisphere still gets sunlight / spotlight for day and night? If the sun is providing spotlight for the southern hemisphere while orbitng the northern hemispehere, there is no reason why there should be differences in day and night in the northern hemisphere like between Russia and canada because if the sun is orbiting the northern hemisphere and providing spotlight for far southern hemisphere places like australia, (to prevent total night for that region and to still establish day and night in those places since day and night happen everyday), there is no reason to think that should be differences in spotlight in northern hemisphere regions when some areas in the far souther hemisphere are still receiving spotlight which would mean there should  be no differences in sunlight/spotlight in the northern hemisphere regions like canada and russia but there are differences in day and night.


    Did you just repeat yourself? We can see the sun is higher in the sky on our summer, and lower, towards the south on our winter. Vice versa for the southern “hemisphere” This is commonly known.

    "Here the argument is weakest. Imagine you are sat on an enormous flat plate."


    Why would i do that? Are you comparing a atmosphereless, mountainless, forestless, hilless dinner plate with the flat earth? Why? No wonder you believe you came from a monkey.


    “A spotlight slowly moves around the plate illuminating the area slowly. If you look up you will be able to see the spotlight despite it not shining onto your eyes because it is always visible. This is not the case for those on planet earth, evidenced by the hidden sun during night time.”


    The earth is not a dinner plate. It's an illogical misrepresentation, a strawman.

    "seasons"

    Spring and Fall have dramatically different properties to be thrown into the same circuit. Spring is much much hotter than fall which would be impossible for both to be in the same circuit.

    Where is the evidence behind this claim? You're from Canada?



    we know the sun's circuit does not change location because no human has ever recorded this drastic change of location of the sun in the sky. also, buildings and major towers cast the same shadow in the same place during summmer and winter which indicates no change in the location of the sun. If the sun's location changed so radically in the sky during summer and winter surely it should have been recorded or observed by someone.

    And now you have shown you are unfamiliar with your own model… I think you are done here. Look up the sun analemma. 


    "Sun and moon"

    being right by each other is a serious claim you have made that nobody observes. Definetly not a red herring.


    Ever heard of an eclipse?  More proof that you haven't even studied the heliocentric model, much less mine. Are you really debating this? You can't see the sun on a new moon, being washed out by the sky. Again, the amount of ignorance you display, even about your own model is ridiculous.

    "underside"

    “So we can go to mars and find other galaxies but we cant find whats on the other side of our flat pancake?”


    Who is we? I've never been to mars, I'd be willing to bet that you haven't either. You can take the government’s word for it, but they also said they wouldn't raise my taxes too. Go sign up to be an “astronot”, swear your oath of secrecy and collect your free check. I'd tell you I'd been to the core of the sun. I'd lie to my mother even.

    "pan am flight 50"



    A video of some drunken old people on a plane is not evidence of anything.

    "antartica"

    http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

    This entire websitde would not be possible on a flat earth where antartica is not something you can go over.

    A flight to a point in Antarctica is totally possible on a flat earth. Are they performing day to day polar circumnavigations anywhere? That'd be better evidence, still not conclusive, but better.


    "expedition"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/Crossing-Antarctica-photos-of-the-195758-Commonwealth-Trans-Antarctic-Expedition/


    I'm very impressed with your Google searching capabilities, not many people are smart enough to pull of this task. Maybe that will convince someone.


    "general relativity"

    general relativity is experimental

    https://frontierfields.org/2014/05/29/visual-proof-of-general-relativity/

    http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/


    So is flat earth.


    https://youtu.be/afkT3f6sZuc


    https://youtu.be/HpyaMoBzFy4



    "eclipses"

    uoting others is not proof, its appeal to authority

    Your video is only possible on a spherical earth. It is impossible on a flat earth where the earth never gets between the sun and the moon. On a flat earth, the sun and the moon  should never be on the side and should always be above earth like your friend in the vid explained. On a flat earth, the sun and the moon are circling the flat earth from above and should never be to the side like your friend explained. this was only possible on a sphere earth


    The sun and moon were both above the horizon. It appears you don't know much about geometry. For the earth to come between the sun and moon, at least one body would  have to be below the horizon. The shadow on the moon would be coming up from the bottom, where the ball earth is expected to be if both bodies were above the earth. Use Google to look it up.

    http://wonderdome.co.uk/communities/3/004/011/194/063//images/4599450009.gif

    This is a partial lunar eclipse The sun casts its sunlight on a part of the moon and the entire earth and the earth casts a partial shadow on the moon. This would be impossible on the flat earth where the sun and the moon can never sandwich the earth and are always orbiting the earth from abbove. You jjust provided a video of a lunar eclipse which does not prove the flat earth nor prove eclipses can happen on flat earth


    Since it is impossible for the earth to be between the sun and moon, some other explanation must be researched about what blocks the light from the sun on the moon. Pointing at celestial bodies does not prove curvature, measuring the earth does.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Globetrotter quote of the year: "...no human has ever recorded this drastic change of location of the sun in the sky."
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Anyone with $50  can measure the earth! I'm not even telling you to take my word on it! Be your own scientist! Do you know how much water should curve away at 10 miles distance?  
    Didn't think so.
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:

    There was no need for any Bible before the fall because every human knew right from wrong naturally. Even after the fall, after Cain killed Able, Adam taught his children right from wrong for another 930 years, and his children taught their children.

    I'm not Christian myself, but if you believe in the word of the bible I can't see how this fits.

    How could Adam and Eve have known of Good and Evil before the fall? The entire rationale for The Fall is that they ate from the Tree of Knoowledge of Good and Evil and then came to understand Good and Evil. Prior to that they had no conception of it.

    Hello AlwaysCorrect, (lol, I like your name)


    Sure they knew what good and evil was, and the difference between the two, just like I don't have to burn myself on the stove to know not to touch the hot burner, right?

    Also, Look how Eve argues with the serpent, if she was ignorant of the meaning of good and evil, why argue, right? She said "God told us NOT to touch it lest we die" so obviously she knew right from wrong, and the consequences too.

    Genesis 3:4Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


    You see they were deceived, the Serpent lied that this fruit will give them something, some power like God, when they were already created in Gods image, they were little gods, God called them "children".

    They understood what death meant, just as we do, yet never experienced it, .. just like I'm sure they understood what a broken arm was, they didn't need to break their arms to "know" what that meant.

    Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

    Look what turned the woman on, not that she'll know good and evil, but that it was; "good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise", no different than what we break laws for even today. Obviously she knew what gaining wisdom meant too, and why would they hide their nakedness unless they knew what shame was? We can see they knew what good and evil was because of the shame also, just like us, we feel naked, exposed when we are caught doing something we know is wrong.

    Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.

    They didn't just understand good and evil, they now "knew" it exactly what it was, .. having experienced it.

    Like I know what killing someone is, but until I kill someone, I would never have experienced it. So knowing good and evil, they went against Gods warning and actually tasted it, became evil and were punished for it.

    But Religion always tries to make God out to be the bad one, and their own god/gods the good ones, the saviors, just like in this last Noah movie where they made the oh so poor Satan the good guy, unjustly punished by God for helping Adam and Eve to understand the difference between good and evil, .. lol.
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    I'm a bit surprised that 70% out of 20 people trust in Adam and Eve rather than Evolution. I respect their opinions, but still. (Even more so, more people believe there's no god than believe there is.)
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    The evidence for evolution is literally so rife and paints a more rational picture of our origin than god. Fossils like tiktalik and archaeopteryx and taung child fossil and lucy and neanderthal fossil, pseudogenes like w3nta which gives us tails, atavisms like the lizard snake or the ape human , homologies we have similar morphologies to apes and bats, humans, cats and whales all have the same bone structure but different function in the hand except longer and thicker or smaller and narrower bones but the same structure or layout proving we are all connected by a common ancestors , comparative embroyology proves we all have a common ancestor, comparative DNA like being 98% similar with apes and vestigial features like the human coccyx, wisdom teeth and the harmful appendix. This is a brief list and does not include other lines of evidence like biogeography. 

    If you deny evolution, why do you deby it despite all the evidence?

    If you accept evolution, how do you fit the fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes over millions of years with the story that the first guy was created from mud in heaven in one day and that the first woman was created from his rib on the same day before apes and other animals were created.
    Actually, according to the Bible, mankind was created after all other animals.  It is certainly possible that evolution is true.  But even if it is true, that in no way discounts the veracity of the Bible. The fossil record does seem to indicate that evolution is true.  Our understanding of the fossil record however could be flawed.  We won't know if it is until we discover that to be true, if in fact it is true.  

    The Bible doesn't say that man was created from mud, it says that mankind was created from dust.  If we are going to have an intelligent discussion on this topic, it is important to know exactly what we are dealing with, what dust is, what it is composed of, and how it might be utilized to form mankind.  So what is dust?

    According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, dust is:
    1. fine particles of matter
    2. the particles into which something disintegrates

    Now, if I am not mistaken, protein chains, ribonucleic acid chains, and deoxyribonucleic acid chains are small enough particles of matter to be considered dust.  All living organisms die and eventually return to the dust from which they came.  All living cells require proteins, RNA, and most also require DNA as part of their makeup.  Many of these proteins and nucleic acids occur naturally.  Some of them are and were formed within the cells of living organisms. Now, I do not know this as a matter of fact, but I sure can speculate, knowing that all living cells and organisms contain proteins and nucleic acids, that proteins, RNA, and quite possibly DNA, existed long before the first living cells ever existed.  They had to.  If the first living cells required proteins and nucleic acids in order to exist as living cells, then where did they come from in order for them to have incorporated them into their chemical composition which they required to exist in the first place?

    The point is, if we were to gather up all of the individual components that go into each and every single living creature, what we would have is a pile of dust.  I don't claim to know how it happened, but these components came together, perhaps by the hand of God, or perhaps naturally, and the first life forms emerged.  If we have evolved from any one of these first life forms, then we were indeed formed or created from the dust.  

    So the reality is, whether or not there is a God, the Bible is true, in that mankind was created from dust.

    I don't have an answer for Eve just yet, being created from Adams rib, but it is sure to be some kind of analogy or metaphor that we are dealing with, because I have a suspicion that the Bible is right about that as well.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    @melanielust I might be able to be persuaded if your arguments for Creation are good enough (which would be challenging, since evidence for a God, let alone Creation, is lacking). Also, is there evidence that Adam and Eve existed, let alone made from mud and someone's ribs?
    The very mention of Adam and Eve is evidence of Adam and Eve.  This clearly is weak circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence, which of course is what you asked for.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    I am an atheist, but I'm going to answer this one as I would have before rejecting Christianity, as I find this was a rather interesting take on Genesis. If you haven't already done so already, I would suggest reading a book called "The Lost World of Adam & Eve" by John Walton. Walton is a Christian Old Testament scholar, with a proficiency in ancient Hebrew. He makes an excellent case that allows the evolution of man to be true and still allow for Adam and Eve. 

    I won't be able to do it justice in the space of a response, but the general idea is this. Yes, mankind evolved over millions of years, however, approximately 6,000 years ago, God decided to create a people. He chose a man and woman and placed them in Eden, and the story goes from there. It's not that Adam & Eve were the first people ever, but rather the first people chosen by God for a purpose. 

    Again, I'm not doing the book justice and I encourage you to look it up. There's even a presentation of this on YouTube if you'd rather check it out that way.
  • Fr3akFr3ak 31 Pts   -  
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Erfisflattherep
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Fr3ak said:
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Would this evidence be words in a book?
    Sonofason
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Words cannot be evidence of anything. Words are simply tools we use to describe things - in this case, the evidence. 

    The evidence consists of a fossil record (and there are no gaps, by the way) as well as DNA. It also consists of direct observation. Evolution is a fact. It is something that can be observed and tested. It is a fact that given enough time there can be changes among species and it is also a fact that there is diversity within the life on this planet. Evolution by natural selection is the theory used to explain this fact. 

    I know a lot of creationists like to argue they're okay with micro-evolution, but have an issue with macro-evolution, but the only difference between the two is time.
    Imbster
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch