FEconcept prevents itself from existing.Irrefutable evidence

Ahah robes and tall hats, nice.

It doesn't matter what name humans choose to call them, they are still all spherical.

Well? How does FE account for this?

Well? How does FE account for this?

Account for what?  The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another?  It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Well? How does FE account for this?

Account for what?  The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another?  It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.

The Earth is special?

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Well? How does FE account for this?

Account for what?  The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another?  It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.

"points to topic of the thread"

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Well? How does FE account for this?

Account for what?  The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another?  It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.

The Earth is special?

absoultely, and I have proof that noone can argue with that shows the Earth is fundamentally different than all the other planets.  The Earth has life!

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Well? How does FE account for this?

Account for what?  The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another?  It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.

The Earth is special?

absoultely, and I have proof that noone can argue with that shows the Earth is fundamentally different than all the other planets.  The Earth has life!

That is a baseless argument, for many reasons; the main argument is that you have no proof that there isn't life elsewhere, making it an untestable hypothesis on your account.  Secondly, recall the small fossils of microbial life in the meteorites found in Antartica from Mars (A weaker argument, because it can be countered by "it was faked"; hence the first argument).

There is no proof either way, but the fact that no life has been on meteors or anything of the sort is a good start.  Beside that, there has been nothing to convince me, such as fires on Mars (2 points if you get the book reference), or anything of the sort.  Good guess on how I was going to disprove the second thing, since FE claims NASA is in on the conspiracy, we can not trust anything they say.

There is no proof either way, but the fact that no life has been on meteors or anything of the sort is a good start.  Beside that, there has been nothing to convince me, such as fires on Mars (2 points if you get the book reference), or anything of the sort.  Good guess on how I was going to disprove the second thing, since FE claims NASA is in on the conspiracy, we can not trust anything they say.

Eh, my mind is so open, it's torn in two; it's like Relativity, but instead of "all inertial reference frames are on equal footing", it's "all ideas are on equal footing".

"points to topic of the thread"

Sorry, what does the planethood of the Earth have to do with whether "FE prevents itself from existing" (a nonsensical sentence, if you ask me)?

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

"points to topic of the thread"

Sorry, what does the planethood of the Earth have to do with whether "FE prevents itself from existing" (a nonsensical sentence, if you ask me)?

He's getting at that, if the Earth is a planet, and other planets are round, then the Earth is round too.

He's getting at that, if the Earth is a planet, and other planets are round, then the Earth is round too.

A laughable claim.  If the Earth is a planet and all planets are round, then the Earth is round too.  That's quite clear.

Observer: if Erasmus is a member of these forums and other members of these forums are not named Erasmus, then Erasmus is not named Erasmus.  Same argument form, different meanings of predicates, obviously nonsense; therefore you argument is also, obviously, nonsense.

I won't even bother updating your score for this one; you would just have to be disqualified and I don't like to do that.

I won't even bother updating your score for this one; you would just have to be disqualified and I don't like to do that.

You've been disqualified for misunderstanding that I was merely a translator.  I neither defended nor attacked his position, I just typed what I thought his point was; just because I believe the Earth is round, doesn't automatically mean I'm going to force my opinion onto someone unwilling to receive it.  Your current theory has near-perfect logical backing, and I am perfectly fine with it.  All I can do is try to strengthen it for you.  How?  By helping you to prepare for the fights with the over-zealous bastards.

Good game.  Rematch soon?

I just typed what I thought his point was;

So you're saying his point is invalid?  Probably that is something that should be addressed to him, not to me.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

I just typed what I thought his point was;

So you're saying his point is invalid?  Probably that is something that should be addressed to him, not to me.

No, I'm telling you that your first post (before this little conversation) should have been directed at HIM, not me.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

"points to topic of the thread"

Sorry, what does the planethood of the Earth have to do with whether "FE prevents itself from existing" (a nonsensical sentence, if you ask me)?

"Points to original post." No planethood involved.

"Points to original post."

We finished addressing your original questions several pages ago.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

"Points to original post."

We finished addressing your original questions several pages ago.

No we didn't. I asked you to explain how that new "special something" of yours could work 4 times already and you did not, you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it and then went off topic. And As I said, I'd like someone else's opinion. Preferably offering an explanation rather than making up their own phenomenons.

I asked you to explain how that new "special something" of yours could work 4 times already and you did not,

What "special something"?  That sounds like something that nubile  debutantes have.

you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it

I didn't.  I read it, realized it was not a refutation, and moved on.

Look, you've clearly got this preconceived notion that any proposed process that addressed and invalidates your "refutations" of the FE theory can't possibly be right, because you know that the Earth is round.  Unfortunately that's now how logic works.  You don't get to say that you've "refuted" my suggestions just because you don't like what they imply.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

I asked you to explain how that new "special something" of yours could work 4 times already and you did not,

What "special something"?  That sounds like something that nubile  debutantes have.

Quote

you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it

I didn't.  I read it, realized it was not a refutation, and moved on.

Look, you've clearly got this preconceived notion that any proposed process that addressed and invalidates your "refutations" of the FE theory can't possibly be right, because you know that the Earth is round.  Unfortunately that's now how logic works.  You don't get to say that you've "refuted" my suggestions just because you don't like what they imply.

Divergent shifts do not involve subduction. That's called refuting an argument.

What "special something"?

Your explanmation was:

Look, it's obvious that something special has to be going on near the rim of the Earth

Which is kind of lacking.

I asked you twice how there would be empty space so deep undergound to fit an entire plate into, and why matter in the earth's interior isn't filling that space. You never gave any explanation to that.

Look, you've clearly got this preconceived notion that any proposed process that addressed and invalidates your "refutations" of the FE theory can't possibly be right, because you know that the Earth is round.

Please quote me and show me how. I gave reasons and explained why they didn,t work, and YOU switched to a new phenomenon afterwards. I have made no claim of any of my argument being true because the earth was a sphere, I never even mentioned that. I'm not sure what you base this on. I have NEVER started one of my statments with "if the earth is a sphere" or "Since the earth is a sphere" I have seen YOU do it on many occasions however with the flat earth concept.

Divergent shifts do not involve subduction.

And I pointed out that geologists who are wrong about the shape of the Earth might not know everything there is to know about its composition.

I asked you twice how there would be empty space so deep undergound to fit an entire plate into, and why matter in the earth's interior isn't filling that space. You never gave any explanation to that.

Explanation: the space isn't empty; it contains the plate.  Other stuff moved out of the way to make way for the plate.

I have NEVER started one of my statments with "if the earth is a sphere" or "Since the earth is a sphere"

You're clearly assuming that any argument you present againt our suggestions is automatically a refutation.... that's far enough from the truth that it reveals your biases and unwillingness to argue objectively.

Explanation: the space isn't empty; it contains the plate. Other stuff moved out of the way to make way for the plate

That's something you never elaborated on. If "stuff moves out of the way", then that "stuff" needs empty space to fill so the the plate then takes it's place. And you were saying the plate was going down, you haven't explained either how there would be room for matter to move around enough to fit a plate when you actually go deeper and deal with more compact matter.

You're clearly assuming that any argument you present againt our suggestions is automatically a refutation.... that's far enough from the truth that it reveals your biases and unwillingness to argue objectively

I said it before QUOTE ME. Show me that bias. If I wasn't refuting you by presenting counterarguments then what do you call it?

and unwillingness to argue objectively

Dude, you have some nerve. I've been arguing objectively all this time, but YOU have not.

.

And I pointed out that geologists who are wrong about the shape of the Earth

THAT, is bias. YOU are doing it, not me. You can look through the whole thread and you'll never see me doing something like this.

Plus, you had no problem with geologists when you explained the phenomenon on FE with subduction. Now, after I explained that subduction isn't possible during divergent shifts, all of a sudden, geology is wrong.

Furthermore, I have maintained the same position since the beginning of the argument, your position changed at least 4 times already.

Man.

phaseshifter, how do you explain subduction on the RE?  It's not some made up property of the FE.  By your reasoning, subduction can't happen on the RE because there is no 'empty space' for an entire plate to fit.  Can you explain how it works then?

That's something you never elaborated on. If "stuff moves out of the way", then that "stuff" needs empty space to fill so the the plate then takes it's place.

I didn't realize it demanded elaboration.  Have you ever stirred a thick soup? or a bucket of sand and water?  The material deep below the Earth's surface is fluid, and can therefore flow.  I did mention this in one of my earlier posts.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

You're clearly assuming that any argument you present againt our suggestions is automatically a refutation....

I said it before QUOTE ME. Show me that bias.

I don't think I really need to refute this.

It was necessary to refute your statment

you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it

Suffice it to say, at no point did you robustly refute any of my suggestions.  Just saying that you did only has the effect of, as I've already mentioned, revealing your bias.

Plus, you had no problem with geologists when you explained the phenomenon on FE with subduction. Now, after I explained that subduction isn't possible during divergent shifts, all of a sudden, geology is wrong.

I didn't say all of geology is wrong.  I said geologists might not know everything there is to know about the nature of plate tectonics.  Do you think that that's untrue?

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

That's something you never elaborated on. If "stuff moves out of the way", then that "stuff" needs empty space to fill so the the plate then takes it's place.

I didn't realize it demanded elaboration.  Have you ever stirred a thick soup? or a bucket of sand and water?  The material deep below the Earth's surface is fluid, and can therefore flow.  I did mention this in one of my earlier posts.

A theory is said to be weak if it can't explain/elaborate on it's workings/composition.  You should know this already.

I didn't realize it demanded elaboration. Have you ever stirred a thick soup? or a bucket of sand and water? The material deep below the Earth's surface is fluid, and can therefore flow. I did mention this in one of my earlier posts.

If it's fluid and flows, it is still taking all the available space where it is. You are STILL not explaining where it goes so that the plate can takes its place.

Suffice it to say, at no point did you robustly refute any of my suggestions. Just saying that you did only has the effect of, as I've already mentioned, revealing your bias

You, again, conveniently left out critical parts.

I don't think I really need to refute this.

#1. Since you were not satisfied with the words I put in bold (that you left out), I gave you an explanation in the following reply. Which was:

Not significantly is not the same as not at all. Why would we make the precision if there was an abscence of the phenomenon? It's either possible or it's not

Which you conceded. So don't try to tell me I ignored it.

#2.

It was necessary to refute your statment

I'm not sure why you quoted this. Where's the bias here? You asked me why I was talking about neutron stars and black holes and I replied. That sentence was my reply to your question (which you left out) What is this biased towards? if you can answer that.

#3

you also ignored every statment I made that refuted it

Again, where is the bias here? If you really want me to, I can show you the senences  I used to refute your statments that you did not respond to.
You often switched to a new theory instead of adressig them, so how does that show bias on my part?

I didn't say all of geology is wrong. I said geologists might not know everything there is to know about the nature of plate tectonics. Do you think that that's untrue?

You based that statment on the assumption that they were wrong about the shape of the earth, which made it invalid since the shape of the planet is what is being debated. And my question still stands. Since you obviously beleive that geology is not precise enough that I can use it to back up my statments, why use it to back up yours? And why did you not mention that when you mentionned your subduction explanation?

And you haven't adressed this either.

Quote

And I pointed out that geologists who are wrong about the shape of the Earth  

THAT, is bias. YOU are doing it, not me. You can look through the whole thread and you'll never see me doing something like this.

As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre. The least you could do is do the same rather than go off topic or fall back on sarcasm.

If you don't want to debate in good faith, you don,t have to. I'll just wait for someone else.

As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre.

Oh, I don't doubt it... I merely doubt that the very act of disagreeing is good for a refutation.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre.

Oh, I don't doubt it... I merely doubt that the very act of disagreeing is good for a refutation.

I used the term agree/disagree so that you'd understand what  I meant  without me having to actually say "I adress each of your statments and explain why they are invalid" which would have seemed arrogant in the context.(but is nevertheless what I think) You know very well, that I didn't just say that I didn't agree. You may quote one of my replies where I merely state I disagree with no explanation, but we both know you're not going to find it.

Once again, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments,the least you could do is do the same. If you don't want to debate in good faith, you don't have to.

I asked you very simple questions which you didn't answer.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre.

Oh, I don't doubt it... I merely doubt that the very act of disagreeing is good for a refutation.

phaseshifter, don't take Erasmus seriously. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Believe me, in any debating competition he would've lost a long, long time ago. His only incentive to keep posting is the presence of his lackeys TheEngineer, thebeast, DDraw and a few others who make him feel like he actually has a point.