Is that all?

  • 31 Replies
  • 3059 Views
*

The globe

  • 50
  • Hello :V
Is that all?
« on: December 03, 2017, 10:47:13 AM »
Ok, let's start, I've seen lots of arguments that "proof" the flat earth and I thing they are all bullshit, they either violate the laws of physics or they really have no sense.
All I want are your best arguments to proof earth is flat and I will refute them, now throw me that arguments!

Flat earthers insulting me in 3...2...1...

(I am bored so I'm doing this for a while :v)

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20871
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2017, 10:56:40 AM »
Looks flat to me.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2017, 11:03:49 AM »
What HE said ^^
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2017, 11:05:03 AM »
JRowe and Melkur like this one apparently:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71138.0

This one was popular with one user:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.0

Have fun.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2017, 12:02:10 PM »
Looks flat to me.
We have been over this before.
The horizon clearly shows it is round and without that you can't tell if it is flat or round.
So what you should be saying is:
"Looks consistent with a flat or large round Earth to me."

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2017, 12:02:51 PM »
JRowe and Melkur like this one apparently:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71138.0
Which has been shown to be complete garbage there.
But perhaps the most important point is that the entire argument is irrelevant to the shape of Earth.

This one was popular with one user:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.0
And this one actually refutes the common FE model, not the RE model.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 12:05:45 PM by JackBlack »

*

The globe

  • 50
  • Hello :V
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2017, 12:47:38 PM »
JRowe and Melkur like this one apparently:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71138.0
Which has been shown to be complete garbage there.
But perhaps the most important point is that the entire argument is irrelevant to the shape of Earth.

This one was popular with one user:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.0
And this one actually refutes the common FE model, not the RE model.

Thank you sir, don't wanna waste time explaining things I already refuted in another post :V

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2017, 12:58:16 PM »
Thank you sir, don't wanna waste time explaining things I already refuted in another post :V
You want FEers to repeat their arguments.
Besides you have 13 posts, and both those arguments are rarer, I doubt you have refuted them.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2017, 01:01:24 PM »
Thank you sir, don't wanna waste time explaining things I already refuted in another post :V
You want FEers to repeat their arguments.
Besides you have 13 posts, and both those arguments are rarer, I doubt you have refuted them.
No. They want FEers to provide an actual argument which supports a FE which hasn't been refuted.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20871
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2017, 01:06:01 PM »
Looks flat to me.
We have been over this before.
The horizon clearly shows it is round and without that you can't tell if it is flat or round.
So what you should be saying is:
"Looks consistent with a flat or large round Earth to me."


re·fute  rəˈfyo͞ot/ verb  -  prove (a statement) to be wrong or false; disprove.


You have failed to refute that the Earth looks flat to me.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2017, 01:16:51 PM »
re·fute  rəˈfyo͞ot/ verb  -  prove (a statement) to be wrong or false; disprove.
You have failed to refute that the Earth looks flat to me.
proof
pruːf/
noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

You have failed to provide proof Earth is flat.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20871
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2017, 01:26:42 PM »
I didn't claim the Earth is flat.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2017, 01:30:53 PM »
I didn't claim the Earth is flat.
I didn't claim I was refuting your claim.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20871
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2017, 02:09:22 PM »
now what do we do?

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2017, 11:16:40 PM »
now what do we do?
Dress in drag and do the hula?

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2017, 11:28:26 PM »
Looks flat to me.

He wasn't asking how the earth looks to you.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2017, 04:39:46 AM »
JRowe and Melkur like this one apparently:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71138.0
Had you bothered to check, JRowe's premise was way short of the mark and even the might of Melkur could not revive it!
It was a question that was totally irrelevnat to the shape of the earth anyway and
proved that neither JRowe nor Melkur had he slightest understanding of the material.

Quote from: Jane
This one was popular with one user:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.0
You did read the title? ZIGZAG of the Full Moon - Irrefutable argument against the rotation of the earth « on: June 06, 2017, 07:59:48 PM »
Cikljamas is attempting an Irrefutable argument against the rotation of the earth, not against the Globe!
If you look into the matter further, Cikljamas no longer believes in a flat earth and
under the "screen name"odiupicku" writes this sort of thing,
"The earth is stationary, although spherically shaped!!! READ MORE in pinned comment below this video!!!"
Yes, he believes in a geostationary Globe.

Quote from: Jane
Have fun!
We've already had sufficient fun with those.
I suggest you come up something a bit more challenging for "The globe" to get his teeth into.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 04:42:21 AM by rabinoz »

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2017, 06:38:53 AM »
re·fute  rəˈfyo͞ot/ verb  -  prove (a statement) to be wrong or false; disprove.
You have failed to refute that the Earth looks flat to me.
proof
pruːf/
noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

You have failed to provide proof Earth is flat.
Bullwinkle provided evidence supporting the truth of the statement, "The Earth looks flat," which is a true statement, regardless of what you desire, believe, or otherwise think, you RE-tard...

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2017, 08:28:58 AM »
re·fute  rəˈfyo͞ot/ verb  -  prove (a statement) to be wrong or false; disprove.
You have failed to refute that the Earth looks flat to me.
proof
pruːf/
noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

You have failed to provide proof Earth is flat.
Bullwinkle provided evidence supporting the truth of the statement, "The Earth looks flat," which is a true statement, regardless of what you desire, believe, or otherwise think, you RE-tard...
Jack didn't refute the statement "The Earth looks flat."  He clarified that the statement is true for both a flat Earth and large spherical Earth, and because it applies equally to both is evidence for neither. 


*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2017, 12:08:46 PM »
Bullwinkle provided evidence supporting the truth of the statement, "The Earth looks flat," which is a true statement, regardless of what you desire, believe, or otherwise think, you RE-tard...
No, he provided a statement, just like you have.
Claiming a statement is true is not providing evidence to it.

And no, as explained repeatedly elsewhere, it is false.
At best you have the inability to distinguish between a round and flat Earth.
To me, it does not look flat.
The horizon (at sea or a level area) means it looks curved, as it shows an edge, on a level surface; only possible with a curve.
If Earth was flat I should be able to see all the way to the edge or have it fade to a blur. So Earth does not look flat to me.

The only time that doesn't apply is when things get in your way like buildings or mountains.
But even then, these obstructions mean Earth isn't flat.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:10:20 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2017, 12:38:09 PM »
Bullwinkle provided evidence supporting the truth of the statement, "The Earth looks flat," which is a true statement, regardless of what you desire, believe, or otherwise think, you RE-tard...
No, he provided a statement, just like you have.
Claiming a statement is true is not providing evidence to it.

And no, as explained repeatedly elsewhere, it is false.
At best you have the inability to distinguish between a round and flat Earth.
To me, it does not look flat.
The horizon (at sea or a level area) means it looks curved, as it shows an edge, on a level surface; only possible with a curve.
If Earth was flat I should be able to see all the way to the edge or have it fade to a blur. So Earth does not look flat to me.

The only time that doesn't apply is when things get in your way like buildings or mountains.
But even then, these obstructions mean Earth isn't flat.
Listen, you can state whatever you wish to state in regard as to how the Earth looks to you.

Bullwinkle states the Earth looks flat to him.

There is no fucking way you can refute that statement.

And at best, I and others like me, have the ability to tell the fucking truth about what it is we are looking at.

You, on the other hand...

You keep trotting out the horizon and declare yourself the fucking expert as to how it would look if the Earth were a flat plane, while at the same time denying anything resembling a flat plane exists in our material world.

1) How can you possibly claim to have knowledge about what you would see if you find yourself in a place you deny exists?
2) If by some magical fucking way you did arrive at a point to possess such knowledge, why should one believe you would tell the truth about what you fucking know, being such a vehement denier to begin with?

In other words, you consistently behave like a fucking hypocritical RE-tard offering up hypocritical RE-tard bullshit on a typical fucking RE-tard basis and I will never let you or anyone else forget that.

Kindly GFY incessantly until you simply cannot stand it any fucking longer.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2017, 12:43:45 PM »
Fuck!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2017, 01:20:21 PM »
There is no fucking way you can refute that statement.
Again, where did I say I was refuting it.
I was pointing out it is crap. A claim that Earth looks flat does not mean Earth is flat.
Not a solid refutation. Sure he could be delusional and have Earth look flat to him, but for your average person, it is a load of crap.

And at best, I and others like me, have the ability to tell the fucking truth about what it is we are looking at.
Then why do you keep lying about it?

You, on the other hand...
Actually tell the truth about what it is we are looking at.

You keep trotting out the horizon and declare yourself the fucking expert
When have I ever indicated I am an expert?

as to how it would look if the Earth were a flat plane, while at the same time denying anything resembling a flat plane exists in our material world.
So?
Why would this be a problem?

1) How can you possibly claim to have knowledge about what you would see if you find yourself in a place you deny exists?
By being able to think about. You should try it some time.
Have you ever heard of a proof by contradiction?
You start out assuming what you intent to prove is wrong.
You then use logic to reach a conclusion which has a contradiction.

Are you completely incapable of imagining how things would be if something was different?

2) If by some magical fucking way you did arrive at a point to possess such knowledge, why should one believe you would tell the truth about what you fucking know, being such a vehement denier to begin with?
And this is you putting the cart before the horse yet again.
It is because of this knowledge which anyone capable of thinking can obtain, and observations from reality, that I conclude Earth is round.

Do you notice how unlike you, with your claims based upon pathetic assertions (where you just assert Earth is flat) and insults, mine are based upon rational arguments and evidence?

In other words, you consistently behave like a fucking hypocritical RE-tard offering up hypocritical RE-tard bullshit on a typical fucking RE-tard basis and I will never let you or anyone else forget that.
It would have to be true for us to know before we can forget it.
So far it is just yet another baseless claim from you; lashing out because you can't back up your delusions.

Kindly GFY incessantly until you simply cannot stand it any fucking longer.
Now why would I do something stupid like that?
Am I upsetting you that much by calling out your BS?

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2017, 01:46:59 PM »
There is no fucking way you can refute that statement.
Again, where did I say I was refuting it.
I was pointing out it is crap. A claim that Earth looks flat does not mean Earth is flat.
Not a solid refutation. Sure he could be delusional and have Earth look flat to him, but for your average person, it is a load of crap.
It is not crap.

It is a legitimate statement of evidence and a response to a question.

And at best, I and others like me, have the ability to tell the fucking truth about what it is we are looking at.
Then why do you keep lying about it?
Lying?

Where?
You, on the other hand...
Actually tell the truth about what it is we are looking at.
Actually lie on a regular basis, due to necessity.

You keep trotting out the horizon and declare yourself the fucking expert
When have I ever indicated I am an expert?
Every time you post, especially in terms of what you believe relative to horizons.

as to how it would look if the Earth were a flat plane, while at the same time denying anything resembling a flat plane exists in our material world.
So?
Why would this be a problem?
Only a sick fuck would think themselves capable of objectively conceptualizing reality within the confines of a world they so vehemently deny exists!

I think a third grader would be capable of understanding very clearly exactly the type of bull shit you peddle on a daily basis.

1) How can you possibly claim to have knowledge about what you would see if you find yourself in a place you deny exists?
By being able to think about. You should try it some time.
Have you ever heard of a proof by contradiction?
You start out assuming what you intent to prove is wrong.
You then use logic to reach a conclusion which has a contradiction.

Are you completely incapable of imagining how things would be if something was different?
Actually, no I am not.

But why don't you offer how your statements and assertions on horizons/flat earth really fits with this "proof of contradictions," explanation you offer in defense of your postulates and statements...

Go ahead, professor...

2) If by some magical fucking way you did arrive at a point to possess such knowledge, why should one believe you would tell the truth about what you fucking know, being such a vehement denier to begin with?
And this is you putting the cart before the horse yet again.
It is because of this knowledge which anyone capable of thinking can obtain, and observations from reality, that I conclude Earth is round.
Bull fucking shit!

As we will all soon see from your bumbling stumbling acrobatics you perform when attempting to offer your menial apologetic in response to your supposed, "proof by contradictions," exercise performed in support of your "horizons."

Do you notice how unlike you, with your claims based upon pathetic assertions (where you just assert Earth is flat) and insults, mine are based upon rational arguments and evidence?
Nope.

I assert the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

My assertion is not based on insults.

As a matter of fact, the insults are just thrown for kicks.

In other words, you consistently behave like a fucking hypocritical RE-tard offering up hypocritical RE-tard bullshit on a typical fucking RE-tard basis and I will never let you or anyone else forget that.
It would have to be true for us to know before we can forget it.
So far it is just yet another baseless claim from you; lashing out because you can't back up your delusions.
Everyone who read it or reads it from now on until they stop reading it knows it to be true.

Very sound, very fundamental argumentation, to which in response, from you...

Nothing.

Kindly GFY incessantly until you simply cannot stand it any fucking longer.
Now why would I do something stupid like that?
Am I upsetting you that much by calling out your BS?
Doing stupid things seems to be part of your repertoire.

Why change?

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2017, 11:07:15 PM »
It is not crap.
It is a legitimate statement of evidence and a response to a question.
It is crap.
It is in no way evidence that Earth is flat, specifically for the reason that the only instances where Earth "looks flat" also have it look round and very big.
If you wish to claim otherwise, feel free to provide a single instance where this is not the case, remembering that a flat Earth is effectively identical to the limit of a round Earth as it becomes infinitely large.

Lying?
Where?
All the times you claim it is flat.

Actually lie on a regular basis, due to necessity.
Nope, that would be you.
I have reality backing me up. I have no reason to lie.

When have I ever indicated I am an expert?
Every time you post, especially in terms of what you believe relative to horizons.
Nope.
No where in those posts do I indicate I am an expert.
For the most part, what I post is quite easy to understand and it does not require you to be an expert.

Only a sick fuck would think themselves capable of objectively conceptualizing reality within the confines of a world they so vehemently deny exists!
No, an honest, rational, intelligent person would as well.
A sick fuck would completely ignore it.
Part of understanding if a model is true (or likely to be true), compared to other models is to be able to understand these other models and consider what things would be like if each model was true.

This is what can lead them to so vehemently denying something; because they actually understand it and the implications of it and see that it does not match reality.


If what you were saying was true then you and all the other FEers would be completely incapable of providing any rational objection to the RE model as you would be completely unable to understand what it would be like.

I think a third grader would be capable of understanding very clearly exactly the type of bull shit you peddle on a daily basis.
Not everything. Sometimes the math used can be complex. But I do try to keep the FACTS and RATIONAL ARGUMENTS I present simple and easy to understand.
Yet you seem to fail, repeatedly.

Are you completely incapable of imagining how things would be if something was different?
Actually, no I am not.
Then why do you make such an insane claim that I must be completely incapable of doing so?

But why don't you offer how your statements and assertions on horizons/flat earth really fits with this "proof of contradictions," explanation you offer in defense of your postulates and statements...
I have numerous times in other threads.
Assuming Earth is flat (and ignoring mountains for simplicity), then the only edge is the edge of Earth itself.
Assuming no obstructions get in your way (like a building), you should be able to see to the edge, or to the extent of atmospheric visibility.
If you can see to the edge there would only be this edge as the horizon and nothing would ever appear to go over the horizon or set behind it.
If an obstruction got in your way, this would be clearly visible as the object, and entirely transient, with you capable of viewing a similar horizon without the object in your way.
If atmospheric visibility would be an issue the land would fade to a blur as you became unable to resolve it, similar to what happens in dense fog.
In reality, we can observe a sharp horizon a finite distance away, with that distance changing depending upon your elevation. Objects can appear to go over the horizon and set behind it.
This is a direct contradiction meaning the only assumption made must be wrong.
This means that Earth can't be flat.

A simpler version is merely comparing a prediction with reality.
For example, based upon the common FE model, on the equinox, at the equator, the sun should rise from the NE (or more specifically at 6 am solar time, the sun should be NE as it should never rise or set). The further north you go the closer to east it gets with it just not making it before the North pole. The further south you go the further north the sun should appear.
In reality, it appears due east.
Again, this is a contradiction that shows this FE model to be wrong.

There are plenty more examples like this I can show. Some against specific models, some against a FE in general (which doesn't ignore most of the world).

It is because of this knowledge which anyone capable of thinking can obtain, and observations from reality, that I conclude Earth is round.
Bull fucking shit!

As we will all soon see from your bumbling stumbling acrobatics you perform when attempting to offer your menial apologetic in response to your supposed, "proof by contradictions," exercise performed in support of your "horizons."
Nope, as you have seen from numerous posts of mine in the past, it is not bullshit.

Do you notice how unlike you, with your claims based upon pathetic assertions (where you just assert Earth is flat) and insults, mine are based upon rational arguments and evidence?
Nope.
I assert the Earth is flat because it looks flat.
Notice how you don't offer any evidence?
The best you come up with is that Earth looks flat.
You can't provide any example of how it looks flat, as doing so would either indicate that it actually looks round, not flat, or that it is incapable of distinguishing between Earth looking round and looking flat.

Do you have any actual evidence, or just this pathetic claim?

Everyone who read it or reads it from now on until they stop reading it knows it to be true.
They know my statements to be true, not your pathetic insults.

Very sound, very fundamental argumentation, to which in response, from you...
Nothing.
You ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Doing stupid things seems to be part of your repertoire.
Projecting again I see.

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2017, 03:46:22 AM »
It is not crap.
It is a legitimate statement of evidence and a response to a question.
It is crap.
It is in no way evidence that Earth is flat, specifically for the reason that the only instances where Earth "looks flat" also have it look round and very big.
If you wish to claim otherwise, feel free to provide a single instance where this is not the case, remembering that a flat Earth is effectively identical to the limit of a round Earth as it becomes infinitely large.
Where does the Earth become "infinitely large?"

Answer = no where.

totallackey = 1
JackBlack = 0

Lying?
Where?
All the times you claim it is flat.
You have no special, first hand knowledge that you can express, incapable of being interpreted in favor of flat or spherical.

totallackey = 2
JackBlack = 0
Actually lie on a regular basis, due to necessity.
Nope, that would be you.
I have reality backing me up. I have no reason to lie.
No debate here, just the usual, "NO U!"
totallackey = 2
JackBlack = 0
When have I ever indicated I am an expert?
Every time you post, especially in terms of what you believe relative to horizons.
Nope.
No where in those posts do I indicate I am an expert.
For the most part, what I post is quite easy to understand and it does not require you to be an expert.
Only a sick fuck would think themselves capable of objectively conceptualizing reality within the confines of a world they so vehemently deny exists!
No, an honest, rational, intelligent person would as well.
A sick fuck would completely ignore it.
Part of understanding if a model is true (or likely to be true), compared to other models is to be able to understand these other models and consider what things would be like if each model was true.

This is what can lead them to so vehemently denying something; because they actually understand it and the implications of it and see that it does not match reality.


If what you were saying was true then you and all the other FEers would be completely incapable of providing any rational objection to the RE model as you would be completely unable to understand what it would be like.

I think a third grader would be capable of understanding very clearly exactly the type of bull shit you peddle on a daily basis.
Not everything. Sometimes the math used can be complex. But I do try to keep the FACTS and RATIONAL ARGUMENTS I present simple and easy to understand.
Yet you seem to fail, repeatedly.

Are you completely incapable of imagining how things would be if something was different?
Actually, no I am not.
Then why do you make such an insane claim that I must be completely incapable of doing so?

But why don't you offer how your statements and assertions on horizons/flat earth really fits with this "proof of contradictions," explanation you offer in defense of your postulates and statements...
I have numerous times in other threads.
Assuming Earth is flat (and ignoring mountains for simplicity), then the only edge is the edge of Earth itself.
Assuming no obstructions get in your way (like a building), you should be able to see to the edge, or to the extent of atmospheric visibility.
If you can see to the edge there would only be this edge as the horizon and nothing would ever appear to go over the horizon or set behind it.
If an obstruction got in your way, this would be clearly visible as the object, and entirely transient, with you capable of viewing a similar horizon without the object in your way.
If atmospheric visibility would be an issue the land would fade to a blur as you became unable to resolve it, similar to what happens in dense fog.
In reality, we can observe a sharp horizon a finite distance away, with that distance changing depending upon your elevation. Objects can appear to go over the horizon and set behind it.
This is a direct contradiction meaning the only assumption made must be wrong.
This means that Earth can't be flat.
"The edge of ATMOSPHERIC VISIBILITY..."
JackBlack finally cedes.
totallackey = 3
JackBlack = 0
A simpler version is merely comparing a prediction with reality.
For example, based upon the common FE model, on the equinox, at the equator, the sun should rise from the NE (or more specifically at 6 am solar time, the sun should be NE as it should never rise or set). The further north you go the closer to east it gets with it just not making it before the North pole. The further south you go the further north the sun should appear.
In reality, it appears due east.
Again, this is a contradiction that shows this FE model to be wrong.

There are plenty more examples like this I can show. Some against specific models, some against a FE in general (which doesn't ignore most of the world).

It is because of this knowledge which anyone capable of thinking can obtain, and observations from reality, that I conclude Earth is round.
Bull fucking shit!

As we will all soon see from your bumbling stumbling acrobatics you perform when attempting to offer your menial apologetic in response to your supposed, "proof by contradictions," exercise performed in support of your "horizons."
Nope, as you have seen from numerous posts of mine in the past, it is not bullshit.
Not one thing you have written here can be demonstrated first hand by you.

Do you notice how unlike you, with your claims based upon pathetic assertions (where you just assert Earth is flat) and insults, mine are based upon rational arguments and evidence?
Nope.
I assert the Earth is flat because it looks flat.
Notice how you don't offer any evidence?
The best you come up with is that Earth looks flat.
You can't provide any example of how it looks flat, as doing so would either indicate that it actually looks round, not flat, or that it is incapable of distinguishing between Earth looking round and looking flat.

Do you have any actual evidence, or just this pathetic claim?[/quote]
Yes.

I look with my eyes and I can see the clock on the wall states it is 5:45 am.

I can look with the same eyes outside my window and the Earth looks flat.

Just because you cannot does not mean I am wrong.

totallackey = 4
JackBlack =0
Everyone who read it or reads it from now on until they stop reading it knows it to be true.
They know my statements to be true, not your pathetic insults.
You want them to be pathetic.

I like to deliver.

If you deserved anything more than a pathetic insult, then I would give more.
Very sound, very fundamental argumentation, to which in response, from you...
Nothing.
You ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
More "NO U!"
Doing stupid things seems to be part of your repertoire.
Projecting again I see.
Weak.
FINAL SCORE
totallackey = 6
JackBlack = 0
ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2017, 05:52:04 AM »
Bullwinkle provided evidence supporting the truth of the statement, "The Earth looks flat," which is a true statement, regardless of what you desire, believe, or otherwise think, you RE-tard...
No, he provided a statement, just like you have.
Claiming a statement is true is not providing evidence to it.

And no, as explained repeatedly elsewhere, it is false.
At best you have the inability to distinguish between a round and flat Earth.
To me, it does not look flat.
The horizon (at sea or a level area) means it looks curved, as it shows an edge, on a level surface; only possible with a curve.
If Earth was flat I should be able to see all the way to the edge or have it fade to a blur. So Earth does not look flat to me.

The only time that doesn't apply is when things get in your way like buildings or mountains.
But even then, these obstructions mean Earth isn't flat.
Listen, you can state whatever you wish to state in regard as to how the Earth looks to you.

Bullwinkle states the Earth looks flat to him.

There is no fucking way you can refute that statement.

And at best, I and others like me, have the ability to tell the fucking truth about what it is we are looking at.

You, on the other hand...

You keep trotting out the horizon and declare yourself the fucking expert as to how it would look if the Earth were a flat plane, while at the same time denying anything resembling a flat plane exists in our material world.

1) How can you possibly claim to have knowledge about what you would see if you find yourself in a place you deny exists?
2) If by some magical fucking way you did arrive at a point to possess such knowledge, why should one believe you would tell the truth about what you fucking know, being such a vehement denier to begin with?

In other words, you consistently behave like a fucking hypocritical RE-tard offering up hypocritical RE-tard bullshit on a typical fucking RE-tard basis and I will never let you or anyone else forget that.

Kindly GFY incessantly until you simply cannot stand it any fucking longer.

Can I ask where according to your words:

“I and others like me, have the ability to tell the fucking truth about what it is we are looking at”

...you and the others you speak of gained this ability to tell the fucking truth just by looking at things.
What things can you look at and tell the ‘fucking truth’ about?
How does the ’fucking truth’ differ from the truth?

You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

JackBlack

  • 17252
Re: Is that all?
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2017, 01:04:25 PM »
Where does the Earth become "infinitely large?"
Answer = no where.
totallackey = 1
JackBlack = 0
Nope, still JackBlack = sideways 8
Totallackey =-100

The point of that was not to show that Earth is infinitely large or anything of the like. It was to show that you cannot unequivocally say something like Earth looks flat unless you can see all of it.
By just looking at a tiny portion, you cannot tell if it is round and large or flat.

That is the argument you need to address.
Until you do, your claim that it looks flat remains a childish claim which evidence of nothing (except perhaps your inability to defend your FE).

You have no special, first hand knowledge that you can express, incapable of being interpreted in favor of flat or spherical.
That didn't address the fact that you were lying.
But you are right. My knowledge isn't special. It is knowledge plenty of people have and almost anyone can easily obtain.
This common, everyday knowledge indicates Earth is round, not flat.


Nope, still JackBlack = sideways 9
Totallackey =-102

No debate here, just the usual, "NO U!"
Yes that is right, that seems to be one of the main things you are capable of.


Nope, still JackBlack = sideways 10
Totallackey =-103

Assuming Earth is flat (and ignoring mountains for simplicity), then the only edge is the edge of Earth itself.
Assuming no obstructions get in your way (like a building), you should be able to see to the edge, or to the extent of atmospheric visibility.
If you can see to the edge there would only be this edge as the horizon and nothing would ever appear to go over the horizon or set behind it.
If an obstruction got in your way, this would be clearly visible as the object, and entirely transient, with you capable of viewing a similar horizon without the object in your way.
If atmospheric visibility would be an issue the land would fade to a blur as you became unable to resolve it, similar to what happens in dense fog.
In reality, we can observe a sharp horizon a finite distance away, with that distance changing depending upon your elevation. Objects can appear to go over the horizon and set behind it.
This is a direct contradiction meaning the only assumption made must be wrong.
This means that Earth can't be flat.
"The edge of ATMOSPHERIC VISIBILITY..."
JackBlack finally cedes.
Nope. Here you go lying yet again.
You ignore the vast majority of what is said, and your only comment is blatantly misquoting what I said.
You ignore the actual consequences of that as well.

Go back, read what I said, and respond to it.

totallackey = -112
JackBlack = sideways 22

Not one thing you have written here can be demonstrated first hand by you.
Well there you go ignoring arguments again.
I am not the only person on Earth.

This also comes down to what constitutes "demonstration".
I can certainly record these things, document it with photos/videos and so on to show it is the case.
I can also do the math to show what it should be like on the FE model.

What I think you really meant was that I have not verified all of this personally, as in going to each location and measuring the sun.
But I have done it in some locations.
Guess what? It matches RE, not FE.

totallackey = -117
JackBlack = sideways 28

I look with my eyes and I can see the clock on the wall states it is 5:45 am.
I can look with the same eyes outside my window and the Earth looks flat.
Do you understand what evidence is?

Saying it looks flat is not evidence.

You need to indicate why it is flat rather than round.
So I ask again, do you have any actual evidence, or just a baseless claim?

totallackey = -119
JackBlack = sideways 31

FINAL SCORE
totallackey = 6
JackBlack = 0
You might want to recount:
totallackey = -119
JackBlack = sideways 31

(although that did include some from the past).

So it is yet another complete failure of the FE.

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2017, 04:12:37 PM »
Listen, you can state whatever you wish to state in regard as to how the Earth looks to you.

Bullwinkle states the Earth looks flat to him.

There is no fucking way you can refute that statement.

Correct, but - and I think this is the point you and Bullwinkle are both missing - that DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.  Jroa, according to the banner underneath his posts, thinks that because a second grader thinks the earth looks like a pancake it IS a pancake.  No, it means second graders like pancakes more than oranges, nothing more.

If "I see with my own eyes therefore it is be exactly as I see" were true, then Australia wouldn't exist and Rabinoz is a mass delusion,  because I haven't ever seen Australia.  Our perceptions are limited by our experiences, and the limitations of our experiences will skew the available evidence.  I'm not going to hijack this thread, I'm going to start another one, but listen, totallackey, to say your limited field of vision of the earth applies to the entire earth is a logical fallacy.

Re: Is that all?
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2017, 05:37:10 AM »
I assert the Earth is flat because it looks flat.
What you're not understanding is that the small section of Earth visible at ground level will appear to be flat if the Earth were flat AND if the Earth were a very large sphere.  Because the observation applies equally to both, it is useless as evidence.

The leaf in a salad might be lettuce, arugula, or spinach.  Saying, "It's spinach because it's green", is missing the point that the other options are also green.  The fact that spinach is green doesn't mean that all things that are green are spinach.

Asserting that the world is flat because the world looks flat from ground level is ignoring the fact that a flat Earth isn't the only model in which the world would appear flat. 

In other words, if that is your only piece of evidence, you don't have any evidence at all.