frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





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

1246789



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Funny how people do not let you get away, right? I am just asking you to either answer my question or admit that you cannot answer it... Why is this so hard for you? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat
     You think my argument proves nothing? Well, let us go to the beginning once more!

    1- The shadow experiment tells us that if the earth was flat, the sun would have to be a couple thousand miles away.
    2- If the sun were a couple thousand miles away, it would grow and shrink to 2x its size during the day. Which it does not.

    Therefore, there needs to be some refraction at play here to make the sun look the same size. But there is a problem:

     If you were to refract the light as to make the sun appear to be not changing size, you would also be affecting the results of the shadow experiment.


     So, again, I ask you: "Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."


     
    By changing the size, you have not changed the results, this is only if you change the apparent position. 

    You keep referring to the results, but it appears you don't know the experiment very well.
    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   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Erfisflat
     You think my argument proves nothing? Well, let us go to the beginning once more!

    1- The shadow experiment tells us that if the earth was flat, the sun would have to be a couple thousand miles away.
    2- If the sun were a couple thousand miles away, it would grow and shrink to 2x its size during the day. Which it does not.

    Therefore, there needs to be some refraction at play here to make the sun look the same size. But there is a problem:

     If you were to refract the light as to make the sun appear to be not changing size, you would also be affecting the results of the shadow experiment.


     So, again, I ask you: "Explain how exactly an invisible dome would refract the light to make the sun look like it does not grow while still not contradicting the shadow experiment."


     
    No wonder that conversation was dragging, you don't even understand the 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
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Ready to see some scientific evidence?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I'm just make and post memes about your fallacy until you respond
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    AlexOland said:
    @Gooberry Well, the amazing thing is that it is not a matter of having no evidence in this case. If he is unable to resolve this problem then a flat earth is, without a doubt, debunked. 

     I really see no way of resolving the problem though. If the dome refracts the light in a way that makes the sun not change size, because the light is refracted, the shadow experiment will not work anymore. He needs to invent a Schrödinger's dome or something... Just kidding, that would not work either. 
    You have not shown that it would not work, you've merely asserted so, just as you have asserted that I must disprove your assumption.

    You have been offered empirical evidence that contradict the predicted measurements of GE, will you continue to ignore it and persue this red herring?

    Please explain what part of the scientific method you feel allows you to state that:

    a) the sun is always above the earth
    b.) that “refraction” somehow will make the sun appear to set at some point for all observers,
    c) and also produce results for the two stick experiment consistent with a spherical earth,
    d) and produce day lengths consistent with a spherical earth
    e) and do so every single day without exception, independent of any weather consitions

    And yet offer absolutely no evidence to support the position that all 5 of those things are even physical possible, leave alone occur as described.

    I would like to know what interpretation of science allows you to say the above is true - without any supporting data - and also allows you to complain at people asking you to show why you feel your position is true.
    Please show what part of the scientific method that you used, that you feel I should, and why the light should not bend in the atmosphere, and what evidence you have that the FIRMAMENT doesn't exist.

    Lol.

    Observation refutes your theory.

    You make up a nonsensical and unsupported explanation, that is not backed up by any evidence, to explain why the earth looks like it’s a sphere, when it’s actually flat.

    You demand everyone else to prove you wrong.

    Thats call pseudoscience.

    What part of the scientific method means that you need to provide evidence for your claim?

    The “scientific method part.”

    The scientific method is about coming up with testable explanations that can either be confirmed or falsified by experiment. 

    The whole purpose of this method, is that you can’t just make up some random sh*t; like say, “observations of the sun don’t agree with my position because of random refraction effects I won’t explain and can’t describe”, without having to justify them.

    Thats hilarious though: that’s going to go in the back - asking me which part of the scientific method requires you to back up your unsubstantiated claims with evidence. Lol.
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  

    "Lol.

    Observation refutes your theory."

    Of course you are just going to leave that like it is.

    What observation? What does this observation refute exactly? I think maybe you just like asserting that you are right without actually doing anything but rhetoric.

    "You make up a nonsensical and unsupported explanation, that is not backed up by any evidence, to explain why the earth looks like it’s a sphere, when it’s actually flat."

    Actually, the observation was not of the earth.

    It was of the sun, and the claim is supported by undisputable science. Light bends. There's no reason to take an observation and assume something irrelevant about the shape of the earth.

    "You demand everyone else to prove you wrong."

    No. I made a persuade me debate, and am so far unconvinced.

    "Thats call pseudoscience."

    No, claiming unverifiable imagery is scientific evidence is pseudoscience.

    "What part of the scientific method means that you need to provide evidence for your claim?

    The “scientific method part.”

    The scientific method is about coming up with testable explanations that can either be confirmed or falsified by experiment."

    Agreed. Please tell me what experiment includes looking at unverifiable imagery.

    "The whole purpose of this method, is that you can’t just make up some random sh*t; like say, “observations of the sun don’t agree with my position because of random refraction effects I won’t explain and can’t describe”, without having to justify them."

    I've explained them perfectly well enough for even a juvenile to understand. The opponent seems to understand my logic.

    "Thats hilarious though: that’s going to go in the back - asking me which part of the scientific method requires you to back up your unsubstantiated claims with evidence. Lol."

    I have offered more empirical data than either of you for my claims. 

    Where them pictures?
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    What was it? 6v1?  :D

    You guys were all passing each other trophies around to your ignorance.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:

    "Lol.

    Observation refutes your theory."

    Of course you are just going to leave that like it is.

    What observation? What does this observation refute exactly? I think maybe you just like asserting that you are right without actually doing anything but rhetoric.

    "You make up a nonsensical and unsupported explanation, that is not backed up by any evidence, to explain why the earth looks like it’s a sphere, when it’s actually flat."

    Actually, the observation was not of the earth.

    It was of the sun, and the claim is supported by undisputable science. Light bends. There's no reason to take an observation and assume something irrelevant about the shape of the earth.

    "You demand everyone else to prove you wrong."

    No. I made a persuade me debate, and am so far unconvinced.

    "Thats call pseudoscience."

    No, claiming unverifiable imagery is scientific evidence is pseudoscience.

    "What part of the scientific method means that you need to provide evidence for your claim?

    The “scientific method part.”

    The scientific method is about coming up with testable explanations that can either be confirmed or falsified by experiment."

    Agreed. Please tell me what experiment includes looking at unverifiable imagery.

    "The whole purpose of this method, is that you can’t just make up some random sh*t; like say, “observations of the sun don’t agree with my position because of random refraction effects I won’t explain and can’t describe”, without having to justify them."

    I've explained them perfectly well enough for even a juvenile to understand. The opponent seems to understand my logic.

    "Thats hilarious though: that’s going to go in the back - asking me which part of the scientific method requires you to back up your unsubstantiated claims with evidence. Lol."

    I have offered more empirical data than either of you for my claims. 

    Where them pictures?

    Sunset refutes the flat earth. Because - you know, how can the earth be flat if the sun is above for some and below for others at the same time. Duh.

    So the earth isn’t flat.

    Because you cannot accept that - you have to invent a solution. Hence refraction.

    You have no evidence to support it, its pretty much unfalsifiable, you have no ability to prove it, and you can’t justify any of it:

    Hence it’s pseudoscience. But props for trying to argue you don’t have to prove your nonsensical assertion!


    Now, as well as being unable to provide any justification for your refraction nonsense; if you recall, I also pointed out that you have absolutely no understanding or evidence relating to faked videos - as I pointed out, you don’t appear to have any understanding of video fakery, how they can be faked or how to tell:

    So, no matter what I link - you have demonstrated you have no knowledge and no information that would allow you to determine whether they were real or fake.

    This is what you do. We have video evidence the earth is not flat. You need to stay up till sunset to observe the earth cannot be flat.

    You have no evidence, justification methodology, science, observation or testable hypothesis that prove those two simple observations wrong.

    Instead, you invent two ridiculous explanations that you then demand we
    disprove.

    That, my friend, is pseudoscientific burden shifting.




    ErfisflatZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:

    "Lol.

    Observation refutes your theory."

    Of course you are just going to leave that like it is.

    What observation? What does this observation refute exactly? I think maybe you just like asserting that you are right without actually doing anything but rhetoric.

    "You make up a nonsensical and unsupported explanation, that is not backed up by any evidence, to explain why the earth looks like it’s a sphere, when it’s actually flat."

    Actually, the observation was not of the earth.

    It was of the sun, and the claim is supported by undisputable science. Light bends. There's no reason to take an observation and assume something irrelevant about the shape of the earth.

    "You demand everyone else to prove you wrong."

    No. I made a persuade me debate, and am so far unconvinced.

    "Thats call pseudoscience."

    No, claiming unverifiable imagery is scientific evidence is pseudoscience.

    "What part of the scientific method means that you need to provide evidence for your claim?

    The “scientific method part.”

    The scientific method is about coming up with testable explanations that can either be confirmed or falsified by experiment."

    Agreed. Please tell me what experiment includes looking at unverifiable imagery.

    "The whole purpose of this method, is that you can’t just make up some random sh*t; like say, “observations of the sun don’t agree with my position because of random refraction effects I won’t explain and can’t describe”, without having to justify them."

    I've explained them perfectly well enough for even a juvenile to understand. The opponent seems to understand my logic.

    "Thats hilarious though: that’s going to go in the back - asking me which part of the scientific method requires you to back up your unsubstantiated claims with evidence. Lol."

    I have offered more empirical data than either of you for my claims. 

    Where them pictures?

    Sunset refutes the flat earth. Because - you know, how can the earth be flat if the sun is above for some and below for others at the same time. Duh.

    So the earth isn’t flat.

    Because you cannot accept that - you have to invent a solution. Hence refraction.

    You have no evidence to support it, its pretty much unfalsifiable, you have no ability to prove it, and you can’t justify any of it:

    Hence it’s pseudoscience. But props for trying to argue you don’t have to prove your nonsensical assertion!


    Now, as well as being unable to provide any justification for your refraction nonsense; if you recall, I also pointed out that you have absolutely no understanding or evidence relating to faked videos - as I pointed out, you don’t appear to have any understanding of video fakery, how they can be faked or how to tell:

    So, no matter what I link - you have demonstrated you have no knowledge and no information that would allow you to determine whether they were real or fake.

    This is what you do. We have video evidence the earth is not flat. You need to stay up till sunset to observe the earth cannot be flat.

    You have no evidence, justification methodology, science, observation or testable hypothesis that prove those two simple observations wrong.

    Instead, you invent two ridiculous explanations that you then demand we
    disprove.

    That, my friend, is pseudoscientific burden shifting.




    Zombieguy1987Erfisflat
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:


    I am looking for empirical scientific evidence using sound logic that evidences the globe earth, hereby referred to as GE. The same GE that is taught to us in preschool. No semantics, no trolls, just logic, and the scientific method.



    ErfisflatPlaffelvohfen
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "Sunset refutes the flat earth. Because - you know, how can the earth be flat if the sun is above for some and below for others at the same time. Duh.

    So the earth isn’t flat."

    Your argument is this:

    If the earth is a ball, the sun would set.

    The sun sets, so the earth is a ball.

    Yet another affirming the consequent. The same observation can be reproduced by bending the light up over the eye. This is why you raise altitude and experience sunset again.



    The object appears lower.

    "Because you cannot accept that - you have to invent a solution. Hence refraction."

    Now I've "invented" refraction?
    I think maybe is just an appeal to ignorance.

    "You have no evidence to support it, its pretty much unfalsifiable, you have no ability to prove it, and you can’t justify any of it:"

    That refraction exists?
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland, ive answered your question, have you reviewed the evidence?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @SilverishGoldNova

    Do you want to join in that circle jerk and get a few trophies?
    Zombieguy1987SilverishGoldNova
    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   -  
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case.

    Further, even if that was not the case, you would still always see the Sun in your model. Refraction cannot hide an object from view, it can merely misplace its image. As long as the Sun shines light in all directions, no matter what bizarre air models you come up with, you will always see it, 24 hours a day.

    Your model flies out the window at the tiniest scrutiny. Tends to happen, when you try to counter 2,500 years of rigorous science with arguments you came up with during one of your pub visits.
    Zombieguy1987Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    "The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."

    So your claim is that atmospheric refraction does not exist? Maybe you are ignorant about gradient refraction. This occurs when the density of a medium changes. The light is bent toward the denser medium. This is all well known and established.



    This guy explains it pretty well, except that mirages are a break in the gradient, where the temperature is relatively lower or higher, where those light waves bounce off of the less dense layer. A process called total internal reflection.




    If the temperature more gradually changes with altitude, this produces a gradient, where the light is just bent instead of reflected, causing the object to appear in a different spot, instead of appearing upside down.


    "Further, even if that was not the case, you would still always see the Sun in your model. Refraction cannot hide an object from view, it can merely misplace its image. As long as the Sun shines light in all directions, no matter what bizarre air models you come up with, you will always see it, 24 hours a day."

    Refraction can and has caused the light to disappear over a flat surface. This is demonstrable science. If you displace the apparent position of an object downward, the light is reflected off of the flat Earth and never meets the observer.






    "Your model flies out the window at the tiniest scrutiny. Tends to happen, when you try to counter 2,500 years of rigorous science with arguments you came up with during one of your pub visits."

    Those were some dumbass claims man
    Zombieguy1987AlexOland
    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   -  
    @Zombieguy1987, you're just here to support the globetards, kinda like a soccer mom who doesn't understand soccer, amirite?
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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

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

    Wayne Dyer
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @Erfisflat

    So tell me do you still believe the earth is covered by a dome? Do you still believe the Moon landings were faked?

    You're possibly to embarrassed to admit this was your position in previous encounters I understand if you now wish to distance yourself from these hilarious claims  
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    The reason mirage works is the combination of extremely heavy temperature gradient near the surface heated by the sun to 100+ degree temperatures, and the extremely tiny reflection angle. It only works very close to the surface, so your Sun better be within 1-2 meters of the surface, if you really want to use this effect as an explanation.

    Further, this effect allows you to see the oasis which you cannot see directly as a reflection. It does not hide an oasis which you can see directly from you. There is no mechanism to hide such an oasis mathematically. Nor there is to hide your sun from direct view.

    You throw a lot of buzzwords in, but we both understand that you do not have a clue about how any of this actually works.
    AlexOlandPlaffelvohfenErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @Erfisflat Okay, let me slow down a little bit. I think this is too complicated for you.
    1- The sun has to be couple thousand miles away on a flat earth. I have already proved this and you did not object to this part at the start of our conversation.
    2- If the sun was that high, it would change size as the day progresses. This is a fact unless you want to reinvent perspective.
    3- Therefore there needs to be a dome that refracts the light to make the sun stay the same size throughout the day. The dome is not actually necesarry, there just needs to be some part of the sky higher than our planes go that refract the light in a certain manner. 
    4- But if the light is refracted to make the sun look like it does not change size, the shadow experiment will give different results. Based on the fact that the light will come with a different angle. You cannot object to this part as it is common sense that if you refract light, the light will move in a different direction.

     Where is the problem?
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    "ive answered your question, have you reviewed the evidence?"

     @Erfisflat ; you have literally just said that "Oh you do not understand the experiment.". How is that answering the question? Explain how a sun couple miles ahead could always look the same size and still produce the same results with that shadow experiment. 

     With my amazing art skills, I have illustrated the problem. The yellow ball is the sun, the yellow lines are the rays, those black things sticking out are the sticks, the black line on the ground is the flat earth. And that blue part is the supposed dome. Now, show me, how the light could be refracted in such a way that it does not affect the experiment but somehow makes the sun look always the same size when it moves. Do not forget that you also have to take into account the fact that the sun is moving. 








    exp.jpg 52.4K
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    SKEPTIC INVESTIGATES

    Is the Earth Flat?

    Mar. 20, 2018 by Daniel Loxton | Comments (70)

    Recent news stories,1 celebrity endorsements, and Google search trends2 have highlighted an apparently growing conspiracy theory belief that the Earth is not a globe, but instead a flat disc. According to believers, government forces promote a completely fictitious model of the cosmos in order to conceal the true nature of the Earth. Are these claims true?

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    No. The Earth is Round

    The evidence for a spherical Earth is overwhelming.3 Most obviously, there are many thousands of images and videos of the Earth from space, including a continually changing live stream view of the globe from the International Space Station—not to mention all the astronauts who have personally seen the Earth from orbit. Flat Earthers claim that all images of the globe are fraudulent inventions, and all testimony from astronauts is false. It is unreasonable to dismiss all of the evidence from the entire history of space exploration, especially when there is zero evidence for a decades-long “globularist” conspiracy. However, we do not need to rely on evidence from modern space agencies to confirm the roundness of the Earth for ourselves.

    Junior Skeptic 53 cover

    Portions of this article appeared previously in Daniel Loxton’s detailed history of the Flat Earth movement in Junior Skeptic #53, bound within Skeptic magazine 19.4 (2014).


    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    The globe has been clearly understood for thousands of years. Indeed, this was one of the first cosmic facts to be worked out correctly by ancient people because evidence of a spherical Earth is visible to the naked eye.

    By the time of the philosopher Socrates and his student Plato, many Greeks understood that the Earth could only be a sphere. Sailors would have noticed that the sails of approaching ships appeared before the hulls of the ships became visible because the surface of the sea is slightly curved, like the surface of an enormous ball.4 When you sail toward a ship, island, or lighthouse, their tallest points are the first thing to peek up over the curve of the horizon.


    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Plato’s student Aristotle offered further “evidence of the senses” to support his own conclusion that the Earth “must necessarily be spherical.” First, there was the evidence of lunar eclipses. When the Moon passes through the shadow of the Earth, that shadow is always the circular shadow of a sphere. Also, Aristotle argued, “our observations of the stars” make it clear “not only that the earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size.” He pointed out that “quite a small change of position to south or north” significantly changes “the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward.” Just as ships can be hidden from view by the curvature of the horizon, so too can the stars.5
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Plato’s student Aristotle offered further “evidence of the senses” to support his own conclusion that the Earth “must necessarily be spherical.” First, there was the evidence of lunar eclipses. When the Moon passes through the shadow of the Earth, that shadow is always the circular shadow of a sphere. Also, Aristotle argued, “our observations of the stars” make it clear “not only that the earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size.” He pointed out that “quite a small change of position to south or north” significantly changes “the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward.” Just as ships can be hidden from view by the curvature of the horizon, so too can the stars.5
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    The debate about the shape of the Earth has been settled for over two thousand years. An ancient scholar named Eratosthenes—the head of the famous library of Alexandria in Egypt—even correctly approximated the circumference of the Earth using experimental measurements of shadows in two cities and some geometry.6


    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    The debate about the shape of the Earth has been settled for over two thousand years. An ancient scholar named Eratosthenes—the head of the famous library of Alexandria in Egypt—even correctly approximated the circumference of the Earth using experimental measurements of shadows in two cities and some geometry.6


    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    Despite modern legends about Medieval backwardness, there never was a time when educated people went back to thinking the Earth was flat. Once discovered, the true shape of the globe was too simple and useful a fact to be forgotten. Sailors were reminded of the planet’s roundness every time they climbed a mast to see further over the horizon or looked to the stars to determine their position. By the time of Columbus, his crew and even his critics understood that our world is a globe.7 It had been an established fact for centuries. For example, here’s a passage from the popular astronomy textbook On the Sphere of the World, published over 250 years before Columbus sailed:

    That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The…stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth.8

    Diagram from a later edition of the early 13th century text On the Sphere of the World

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    The Nature of Flat Earth Beliefs

    Flat Earth beliefs vary, but usually involve a large disc-shaped world with a relatively tiny Sun and Moon circling above it like lamps above a table. Flat Earth maps rearrange the continents and seas to radiate outward from the North Pole, which is imagined to be at the center of the disc. Everything we think of as the Southern Hemisphere is spread out around the outer circumference. It is usually claimed that Antarctica does not exist at all. Instead, the entire disc is encircled by a vast wall of ice that we mistake for a frozen southern continent.9

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    The people who make these claims are not always sincere. There is a long tradition of humorous trolling by people who merely pretend to think the Earth is flat.10 However, genuine, passionate Flat Earth believers certainly do exist. They typically base their beliefs on two things: intuition and fundamentalist religious faith. The world seemspretty flat when we go about our daily lives. The Bible also contains passages that suggest that our world could be a flat surface covered by a dome (the “Firmament”).11
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Flat Eartherism was primarily motivated by Biblical literalism.12 Believers saw the globe and astronomy as threats to faith. “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy and accept Scriptures as divine revelation,” argued 19th century Flat Earth author John Hampden.13
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    The fact that the Earth is round is proof that the bible is rubbish, and thats why you cling do your sad sick lie .
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    This remains the position of many Flat Earthers today (although the internet apparently also fosters a new more secular14 conspiracy theory strain alongside traditional Christian Flat Eartherism). Flat Earth believers have long occupied a fringe within the Christian creationism movement, and have been a source of embarrassment for other creationists. For example, the creationist ministry Answers in Genesis has published several articles correctly debunking Flat Earth beliefs,15only to be accused of hypocrisy for accepting astronomy while rejecting geology and biology. “The Flat Earth position is first based upon Scripture,” shot back one Christian Flat Earther.16
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    Flat Earth beliefs almost require creationist faith because the Flat Earth could not be a natural object. If such a world existed, it could only be an artificial environment constructed on purpose and maintained by forces we do not understand. Left to itself, a disc-world would collapse under its own gravity, forming a sphere like other planets, large moons, and stars.

    Since the dawn of the Space Age, Flat Earth beliefs have necessarily also entailed believing that a vast conspiracy deceives us about the nature of the world.17 “The space program is a scientific plot to hoodwink the public,” claimed Charles and Marjory Johnson,18 the most prominent Flat Earth advocates during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.19 If they were correct about the shape of the Earth, it would follow that a conspiracy must exist to falsify evidence of Moon landings and images of the Earth from space.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    However, this claim of a world-wide conspiracy suffers from the same serious flaws as other similar grand conspiracy narratives (such as the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory that aircraft contrails are actually part of a secret global spraying program designed to poison the Earth). First, there is no evidence that any such conspiracy exists. Second, it is implausible to suppose that a conspiracy could exist at that scale for decades without any of the countless thousands of conspirators ever leaking the truth. Third, if a conspiracy was so powerful as to hide itself successfully forever, it would surely also be able stop Flat Earthers from constantly blabbing about it on the internet, newspapers, and television. Finally, it is unclear what could possibly motivate the sustained world-wide effort and expense necessary to conceal the shape of the Earth.
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Christian Flat Earthers consider the conspiracy Satanic, which again places Flat Earth beliefs firmly within the sphere of religious fundamentalism. The assumed goal of the round Earth conspiracy is to lead believers astray from their salvation. This has a certain internal logic given their prior assumptions (on faith) of a Flat Earth, a conspiracy, and ongoing spiritual warfare between God and Satan. A round Earth conspiracy seems difficult to justify in secular terms. Why bother pretending the Earth is one shape rather than another? It stretches credibility to accept the motivation that one Flat Earth organization proposes: space agencies are “most likely motivated by greed…and using only some of their funding to continue to fake space travel saves a lot of money to embezzle for themselves.”20
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Flat Earth Ideas Make No Sense and Explain Nothing

    Like other creationists, Flat Earthers base their arguments on perceived flaws in mainstream science while ignoring major problems with their own claims. They do not provide scientific evidence for their radical alternative model. Nor do Flat Earth models explain the broad range of natural phenomena that are well-explained by the modern scientific understanding of the globe and its place in our solar system: planetary formation, volcanoes, tides, seasonal changes, the phases of the Moon, plate tectonics, earthquakes, the coldness of the poles, the magnetic field that compasses rely upon, auroras, and so on.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Flat Earth Ideas Make No Sense and Explain Nothing

    Like other creationists, Flat Earthers base their arguments on perceived flaws in mainstream science while ignoring major problems with their own claims. They do not provide scientific evidence for their radical alternative model. Nor do Flat Earth models explain the broad range of natural phenomena that are well-explained by the modern scientific understanding of the globe and its place in our solar system: planetary formation, volcanoes, tides, seasonal changes, the phases of the Moon, plate tectonics, earthquakes, the coldness of the poles, the magnetic field that compasses rely upon, auroras, and so on.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    The Flat Earth model fundamentally conflicts with the things we see in nature. For example, why would the southern hemisphere’s stars be visible from the opposite edges of a Flat Earth, while people in the central region of the disc instead see the constellations of the northern hemisphere? Shouldn’t the same stars hang over everyone on a Flat Earth like a ceiling hangs over a kitchen table?


    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    The Flat Earth model fundamentally conflicts with the things we see in nature. For example, why would the southern hemisphere’s stars be visible from the opposite edges of a Flat Earth, while people in the central region of the disc instead see the constellations of the northern hemisphere? Shouldn’t the same stars hang over everyone on a Flat Earth like a ceiling hangs over a kitchen table?


    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Why do the Sun and Moon and stars appear to rise and set? Most Flat Earthers believe that the Sun and Moon are fairly close objects, each just a few miles across, which always hang above the Flat Earth. Supposedly both objects circle around the North Pole on a plane parallel to the Earth’s flat surface while shining down like lamps to illuminate different parts of the disc. (The Sun and Moon are illuminated and kept moving by unknown forces; neither object orbits anything.) If so, the Sun and Moon should be visible all the time from every part of the Earth’s surface. How could such a world ever experience a sunset? We never see the Sun grow noticeably dimmer or smaller with distance as we would in this Flat Earth model; instead, as the globe turns, the Sun passes out of view over the curvature of the horizon.
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    Flattening the globe also would severely distort the shapes of oceans and continents and the distances between them. Most notably, all proposed Flat Earth maps greatly expand the distances between southern landmasses. Countries that are relatively close together on a globe would be repositioned many times further away on opposite sides of a flat disc-world. In reality, for example, the distance between the northern countries of China and the USA is similar to the distance between the southern countries of Australia and South Africa—and so are the flight times to travel between them. That would not be true if Flat Earth maps were accurate.

    Flat Earth map from Samuel Birley Rowbothams book Zetetic Astronomy 1865

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    Flat Earth map from Samuel Birley Rowbotham’s book Zetetic Astronomy(1865).

    All routes for planes and ships would be different on a Flat Earth, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. According to many Flat Earth maps, the shortest flight route between South America and Australia would cross over the North Pole!21 A conspiracy to conceal the flatness of the Earth would therefore have to include hundreds of thousands of airline pilots and ship captains as well as governments, space agencies, mapmakers, and Antarctic explorers.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Gravity, Handwaving, and the Supernatural

    Flat Earth advocates rely upon made up excuses and invented forces to explain away the problems of their model. They claim that light, perspective, and gravity work differently than we understand from the evidence of science and our senses. Many claim that gravity does not exist at all. This claim is necessary because everyone on every part of the Earth’s surface feels a roughly equal gravitational pull straight down toward their feet, which only makes sense on a globe: gravity pulls everyone down toward the planet’s center of mass. Gravity would feel very different on a Flat Earth. A disc-world’s center of mass would not be located straight down from most parts of the surface. People standing at the central North Pole would feel a vertical downward pull, but everyone further from the center of the disc would feel gravity pull at an angle. At the edges of the disc, the pull of gravity would be almost horizontal. This would pull the oceans and atmosphere inward toward the center of the disc, drowning the center and leaving the outer edges airless and uninhabitable. Standard gravity would also pull down the Flat Earth model’s tiny nearby Sun and Moon to crash into the North Pole. Since none of these things happen, we know the world is not flat.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    Rather than confront the problem of gravity, Flat Earthers respond by dismissing gravity altogether. If the “traditional theory of gravitation” is “incompatible with the Flat Earth Model,” then gravity must be weak or nonexistent.22 But if that were the case, wouldn’t you be floating out of your chair right now? Why would objects fall when you drop them? According to one common Flat Earth claim, objects fall because the Earth “is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity.”23 This handwaving explanation doesn’t work. If our world is accelerating upward, why doesn’t the Flat Earth crash into the tiny Sun and Moon above us? What force could cause the Flat Earth—an entire world—to constantly accelerate at a perfectly even rate? How would the flat surface remain perfectly oriented with the direction of acceleration without ever tumbling (or even slightly wobbling)?

    Flat Earth illustration by Daniel Loxton Sun and Moon shown larger than imagined by Flat Earthers

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  

    Flat Earth illustration by Daniel Loxton. Sun and Moon shown larger than imagined by Flat Earthers.

    There are no coherent natural explanations for anything in the Flat Earth model. Even when presented in secular language, Flat Earth claims describe an impossible and necessarily artificial world created and maintained through unexplainable miracles. A Flat Earth could only exist through supernatural or technological forces beyond our comprehension.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch