More proof

Okay, let's see....if the Earth were truly flat, then you'd be able to buy a high-powered telescope, or binoculors, go outside, look all around in front of you, behind you and to the sides and eventually be able to see things such as the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, the Sears Tower, Statue of Liberty, giant Redwood trees in California and all sorts of other huge things.

I'll tell you why you can't see these things, no matter HOW powerful your telescope is:  the curvature of the Earth prevents it.  You can look straight as far as you want, but eventually, the Earth will start to curve downward and you'll see nothing but the horizon.  (Assuming you can get your hands on a telescope powerful enough to see that far...they do exist, but are used for viewing celestial bodies, not our own planet.)

You'd also be able to see these "ice walls", wouldn't you?  Of course you wouldn't...know why?  Because they don't exist.  

Seasons are yet another piece of proof that our planet is in fact round.
There is no logical way Earth could have the same, proper seasonal changes every single year if the Earth were flat.  

Now I know you flat-Earth idiots hate to deal with logic...seems every single time someone says anything remotely logical and asks a flat-Earther to back it up, they'll start rambling on about conspiracies and government cover-ups and how every single satellite photo of Earth is fake and how the stars in space are actually several hundred miles away and other sorry ass b.s.  But not once have I seen someone *logically* explain, with evidence to back it up-how the Earth is flat.  

I'll tell you why:  Because they don't know.  They don't have a proper answer to explain their utterly nonsensical theory.  Round Earthers, on the other hand, do.  Science has proven the Earth is round.  Several million pictures have proven the Earth is round.  Common sense and (here's that word again) logic prove the Earth is round.  But flat-Earthers don't like to hear that.  They'll come up with *any* explanation to try and cover their theory...and if they can't come up with one, they'll just automatically fall back on the whole "it's all a conspiracy" answer like a programmed robot.  

So you see, they're always covered in one way or another.  But sadly for them, none of their explanations are acceptable to a person with an I.Q. of 50 or higher.  

I've been a Mensa member for 13 years now.  Not to brag or belittle the flat-Earthers, but my I.Q. is over 180.
I think I know a little bit more about the way the solar system works than you.   I am telling you *you are wrong.*  
A flat Earth cannot and does not exsist.  It's not even 1% possible.  

If you're doing this as I said before - for attention, fine.  You're getting it.  But there are other, more practical, productive ways to get attention than pretending to believe a far-fetched, moronic theory that was disproved in medieval times.  This is 2006; do us all a favor and grow the hell up.

Okay, let's see....if the Earth were truly flat, then you'd be able to buy a high-powered telescope, or binoculors, go outside, look all around in front of you, behind you and to the sides and eventually be able to see things such as the Eifel Tower, the Great Wall of China, the Sears Tower, Statue of Liberty, giant Redwood trees in California and all sorts of other huge things.

I'll tell you why you can't see these things, no matter HOW powerful your telescope is:  the curvature of the Earth prevents it.  You can look straight as far as you want, but eventually, the Earth will start to curve downward and you'll see nothing but the horizon.  (Assuming you can get your hands on a telescope powerful enough to see that far...they do exist, but are logically used for viewing celestial bodies, not our own planet.)

You'd also be able to see these "ice walls", wouldn't you?  Of course you wouldn't...know why?  Because they don't exist.  

Curvature shmurvature. The reason you can't see very far into the distance is because the sun is only present over a small patch of the world at any one time. Check out the FAQ for a summary of the sun's rotation.

Seasons are yet another piece of proof that our planet is in fact round.
There is no logical way Earth could have the same, proper seasonal changes every single year if the Earth were flat.  

Seasons aren't real.

So you see, they're always covered in one way or another.  But sadly for them, none of their explanations are acceptable to a person with an I.Q. of 50 or higher.  

I've been a Mensa member for 13 years now.  Not to brag or belittle the flat-Earthers, but my I.Q. is over 180.
I think I know a little bit more about the way the solar system works than you.   I am telling you *you are wrong.*  

That's impossible. Most standard IQ tests only reach about 165, and anyone anywhere near that range is in a tiny percentile of the population - we're seriously talking Einstein or Hawking. If you're so clever, you should go invent something instead of arguing on the internet.

I've been a Mensa member for 13 years now.  Not to brag or belittle the flat-Earthers, but my I.Q. is over 180.

So? IQ = potential for knowledge, not knowledge itself. Besides, we don't even know if you're telling the truth. (And if you are, it's bloody arrogant of you to even make references to it, let alone mention it specifically.)

Speaking of knowledge, Mr./Mme. Oh-so-mighty Intellect, you seem to lack even a basic understanding of flat Earth theory. Brag about that next time.


--Chal

Here's the thing: Flat Earth theory has no, none whatsoever, nada, not a single speck of evidence that supports the theory. While the Round Earth theory both offers evidence by means of using the 5 senses, scientifical proof (self experimented or read in any proper science book) and endless of historical texts and articlas that backups every aspect of this theory 100%, over and over again.

Gimme evidence, and I'll pay you with trust and belief.
Until then... Why the big words?

Here's the thing: Flat Earth theory has no, none whatsoever, nada, not a single speck of evidence that supports the theory.

Oh there's plenty of indirect evidence. Nothing concrete, the conspiracy makes sure of that, but there's little hints we can piece together. How come civillians never really went into space, only members of NASA and the equivalent associations in other countries? That's right, so we couldn't see the big 'ol flat Earth staring back at us.

Another thing - check out the penguin hypothesis in the Antarctica thead - can YOU explain the lack of fossil evidence, or the reason they can't fly?

Quote from: "Xargo"

Here's the thing: Flat Earth theory has no, none whatsoever, nada, not a single speck of evidence that supports the theory.

Oh there's plenty of indirect evidence. Nothing concrete, the conspiracy makes sure of that, but there's little hints we can piece together. How come civillians never really went into space, only members of NASA and the equivalent associations in other countries? That's right, so we couldn't see the big 'ol flat Earth staring back at us.

Civilians can, in fact, go into space today. Of course, it costs a lot of money, but there is hard working physicians, scientists and inventors that is currently making sure of that, in the future, anyone will be allowed to go into deep space without losing their shirts in the price. We will be able to travel into space, as we travel to another country. How about that, cool huh?

Another thing - check out the penguin hypothesis in the Antarctica thead - can YOU explain the lack of fossil evidence, or the reason they can't fly?

Why go off topic? Start another thread and gimme a full review.

Civilians can, in fact, go into space today. Of course, it costs a lot of money, but there is hard working physicians, scientists and inventors that is currently making sure of that, in the future, anyone will be allowed to go into deep space without losing their shirts in the price. We will be able to travel into space, as we travel to another country. How about that, cool huh?

That's complete speculation with no evidence, just like you claim the Flat Earth to be.

Why go off topic? Start another thread and gimme a full review.

Why create a duplicate? The biting question of why penguins don't seem to appear in history or fossil records hardly at all, and why they can't fly, yet are good at catching fish, remains unanswered over in "antarctica" (although it derailed completely when we started discussing pangea and dinosaurs).

Quote from: "Xargo"

Civilians can, in fact, go into space today. Of course, it costs a lot of money, but there is hard working physicians, scientists and inventors that is currently making sure of that, in the future, anyone will be allowed to go into deep space without losing their shirts in the price. We will be able to travel into space, as we travel to another country. How about that, cool huh?

That's complete speculation with no evidence, just like you claim the Flat Earth to be.

Well then, name the type of evidence which you would like me to present you with.

Quote from: "Xargo"

Why go off topic? Start another thread and gimme a full review.

Why create a duplicate? The biting question of why penguins don't seem to appear in history or fossil records hardly at all, and why they can't fly, yet are good at catching fish, remains unanswered over in "antarctica" (although it derailed completely when we started discussing pangea and dinosaurs).

I think I remember that I heard some nature guy on TV mentioning that penguins originally were living in the tropics. Then they moved to antarctica, for an as unknown reason as any of the FE "phenomenas", and started living there instead. Since this event probably took place too early ago in the history of Earth for any of those penguins to become properly fossilised, that might answer your q.

However, how does a penguin fossilise in ice or snow in the first place?

Well then, name the type of evidence which you would like me to present you with.

You can't provide valid evidence for this, because you can't predict with infallible accuracy what will happen in the future except by sitting and waiting. Get back to me when we're all flying around the round Earth in cheap-to-run space cars, and you'll have your evidence.

I think I remember that I heard some nature guy on TV mentioning that penguins originally were living in the tropics. Then they moved to antarctica, for an as unknown reason as any of the FE "phenomenas", and started living there instead. Since this event probably took place too early ago in the history of Earth for any of those penguins to become properly fossilised, that might answer your q.

However, how does a penguin fossilise in ice or snow in the first place?

Surely early existence of penguins would increase the likelyhood of finding and the volume of fossils found - not explain why there are hardly any.

Penguin remains would be preserved in the anaerobic environment under the ice if they had really been there for millions of years - do you hear of many people digging up penguin remains from the ice which are millions of years old?

it is my understanding that some types of IQ tests go up to 200 - there are different standardising forms.


i believe that the mensa one is the one you are talking about and it only goes up to about 160


but i truely don't know the difference, because i'm not an anal statician (or atleast i'm not quite that anal)


also if you memorise an IQ test - ie spend half your life doing them - you can artificially raise your score.... oh yeh and einstein couldn't do maths, it was his wife that did all his calculations for him =)


also when you state that "The reason you can't see very far into the distance is because the sun is only present over a small patch of the world at any one time." with a high powered telescope you cut out all other light and just get light that it going straight down the telescope - therefore (assuming nothing it in the way, might want to go to the top of a big ole mountain) if you pointed the telescope in the right direction on a flat earth you would be able to see the eifel tower - and don't say the sun don't shine because the eifel tower is lit by its own lights.

also when you state that "The reason you can't see very far into the distance is because the sun is only present over a small patch of the world at any one time." with a high powered telescope you cut out all other light and just get light that it going straight down the telescope - therefore (assuming nothing it in the way, might want to go to the top of a big ole mountain) if you pointed the telescope in the right direction on a flat earth you would be able to see the eifel tower - and don't say the sun don't shine because the eifel tower is lit by its own lights.

Oh come on, surely you don't believe that tiny electrical lights are strong enough to be seen from hundreds of miles away do you? Other light sources aside, our atmosphere gradually refracts and distorts light anyway - by the time the Eiffel Tower's light got to you, it would be invisible thanks to a combination of atmospheric distortion and light pollution from other sources.

Quote from: "Xargo"

Well then, name the type of evidence which you would like me to present you with.

You can't provide valid evidence for this, because you can't predict with infallible accuracy what will happen in the future except by sitting and waiting. Get back to me when we're all flying around the round Earth in cheap-to-run space cars, and you'll have your evidence.

Well, I think you might have misplaced your, or my, page here.
You said that I have got no evidence of the progress that takes place as we speak right now, regarding the development of aircrafts that will able civilians to travel into space in the future. I do have evidence. Follow me?
Wakie.

At any rate, space cars will, I think, never exist.

Quote from: "Xargo"

I think I remember that I heard some nature guy on TV mentioning that penguins originally were living in the tropics. Then they moved to antarctica, for an as unknown reason as any of the FE "phenomenas", and started living there instead. Since this event probably took place too early ago in the history of Earth for any of those penguins to become properly fossilised, that might answer your q.

However, how does a penguin fossilise in ice or snow in the first place?

Surely early existence of penguins would increase the likelyhood of finding and the volume of fossils found - not explain why there are hardly any.

Animals evolve. Scientists might have found fossils of earlier birds somehow related to the penguin. Someplace, in the history of time, some of those birds seperated, went swoosh to antarctica, settled there, evolved, became a new species, just as men evolved from the ape.

Or something. Speculations. I have no clue.

Penguin remains would be preserved in the anaerobic environment under the ice if they had really been there for millions of years - do you hear of many people digging up penguin remains from the ice which are millions of years old?

Interesting indeed. Maybe penguins adapt themselves so that they won't be fossilised under the ice. Maybe they just decompose very quickly. Who knows. Not I. Who cares.

Animals evolve. Scientists might have found fossils of earlier birds somehow related to the penguin. Someplace, in the history of time, some of those birds seperated, went swoosh to antarctica, settled there, evolved, became a new species, just as men evolved from the ape.

Or something. Speculations. I have no clue.

Interesting indeed. Maybe penguins adapt themselves so that they won't be fossilised under the ice. Maybe they just decompose very quickly. Who knows. Not I. Who cares.

Actually, scientists haven't really found concrete evidence of penguin lineage, supporting claims that they were created by the government to feed the ice-wall guards.

Who cares? Well the penguin discrepencies were part of my argument for a Flat Earth Conspiracy. If you don't care, we should stop arguing.

Actually, scientists haven't really found concrete evidence of penguin lineage, supporting claims that they were created by the government to feed the ice-wall guards.

Who cares? Well the penguin discrepencies were part of my argument for a Flat Earth Conspiracy. If you don't care, we should stop arguing.

That's all the proof you got for a FE theory? Not finding any dead penguins? Forgive me for sounding a bit critical against this argument, but I really don't think any government would go through all that trouble you mentioned. If they were dead-set on that conspiracy, they would probably have thought up something better.

well you perhaps wouldn't be able to see it from america, but i should be able to see it from ben lomond.

How bout this, you take a really long stick made out of a material that will not bend.  Now you would be eventually able to poke the eiffel tower.  But if the world is round, the stick will extend off the earth like a tangent.

When you find this material that will not bend, I urge you not to waste your time making a really long stick out of it.  Sell it to a materials engineering company.

Then instead of material make it a really powerful laser.  I say the laser, despite being affected slightly by the earths curvature will never reach the eiffel tower.  But if the earth is flat then you should be able to paint up paris pretty easy like.

Then instead of material make it a really powerful laser.  I say the laser, despite being affected slightly by the earths curvature will never reach the eiffel tower.  But if the earth is flat then you should be able to paint up paris pretty easy like.

And I assert that, in "real life", with a very powerful laser, I would in fact be able to "paint" the Eiffel tower.