(1) To GeoGuy

Let's not get off topic here, you said:

bibicul wrote:

Lastly, we (round earth believers) don't need to convince you that we are right. We represent an overwhelming majority and consequently science models and everyday life are dominated by what we believe.

To which I replied:

The fact that you represent the majority in this case does not mean your statements are assumed to be correct. You are the outsider on this site. you have come to this site and accused the FE theory of being wrong, therefore you must show why it is. I never said you have not attempted to do so, I said:

Quote:

The burden of proof does not lie with the flat Earthers. It lies with you

I don't understand what you're saying... to "The burden of proof does not lie with the flat Earthers. It lies with you" (your conclusion) I've already replied "Not only have I done that (meaning 'defended my argument') in my last post, but I have also argued that your theory is wrong (meaning 'pointed out/proved imperfections of your theory') in my first one." You are making a circular statement (it's not even an argument).

(2) To Unimportant

bibicul wrote:

I already gave you a very good reason for why your theory is weak in my first post (in short, too many assumptions, no axioms --> weak theory).

I could say the same thing of the RE theory, and it would be just as nonspecific and inappropriate.

If there are some specific assumptions of the FE model you would like to discuss, feel free to do so. Saying "The FE theory is flawed because there are too many assumptions" is a meaningless statement unless you prove that your premise - that the FE theory has too many assumptions - is true. It is in that aspect that the burden of proof is on you, the accusor.

Saying that "the FE theory is flawed because it has too many assumptions" is a very strong statement. Let me try to expand on that: when you begin to learn mathematics you are first introduced to a few axioms. Axioms are statements that don't require proof; instead they are conclusions based on probability (none of them are 100% certain, but a 99,9% probability is very strong proof nonetheless - and if that is not enough for someone i.e. if someone doesn't believe in mathematics, then it's impossible/pointless to argue with that person using mathematics). These axioms are rules on which the rest of the information that you learn is based on. Without these axioms the rest of all mathematical theory cannot stand (because all of it is derived from these axioms). If you apply this to other sciences or models you realize that unless you have strong axioms, you have a weak model; a weak model needs to be tested further until you get enough evidence, or else it can be easily refuted. The FE model, based on assumptions, no proof and weak probability, is flawed. You have not disproved this, nor that RE theories are weak as well. Try do at least do one - in order to have an argument. I don't see what you don't understand here...

You lost me with "'The FE theory is flawed because there are too many assumptions' is a meaningless statement unless you prove that your premise is true" because you are asking me to disprove something for which there is no proof (there is no proof that the earth is flat, there are just assumptions) - that's logically impossible. However, there IS evidence that the earth is round (photos, telescopes, science, gravity, Antarctica, space missions, etc). To have a point, you must first disprove the existence of all these things and then move on and create a model of your own.

Just so you understand why you don't have a point, I will make an analogy: what you said is similar to me telling you "You have to prove that eyes are not diamond-shaped". If you answered "You can see that eyes are not diamond-shaped yourself" or "Look at this picture of a human being - it does not have diamond-shaped eyes" or "Let's ask the majority" I could easily reply (using your logic) that it is not strong evidence or that your eye-sight and everyone else's is flawed and it is in fact you (and everyone else) who cannot see the real shape of human eyes. That, my friend, is not an argument. It is called "stubborness".

Lastly, you stated that you could just as easily say that the RE theory is based on too many assumptions and no axioms. Please do that and bring evidence for your statements. I would be VERY curious to read your thoughts.

To conclude, I brought to the debate table a very strong statement - that your theory is based on assumptions, not axioms, and for that reason it is weak. I also proved that round-earth theories are backed up by evidence which you deny out of stubborness. I am still waiting for a strong answer to my first post (the rest of my statements are just defending my argument, so far unchallenged).