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.





I actually think I understand Flat Earth Theory. Understanding isn't concluding.

13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Ad Hominem isn't necessarily an insult. You are assuming something of my character (I am clueless) to posit why my claim is incorrect. Which is an Ad Hominem. 
    Actually your cluelessness about the subject is your argument, or lack thereof...

     Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I was under the impression that you were a scientist, was I incorrect In my assumptions?
    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   -  
    If you consider the honest question: "Why do you think you live on a spinning ball?" an insult, maybe I am talking to the wrong person.
    PogueEmeryPearson
    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
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    And that's a Straw Man. You sure like those.
    Pogue
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    and that was another dodge, 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   -  
    You're welcome to borrow one of pogues arguments if you can't think of one good reason...
    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
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    You're welcome to borrow one of pogues arguments if you can't think of one good reason...
    Oh yes. Like the coal in Antarctica. You laughed at it and straw manned me. Oh and look at that, you haven't responded to the counter. Just like the entire other arguments. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  


    I reckon if the Chairman of NASA, Odin and Satan were to make a song together it would be.
    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  

    This is irrelevant. If you are not going to contribute something of value, please do not do anything. Why do you think NASA is involved?
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue It's a good old-school song. Loosen up brother. :)
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    If you honestly don't understand how NASA is involved... LOL
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue It's a good old-school song. Loosen up brother. :)
    I can't listen to it. It is blocked by my school (on school computer). :( 

    If you honestly don't understand how NASA is involved.
    NASA is involved in what? You do not finish your thoughts. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue You are right, NASA is honest and anyone who questions the ability of a species to turn into another species especially from reptilian dinosaur to mammalian primate is an uneducated propaganda tool of the far-right who has no idea about logic.
    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue You are right, NASA is honest and anyone who questions the ability of a species to turn into another species especially from reptilian dinosaur to mammalian primate is an uneducated propaganda tool of the far-right who has no idea about logic.
    Evolution does not say that a species directly turned into another. It is a gradual change with DNA mutations and them being selected out through natural selection. It is also impacted by environmental factors. You just straw manned evolution, again. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Pogue I love evolution. I do, don't get me wrong and Darwin and Neil Degrasse Tyson and other scientists are great people who have good brains.

    Just because they got something a little wrong doesn't change how great the route they got to that wrong conclusion was.

    Darwin is completely correct on a microevolutionary scale anyway and his theory is how selective breeding works.
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue I love evolution. I do, don't get me wrong and Darwin and Neil Degrasse Tyson and other scientists are great people who have good brains.

    Just because they got something a little wrong doesn't change how great the route they got to that wrong conclusion was.

    Darwin is completely correct on a microevolutionary scale anyway and his theory is how selective breeding works.
    Natural selection is kind of like selective breeding. The traits that are more useful will mean the organism will survive. This means it has a higher chance of breeding putting more and more of the gene in the gene pool. Selective breeding is by us but it does not necessarily mean it will have the more dominant traits. So yes, they are similar. Yes, I agree with you that they had great minds. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue Why do all the in-between things never mate with the others? Why when two 'sections' split they just keep f***ing one another until one group is so different to the other that it's a new species?

    This is where macroevolution makes no sense! :)
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue Why do all the in-between things never mate with the others? Why when two 'sections' split they just keep f***ing one another until one group is so different to the other that it's a new species?

    This is where macroevolution makes no sense! :)
    Your argument doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen differently species mate with each other. Technically all species are in-between because they will become something new in the future. I really do not know how we from talking about a flat Earth to this. But can you try to debunk the flat Earth debunk/round Earth evidence.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue Why do all the in-between things never mate with the others? Why when two 'sections' split they just keep f***ing one another until one group is so different to the other that it's a new species?

    This is where macroevolution makes no sense! :)
    Your argument doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen differently species mate with each other. Technically all species are in-between because they will become something new in the future. I really do not know how we from talking about a flat Earth to this. But can you try to debunk the flat Earth debunk/round Earth evidence.
    Sure thing, let's start here:

    someone234 said:
    someone234 said:
    @Pogue We have never ever seen a planet we have seen something projected on the sky and never come close to 'visiting' it.

  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue Why do all the in-between things never mate with the others? Why when two 'sections' split they just keep f***ing one another until one group is so different to the other that it's a new species?

    This is where macroevolution makes no sense! :)
    Your argument doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen differently species mate with each other. Technically all species are in-between because they will become something new in the future. I really do not know how we from talking about a flat Earth to this. But can you try to debunk the flat Earth debunk/round Earth evidence.
    Sure thing, let's start here:

    someone234 said:
    someone234 said:
    @Pogue We have never ever seen a planet we have seen something projected on the sky and never come close to 'visiting' it.

    Already debunked the last one. I already said I am not watching another video. I already did the other. Sum up the video. Also, try to debunk my one. At least try coal in Antarctica.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue Why do all the in-between things never mate with the others? Why when two 'sections' split they just keep f***ing one another until one group is so different to the other that it's a new species?

    This is where macroevolution makes no sense! :)
    Your argument doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen differently species mate with each other. Technically all species are in-between because they will become something new in the future. I really do not know how we from talking about a flat Earth to this. But can you try to debunk the flat Earth debunk/round Earth evidence.
    Sure thing, let's start here:

    someone234 said:
    someone234 said:
    @Pogue We have never ever seen a planet we have seen something projected on the sky and never come close to 'visiting' it.

    Already debunked the last one. I already said I am not watching another video. I already did the other. Sum up the video. Also, try to debunk my one. At least try coal in Antarctica.
    Oh I already did that video. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The truth cannot be denied unless a more easy-to-digest truth is given.

    Round earth is easy, space is easy and atheism is easy.

    Try to stop thinking 'I know nothing and proof comes first' try to think 'I am a genius and will think ahead of the proof and comprehend the proof better when/if it comes such that I can piece together all the possible scenarios and ascertain which is the real one.'
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The truth cannot be denied unless a more easy-to-digest truth is given.

    Round earth is easy, space is easy and atheism is easy.

    Try to stop thinking 'I know nothing and proof comes first' try to think 'I am a genius and will think ahead of the proof and comprehend the proof better when/if it comes such that I can piece together all the possible scenarios and ascertain which is the real one.'
    Science must be willing to go wherever the truth leads, inconvenient or not. If a discovery leads away from the ball earth, don't invent or parrot conjecture to fix it.
    Evidence
    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   -  
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    You're welcome to borrow one of pogues arguments if you can't think of one good reason...
    Oh yes. Like the coal in Antarctica. You laughed at it and straw manned me. Oh and look at that, you haven't responded to the counter. Just like the entire other arguments. 
    Why is Antarctica so much colder than the North pole?
    PogueEvidence
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat But if you go by science, then you go by space science as well as evolutionary dating science.
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The truth cannot be denied unless a more easy-to-digest truth is given.

    Round earth is easy, space is easy and atheism is easy.

    Try to stop thinking 'I know nothing and proof comes first' try to think 'I am a genius and will think ahead of the proof and comprehend the proof better when/if it comes such that I can piece together all the possible scenarios and ascertain which is the real one.'
    The truth can be denied. You do it all the time. So, the truth that is easy-to-digest is the truth that is more truthful. You said the round Earth is easy. So, the Earth is round. The second one is what I do. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    You're welcome to borrow one of pogues arguments if you can't think of one good reason...
    Oh yes. Like the coal in Antarctica. You laughed at it and straw manned me. Oh and look at that, you haven't responded to the counter. Just like the entire other arguments. 
    Why is Antarctica so much colder than the North pole?
    This is a red herring fallacy. This is irrelevant to my argument. I can only assume you conceded. This is a disprove of a flat Earth. I will, however, respond to this red herring.  
    A massive ice sheet covers almost all of Antarctica. Although there are many glaciers in the Arctic, Greenland has the only permanent ice sheet, but it's only 1/8 the size of the ice sheet that Antartica has.
    As the Arctic Ocean surrounds the North Pole, the ice cover is sea ice that floats on the ocean (only about 10-20 feet / 3-6 meters thick), instead of that massive ice sheet (more than 2 miles / 3 kilometers thick in places).
    The Arctic's thin ice cover has water, not land, under it. While the water is anything but warm (its temperature is, naturally, above the freezing point - or else it would be ice), it is much, much warmer than the air above the ice - and some of this heat makes its way through the ice to the air.
    The ice cap over the Arctic Ocean is always moving because of the winds above it and the ocean currents beneath it. This movement causes large cracks (called "leads") to open up - even in winter - and this allows ocean heat to escape into the air.
    Land loses heat faster than water. The Antarctic has stronger winds than the Arctic. During the summer months, Arctic land, unlike Antarctica, is mostly free of snow and ice cover. This not only contributes to warmer temperatures but allows for much plant growth as well. http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-poles.htm

    "Both polar regions of the earth are cold, primarily because they receive far less solar radiation than the tropics and mid-latitudes do. At either pole, the sun never rises more than 23.5 degrees above the horizon and both locations experience six months of continuous darkness. Moreover, most of the sunlight that does shine on the polar regions is reflected by the bright white surface.

    What makes the South Pole so much colder than the North Pole is that it sits on top of a very thick ice sheet, which itself sits on a continent. The surface of the ice sheet at the South Pole is more than 9,000 feet in elevation--more than a mile and a half above sea level. Antarctica is by far the highest continent on the earth. In comparison, the North Pole rests in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, where the surface of floating ice rides only a foot or so above the surrounding sea.The Arctic Ocean also acts as an effective heat reservoir, warming the cold atmosphere in the winter and drawing heat from the atmosphere in the summer." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-south-pole-col/

    Please respond to my argument instead of committing fallacies. I will repost it just for you. Another disproof of the flat Earth is Paleoclimates. Antartica has coal. Coal is only formed in areas with plants. Antartica is too cold for that. So it would have had to have been closer to the Equator where it is hotter. If Antartica is a wall, this would be impossible. 

    Here, take the links. 
    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html ;

    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/75/6/936/19385/coal-in-antarctica redirectedFrom=PDF 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Antarctica ;

    https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/14032016/mapping-antarctica-coal-coal2016-388/ https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/mineral-resources/ ;

    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=239 ;

    https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/threats_mining_oil.php 

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-coal-in-Antarctica-Was-it-once-a-temperate-climate ;

    https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/antarctica-the-great-discovery-at-coalsack-bluff?lang=eng ;

    Here, take the pages. https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=--q6WvT8Icvr5gK-0I2IAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=s-26Wqi-A4S45gL2vaOgBg&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=4-26WvTlBYaL5wKq0arwDw&start=30&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on

    Here, take some google scholar links. 
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/169/3942/274 ;

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1966-0055.ch011
     
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296000326 ;

    chrome-extension://ecnphlgnajanjnkcmbpancdjoidceilk/content/web/viewer.html?source=extension_pdfhandler&file=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Facademia.edu.documents%2F6618610%2F31_Antarctic_Permian_wood.pdf%3FAWSAccessKeyId%3DAKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%26Expires%3D1522203778%26Signature%3Dp%252BJ2tlR%252BvS31F6BmA1qFHJCisrM%253D%26response-content-disposition%3Dinline%253B%2520filename%253DFossil_woods_from_the_Upper_Permian_Bain.pdf 

    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat But if you go by science, then you go by space science as well as evolutionary dating science.
    I go by the scientific method. What can be objectively proved with experimentation, observations and measurements, the definition is in my sig.
    EmeryPearsonEvidence
    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
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat But if you go by science, then you go by space science as well as evolutionary dating science.
    I go by the scientific method. What can be objectively proved with experimentation, observations and measurements, the definition is in my sig.
    What happened to the response to me? Did you give up and still believe what you believe? 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @Pogue The reason North pole is much more intricate than Antarctica is that Antarctica is an edge while North Pole is the moat to paradise.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The reason North pole is much more intricate than Antarctica is that Antarctica is an edge while North Pole is the moat to paradise.
    That does nothing to my argument. I debunked the edge. Do I have to repost it? How do you know it is the moat to paradise? How do you know it is the edge when this has been ignored?

    Another disproof of the flat Earth is Paleoclimates. Antartica has coal. Coal is only formed in areas with plants. Antartica is too cold for that. So it would have had to have been closer to the Equator where it is hotter. If Antartica is a wall, this would be impossible. 

    Here, take the links. 
    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html ;

    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/75/6/936/19385/coal-in-antarctica redirectedFrom=PDF 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Antarctica ;

    https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/14032016/mapping-antarctica-coal-coal2016-388/ https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/mineral-resources/ ;

    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=239 ;

    https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/threats_mining_oil.php 

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-coal-in-Antarctica-Was-it-once-a-temperate-climate ;

    https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/antarctica-the-great-discovery-at-coalsack-bluff?lang=eng ;

    Here, take the pages. https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=--q6WvT8Icvr5gK-0I2IAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=s-26Wqi-A4S45gL2vaOgBg&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=4-26WvTlBYaL5wKq0arwDw&start=30&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on

    Here, take some google scholar links. 
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/169/3942/274 ;

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1966-0055.ch011
     
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296000326 ;

    chrome-extension://ecnphlgnajanjnkcmbpancdjoidceilk/content/web/viewer.html?source=extension_pdfhandler&file=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Facademia.edu.documents%2F6618610%2F31_Antarctic_Permian_wood.pdf%3FAWSAccessKeyId%3DAKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%26Expires%3D1522203778%26Signature%3Dp%252BJ2tlR%252BvS31F6BmA1qFHJCisrM%253D%26response-content-disposition%3Dinline%253B%2520filename%253DFossil_woods_from_the_Upper_Permian_Bain.pdf 

    someone234ErfisflatEmeryPearsonEvidence
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue The truth cannot be denied unless a more easy-to-digest truth is given.

    Round earth is easy, space is easy and atheism is easy.

    Try to stop thinking 'I know nothing and proof comes first' try to think 'I am a genius and will think ahead of the proof and comprehend the proof better when/if it comes such that I can piece together all the possible scenarios and ascertain which is the real one.'
    The truth can be denied. You do it all the time. So, the truth that is easy-to-digest is the truth that is more truthful. You said the round Earth is easy. So, the Earth is round. The second one is what I do. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    You're welcome to borrow one of pogues arguments if you can't think of one good reason...
    Oh yes. Like the coal in Antarctica. You laughed at it and straw manned me. Oh and look at that, you haven't responded to the counter. Just like the entire other arguments. 
    Why is Antarctica so much colder than the North pole?
    This is a red herring fallacy. This is irrelevant to my argument. I can only assume you conceded. This is a disprove of a flat Earth. I will, however, respond to this red herring.  
    A massive ice sheet covers almost all of Antarctica. Although there are many glaciers in the Arctic, Greenland has the only permanent ice sheet, but it's only 1/8 the size of the ice sheet that Antartica has.
    As the Arctic Ocean surrounds the North Pole, the ice cover is sea ice that floats on the ocean (only about 10-20 feet / 3-6 meters thick), instead of that massive ice sheet (more than 2 miles / 3 kilometers thick in places).
    The Arctic's thin ice cover has water, not land, under it. While the water is anything but warm (its temperature is, naturally, above the freezing point - or else it would be ice), it is much, much warmer than the air above the ice - and some of this heat makes its way through the ice to the air.
    The ice cap over the Arctic Ocean is always moving because of the winds above it and the ocean currents beneath it. This movement causes large cracks (called "leads") to open up - even in winter - and this allows ocean heat to escape into the air.
    Land loses heat faster than water. The Antarctic has stronger winds than the Arctic. During the summer months, Arctic land, unlike Antarctica, is mostly free of snow and ice cover. This not only contributes to warmer temperatures but allows for much plant growth as well. http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-poles.htm

    "Both polar regions of the earth are cold, primarily because they receive far less solar radiation than the tropics and mid-latitudes do. At either pole, the sun never rises more than 23.5 degrees above the horizon and both locations experience six months of continuous darkness. Moreover, most of the sunlight that does shine on the polar regions is reflected by the bright white surface.

    What makes the South Pole so much colder than the North Pole is that it sits on top of a very thick ice sheet, which itself sits on a continent. The surface of the ice sheet at the South Pole is more than 9,000 feet in elevation--more than a mile and a half above sea level. Antarctica is by far the highest continent on the earth. In comparison, the North Pole rests in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, where the surface of floating ice rides only a foot or so above the surrounding sea.The Arctic Ocean also acts as an effective heat reservoir, warming the cold atmosphere in the winter and drawing heat from the atmosphere in the summer." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-south-pole-col/

    Please respond to my argument instead of committing fallacies. I will repost it just for you. Another disproof of the flat Earth is Paleoclimates. Antartica has coal. Coal is only formed in areas with plants. Antartica is too cold for that. So it would have had to have been closer to the Equator where it is hotter. If Antartica is a wall, this would be impossible. 

    Here, take the links. 
    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html ;

    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/75/6/936/19385/coal-in-antarctica redirectedFrom=PDF 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Antarctica ;

    https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/14032016/mapping-antarctica-coal-coal2016-388/ https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/mineral-resources/ ;

    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=239 ;

    https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/threats_mining_oil.php 

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-coal-in-Antarctica-Was-it-once-a-temperate-climate ;

    https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/antarctica-the-great-discovery-at-coalsack-bluff?lang=eng ;

    Here, take the pages. https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=--q6WvT8Icvr5gK-0I2IAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=s-26Wqi-A4S45gL2vaOgBg&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=4-26WvTlBYaL5wKq0arwDw&start=30&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on

    Here, take some google scholar links. 
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/169/3942/274 ;

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1966-0055.ch011
     
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296000326 ;

    chrome-extension://ecnphlgnajanjnkcmbpancdjoidceilk/content/web/viewer.html?source=extension_pdfhandler&file=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Facademia.edu.documents%2F6618610%2F31_Antarctic_Permian_wood.pdf%3FAWSAccessKeyId%3DAKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%26Expires%3D1522203778%26Signature%3Dp%252BJ2tlR%252BvS31F6BmA1qFHJCisrM%253D%26response-content-disposition%3Dinline%253B%2520filename%253DFossil_woods_from_the_Upper_Permian_Bain.pdf 

    Sounds like a plausible excuse, but no more plausible than the southern regions not getting near as much sun in it's summer than the North pole, as in the flat earth model.

    Your paleoclimates argument is a strawman. I don't claim that Antarctica itself is a wall in the sense that you are assuming, more like a shelf. Since you yourself claim that "The surface of the ice sheet at the South Pole is more than 9,000 feet in elevation--more than a mile and a half above sea level. Antarctica is by far the highest continent on the earth.", you admit that the "continent" is raised, like it is on a raised shelf. Like a plateau.



    I can't say whether there were plants on the shelf, all that would be needed was for the sun to be on a larger circuit, closer to the plateau that surrounds us, where plant life could survive, IF coal was found there, this was surely the case. This in no way proves the earth a ball, or that it is not flat.
    someone234EmeryPearson
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Very accurate counterargument, couldn't put what you put better myself he is straw-manning the edge entirely.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat But if you go by science, then you go by space science as well as evolutionary dating science.
    I go by the scientific method, which is defined in my sig.
    EmeryPearsonEvidence
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @ErfisflatI I go by the ultimate truth method, which is defined in my fate.
    EmeryPearsonEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Now I'm wondering if he will address my contention. I'm guessing he's going to copy and paste the other thing again.
    someone234EmeryPearson
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat You know it. xD
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @someone234 did you click any of those links?
    EmeryPearson
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I didn't because they are purely about this Antarctica strawman.

    I also think you and I have a very different relationship with Pogue.

    You are always his opposition so it's less intense for him. I think he is really irritated because I explain how his proof doesn't really disprove a flat Earth. The issue is that your style is to keep making him feel and inferior for advocating what he advocates and I know for a fact that this is not how you recruit people to your side of things.

    You need to sit back and let him rage, genuinely understand his points and empathise with the anguish of realising that one has been lied to. It's not a nice anguish and he is going through it and defending against the pain.

    He will keep throwing out sources and arguments until you and I both show ourselves to be non-combatant in our style. He is in a fighting mode and we need him in a talking mode.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearsonEvidence
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue The truth cannot be denied unless a more easy-to-digest truth is given.

    Round earth is easy, space is easy and atheism is easy.

    Try to stop thinking 'I know nothing and proof comes first' try to think 'I am a genius and will think ahead of the proof and comprehend the proof better when/if it comes such that I can piece together all the possible scenarios and ascertain which is the real one.'
    The truth can be denied. You do it all the time. So, the truth that is easy-to-digest is the truth that is more truthful. You said the round Earth is easy. So, the Earth is round. The second one is what I do. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    Erfisflat said:
    You're welcome to borrow one of pogues arguments if you can't think of one good reason...
    Oh yes. Like the coal in Antarctica. You laughed at it and straw manned me. Oh and look at that, you haven't responded to the counter. Just like the entire other arguments. 
    Why is Antarctica so much colder than the North pole?
    This is a red herring fallacy. This is irrelevant to my argument. I can only assume you conceded. This is a disprove of a flat Earth. I will, however, respond to this red herring.  
    A massive ice sheet covers almost all of Antarctica. Although there are many glaciers in the Arctic, Greenland has the only permanent ice sheet, but it's only 1/8 the size of the ice sheet that Antartica has.
    As the Arctic Ocean surrounds the North Pole, the ice cover is sea ice that floats on the ocean (only about 10-20 feet / 3-6 meters thick), instead of that massive ice sheet (more than 2 miles / 3 kilometers thick in places).
    The Arctic's thin ice cover has water, not land, under it. While the water is anything but warm (its temperature is, naturally, above the freezing point - or else it would be ice), it is much, much warmer than the air above the ice - and some of this heat makes its way through the ice to the air.
    The ice cap over the Arctic Ocean is always moving because of the winds above it and the ocean currents beneath it. This movement causes large cracks (called "leads") to open up - even in winter - and this allows ocean heat to escape into the air.
    Land loses heat faster than water. The Antarctic has stronger winds than the Arctic. During the summer months, Arctic land, unlike Antarctica, is mostly free of snow and ice cover. This not only contributes to warmer temperatures but allows for much plant growth as well. http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-poles.htm

    "Both polar regions of the earth are cold, primarily because they receive far less solar radiation than the tropics and mid-latitudes do. At either pole, the sun never rises more than 23.5 degrees above the horizon and both locations experience six months of continuous darkness. Moreover, most of the sunlight that does shine on the polar regions is reflected by the bright white surface.

    What makes the South Pole so much colder than the North Pole is that it sits on top of a very thick ice sheet, which itself sits on a continent. The surface of the ice sheet at the South Pole is more than 9,000 feet in elevation--more than a mile and a half above sea level. Antarctica is by far the highest continent on the earth. In comparison, the North Pole rests in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, where the surface of floating ice rides only a foot or so above the surrounding sea.The Arctic Ocean also acts as an effective heat reservoir, warming the cold atmosphere in the winter and drawing heat from the atmosphere in the summer." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-south-pole-col/

    Please respond to my argument instead of committing fallacies. I will repost it just for you. Another disproof of the flat Earth is Paleoclimates. Antartica has coal. Coal is only formed in areas with plants. Antartica is too cold for that. So it would have had to have been closer to the Equator where it is hotter. If Antartica is a wall, this would be impossible. 

    Here, take the links. 
    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html ;

    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/75/6/936/19385/coal-in-antarctica redirectedFrom=PDF 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Antarctica ;

    https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/14032016/mapping-antarctica-coal-coal2016-388/ https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/mineral-resources/ ;

    http://www.globalclassroom.org/antarct3.html https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=239 ;

    https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/threats_mining_oil.php 

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-coal-in-Antarctica-Was-it-once-a-temperate-climate ;

    https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/antarctica-the-great-discovery-at-coalsack-bluff?lang=eng ;

    Here, take the pages. https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=--q6WvT8Icvr5gK-0I2IAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=s-26Wqi-A4S45gL2vaOgBg&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on ;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+found+with+coal&rlz=1CAACAR_enUS768US768&ei=4-26WvTlBYaL5wKq0arwDw&start=30&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=646&safe=active&ssui=on

    Here, take some google scholar links. 
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/169/3942/274 ;

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1966-0055.ch011
     
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296000326 ;

    chrome-extension://ecnphlgnajanjnkcmbpancdjoidceilk/content/web/viewer.html?source=extension_pdfhandler&file=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Facademia.edu.documents%2F6618610%2F31_Antarctic_Permian_wood.pdf%3FAWSAccessKeyId%3DAKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%26Expires%3D1522203778%26Signature%3Dp%252BJ2tlR%252BvS31F6BmA1qFHJCisrM%253D%26response-content-disposition%3Dinline%253B%2520filename%253DFossil_woods_from_the_Upper_Permian_Bain.pdf 

    Sounds like a plausible excuse, but no more plausible than the southern regions not getting near as much sun in it's summer than the North pole, as in the flat earth model.

    Your paleoclimates argument is a strawman. I don't claim that Antarctica itself is a wall in the sense that you are assuming, more like a shelf. Since you yourself claim that "The surface of the ice sheet at the South Pole is more than 9,000 feet in elevation--more than a mile and a half above sea level. Antarctica is by far the highest continent on the earth.", you admit that the "continent" is raised, like it is on a raised shelf. Like a plateau.



    I can't say whether there were plants on the shelf, all that would be needed was for the sun to be on a larger circuit, closer to the plateau that surrounds us, where plant life could survive, IF coal was found there, this was surely the case. This in no way proves the earth a ball, or that it is not flat.
    Sunlight is not the only factor to determine temperature. 
    No, it is not a straw man. In previous debates, you said that there was a wall. 
    There are points on Antartica much lower than that. That is the most.
    No, the temperature on Antartica is too cold. 
    No, it is not the case. There are more choices and you just denied because of reasons. It does prove it. It is too cold for plants to survive. So, it would have to be closer to the equator (where it is hotter) at one point in time. If you it was how the oceans are kept in place then it should not have it because it would not be able to move. No plants have been discovered there. Your star can't be the reason because I've debunked it before. 

    We know the angular velocity of the sun because it must complete one circuit of the flat Earth in 1 day. At the equinoxes, when overhead the equator, approximately 10,000km (6,213.7mi) from the center of this planet. When here it must travel at 2,618km/h (1,626.75mi) factoring in distance at the equator and how long it must be. However, during the June solstice, it is on the Tropic of Cancer. On the flat Earth, it is 2,604km (1,618mi) closer to the center. Here it covers a smaller distance but at the same time so it must move slower. At about 1,936km/h (1203mi/h). On the December solstice, it is on the Tropic of Capricorn. This is 2,604km (1,618mi) south of the equator. The sun has to cover a larger distance in the same amount of time and so moves faster. This means it is about 3,300km/h (2050.5mi/h). 

    A question I have is what is moving the sun. What force is doing it? Back it up with evidence when you answer/respond. Also, the speed difference would be easy to detect. In one hour it should change position much differently. 

    This video explains everything in more depth and it also has more arguments to debunk a spotlight sun. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The sun moves by electromagnetism, to answer your question. Gravity is not anything to do with it.

    I can copy and paste the video where it shows teh physicality of this movement but you don't seem to like watching it.
    EmeryPearsonEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I didn't because they are purely about this Antarctica strawman.

    I also think you and I have a very different relationship with Pogue.

    You are always his opposition so it's less intense for him. I think he is really irritated because I explain how his proof doesn't really disprove a flat Earth. The issue is that your style is to keep making him feel and inferior for advocating what he advocates and I know for a fact that this is not how you recruit people to your side of things.

    You need to sit back and let him rage, genuinely understand his points and empathise with the anguish of realising that one has been lied to. It's not a nice anguish and he is going through it and defending against the pain.

    He will keep throwing out sources and arguments until you and I both show ourselves to be non-combatant in our style. He is in a fighting mode and we need him in a talking mode.
    I agree, I'm always in a complicated defense mode, probably because of 3 years of "herdeeher, he thinks the earth is flat" ad hominem attacks.
    EmeryPearson
    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
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue, by the way why do the stars stay the same all night? If they aren't on a dome-shaped screen then why don't we rotate around to see the stars move?
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The sun moves by electromagnetism, to answer your question. Gravity is not anything to do with it.

    I can copy and paste the video where it shows teh physicality of this movement but you don't seem to like watching it.
    The video? What is this supposed to mean to me? The video does not show how it moves across the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It does not explain why we can't see the sun at all times. It does not explain why/how a flat Earth map makes Antartica have daylight for days on end. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The north pole has days on end of sunlight, not the south pole.
    EmeryPearson
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The south pole always has rotating daylight hours, the north during its summer does not.
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue, by the way why do the stars stay the same all night? If they aren't on a dome-shaped screen then why don't we rotate around to see the stars move?
    They actually don't. The father south or north you move changes the stars you see.
    If you go to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

    A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

    This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

    Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

    In the flat Earth model, you could not see the same constellations and stars in S.A. and Africa (or S.A. and Australia or Africa and Australia) (the two will both be night) because you would only be able to see the front. Also, the stars that are only able to see in the Northern Hemisphere would be visible in the South.

    Globe: 

     

    Flat:

    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The north pole has days on end of sunlight, not the south pole.
    False statement. "In the summer time at Scott Base in Antarctica, there are 4 months in which the Sun never sets. From the latter part of October through the latter part of February, the Sun stays above the horizon line, giving each day 24 hours of sunlight" https://petapixel.com/2015/08/18/a-time-lapse-of-24-hours-of-sunlight-in-antarctica/
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue, by the way why do the stars stay the same all night? If they aren't on a dome-shaped screen then why don't we rotate around to see the stars move?
    They actually don't. The father south or north you move changes the stars you see.
    If you go to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

    A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

    This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

    Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

    In the flat Earth model, you could not see the same constellations and stars in S.A. and Africa (or S.A. and Australia or Africa and Australia) (the two will both be night) because you would only be able to see the front. Also, the stars that are only able to see in the Northern Hemisphere would be visible in the South.

    Globe: 

     

    Flat:

    Dearest Pogue, I am aware of this. This is because the screen projects a smaller dome inside of the bigger dome that you see as the 'sky'.

    As for my question, which you did not answer, I ask to you why do the stars you see in the sky from the same spot during the night not change as the Earth rotates?
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue, by the way why do the stars stay the same all night? If they aren't on a dome-shaped screen then why don't we rotate around to see the stars move?
    They actually don't. The father south or north you move changes the stars you see.
    If you go to a different part of the world, you’ll notice the constellations there are completely different.

    A phenomenon first observed by Aristotle many, many years ago when he was returning from Egypt, the premise is the further you go away from the equator the further known constellations go towards the horizon.

    This phenomenon can only be explained by a round surface.

    Aristotle also concluded the Earth wasn’t very large because a small change in the distance makes a huge difference in terms of what we see in the night sky.

    In the flat Earth model, you could not see the same constellations and stars in S.A. and Africa (or S.A. and Australia or Africa and Australia) (the two will both be night) because you would only be able to see the front. Also, the stars that are only able to see in the Northern Hemisphere would be visible in the South.

    Globe: 

     

    Flat:

    Dearest Pogue, I am aware of this. This is because the screen projects a smaller dome inside of the bigger dome that you see as the 'sky'.

    As for my question, which you did not answer, I ask to you why do the stars you see in the sky from the same spot during the night not change as the Earth rotates?
    Because they spin around the center of the milky way like the solar system but you will deny the existence of the milky way so there's no way to deconvert you. What screen? Do you have evidence of this? 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Pogue said:

    Dearest Pogue, I am aware of this. This is because the screen projects a smaller dome inside of the bigger dome that you see as the 'sky'.

    As for my question, which you did not answer, I ask to you why do the stars you see in the sky from the same spot during the night not change as the Earth rotates?
    Because they spin around the center of the milky way like the solar system but you will deny the existence of the milky way so there's no way to deconvert you. What screen? Do you have evidence of this? 
    @Pogue so the Stars spin with the Earth's spin at identical speeds to keep the constellations during the night from shifting even slightly?

    Pogue said:
    @Pogue The north pole has days on end of sunlight, not the south pole.
    False statement. "In the summer time at Scott Base in Antarctica, there are 4 months in which the Sun never sets. From the latter part of October through the latter part of February, the Sun stays above the horizon line, giving each day 24 hours of sunlight" https://petapixel.com/2015/08/18/a-time-lapse-of-24-hours-of-sunlight-in-antarctica/
    Okay, this I openly admit was a good disproof of what I said. What I now will like to say is going to sound like an extreme scapegoat or troll statement but I beg that you understand. The Sun does not stay fixed in position, somehow the sunlight remains constant. This is because the screen meets the Earth at the edge and is contributing to the round earth illusion (yes, the controlling people are supporting the liars).

    If the dome is actually not a dome and it's endless sky and we are simply one tiny human-farm in the middle of an endless ice-scape, then it still makes sense if the light is able to come from other sources than the sun from outside what we think is the confines of the Earth.
    EmeryPearson
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue The screen is actually what you are seeing, the edge of the dome screen. It is a complete illusion but you will deny it.
    EmeryPearson
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