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.





Earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

2456789



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    @AlexOland ;

    Flat Earth means science has no mathematic understanding of what time is precisely in relationship to mathematics and science. Out side of that flat earth is the physics generalization of basic concepts of mathematics stating the Earth is a cylinder described without precision being generally mathematically relative. This contradiction too zero as Pi shares a mathematic irrational state by setting distance as a life persona too scale.

    Isaac Newton described Pi best with math as time being a geometric 90 degree turn in all motion.

     

    Understanding the basic principle of time. The clock is a 90 degree scale off of the compass which then makes a series of 90 degree turns in a math proportion, scale. Two turns making a change of direction 180 degree of velocity by scale.

    Yes. Erfistlat there is empirical scientific evidence that a person can be instructed to collect, to find and observe themselves. The idea is they must find the evidence themselves by use of tools. Compass, clock, sextant, and an artificial horizon is required. All as part of instruction.

    Keep in mind that Digital time set by computers for space travel never grasped time in mathematic translation needs the compass as a magnetic constant is a second unrecognized motion for time.  


    That's some great science fiction!

    You can explain your evidence now?
    Rosawalton
    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
  • K_MichaelK_Michael 114 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Unverifiable imagery is not considered scientific evidence
    It isn't, but you should consider that realistically and consistently editing photos to deceive the public would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2019




    Oh dear the Flatard is back, this guy also stated previously that  the earth is covered with a glass dome and the Moon landings were fake.

    I debated him in a one on one before and he resorted to using You Tube videos and biblical nonsense to back his lunacy up,he’s a funny guy who I suspect is just trolling , no one can be this nutty can they?



    ErfisflatZombieguy1987Rosawalton
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I have debated you once more in the past. And I remember dropping points just because you did not seem to get convinced by them. I am not going to make the same mistake this time. I am going to hold on to my point until you realize that it is actually irrefutable unless you invent new physics without any basis.

    1- We know that if the sun was 200(or something) miles from the ground, it would grow to more than 2x its size as it comes directly above our head. This fact is irrefutable unless you want to reject the law of perspective. (I really do not think you want to take that route)

    2- We know from the shadow experiment that if the earth was flat, the sun would have to be 200(I could be remembering this number wrong but its besides the point) miles further. This is also a fact unless you want to invent new laws of physics without any basis. If you are claiming that the atmosphere everywhere on the planet earth somehow bends the light by the same amount and it always bends the light as to indicate that the eath is curved, you need to show proof for this. (Not to mention that this is actually impossible as we can see that the view of objects in the sky are not always affected in the way that you claim)

    Conclusion: Now, we can see that the sun does not change size during the day. Even if we were to take those flat earther experiments -which are not accurate because they used the wrong equipment- as the truth, we can only say that the earth is less curved than it is claimed to be. 

     I could probably come up with a function where you put in the altitude of the sun and it gives you how much curve the earth would have if the sun was that high in the sky(based on only that shadow experiment). But it would take some time as my trigonometry skills have deteriorated since high school. And It really is not that necesarry if you accept the simple fact that if we were to consider only that shadow experiment; the curve of the earth would increase as you increase the altitude of the sun. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    Not to mention, @Erfisflat , that our model can predict events with astounding accuracy. This means that our model perfectly represents reality. Everything in the sky moves in the way that we calculated. Every experiment confirms our theories. But then you come out and say this: "Oh maybe the earth, by pure chance, looks curved in every way but it is somehow actually not?". It is idiotic. Not to mention that there exists no logical reason for why people would want to convince you that the earth is round. You say they want to hide land? Well, they can do it on a flat earth too. They do not need to invent this elaborate concepts to hide some land. There are much simpler ways to hide it than to come up with hundreds of fake theories that somehow represent reality perfectly. 

     And who exactly are "they" by the way? The Illumunati? Satanists? Jews? 

     The problem is that you make these absurd and irrefutable claims. Yes, maybe the earth is somehow - denying all observations and years of research - flat. And, yes, maybe this flat earth is controlled by Donald Trump or something. The problem is that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Even if you somehow show that the ball earth has no evidence, this will not prove that the earth is flat. And this will not prove that Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins are a gay couple that control everybodies minds. 

     You have no proof. You just have: "But, maybe?"s. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:


    I am looking for empirical scientific evidence using sound logic that evidences the globe earth, hereby referred to as GE. The same GE that is taught to us in preschool. No semantics, no trolls, just logic, and the scientific method.
    No you’re not.

    You’re looking for people to provide you evidence that you can dismiss, with whatever speculative nonsense you can think of.

    If you were looking for evidence, you would have disappeared from the internet 3 years and 2 websites ago.

    I honestly thought I would never see him return, but apparently he's back for more.
    I think he was just waiting to see if there was enough time elapsed that he could claim no one had comprehensively refuted him at all last time.

    If I recall last time was embarrassing.
    My quest for truth has led me back here, I've debated on several other platforms, and have met quite a few like minded people, including a PHD in spectrophometry, who has helped me understand refraction in out atmosphere. 

    You're welcome to restate your arguments, if you feel it will be best
    Hah, I doubt it.

    So, how this generally works: is people provide images, that you dismiss as fake with no real explanation or demonstration that the image is either faked, or that the curvature is created solely by the camera lens.

    In fact, you have repeatedly claimed images showed “flat” horizons, when in reality the images were stitched panoramas or fish eye lenses which can make curves look flat. A fact that you originally denied vehemently until you were proven wrong.

    You’ve made a big deal of saying you don’t have a model - which means that you don’t know where the sun is, where the moon is, how they really orbit, how the stars can appear where they are and rotate the way they do - in fact, despite a flat earth being literally the easiest geometry to model - you strangely don’t have a model.

    You’ve claimed there is no curvature ever observed - except for all the curvature that is observed. I’ve repeatedly shown you the very curvature you’ve demanded - repeatedly. You've even gone so far as to tout a video that shows no curvature, doubled down and claimed you verified the results - only to be shown the right amount of curvature was seen in every single one of the images in that video.

    You blames every failed flat earth observation that we’ve pointed outhas failed, or example of genuine curvature, on refraction that you can’t seem to explain, or that contradicts the very science you use to support it; you require this refraction to happen all over the earth at all times, yet don’t seem to be able to show how. You show YouTube videos showing what you claim happens, and when a YouTube video of the contrary is shown - you dismiss it as just a YouTube video.

    You demand proof of basic physics, yet won’t seem to do the same yourself. You say you haven’t made particular claims - then I go through and show at least twenty different times that you’ve made this claim.


    You’re clearly not interested in facts, your interested in lazily making other people do all the work, all the science: then dismiss it for no reason. This is your MO.


    How about instead of doing what you’ve been doing for the last 5 years, you put your money where your mouth is and actually try and scientifically prove your position?



    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenRosawalton
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    K_Michael said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Unverifiable imagery is not considered scientific evidence
    It isn't, but you should consider that realistically and consistently editing photos to deceive the public would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
    Meh, I see tutorials on YouTube by the dozens.

    The point is that it is possible. In this instance, money isn't really an issue.
    Zombieguy1987
    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 I have debated you once more in the past. And I remember dropping points just because you did not seem to get convinced by them. I am not going to make the same mistake this time. I am going to hold on to my point until you realize that it is actually irrefutable unless you invent new physics without any basis."

    But that isn't what I have done.

    I have pointed out the error in your logic, by giving you plausible alternatives.

    "Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P. This illogic can be summarized formally as or, alternatively,"


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent#Formal_Description

    You don't seem to recognize this or even acknowledge the fact that I've pointed it out, if this is what you disagree with. You have simply so far just reasserted the fallacy.

    Look at the amount of assumptions you are making here. Do you intend to claim that light doesn't bend to protect your belief system here?


    "1- We know that if the sun was 200(or something) miles from the ground, it would grow to more than 2x its size as it comes directly above our head. This fact is irrefutable unless you want to reject the law of perspective. (I really do not think you want to take that route)"

    Yet again, this is a strawman argument. My claim is not that the sun is 200 miles away or 93 Brazilian miles away. Magnification is a plausible alternative explanation for the observation and negates the assumption you have drawn from it with no supporting evidence. 

    "2- We know from the shadow experiment that if the earth was flat, the sun would have to be 200(I could be remembering this number wrong but its besides the point) miles further."

    Agreed. It's ALL besides the point.

    " This is also a fact unless you want to invent new laws of physics without any basis. If you are claiming that the atmosphere everywhere on the planet earth somehow bends the light by the same amount and it always bends the light as to indicate that the eath is curved, you need to show proof for this."

    This is shifting the burden, this is all your claim. I have proved that it is possible in a particular model by way of the firmament, you have ignored that. 

    There's also a strawman in that I have not claimed that light always bends making the earth appear curved. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.
    Mirages, and atmospheric refraction is a thing.

    "(Not to mention that this is actually impossible as we can see that the view of objects in the sky are not always affected in the way that you claim)"

    They are, you just assume they aren't. We have no way of determining their actual positions, so your statement is an assumption.

    "Conclusion: Now, we can see that the sun does not change size during the day."

    ...Which is not mutually exclusive to a spherical earth, as I have shown...

    "Even if we were to take those flat earther experiments -which are not accurate because they used the wrong equipment"

    If you are offering an argument without evidence, it is an assertion. What experiment? How are the instruments wrong? Is this a strawman?

    "- as the truth, we can only say that the earth is less curved than it is claimed to be."

    Are you conceding? The title of the debate is that it isn't a sphere that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference. It may be a lot bigger, but it's probably flat.

    " I could probably come up with a function where you put in the altitude of the sun and it gives you how much curve the earth would have if the sun was that high in the sky(based on only that shadow experiment). But it would take some time as my trigonometry skills have deteriorated since high school. And It really is not that necesarry if you accept the simple fact that if we were to consider only that shadow experiment; the curve of the earth would increase as you increase the altitude of the sun."

    Was that an argument? 
    Rosawalton
    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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Again, you have evaded the argument by saying only "no I have shown that". What exactly are you objecting to? The fact that the sun does not change size? Or the shadow experiment? You cannot accept both as this proves that the earth cannot be flat. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat "Was that an argument? " no, it was a suggestion if you do not understand how the size of the sun during the day relates to that shadow experiment. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    "They are, you just assume they aren't. We have no way of determining their actual positions, so your statement is an assumption."  

     No, it is not. Examine a plane on the ground, note its lenght. Now, Learn how high that plane will go. Now use the law of perspective to test how much lenght the plane would have if it were to go that high. Easy, isn't it? 

     Oh! If you think Satan lies about the altitude of the planes, USE A DRONE!
    Zombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Not to mention, @Erfisflat , that our model can predict events with astounding accuracy."

    This is because it is based on repetition. The Mayans did nearly the same thing with chisel and stone.

    " This means that our model perfectly represents reality. "

    That's reification and is illogical. It is also false. I see several dozen examples where the model's predictions don't match reality. Specifically allowed curvature for a sphere that size.

    "Everything in the sky moves in the way that we calculated."

    ...if you assume that light travels in straight lines forever.


    "Every experiment confirms our theories. "

    That is bare assumption.

    "But then you come out and say this: "Oh maybe the earth, by pure chance, looks curved in every way but it is somehow actually not?".

    That is not my argument at all. My argument is there is not evidence for the earth being a ball, and empirical evidence that it is not. So far, the first part stands.

    "It is idiotic. Not to mention that there exists no logical reason for why people would want to convince you that the earth is round. You say they want to hide land? Well, they can do it on a flat earth too. They do not need to invent this elaborate concepts to hide some land. There are much simpler ways to hide it than to come up with hundreds of fake theories that somehow represent reality perfectly."

    Your argument is that people are incapable of deceit?

    " And who exactly are "they" by the way? The Illumunati? Satanists? Jews? "

    Who cares. There are several reasons if you speculate. Why speculate though? You are shifting burden here again. Somehow it is now my job to prove to you that people lie?

    " The problem is that you make these absurd and irrefutable claims. Yes, maybe the earth is somehow - denying all observations and years of research - flat. "

    Glad you agree.

    "And, yes, maybe this flat earth is controlled by Donald Trump or something. "

    Lol

    "The problem is that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. "

    I do. This is not my burden though.


    "Even if you somehow show that the ball earth has no evidence, this will not prove that the earth is flat."

    No, that would be fallacious.

    "And this will not prove that Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins are a gay couple that control everybodies minds. "

    ?

     "You have no proof. You just have: "But, maybe?"s. "

    The point is that YOU have no evidence. Just fallaciousness.
    Zombieguy1987Rosawalton
    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
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    Erfisflat said:
    K_Michael said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Unverifiable imagery is not considered scientific evidence
    It isn't, but you should consider that realistically and consistently editing photos to deceive the public would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
    Meh, I see tutorials on YouTube by the dozens.

    The point is that it is possible. In this instance, money isn't really an issue.
    It’s possible to fake many pictures of the earth today using photo editing tools like photoshop.

    Now, how about the photos from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Prior to the advent of modern computer software or even digital photography of any form how were these effects achieved?

    Now, your supposed to be a scientist. Give us a testable Hypothesis:

    Explain the process by which pre 1990s images could be faked with technology of the time - Provide key giveaways and image features unique to that technology, and “test” the images that you claim are fake to see if those features are present.
     




    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat  "Your argument is that people are incapable of deceit?" no. My argument is that the deceit you are suggesting is unnecesarry and could be achieved in a simpler way.

     "Who cares. There are several reasons if you speculate. Why speculate though? You are shifting burden here again. Somehow it is now my job to prove to you that people lie?" ...if you are claiming that a group of people lie about a SPECIFIC THING, yes. It is your burden to prove that they are lying about that specific thing. 

     "I do. This is not my burden though." it is, though. You claim that the earth is flat. This is a positive claim. Therefore it requires evidence. 

     "The point is that YOU have no evidence. Just fallaciousness." we will see about that, I am positive that the proof I have presented in my first comment is a definite proof of a curved earth. So you can be a "Less curved earther" but not a "flat earther".

     
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    K_Michael said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Unverifiable imagery is not considered scientific evidence
    It isn't, but you should consider that realistically and consistently editing photos to deceive the public would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
    Meh, I see tutorials on YouTube by the dozens.

    The point is that it is possible. In this instance, money isn't really an issue.
    It’s possible to fake many pictures of the earth today using photo editing tools like photoshop.

    Now, how about the photos from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Prior to the advent of modern computer software or even digital photography of any form how were these effects achieved?

    Now, your supposed to be a scientist. Give us a testable Hypothesis:

    Explain the process by which pre 1990s images could be faked with technology of the time - Provide key giveaways and image features unique to that technology, and “test” the images that you claim are fake to see if those features are present.
     




    How many photos of earth as a ball in the 60's 70's and 80's?

    I mean, they did star wars in '77.

    This is another burden shift, obviously.
    Zombieguy1987
    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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Before writing a long paragraph, just tell me which of these two things you object to?
    1- The sun does not change size during the day.
    2- The results of the shadow experiment
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat Before writing a long paragraph, just tell me which of these two things you object to?
    1- The sun does not change size during the day.
    2- The results of the shadow experiment
    I though I explained it thoroughly enough.

    The interpretation of the results are incorrect, and assume thetsunsis far away and ignore the fact that light does not travel in straight lines forever. We can't blame Eratosthenes though, refraction wasn't a thing back 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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat So, you believe that the atmosphere somehow bends light? Good. We can disprove this claim by observing objects in the sky. As I have said,

     Note the lenght of a plane. Learn how high it will go. Use the law of perspective to see if the plane would be what it looks like to us if it were to go that high. 

     This experiment proves that atmosphere does not always refract the light in the way you claim. 
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    K_Michael said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Unverifiable imagery is not considered scientific evidence
    It isn't, but you should consider that realistically and consistently editing photos to deceive the public would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
    Meh, I see tutorials on YouTube by the dozens.

    The point is that it is possible. In this instance, money isn't really an issue.
    It’s possible to fake many pictures of the earth today using photo editing tools like photoshop.

    Now, how about the photos from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Prior to the advent of modern computer software or even digital photography of any form how were these effects achieved?

    Now, your supposed to be a scientist. Give us a testable Hypothesis:

    Explain the process by which pre 1990s images could be faked with technology of the time - Provide key giveaways and image features unique to that technology, and “test” the images that you claim are fake to see if those features are present.
     




    How many photos of earth as a ball in the 60's 70's and 80's?

    I mean, they did star wars in '77.

    This is another burden shift, obviously.
    You’re making the claim that all photos and videos from the 60s, 70s and 80s are all faked. 

    If you have a hypothesis for how that could be done, and have evidence to support that hypothesis : please show it.

    Otherwise, if you make a claim, then refuse to justify it with any data or evidence, this is what is called “an unsupported assertion”.

    Now, given that you’re making the claim that all images are faked: is up to you to establish this is true: that’s your burden.

    If you want to pretend that you can make claims and demand everyone else disproves them - go ahead, but everyone can tell you’re just trying to hide the fact you can’t demonstrate what your saying is true.


    Let’s run with Star Wars, can you give me an example of a human being or ship in Star Wars being superimposed with a moving planet in video?

    Could you place them side by side with, say, a spacewalk video from the 1970s? What errors in the Star Wars image indicative of, say, CSP are evidenced in the Space video?
    AlexOlandZombieguy1987Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "You’re making the claim that all photos and videos from the 60s, 70s and 80s are all faked."

    Lie #1. I am saying that it is not verifiable, and it can possibly be faked.

    I'm saying that "pictures" of things that you nor I will never be able to verify can possibly be faked, and therefore they are not persuasive, not for the skeptic anyway. This is a trick for the gullible.

    "If you have a hypothesis for how that could be done, and have evidence to support that hypothesis : please show it."

    Let's see what was the Appolo budget?

    Painting, build a model and photograph it, high altitude photo of earth from the other side of the room through a round window, it doesn't take much to do special effects without software, .

    "Otherwise, if you make a claim, then refuse to justify it with any data or evidence, this is what is called “an unsupported assertion”."

    "Now, given that you’re making the claim that all images are faked: is up to you to establish this is true: that’s your burden."

    Let's see.

    This is YOUR evidence. YOUR argument. YOUR claim.

    You: "Pictures of earth from space show earth is spherical."

    Me :"They can possibly be faked in some way, and we can never verify those images."

    You: "prove they are faked."

    Clear burden shifting. If you can't see it you have a clear  misunderstanding of basic logic.

    "If you want to pretend that you can make claims and demand everyone else disproves them - go ahead, but everyone can tell you’re just trying to hide the fact you can’t demonstrate what your saying is true."

    My sentiments exactly. Well said. You should look up intellectual dishonesty BTW.


    "Let’s run with Star Wars, can you give me an example of a human being or ship in Star Wars being superimposed with a moving planet in video?"

    What is the relevance?

    Could you place them side by side with, say, a spacewalk video from the 1970s? What errors in the Star Wars image indicative of, say, CSP are evidenced in the Space video?

    You are still shifting the burden. 
    Zombieguy1987Rosawalton
    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
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    Erfisflat said:
    "You’re making the claim that all photos and videos from the 60s, 70s and 80s are all faked."

    Lie #1. I am saying that it is not verifiable, and it can possibly be faked.

    I'm saying that "pictures" of things that you nor I will never be able to verify can possibly be faked, and therefore they are not persuasive, not for the skeptic anyway. This is a trick for the gullible.

    "If you have a hypothesis for how that could be done, and have evidence to support that hypothesis : please show it."

    Let's see what was the Appolo budget?

    Painting, build a model and photograph it, high altitude photo of earth from the other side of the room through a round window, it doesn't take much to do special effects without software, .

    "Otherwise, if you make a claim, then refuse to justify it with any data or evidence, this is what is called “an unsupported assertion”."

    "Now, given that you’re making the claim that all images are faked: is up to you to establish this is true: that’s your burden."

    Let's see.

    This is YOUR evidence. YOUR argument. YOUR claim.

    You: "Pictures of earth from space show earth is spherical."

    Me :"They can possibly be faked in some way, and we can never verify those images."

    You: "prove they are faked."

    Clear burden shifting. If you can't see it you have a clear  misunderstanding of basic logic.

    "If you want to pretend that you can make claims and demand everyone else disproves them - go ahead, but everyone can tell you’re just trying to hide the fact you can’t demonstrate what your saying is true."

    My sentiments exactly. Well said. You should look up intellectual dishonesty BTW.


    "Let’s run with Star Wars, can you give me an example of a human being or ship in Star Wars being superimposed with a moving planet in video?"

    What is the relevance?

    Could you place them side by side with, say, a spacewalk video from the 1970s? What errors in the Star Wars image indicative of, say, CSP are evidenced in the Space video?

    You are still shifting the burden. 
    Your claiming the earth is flat - this means you are absolutely claiming the images are faked.

    You have the burden of proof to establish that those images are faked.

    Im sorry you can’t validate your own claims, but claiming that asking you to prove your position is shifting the burden - is nonsensical.

    Lets call this what it is - you can’t prove any of the images are faked, they have to be fake for you to be correct, so you now try and make up a systematic set of excuses of why you can’t prove it, or shouldn’t have to.
    Zombieguy1987Rosawalton
  • @Erfisflat ;

    You can explain your evidence now?

    No, you are wrong I do not explain the evidence now. You are making a call for evidence. Meaning in order to remain impartial instruction must be given to you on how to collect information which can be used as evidence first. This takes place before any explanation begins or you would not share equally in expense of establishing whole truth. Empirical evidence alone does not set whole truth which is what you are now questioning about a number of science methods.

    Erfisflat you must show you can demonstrate an ability to understand then exorcise a basic competence to perform tasks in order to question whole truth and understand whole truth. Otherwise we are using denial as a method to lie.



  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat So, you believe that the atmosphere somehow bends light? Good. We can disprove this claim by observing objects in the sky. As I have said,

     Note the lenght of a plane. Learn how high it will go. Use the law of perspective to see if the plane would be what it looks like to us if it were to go that high. 

     This experiment proves that atmosphere does not always refract the light in the way you claim. 
    Obviously, gradient refraction is relative to distance from the observer. If you are comparing a plane to the sun, this is a false comparison. The plane is obviously not beyond the dome.
    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   -  
    Bbl
    Zombieguy1987
    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   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @Erfisflat ;

    You can explain your evidence now?

    No, you are wrong I do not explain the evidence now. You are making a call for evidence. Meaning in order to remain impartial instruction must be given to you on how to collect information which can be used as evidence first. This takes place before any explanation begins or you would not share equally in expense of establishing whole truth. Empirical evidence alone does not set whole truth which is what you are now questioning about a number of science methods.

    Erfisflat you must show you can demonstrate an ability to understand then exorcise a basic competence to perform tasks in order to question whole truth and understand whole truth. Otherwise we are using denial as a method to lie.



    So you want me to prove to you that I am not a retard before you give your evidence.

    God this is like pulling teeth.
    Zombieguy1987
    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
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

    Okay. How?

    Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.



    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "You’re making the claim that all photos and videos from the 60s, 70s and 80s are all faked."

    Lie #1. I am saying that it is not verifiable, and it can possibly be faked.

    I'm saying that "pictures" of things that you nor I will never be able to verify can possibly be faked, and therefore they are not persuasive, not for the skeptic anyway. This is a trick for the gullible.

    "If you have a hypothesis for how that could be done, and have evidence to support that hypothesis : please show it."

    Let's see what was the Appolo budget?

    Painting, build a model and photograph it, high altitude photo of earth from the other side of the room through a round window, it doesn't take much to do special effects without software, .

    "Otherwise, if you make a claim, then refuse to justify it with any data or evidence, this is what is called “an unsupported assertion”."

    "Now, given that you’re making the claim that all images are faked: is up to you to establish this is true: that’s your burden."

    Let's see.

    This is YOUR evidence. YOUR argument. YOUR claim.

    You: "Pictures of earth from space show earth is spherical."

    Me :"They can possibly be faked in some way, and we can never verify those images."

    You: "prove they are faked."

    Clear burden shifting. If you can't see it you have a clear  misunderstanding of basic logic.

    "If you want to pretend that you can make claims and demand everyone else disproves them - go ahead, but everyone can tell you’re just trying to hide the fact you can’t demonstrate what your saying is true."

    My sentiments exactly. Well said. You should look up intellectual dishonesty BTW.


    "Let’s run with Star Wars, can you give me an example of a human being or ship in Star Wars being superimposed with a moving planet in video?"

    What is the relevance?

    Could you place them side by side with, say, a spacewalk video from the 1970s? What errors in the Star Wars image indicative of, say, CSP are evidenced in the Space video?

    You are still shifting the burden. 
    Your claiming the earth is flat - this means you are absolutely claiming the images are faked.

    You have the burden of proof to establish that those images are faked.

    Im sorry you can’t validate your own claims, but claiming that asking you to prove your position is shifting the burden - is nonsensical.

    Lets call this what it is - you can’t prove any of the images are faked, they have to be fake for you to be correct, so you now try and make up a systematic set of excuses of why you can’t prove it, or shouldn’t have to.
    Lie#2

    I am claiming there is no evidence for the GE. It could be a bigger ball, or it could be flat. This is how a persuade me debate goes.

    Unverifiable imagery is not conclusive.
    Zombieguy1987
    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
  • @AlexOland ;

    AlexOland

    We cannot use shadows to describe scientifically the earth is not flat as we must undertake motion to observe all position of post and shadow. Erfisflat is using truth of limited data to obscure a whole truth.

    The argument against the goal in figure 2a and figure 2b is that the test describes a column not sphere using mathematics. Just a heads up.


    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    So it appears you’re claiming that they could be fake.

    Okay. How?

    Please explain, using the technology available in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s could be used to consistently provide what appears to be both contemporary photographic quality images of the earth from orbit, without showing any signs of camera effects that are largely apparent in even big budget film and TV decades later.



    I've given several examples of how these images can be faked.

    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
  • @Dee ;
    To understand the complexity of life. A meteor may have hit the earth and changed the force of gravitation. This simply limiting the overall size animals could live as a whole. As time went by animals that had been huge predators simple had been killed off by other animals. 
    Erfisflat
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat So you have to prove that there is a dome. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @Erfisflat ; So you have to prove that there is a dome about 200 miles high in the sky. I am waiting for this.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat disflat So you have to prove that there is a dome about 200 miles high in the sky. I am waiting for this.
    That's not how it works. It is a possibility. I don't have to prove it is an actuality, that is again, burden shifting.
    Zombieguy1987
    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:
    You can infer that the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference by observing the apparent size and position of the sun.

    Me 
    You are looking in the wrong direction! These observations have alternative explanations and you are jumping to conclusions! Why not test the assumption you are making about the ground?

    You:
    Prove those alternative explanations are true.

    Do you logic?
    Zombieguy1987
    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   -  
    Did any of you see the words LOGIC and SCIENCE in the OP?
    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   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @Dee ;
    To understand the complexity of life. A meteor may have hit the earth and changed the force of gravitation. This simply limiting the overall size animals could live as a whole. As time went by animals that had been huge predators simple had been killed off by other animals. 
    Man I like you. Youre like a bot or something, right?
    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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Well, you have just admitted that you cannot be sure of a flat earth. Which contradicts with your previous comments. 
     
     Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot? If you have, you will notice that your idea of a dome that we have no way of observing is very similar to his teapot. And not to mention that this dome is at perfect height as to make us believe in a globe earth... It is too coincidental, do not you think? 

     Anyway, can you tell me how high this dome is supposed to be? 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat And can you illustrate how exactly it reflects the light from the sun? It should refract the light rays in a way that they will be perpendicular to the ground no matter how the light hits the dome. How does the dome work, exactly? Because it seems like it would be impossible for an invisible dome to refract all light that comes to it in a particular angle.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat Well, you have just admitted that you cannot be sure of a flat earth. Which contradicts with your previous comments. 
     
     Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot? If you have, you will notice that your idea of a dome that we have no way of observing is very similar to his teapot. And not to mention that this dome is at perfect height as to make us believe in a globe earth... It is too coincidental, do not you think? 

     Anyway, can you tell me how high this dome is supposed to be? 
    Friend, if there is a dome over our heads, and the earth really is flat, it's intelligently designed. I may never know. We can build various models and such if you like, or point out discrepancies in various models, but why not test the assumption as a basis?


    Zombieguy1987
    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   -  
    Do you have any valid evidence that supports the assumption?
    Zombieguy1987Rosawalton
    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   -  
    Would you like to see an accurate test or two?
    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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat "You are looking in the wrong direction! These observations have alternative explanations and you are jumping to conclusions! Why not test the assumption you are making about the ground?"

     "Alternative explanation": But there might be an invisible dome that somehow refracts the light of the sun in exactly the same way that your model does! Now, I know that a dome like that is physically impossible, but what if it exists! We cannot know!

     What you are basically saying is this: What if a sun that is closer to us magically appears not so close to us? 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Or twelve
    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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat How high is the dome? How does this invisible dome refute physical laws and refract light from every direction in a certain angle? 

     Please answer these questions. You can say "I do not know" to the first. But the second question is crucial. 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat "Friend, if there is a dome over our heads, and the earth really is flat, it's intelligently designed. I may never know. We can build various models and such if you like, or point out discrepancies in various models, but why not test the assumption as a basis?"

     We can actually know that the earth is round with the same sureness that we know that our mom is not actually an exact replica of our mom. As I said, you just have "what if?"s. You never present actual proof to refute anything. 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I will not let you change the subject. Explain how this invisible dome refracts light from all directions in exactly the same angle: Perpendicular to the earth. 
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  


    I mean, we all can personally observe how concave and convex surfaces and lenses bend light to varying degrees. If I were to speculate, I'd say it was similar to the above.

    That still ignoring atmospheric refraction as a variable. 

    To answer your question. I don't know.

    I can't get up there to make any accurate measureme tsn
    Zombieguy1987
    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   -  
    I can measure the earth, and skip alllllllllll your assumptions, conjecture, pseudoscience, and speculation and measure the earth.
    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
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat This is not what you claim the dome to be doing. You claim that no matter where and how the sun shines its rays on the dome, the dome somehow takes all that light and refracts it as exactly perpendicular to the earth. 

     Prove that this is physically possible. Show me an invisible dome that can do the things that you are claiming. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I have made no assumptions so far. 
    Erfisflat
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