How to refute team "Globe"?

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. (Matthew 23:1-2)

Debunking of Globe (or anything else) is defined as demonstrating, that Globe can be wrong at least in principle.

Is Globe falsifiable? If yes, then Globe can be wrong.

But the Science according to its Globe proponents is falsifiable. Thus, the Science can in fact be wrong.

Then Globe is debunked, if not refuted.

But the Flat Earth is not debunked, thus not yet showed wrong. Why? Flat Earth team do not define the Science as "possibly wrong". To win any possible debate the Flat Earth followers must use more healthy methodology:
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-science-was-built-up-in-such-way-to-depart-from-religion.215375/

Absolute Truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong and never will be proven wrong. If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable), then team Globe in the end is wrong about shape of the Earth.



Then tell me one thing- a Young Earth Creationist, if he is consistent, must believe also in Flat Earth? The team Globe says, that the world extends almost into an endless past (up to 14 billion years deep). This is definitely not the Biblical Knowledge (team Globe is mixing God and the liar - satan. Don't do it! In the 6 days of Genesis there are 6 evenings and 6 mornings! cf. Genesis 1:31). And that the world stretches infinitely into space. If satanic team lies also in the case of space, then the Earth is flat. Can Globe-rs lie in one case and tell the truth in another? In any case they are not trustworthy.


Knowledge of a human is the knowledge of his God. That is how knowledge is defined, and one does not prove a definition, one proves a theorem. From definition follows: 1. God exists, and 2. team Globe used to lie. “God is omnipresent” proves it all: God is present and present omni. Such simplicity surely passes the Occam's razor. LOL. Flat Earth society surely the place the God can hide. LOL. God can do anything, so He can exist. How there could be Flat Earth without Creator? "But He turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." (Luke 9:55-56)

TEAM GLOBE:
1. Science can be wrong,
2. Truth can not be wrong,
3. So, Science is lie and deception.
4.Disproved things are part of Science:
“Kent Hovind: lies in textbooks”


TEAM FLAT:
1. Science can NOT be wrong,
2. Truth can not be wrong,
3. So, Science is true and Knowledge.
4.Disproved things are NOT part of Science.

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Yes, at least on a hypothetical basis. That is the point, the scientific method involves producing models of reality, making predictions based upon these models and then testing them.
This means they need to be able to fail those tests. If they can't, then the test is useless and it isn't scientific.
However the RE has passed all tests thrown at it while FE has repeatedly failed.

However this doesn't mean that things are actually refutable. If it produces a model which matches reality and predicts it correctly, at least a hypothetically perfect model, or one which is only ever claimed to be a close approximation which matches reality to the degree of that approximation, then you can't actually refute it.

The key part of science is that you can refute it if it is wrong, not that you can refute it in general.


So no, the globe being part of science doesn't mean you can refute it, nor does it mean it has refuted itself.

Quote from: Astronomy on November 30, 2018, 12:46:59 AM

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The key part of science is that you can refute it if it is wrong, not that you can refute it in general.

It is not the Official wording of Scientific Method. There are no words "confirm", "to prove", "Absolute True" in the section of Science called "Methodology". You are working without the Popper's criterion, you are working within "Science is confirmable" Method. The Science is "confirmable until it would be refuted". Otherwise once refuted things are forever refutable, so are scientific.

The earth's roundness is not a hypothesis, it's a simple fact.

The earth's roundness is not a hypothesis, it's a simple fact.

The fact is not refutable? Yes. Then it is not Scientific. Evolution is a fact? A fact is not refutable? Yes. Then Evolution is not Scientific. Fact is synonym of Absolute Truth (e.g. of a theory), but Truth is not mentioned in Methodology of Popper.

The fact is not refutable? Yes. Then it is not Scientific. Evolution is a fact? A fact is not refutable? Yes. Then Evolution is not Scientific. Fact is synonym of Absolute Truth (e.g. of a theory), but Truth is not mentioned in Methodology of Popper.

You are failing to understand what falsifiability is.
It does not require that it is not a fact, it does not require that we don't know for sure, or that we can refute it.
It requires that we can make predictions and hypothetically find results which contradict them.
For example, if we were to go to space and take a picture of Earth and have the entire surface of Earth visible with a clear edge, it would refute the fact of the RE. As such, it is falsifiable.

If you can make a statement which can hypothetically be verified (but with no necessity that it can be verified in reality) and show that this statement contradicts the claim, then the claim is falsifiable. That doesn't mean it is false.

A fact is falsifiable in the sense popper meant.

Another simple example is that water is a molecule made up of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
You can hypothetically show that isn't the case by showing it is for example H2O2, or CH4, so it is falsifiable. But in reality, it is a fact because it hasn't been falsified and instead has been confirmed.

This is made to distinguish it from other things, like religious nonsense like gods.
Lots of gods are set up to be unfalsifiable. If your prayer isn't granted, God just didn't feel like it. If you can't find evidence, well he is just hiding, and so on. There is no possible observation which would refute a god (in general) and as such it is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

Quote from: Astronomy on November 30, 2018, 03:04:56 AM

The fact is not refutable? Yes. Then it is not Scientific. Evolution is a fact? A fact is not refutable? Yes. Then Evolution is not Scientific. Fact is synonym of Absolute Truth (e.g. of a theory), but Truth is not mentioned in Methodology of Popper.

You are failing to understand what falsifiability is.

There are two conflicting Methodologies:

1. Science is refutable, until it is Absolutely Proved as irrefutable Fact. After that it is not Science, but a religion.

2. Science is confirmable, until it is refuted.

And there is Good-Evil, Paradise-Hell, Darwinism-Creationism, Left Wing - Right Wing, Sin-Holiness: there are dichotomy. Correct?

Science is a methodology. if something is proved fact it doesn't become a religion, it becomes fact. Religion is something accepted by someone without proof or even scientific method.

The methodology in determining a fact is science, the fact never was science even before it was proved fact. It was a hypothesis or theory. Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable.

Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable.

You are talking as a sane person. Therefore you are not using Popper method. Your one is

Science is confirmable, until it is refuted. So, Theology is Science.

Quote from: WestToEastEastToWest on November 30, 2018, 05:10:07 AM

Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable.

You are talking as a sane person. Therefore you are not using Popper method. Your one is

Science is confirmable, until it is refuted. So, Theology is Science.

Theology doesn’t require a deity to be factual or scientist to believe in a god. It is nothing more or less than studying the content of a religion.

Your statement “theology is science” is correct. The statement “religion is science” would be wrong

There are two conflicting Methodologies:
1. Science is refutable, until it is Absolutely Proved as irrefutable Fact. After that it is not Science, but a religion.

NO!
No one ever claims that.
Science is falsifiable. That means it is hypothetically possible to have counterclaims and tests which show the claim to be invalid.
Stop blatantly ignoring that. It has been explained to you several times.

Again, falsifiability does not mean it is false or you can actually show it to be false.
It means it is hypothetically possible to do so.

You ignore what is meant doesn't magically make you correct.

there are dichotomy. Correct?

Not everything is a dichotomy.

Quote from: Astronomy on November 30, 2018, 04:39:19 AM

There are two conflicting Methodologies:
1. Science is refutable, until it is Absolutely Proved as irrefutable Fact. After that it is not Science, but a religion.

NO!
No one ever claims that.

100 percent sure, bro. LOL.

Science is falsifiable. That means it is hypothetically possible to have counterclaims and tests which show the claim to be invalid.
Stop blatantly ignoring that. It has been explained to you several times.

Again, falsifiability does not mean it is false or you can actually show it to be false.
It means it is hypothetically possible to do so.

You ignore what is meant doesn't magically make you correct.

Again, you are describing the method "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted." Tell me about "Science is refutable." LOL.

100 percent sure, bro. LOL.

Try a valid scientific source, not a pathetic youtube video.

Again, you are describing the method "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted." Tell me about "Science is refutable." LOL.

No, I am describing science being falsifiable. They key aspect of science, which you are presenting as "science is refutable".
It means it would be possible to refute it if it was wrong, not that you can refute it even if it is correct.

Stop ignoring what has been said.

Quote from: WestToEastEastToWest on November 30, 2018, 05:10:07 AM

Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable.

You are talking as a sane person. Therefore you are not using Popper method.

No, science is based on the principle of falsifiability and this was the concept introduced by Karl Popper.
The classic example of this is, of course, the "all swans are white" claim because up until 1697 no European had seen a black swan.
I know the claim, "all swans are white", is false because I've seen plenty of black swans myself in Western Australia and in Tasmania.

When getting into science it is important to distinguish between hypotheses, theories and laws.
Great confusion can arise because in the past and in the mind of the non-scientific community this distinction has been blurred and I'll use "gravity" as an example.

• A Hypothesis: Aristotle hypothesised that gravity is explained by all bodies moving "toward their natural place.
  For the elements earth and water, that place is the center of the (geocentric) universe; the natural place of water is a concentric shell around the earth because earth is heavier; it sinks in water."
  But this had no predictive value. It explained little more than that "things fell down" and "heavier things" sank in "lighter" fluids.
  
  
• A Theory: This might be the result of a hypothesis being confirmed experimentally or
  the result of experimental work into how things behave then finding an explanation, possibly involving mathematical modelling, that fitted all these results to the expected accuracy.
  
  In the case of gravity, there was considerable experimental work by Galilee Galileo, Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton coupled with astronomical observations.
  This resulted in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, which has been misnamed Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
  Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation did have great predictive value.
  It allowed how fast "things fell down" to be accurately calculated and why "heavier things" sank in "lighter" fluids - when combined with Archimedes Principle.
  And Newton's Theories of Motion and Universal Gravitation explained the motions of the earth, moon, sun and planets to great accuracy.
  
  A "theory" then is a "hypothesis" that has been shown to apply to all known cases and usually within a certain range of "variables".
  The "hypothesis" promoted to a "theory" is still falsifiability if contrary evidence, not explainable by other effects, is found.
  
  
• Laws: These are statements proven to apply to all possible cases and are described as
  Quote

  Laws consist primarily as statements or generalizations made about natural phenomena. They may also be able to predict natural phenomena.

  in Laws, Theories and Hypotheses: Revealing Science through Words.
  But even though many early theories were called "laws" I am at a loss to identify any non-trivial "Law" relevant to this area of science.
  

So the most relevant scientific theories such as "Newton's Theories of Motion and Universal Gravitation" are theories not Laws in that they are falsifiability.
This is proven because they have been falsified by Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
Nevertheless Newton's Theories have been shown, as Einstein himself stated, to be "extraordinarily accurate" in low velocity and low gravitational field situations as in most of the solar system

Your one is Science is confirmable, until it is refuted. So, Theology is Science.

What do you even mean by "science is confirmable, until it is refuted" that differs from "falsifiable"?

So if you want to make a name for yourself just disproved Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
If you attampt that you'll have plenty of competition because many of the most competent physicists are trying to do just that.
It is certain that either or both Quantum Theory and/or General Relativity are not completely accurate so they are both certainly falsifiable.

I suggest you try again because no Flat Earth Hypothesis deserves even being raised to a theory even though flat-earthers insist on it's being THE TRUTH.

You might read: Was a Human Sacrifice Captured at CERN? then run away and hide your head in shame!

A CERN spokesperson stated that the video was a hoax and that no one was actually harmed. The enactment was performed without any official permission. CERN stated that it "doesn't tolerate this kind of spoof" and that it can "give rise to misunderstandings about the scientific nature of our work”.

The video caused controversy both by creating mockery of existing theories and by fueling existing conspiracy theories about CERN activities. Given that the ritual was performed in front of a statue of a deity, some believed the ritual was satanic in nature. This further fueled theories that CERN's goal was to use their Large Hadron Collider to create a portal to hell, summon the antichrist, or resurrect the ancient gods.

Ignorant Conspiritards come up with all sorts of garbage like this.

If you have evidence supporting a flat earth then present it!

You are a fake Astronomer that knows nothing of science or astronomy so stop your silly pretence.

Sorry but what does this have to do with FE Debating?

Sorry but what does this have to do with FE Debating?

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.

Quote from: Astronomy on November 30, 2018, 01:16:40 PM

100 percent sure, bro. LOL.

Try a valid scientific source, not a pathetic youtube video.

Quote from: Astronomy on November 30, 2018, 01:16:40 PM

Again, you are describing the method "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted." Tell me about "Science is refutable." LOL.

No, I am describing science being falsifiable. They key aspect of science, which you are presenting as "science is refutable".
It means it would be possible to refute it if it was wrong, not that you can refute it even if it is correct.

Stop ignoring what has been said.

How this is different from "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted"?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 03:12:44 PM

Sorry but what does this have to do with FE Debating?

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.

Yeah, yeah, we know you are retarded, but what does this have to do with debating FET.

Yeah, yeah, we know you are retarded, but what does this have to do with debating FET.

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 30, 2018, 02:44:50 PM

No, I am describing science being falsifiable. They key aspect of science, which you are presenting as "science is refutable".
It means it would be possible to refute it if it was wrong, not that you can refute it even if it is correct.

Stop ignoring what has been said.

How this is different from "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted"?

"Science" is being used loosely here science means no more than "knowledge" but it's the term you are using.

Saying "Science is confirmable" is saying "Science is able to be confirmed" but it is only "able to be confirmed" for forsee situations.
But they may be unforseen situations (obviously or they would have been foreseen ) and Science is not able to be confirmed in these situations.
        Therefore "Science is not confirmable".

A particular case in point is Newton's "Laws" of Motion.
In Newton's day, while the velocity of light was not thought infinite, it was thought so high that could have no possible effect on measurements.

And until the very late 1800s that situation did not change though astronomers realised that it did affect some timings noticeably.

But with James Clark Maxwell, Hendrik Lorentz and finally Albert Einstein came Special Relativity.
This showed that Newton's "Laws" of Motion became progressively more inaccurate as velocities reached an appreciable fraction of the velocity of light.

So Newton's "Laws" of Motion were never "confirmable" - a situation arose in which where they were shown to be inaccuracate.
But they were "falsifiable" because they have been falsified in certain situations.
Those laws have served well right to the present day but we now are aware of there limitations. 

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 09:42:32 PM

Yeah, yeah, we know you are retarded, but what does this have to do with debating FET.

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.

Repeating it doesn't make it a debate nor a debate about FET.  Try again retard.

So Newton's "Laws" of Motion were never "confirmable" - a situation arose in which where they were shown to be inaccuracate.
But they were "falsifiable" because they have been falsified in certain situations.
Those laws have served well right to the present day but we now are aware of there limitations.

The laws of Newton are being confirmed in any school on the planet even today: F=ma, F=Mm G/R^2, etc.
They are confirmed in the area of applicability. For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 09:42:32 PM

Yeah, yeah, we know you are retarded, but what does this have to do with debating FET.

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.

You most recent post claims:

The laws of Newton are being confirmed in any school on the planet even today: F=ma, F=Mm G/R^2, etc.
They are confirmed in the area of applicability. For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein.

No, the best that you can say is that "The laws of Newton are being demonstrated in any school on the planet even today".

But Einstein's SR shows that Newton's Laws are not universally applicable yet Newton himself called it the "Law of Universal Gravitation".
The universality of Newton's Laws was falsified and there are many other examples I could have chosen.

For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein.

Just a footnote or two.
1) What do you mean by "we use Einstein"? If that were true you couldn't possibly believe in a flat stationary earth.

2) I'm still waiting to find an explanation for the two pebbles. What you've so far posted seems meaningless.

It would appear that you just run away when the going gets tough so an answer please!

Quote from: Astronomy on November 30, 2018, 10:26:20 PM

For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein.

Just a footnote or two.
1) What do you mean by "we use Einstein"? If that were true you couldn't possibly believe in a flat stationary earth.

2) I'm still waiting to find an explanation for the two pebbles. What you've so far posted seems meaningless.

It would appear that you just run away when the going gets tough so an answer please!

Friend, the occasional confirmation of Flat Earth model does not mean, that model is proved. Confirmation is just some support. The proof is the Absolute Truth.
About pebbles I would talk in the according post.   

The proof is the Absolute Truth.

Really? What is "Absolute Truth" and who has decided that the stationary flat earth is "Absolute Truth".
You might read:

The Creation Ministries International site certainly supports that view that God created the heavens and the earth and that the heliocentric solar system is correct.

Quote

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular, its Genesis history.

The whole purpose of that site is to defend the "young earth creation" but it is very much against what it calls The flat earth myth..
And some more from the same site:
         Creation Ministries, The flat-earth myth and creationism
         A flat earth, and other nonsense, Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet

How is it that the Globe has evidence accumulated for around 2500 years.
And that few in the western world at least have taken the idea of a flat earth seriously for over 1500 years.

On top of that there simply is no flat-earth model that is remotely "confirmable" if that is your criterion.
As a trivial example, this morning at about 05:30, a little after sunrise the sun's direction was about 109°.
Please explain how a sun circling well North of here can appear well South of East? Bendy light?
You're the "Astronomer", so if anyone knows the explanation, you should.

Now if you try to claim it's off topic just how many "confirmation" failures does it take to rebut a "theory"?

On top of that there simply is no flat-earth model that is remotely "confirmable" if that is your criterion.
As a trivial example, this morning at about 05:30, a little after sunrise the sun's direction was about 109°.
Please explain how a sun circling well North of here can appear well South of East? Bendy light?
You're the "Astronomer", so if anyone knows the explanation, you should.

Now if you try to claim it's off topic just how many "confirmation" failures does it take to rebut a "theory"?

Your intuition is perfect. Yes, my pebbles in parallel post show, that there can indeed be Dark Force, which bends light. Bendy light then. However, the FE model has much more freedom than GE model: the Dark Force is arbitrary function of space and time.

Your intuition is perfect. Yes, my pebbles in parallel post show, that there can indeed be Dark Force, which bends light. Bendy light then. However, the FE model has much more freedom than GE model: the Dark Force is arbitrary function of space and time.

I've seen no justification nor even an explanation so until you explain exactly what you are driving at with you two pebbles all I can to is claim is has no more significance than your "How to refute team Globe".

Either explain yourself or forget it!

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 03:12:44 PM

Sorry but what does this have to do with FE Debating?

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Again, stop trying to blatantly misrepresent it.
The basis is falsifiability.
All this means is that if it is wrong, you can show that to be the case.
That certain hypothetically possible observations (which don't necessarily have to actually be observed in reality)
This distinguishes it from non falsifiable things, where no observation would be capable of disproving it.

This does not mean RE is refuted.
Stop repeating the same lie.

Falsifiable is not the same as false or refuted.

The laws of Newton are being confirmed in any school on the planet even today: F=ma, F=Mm G/R^2, etc.
They are confirmed in the area of applicability. For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein.

Yes that is right, for high velocities and the like Newton is wrong.