If the other planets are observably round (I mean come on) why isn't Earth?

So are you saying those observations demonstrate that FET isn't a possibility?

Pretty much. Those observations along with rational reasoning excludes FE from being a possibility.

Sure it remains hypothetically possible, just like measurements of curvature might just be physics going out the window can causing a FE to appear just like a round one.

So to be precise, I wouldn't say it proves FE isn't a possibility, just shows that it is extremely unlikely and unreasonable.

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 03:32:34 PM

So are you saying those observations demonstrate that FET isn't a possibility?

Pretty much. Those observations along with rational reasoning excludes FE from being a possibility.

Sure it remains hypothetically possible, just like measurements of curvature might just be physics going out the window can causing a FE to appear just like a round one.

So to be precise, I wouldn't say it proves FE isn't a possibility, just shows that it is extremely unlikely and unreasonable.

Then why on the rhombicuboctahedral earth are you using this argument if you've refuted FET before you even get to making it?

Then making this argument is the equivalent of offering someone a haircut after shaving them bald. Your premises refute FET, why the hell are you using them to do the same thing again?

Then making this argument is the equivalent of offering someone a haircut after shaving them bald. Your premises refute FET, why the hell are you using them to do the same thing again?

No it isn't. It is equivalent to giving someone a haircut to make them bald.

The observations are made, after which reasoning leads one to conclude Earth isn't flat.

Again, as a comparison:
You have someone measure the curvature of Earth. They present this as an argument against Earth being flat, asking why this curvature is measured if Earth is flat.

You are saying that is garbage as it doesn't work with Earth being flat.

Your objection is entirely circular and makes no sense.

Edit: For a better match to what you say, it would be like a bald man coming into a hairdresser and demanding a haircut and the hairdresser asking him how does he expect to get his hair cut when he has no hair?

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 04:41:14 PM

Then making this argument is the equivalent of offering someone a haircut after shaving them bald. Your premises refute FET, why the hell are you using them to do the same thing again?

No it isn't. It is equivalent to giving someone a haircut to make them bald.

The observations are made, after which reasoning leads one to conclude Earth isn't flat.

Yes. And then you start using that to make claims that the Earth is the same class of being as the other planets. You don't get to backpedal that, it's the entire topic of this thread.

Yes. And then you start using that to make claims that the Earth is the same class of being as the other planets. You don't get to backpedal that, it's the entire topic of this thread.

No, I'm not. You are putting the cart before the horse.
The observations leads one to assume that Earth is like the other planets and thus is likely to be round.
So the question is why shouldn't Earth be like the other planets and thus likely be round.

Again, as a comparison, measurements can indicate there is curvature and thus Earth is round, why shouldn't these measurements be interpreted as evidence of curvature?
You are saying that because these measurements indicate curvature, using them to argue against Earth being flat amounts to assuming FE is wrong to show it is wrong.
It is pure nonsense.

The entire point of the argument (even if expressed as a rhetorical question) is to show Earth isn't flat. Your objection (at least when taken in light of what is actually being said) literally amounts to claiming that the argument shows Earth isn't flat so it can't be used to show Earth isn't flat; that the conclusion of the argument is that Earth isn't flat, so it can't be used to argue that Earth isn't flat. That literally makes no sense at all.

I don't know how much more I can break this down. The statement 'The Earth is like other planets' is either not true because FET is being considered as an option, or true because FET has already been rejected.
Note, I am not even touching the argument yet. I am not going into whether the Earth should or shouldn't be like those entities, this is all the pre-amble, this is all the premises. If you were to lay out the argument as:
R1: The Earth is like other planets
R2: Other planets are round
C: The Earth is round
We are still in R1. The shape of the Earth hasn't been considered at all, it is a total question mark. Could be round, flat, hollow, rhobicuboctahedral, or a giant teddy bear. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the claim is justified. Your justification for those claims is the conclusion of the argument. You have outright said this. The observations you use to justify R1 themselves reject FET as a possibiltiy; if FET was not rejected as a possibility you wouldn't have R1.

This argument is circular or obsolete. Take your pick, just for the love of god stop making me need to repeat this.

If you disagree, please, tell me how you justify R1 without rejecting FET. R1 is the premise, remember. Not the conclusion, the premise, the thing you need to prove in order to take your first steps towards the conclusion. If FET is on the table, how is R1 justified? If FET is not on the table, what is the point in this argument?

I don't know how much more I can break this down.

How about actually trying to respond to what has been said for once.
The question is a rhetorical one meant as an argument against FE.

Again, to break it down:
Observations indicate that Earth is like the other planets (note, this does not include direct observations of Earth's shape).
Thus Earth is quite likely to be like the other planets in ways which we can't directly observe for Earth.
Thus Earth is quite likely to be round.
So FEers, if Earth is like the other planets, why shouldn't it be round?

The statement 'The Earth is like other planets' is either not true because FET is being considered as an option

Not in the slightest. "like the other planets" does not mean alike in every possible way. It is hypothetically possible for Earth to be like the other planets, but not match every quality, for example it might hypothetically be flat, although there is no reason to think it is.
For example, Earth is like Jupiter, that doesn't mean it is a gas giant.

Your justification for those claims is the conclusion of the argument. You have outright said this.

No it is not. Stop lying. I have never indicated anything like that.

I have provided observations completely independent of Earth's shape.

The possibility for those observations alone (or potentially with other observations) does nothing to negate the validity of this argument.
The possibility of other arguments being able to refute a FE doesn't make this argument obsolete.

Also note that in general, the observations I listed don't refute a FE, just the delusional FE model with the planets being tiny and close circling above us.
They are entirely consistent with the currently accepted model where all bar a thin sliver of Earth is removed and that thin sliver is flattened out (but still behaves in other ways as if the rest of Earth was there).

So no, my argument is neither circular nor obsolete.

I have already provided the justification for R1, which you have simply ignored. Why bother posting it again for you to ignore it again?

Lets take it as the earth is shaped is an unknown shape.
Lets take it without the note of sarcasm.
Lets take it without knowing what we know and being a sequestered jury in court to determine guilty or innocent.

Who's responses then hold ground?

Observations indicate that Earth is like the other planets (note, this does not include direct observations of Earth's shape).

Jesus christ. Ok. Yet again. It doesn't matter whether those observations are of the Earth's shape because you require the possibility to a flat Earth to be removed from consideration. Did you miss the countless times I have already explained this? Flat Earth, hollow earth, whatever, non-RE models mean the planets are a massively different size, just for starters. There is zero reason to think the Earth is anything like them when there is such a titanic difference. RET - planets orbit around Sun. FET - planets orbit around a spot over the Earth. Those similarities don't exist under any non-RE models.

Those observations only indicate the Earth is like other planets if you don't consider FET. And remember, we're still in R1. We're still in the premise.

If you consider things from an arbitrary, unknown model, you cannot conclude that the Earth is like those other planets unless your observations remove those problematic models from consideration. For the love of god can you just acknowledge that at some point, rather than doing your usual shtick of mutilating my posts and cutting things off mid-sentence so you can just ignore the explanations?

I have provided observations completely independent of Earth's shape.

The possibility for those observations alone (or potentially with other observations) does nothing to negate the validity of this argument.
The possibility of other arguments being able to refute a FE doesn't make this argument obsolete.

The fact that you need to use those observations to do so however does. You provided observations which, if taken as just observations, either:
a) mean completely different things depending on the Earth they were viewed from
b) refute FET
In the first case you don't have an argument. In the second, it's obsolete.

I have already provided the justification for R1, which you have simply ignored. Why bother posting it again for you to ignore it again?

What are you talking about?! I never asked you to post it again, I responded to the justification you gave. Explicitly. At length. Over and over and over and over and over.

Lets take it as the earth is shaped is an unknown shape.
Lets take it without the note of sarcasm.
Lets take it without knowing what we know and being a sequestered jury in court to determine guilty or innocent.

Who's responses then hold ground?

Assuming it isn't a position of complete lack of knowledge (in which case we know nothing and thus don't even know there are other planets):
We have observations of the other planets, moon and sun. This observations include things like their angular size, which does not change over the course of observation, except a minor variation in the apparent size of the moon (which changes over a monthly period). This also applies as we move around Earth, where there is not significant change in apparent size of any of them, not even the moon.
This shows that these are quite some distance away from us, many times the size of Earth.
This means that they would be quite large, while we can't make a exact statement about their size relative to Earth, we know their size is at least comparable to that of Earth.

We also observe that the planets rotate.
We also observe that some of these planets have moons which orbit around them, even casting shadows from the sun. This matches observations of our own moon, at least if Earth rotates with the moon orbiting us.

As such the Earth is comparable to these bodies is many ways, and likely has more similarities.
We also note that all of these large objects are round and rotate, that is two things they have in common. We find no large object which aren't round and rotating.
As such it is reasonable to conclude that Earth is also round and also rotates.

This shows that these are quite some distance away from us, many times the size of Earth.

Great. You've refuted FET. Again, why are you making this argument?

Yet again.

Perhaps you should realise I'm intelligent enough such that repeating the same bullshit isn't going to magically convince me?
Stop repeating the same garbage. Stop blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.
Instead, respond to what i have actually said in an honest manner.

because you require the possibility to a flat Earth to be removed from consideration.

No I don't.
Have you actually bothered reading what I said? I even indicated that it is hypothetically possible for it to work with a RE.

Did you miss the countless times I have already explained this?

No, I have not missed the countless times you have baselessly dismissed the argument with circular reasoning.

Again, if your refutation requires asserting FE is true to dismiss objects to FE, then it is irrational nonsense.

There is zero reason to think the Earth is anything like them when there is such a titanic difference.

But you haven't established that difference.

You are relying upon a property that has not been shown to assert they are different.
Again, in effect your argument is claiming that they can't be similar because this property which we aren't in agreement over might be different.

If you consider things from an arbitrary, unknown model, you cannot conclude that the Earth is like those other planets unless your observations remove those problematic models from consideration.

That would be starting from those problematic models.
If you do not consider any models, then those "problematic models" aren't problematic at all, as you aren't considering them.

If the observations can rule out those problematic models as other arguments, then you have multiple arguments. Who cares?
The existence of other possible arguments doesn't negate this one.

For the love of god can you just acknowledge that

I will acknowledge things when you can provide a rational argument which actually addresses my position rather than continuing with irrational garbage and pathetic strawmen.

b) refute FET
In the first case you don't have an argument. In the second, it's obsolete.

So again, you are saying if an observation refutes a FE, you can't make an argument based upon those observations.
So we can't use measured curvature as an argument against a FE, because it refutes a FE?

You are literally saying we cannot refute a FE. Do you understand that? Do you realise just how stupid that claim is?

What are you talking about?! I never asked you to post it again

Stop lying:

If you disagree, please, tell me how you justify R1 without rejecting FET

You were asking me to provide the justification again.
Grow up.

Great. You've refuted FET. Again, why are you making this argument?

Correction: It refutes one particular delusional model which has a FE. It does not refute a FE in general.
Do you understand the difference? You sure seem to when it suits you, claiming that some argument only refutes one particular model.

If I had made that as the argument you would dismiss it claiming it only refutes that particular delusional model and it works find under other delusional FE models.

If you disagree and think it refutes FE in general, feel free to explain how. If you can't, stop claiming it does.

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 06:21:24 PM

Great. You've refuted FET. Again, why are you making this argument?

Correction: It refutes one particular delusional model which has a FE. It does not refute a FE in general.

Find me a single FE model that features the planets anywhere comparable to the size they are under RET, to say nothing of other practical issues. As someone that's actually taken the time to listen to FEers I can tell you, that's not happening.

The only one that I can think of even hypothetically is the non-Euclidean, but that makes this whole discussion moot as the argument would be that the Earth is the same class of entities as the planets, and they're just flat objects seen through non-Euclidean space (given that one non-Euclidean argument is that space travel is real and that is how the Earth looks from a distance. Fun stuff). Or if you really want to get weird, you have to invoke all manner of phenomenon which throw the rest of your observations out of the window as reliable gauges.

This isn't that hard. FE models beyond that lone exception do not feature planets that size, end of. Your premise only holds if you have refuted or otherwise rejected FET.

There are FE models. No contradictions there. A lot of them, sure, but they tend to be pretty clear on certain points. The Sun's the easiest measure of that; there's not been a single FEer who believes in 'massive, distant, but only gives a tiny comparative pinprick of light that wobbles slightly' model of the Sun, so it needs to be smaller and closer, and transits therefore put FET and your claim at odds. For one easy path.

So, short version: maybe you should stop picking fights on a whim and listen to what I've been saying since my first post. This argument is either circular or obsolete.

Find me a single FE model

The point is that it isn't focusing on any particular model and instead refuting the FE in general.
What is better, refuting 1 particular model so FEers can later come along and come up with some garbage later on to try and save it, or refuting FE in general?

As for a FE model, how far away were the planets in the ancient FE models?

You then have the magic bendy light. How far away is the sun and planets in that model? I was under the impression that hey had no definite distance and thus size, other than it is further than 5000 km and thus larger than the common size quoted.

And again, even if those observations alone can be used in an argument to refute a particular FE model, it doesn't mean other arguments can't exist from the same observations. As such, it is not obsolete.

So just how is my argument circular or obsolete?

Hardly read through all the word salad, but practically everything we see in space is spherical. Moons, suns, planets, black holes if you choose to believe in black holes or not, etc...
It's more than reasonable to ask why this happens in the flat Earth model, what makes them spherical, why only Earth is flat, what made Earth flat, etc...

There you have it, jane.
Q's posts, when taken together, form a very distinct response that you have not answered the topic op and havent provided any relevant contribution.

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 06:35:39 PM

Find me a single FE model

The point is that it isn't focusing on any particular model and instead refuting the FE in general.
What is better, refuting 1 particular model so FEers can later come along and come up with some garbage later on to try and save it, or refuting FE in general?

Aside from how all someone needs to say is 'caused by different forces,' you still run into the problem you are arguing against FE models that don't exist. What is so hard about that concept to grasp?

There you have it, jane.
Q's posts, when taken together, form a very distinct response that you have not answered the topic op and havent provided any relevant contribution.

Forgive me if I don't take the word of someone who admits they didn't actually read the thread, especially given I have already address the question that Quorum posed (worth pointing out, which is stil different to jackblack's wilfully ignorant attempts to force the FE Earth into the same class of objects as the planets).
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78443.msg2117296#msg2117296

Aside from how all someone needs to say is 'caused by different forces,' you still run into the problem you are arguing against FE models that don't exist. What is so hard about that concept to grasp?

Again, I am arguing against FE in general, not specific FE models.
Why is that so hard to grasp?

"Caused by different forces" is not an answer. It is a cop out. It is effectively no better than just saying "because its flat"

Again, as you think distance is such a big issue, how far away are the stars and planets in the models with magic bendy light?

jackblack's wilfully ignorant attempts

Are you capable on honest rational responses without personal attacks?

Quote from: Jane on November 22, 2018, 05:11:25 AM

Aside from how all someone needs to say is 'caused by different forces,' you still run into the problem you are arguing against FE models that don't exist. What is so hard about that concept to grasp?

Again, I am arguing against FE in general, not specific FE models.
Why is that so hard to grasp?

Try rereading. Really not hard to work out what the problem is with arguing against models no one holds to. You aren't arguing against FET in general when your target doesn't exist. What is your problem? How many times is that going to need repeating? It's the equivalent of me arguing against RET by targetting only those models that think pi=3 and are geocentric. Who cares?

"Caused by different forces" is not an answer. It is a cop out. It is effectively no better than just saying "because its flat"

No, it's a general summary of a multitude of models that I have no desire to go into for someone that argues against the blindingly obvious for three pages. It's an answer to the question posed. It's a cop out to the question "What caused the Earth to be flat?" without trying to make a connection with other planets, but that's not the question that was asked.

Try rereading.

Good advice try following it.

You aren't arguing against FET in general

There is no FET to argue against, just a multitude of non-functional models.
I am arguing against FE in general.

It's the equivalent of me arguing against RET by targetting only those models that think pi=3 and are geocentric. Who cares?

No it isn't.
Why do you continually ignore what I have said? Do you really need to win that badly to feel good about yourself?
Again, I AM MAKING NO ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE FE OTHER THAN IT IS FLAT!!!
Do you understand that?
Stop lying and accusing me of only targeting specific models.

Your comparison isn't honest in any way.
If you really need something like that then here:
It is the equivalent of you arguing against a RE, by using observations which show that pi=3 and the universe is geocentric.
Do you notice the massive difference between arguing against a RE in general, using observations which show that pi=3 and the universe is geocentric, vs arguing purely against models which claim pi=3 and the universe is geocentric?
 

No, it's a general summary of a multitude of models

No it's a pathetic cop out.

I have no desire to go into for someone that argues against the blindingly obvious for three pages.

Then don't do it for yourself, do it for those that actually care.

It's an answer to the question posed

It is a pathetic cop out, a non-answer.

Why do you continually ignore what I have said? Do you really need to win that badly to feel good about yourself?

You've already conceded that this only applies to certain FE models, because the premise of your argument precludes those with smaller planets. I am sick of this. You have conceded every single point I've made but you're kicking up a fuss because you don't want to admit it. This is stupid, bye again!

Even if the Earth is flat you can still ask why every other planet is round, and why only Earth is flat as there would be a reason as to why. The answer exists if the Earth is either flat or round, and we are requesting that answer for if the Earth is flat.

With that logic, even if we do go to those planets, which is for some reason the type of proof you are expecting almost every time, it still isn't proof that the other planets are like Earth because we can't assume that we aren't in headsets in a simulation being tricked into thinking we've been to those planets by NASA.

'Cause R1: What we saw was real.
R2: We saw that the other planets were like Earth.
C: The Earth is like the other planets.

We still haven't gotten past R1 though, O F  C O U R S E

Even if the Earth is flat you can still ask why every other planet is round, and why only Earth is flat as there would be a reason as to why. The answer exists if the Earth is either flat or round, and we are requesting that answer for if the Earth is flat.

With that logic, even if we do go to those planets, which is for some reason the type of proof you are expecting almost every time,

This isn't that complicated. Ignore Jackblack's making mountains out of of molehills. There are ultimately just three situations under consideration. I really don't know where the majority of your post came from.

Using:
R1: The Earth is like other planets
R2: Other planets are round
C: The Earth is round

The situations are:

1. Models where the other planets are not viewed as flat, so R2 doesn't hold.
2. Models rejected from consideration because of separate observations used to justify arguments; if these were under consideration, R1 wouldn't hold.
3. Both R1 and R2 holding. In this case the question can essentially be replaced by "What force created the Earth? What force created the planets?" If the model can justify the force being different, you've got your answer. If not, you've got an argument, but either way this argument still needs to be replaced.

That's literally all there is to it. I never asked you to go to those planets, I barely even brought up the situation in 1 because 2 and 3 are sufficient. 2 especially, because it sums up all actually existent FE models.

What exactly is your problem?
(Jackblack, stop getting in the way of actual discussion, this is addressed to Quorum).

You've already conceded that this only applies to certain FE models

No I haven't.
Instead I have repeatedly explained that it applies in general.
Yes, the observations and reasoning at the start can already show some FE models to be flawed without getting to the point of comparing Earth to the other planets, but that doesn't mean my argument only applies to some models.

I am sick of this.

Then stop repeating the same BS and actually address what has been said.

You have conceded every single point I've made

No I haven't, not in the slightest.
All that I agree upon is that some FE models would be refuted before getting to the stage of comparing Earth to other planets.

(Jackblack, stop getting in the way of actual discussion, this is addressed to Quorum).

I'm not the one getting in the way of actual discussion, that would be you, repeatedly shitting all over perfectly valid arguments just to defend your precious FEers. Grow up. Just because you don't like an argument doesn't mean it is bad or wrong or circular or obsolete.

Quote from: Jane on November 22, 2018, 01:27:18 PM

You've already conceded that this only applies to certain FE models

No I haven't.
Instead I have repeatedly explained that it applies in general.
Yes, the observations and reasoning at the start can already show some FE models to be flawed without getting to the point of comparing Earth to the other planets, but that doesn't mean my argument only applies to some models.

Uh, yes it does, that was the reason you needed to do that, remember? If those models are under consideration you don't have the similarities you appeal to. Jesus christ how short is your memory?!

Uh, yes it does, that was the reason you needed to do that, remember?

No, it wasn't. It was the reason you kept pretending was there to try and pretend the argument was bad, but were completely unable to justify.

If those models are under consideration

Again, NO MODELS ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION!
We have observations. The fact that these observations can be used to rule out certain models doesn't mean that the argument doesn't apply to those models.

Again, that is akin to suggesting arguments appealing to observations showing the curvature of Earth cannot be used in arguments against any FE which doesn't have curvature.

Again, my argument is general, not focusing on any specific model. How hard is that to grasp?

Jesus christ how short is your memory?!

It isn't, the issue is that once again you are completely ignoring what has been said and are attacking strawmen.
Try focusing on what I have actually said, which you seem to agree with already.

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 02:57:02 AM

Uh, yes it does, that was the reason you needed to do that, remember?

No, it wasn't. It was the reason you kept pretending was there to try and pretend the argument was bad, but were completely unable to justify.

...Uh, no, remember? Sizes for the easiest example making sure that the planets are obviously completely different to the Earth. Your argument relies upon observations and as such a separate argument to remove them from consideration, otherwise the implication you want isn't there. We've been over this. Far, far, far too much.

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 02:57:02 AM

If those models are under consideration

Again, NO MODELS ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION!

All models are under consideration, at least in theory, that's kinda how making a general claim about all FE models works. Instead of whining about semantics because jesus christ your post was an absurd response to one line, how about you stop distracting? You realise we were actually agreeing right? But oh, no, you can't have that, better kick up a fight over nothing...

...Uh, no, remember?

Yes. I do remember. Do you?
You made the argument that under certain FE models the planets are drastically different to Earth, in effect saying the argument doesn't refute FE because FE doesn't agree.
I explained why that is irrelevant, because I am going based upon observations which indicate the Earth is similar to the other planets, rather than focusing on the disputed aspects.

Again, I'm not appealing to any models.

Your argument relies upon observations and as such a separate argument to remove them from consideration

Yes, you can make a separate argument from these observations to show that these specific models are wrong.
That doesn't magically mean that this argument magically doesn't apply.
Having the possibility to make multiple arguments doesn't magically mean the arguments are crap.

All models are under consideration, at least in theory, that's kinda how making a general claim about all FE models works.

You clearly knew what I meant. Stop trying to play semantics.
No model is being examined in extensive detail (at least not until the FEers offer a rebuttal). As such, no specific model is under consideration. Instead we are making observations and drawing conclusions from them.

Instead of whining about semantics

So you already knew I would point out how you are trying to play semantics?

My issue is not one of semantics.
You claimed that the argument only applies to specific FE models, while in reality it applies to all FE models.
Being able to rule out some of the models earlier than others doesn't magically mean it doesn't apply to them.
They are still excluded by the observations and logic process and as such the argument still applies to them.

Yes, you can argue that there are better arguments to make against those specific models, but that doesn't make the argument bad, it just means there are alternatives.

response to one line

Maybe if you didn't fill your posts with so many lies and insults I wouldn't address them all. Likewise if you actually paid attention to what I said rather than just ignoring it so I wouldn't need to try explaining it to you yet again.

You realise we were actually agreeing right?

You seem to have a very strange idea of what agreeing means. Saying I am wrong is not agreeing.
Saying the argument is circular or obsolete when I clearly indicate I think otherwise is not agreeing.
Saying the argument only applies to specific FE models which no one is supporting while I am indicating it is a general argument, applicable to FE in general is not agreeing.

You are literally disagreeing with me in the very same post you claim we are agreeing.
Do you actually understand what agreeing means?

The only thing we seem to agree upon here is that the observations required to conclude that Earth is similar to other planets would also lead one to conclude that specific FE models are wrong.
We don't even agree upon if they are the only FE models under consideration, as I have no idea how far away the planets were in the ancient FE models, nor how far away it is in the models with bendy light. Remember, bendy light was made to solve some of the issues with the celestial objects being so close to Earth and thus don't necessarily have the planets anywhere near as close as is required to rule out the model when noting the planets must be far away.
Nor do we agree that making arguments against FE in general is bad if the steps leading up to it already exclude some. But you don't even seem to agree with yourself on that one as at other times you attack people for arguing against specific FE models rather than FE in general. I am fine with either type of argument, as long as people don't claim that or act like an argument against a specific FE model (or group) is an argument against all FE models.

If you want to indicate agreement try something like this:
"I agree that the argument is a general argument which applies generally against a FE."

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 03:15:30 AM

...Uh, no, remember?

Yes. I do remember. Do you?
You made the argument that under certain FE models the planets are drastically different to Earth, in effect saying the argument doesn't refute FE because FE doesn't agree.
I explained why that is irrelevant, because I am going based upon observations which indicate the Earth is similar to the other planets, rather than focusing on the disputed aspects.

Again, I'm not appealing to any models.

You are making claims about FE models. That's not up for debate, you cannot talk about FET without it affecting the models therein, tell me you are not seriously trying to contest that. You cannot make a claim about FET if you are not also making a claim about the models that compose it. Again, semantics, stop complaining that I dare focus on what it is you're actually talking about, stop denying this it's genuinely absurd. You just admitted that you're relying on observations where the Earth is similar to other planets, you don't get to pretend that means your argument applies to models where that isn't the case.
Again, size alone refutes this whole argument, that was why you had to reject from consideration by separate arguments those FE models (ie: basically all of them) where the planets were considerably smaller than the Earth.

If this is wrong then lose the rest of your rambles and tell me how this argument can apply successfully to those models.

We had an agreement on the fact that the argument only works if you base it on observations that preclude certain options. Sure, I still think this is a stupid argument because it can be replaced by "What's responsible for thecreation of the Earth/planets?" and you lose the mess of implications in this one. But no, now you want to backpedal that for no reason.

Jane,

All square are rectangles.
Not all rectangles are sq.



Q,

Look for a jane discussion on poison bread and save yourself the agrevation