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.





The earth is flat

145791024



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SnakesOfferingApplesSnakesOfferingApples 121 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Erfisflat ;

    Although I love the originality, atmosphere, and overall mood you bring to the website, I have to respectfully disagree. To illustrate, I recently went to Panama for stem cell treatment, long story short, the facility for the treatment is on the 63rd floor, and as I looked out with I could see more of the country, as well as the curvature, I find that it is more defined the higher up you go. And yes I do know that the validity of personal statements is sketchy, but since you don't believe anything put out by Nasa, I had to use some way to illustrate why the world is round.

    However, admittedly I am not an expert on this topic, so feel free to respond, as always I will try and read your arguments with an open mind, as a conversation is the only way to come to a solid conclusion.
    Erfisflat
    This account is dead, my political opinions have changed significantly and I'm no longer active.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny got a new fan, it seems. He does look nice, I see why you decided to become him.
    I r teh seksy now!
    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   -  
    Coveny got a new fan, it seems. He does look nice, I see why you decided to become him.
    I r teh seksy now!
    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 ;

    Although I love the originality, atmosphere, and overall mood you bring to the website, I have to respectfully disagree. To illustrate, I recently went to Panama for stem cell treatment, long story short, the facility for the treatment is on the 63rd floor, and as I looked out with I could see more of the country, as well as the curvature, I find that it is more defined the higher up you go. And yes I do know that the validity of personal statements is sketchy, but since you don't believe anything put out by Nasa, I had to use some way to illustrate why the world is round.

    However, admittedly I am not an expert on this topic, so feel free to respond, as always I will try and read your arguments with an open mind, as a conversation is the only way to come to a solid conclusion.
    You may have been looking out of some curved glass, which artificially curves straight lines. Or your brain could have been causing you to see or remember a false curve. MKULTRA is powerful stuff, ask @evidence. Even pilots claim that the flatness persists at even 40K+ feet.

    https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/633492-pilots-when-can-you-start-seeing-curvature-earth-sky-black.html

    The Mythsustainers did a piece on this, complete with curved glass helmets, with gopro cameras, looking out curved glass windows.





    They haven't fooled flat earthers though. 






    110,000 ft. Fisheye (gopro) camera versus standard.

    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
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    The Earth's surface may indeed be 70 - 75% covered by water, but the earth is certainly not 75% water.  
    Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    The Earth's surface may indeed be 70 - 75% covered by water, but the earth is certainly not 75% water.  
    Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. The surface is what is in question. Water has always been shown to conform to it's container, and find and maintain a level surface. That means that sea level is level. Someone standing on the shores of eastern U.s. is level with someone on the western shores of Europe 
    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
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Sonofason said:
    The Earth's surface may indeed be 70 - 75% covered by water, but the earth is certainly not 75% water.  
    Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. The surface is what is in question. Water has always been shown to conform to it's container, and find and maintain a level surface. That means that sea level is level. Someone standing on the shores of eastern U.s. is level with someone on the western shores of Europe 
    No, a straight line tangent to the earth's surface is only level at the point where the radius of the earth intersects that tangent line.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Sonofason said:
    The Earth's surface may indeed be 70 - 75% covered by water, but the earth is certainly not 75% water.  
    Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. The surface is what is in question. Water has always been shown to conform to it's container, and find and maintain a level surface. That means that sea level is level. Someone standing on the shores of eastern U.s. is level with someone on the western shores of Europe 
    No, a straight line tangent to the earth's surface is only level at the point where the radius of the earth intersects that tangent line.
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. 
    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
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Sonofason said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Sonofason said:
    The Earth's surface may indeed be 70 - 75% covered by water, but the earth is certainly not 75% water.  
    Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. The surface is what is in question. Water has always been shown to conform to it's container, and find and maintain a level surface. That means that sea level is level. Someone standing on the shores of eastern U.s. is level with someone on the western shores of Europe 
    No, a straight line tangent to the earth's surface is only level at the point where the radius of the earth intersects that tangent line.
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. 
    The principles of physics, observations, and mathematics carry us swiftly beyond assumptions into the realm of knowledge and truth.  You should try it.
    PowerPikachu21Coveny
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    Sonofason said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Sonofason said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Sonofason said:
    The Earth's surface may indeed be 70 - 75% covered by water, but the earth is certainly not 75% water.  
    Water only accounts for about "0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=mass+of+all+water+on+earth
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. The surface is what is in question. Water has always been shown to conform to it's container, and find and maintain a level surface. That means that sea level is level. Someone standing on the shores of eastern U.s. is level with someone on the western shores of Europe 
    No, a straight line tangent to the earth's surface is only level at the point where the radius of the earth intersects that tangent line.
    ... assuming the earth is a ball. 
    The principles of physics, observations, and mathematics carry us swiftly beyond assumptions into the realm of knowledge and truth.  You should try it.


    Is this evidence? I have shown here with practical physics, observations, and mathematics that living on a spinning ball is impossible. So I agree with your statement, except for the last bit. I have tried it. This is the reason I'm here, i, like many others are ignoring preassumptions and test the globe with practical physics, observations, and mathematics and experiment.
    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 said:
    @Gooberry ;
    "Instead of trying to go off on a wild tangent, by all means go ahead and explain how the North Star could drop in the sky 2 degrees EVERY 140 miles travelled north/south on a flat surface."

    I'm assuming you understand perspective? 
    Changing the subject to perspective when we were talking about Navigation using the stars doesn't seem to make much sense.

    Can you please return to the conversation we were on before you start asking other random unrelated questions.

    For the last 2000 years, navigators have used the stars and the sun to work out where they are on the surface of the planet. This navigation used the LINEAR relationship between angle to a star, and position on the surface of the earth. The relationship between angle to a star and distance on the surface of a flat earth is non-linear; so the earth can't be flat.

    You may not like the fact that the position of the stars and the surface of the earth have a defined geometric relationship that has been understood and used by navigators and explorers for 2000 years, but that is the reality.

    If you don't understand what that means, I can always try and explain this in even simpler terms.


    CovenyErfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Apparently you my last argument as a Fallacy: would you care to elaborate?

    Which fallacy is it? How am I wrong?

    Generally speaking, debate is about the exchange of arguments and information, rather than clicking an agree button and hiding.
    PowerPikachu21Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Saw this and thought of "someone", not naming names or anything...


    SilverishGoldNovaGooberryErfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Gooberry

    "Changing the subject to perspective when we were talking about Navigation using the stars doesn't seem to make much sense."

    I responded to your point which I thought you were summarizing with:

    "by all means go ahead and explain how the North Star could drop in the sky 2 degrees EVERY 140 miles travelled north/south on a flat surface."

    This is perspective. I'm guessing you haven't sourced your argument because I've already refuted it in my responses. Since, no doubt you are not a Viking or Greek mariner, who navigates by polaris, I'm assuming you've done a Google to debunk me. Just saying that for 2,000 years, everyone navigated by a "linear"  relationship and this is only possible on a ball is patently ridiculous, falsely assumes the distance to Polaris, and doesn't even begin to account for refraction. The Vikings, while we're talking about them, knew the earth was flat and navigated the North seas (using Polaris) for hundreds of years.

    http://www.vikingaheimar.is/en/fate-gods

    So, instead of me taking your word on whether 2,000 year old stargazers assumed a flat or spherical earth, properly sourcing shouldn't be too much to ask. Chances are, you'll find the distance to the star is assumed, and is calculated by assuming the earth's assumed motion or shape.




    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   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    Apparently you my last argument as a Fallacy: would you care to elaborate?

    Which fallacy is it? How am I wrong?

    Generally speaking, debate is about the exchange of arguments and information, rather than clicking an agree button and hiding.
    Oh I wasn't hiding. Just working.

    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   -  
    Coveny said:
    Saw this and thought of "someone", not naming names or anything...



    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
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Coveny At this point you are just bringing up random stuff that doesn't argue for anything combined with cherry picking and strawman fallacies.
    Erfisflat
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat proof this check is a giant. Her fingers are bigger and taller than the sun!


    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Coveny At this point you are just bringing up random stuff that doesn't argue for anything combined with cherry picking and strawman fallacies.
    This whole thread is just random stuff that makes no sense. My points were never refuted, so he just turned into insult throwing, when I proved he was full of it, he didn't want to "argue" anymore. He's a , a spreader of pseudoscience, and so egotistical that he believes a little bit of google "research" makes him smarter than the rest of the world. 
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Coveny At this point you are just bringing up random stuff that doesn't argue for anything combined with cherry picking and strawman fallacies.
    This whole thread is just random stuff that makes no sense. My points were never refuted, so he just turned into insult throwing, when I proved he was full of it, he didn't want to "argue" anymore. He's a , a spreader of pseudoscience, and so egotistical that he believes a little bit of google "research" makes him smarter than the rest of the world. 
    They make sense to a lot of people, they contradict your life's belief system,  that's why you don't understand it.  and your points were refuted above there waiting on a response from you.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

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

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

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat yes conspiracy make "sense" to a lot of people. Everything you are saying is based of a world wide conspiracy to make the US look good. Russia, and china who have hated us and would love to make us look bad are in on it as well. The hoops you have to jump through, and the things you refuse to believe or just flat lie about to make your position "work" is a long list. I have presented proof, none of which have you refuted, you just got mad and started insulting me, then I showed you were a and looked like a fool. You want to go another round on the insults it would seem. I guess your little feelings have finally recover from the last time I hurt them.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @coveny
    So, before you started mentally masturbating with your strawman about what % water earth is, we had a somewhat relevant chain conversation which stopped with you. Since you have forgotten, I'll catch you up.

    "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.

    Coveny-dropped .


    "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. 


    Coveny -dropped


    3. Sun’s height – Your diagram does not address the sun’s 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.


    Coveny- no response

    "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?


    Coveny- "but, but, muh 75% water" 

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


    It most certainly does.


    https://youtu.be/KDUXlhv77dA


    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.

    Coveny- no response 


    "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.


    Coveny- no response

    "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. 


    Edit: The distance to the star amongst other factors decide how this happens, and has no bearing on the shape of the earth.


    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 their apparent position 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.


    Coveny- no response

    "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.


    https://youtu.be/afkT3f6sZuc


    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 eighth grade level science.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqDbsPUgH8



    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.

    Coveny- no response 

    The other rebuttals are there too, I'll copy those next. Either come up with a rebuttal or stop wasting my time.
    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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    1 - Time zones
    The sun disappears it doesn't "fade away" as I have already stated. Just like that video you shared of sun going down behind the mountain as the curvature covers it. The sun didn't get smaller and "fade" away it drops below the horizon and the horizon covers it. If it worked the say it worked the sun would just get smaller and smaller then fade out, but it doesn't fade out, and you still haven't addressed the areas in your diagram that would ALWAYS see the sun.

    2 -  Coriolis effect
    You explained drains, I responded that the ocean doesn't have walls like a drain does and that proves nothing because you are trying to explain a controlled "flush" rather than occuring in nature without walls to shape it. I believe my response was something about how your whole idea was full of s*** just like they toilet you used as an example.

    3 - Sun's height
    You still miss the point on this completely. You diagram can NOT compensate for the sun "moving around" for your diagram to work the sun's path must never move, yet it does. Sometimes it's higher sometimes it's much lower in the sky. Move the circle around on your diagram and see what happens. Whole areas of the world quit getting daylight. Also as the video I posted shows the path wouldn't go from east to west, it would go from east to north in a circle rather than a straight line. Again none of that has to do with your magical "perspective". Perspective NEVER makes stuff disappear it get's closer to the horizon and smaller, but you video demonstrates exactly how much bulls*** your perspective thing is, as the sun does NOT get smaller or fades away. It drops below the curvature of the earth... clearly. It PROVES the earth is round just like I said.

    4 - Stars move
    On the flip... no the image doesn't "flip" regardless of where you stand only your angle changes. But after watching a bit of that video I can see where you get your rampant insults in the face of anyone who disagrees with you. I'm tempted to make a video, but I don't want to waste the time. 

    Small stars
    What makes me think the stars appear small? Are you serious? Go outside at night, go so somewhere away from the city and watch a sun rise (up from below the edge of the earth) or a sun set (down past the edge of the earth) you'll see stars and you'll see these big objects called the sun and moon. One APPEARS big (like when planes fly at 20 thousand feet in between the earth and the moon (which still looks the same size as it does from earth) but don't block out the moon), the other APPEARS small, as in the plane can block them out. What is wrong with your brain?




    A) perspective
    Ok lets address this with REALITY rather than a drawing. Look at the lights close in the picture, and look at how the same light far away is smaller and fading away even though it's not going into the horizon? Does this make sense to you yet? If the stars are small already they would FADE AWAY if they got further away just like these street lamps. You do think street lamps are real right?





    Refraction has no baring on this. Even it were in effect (which it's not) it would just off set it and would have ZERO affect on the brightness of the light source or prevent that light source from fading away. But hey maybe I should try your approach! Bananas prove that the earth is round! (man it's fun making s*** up)


    5) Horizon - 
    Oh look another banana. Ok refraction and the mirror effect deal with stuff you can see, and they end when the object is out of site. It just keeps getting smaller rather than being consumed by the bottom up. (as your video of the boat SHOWS) 

    Look a banana video proving heat distortion and hills/valleys are a thing. I find it so strange that you both use something to "prove" your flat earth, then completely ignore it if it doesn't suit you. sigh

    It's not "my" model, it's sciences model that has been proven thousands of ways by 10s of thousands of different people. They are the ones who proved the bibles model wrong. (well after you guys stopped killing them for disagreeing with you) As I said at the beginning of this I don't have an interest researching this, I have an interest in stopping you from being anti-science and pro-religion. We had a time when you guys were in charge it's call the dark ages. I'd really prefer NOT to go back there again.

    You have rebutted nothing. You hold a banana up as "proof", and say it's been refuted, but as we've seen you lie... a LOT.
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    Erfisflat said:
    @Gooberry
    "by all means go ahead and explain how the North Star could drop in the sky 2 degrees EVERY 140 miles travelled north/south on a flat surface."

    This is perspective. I'm guessing you haven't sourced your argument because I've already refuted it in my responses. Since, no doubt you are not a Viking or Greek mariner, who navigates by polaris, I'm assuming you've done a Google to debunk me. Just saying that for 2,000 years, everyone navigated by a "linear"  relationship and this is only possible on a ball is patently ridiculous, falsely assumes the distance to Polaris, and doesn't even begin to account for refraction. The Vikings, while we're talking about them, knew the earth was flat and navigated the North seas (using Polaris) for hundreds of years.

    Asserting that X explains Y without any attempt to provide an explanation, is meaningless unscientific nonsense; and gives the impression that you don't know and are just resorting to making things up.

    I await your proof of how an object in the sky can move linearly with distance traveled. You can assert "Perspective" or "refraction" explain it, is meaningless: you may as well have said "magic" explains it. I also await your proof of how various forms of navigation requires one to assume the distance to Polaris. How? Why.

    ,

    CovenyPowerPikachu21Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Asserting that X explains Y without any attempt to provide an explanation, is meaningless unscientific nonsense; and gives the impression that you don't know and are just resorting to making things up.

    I await your proof of how an object in the sky can move linearly with distance traveled. You can assert "Perspective" or "refraction" explain it, is meaningless: you may as well have said "magic" explains it. I also await your proof of how various forms of navigation requires one to assume the distance to Polaris. How? Why.


    I really don't think he understands this. I've begun calling it bannana proof, because bananas prove the world is curved not flat, and that's exactly how ridiculous he sounds.
    PowerPikachu21ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

    @coveny


    1 - Time zones
    “The sun disappears it doesn't "fade away" as I have already stated. Just like that video you shared of sun going down behind the mountain as the curvature covers it. “


    Did you seriously just say that? You think mountains are curvature?


    “The sun didn't get smaller and "fade" away it drops below the horizon and the horizon covers it. If it worked the say it worked the sun would just get smaller and smaller then fade out, but it doesn't fade out, and you still haven't addressed the areas in your diagram that would ALWAYS see the sun.”


    I really didn't think I had to cover a basic concept like refraction to an adult with such detail. I've showed you there is a lot of water in the air. I've shown you how the light, as it travels through a body of water, will bend.


    Even some of the dumbest globetards on the plane know about refraction. Though they assume (since we're on a spinning ball and that's all there is going to ever be no matter what) that the light is bent to great degrees because of the atmosphere, though the claim is that the light is bent the demonstrably opposite direction.


    They bring pseudoscience, I bring real science. The sun is supposedly mathematically impossible to see for a short  time in your model, supposedly over the imaginary curve already when we see it setting.


    “we can see the Sun even when it is *geometrically* just below the horizon, at both sunrise and sunset.”


    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/194-why-can-we-see-the-sun-s-image-before-sunrise-and-after-sunset-beginner



    but as can be demonstrated below, refraction works in the opposite way. instead of the sun being raised above it's true position,  it is lowered. So, once again, the sun, and anything with enough atmosphere between the observer (you) and the observed (the sun) will be magnified and lowered until it is obstructed.

    This means the stars, the moon and the sun, when close to the horizon, are actually slightly higher and smaller than what they appear to be.



    2 -  Coriolis effect
    You explained drains, I responded that the ocean doesn't have walls like a drain does and that proves nothing because you are trying to explain a controlled "flush" rather than occuring in nature without walls to shape it. I believe my response was something about how your whole idea was full of s*** just like they toilet you used as an example."

    https://youtu.be/HY4slgQ3wwU


    https://youtu.be/2B22yLZD4Ng


    Drains go in both directions in both hemispheres. This in no way or the other proves curvature. A red herring.


    3 - Sun's height
    “You still miss the point on this completely. You diagram can NOT compensate for the sun "moving around" for your diagram to work the sun's path must never move, yet it does.”


    Are you referring to seasons, when the sun appears closer to the southern horizon as it passes from east to west, or just the general, everyday east to west motion of the sun?


    “Sometimes it's higher sometimes it's much lower in the sky. Move the circle around on your diagram and see what happens. Whole areas of the world quit getting daylight. Also as the video I posted shows the path wouldn't go from east to west, it would go from east to north in a circle rather than a straight line. Again none of that has to do with your magical "perspective". “


    Magical? Perspective is a well known law of everyday life. There's nothing magical about it. You may have to try again on this whole point until now.


    “Perspective NEVER makes stuff disappear it get's closer to the horizon and smaller, “


    No, thats refraction AND perspective, along with atmospheric blockage (clouds, dust, heat, etc.)


    “but you video demonstrates exactly how much bulls*** your perspective thing is, as the sun does NOT get smaller or fades away. It drops below the curvature of the earth... clearly. It PROVES the earth is round just like I said.”


    The sun does get smaller,


    https://youtu.be/aAbOZor0Whs


    https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE


    https://youtu.be/W0Gx1vD1CRE


    though as more and more water gets in front of it, the change is less apparent (magnification) . This is once again, due to refraction and perspective. Here are three experiments that show this.


    https://youtu.be/wExbki15td8


    https://youtu.be/HH5U74rpYeU


    And I've done one myself that gives the same results.




    So, with the scientific method, i can demonstrate exactly what we see, can you?




    4 - Stars move
    On the flip... no the image doesn't "flip" regardless of where you stand only your angle changes. But after watching a bit of that video I can see where you get your rampant insults in the face of anyone who disagrees with you. I'm tempted to make a video, but I don't want to waste the time.


    “The angle changes (dependent on the positions), you now agree. Do you agree that 180 degrees is an angle? You see the inverted image of what someone on opposite sides of the room/plane does. You're thinking this.”


    When it's actually this.




    There's no simpler way to explain this. I've probably wasted more time than i should have already. Any more and I’'ll just be repeating myself.





    “Small stars
    What makes me think the stars appear small? Are you serious? Go outside at night, go so somewhere away from the city and watch a sun rise (up from below the edge of the earth) or a sun set (down past the edge of the earth) you'll see stars and you'll see these big objects called the sun and moon.”


    I mean yes, compared to the stars, yes the sun is big, and the stars are just points of light.


    “One APPEARS big (like when planes fly at 20 thousand feet in between the earth and the moon (which still looks the same size as it does from earth) but don't block out the moon), the other APPEARS small, as in the plane can block them out. What is wrong with your brain?

    Totally irrelevant. Back to your point,


    “Secondly stars appear small not big, 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.”



    Again, this is where you are ignorant.

    Refraction causes the light to remain relatively the same size as is drops towards the horizon (due to perspective) and displaces it's apparent position to a lower point until it is intercepted by the ground plane. Regardless of whether you understand it, that's how it works. The earth has been measured, and there is no curve, pointing at the sky proves nothing.



    A) perspective
    Ok lets address this with REALITY rather than a drawing. Look at the lights close in the picture, and look at how the same light far away is smaller and fading away even though it's not going into the horizon? Does this make sense to you yet? If the stars are small already they would FADE AWAY if they got further away just like these street lamps. You do think street lamps are real right?

    There is not nearly enough atmosphere over this road to cause enough refraction.





    “Refraction has no baring on this. Even it were in effect (which it's not) it would just off set it and would have ZERO affect on the brightness of the light source or prevent that light source from fading away.


    Says you? I'm properly sourcing AND demonstrating every point very clearly. For you to just say “refraction doesn't exist, and even if it did, it don't work like you're showing me hur-deedurr.”


    “ But hey maybe I should try your approach! Bananas prove that the earth is round! (man it's fun making s*** up)”


    Bananas? I must have missed that. I'm not debating for ID. Irrelevant nonsense.


    “5) Horizon -
    Oh look another banana. Ok refraction and the mirror effect deal with stuff you can see, and they end when the object is out of site. It just keeps getting smaller rather than being consumed by the bottom up. (as your video of the boat SHOWS)




    Look a banana video proving heat distortion and hills/valleys are a thing. I find it so strange that you both use something to "prove" your flat earth, then completely ignore it if it doesn't suit you. sigh”

    I don't see an argument here. Just more talk of bananas…


    “It's not "my" model, it's sciences model”


    You don't know the meaning of science. You are (attempting to) defend this scientific model (unscientifically).


    “ that has been proven thousands of ways by 10s of thousands of different people.”


    And you can't even do it once.


    “ They are the ones who proved the bibles model wrong. (well after you guys stopped killing them for disagreeing with you)


    I haven't killed anyone, did you have daddy issues or something?


    “As I said at the beginning of this I don't have an interest researching this, I have an interest in stopping you from being anti-science and pro-religion. We had a time when you guys were in charge it's call the dark ages. I'd really prefer NOT to go back there again.

    You have rebutted nothing. You hold a banana up as "proof", and say it's been refuted, but as we've seen you lie... a LOT.”



    Error 404: argument not found. Conclusion: opponent does not know anything about refraction and perspective, and jumps to hasty conclusions based on a faulty premise.
    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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    1 - Time Zones
    Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve)

    Refraction... Still has nothing to do with brightness of a light source. (look back at the street lights) Oh the insults are back because you have no argument this is like deja vu all over again. You ready for me to make you look like the lying fool you are again?

    Erfisflat said:

    The sun is supposedly mathematically impossible to see for a short  time in your model, supposedly over the imaginary curve already when we see it setting.


    Supposedly impossible to see the sun? So you can see the sun at night? This is the part where you look like a fool and start back tracking. I think your next step is to claim "see" doesn't mean "see" and start a semantics argument, followed by saying you didn't say it, follow by accusing me of a strawman, or putting words in your mouth, followed by you curling up in a ball for a few days crying about how bad I made you look. Peddle your elsewhere, you have posted a video in this thread which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the sun sets below the horizon rather than fades away as my street lamps prove.

    2 - Coriolis effect
    Oh look you have videos of swirling water around objects again. (well at least it's not a toilet) AGAIN, explain it where there isn't a structure that could easily affect it. (think ocean where there are no pipes, river beds, or other obstructions to distort the coriolis effect)

    3 - Sun's height
    No in the video where the sun goes behind the mountain it does NOT get smaller, or fade away. Don't take what I say out of context. In that video you can see the sun disappear bottom up it falls below the curvature of the earth. You have not "gives the same results" with the scientific method, or demonstrated anything. Refraction displaces an object, perspective is actually several things, none of which make objects disappear, but it does make them get smaller, and make distances between objects smaller. (which has no bearing on the sun's height from different places on the planet)

    4 - Stars move
    No you do not see an inverted image... ever in your image you are looking from a different angle is all. I really don't want to have to make a video on this... sigh

    Small stars
    Oh look you finally figured out stars are small. It seemed like a big deal to you when you wrote this paragraph, but now that I proved you wrong... no big deal right?
    Erfisflat said:

    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.


    Oh look even though the stars don't go to the horizon your "proof" is ... mutter mutter perspective.... mutter mutter refraction... mutter mutter your ignorant and don't understand ... mutter mutter I'm right because I say so. Um no you're not right, and you are most definitely ignorant. The stars move depending on the time of the year or your location on the planet. Some stars can only be seen from certain parts of the world, and they don't "fade away".

    A) Perspective
    So you admit your model only works when a small subset of environmental factors are at play, or you want to admit your perspective thing is ?

    Reflection - Says the picture. You can see the light sources fade away as they get further away and don't intersect with the ground. So no heat distortion effect, or any of your other . You can clearly see on my picture the lights fade away... says the picture. I have sourced and demonstrated it very clearly. For you to just say "reflection and perspective did it" won't work like you're showing me hur-deedurr. (I don't like you but I have to admit the swedish chef reference earned you points...) 

    Bananas - You are totally debating irrelevant nonsense, and yes you missed that.

    5 - Horizon
    You don't see a way to disprove the argument so you use insults.

    Erfisflat said:

    You don't know the meaning of science. You are (attempting to) defend this scientific model (unscientifically).


    Oh look you admit round earth is the scientific model. I should frame that one as you finally let some honesty slip through while you were trying to insult me. You are the pseudoscience king, I'm sure you believe everything out of David Wolfe's mouth.

    Daddy issues, refraction and perspective banana distractions blah blah blah

    Look you want to keep going so I make you look even stupider than you do now, be my guest. I can rub salt in your wounds for as long as you like. You want to seem smart but really all you do is look . You mutter about that proves nothing but sounds vaguely scientific without showing how it would account for reality. You say you don't trust books and websites, yet quote them when it suits you. You insult and ridicule rather than bringing clear and supported evidence. You somehow think the whole world is working together to protect the US. That all the pictures are fakes. That it's all this big scam for what? Oh you don't know. Just like you don't know why Russia, China, and the US would be working together. Or you don't know why no one has seen the edge. Or you don't know why your tests only work in certain environments under a specific set of conditions. You pretend to be an intellectual when really all you are is a bible thumping anti-intellectual.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaPowerPikachu21
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova so many logical fallacies 

    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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat wow I didn't think I hurt your feelings THAT bad. See ya in a day or two when you recover.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @coveny ;
    Don't flatter yourself, this is not all that i have going on, and considering 99% of your last post is logically fallacious, (guilty by association, strawman, cherry picking, appeal to the stone, circular reasoning, ad hominem, kettle logic, hasty generalization, appeal to ridicule, and general dumbassery, I'm still counting) responding to such has become a waste of my time, and your posts have probably made whoever reads them and takes anything you say even remotely seriously a little bit dumber than before.
    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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I see someone has done a google search of logical fallacies. You might want to look up hypocrisy while you are searching. See when you claim foul because I did an ad hominem attack, and then you do an ad hominem attack, it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do" which makes you a hypocritic. 

    Oh and you missed one.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I think you should take a trip to Lake Pontchartrain, but this guy took a lot of video and pictures if you can't afford to go yourself.

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Coveny Wait, are you admitting to using fallacies? Atleast you're honest this time. By the way I almost forgot about your "rebuttal" to my argument. Did you even look at the article I sent you?
    Erfisflat
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat I think you should take a trip to Lake Pontchartrain, but this guy took a lot of video and pictures if you can't afford to go yourself.

    https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

    Too bad he didn't go with a P900


    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   -  
    @Coveny Wait, are you admitting to using fallacies? Atleast you're honest this time. By the way I almost forgot about your "rebuttal" to my argument. Did you even look at the article I sent you?
    I don't think he realises how fallacious his arguments have become. 
    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
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    I'm not sure who's making fallacies. I'm not going to read through the past 200 posts (I don't care that much about the flat earth theory), though this is entertaining to watch.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @PowerPikachu21 ;
    First paragraph
    Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve) Coveny




    SilverishGoldNova
    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
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    "mountains are curvature"
    "MOUNTAINS ARE CURVATURE"

    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Coveny Wait, are you admitting to using fallacies? Atleast you're honest this time. By the way I almost forgot about your "rebuttal" to my argument. Did you even look at the article I sent you?
    I admit to ad hominem attacks, but not logical fallacies. If I didn't respond to it, then I likely didn't look at it.
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Erfisflat @PowerPikachu21 Don't forget the whole "anti-vaxxer" thing.

    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    "mountains are curvature"
    "MOUNTAINS ARE CURVATURE"

    I've almost run out of patience. He's Just cherry picking me so I have to repeat myself or silent concessions with ad hom and nuh-uhs. @coveny you know the difference in ad hom and talking smack, 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
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -  
    Wow, the most amazing curvature I've ever seen in my life: 
    Erfisflat
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Wow, the most amazing curvature I've ever seen in my life: 

    Breathtaking 
    SilverishGoldNova
    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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat I have used no fallacies.

    What a horrible video. Did you shoot that with a disposable camera?

    Erfisflat said:
    @PowerPikachu21 ;
    Yes I seriously said that. Yes I think mountains are curvature. (I don't think you understand what you are asking, mountains aren't flat, they curve) Coveny





    What is the second mutually exclusive statement I'm making? My claim is that I think mountains are curvature. Your stance is that is flat, mountains aren't flat. That doesn't mean that they are ONLY curvature. I never made a mutually exclusive statement. My statement is Curvature is the correct, flat is not. This is not the same thing as saying mountains are either flat or curved, and it's not curved. Take your bulls*** accusations and shove them. I presented to false dichotomy, nor am I presenting a false dichotomy because I haven't stated that flat or curved are the ONLY answers.

    And to support my claim here is curvature defined:
    Dictionary - the act of curving or the state of being curved.
    Webster - the act of curving :  the state of being curved
    Free Dictionary - The act of curving or the state of being curved
    Oxford - The fact of being curved or the degree to which something is curved.

    And the curve on the picture you present against it with a rough line showing the curve. 



    Don't go away mad little man...



    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaPowerPikachu21
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    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 @PowerPikachu21 Don't forget the whole "anti-vaxxer" thing.

    Don't forget @Erfisflat admitted to being an anti-vaxxers, and I needed to "research more". pfft.
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Coveny No flat Earther today believes in an edge, but instead an ice wall and/or dome. Infact not even ancient flat Earthers believed there was an edge. Anyone who uses it an argument should know that it's basically a made up concept designed to make the flat Earth sound ridiculous. Also a mountain can be any shape, it doesn't prove the Earth is spherical nor flat. Tbh the entire conversation about mountains is a waste of time
    Erfisflat
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    I've almost run out of patience. He's Just cherry picking me so I have to repeat myself or silent concessions with ad hom and nuh-uhs. @coveny you know the difference in ad hom and talking smack, right? 
    You seem very keen on there being a difference between smack talk and ad hominem attacks, why don't you explain your stance clearly rather than being vague and condescending... for once. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Refraction... Still has nothing to do with brightness of a light source. (look back at the street lights) Oh the insults are back because you have no argument this is like deja vu all over again. You ready for me to make you look like the lying fool you are again?"


    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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Wow, the most amazing curvature I've ever seen in my life: 

    Breathtaking 

    No ad hominem attacks or curves there at all... ROFL

    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
This Debate has been closed.

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