The Earth is flat 4.0
in Earth Science

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

(2 of the other debates were closed and 1 was deleted due to uncivil conduct. Please do not join this debate if you intend to troll)

Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball? Because I've seen none besides contradictory pseudoscience

Read this debate. http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1372/formal-debate-the-earth-is-flat ;

Answer down below if the Earth is flat:

Erfisflat · October 2017

"The physics of orbital movement ( i.e. a satellite orbiting the earth ) would be impossible in a flat plane."

Yes, satellites are a myth. There are balloons drones, and of course, an ever-growing wealth of towers. So in agreement, "The physics of orbital movement ( i.e. a satellite orbiting the earth ) would be impossible in a flat plane."

"Geosynchronous satellites would be impossible."

It's just a balloon.

https://www.nasa.gov/scientificballoons

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-098-DFRC.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_aircraft

" Geodetic surveys maintain their accuracy by adjusting for the earth's curvature."

No, they don't. I'm a surveyor. Some might say they do, but only to appear smart, or is coached. Chris van Matre is a 30+ year professional surveyor making flat earth videos

(Edit: link to his channel was dead, link his latest video)
This guy called a few surveying companies, most said the don't, the others that said they did, couldn't properly explain how, and were at a loss when asked about the math.

"Other proofs are available."

Next.

Erfisflat · October 2017

"Ok there is just no way that Earth is flat.

Because youve seen it, with your own eye, right? A million times a day on the teli.

"There are two main reasons. One of these reason is that how do people travel around the world if the world is flat, apparently they would just fall right off.

Circumnavigation is just going around the disc, with magnetic North at it's center. Up until recently, going south as far as you could was impossible, due to severe conditions. Go as far as you can south, find the edge you so desperately seek.

"Also, since we've known that Earth is round which started believing in when Aristotle was alive which was what 244 B.C.E?

It was highly debated for a long time. Once it was implemented into the education sytem, it's no longer questioned. Aristotle thought he saw boats over the horizon. An optical illusion, due to refraction. His word usually stuck, regardless of truth.

"We have known that the Earth is round for thousands of years, yet all of the people that believe that the Earth is flat haven't done anything to prove their point and are just starting controversy.

I have done very much to prove my point. The fact that you completely ignore my arguments gives me an idea as to why you would ask me questions I've answered multiple times. If you're going to debate the flat earth, at least read the rebuttals in the debates before asking trivial questions.

"So anyone taht the thinks the world is flat? Go to the end of the world and prove it."

Too cold.

Erfisflat · October 2017

"I have found that whenever you two see points that you cannot refute you seems to try to focus on one point of the post and change the subject.For example a user refuted one of your points, and in the process called one of you a moron, you chose to focus on that and completely avoid the refutation. I have finished reading one of the other debates and found no answers, so I'll read the other one too(Alos, why is the reason for having multiple debates, is it to make an excuse for every argument that comes up?). I haven't participated yet, so I believe it would be no trouble for you two to just copy paste your refutations here to respond to me.

To make this clear, I don't think you two are trolling, I just find it annoying that whenever someone cited NASA you immediately scream appeal to authority fallacy, or some unsourced claim on how NASA said they fake their pictures. Let me make this clear, If we cite government organization who researches space, and the earth, that is a not an appeal to authority fallacy. An appeal to authority claim is: "Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument." NASA is an authority on space.

I just wonder what would the government gain from telling us the world is round when it is really flat? What you are telling me is that every scientific authority in every country(Including North Korea, Iran, and other enemies of the west) are all lying to the world's population, for what reason? I expect a refutation, or at least a sentence or two on how each point I made in my post is wrong, or does not prove the earth is round/cannot be flat."

I thought that pointing you to the basic, very fallacious arguments and their refutation would be enough. Seriously, if your going to expect to debate against a model, at least do a few minutes of real research. I'll start a copy paste post up soon.

MissDMeanor · October 2017

@Erfisflat
You pointed me to two debates with hundreds of threads.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Those are the basic points and refutations aside from the last post, which I'm still hoping I don't have to spend probably an hour copy pasting, and the user will politely read the debate I pointed to. I've very little time left.

Erfisflat · October 2017

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/930/the-earth-is-flat/p1

First two pages

(Edit: the refutations, after rereading, are a bit further in the debate, around the 4th-5th page.

Erfisflat · October 2017

My plans just got changed, I'll have some time to get to rebuttals if needed. No responses yet, I'm hoping some basic research is getting done for the newcomers.

yolostide · October 2017

If the Earth was flat, airplane, etc. wouldn’t be able to travel around he world.

Erfisflat · October 2017

yolostide said:

If the Earth was flat, airplane, etc. wouldn’t be able to travel around he world.

Good job man. *sigh*

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

"The physics of orbital movement ( i.e. a satellite orbiting the earth ) would be impossible in a flat plane."

Yes, satellites are a myth. There are balloons drones, and of course, and ever-growing wealth of towers. So in agreement, "The physics of orbital movement ( i.e. a satellite orbiting the earth ) would be impossible in a flat plane."

"Geosynchronous satellites would be impossible.

It's just a balloon.

https://www.nasa.gov/scientificballoons

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-098-DFRC.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_aircraft

" Geodetic surveys maintain their accuracy by adjusting for the earth's curvature."

No, they don't. I'm a surveyor. Some might say they do, but only to appear smart, or is coached. Chris van Matre is a 30+ year professional surveyor making flat earth videos

(Edit: link to his channel was dead, link his latest video)
This guy called a few surveying companies, most said the don't, the others that said they did, couldn't properly explain how, and were at a loss when asked about the math.

"Other proofs are available."

Next.

docmatrix This is a rebuttal to your argument

Erfisflat said:

"Ok there is just no way that Earth is flat.

Because youve seen it, with your own eye, right? A million times a day on the teli.

"There are two main reasons. One of these reason is that how do people travel around the world if the world is flat, apparently they would just fall right off.

Circumnavigation is just going around the disc, with magnetic North at it's center. Up until recently, going south as far as you could was impossible, due to severe conditions. Go as far as you can south, find the edge you so desperately seek.

"Also, since we've known that Earth is round which started believing in when Aristotle was alive which was what 244 B.C.E?

It was highly debated for a long time. Once it was implemented into the education sytem, it's no longer questioned. Aristotle thought he saw boats over the horizon. An optical illusion, due to refraction. His word usually stuck, regardless of truth.

"We have known that the Earth is round for thousands of years, yet all of the people that believe that the Earth is flat haven't done anything to prove their point and are just starting controversy.

I have done very much to prove my point. The fact that you completely ignore my arguments gives me an idea as to why you would ask me questions I've answered multiple times. If you're going to debate the flat earth, at least read the rebuttals in the debates before asking trivial questions.

"So anyone taht the thinks the world is flat? Go to the end of the world and prove it."

Too cold.

@averyapro And this is a rebuttal to yours

Erfisflat · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

Erfisflat said:

"The physics of orbital movement ( i.e. a satellite orbiting the earth ) would be impossible in a flat plane."

Yes, satellites are a myth. There are balloons drones, and of course, and ever-growing wealth of towers. So in agreement, "The physics of orbital movement ( i.e. a satellite orbiting the earth ) would be impossible in a flat plane."

"Geosynchronous satellites would be impossible.

It's just a balloon.

https://www.nasa.gov/scientificballoons

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-098-DFRC.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_aircraft

" Geodetic surveys maintain their accuracy by adjusting for the earth's curvature."

No, they don't. I'm a surveyor. Some might say they do, but only to appear smart, or is coached. Chris van Matre is a 30+ year professional surveyor making flat earth videos

(Edit: link to his channel was dead, link his latest video)
This guy called a few surveying companies, most said the don't, the others that said they did, couldn't properly explain how, and were at a loss when asked about the math.

"Other proofs are available."

Next.

docmatrix This is a rebuttal to your argument

Erfisflat said:

"Ok there is just no way that Earth is flat.

Because youve seen it, with your own eye, right? A million times a day on the teli.

"There are two main reasons. One of these reason is that how do people travel around the world if the world is flat, apparently they would just fall right off.

Circumnavigation is just going around the disc, with magnetic North at it's center. Up until recently, going south as far as you could was impossible, due to severe conditions. Go as far as you can south, find the edge you so desperately seek.

"Also, since we've known that Earth is round which started believing in when Aristotle was alive which was what 244 B.C.E?

It was highly debated for a long time. Once it was implemented into the education sytem, it's no longer questioned. Aristotle thought he saw boats over the horizon. An optical illusion, due to refraction. His word usually stuck, regardless of truth.

"We have known that the Earth is round for thousands of years, yet all of the people that believe that the Earth is flat haven't done anything to prove their point and are just starting controversy.

I have done very much to prove my point. The fact that you completely ignore my arguments gives me an idea as to why you would ask me questions I've answered multiple times. If you're going to debate the flat earth, at least read the rebuttals in the debates before asking trivial questions.

"So anyone taht the thinks the world is flat? Go to the end of the world and prove it."

Too cold.

@averyapro And this is a rebuttal to yours

I think they're done.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@Erfisflat Coveny says he is going to ban people who disagree with him whenever terriblymadewebsite is completed.

Erfisflat · October 2017

@SilverishGoldNova can you clarify the poll question? There can't possibly be 100 percent of 5 people that agree the earth is flat.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

@SilverishGoldNova can you clarify the poll question? There can't possibly be 100 percent of 5 people that agree the earth is flat.

K

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Erfisflat Coveny says he is going to ban people who disagree with him whenever terriblymadewebsite is completed.

What do you think?

fea · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Erfisflat Coveny says he is going to ban people who disagree with him whenever terriblymadewebsite is completed.

What do you think?

Sad...

Erfisflat · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Erfisflat Coveny says he is going to ban people who disagree with him whenever terriblymadewebsite is completed.

What do you think?

Uninterested.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Anyone interested in debating against the flat earth is welcome to comment. Unless you agree that the earth is flat. Then you're welcome to join us. Or join metabunk or reddit, where they will all agree with you.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@Erfisflat Well I think you should allow other people besides us 2 to defend the flat Earth. There was a serious flat Earth subreddit but it got taken over by globers looking to troll. Metabunk is nothing more than an echo chamber. The admins of metabunk are known to ban anyone who disagrees with them, and it is considered a major violation to believe in a flat Earth there.

Erfisflat · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Erfisflat Well I think you should allow other people besides us 2 to defend the flat Earth. There was a serious flat Earth subreddit but it got taken over by globers looking to troll. Metabunk is nothing more than an echo chamber. The admins of metabunk are known to ban anyone who disagrees with them, and it is considered a major violation to believe in a flat Earth there.

Fine with anyone speaking up anywhere in favor of or against a flat earth. The general attitude of the discussion unfortunately advances to logical fallacies because this is a core belief, and the progress of the discussion either ends abruptly (ahem @docmatrix and @averyapro) or is reversed.

Why are people so against The idea that the earth is flat? It's synonymous with "stupid".

The intelligent ones who realize that there is far more conclusive arguments in favor of the flat earth than for the globe seem to disappear suddenly.

Erfisflat · October 2017

@MissDMeanor I mean no disrespect, but it is very hard to explain the fundamental things and laws of nature to sound solid.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Ok, no more takers tonight? Going to bed. Nite all.

Erfisflat · October 2017

"Let me make this clear, If we cite government organization who researches space, and the earth, that is a not an appeal to authority fallacy. An appeal to authority claim is: "Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument." NASA is an authority on space. "

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, popularized by John Locke as the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which expert opinion supports the argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is most often used in a cogent form.

== Structure ==
The argument is a defeasible argument and a statistical syllogism taking the form:
X is an expert on subject Y,
X claims A. (A is within subject Y.)
Therefore, A is probably true.

== History ==
John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first recorded to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument. He noted that it can be misused by taking advantage of the "respect" and "submission" of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion. Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change from Locke's terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority.
By the late 20th century, logic textbooks had shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority" or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority". Some works, however continue to eschew any distinction between the fallacious and sound version. A 2012 guidebook on philosophical logic describes appeals to authority not merely as arguments from unqualified or unreliable authority, but as arguments from authority in general. In addition to appeals lacking evidence of the authority's reliability, the book states that arguments from authority are fallacious if there is a lack of "good evidence" that the authorities appealed to possess "adequate justification for their views."
With the rise of the Internet, sites focused on the subject of fallacies began to appear. Among them, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Bradley Dowden states that "Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth." The "Fallacies" entry by Hans Hansen in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy similarly states that "Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them."
In the context of law, opinion on the appeal to authority has historically been listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument.

== Appeal to non-authorities ==
Fallacious arguments from authority are frequently the result of citing a non-authority as an authority. An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination on religion when his primary expertise was in physics. The body of attributed authorities might not even welcome their citation, such as with the "More Doctors Smoke Camels" ad campaign.
It is also often a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. Similarly to the appeal to authority, the ad hominem is not always fallacious, such as when the argument points out that an authority being appealed to is not an expert in the subject at hand.
Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious appeal to the common man.
However, these are still not the only recognized forms of appeal to authority. For example, a 2012 guidebook on philosophical logic describes appeals to authority not merely as arguments from unqualified or unreliable authority, but as arguments from authority in general. In addition to appeals lacking evidence of the authority's reliability, the book states that arguments from authority are fallacious if there is a lack of "good evidence" that the authorities appealed to possess "adequate justification for their views."
The "Fallacies" entry by Bradley Dowden in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that "appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf)" The "Fallacies" entry by Hans Hansen in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy similarly states that "when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them."

== Examples ==

=== Valid forms ===
The valid form of argument is one in which a recognized and knowledgeable authority on the relevant subject is appealed to by citing a statement by that authority. This is a form of inductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not logically certain, but likely. Examples include following the treatments prescribed by a medical doctor, or citing a respected author to establish claims of fact in a written work.

=== Fallacious forms ===
When misused, the argument typically forms an informal fallacy. This form of the argument occurs when the presumed authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as being an expert in the wrong subject or is giving views from one side of an active controversy. Some examples of this are citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology; an Olympic athlete's endorsement of a product they do not use; or a long retired professor's claims about a current debate in their field. This forms an informal fallacy because the first proposition is untrue.

Erfisflat · October 2017

In this case, "Because NASA says so" is essentially an appeal to biased authority fallacy, as the entire yearly budget of just under $20,000,000,000 depends solely on the conclusion.

Erfisflat · October 2017

I killed the internet again

MissDMeanor · October 2017

This is my rebuttal to a responce I got in the old debate

On the video of ships going over the horizon:

Your video is incorrect. The water reflects the sky and boat, it's the small line known as the true horizon. How you equate that with proving FE is delirious. The big ship didn't diffuse into a small dot because it was so far away, it went behind the foreground, the curve, bottom first. Being as the ship and the observer are both above sea level, this observation is simply impossible on a flat earth.

On the GIF you linked:
<Gif of sun and moon rotation>
There are two problems with the GIF that you linked:

1. Imagine a dark room, shine a flashlight down, to the ground, but make sure you are not in it. You can see the beam of light, even if you are not directly inside of it, why can I not seethe beam of light of the sun when it is night. Another analogy: Imagine a firefly at night, even if I am not directly in it's light, I can still see it. If the earth is flat, there should be nothing obstructing me from seeing it.

2. In the north pole it is day for 6 months, and it is night for 6 months, this is no secret. In your model day night in the north pole works normally, in fact, it is always day in at least one part of the north pole. This still does not explain why, depending on the time of year, why the amount of daylight changes. How does daylight savings work on your model? How do seasons work on your model?

On NASA faking images:
I get a 404 when clicking on the link, do you have the text of the article, or a screenshot?

On the video explaining gravity:
<The video disproving gravity>
Now unless you have taken science courses in the past, you don't have the right to say gravity isn't real.

Gravity is a pull between masses. If one mass is large and the other mass is small then the force is small. If both masses are large then force is strong. Jumping up is accelerating you upwards at a certain value but because of gravity, you are accelerating down at 9.81 meters per second per second which is why your upwards velocity is slowed down and your downwards velocity increases. You begin to accelerate down at that value.

Magnetic fields are stronger than gravitational fields (and much different). Their interactions with magnetic materials produce an attractive force with a much higher acceleration than gravity of the earth, depending on how close each magnetic mass is. There is little reliance on the mass of such objects and so using paper clips, you have reduced the force of the earth greatly without affecting the magnetic properties and therefore, magnetic pull.

The balloon contains a very small amount of mass, but it also displaces a lot of space. Density is a measure of mass per volume of displacement and only a gas with density smaller than air and low enough to cancel the weight of the balloon will move up. This is because it has less mass per volume of displacement than the air around it and gravity will pull the denser gas (with more mass per volume of displacement) towards earth harder than the less dense gas (because it has less mass per volume of displacement).

The elastic energy in the slinky is high. When you let go, the elastic energy transforms into kinetic energy which is pulling the slinky back together. I'll try to explain but in order to abide by your rules in the description, it will be hard. The slinky is stretched which gives it a high elastic energy level. When you let go, that energy pulls the slinky together in both directions. Elastic energy is stored in higher values at the top than at the bottom. So when released, the top is pulled down and by elastic energy. Since acceleration due to gravity is constant, the bottom won't fall because the top is accelerating faster on account of the elastic energy. You will most likely need a decent background in science to understand this properly.

The demonstration with the water tank is similar to the balloon one earlier in the video. Gravity will pull harder on a larger mass. Density is the unit given to define the mass per volume of displacement. Whether one of the objects sink relies on two things: -The volume of displacement -The mass of the object Water is 1000kg per cubic meter So if I have an object that is small but is 1001kg per cubic meter or higher then it will sink as gravity pulls on it harder than it does on water. Wood is less than 1000kg per cubic meter and won't sink. Air is very small (I think 1 kg per cubic meter) an wont get pulled under water.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

namemcname said:

If the Earth is flat, I need you to prove your magic sky monster exists and sail off the edge.

Hate to get excessive with the memes, but:

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/4m/ny6q2rytn04n.jpg

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/2k/n3pe2glkkp77.jpg

I was never using bible verses as evidence, and we aren't discussing religion (strawman and red herring fallacy), and I've already debunked the "huh huh wheres the edge" argument many, many times. Shall I explain it again?

Most flat Earthers believe in an ice wall rather than an edge to fall off of, and there is decent proof of that. Whether there is an edge or not is irrelevant, and the whole thing is just an appeal to ignorance and red herring fallacy bundled up into one.

@MissDMeanor Hmm. Interesting argument. However, I've been very busy on an important project and I have been staying up for so long to do it, @Erfisflat Do you want this young one... for now?

Erfisflat · October 2017

@MissDMeanor

"This is my rebuttal to a responce I got in the old debate"

Maybe you got caught up with the rest of the conversation. Let's see.

"On the video of ships going over the horizon:

Your video is incorrect. The water reflects the sky and boat, it's the small line known as the true horizon. How you equate that with proving FE is delirious. The big ship didn't diffuse into a small dot because it was so far away, it went behind the foreground, the curve, bottom first. Being as the ship and the observer are both above sea level, this observation is simply impossible on a flat earth."

You've not mentioned refraction at all in your rebuttal, I'm assuming you have a basic idea of how refraction works, correct? When you take this into consideration (magnification, which is why the boat didnt diffuse into a small dot because it was so far away, and displacement, which is why it seems lower) it completely supports my claim.

Aristotle first postulated the ball earth theory because he saw boats seemingly going over the horizon, this was before even magnifying glasses were thought of. We can see from several videos how the boat has completely disappeared from normal view, but as it is zoomed in the entire boat is visible again. Then, as more and more liquid is in the air, refraction comes into effect, magnifying and displacing the boat, causing it to appear bigger and lower than it actually is at this distance due to perspective, and lower.

The thought that a boat goes over the curvature of the earth, but going up in an airplane the horizon is still at eye level and flat is illogical, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm not entirely sure which videos you watched of boats going over curvature, but I'll post a few here. Also, I'm not sure if you saw the videos of sites that are visible from distances that are impossible of the globe, but this too couples to debunk the boats over curvature argument.

"Imagine a dark room, shine a flashlight down, to the ground, but make sure you are not in it. You can see the beam of light, even if you are not directly inside of it, why can I not seethe beam of light of the sun when it is night. Another analogy: Imagine a firefly at night, even if I am not directly in it's light, I can still see it. If the earth is flat, there should be nothing obstructing me from seeing it. "

This is again due to refraction. The sun appears magnified and lowered. This too has been discussed and demonstrated exhaustively here. Maybe you haven't gotten caught up yet, that refutation is on page 8 or so, when the troll hits.

"2. In the north pole it is day for 6 months, and it is night for 6 months, this is no secret. In your model day night in the north pole works normally, in fact, it is always day in at least one part of the north pole. This still does not explain why, depending on the time of year, why the amount of daylight changes. How does daylight savings work on your model? How do seasons work on your model?"

Seasons. Again, reading into any of the debates will explain this several times. The sun goes on a circuit around the north pole. On our summer, the circuit is tighter around the pole. In our winter, it goes around a bigger circuit, giving the southern hemisphere their summer. It makes more sense on the proposed flat earth model than it does the spherical model and this is proved by looking at the sun analemma.

This is something that cannot be explained in your model.

"On NASA faking images:
I get a 404 when clicking on the link, do you have the text of the article, or a screenshot?"

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

The rest of your post is discussing the theory of gravity, which was invented to support the ball earth assumption. You are using a theory to support an assumption. I'm proving that assumption to be false, therefore the theory is false.

Erfisflat · October 2017

@SilverishGoldNova

Yes

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@MissDMeanor Well do you have a response to Erfisflats rebuttal? Ill take it from there, if possible.

joecavalry · October 2017

The Earth is not flat due to the rotation of the Earth.

Erfisflat · October 2017

joecavalry said:

The Earth is not flat due to the rotation of the Earth.

Are you a bot? If not, how do you know it is rotating?

Ampersand · October 2017

So can I get an overview of the flat earth explanation for the solar system? Like how it is all meant to fit together, where the sun and moon are in relation to us, what size they are, what speed they move at, how hot the sun is, etc.

Erfisflat · October 2017

JoePineapples · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball?

Answer down below if the Earth is flat:

You state that the Earth is flat and then request evidence to prove it's a ball?
I'm sure you understand the term "burden of proof".

Erfisflat · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball?

Answer down below if the Earth is flat:

You state that the Earth is flat and then request evidence to prove it's a ball?
I'm sure you understand the term "burden of proof".

Since our basic senses tell us in every way that the earth is flat and without motion, the burden rests on the claim against those senses.

harrison_duncan · October 2017

this is the map flat tards suggest is correct. this has some major problems.
A. Australia is absolutely massive, Jesus it's larger than North America
B. The distance from Australia too South America is 2X larger

Erfisflat · October 2017

harrison_duncan said:

this is the map flat tards suggest is correct. this has some major problems.
A. Australia is absolutely massive, Jesus it's larger than North America
B. The distance from Australia too South America is 2X larger

I wouldn't point any fingers, this is what globetards believe is an accurate representation of earth is.

JoePineapples · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

JoePineapples said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball?

Answer down below if the Earth is flat:

You state that the Earth is flat and then request evidence to prove it's a ball?
I'm sure you understand the term "burden of proof".

Since our basic senses tell us in every way that the earth is flat and without motion, the burden rests on the claim against those senses.

The claim was "The Earth is flat", I'm sure you don't need me to explain that shifting the burden is a logical fallacy

Ampersand · October 2017

@Erfisflat I'll take a look at the video when I'm not on mobile.

In regards to your response to Joe Pineapples, which senses and how? Most senses seem inapplicable (taste, touch, smell and hearing). Sight and, if you include it, sense of balance, SEM like they could be applicable but even then can't be utilised simply.

There are certain simple-ish experiments you can do using those senses (stand on a clear observing ships interact with the horizon etc) but then we're looking at experimental design. What do our basic senses tell us that is meant to support your argument?

Erfisflat · October 2017

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat I'll take a look at the video when I'm not on mobile.

In regards to your response to Joe Pineapples, which senses and how? Most senses seem inapplicable (taste, touch, smell and hearing). Sight and, if you include it, sense of balance, SEM like they could be applicable but even then can't be utilised simply.

There are certain simple-ish experiments you can do using those senses (stand on a clear observing ships interact with the horizon etc) but then we're looking at experimental design. What do our basic senses tell us that is meant to support your argument?

That what we live on is flat and motionless. Ships over horizons is just refraction at play

Erfisflat · October 2017

@JoePineapples
Actually the oP insinuates the claim: "Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball?"

Meaning there is none. You are shifting the burden.

JoePineapples · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

@JoePineapples
Actually the oP insinuates the claim: "Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball?"

Meaning there is none. You are shifting the burden.

Have you not seen the title of this debate?

Erfisflat · October 2017

@JoePineapples

If you insist, and are too lazy to look it up yourself, I'll copy and paste some proof from previous versions of this debate.

Ampersand · October 2017

@Erfisflat

Yeah, I get that you believe the earth is flat. However you said this is supported by - and seemed to suggest it should be treated as a priori knowledge based on - our basic senses.

How do our basic senses show us this?

Erfisflat · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

@JoePineapples
Actually the oP insinuates the claim: "Do you have any evidence we're monkeys on a spinning ball?"

Meaning there is none. You are shifting the burden.

Have you not seen the title of this debate?

I have, as well as the OP.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

Yeah, I get that you believe the earth is flat. However you said this is supported by - and seemed to suggest it should be treated as a priori knowledge based on - our basic senses.

How do our basic senses show us this?

Because my senses can detect motion and curvature. There is none.

MissDMeanor · October 2017

@SilverishGoldNova
I working on it

JoePineapples · October 2017

Erfisflat said:
Because my senses can detect motion and curvature. There is none.

According to my senses the Earth is a series of giant slopes, it's neither round nor flat.

Likewise, an amoeba sat in one of the dimples of a golf ball wouldn't see that the golf ball is round, it would think that the golf ball is actually a giant crater (if the amoeba could think and use the same senses as ourselves).

Ampersand · October 2017

@Erfisflat

What motion and curvature would you expect that you aren't sensing?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Three women murdered and the search for a killer named "Hannibal"

In this Debate

The Earth is flat 4.0
in Earth Science

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Three women murdered and the search for a killer named "Hannibal"

In this Debate

The Earth is flat 4.0in Earth Science

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

The Earth is flat 4.0
in Earth Science