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.


Communities




The earth is flat

13468924



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Yes I believe it, but that's because I have an understanding of math.

    Go ahead, if you can somehow type out this "practical experiment of yours" go for it.
    Coveny
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  

    @Erfisflat Who was talking about roofs? Red herring much?


     

    Math - I’ll concede my calculations were wrong, your point. Let’s have a look at some calculators and see what they come up with.

    The one you linked = 17,710.5

    earthcurvature got me 17,715.7

    omnicalculator got me 17,710.7

     

    Peak height – No refute, and still my point.

     

    Observer height – still not addressed or considered, still my point

    The calculator’s do not “automatically adjust for observer elevation” you have to put the observer’s height in manually, and we don’t know the height the video was shot at. Just as the couverture exponentially changes with distance, the viewer’s height does the same. If they are at 1800 ft above sea level it cuts the obscured height in half. It’s inland so the height of the land the building is built is not sea level, and it looks over other buildings, so the building is likely tall as well.


     

    So 17k only works if the observer is at sea level. Get to high place, with a tall building on it, and it could easily knock that down to 6k. Leaving 4k of the 10k mountain viewable over the top of the horizon.

     

    Mountain size versus Sun size in video stands unrefuted.

     

    Dino – Those don’t look like spikes to me, those don’t look stiff, but again I don’t know about dinos. For all I know they rip their penis off and throw it at the females. If you are interested in dino sex read up on the topic…http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/octopus-has-detachable-penis/


    It’s common to for people to think that evolution equates to a well thought out design. It doesn’t. Take humans for example. No one would deny we are at the top of the food chain but we have no claws, no hide, or any other good offensive or defensive traits. That doesn’t even get into the flaws that don’t cover combat. I mean 3k in people choke to death a year, would it have been too much to ask to have different pipes for breathing and eating like dolphins? And don’t get started on the cavities we call sinuses which only useful in torturing us now. Our vision sucks pretty bad as well, I mean if we could see more bandwidth we could see radiation, not to mention why only have eyes in the front? Don’t you think another set in the back would make life a WHOLE lot safer for us?!?! If someone did “design” us he did a HORRIBLE job at it.


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    So, between the two of you, one claims this is an illusion, and the mile high hump of water is not flat (as itobviously is, and the other said the sight is entirely possible, and we are looking OVER the hump of water. The horizon is still flat, either way. Is this an accurate statement? 
    @coveny & @Sylynn

    Who wants to be first, since you are contradicting yourselves.
    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
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat We're not contradicting each other. Coveny may have checked the math of the example you gave. Me? I was at work and couldn't be bothered to. However, I do understand how refraction works and that the phenomenon does happen. You could easily do this experiment yourself. Go to that location when it's not happening and see for yourself if you can see the mountain. 

    Ultimately you can't believe anything that disagree with anything that isn't a literal interpretation of the Bible. You've demonstrated this by even taking Psalms - a book of poetry - literally (can't imagine what you must think of Song of Solomon). Basically anything that goes against your precious Psalm is pseudo-science.
    Coveny
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat final answer... like I only have one point? You aren't paying attention are you?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Sylynn

    "@Coveny may have checked the math of the example"

    Yeah, you see how well he checks the math... I'm still typing up his response, I'm just asking you what YOUR explanation is.


    "I do understand how refraction works and that the phenomenon does happen.

    Which you still havent explained at all, or given an ounce of evidence for...

    "You could easily do this experiment yourself. Go to that location when it's not happening and see for yourself if you can see the mountain. "



     This only has a chance of happening twice a year, weather permitting. This doesn't mean the mountain range is magically lifted back into view because of ... reasons. Most of the year, the sun sets on either side of it. We're not talking about a mile of atmosphere. The water vapor concentration over a mile, as an analogy, could be considered the equivalent to looking through a single pane of glass. Add another pane (mile) or two and things will be distorted. Add 50-100 and you basically can't see anything at all through it, unless of course in rare circumstances like this, a light source silhouettes the range. That isn't even taking into consideration dust, heat, fog, etc. Or even large swells.

    "Ultimately you can't believe anything that disagree with anything that isn't a literal interpretation of the Bible."

    You must have me confused with @someoneelse. The conversation I believe you're referring to I one that was showing the Bible's interpretation of the earth, and I wasn't just psalms. I have in no way implied that the bible was infallible, nor have I used it as evidence for anything. So your accusation is false. 

    "Basically anything that goes against your precious Psalm is pseudo-science."

    Which means that statement is also false. 

    Pseudoscience is defined as:



    noun
    1. a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
        
    and the scientific method is defined as:

    noun
    1. 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.

    I don't believe things that can't be scientifically and practically proved. Which means I'm about as far away from any belief system as can be. You were told that you live on a ball flying through a macroscopic vacuum at the speed of what, 2,000,000 mph,  and you accepted it as fact without seeing it for yourself. Where is the evidence for this, as per the scientific method? Who has experimentally proved the earth to be in any motion at all? You've never observed The Creator, so you no longer believe that, what makes the ball earth any different? All of your senses tell you you're on a stationary plane, so why should any burden fall on me? This makes you intellectually dishonest, right? 

    A trip from California to Hawaii by plane would require the pilot to navigate over a 700+ miles high hump of water. Does this seem logical to 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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:

    I don't believe things that can't be scientifically and practically proved. Which means I'm about as far away from any belief system as can be. 

    You never answered how you "know" the earth is 75% water. Please tell me about how you scientifically and practically proved that yourself. There are many others, but that one is straight out of a text book, because you sure as hell don't have the measurement devices needed to calculate the amount of water on the earth. AND you have indicated that the antarctic ice fields are infinite. You realize ice is water right?



    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @coveny
    "You never answered how you "know" the earth is 75% water. Please tell me about how you scientifically and practically proved that yourself."

    I didn't say things I havent proved myself. I said " things that can't be scientifically and practically proved. "
    I explained this before. I've travelled overseas, as have a million people. Any discrepancies in a map can be scientifically proved. On the other hand you BELIEVE the nearest star is 4.243 "light years" away and that NASA goes to space sideways for 50 years.


    It's ridiculous the amount of information that you believe and beligerantly pass off as fact.

    "straight out of a text book, because you sure as hell don't have the measurement devices needed to calculate the amount of water on the earth. "

    Like I said, literally anyone with access to a boat can travel over the world's ocean's  (surface) and check our naval maps and their validity. Will you ever see the earth as a ball?

    And the speculation on Antarctica is based on my observations of water always having a level surface, and was a hypothetical answer in response to a hypothetical question . I never stated this as a fact. You've cherry picked a strawman, that was quote mined. We are just one huge fallacy now aren't we?
    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 so now you trust websites and book? Because you have been making a LOT of comments ridiculing scientific knowledge. Tell me how this bit of knowledge was "proven" then. Oh and remember you can't use any government agencies because NASA means lie in hebrew or some such s***. Oh and remember with a disk the other side is part of the "surface" so please include that in your "things that can't be scientifically and practically proved." because you state you KNOW the earth is 75% covered by water, so you can't say "well I don't know what's on the other side. Scientifically if you don't know what the WHOLE surface looks like then you can't say it's been scientifically PROVEN to be 75% covered by water can you? 




    Cherry picking? I think what you meant to say was hole in your argument. I stated that in your diagram there was an edge, and that people have been to those "edges" and didn't see an edge. Your response was that the ice edge was infinite. That's not cherry picking, that's your "proof". Now it looks like you are back tracking, and now saying you can't explain the edge of your disk. So the hole in your arguments remain. Tell me if there is an edge, why didn't the people who have been there see it? If you can't explain it, it blows your theory out of the water.



    Erfisflat
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    The earth is not flat, and claims that it is are probably the worst form of intellectual dishonesty it's possible to make. That the earth is provably a sphere, is based on experiment, measurements and evidence. The idea that the earth is a sphere brings together and explain almost every single observation you can make when standing on the earth: from the disappearance of objects across the horizon; position of the stars, position of the sun; timezones, sunrise, sunset, tides, phases of the moon, seasons and many more. Moreover, not only does it explain these observations, but it also allows you to describe the earth and what you see on the earth in terms of simple geometry and mathematics. So as well as explaining why the sun sets, or how boats appear to fall over the horizon, it provides an intuitive and provable mathematical framework that explains where it will appear, how fast it will move across the sky, etc. That the earth is flat, explains no data or facts; it provides no testable explanation of any observations that are made on the earth, and has no ability to explain sunrise, sunset, night, day, the moon, eclipses, the horizon, radio line of sight, GPS, etc. Despite having 2000 years to come up with a geometric model of what the flat earth actually is that matches any of the observations; the modern flat-earther argues as they do in this thread: hurling accusations, weaving of conspiracy, and baseless speculation, regurgitation of a number of invented "explanations" that are thrown out to explain why none of the facts support the earth being flat.
    ErfisflatCoveny
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Coveny

    It seems that you are confused as well. I have never claimed anything as fact about the earth other than water always finds a flat and level surface. Mariners have travelled the oceans many times and don't get completely lost, so it is safe to assume that the maps they use to do so is fairly accurate. If you have empirical, logical or experimental evidence against the earth (as we know it, i.e. inside our boundaries) being 75% water, which is, once again, confirmed by any seafaring traveller, (not just government sources) I will reconsider that statement. Until then 

    On the other hand, you believe the earth is a ball based only on information from government sources despite any evidence to the contrary.


    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:
    @Coveny

    It seems that you are confused as well. I have never claimed anything as fact about the earth other than water always finds a flat and level surface. 


    You never claimed that?




    it's in this THREAD... just scroll up. Stop backtracking. You did claim it as a fact. (guess you didn't edit enough of your response did you?) Try again.



    Erfisflat said:
    @Coveny

    Mariners have travelled the oceans many times and don't get completely lost, so it is safe to assume that the maps they use to do so is fairly accurate. If you have empirical, logical or experimental evidence against the earth (as we know it, i.e. inside our boundaries) being 75% water, which is, once again, confirmed by any seafaring traveller, (not just government sources) I will reconsider that statement. 


    Mariners don't get completely lost? Seriously? For 100s of years mariners got lost as s***, and died because of it. They tried to use the stars/maps/compasses to navigate by, and failed because the margin of error is SO high. This all changed because of GLOBAL positioning system satellites... put in space... by NASA... which means lie in hebrew or some such s***. With GPS they stopped getting lost because they knew their position with a meter.

    Now on the maps. You aren't basing this on government stuff so that throws out the aerial photos they used to create maps. You "trust" maps way back when they used cartography. Before they started accepting the earth was round those maps were crap. After they did, and applied math, the maps became MUCH more accurate.... proving the earth is round. Here is a link about it. (bonus the link talks about why magnets matter when talking about the shape of the earth)

    http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/14-the-mapmakers-mystery

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    "The earth is not flat,"

    This is what I'm told, repeatedly, despite the abundance of experimental proof that it is.

    " and claims that it is are probably the worst form of intellectual dishonesty it's possible to make."

    How so? I was possibly the biggest skeptic against the flat earth model there was, until I researched and experimentally proved it myself.

    " That the earth is provably a sphere, is based on experiment, measurements and evidence. "

    Is it now? Which ones are those? How can I prove that the earth is a spinning ball? Can you show my that curved surface of water?

    "The idea that the earth is a sphere brings together and explain almost every single observation you can make when standing on the earth: from the disappearance of objects across the horizon; "

    Already explained to work in both models.

    "position of the stars,"

    Same.

    "position of the sun;"

    Same.

    "timezones,"

    Zzzz

    " sunrise, sunset "

    Explained. Have to read any of the posts here?

    " tides," 

    Though this doesn't really prove that the earth is a ball, I haven't been given the chance to talk about it until now, thanks for that.

    While scientism explains the rise and fall of the oceans (lakes are unaffected strangely enough) by saying the moon has attracted the earths oceans twice a day, despite the moon passing but once. There are a few explanations for tides, my favorite is that saltwater has diamagnetic properties, and, instead of a fictional, undemostrable force such as the theory of gravitation acting on the oceans, a more scientifically sound force causes the tides.



    " phases of the moon,"

    Doesn't prove that water curves in the least, just as almost every point you've made this far.

    seasons

    Explained better in the flat earth model better. While your model blames the angle of direction of the sun, and ignores distance (we are supposedly closer to the sun in January than in July).
    The flat earth model explains seasons by proximity of the sun.

    "and many more.

    I hope at some point you will observe or measure the earth and it's waters (which is the topic of the debate) instead of pointing at the sky, after all...



    "Moreover, not only does it explain these observations, but it also allows you to describe the earth and what you see on the earth in terms of simple geometry and mathematics.

    Specifically?

    " So as well as explaining why the sun sets, or how boats appear to fall over the horizon,

    Both explained by atmospheric refraction above.

    " it provides an intuitive and provable mathematical framework that explains where it will appear, how fast it will move across the sky, etc.

    This, as well as eclipses, the stars and moon's motions have been predicted accurately for far longer than any ball earth model.

     That the earth is flat, explains no data or facts; it provides no testable explanation of any observations that are made on the earth,

    Except those that show that both water, and some great distances, when measured, are always found flat...

    "and has no ability to explain sunrise, sunset, night, day, the moon, eclipses, the horizon, radio line of sight, GPS, etc.

    Just because you havent done your research, doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained, often better than your model. 

    "Despite having 2000 years to come up with a geometric model of what the flat earth"

    Whose had 2,000 years? I'm in my third year of research.


    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 said:
    @Coveny 

    It seems that you are confused as well. I have never claimed anything as fact about the earth other than water always finds a flat and level surface. 


    You never claimed that?




    " it's in this THREAD... just scroll up. Stop backtracking. You did claim it as a fact. (guess you didn't edit enough of your response did you?) Try again."

    Just Wow. You do realize that doesn't say "fact" anywhere, right? I'm assuming you can read, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Stating something is commonly accepted isn't stating something is indisputably the case. It is commonly accepted that the earth is a ball, but as I have shown, and at least 5 people here alone agree, it isn't a fact.



    Erfisflat said:
    @Coveny 

    Mariners have travelled the oceans many times and don't get completely lost, so it is safe to assume that the maps they use to do so is fairly accurate. If you have empirical, logical or experimental evidence against the earth (as we know it, i.e. inside our boundaries) being 75% water, which is, once again, confirmed by any seafaring traveller, (not just government sources) I will reconsider that statement. 


    Mariners don't get completely lost? Seriously? For 100s of years mariners got lost as s***, and died because of it. They tried to use the stars/maps/compasses to navigate by, and failed because the margin of error is SO high.

    Would you say this happens a lot? I'm sure this isn't the maps fault...

    This all changed because of GLOBAL positioning system satellites... put in space... by NASA... which means lie in hebrew or some such s***. With GPS they stopped getting lost because they knew their position with a meter.


    Triangulation, trilateration, 
    LORAN (Long RAnge Navigation), and Decca Navigator System have all been around far longer than satellites have been claimed to be.


    "Now on the maps. You aren't basing this on government stuff so that throws out the aerial photos they used to create maps. You "trust" maps way back when they used cartography. Before they started accepting the earth was round those maps were crap. After they did, and applied math, the maps became MUCH more accurate.... proving the earth is round. Here is a link about it. (bonus the link talks about why magnets matter when talking about the shape of the earth)

    You've gone off on another tangent again and you're you're saying that current maps are more accurate than old ones (all of them show that the earth is roughly 75% water, which I'm not disagreeing with).


    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   -   edited July 2017
    @coveny ;
    And about "why magnets matter when talking about the shape of the earth " Please ellaborate, in your own words of course. 
    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 You said you “know the world is 75% water”. This is you stating you believe this to be a fact. You want to argue semantics now? Ok. If you say you know something to be true, then you are saying you believe it to be a fact even if you don’t use the word fact.

     It’s not a fact because some people don’t believe it? Haha



    Mariners – Ok backtracking. So it was “They don’t get completely lost” and now you’ve backtracked to “Does it happen a lot?” and “is it the map’s fault?”. That sure looks like you don’t want to admit you were full of S***. Admit you spoke out of your a**… go ahead.



     

    GPS – Really you are going with Loran and Decca for mariners to map the OCEAN? ROFL Decca does less than a mile, and I haven’t see towers scattered around the ocean every mile or so. Loran is 1,500 miles tops. I mean that covers you if you stay semi-near the US, but it doesn’t do s*** for ocean fair vessels getting that 75% of the surface of the planet like we are discussing, and they are scattered up and down every coast either are they? No just the US. Accuracy “tens of miles”? ROFL Ya man that’s GREAT world map making right there. GPS > all that crap, and it works on the principle of a globe. Try again, and try harder.

    Maps – The more “accurate maps” that show the world as (now its roughly) 75% water were accurate based on the premise that the earth was… wait for it… ROUND. You don’t think that’s an important point? You basing what you "know to be true" (not fact, just know to be true haha) on information that’s based on a round world. Take some time, mull it over and get back to me when you figure out my point.

  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat from the article "He knew that compasses respond to the Earth’s magnetic field, which is generated by molten iron moving in the Earth’s outer core. But magnetic north doesn’t line up perfectly with true north, the point where the Earth’s axis hits the surface (and above which the North Star sits). The difference between magnetic and true north, called magnetic declination, varies slightly with time and place, reflecting shifts in the flow of the molten iron. Modern mapmakers correct for declination by adding or subtracting the appropriate number of degrees for particular locations." 

    Now from before. Erfisflat said:
    If you mean magnets, where do they come in? Are you saying earth is a magnet? Can you give an example of this "in nature"?
    So the earth has this big magnetic field. If you personally take a magnet and drop it into a bunch of little bits of metal what shape does it make "in nature"? You like experiments you can do yourself right? Even if you use a disk shaped magnet you'll find that the flat side starts to create a sphere.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Coveny ;
    "You said you “know the world is 75% water”. This is you stating you believe this to be a fact."

    Please re-read the arguments. I never stated that i knew the earth was 75% water. This strawman of yours, besides being completely irrelevant, has become as irritating, asanine and nonsensical as a debate with a toddler. I can only imagine the amount of confusion and frustration those who disagree with you IRL must suffer. This strawman argument is yours. I'm not certain what % of the earth surface is water, and encourage questioning everything. Which % do you propose, and where is your evidence? Whatever the conclusion, that % I know is flat.

    "GPS – Really you are going with Loran and Decca for mariners to map the OCEAN? "

    I'm saying that GPS can alternately explained and is compatible with flat earth. Since USGS maintains these systems, (and control the data that is transmitted ) and technology has advanced tremendously since it's development in the 1940's, it is entirely plausible to say this technology, or an updated version of it, is still in use today. Especially since the earth is flat.

    http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4760

    And over $150 million has been allocated to it's continued developement.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2014-06/narins.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJucXKhYfVAhUHKiYKHbZEAuoQFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYOFvIoj56E4eQc9QhukuTASpFsA
    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 Mariners use maps, which have to be relatively accurate. The map is only one half of navigation. The most important other aspect, is the ability to find their own location on the map. There is no "you are here" sticker. Location is done using a number of techniques based on geometry; all of which are calculated based on the earth being a sphere. For example. Position North, for example, is determined by calculating the angle between the North star and the horizon. The relationship between position on the map and angle of the north star is linear. Every 140 miles travelled North or south, the angle of the star changes by 2 degree's. That linear relationship of the angle to an external body is only present on a curved surface. On a flat surface, there is a non linear (actually a geometric "atan") relationship between distance travelled and change in angle. As the Mariners didn't get repeatedly lost; it proves the earth is a sphere; as if they measured their position based on their position on a sphere when they're actually on a flat surface; they'd end up being thousands of miles off course at the end of their journey. Consistently, and repeatedly.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Please re-read the arguments. I never stated that i knew the earth was 75% water. This strawman of yours, besides being completely irrelevant, has become as irritating, asanine and nonsensical as a debate with a toddler. I can only imagine the amount of confusion and frustration those who disagree with you IRL must suffer. This strawman argument is yours. I'm not certain what % of the earth surface is water, and encourage questioning everything. Which % do you propose, and where is your evidence? Whatever the conclusion, that % I know is flat.

    Ok so when I catch you in bulls** your first line of defense is well it's a commonly held believe, the next line is semantics (I didn't say it was a fact, I just said I know), and when I show that as bulls*** THEN you say you never said that, and start in with the personal attacks? After 3 rounds of counterarguments!?!? ROFL  

    So "you're not certain what % of the earth surface is water" now? COMPLETE backtrack. ROFL

    Ya man I'm sure you find me confusing, irritating, and frustrating. Most people will just take your and not call you out. I will pin you down and make you look like a FOOL.I can imagine how confusing that must be for you. Ask nicely and I'll try to explain it to you using small words and pictures. 


    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat from the article "He knew that compasses respond to the Earth’s magnetic field, which is generated by molten iron moving in the Earth’s outer core. But magnetic north doesn’t line up perfectly with true north, the point where the Earth’s axis hits the surface (and above which the North Star sits). The difference between magnetic and true north, called magnetic declination, varies slightly with time and place, reflecting shifts in the flow of the molten iron. Modern mapmakers correct for declination by adding or subtracting the appropriate number of degrees for particular locations." 

    Now from before. Erfisflat said:
    If you mean magnets, where do they come in? Are you saying earth is a magnet? Can you give an example of this "in nature"?
    So the earth has this big magnetic field. If you personally take a magnet and drop it into a bunch of little bits of metal what shape does it make "in nature"? You like experiments you can do yourself right? Even if you use a disk shaped magnet you'll find that the flat side starts to create a sphere.
    I have never read such and asinine statement I my life. What you implying and what the article is asserting are two different things. If I'm correct, I'm thinking your logical evidenceis is one of two conclusions. 

    Earth has a magnetic field. Dirt and rock have somehow succumbed to this field, and this is evidence for a spherical earth.

    Or, a magnetic field, as we observe, is impossible on a flat earth. 

    Which is more accurate? 

     


    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:
    Erfisflat said:
    Please re-read the arguments. I never stated that i knew the earth was 75% water. This strawman of yours, besides being completely irrelevant, has become as irritating, asanine and nonsensical as a debate with a toddler. I can only imagine the amount of confusion and frustration those who disagree with you IRL must suffer. This strawman argument is yours. I'm not certain what % of the earth surface is water, and encourage questioning everything. Which % do you propose, and where is your evidence? Whatever the conclusion, that % I know is flat.

    Ok so when I catch you in bulls** your first line of defense is well it's a commonly held believe, the next line is semantics (I didn't say it was a fact, I just said I know), and when I show that as bulls*** THEN you say you never said that, and start in with the personal attacks? After 3 rounds of counterarguments!?!? ROFL  

    So "you're not certain what % of the earth surface is water" now? COMPLETE backtrack. ROFL

    Ya man I'm sure you find me confusing, irritating, and frustrating. Most people will just take your and not call you out. I will pin you down and make you look like a FOOL.I can imagine how confusing that must be for you. Ask nicely and I'll try to explain it to you using small words and pictures. 




    That's a fine display of fatuousness there @coveny.




    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 Mariners use maps, which have to be relatively accurate. The map is only one half of navigation. The most important other aspect, is the ability to find their own location on the map. There is no "you are here" sticker. Location is done using a number of techniques based on geometry; all of which are calculated based on the earth being a sphere. For example. Position North, for example, is determined by calculating the angle between the North star and the horizon. The relationship between position on the map and angle of the north star is linear. Every 140 miles travelled North or south, the angle of the star changes by 2 degree's. That linear relationship of the angle to an external body is only present on a curved surface. On a flat surface, there is a non linear (actually a geometric "atan") relationship between distance travelled and change in angle. As the Mariners didn't get repeatedly lost; it proves the earth is a sphere; as if they measured their position based on their position on a sphere when they're actually on a flat surface; they'd end up being thousands of miles off course at the end of their journey. Consistently, and repeatedly.
    Can you give me your source? The information here isn't really complete. At there any assumptions to the formula? Distance to the star for example? 
    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   -   edited July 2017
    @coveny said :


    "Ok so when I catch you in bulls** your first line of defense is well it's a commonly held believe, the next line is semantics (I didn't say it was a fact, I just said I know)"

    You have resorted to blatant lies 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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat oh wow you mad ? You went all out with that meltdown, I guess this is what cognitive dissonance looks like. haha 
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat oh wow you mad ? You went all out with that meltdown, I guess this is what cognitive dissonance looks like. haha 

    I think it's hilarious that you've silently conceded to any relevant posts, and are still doing a victory dance atop that strawman you impaled.



    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 the surface of the earth is 75% water because because muh science book! 

    Keep it up man I can rub as much salt as you like. ROFL



  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat the surface of the earth is 75% water because because muh science book! 

    Keep it up man I can rub as much salt as you like. ROFL



    I see, you love looking like an don't 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
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    but but but your science book!!! @Erfisflat ;ROFL
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    but but but your science book!!! @Erfisflat ;ROFL
    Talk about cognitive dissonance...
    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:
    but but but your science book!!! @Erfisflat ;ROFL
    You're granny may well have been ape-brained, looks like you're the missing link! You may have lost the flat earth debate, but you can create your own argument to argue against, and you're living proof of evolution, at least in your family tree. 
    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 says "Science books are for losers, but I KNOW the percentage of the earth's surface that's covered by water... this other science book told me" ROFL
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat says "Science books are for losers, but I KNOW the percentage of the earth's surface that's covered by water... this other science book told me" ROFL
    Again, you prove to be a . I never said that. Which makes this a strawman.
    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   -   edited July 2017
    @Erfisflat well I'll admit you didn't say exactly that I was paraphrasing, but I really feel like I captured your essence. (you know the essence of hypocrisy) 

    Hey look you made a meme of me. And it looks like you even did some searching to get the full picture! I'm honored! I should do one back for you... oh wait you don't use your real name or your real face you hide behind internet anonymity and talk s***.




    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    I'm more than certain you have the ability to Google the history of navigation; if you wish to say anything I've said is untrue, by all means explain what and why.

    I'm assuming that your claims that my argument is incomplete, and further questions about distance are due to your own ignorance of geometry, so let me explain again; and feel free to provide an explanation of what I get wrong.

    If you observe a star on a flat surface and move; the amount the stars position appears to move will vary with relative distance: I.E. moving ten miles starting from when the star is overhead will change the observed angle by a much greater angle than if you moved ten miles when the star starts very low to the horizon.

    That is because the observed angle is governed by a trigonomic identity.

    The angle moving constantly with distance moved, independent of actual position is only possible on a curved surface: because a fixed curvature influencing viewed angle is the only geometry that produces such a linear relationship; with flat surfaces only providing a trigonomic relationship.
    Coveny
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat So... is the Earth 75% water?
    ErfisflatCoveny
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat well I'll admit you didn't say exactly that I was paraphrasing, but I really feel like I captured your essence. (you know the essence of hypocrisy) 

    Hey look you made a meme of me. And it looks like you even did some searching to get the full picture! I'm honored! I should do one back for you... oh wait you don't use your real name or your real face you hide behind internet anonymity and talk s***.




    Good to see you finally recognize your fallacy. All that salt rubbing hurt, huh? Back on topic, should I paste all the points you've dropped so far? Or are you just going to talk smack?

    The picture was from your profile. I don't use my real picture or name for several obvious reasons, like the topics I discuss, and unlike you, who seems proud of his appearance for some reason, I don't care for extra attention. If I thought you would do anything with it, I'd pm my information. 
    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 So... is the Earth 75% water?
    that's what the maps say.
    Coveny
    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   -   edited July 2017
    @Erfisflat you mean the paraphase fallacy? ROFL you have gone on and ON about how people just trust their science books, and how you have to prove things yourself, and you can't trust NASA blah blah yada blah. Then you just roll over and are like science says the earth is 75% water so I know it too be true. Then you try to defend it with a "it's commonly accepted" seriously everything you are saying goes completely AGAINST what is commonly accepted. Then you are like I said I KNOW it that doesn't mean I consider it a fact. I blow that out of the water too. Lastly, and most hilariously you say "I never said that" wait what? So you defend it till you have dug such a deep hole you look like a fool, THEN you make it worse by a blatant lie denying it because you went back and edited your post. That's about as dishonest as it comes. 

    NOW you don't want to talk smack? ROFL you have talked smack this WHOLE thread, and when you get OWNED it's all... lets get back to the topic at hand. You are too funny. ROFL

    No you didn't disprove any of my 5 points at all, You can paste them all you like, knock yourself out..
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    I'm more than certain you have the ability to Google the history of navigation; if you wish to say anything I've said is untrue, by all means explain what and why.

    I'm assuming that your claims that my argument is incomplete, and further questions about distance are due to your own ignorance of geometry, so let me explain again; and feel free to provide an explanation of what I get wrong.

    If you observe a star on a flat surface and move; the amount the stars position appears to move will vary with relative distance: I.E. moving ten miles starting from when the star is overhead will change the observed angle by a much greater angle than if you moved ten miles when the star starts very low to the horizon.' 

    That is because the observed angle is governed by a trigonomic identity.

    The angle moving constantly with distance moved, independent of actual position is only possible on a curved surface: because a fixed curvature influencing viewed angle is the only geometry that produces such a linear relationship; with flat surfaces only providing a trigonomic relationship.
    There's the mathematician, I knew you'd show up sooner or later. Why don't you guys ever measure the earth instead of angles from stars and the moon or sun? How are you accounting for refraction? I mean, if you're trying to convince me i live on a ball by pointing at the sky, you're gonna have a hard time. I've heard the phrase "only possible on a curved surface" before, that also turned out to be false too. In the case of Eratosthenes, the entire experiment was based on a false assumption: the distance to the sun. I'm picturing your scenario in my head  (im not a mariner) and i think two major factors come into play. Refraction and distance to polaris. I and many others are measuring the earth. Where there should be a curve, there isn't. 
    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

    What on earth was that?

    I have been talking about non-modern navigation. People worked out where they were on the earth by looking at the stars.

    As I've said, the way they looked at the stars will only give their correct position if the earth was a sphere; and I've explained why. What I've said also explains why the same can't happen on a flat surface.

    You may not understand what I'm saying, or you may not like it; but that's the facts of the matter. 

    Much as you may want to complain of how the stars are unrelated to the earth: unfortunately, 2000 years of long distance sailing using the stars to determine position on the earth indicates you're wrong.

    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.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Erfisflat you mean the paraphase fallacy? ROFL you have gone on and ON about how people just trust their science books, and how you have to prove things yourself, and you can't trust NASA blah blah yada blah. Then you just roll over and are like science says the earth is 75% water so I know it too be true. Then you try to defend it with a "it's commonly accepted" seriously everything you are saying goes completely AGAINST what is commonly accepted. Then you are like I said I KNOW it that doesn't mean I consider it a fact. I blow that out of the water too. Lastly, and most hilariously you say "I never said that" wait what? So you defend it till you have dug such a deep hole you look like a fool, THEN you make it worse by a blatant lie denying it because you went back and edited your post. That's about as dishonest as it comes. 

    NOW you don't want to talk smack? ROFL you have talked smack this WHOLE thread, and when you get OWNED it's all... lets get back to the topic at hand. You are too funny. ROFL

    No you didn't disprove any of my 5 points at all, You can paste them all you like, knock yourself out.
    I've not edited any posts, you're full of it. 



    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:
    I've not edited any posts, you're full of it. 








    Not edited ANY post? Here are 9!! Sure does look like are editing the s*** out of posts are to me. (only one of the edits are directed to someone else) ROFL

    The website MARKS the post as edited . See this is why you find me so confusing, annoying, and frustrating. Other people don't call you out on your , but I WILL not only call you out, but I will make you look like a FOOL. ROFL
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Coveny
    Not a single one proves your point.
    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 ;
    "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? 
    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:
    Erfisflat said:
    I've not edited any posts, you're full of it. 








    Not edited ANY post? Here are 9!! Sure does look like are editing the s*** out of posts are to me. (only one of the edits are directed to someone else) ROFL

    The website MARKS the post as edited . See this is why you find me so confusing, annoying, and frustrating. Other people don't call you out on your , but I WILL not only call you out, but I will make you look like a FOOL. ROFL
    How long are you going to drag out this ridiculous strawman? 
    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 every one of them proves the earth is round.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat just keep lying and I'll keep showing how you are a ...
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    Coveny got a new fan, it seems. He does look nice, I see why you decided to become him.
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