Intelligence in Debate

  • 133 Replies
  • 24682 Views
?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Intelligence in Debate
« on: April 08, 2012, 03:19:43 PM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong?

I'm talking about people such as the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth.

What evidence is so compelling, so detailed, so EXACT, that it has escaped his brilliant mind?  And what are the formulas that are so complex that they prove his own formulas wrong?

For the earth to be flat, everything he has proven about not only the earth but the entire universe has to be wrong.   Everything.  Every star, every solar system, every galaxy, everything in the universe must stop existing as they have been proven to exist.

Do you realize what you're saying by believing that the Earth is flat?  Nothing can exist if the Earth is flat except as something to orbit this simple disc.  There has to be some REALLY great and damning formulas to prove this.  The entire universe has been mapped out by now with surprising details. 

To say that the people who have done this are ... "stupid" or "ignorant" or "just plain wrong" would require some REAL brain power.  Yet... I'm not seeing the billions of computations and evidence that would be required to prove that.
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2012, 03:41:22 PM »
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2012, 03:53:02 PM »
Okay, first, we'll discuss what the word "round" means.

"Being such that every part of the surface or the circumference is equidistant from the center"

Whether flat or sphere, we're both in agreement that the Earth is round.

Also, the very characteristic of an explorer is zetetic. 

"As an adjective, it means "inquiring, investigating" and "proceeding by inquiry or investigation," or, as a noun, "inquirer.""

Now, again, are you really going to make a determination of a scientists or a physicist that they don't do their homework with absolute certainty?

And finally, where is the proof?  There are four types of belief in this world. 

There's the kind with absolute certainty through evidence and proof.

The kind through ignorance or hearsay.

The kind through fear brought on by a huge degree of punishment to anyone who goes against the grain (like a place called Hell for anyone who doesn't believe in Christ)

And the belief in something because the person wants a sense of belonging.  As in someone who claims belief in something because he wants to be included with others who say they believe. 

For this belief to be the first one, there MUST be more proof than there is that the earth is spherical and that the universe is 3-dimensional.  The evidence for a spherical earth is astounding and the intelligent zetetic minds behind that evidence equally astounding.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 03:54:59 PM by Soulfien »
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2012, 03:55:01 PM »
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2012, 04:15:21 PM »
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round.  Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.

Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2012, 04:17:51 PM »
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round.  Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.

Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.

I don't need other people to tell me everything. We have plenty of videos and pictures that contradict you directly.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2012, 04:21:09 PM »
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round.  Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.

Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.

I don't need other people to tell me everything. We have plenty of videos and pictures that contradict you directly.

It sounds like you're making his point.  Where did these videos and pictures come from?

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2012, 04:28:05 PM »
You are making my point, Saddam.  You are the one who is claiming that everyone else is just believing what they are told when it is indeed you yourself who is guilty of that.

You see, trying to be dodgy in a debate may work on some people, but it's never worked on me.  You claim to know that the earth is flat despite the collection of evidence and proof of concept through the laws of physics and yet you use such simplistic dodge tactics when asked for your proof behind it all.

I have already mentioned in the very first post where the photos and proof came from.  You have read it.

So tell us.. where are these facts that you claim exist?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 04:30:09 PM by Soulfien »
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2012, 04:29:54 PM »
Are you changing the subject now?

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2012, 04:32:23 PM »
no.  I'm asking what type of believer are you?  Are you one who has proof above and beyond what everyone else has?  If so, then you must be willing to present it?

If you have no proof then that means you are one of the other types of believers... I would guess that you seek a sense of belonging which means you are the 4th type I mentioned.

My subject is, where is the proof that goes above and beyond that presented and analyzed by such brilliant minds like Stephen Hawking?

Hmm?  I want to know how you can call such brilliant people idiots?

Edit:  Just to be clear, I know the earth is spherical because it's been proven to me.  I don't believe what I'm told without evidence.  If that were true, I'd still be a christian.  I'm an atheist because the bible has been disproven to my satisfaction.  I know the earth is a sphere because I've traveled it.  I've seen it.  I've sailed the oceans.  I spent 8 and half years in the Navy.    I know that the earth revolves around a star with 7 other planets and 3 psuedoplanets.  I know that we're in the Milky Way galaxy and that there are countless other galaxies because the evidence for it is believable.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 04:44:15 PM by Soulfien »
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2012, 04:45:09 PM »
Hmm?  I want to know how you can call such brilliant people idiots?

We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2012, 04:48:07 PM »
Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.

Unless it's Rowbotham or the word of another FEer.

I'm still waiting for what "facts" FE has other than the old look out your window bit.

And obviously pictures of the earth from space aren't all there is for RE.  We can observe the curvature everywhere on earth with the old sinking ship effect, which is probably what moved the Greeks in the first place to believe it was round.

Beyond that, we can see the distance to the horizon increase with altitude, even without obstructions.  The horizon itself exists, too.  The distance doesn't gradually fade away, unless it happens to be foggy, of course.

Satellites orbit the earth, some in geostationary orbit.  Sputnik was the first, and it was easily detected by its radio signal, even the United States.  It was designed that way specifically, so people would know the Soviets weren't lying.  People could actually measure the strength of the signal and find that the peaks were, in fact, an hour and a half apart.  The same length as the time it took to orbit the earth.  And the peak signal times matched when it would be passing closest.

Geostationary satellites, as I've mentioned elsewhere, can and have been photographed.  You could even photograph them yourself if your location is right and take the angle measurements and see how high up they'd have to be, even on a flat earth.

The height of the sun matches with a round earth.  We can calculate its height using a round world model and the answer is the same no matter what latitude we're at.  If you use a flat earth model, simple trigonometry should be enough to find the height of the sun.  Unfortunately for you guys, the answer changes depending on what latitude you measure from.

FM radio signals are blocked by the curvature of the earth.  They're stopped right where the horizon would be for an observer looking out from the transmitter.  How curious.

AM radio signals, on the other hand, travel much further because they bounce off the ionosphere.  We can detect the ionosphere with radar, also, and it's curved.  How odd.  Why do AM signals go further than FM signals on a flat earth?  If the atmosphere is all that's stopping them, shouldn't they go the same distance?

So yeah, you look at the facts and it doesn't look too great for FE.  Of course, you're not truth seekers, you're denialists.  Rather than go with what actually fits, you'll come back with something about bendy light, or some other phenomenon that you have no evidence for so you can keep clinging to the idea of a flat earth.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2012, 04:49:21 PM »
Quote
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?

Do you understand the scope of your claim?  I don't think you do.  I think you'd find that you wouldn't understand a fraction of the math that you're saying you have adamantly disproven.  I know I wouldn't and I follow the newest discoveries as best I can.  If you don't understand the laws of physics they discuss and the math they use, then again, how can you tell me that they are wrong?

Do you understand the education they have that you do not possess?
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2012, 04:57:28 PM »
Quote
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?

I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud?  The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2012, 04:59:23 PM »
There are o evidence that contradicts the observations made by the great minds you previously pointed out.

When FEers cannot find a argument to back up their assumptions, they play the conspiracy card.

Nasa proved earth is round by taking picture, FEers claim it is a conspiracy.

FEers fail to understand that if Einstein had used a false model to create his equations, he would simply fail to be able to predict any of the phenomena his equations predict. This would eventually be highlighted in the experiments made to confirm his equation/s prediction.

For example, Einstein proved that the sun gravity is so strong that it pulls light towards itself. But FEers claim that the sun is just a few miles up in the sky. Therefore according to Einstein's findings, earth should have been destroyed by the sun's gravity according to the FE model.

So who should we believe? Einstein that followed rigorous scientific methodology that was later back up with empiric data from experiments done by other groups of scientists? Or should we believe in the FE model that offers no mathematical model or any sort of real scientific proofs?




?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2012, 05:07:27 PM »
It is becoming obvious to me that they FE'ers are of the 4th type of believers. 
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2012, 05:30:36 PM »
I wish the RE'ers in this thread knew how to write a post without hitting enter after every sentence.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2012, 05:31:53 PM »
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2012, 05:58:39 PM »
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

and you just dismiss cat earth's post then? they are valid points

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2012, 06:43:16 PM »
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2012, 06:46:14 PM »
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2012, 06:52:01 PM »
See, from where I live, and I live in a relatively flat area, I'd say that the Earth is always curving in all sorts of directions.
I can't keep track of all the hills, the mountains, the valleys. For all I know the Earth is a giant staircase.
God bless the Enclave.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2012, 06:53:45 PM »
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2012, 06:55:36 PM »
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2012, 06:58:26 PM »
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2012, 06:58:36 PM »
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth.  I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.

You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.

There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.
What about the direct sensorial evidence of a ship going below the horizon, or a sunset?
God bless the Enclave.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2012, 06:59:12 PM »
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.

You are wrong.

Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.

There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2012, 07:21:09 PM »
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2012, 07:55:02 PM »
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat.  I've explained this many times.

Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc.  If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.

You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.

None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.

Why not?  It certainly suggests the earth is not flat.  Unless you want to say its due to an optical effect, in which case how are you sure that an optical effect is not making the earth look flat out your window?

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2012, 08:04:43 PM »
Quote
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?

I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud?  The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.

Sigmund Freud?  A psychiatrist?  Why would anyone take the word of a student of the mind over the word of a student of astronomy and physics when it comes to hard facts and scientific data?   Freud didn't provide proof and evidence.  Psychiatrists deal in interpretations, not facts.

It takes more than a shrink to prove that the earth is flat.
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.