Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

If a scientist constructs his science under the guidance of the supernatural, he is not a scientist.

According to whose opinion? His works and findings resulted in valid mathematical and physical proofs, as what I and millions of others were taught in school.  If he was a religious man who only did his work to validate his view of God then good for him. 

Um... wrong, but I guess you were trying to be "funny?"

I guess I really don't understand the purpose for having forum categories and subject lines in threads if everyone just posts random statements in whatever thread they happen to be looking at.  Doesn't anyone here even CARE about the OP?  Why not?  It is a very interesting question and I'd love to hear someone else directly address it.  Killer Bee's input is most enjoyable, but I think only shows one side (or neither).

It's clear that by conspicuously ignoring this particular 800 lb gorilla in the room, the FE's here are acknowledging that any such argument is truly impossible.

However, this is good, because we've established that the FE idea actually requires logical fallacies in order to be discussed in ANY way.  Without them, no discourse here is possible.  Oh, but wait.  I'm committing a fallacy myself; "I see no logical argument, so none exists."  See?  THAT's what a logical fallacy is... this forum.

Perhaps it can be summed up into one question:  "Is there anything other than scripture to think the Earth is flat?"

P.S.  You guys are GREAT!  I love reading this stuff.  It makes Adult Swim look kinda lame by comparison.  Do any of you have any other funny websites or stand-up acts?  There is a lot of talent here.

A fallacy is when you come up with your "perfect" equations under a belief of how God would create the universe.

A fallacy is when you can't disprove Quantum Mechanics and resort to lame statements like "God does not play dice with the universe" as your sole and only rebuttal.

Newton's equations have nothing to do with his belief in God. It is based on experimental evidence. The fact the he had a belief of how God would create the universe is completely irrelevant to anything. The fact of the matter is, Newton discovered (note my use of the word discover, not create) the laws of classical mechanics, and they have not been proven wrong (and please don't pull the "Einstein proved him wrong" card, because that's besides the point). So, I guess that my point is: no one "comes up with" scientific laws, they discover them. So it is impossible to say that the existence of any scientific law is based on any one person's belief in God.

Well said.

Thank you thank you xD

It occurs to me that we might benefit from a set of "fallacons."  NEW WORD!

They could be little icons that each represent a specific logical fallacy.  Then, when we quote someone that has decided the Earth is flat because their billiard table is, we can then tag their text with inline fallacons to cut down on the repetitive stress injuries we are getting by having to spell out what is wrong with each juvenile response that ignores basic logic over and over and over again.

Any graphic artists care to take this one on?  We would need to agree to a standard list of the most common fallacies and definitions, and then create a unique icon to represent each one.  If it has some graphical cue as to the fallacy it represents, that would be very cool, but a mouseover tooltip would easily be enough for reader identification.

Here's a creative spark to get someone started.  How about the 7 dwarfs as a starter set.  I'm sure some clever bloke here can come up with some funny correlations.  KillerBee?  3 Tesla?  I foresee a battle over which fallacy gets "Dopey."

If it got to the point where fallacies were shot down quickly, it may become difficult and less fashionable to wallow in them the way some do around here.

AAH!

ZOMBIE FALLACIES!!!  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!