The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: thoughtful1 on September 27, 2014, 09:11:04 PM
-
As a newbie, I am worried that climate change will destroy the ice wall circling the planet and then we will all be poured off this great disc we call home.
We see videos of this happening, great chunks of ice melting into the ocean.
Is this part of the Round-Earth conspiracy too?
Why do they want to make us so afraid?
-
As a newbie, I am worried that climate change will destroy the ice wall circling the planet and then we will all be poured off this great disc we call home.
We see videos of this happening, great chunks of ice melting into the ocean.
Is this part of the Round-Earth conspiracy too?
Why do they want to make us so afraid?
Thus far there is absolutely no evidence that the purported "ice wall" actually exists, so your concern for its ultimate destruction due to global warming is unwarranted at this point in time. When—or if—the flat earthers prove its existence, and can quantify its dimensions and mass will be the time to start worrying. There's not one single photographic image in existence of this ice wall, and if you ask the flat earthers why not, you'll be flooded with all sorts of feeble excuses.
Round earthers (of course) have nothing to do with the degradation of the North polar ice cap, or the Antarctic continent's ice cover. Well, other than apparently being responsible for climate change that is. "Great chunks" of ice have been breaking off the shelves long before people could even guess at the shape of the planet; millions of years in fact.
And how can you explain the increase in the ice shelves in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean perimeters of Antarctica if you're claiming that it's a round earth "conspiracy"?
-
The ice is theorized to sit on top of land. This is the rim continent. If all the ice melted, the land would still keep the oceans in.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
-
The conspiracy uses ignorance and fear to control the sheeple.
-
Quote from ausGeoff:
"Great chunks" of ice have been breaking off the shelves long before people could even guess at the shape of the planet; millions of years in fact."
I think they are called "ice bergs."
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
I'll give you this much jroa, you will never, ever back away from the opportunity to make a straw man argument.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Nope... LuggerSailor was pretty obviously asking you for proof that the flat earth ice wall actually had solid land underneath it. In other words, could you confirm your theory that it has?
We round earthers have proved by core drilling that Antarctica does have a solid land mass under all that ice, but for the flat earth's alleged ice wall, its properties are merely guesses.
BTW, I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous with all these sorts of rhetorical "answers" you come up with jroa, or whether you simply don't have any evidence and/or meaningful answers to our questions. Please enlighten me.
-
The ice is theorized to sit on top of land. This is the rim continent. If all the ice melted, the land would still keep the oceans in.
The "ice ring" or "rim continent" is not even theorized.
-
The ice is theorized to sit on top of land. This is the rim continent. If all the ice melted, the land would still keep the oceans in.
The "ice ring" or "rim continent" is not even theorized.
Good point. Both notions can barely be defined as "hypotheses". And both are definitely not "theories".
I like the definition of "theory" as per the United States National Academy of Sciences:
"The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
-
Even if parts of the ocean are held back by ice alone, the wall will simply retreat.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
Measured distances and travel times prove the shape of all parts of earth. NASA is not the only organisation providing pictures of earth.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
Measured distances and travel times prove the shape of all parts of earth. NASA is not the only organisation providing pictures of earth.
Incorrect. You simply assume that what you are told verifies the shape of the Earth. When have you performed any experiments to prove the shape of the Earth?
Also, this is not a debate forum, so please make a new thread in the debate section if you want to argue about any of the FE answers that you disagree with.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
Measured distances and travel times prove the shape of all parts of earth. NASA is not the only organisation providing pictures of earth.
Most of the world had been mapped, charted , distances and travel times had been computed, et cetera, et cetera and so forth long before NASA. That also includes the size and shape of Antartica and no "Ice Wall"had ever been found.
Why does NASA always seem to be the "fall guy" for Flat Earthers ?
:D ??? ::)
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
Measured distances and travel times prove the shape of all parts of earth. NASA is not the only organisation providing pictures of earth.
Most of the world had been mapped, charted , distances and travel times had been computed, et cetera, et cetera and so forth long before NASA. That also includes the size and shape of Antartica and no "Ice Wall"had ever been found.
Why does NASA always seem to be the "fall guy" for Flat Earthers ?
:D ??? ::)
Because without an all powerful cabal controlling everyone everywhere, their entire delusion crumbles.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
Measured distances and travel times prove the shape of all parts of earth. NASA is not the only organisation providing pictures of earth.
Most of the world had been mapped, charted , distances and travel times had been computed, et cetera, et cetera and so forth long before NASA. That also includes the size and shape of Antartica and no "Ice Wall"had ever been found.
Why does NASA always seem to be the "fall guy" for Flat Earthers ?
:D ??? ::)
Because without an all powerful cabal controlling everyone everywhere, their entire delusion crumbles.
As far as their "entire delusion" is concerned if they really and truly believe in what they say, they are welcome to dwell in their own little dream world. I just checked my profile. I have been on this website for over a year. I have come to the conclusion that they are never going to wake up out of their own little dream world that they have created . You do have to give them credit for their imagination. LOL.
-
The ice is theorized
Backed up by any evidence?
LuggerSailor.
Are you claiming that Antarctica does not have solid land under most of the ice?
Not at all. As pointed out by other posters the fact that a large part of the Antarctic ice lies upon land is well known and verified by evidence.
What I'd really like to see is any evidence for the roumoured ice wall/rim wall.
Your insistance that it exists is just about as valid as my insistance that the unicorns migrated there to avoid joining Noah in his jaunt that little boat.
Luggersailor
Sounds like we both agree that Antarctica exists. What is in dispute is its shape. I could just as well ask you for undeniable evidence that Antarctica is the shape that you say it is. However, you would just give me NASA photos or something, which I would then question the validity of. Do you see how this works?
Measured distances and travel times prove the shape of all parts of earth. NASA is not the only organisation providing pictures of earth.
Most of the world had been mapped, charted , distances and travel times had been computed, et cetera, et cetera and so forth long before NASA. That also includes the size and shape of Antartica and no "Ice Wall"had ever been found.
Why does NASA always seem to be the "fall guy" for Flat Earthers ?
:D ??? ::)
Because without an all powerful cabal controlling everyone everywhere, their entire delusion crumbles.
As far as their "entire delusion" is concerned if they really and truly believe in what they say, they are welcome to dwell in their own little dream world. I just checked my profile. I have been on this website for over a year. I have come to the conclusion that they are never going to wake up out of their own little dream world that they have created . You do have to give them credit for their imagination. LOL.
Can I use a mirror ,, thank you ,, LOL