RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY.
Incorrect.
You should look up the difference...
Statistically speaking, it is safe to assume that most disagreements do not come from one's lack of understanding of definitions. Having reviewed the definitions myself, I assure you that is the case here.
If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No.
That is correct.
Unless you're too blind or stupid to realize its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.
This is partially correct. However, instead of staring at the flower not growing in my eyes, I would check if it's as hard as rock, if it looks like a rock, if it has a grassy/flowery taste to it, et cetera. Calling something a flower just because it grows slowly is moronic. It implies that trees, chiuauas, and Parsifal are, in fact, flowers.
Just like for earth.
To my best knowledge, the Earth is neither a flower nor
just rock, and definitely not
a rock.
You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet.
That is correct. I have pointed it out in your flower-rock "analogy". Similarly to that analogy, "it looks flat" is just a simple clue (much like "this doesn't taste like rock; in fact, it tastes like apple pie" would be a clue that this apple pie is, in fact, not a rock. The "it doesn't grow, therefore it's not a flower" analogy is fallacious for reasons stated before
plus the fact that not all flowers grow).
Observations which have already been made. and verified.
And concluded as conclusively... inconclusive.
And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.
Incorrect.What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".
No, in fact, it is RE'ers that are doing this.
You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.
Incorrect.
Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.
Incorrect. Please refrain from menstruation jokes, too.
Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery
My argumentum ad populum senses are tingling.
(out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness)
Sir, the radars are picking up an extreme amount of ad hominems.
doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted.
And what leads you to this conclusion? It's quite wrong, but I'm simply curious. To make this easier for you, I present an analogous conclusion:
Just because dogs sleep 38 hours a day (because dogs are very stupid and also fat and stupid), doesn't mean the chair I'm sitting on is a chair.
Nor does it make your stupid FET any more valid. It simply exposes you as a bunch of tinfoil lovers who lack common sense.
Ah, and here's the final ad hominem. Please refrain from elementary logical fallacies. They make you look inexperienced.