I stood on a long straight road..

..and it seemed to follow the natural curvature of the earth when viewed from a distance since it disapeared from my line of sight.

Explain please.

Lurk moar.

Maybe it wasn't a long straight flat road.

One little bit of advice, do not stand on a road. You will get run over.

I'm no flatty, but don't use this kind of observation as evidence.

A lot of people could've sworn to see certain things (*cough* religious experience) but it doesn't qualify as empirical evidence. Interesting, though

I'm no flatty, but don't use this kind of observation as evidence.

A lot of people could've sworn to see certain things (*cough* religious experience) but it doesn't qualify as empirical evidence. Interesting, though

chances are you are seeing curvatures of the ground, that happen to be quite natural and are not proof of the overall curvature. surely, by the size of the earth, it will be hard to find a straight road that will actually allow you to observe the earths curvature.

It would have to be a pretty long road, and you would need a spirit level.

Unless it was at least as long as the road that you're checking, I don't see how much good a spirit level will do.

Unless it was at least as long as the road that you're checking, I don't see how much good a spirit level will do.

Of course it would.

..and it seemed to follow the natural curvature of the earth when viewed from a distance since it disapeared from my line of sight.

Explain please.

I would have to stand there myself, with measuring equipment

 

Boats do the same thing and I don't *think* that water suffers the same undulations of dry land.

I know, I know... read the FAQ etc etc 

Boats do the same thing and I don't *think* that water suffers the same undulations of dry land.

I know, I know... read the FAQ etc etc 

What's really fun to watch is the debate about how "bendy light" explains this effect versus how this effect doesn't exist. You'd think that by now FET would have advanced enough to have resolved this internal debate.

I don't *think* that water suffers the same undulations of dry land.

You're quite right, it suffers far far more.

Quote from: SpeakerOfTruth on August 21, 2010, 05:02:12 PM

Boats do the same thing and I don't *think* that water suffers the same undulations of dry land.

I know, I know... read the FAQ etc etc 

What's really fun to watch is the debate about how "bendy light" explains this effect versus how this effect doesn't exist. You'd think that by now FET would have advanced enough to have resolved this internal debate.

Are you new to this whole "science" malarky? There's still internal debate about evolution, should we discount that?

What's really fun to watch is the debate about how "bendy light" explains this effect versus how this effect doesn't exist. You'd think that by now FET would have advanced enough to have resolved this internal debate.

 

It definitely does happen. I've seen it. At the end of the Goonies, when One-Eyed Willy's ship makes its last break for freedom.

Quote from: SpeakerOfTruth on August 21, 2010, 05:02:12 PM

I don't *think* that water suffers the same undulations of dry land.

You're quite right, it suffers far far more.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:18:29 PM

Quote from: SpeakerOfTruth on August 21, 2010, 05:02:12 PM

Boats do the same thing and I don't *think* that water suffers the same undulations of dry land.

I know, I know... read the FAQ etc etc 

What's really fun to watch is the debate about how "bendy light" explains this effect versus how this effect doesn't exist. You'd think that by now FET would have advanced enough to have resolved this internal debate.

Are you new to this whole "science" malarky? There's still internal debate about evolution, should we discount that?

Well, if you're going to believe in a flat Earth, you might as well.

You're quite right, it suffers far far more.

Ahh yes, sorry, I forgot about all those steep water hills, canyons and mountains.

Wait, are you talking about waves?  

What's really fun to watch is the debate about how "bendy light" explains this effect versus how this effect doesn't exist. You'd think that by now FET would have advanced enough to have resolved this internal debate.

Are you new to this whole "science" malarky? There's still internal debate about evolution, should we discount that?
[/quote]It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence.

In the final analysis, what other basis is there for discounting any theory?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence.

In the final analysis, what other basis is there for discounting any theory?

Poor explainations aren't the only reason to discount something. For example, I discount the flat-Earth theory on the grounds that there isn't any evidence at all.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence.

In the final analysis, what other basis is there for discounting any theory?

Many. Feel free to open a topic in the appropriate forum rather than derail this thread, if you really need education on this.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 05:22:30 PM

You're quite right, it suffers far far more.

Ahh yes, sorry, I forgot about all those steep water hills, canyons and mountains.

Wait, are you talking about waves? 

Yes, were you talking about hills, canyons and mountains on a road?

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 21, 2010, 05:47:40 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence.

In the final analysis, what other basis is there for discounting any theory?

Poor explainations aren't the only reason to discount something. For example, I discount the flat-Earth theory on the grounds that there isn't any evidence at all.

Oops, you will want to look a little deeper into the site.  I'm still trying to get through all the evidence available. It's quite impressive.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

I had no idea comma splicing was a thing or wrong; I'll try to correct it in future. Given that, will you make an attempt to be coherent?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 06:10:17 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

I had no idea comma splicing was a thing or wrong; I'll try to correct it in future. Given that, will you make an attempt to be coherent?

I always attempt to be coherent.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 21, 2010, 05:47:40 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence.

In the final analysis, what other basis is there for discounting any theory?

Many. Feel free to open a topic in the appropriate forum rather than derail this thread, if you really need education on this.

No thanks, I don't feel like engaging in some dance of obscurity/pedantry with you. Basically, I'm having trouble imagining a theory being discounted despite it best explaining the evidence, which would indicate that in the final analysis, a theory's capacity to explain evidence is the only rubric of its validity. Your comments on FET can be applied to any theory. Please make more effort to disguise your bias in future.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:17:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 06:10:17 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

I had no idea comma splicing was a thing or wrong; I'll try to correct it in future. Given that, will you make an attempt to be coherent?

I always attempt to be coherent.

Attempt harder, if you would. Now I'm getting paranoid whenever I use a comma; it makes me very angry.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

When making such comments, please make sure you don't make a silly mistake, such as confusing punctuation with grammar.
Please reference: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 06:10:17 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

When making such comments, please make sure you don't make a silly mistake, such as confusing punctuation with grammar.
Please reference: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf

Reference p. 48 of your reference to read the follow grammar rule:

Do not use a comma to separate independent clauses without a coordinate conjunction:

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 06:47:18 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 06:10:17 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

When making such comments, please make sure you don't make a silly mistake, such as confusing punctuation with grammar.
Please reference: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf

Reference p. 48 of your reference to read the follow grammar rule:

Quote

Do not use a comma to separate independent clauses without a coordinate conjunction:

Under the subheading "punctuation", interestingly.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on August 21, 2010, 06:47:18 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 06:10:17 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 21, 2010, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 21, 2010, 05:42:26 PM

It's the quality of the debate that matters. If FET can't even agree on the hard evidence internally, then it probably is best called, as you put it, "malarkey". Feel free to discount evolution based on the how poorly it explains the evidence. We surely discount FET for its dismal failures here and for many other reasons.

What the hell are you talking about? The quality of the debate? One side thinks evolution is driven entirely by natural disasters for some reason, that's some shitty debating right there and it still has thousands of followers.

Serious question, is English a second language to you?

Sorry, but your poor grammar makes it too much effort to deal with your post. Please try to use complete sentences and to avoid comma splices.

When making such comments, please make sure you don't make a silly mistake, such as confusing punctuation with grammar.
Please reference: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf

Reference p. 48 of your reference to read the follow grammar punctuation rule:

Quote

Do not use a comma to separate independent clauses without a coordinate conjunction:

Thank you for proving me right.