The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! The earth is flatin Earth Science

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

@SilverishGoldNova I don't have any in my "pocket" but there is tons of proof out there if you are interested. I was recently in a debate about earth's escape velocity that touched on that, It difficult for the human mind to comprehend the size of earth, or the solar system or whatever. The concept of a "light year" alone is pretty mind blowing. As far as "great attractor" gravity is created by anything with enough mass, so all celestial bodies are "great attractors" in comparison to us. 

And you know all of this because that's what space.com or your science book says?

Erfisflat

@coveny  "It difficult for the human mind to comprehend the size of earth"

Not if you know anything about math. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can precisely determine how much the surface of all standing water MUST curve, in order for the earth to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Do you know exactly how much curve there should be in ten miles distance? Silver does. Do you know your own model?

Coveny

@Erfisflat you freely admit that you "know" what you know from google research. Somehow you trust that more than you trust peer reviewed science. So tell me what you know that you didn't get from a website or a book...

Math doesn't change the difficulty of comprehending something so vast. A mile sure, maybe even a few miles, 25,000 of them? 671 million miles per hour? Naw too much to wrap your head around unless you use science like math. That allows you to conceptualize things, and then put them in logical order. 

As far as the pythagorean theorem I don't really care, but a quick google search says it's roughly 8 inches per mile, or 80 inches for 10 miles. And no I don't "know" my own model, nor do I really care to, this topic isn't that interesting to me. It is however interesting how BAD you are at science. 

You gonna continue to ignore refutes of your BS? I get it man, you are use to BSing your way through this, and I just keep calling out your BS... 

Erfisflat

1. Time Zones

I'm sorry you've lost me on this one. Are you claiming that day doesn't actually fade into night, as anyone who's been outside during sunrise or sunset can verify? Sunlight should drop off significantly if the earth was a ball and was blocking sunlight after sunset. Like the NASA cartoons.


Instead there is twilight which can last for hours. I don't expect you to, listen, understand, or even attempt to, you seem to be here to see yourself typing.

"2. Coriolis Effect – Still have not explained the differences, point stands
unrefuted."

I've already explained the most practical example of the coriolis effect is a sham. Drains run out depending on the shape of the bowl and direction and force that water enters it. If you have another practical example of the coriolis effect, please explain, or this point is moot.

3. Sun’s height – Your diagram does not address the suns’ height in the sky.

What are you going on about? The sun appears to come up from the horizon til it gets overhead, then it appears to drop back to the horizon. This is perfectly explained by perspective. 

"In your diagram it stays the same height, and it wouldn’t be higher or lower in certain areas of the world. "


"Secondly that proves a round earth rather than a flat earth, as the plane gets further away it gets closer to the earth by the viewer, even though it doesn’t really get closer to the earth in reality. My point stands unrefuted."

Wow. I hope you can explain how your point still stands after refuting it yourself. A plane remains at roughly the same altitude from the earth (like my sun). When we see it from our perspective, it appears to rise up, if approaching, and drop down, if it is receding. Are we clear on this?

"4) Star move – We see the arrow exactly the same way in a room, it doesn’t flip.


It most certainly does.

Maybe you need to do the experiment yourself. Ok, let's make it even easier to visualize. You are on one side of a room, facing your friend on an opposite wall, who is also facing you. An arrow, on the floor, facing your friend will appear upright to you, but upside down to him (flipped ). You can continue denying this on all you want.

"Secondly stars appear small not big,

What makes you think that? Have you measured the size of an actual star now? Or are we taking NASA'S word for this? You ever seen a star under high magnification? Stars obviously aren't gas giant balls of flame trillions of miles away. 

"so “refraction” that makes objects bigger has no bearing on this discussion. Regardless of the size of the light, in the distance it should fade away if it’s like you say it is. (where the stars being close to the earth is the reason they move) My point stands unrefuted."

A) perspective
As I've explained before, and you have great difficulty understanding, this is perspective. The railroad tracks don't just "fade away", nether do the telephone poles. They merge with the horizon. 


Everything follows this law, and all dimensions converge at the horizon. 

"Refraction" is everywhere too. There is a LOT of water in the air. 

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

As a science buff, you should know that water bends light.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-1/Refraction-and-Sight





It can be shown that water both magnifies and displaces objects due to smells law. Sometimes, when an object is close to a solid object, such as the side of a glass, or the ground plane, the bended light will be obstructed.

http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/terrestrial.html

This is why stars the sun and moon don't "fade out". As perspective brings them closer to the horizon, an increasing amount of water gets between you and star, the sun, the moon, etc. the object is magnified, and displaced. 

"5) Horizon – Your video show the boat “fading to obscurity” bottom first proving my point. (although all the talk about mirrors was annoying)  My point stands unrefuted."

As has been shown, light can bend and displace objects. It can also invert light, in the form of a mirage.



This might be a bad example, due solely to the diagram underneath which shows a curved road, and an abnormal sized head abnormally high from the ground. As we see, the ground under the car hasn't disappeared, the trees show us the horizon, but the heat on the road (which contains a concentrated amount of water) has inverted the sky (and the vehicle) onto the road.

Since there are no trees to give us reference on the ocean, we cannot tell where the true horizon is. So now that we know more about water, and light, we can see what's going on. The boat is magnified and slightly displaced with more and more distance (water in the air) causing an inferior mirage that obscures the bottom of the boat which is magnified until it is displaced under the ground plane (the ocean's surface) it's all very perfectly well explained in the video, I was assuming you could understand English and eight grade level science.



As to your new points, I'll be working on those. I know it's difficult for you to scroll up and read the reputations already here. 

And you have to Google how much the earth curves at ten miles and you still get it wrong? It's 66.6 feet of curvature at ten miles. Research your own model before you call mine ridiculous. 

Erfisflat

@coveny I don't claim to know things that can't be empirically validated. I can put an object behind a glass of water and see that it bends the light. I can measure the 5 miles across the lake near my house and see there is no curve. So I know that light bends, and I know that the earth (75% water) is flat.

You claim this topic doesn't interest you, but you're researching it now.

Empirical validity is the difference between science, like what I am showing, versus pseudoscience, what you are asserting.

Erfisflat

@coveny ;
"6) Magnates create globes not disks, just like everything else in nature"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/magnate

Exactly what do magnates have to do with this? If you mean magnets, where do they come in? Are you saying earth is a magnet? Can you give an example of this "in nature"? Where do "disks" come in? Have I claimed the earth to be anything but at it obviously appears to be, a plane?

"7) In the history of our existence why has no one ever reported seeing an edge? (there have been numerous explorations of antarctica)"

You are assuming there is an edge to be seen or that it is reachable. What if it's an infinite plane?  What if it's passed millions of miles of ice and snow? In a hypothetical flat earth model the Antarctic CIRCLE...


Is just the outer boundaries of our cr(e)ator  that the sun has carved out of the ice. When dealing with information that can't be empirically validated, it's obvious this is speculation, but it in no way proves we live on a ball.
Subsequently I'd like to point out most of you arguments are logical fallacies. 




"8) How does GPS work?"

They were doing tower triangulation during world war 2. Towers are all over the place. Get outside more.

"9) How does gravity work? "

The only empirical evidence for gravity is what goes up must come down. This empirical observation instead supports my argument. Gravity is a theory invented to explain how we stick to a spinning ball. You're using a supporting theory based on a (false) assumption to prove your case, which is obviously fallacious. 

"I really can not believe the lengths you are willing to go to try and prove some BS. You are talking about a global conspiracy that serves no purpose. "

It's definitely served it's purpose with you. You're convinced that nothing created us...


"You just want to spout BS, insult people who disagree with you, and walk around like you "won"."

This must be embarrassing for you.

Coveny

@Erfisflat You "know" the earth is 75% water? Please tell me how you came to that conclusion from personal research rather than a website or book? ROFL you are SO full of it. Hypocritic. (and in the same paragraph too)

I have interest in debating, but I don't have interest in the topic. So I have to research a topic I'm not interested in to do something I'm interested in. I wish you were a better debater, sadly you are just another person who slings ad hominem attacks at everyone, and claims a "win". I mean you obviously want to be perceived as smart, you just aren't willing to do the work to BE smart, instead you do this pseudoscience BS, and you're happy you convinced a few people that you are enlightened or whatever. What a sad way to try to feel important. 

Coveny

@Erfisflat the fallacy is that you need to PROVE your claim. Shifting the burden of proof is your fallacy. No one has found the edge, is not an appeal to ignorance, it is stating you have not PROVEN your claim. The fallacy is on YOU, NOT me. I never stated it must be true because it hasn't been proven wrong. I committed no logical fallacy.  

Man the levels of your bulls*** are strong. 

No I'm not embarrassed in the least, you look like a fool. My daughter understand this stuff better than you do. You are an anti-vaxxer spreading anti-intelligence across the world with your misinformation trying to gather a cult of followers so you can feel important.

Erfisflat

@Erfisflat You "know" the earth is 75% water? Please tell me how you came to that conclusion from personal research rather than a website or book? ROFL you are SO full of it. Hypocritic. (and in the same paragraph too)

I mean this is something that is commonly accepted, though the distances to stars are too. It would be harder for someone to navigate to the nearest star (never gonna happen) than it would be to sail over the oceans, any discrepancies from a map can be empirically validated. Again, this is the difference between science and pseudoscience. 

Erfisflat

@Coveny I'll assume this is a concession? 

Erfisflat

 "The fallacy is on YOU, NOT me. I never stated it must be true because it hasn't been proven wrong. I committed no logical fallacy.  "

Maybe you don't understand the fallacy of ignorance. .. imagine that...

"Or vice versa"

u reed gud?

Erfisflat

"No I'm not embarrassed in the least, you look like a fool. My daughter understand this stuff better than you do.

I mean, ive shown that i understand "this stuff" far better than even you. You don't even know how much the ball earth that you defend is supposed to curve!

"You are an anti-vaxxer spreading anti-intelligence across the world with your misinformation trying to gather a cult of followers so you can feel important."

Baseless accusation. There are millions of flat earthers all over the world. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone and I've not even covered vaccines.

 I'm here to tell you to think for yourself. Don't  have a belief system,  have a "covenyism".

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

@Erfisflat oh wow I just found this great video that makes you look so STUPID because it show what the flat earth would look like if it actually existed. ROFL



And to give credit to the site I found it on. https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-flat-earth-theory-14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.t7148/

There is a part in there about the sun's height, the stars movement, and the horizon, and how what you are saying in utter BS. 

Would you like me to post one of the response video, or just type out my rebuttals since you've conceded and are relying on another proponent to argue for you? 

Erfisflat

Erfisflat

@Coveny I haven't forgotten about you completely ignoring my evidence either.
 
It's still there, waiting for an explanation. 

SilverishGoldNova

@Coveny Where did he say he was an anti-vaxxer? 

Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Coveny Where did he say he was an anti-vaxxer? 

I didn't, he's stereotyping and grouping me. Which logical fallacy is that?

Coveny

@Erfisflat I assume the video is your rebuttal video. At around 7 minutes in

"The flat earth model has not been seriously considered for 500 years"
"I don't know how big the sun and the moon are" "I don't know how high they are"
"This is not true because this is disinformation"
"They look like lights in the sky, and the scripture says they are lights in the sky"

The only thing your video disproves is your group having any scientific knowledge. Try again, and next time try harder.
 

Coveny

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Coveny Where did he say he was an anti-vaxxer? 

I didn't, he's stereotyping and grouping me. Which logical fallacy is that?

He didn't and I am grouping him with the other pseudoscience people who are anti-intellectualist. If you don't know which logical fallacy STEREOTYPING is maybe you should do some research on the topic. Your lack of knowledge is astounding.

Also it is an insult. I'm not trying to "prove" that you wrong because anti-vaxxers are wrong. I'm just saying you are stupid like they are stupid. Don't do insult others then cry fowl when they insult you back... 

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Coveny Where did he say he was an anti-vaxxer? 

I didn't, he's stereotyping and grouping me. Which logical fallacy is that?

He didn't and I am grouping him with the other pseudoscience people who are anti-intellectualist. If you don't know which logical fallacy STEREOTYPING is maybe you should do some research on the topic. Your lack of knowledge is astounding.

Also it is an insult. I'm not trying to "prove" that you wrong because anti-vaxxers are wrong. I'm just saying you are stupid like they are stupid. Don't do insult others then cry fowl when they insult you back... 

If you think "anti-vaxxer" is an insult, we can add that to the growing list of things that you haven't researched enough to make a claim about. 

Erfisflat

Coveny said:

@Erfisflat I assume the video is your rebuttal video. At around 7 minutes in

"The flat earth model has not been seriously considered for 500 years"
"I don't know how big the sun and the moon are" "I don't know how high they are"
"This is not true because this is disinformation"
"They look like lights in the sky, and the scripture says they are lights in the sky"

The only thing your video disproves is your group having any scientific knowledge. Try again, and next time try harder.
 

I take it you have a valid counterargument with evidence then? Would you like to discuss any of the fourteen pseudoscientific claims, so that you can participate in the debate, instead of this proponent and I? Or are you still at a loss for arguments?

Coveny

@Erfisflat oh yes I think anti-vaxxer is a huge insult, and now it's no longer stereotyping, you've admitted you agree with them, so the insult isn't a fallacy anymore.

I don't need a valid counter argument, you never disproved my video with valid arguments. Again I'm not a fan of discussing pseudoscience, but I enjoy debating and smack talk. If you can't tell that I'm participating in the debate make your really can count to potato! The video further supports 3 of my initial claims which you have never refuted. You put some religious nutjob up as your science expert whose all I don't know this, I don't know that, no one thinks this way anymore, it's not true because I say it's not true, and the scripture says this is the way it is, and act like that disproves something. 

You sir are a detriment to our society. Anti-vaxxers are causing death where none needs to be. You push your anti-science agenda because you spent "2 years researching it on google" and you think you are smarter than an astrophysicist. Everything that proves you wrong is fake. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You are hypocritical and ridicule books and websites and yet you lap it up when you find some obscure guy who agrees with you. 

Religion had their time to force that flat earth BS on the masses. They killed scientists to protect it. But you... you think it's this HUGE cover up by the US, Russia, China, and everyone else just to make your bible wrong. MOST of those scientist believe your bible, but you still dismiss them.

Erfisflat

"The video further supports 3 of my initial claims which you have never refuted."

I've refuted every point Thu far. You either don't understand them, or you refuse to acknowledge them, either way, your rebuttal is absent.

 "Anti-vaxxers are causing death where none needs to be. "

How is that?

"You put some religious nutjob up as your science expert whose all..."

I myself have refuted  most of the claims here. I specifically asked if you'd like me to type up a rebuttal to HIS argument. If you have a specific response you would like to discuss, feel free to bring it up. I was just showing you that these are points that have been refuted.

You're still ignoring my one piece of evidence. I haven't even really started to give proof of a flat earth yet. Address the first point, and rebut my rebuttals, or concede.

Erfisflat

@Coveny

Just wondering, do you also believe the stegosaurus was a real animal?

Coveny

@Erfisflat you haven't refuted anything. I say something like look there is a rock here, and you are like rocks can be made several different ways or some weird tangent that doesn't matter.

You need me to explain how viruses kill people? I mean seriously you don't understand that part?

Ok what's your one piece of evidence that I haven't refuted? Is this going back to the god that's not a god thing?

I'm fairly certain dinosaurs existed, but I don't like know them by name, nor have I done research the various kinds. I don't have much interest in history. 

Sylynn

SilverishGoldNova said:

@passedbill Except NASA literally admits that they do not have any real pictures of Earth, or anything in space in general. It's either an "artists conception" or a bunch of scans stitched together in photoshop

"Except NASA literally admits that they do not have any real pictures of Earth, or anything in space in general."

Your source?

"or a bunch of scans stitched together in photoshop"

Yes, that's called a panorama. The earth is rather large and impossible to fit within a single image. You take several photos and stitch them together to make one large photo. Take for example the gigapixel photos online of things like cityscapes or this past inauguration. They were created using the same techniques, but that doesn't make them any less real.

Erfisflat

"
"@Erfisflat you haven't refuted anything. I say something like look there is a rock here, and you are like rocks can be made several different ways or some weird tangent that doesn't matter."

A couple of posts back, our chain debate is in your court. I've given a substantial amount of time into the rebuttal and each one of your points are explained to fit onto my model as well as or better if you had sense enough to understand it. If you have conceded the debate, that's fine, but don't pretend like I left YOU hanging. You claim that I haven't refuted your


But while I try repeatedly to explain everything like a kindergarten teacher, you continue to ignore my only proof. Now you've forgotten about our chain too? I'll c/p if you've lost it. Here is my proof.


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



This is a widely known event.


http://canigou.allauch.free.fr/index.html


"Erfisflat said:

» show previous quotes

I didn't, he's stereotyping and grouping me. Which logical fallacy is that?"

He was supposed to answer:



Not stereotyping alone. I knew this, and it was meant to be an inside joke. You had some fun with that one didn't you.



"I'm fairly certain dinosaurs existed, but I don't like know them by name, nor have I done research the various kinds. I don't have much interest in history. "

You know how to use Google, you found some dam-fine Bs to parrot to prove  your belief system, here.


Do you think this ridiculous think existed? How did two of these things lock genitalia without killing one another?

What about this guy, top of the food chain material? 

SilverishGoldNova

@Sylynn "It is photoshopped, but it has to be" - Robert Simmon


By the way, could you give me an explaination to why continents suddenly grow, shrink, and change color here, combined with the C/P clouds in last image and clouds covering almost all of the Americas in the first?

Sylynn

@SilverishGoldNova ;Ah, so you're an all or nothing kind of person. Either all images must be real, or all images must be fake. In your mind it's just too difficult to fathom the possibility that yes there are some artistic renderings as well as actual photos. 

SilverishGoldNova

@Sylynn

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17" 

NASA has literally said here that the last time anyone took a real photograph of one of Earth's hemispheres was in 1972 during the moon landings which have been debunked a million times.

Coveny

@Erfisflat let’s talk about your “evidence”

You link is broken again, NOW I remember why I didn’t “refute” this. I stopped at the broken link last time, but I’ll move forward this time without it.

Math - By your math the curvature is 8 inches per mile, but you multiple 163 X 8 and get… 10,631. Hmmm, that looks WAY wrong 8 X 100 is 800, so let’s have a look. 163X8 = 1,304, so you messed it up by a factor of TEN. You are WRONG.

Peaks height – The prominence for Canigou is 1,800 ft, and the elevation above sea level is 9,134 ft. Making the total height above sea level for Canigou 10,934. (where the hell did you get 4,000 feet??) So even with your bogus math it still should be send. You are WRONG again.

Observer height – The height above sea level where the video was shot makes a difference as well. It’s looking down on the ships and buildings below which seem small. So the land is above sea level, AND the build extends that even further. You didn’t take any of this into account…

Bonus points that support my claim - The mountains are 161 miles away, it is roughly 2 miles tall, but it looks like it’s only about an inch tall in the video. Your theory has the sun 3,000 miles away, it’s 32 miles tall, but it looks like it’s only about two inches tall. Does that look like your scale is correct? No… no it doesn’. If 160 miles shrinks the mountains to that height, it should make a 32 mile tall sun a pinprick at 3,000 miles, but the sun is still more than twice the size of the mountains…

The trait you share was the trait I was comparing you with… not any others. Both camps lack a basic grasp of science. I didn’t state flat earthers are causing people’s deaths like vaxxers are, you accusations are false.

I didn’t “find” any research on dinosaurs. I flat out stated I didn’t know that much about dinosaurs or the one you mentioned. I didn’t parrot anything to prove anything. You create a strawman fallacy against me.

 

As far as the logistics of them having sex I assume it looked something like this: (video chosen to be funny on purpose)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgyE0rwRJgM

As for my thoughts on the T-Rex, I’ve always thought the short arms look funny, but then evolution causes some crazy mutation, which are NOT intelligently designed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg0KUhdht38

Um next?

Coveny

@SilverishGoldNova I didn't know that NASA used the same camera for 40 something years, that's pretty impressive that it lasted that long in space. I can only assume there haven't been in camera advances during that time, nor have there been any new missions that could have brought said camera into space. Also I'm sure they tried to get the exact same angle, exact same lighting, the exact same time of year, and whatnot with all the pictures they took from the exact same camera which never changed for over 40 years. You make very good sense... NOT. 

I looked around for a video and I think this one is pretty cool. - 

Of course this looks interesting as well - http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

Sylynn

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Sylynn

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17" 

NASA has literally said here that the last time anyone took a real photograph of one of Earth's hemispheres was in 1972 during the moon landings which have been debunked a million times.

First, try as you may, the Apollo landings have never been debunked. Second, the article you linked is from 2012 and in 2015 NASA captured a photo of the entire sunlit side of the earth. 
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

Coveny

I like this video as well - 

Erfisflat

"You link is broken again, NOW I remember why I didn’t “refute” this"

I fixed it the first time, and til you so in the next round. Furthermore, your math is wrong, the formula you are using describes an incline. Eight inches per foot is a typical rooftop pitch. For a ball you would get increasingly more drop with every mile. This is your third attempt at spherical geometry with, very lacking results. This is the core blunder in your attempt at a rebuttal. Three strikes...


The mileage will be squared.
This is your math, not mine.
So at 160 miles of drop , from sea level, is (160 x 160)8/12=17,066.66666666... feet. The calculator here...

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
Automatically adjusts for observer elevation. 


"I didn’t parrot anything to prove anything. You create a strawman fallacy against me."

You parroted a few proofs for a globe now. You had to Google a good reason to give. I had to do it too.

"As far as the logistics of them having sex I assume.."

But the spikes on it's back would impale the male. I don't know about you,  but I don't allow sharp objects around my junk. 

All those animals are indeed special looking,  but they aren't top of the food chain material, so they're a bit irrelevant. Trex was supposedly the epitome I evolutionary progress.

Erfisflat

Sylynn said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Sylynn

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17" 

NASA has literally said here that the last time anyone took a real photograph of one of Earth's hemispheres was in 1972 during the moon landings which have been debunked a million times.

First, try as you may, the Apollo landings have never been debunked. Second, the article you linked is from 2012 and in 2015 NASA captured a photo of the entire sunlit side of the earth. 
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/

You won't be able to look at that picture without laughing anymore. 

Sonofason

Erfisflat said:

Sonofason said:

Erfisflat said:

Sonofason said:

@SilverishGoldNova

For what exactly?

 I think he just said the earth is flat. 

I will admit you make an interesting argument.  However, I am not convinced.  I'll be following this thread to be sure.

I'm curious as to why, exactly you still think you live on a ball tilted at 66.6 degrees, spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) and rocketing around the sun at 66,600 mph? Aren't you a biblical literalist?

Well, before I can answer whether or not I am a biblical literalist you'd have to first explain to me what a literal metaphor is.  Before I give you an example of what I mean, you should understand that I have a great deal more faith in the accuracy of the bible than I have in science.  That is not to say that I do not have a great deal of confidence in science; it simply means that if push comes to shove, I will accept what the bible says over what scientists say.

In the garden, Eve was tempted by a serpent.  While I believe that it is possible that Satan represented himself as a serpent to Eve, I believe that the word serpent or snake could simply be a metaphor, not very much unlike me calling a sly, devious and treacherous person a snake.  I believe either of these two scenarios work for me.  If I should be convinced that Satan never represented himself as a literal talking reptile to Eve, I'm perfectly happy accepting the notion that he is a crafty devious lying backstabbing creature, indeed just as defined in a dictionary, he was a snake.  If you need a link to that definition, let me know.

The honest truth is, I don't really care that much if we live on a sphere, or a flat disk.  The reality, one way or the other doesn't affect my life one iota.  I have never seen a verse of scripture declaring that the earth is flat.  If you have a verse to share, I'd be happy to see it, but I don't think you can find one.  If you did, perhaps I might change my position.  A sphere seems a great deal more logical to me, but then, who knows...I could be wrong.

Erfisflat

Sonofason said:

Erfisflat said:

Sonofason said:

Erfisflat said:

Sonofason said:

@SilverishGoldNova

For what exactly?

 I think he just said the earth is flat. 

I will admit you make an interesting argument.  However, I am not convinced.  I'll be following this thread to be sure.

I'm curious as to why, exactly you still think you live on a ball tilted at 66.6 degrees, spinning at 1,000 mph (faster than the speed of sound) and rocketing around the sun at 66,600 mph? Aren't you a biblical literalist?

Well, before I can answer whether or not I am a biblical literalist you'd have to first explain to me what a literal metaphor is.  Before I give you an example of what I mean, you should understand that I have a great deal more faith in the accuracy of the bible than I have in science.  That is not to say that I do not have a great deal of confidence in science; it simply means that if push comes to shove, I will accept what the bible says over what scientists say.

In the garden, Eve was tempted by a serpent.  While I believe that it is possible that Satan represented himself as a serpent to Eve, I believe that the word serpent or snake could simply be a metaphor, not very much unlike me calling a sly, devious and treacherous person a snake.  I believe either of these two scenarios work for me.  If I should be convinced that Satan never represented himself as a literal talking reptile to Eve, I'm perfectly happy accepting the notion that he is a crafty devious lying backstabbing creature, indeed just as defined in a dictionary, he was a snake.  If you need a link to that definition, let me know.

The honest truth is, I don't really care that much if we live on a sphere, or a flat disk.  The reality, one way or the other doesn't affect my life one iota.  I have never seen a verse of scripture declaring that the earth is flat.  If you have a verse to share, I'd be happy to see it, but I don't think you can find one.  If you did, perhaps I might change my position.  A sphere seems a great deal more logical to me, but then, who knows...I could be wrong.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Wolfgang666

Is this meant to be a joke?
This seems like a goof.

Wolfgang666

@Erfisflat

That is because you are a small person on a large ball.
The earth is 23,000 miles in diameter. At that size, the slight angle of the curve makes the earth appear to be flat to someone standing on the surface. 

Sylynn

Erfisflat said:

Sylynn said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Sylynn

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17" 

NASA has literally said here that the last time anyone took a real photograph of one of Earth's hemispheres was in 1972 during the moon landings which have been debunked a million times.

First, try as you may, the Apollo landings have never been debunked. Second, the article you linked is from 2012 and in 2015 NASA captured a photo of the entire sunlit side of the earth. 
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/

You won't be able to look at that picture without laughing anymore. 

Okay...this tells me nothing other than what is confirmed by science in that we are a pattern seeking species.

Sylynn

@Sonofason "I have a great deal more faith in the accuracy of the bible than I have in science"

Why is that? Is there anything in the Bible that has been demonstrated to be true? I can't think of a single thing, yet we know science has a good track record for it. If it wasn't for science you wouldn't have a computer or other device to engage in these debates. Without our space program there wouldn't be sattelites in orbit that allow for global communication. It's because of science we have medicines and other cures to treat disease or other ailments. You can't deny science is accurate, but rather you have to cherry pick and say a certain couple sciences are wrong without anything to back up that claim. 

Erfisflat

Wolfgang666 said:

@Erfisflat

That is because you are a small person on a large ball.
The earth is 23,000 miles in diameter. At that size, the slight angle of the curve makes the earth appear to be flat to someone standing on the surface. 

how vague. Question : there is a lake that is about 5 miles between it's furthest points. If I were standing on one side with my eye just above the water level, should I be able to see where the water hits the other side?

Erfisflat

Sylynn said:

Erfisflat said:

Sylynn said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Sylynn

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17" 

NASA has literally said here that the last time anyone took a real photograph of one of Earth's hemispheres was in 1972 during the moon landings which have been debunked a million times.

First, try as you may, the Apollo landings have never been debunked. Second, the article you linked is from 2012 and in 2015 NASA captured a photo of the entire sunlit side of the earth. 
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/

You won't be able to look at that picture without laughing anymore. 

Okay...this tells me nothing other than what is confirmed by science in that we are a pattern seeking species.

someone is in denial...

Sylynn

@Erfisflat Present a real argument or I'm done. I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks.

Erfisflat

Sylynn said:

@Sonofason "I have a great deal more faith in the accuracy of the bible than I have in science"

Why is that? Is there anything in the Bible that has been demonstrated to be true? I can't think of a single thing, yet we know science has a good track record for it. If it wasn't for science you wouldn't have a computer or other device to engage in these debates. Without our space program there wouldn't be sattelites in orbit that allow for global communication. It's because of science we have medicines and other cures to treat disease or other ailments. You can't deny science is accurate, but rather you have to cherry pick and say a certain couple sciences are wrong without anything to back up that claim. 

science says the earth is a ball.


That also rules out satellites. 

Erfisflat

@sylynn
Oh, I thought you were paying attention.

"With the curvature calculator found here:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial you can see that an observer at 1000 feet looking at an item 163 miles away would find that object 10,631 feet below the horizon. This would place the peak of Canigou well over 1000 feet below the horizon however not only it, but other peaks near it are clearly seen. In the videos below you will see several, sometimes 6 or 7 noticeable and very clear distinct mountain peaks. Even peaks 4000 feet high can be seen and this peak should be over a mile below the horizon.

Erfisflat

"you messed it up by a factor of TEN. You are WRONG."
@coveny ;

Sylynn

@Erfisflat - Lol, even the description of the video you provided explains why it would be visible. 

Erfisflat

Sylynn said:

@Erfisflat - Lol, even the description of the video you provided explains why it would be visible. 

and you are accepting this ridiculous excuse? I can demonstrate, with practical experimentation that it is false pseudoscience, meant to hide the flat earth. Type it out, let's see how plausible it sounds.