Intelligence in Debate

  • 133 Replies
  • 27039 Views
?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2012, 07:49:44 AM »
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

  • low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

Insert the correct adjective.  My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof?  :o

You obviously haven't read this thread.  If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me.  :)  See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me.  They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are.  You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.

In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please
You talk so much and still no proof. How so?

Nah.  I have proof.  As does the world.  You see, as stated in Intelligence in Debate, (the other thread I'm posting in) I have pointed out that there is an astronomical amount of proof supporting a spherical earth yet YOU seem to want to believe it's flat yet when asked for proof, you back talk, get dodgy, insult, and accuse.  You people like Psychiatrists, right?  That's called Transference.  You want to belong so you believe this flat earth conspiracy and turn your noses up at anyone who doesn't believe how you do.

I have my answer.  Not a single one of you can provide the slightest bit of evidence besides "It looks flat when I stare out of my window."  Congratulations, Clayman.  You have represented your Flat Earth Group like an idiot.

The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2012, 07:51:41 AM »
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".

I mean lowly as in uneducated.  A man who has not had years and years of education.  Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.

That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".

  • low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.

Insert the correct adjective.  My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof?  :o

You obviously haven't read this thread.  If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me.  :)  See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me.  They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are.  You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.

In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please
You talk so much and still no proof. How so?

Nah.  I have proof.  As does the world.  You see, as stated in Intelligence in Debate, (the other thread I'm posting in) I have pointed out that there is an astronomical amount of proof supporting a spherical earth yet YOU seem to want to believe it's flat yet when asked for proof, you back talk, get dodgy, insult, and accuse.  You people like Psychiatrists, right?  That's called Transference.  You want to belong so you believe this flat earth conspiracy and turn your noses up at anyone who doesn't believe how you do.

I have my answer.  Not a single one of you can provide the slightest bit of evidence besides "It looks flat when I stare out of my window."  Congratulations, Clayman.  You have represented your Flat Earth Group like an idiot.
U better watch how u represent RE's here ::)

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #62 on: April 09, 2012, 10:07:13 AM »
direct sensual evidence is not the best way to advance. much research would of halted if all people used was direct sensual evidence. claiming "devices that show that the earth round must be wrong because my eyes disagree" is not correct.
'it looks flat' just isnt good enough and thats all you can say

@ soulfien please provide evidence that the flat earth is round

round
[round]   Example Sentences Origin
round
1    [round] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, preposition, verb
adjective
1. having a flat, circular surface, as a disk.
2. ring-shaped, as a hoop.
3. curved like part of a circle, as an outline.
4. having a circular cross section, as a cylinder; cylindrical.
5. spherical or globular, as a ball.

What do I win?

This is your map and as you can see, it's just as round as a sphere is...



that picture is a concept, there are no maps of the flat earth. as far as i know nobody has ever declared the flat earth as a round disc. because thats very un-zetetic, because nobody has seen the edge
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:10:04 AM by squevil »

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #63 on: April 09, 2012, 10:13:56 AM »
so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:20:38 AM by rayman »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #64 on: April 09, 2012, 01:01:24 PM »
so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?

Because most zetetics are also hypocrites.  ;)
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2012, 06:14:56 PM »
so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?

at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #66 on: April 09, 2012, 08:51:49 PM »
so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?

at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered

So the argument " I only believe only in what I see" doesn't hold ground.

I doubt any FEers in this forum has even been in Antarctica. So as far you guys know, there is no ice wall.

I mean, it has to be a wall tall enough to hold earth's atmosphere in it. This ice wall should be visible from any point in this planet.

With powerful telescope a FEer could easily prove the earth is flat by observing the ice wall.


?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #67 on: April 09, 2012, 09:53:31 PM »
so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?

at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered

A weather balloon can travel outside of the atmosphere.  A jetliner can fly over 6  miles up.  A spy plane can fly at the edge of the atmosphere.  A shuttle can escape the earth's gravity and a rocket can fly to the moon and back.  The technology is real.

Cameras, telescopes, super computers, etc... exist and we can see light years away.  Yet no one, not one person ever has seen the edge of the earth according to you?  Have you never seen a plane or a ship?  The ability to fly or travel on the water or beneath in a submarine?  And you honestly believe flat earthers have done all that they can to prove that what they say is true?

If you don't even know what shape your earth is then how can you defend your claim?  You're saying not one of you knows?
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2012, 01:03:32 AM »
A shuttle can escape the earth's gravity and a rocket can fly to the moon and back.
Prove it.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2012, 01:25:29 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2012, 01:55:56 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2012, 02:11:31 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #73 on: April 10, 2012, 02:17:06 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2012, 02:20:22 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Nothing suggests that. But you have to go read the FAQ to understand why am i avoiding your "evidence".  ::)

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #75 on: April 10, 2012, 02:28:41 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Nothing suggests that. But you have to go read the FAQ to understand why am i avoiding your "evidence".  ::)
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #76 on: April 10, 2012, 02:33:44 AM »
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Nothing suggests that. But you have to go read the FAQ to understand why am i avoiding your "evidence".  ::)
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #77 on: April 10, 2012, 02:44:43 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #78 on: April 10, 2012, 03:06:39 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #79 on: April 10, 2012, 03:08:07 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #80 on: April 10, 2012, 03:11:24 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #81 on: April 10, 2012, 03:28:23 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
So you won't face the evidence due to a conspiracy theory. You use an ad hominem fallacy to avoid looking at the evidence. Gee, how sad. If you need a CT to hide from the evidence, you lose. Another RET victory.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #82 on: April 10, 2012, 04:47:19 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
So you won't face the evidence due to a conspiracy theory. You use an ad hominem fallacy to avoid looking at the evidence. Gee, how sad. If you need a CT to hide from the evidence, you lose. Another RET victory.
Sure. You can't prove CT wrong, so all you can now is dumb posts, claiming victory.  All RET "victories" look like that actually.  ::)

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #83 on: April 10, 2012, 08:52:26 AM »
it's called denial.  The technology exists.  They want to claim NASA is false because for NASA to be real, the earth must be spherical.  For the earth to be flat then there must be no way to explore it.

I have already pointed out the many ways we can use to explore our tiny little planet and they've all been denied.  I'm sure someone on this forum has been on a jet liner at some point in their lives.  That means they've been at least 5 miles up.  That cannot be admitted though because their stance is that no one can or has explored the flat earth.  No one has proven the flat earth.  No one can or ever will because in order to do so you must be able to fly.

Prove it they say?  Prove that us intelligent humans have created ways to fly?  Any evidence I present would be refused, I am sure.
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #84 on: April 10, 2012, 05:58:32 PM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.

How does NASA know the shape of the earth?  According to Tom they simply are hiding the fact that they cannot run a real space program.

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #85 on: April 10, 2012, 06:22:32 PM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.

Believe it or not, NASA is not the only group in the world with telescopes.  Or RADAR.  Or Planes.  Or ships.  Or cameras.  Or satellites.  And when an aircraft carrier goes out to sea, that's about 8,000 people if you include the escort ships sailing around the world and no one has ever seen this edge of the world you keep talking about.

You have no proof.  You have no pictures.  You have no scientific data.  No eye-witnesses.  None of you have ever traveled anywhere near this edge of the world and you have no idea where the edge of the world even is or the shape of the world because everyone in the entire planet who has seen the world differently than you imagine it is called a liar.
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #86 on: April 11, 2012, 07:40:06 AM »
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?

*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.

Believe it or not, NASA is not the only group in the world with telescopes.  Or RADAR.  Or Planes.  Or ships.  Or cameras.  Or satellites.  And when an aircraft carrier goes out to sea, that's about 8,000 people if you include the escort ships sailing around the world and no one has ever seen this edge of the world you keep talking about.

Firstly, the earth may not have an edge. Secondly, 8,000? I doubt it. At most, half that (+-1200 for the CV, another thousand for escorts, maybe 400 for subs and a smallish tanker/supply ship crew). Also, how is the carrier thing even relevant? I was unaware the the USN have a presence beyond Antarctica.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #87 on: April 11, 2012, 08:40:16 AM »
I don't know if you've noticed, but the distance between continents only works if the planet is spherical.  Ships do go south of all of the other continents and have radar as well as other means of tracking, not to mention accurate sea charts and communication equipment.

Trust me.... if the planet was flat, they'd know about it.

And I may have been off by a thousand, but I wouldn't say it was anymore than that.   My last ship had a crew of about 6,000 people.  It was the Abraham Lincoln, CVN - 72.   My job on carriers was Avionics.   I miss those days.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 08:43:05 AM by Soulfien »
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #88 on: April 11, 2012, 10:07:05 AM »
Ah, fair enough. I forgot that your carriers carry a lot more people than UK ones, so I was basing my manning estimates on the Invincibles. The distance/ navigation issue is something that will hopefully be fully addressed in the near future (I am not privy to recent FET breakthroughs).
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #89 on: April 11, 2012, 01:33:29 PM »
Ah, fair enough. I forgot that your carriers carry a lot more people than UK ones, so I was basing my manning estimates on the Invincibles. The distance/ navigation issue is something that will hopefully be fully addressed in the near future (I am not privy to recent FET breakthroughs).
In fairness, we should have used the more precise term "carrier strike group". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards