How to refute team "Globe"?

  • 257 Replies
  • 40011 Views
*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #150 on: December 07, 2018, 09:36:59 PM »
Put up a workable flat-earth model that explains simple things like:
       The sun and moon rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon.
       The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year.
       The sun and moon staying the same angular size from rising to setting.
       The northern hemisphere stars rotating anticlockwise around the North Celestial Pole and southern hemisphere stars rotating clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.
Except for Polaris at the North Celestial Pole, I can see all of those with my own eyes.

They're just the easy things to observe. No "scientists in their Lab" needed for them.
The Dark Force I have introduced in the post can account for any visible paradoxes of Flat Earth model.
The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models.
Incorrect! Hypothesising a Dark Force to patch up all the wholes is totally unacceptable.
You claim "The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models" so do it!
Please calculate the dark force deformation function that explains 
       "The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year" where I live.
If you need the location then you have failed immediately because the Globe predicts it everywhere quite closely.

Quote from: Astronomy
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.
That's total rubbish and evidence of nothing! The evidence for the Globe was gathered long before there were labs!
And many of the people gathering evidence and proposing better models were certainly people that did not reject God. Including Johannes Kepler!
Quote from: Cornelia Faustmann
Johannes Kepler – A Life for Science and Religion

In western science Johannes Kepler was the turning point from a magical-alchemistic to a rational-mathematical conception of the laws of nature. In his life he worked on both sides, but what earned him eternal fame are his three laws of planetary motion. Johannes Kepler was both a scientist and a religious man. In his time a career in these two fields was not that astonishing as it seems for us nowadays – because the view of the world was not yet separated into a religious and a scientific one. Therefore religious as well as scientific thoughts can be found in one and the same work of Johannes Kepler (e. g. in “Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena” about optics). Although his scientific discoveries are very important, he never fulfilled his biggest wish namely to become a Protestant pastor.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Like Nikolaus Kopernikus (1473-1543), whose work inspired him, Kepler was a very religious man. He saw his studies about universal features as his Christian duty and its fulfillment to understand the Universe that God had created. But contrary to Kopernikus, Kepler’s life was far from being peaceful and poor in events.

As I said before No "scientists in their Lab" are needed for much of the evidence for the Globe.
That evidence can be seen with the unaided eye and measured with relatively simple equipment.

But where is your evidence for a flat earth?  Do you have any at all?

Incorrect! Rubbish!

Do you even see how you sound on here? Constant antagonising, codesending, belittling and dehumansing people who have a differing opinion and metric of evidence than you

How to refute Team Globe.... Yeah, how dare they right?  ??? :o

Why don't you be a little nicer to people?  :-X :-[ :-\

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #151 on: December 07, 2018, 09:52:19 PM »
Are you absolutely sure, comrade?
I'm not a russian, but yes, I am sure.
By reason, I mean rational, based upon reason.

A god does nothing except push the problem back.
Look who has problems:

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #152 on: December 07, 2018, 10:09:46 PM »
So all you have are baseless claims that they are mythical?
Can you prove they are actually mythical, or just repeat the claims?
The method of more adequate Science is: "Nobody is wrong, until proven wrong". Wikipedia says with references to literature, that they are myth. I have no reasons to doubt that.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #153 on: December 07, 2018, 10:22:34 PM »
Incorrect! Hypothesising a Dark Force to patch up all the wholes is totally unacceptable.
You claim "The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models" so do it!
Please calculate the dark force deformation function that explains 
       "The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year" where I live.
If you need the location then you have failed immediately because the Globe predicts it everywhere quite closely.
Are you willing to pay me research grant? I am not your slave, you know.


And many of the people gathering evidence and proposing better models were certainly people that did not reject God. Including Johannes Kepler!
In western science Johannes Kepler was the turning point from a magical-alchemistic to a rational-mathematical conception of the laws of nature. In his life he worked on both sides, but what earned him eternal fame are his three laws of planetary motion. Johannes Kepler was both a scientist and a religious man. In his time a career in these two fields was not that astonishing as it seems for us nowadays – because the view of the world was not yet separated into a religious and a scientific one. Therefore religious as well as scientific thoughts can be found in one and the same work of Johannes Kepler (e. g. in “Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena” about optics). Although his scientific discoveries are very important, he never fulfilled his biggest wish namely to become a Protestant pastor.

Why then I can not find functions of God in modern equations? Why? The God was their hobby. They had not theism, but deism: they have rejected one of the God's names, namely “God of gaps”.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 11:02:05 PM by Astronomy »

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #154 on: December 07, 2018, 10:41:49 PM »
Do you even see how you sound on here? Constant antagonising, codesending, belittling and dehumansing people who have a differing opinion and metric of evidence than you

How to refute Team Globe.... Yeah, how dare they right?  ??? :o

Why don't you be a little nicer to people?  :-X :-[ :-\

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #155 on: December 07, 2018, 11:20:40 PM »
So all you have are baseless claims that they are mythical?
Can you prove they are actually mythical, or just repeat the claims?
The method of more adequate Science is: "Nobody is wrong, until proven wrong". Wikipedia says with references to literature, that they are myth. I have no reasons to doubt that.

Wikipedia also says that the Flat Earth is pseudoscientific belief and modern Flat Earth Theory is based on myth.  I have no reasons to doubt that.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 11:22:35 PM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #156 on: December 07, 2018, 11:43:50 PM »
So all you have are baseless claims that they are mythical?
Can you prove they are actually mythical, or just repeat the claims?
The method of more adequate Science is: "Nobody is wrong, until proven wrong". Wikipedia says with references to literature, that they are myth. I have no reasons to doubt that.

Wikipedia also says that the Flat Earth is pseudoscientific belief and modern Flat Earth Theory is based on myth.  I have no reasons to doubt that.

Baseless psychic assault is not disproof of team Flat.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 11:54:10 PM by Astronomy »

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #157 on: December 08, 2018, 12:14:17 AM »
So all you have are baseless claims that they are mythical?
Can you prove they are actually mythical, or just repeat the claims?
The method of more adequate Science is: "Nobody is wrong, until proven wrong". Wikipedia says with references to literature, that they are myth. I have no reasons to doubt that.

Wikipedia also says that the Flat Earth is pseudoscientific belief and modern Flat Earth Theory is based on myth.  I have no reasons to doubt that.

Baseless psychic assault is not disproof of team Flat.



Nothing baseless about it.  I applied the same logic and methodology you used to determine pixies are fake.  You can't cite a source and then reject it later as baseless when the shoe is reversed.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #158 on: December 08, 2018, 12:18:06 AM »
Incorrect! Hypothesising a Dark Force to patch up all the wholes is totally unacceptable.
You claim "The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models" so do it!
Please calculate the dark force deformation function that explains 
       "The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year" where I live.
If you need the location then you have failed immediately because the Globe predicts it everywhere quite closely.
Are you willing to pay me research grant? I am not your slave, you know.
No!
The theory I subscribe to already allows those calculations. It's not my problem if you are not willing to back up your hypothesis.

Quote from: Astronomy
And many of the people gathering evidence and proposing better models were certainly people that did not reject God. Including Johannes Kepler!
In western science Johannes Kepler was the turning point from a magical-alchemistic to a rational-mathematical conception of the laws of nature. In his life he worked on both sides, but what earned him eternal fame are his three laws of planetary motion. Johannes Kepler was both a scientist and a religious man. In his time a career in these two fields was not that astonishing as it seems for us nowadays – because the view of the world was not yet separated into a religious and a scientific one. Therefore religious as well as scientific thoughts can be found in one and the same work of Johannes Kepler (e. g. in “Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena” about optics). Although his scientific discoveries are very important, he never fulfilled his biggest wish namely to become a Protestant pastor.

Why then I can not find functions of God in modern equations?
Is Fg = G.m1.m2/d2 a "modern equation"? And what "functions of God" would expect should be in that equation.
It is extremely accurate within our solar system as long as you don't get too close to that massive hot thingo about 149.6 million km away.
If you don't think Newton's good enough you might try your hand at solving: . It's a bit out of my league.

Quote from: Astronomy
Why? The God was their hobby. They had not theism, but deism:
That is no more than your opinion and your have no right to judge any other person's belief that way,  Mr Perfect!

Quote from: Astronomy
they have rejected one of the God's names, namely “God of gaps”.
But “God of gaps” is not "one of the God's names"!
That is just a fallacy that relegates God simply to explain "the unknown" as you do with your "functions of God".
But in reality all correct descriptions of how "nature" works ("the laws of nature") might be described as the "functions of God".

Quote
Got Questions: What is the God of the gaps argument?
The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”

The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing. 

This getting too tedious and you refuse to show any working flat earth model or map.
So I totally reject your ideas and I'll let you waffle on your own.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #159 on: December 08, 2018, 01:05:57 AM »
Look who has problems:
You do, and you seem to be avoiding admitting it.

The method of more adequate Science is: "Nobody is wrong, until proven wrong".
Nope. Regardless we aren't talking about that.

Wikipedia says with references to literature, that they are myth. I have no reasons to doubt that.
So you have claims, with references to other claims, no actual evidence.
I don't are if you have no reason to doubt that. I have no reason to doubt gods being fictional and there are plenty of people claiming that, including writing it down (and thus making it literature).

Baseless psychic assault is not disproof of team Flat.
So you reject wikipedia as a source for disproving things.
Why then use it to try and say pixies are fake?

So can you actually prove pixies are fake? Not just claim they are. Not just reference other claims that they are. Actually prove that they are?
If not, then you can't disprove pixies and thus according to you they are absolute truth.
If you are unwilling to accept pixies as absolute truth, and unable to disprove them (and they are impossible to disprove), then the only honest, rational way out is to admit your definition of absolute truth is wrong.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #160 on: December 08, 2018, 01:10:40 AM »
Nothing baseless about it.  I applied the same logic and methodology you used to determine pixies are fake.  You can't cite a source and then reject it later as baseless when the shoe is reversed.
The Wikipedia has according references to prove, that pixies are myth. But God is Supreme Being.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #161 on: December 08, 2018, 01:12:25 AM »
The Wikipedia has according references to prove, that pixies are myth. But God is Supreme Being.
No they don't.
If you wish to disagree, why don't you try telling us what these references are and exactly how they prove pixies are a myth.
Note: Appearing in mythology doesn't make them a myth. If that was the case, then your god would be a myth as well.
Do you know the only thing preventing your god from being called a myth by wikipedia? Too many people will go apeshit over it.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #162 on: December 08, 2018, 01:18:32 AM »
The Wikipedia has according references to prove, that pixies are myth. But God is Supreme Being.
No they don't.
If you wish to disagree, why don't you try telling us what these references are and exactly how they prove pixies are a myth.
Note: Appearing in mythology doesn't make them a myth. If that was the case, then your god would be a myth as well.
Do you know the only thing preventing your god from being called a myth by wikipedia? Too many people will go apeshit over it.

What reasons do you have to argue with Wikipedia? You are just trolling Wiki. All trolls are going to hell. But God is Supreme Being:

« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 01:20:58 AM by Astronomy »

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #163 on: December 08, 2018, 01:30:01 AM »
What reasons do you have to argue with Wikipedia?
That would be you.
You are rejecting anything which doesn't fit your agenda, while happily accepting others.

Wikipedia has a rational claim that pixies are fictional. But they don't have any proof that pixies are fake.
According to your definition of absolute truth, it is that disproof which is required for something to not qualify.
As pixies haven't been disproven, they are absolute truth according to you, regardless of what wiki says.

As for arguing with wikipedia, are you aware your god is in the mythology portal, as it is just part of mythology?
The page on "myth" starts with "The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans.[1][2][3] Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and are closely linked to religion or spirituality.[1] In fact, many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths to be true accounts of their remote past.[1][2][4][5] Creation myths particularly, take place in a primordial age when the world had not achieved its later form."
And there is a page devoted to Christian mythology.

The only reason your god isn't outright called a myth right on its page is because the religious nuts would go apeshit over it.

Now again, CAN YOU DISPROVE PIXIES?
If not, according to you they are absolute truth.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #164 on: December 08, 2018, 01:56:30 AM »
Now again, CAN YOU DISPROVE PIXIES?
If not, according to you they are absolute truth.
OK. The mad methodology of team Globe is too weak to disprove pixies (let along the team Flat, LOL). But can it disprove FS Monster or Russel teapot?

But the team Flat can ask God about pixies after Second Coming.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 01:59:59 AM by Astronomy »

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #165 on: December 08, 2018, 02:03:11 AM »
OK. The mad methodology of team Globe is too weak to disprove pixies
Again, this is your methodology, not ours. Science discards gods and pixies alike as unfalsifiable claims.

So, do you admit pixies are absolute truth?
Or do you admit your definition was wrong?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #166 on: December 08, 2018, 02:18:24 AM »
Nothing baseless about it.  I applied the same logic and methodology you used to determine pixies are fake.  You can't cite a source and then reject it later as baseless when the shoe is reversed.
The Wikipedia has according references to prove, that pixies are myth. But God is Supreme Being.
Not my Wikipedia ;D!

Top 10 Best Pixies Songs WatchMojo.com

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #167 on: December 08, 2018, 02:22:20 AM »
OK. The mad methodology of team Globe is too weak to disprove pixies
Again, this is your methodology, not ours. Science discards gods and pixies alike as unfalsifiable claims.
Because team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter, then latter ones can be real. Therefore, team Globe is a mental case. Correct?

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #168 on: December 08, 2018, 02:35:47 AM »
Because team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter, then latter ones can be real. Therefore, team Globe is a mental case. Correct?
No. Do you know why?
Because unlike crazy people, "team globe" doesn't decide to claim something is true just because you can't disprove it
Team religion does that, but only to the things they want.

Again, it is YOUR definition of absolute truth that says if you can't disprove something it is absolute truth.
Thus it is TEAM YOU that is a mental case thinking pixies are absolute truth.

Understand?

"team globe", aka science, recognise that some claims are unfalsifiable and basically meaningless and thus discard them. They don't think these claims are true.

So do you accept pixies as absolute truth?

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #169 on: December 08, 2018, 02:38:06 AM »
hese claims are true.

So do you accept pixies as absolute truth?
The doctors can help team Globe. Just more medicine. Please follow the instruction:



*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #170 on: December 08, 2018, 02:42:49 AM »
OK. The mad methodology of team Globe is too weak to disprove pixies
Again, this is your methodology, not ours. Science discards gods and pixies alike as unfalsifiable claims.
Because team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter, then latter ones can be real. Therefore, team Globe is a mental case. Correct?

Correct. Team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter. Neither can Team Flat. So it seems we are at an impasse, a stalemate, if you will. I do take issue with you fictionalizing pixies, I'm not sure what a 'russel teapot' is but it sounds lovely, and Harry potter saved us from humanity more than once. Quite right, as it were.

Carry on.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #171 on: December 08, 2018, 02:50:43 AM »
Correct. Team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter. Neither can Team Flat.
Team Flat knows for 100 percent, that a fiction is not real. Have you seen the adventures of sinner Harry Potter in wonderland? Really? If yes, then it is mental case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 02:52:34 AM by Astronomy »

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #172 on: December 08, 2018, 02:55:41 AM »
The doctors can help team Globe. Just more medicine. Please follow the instruction:
Again, we aren't the ones that need help. You are.
You are the one who's definition of absolute truth requires pixies to be accepted as absolute truth.
I have already made it clear that I think that definition is garbage.

Either disprove pixies, claim they are absolute truth, or accept your definition is wrong.

I'm not sure what a 'russel teapot' is but it sounds lovely
It was a top secret project by MI6 to put a piece of British culture into space. To do so they put a teapot in orbit. There are various claims as to where this teapot is. Some claim it is in orbit around Earth, too small to be seen. Others say it was carefully placed at the Earth-Sun L3 to put a piece of Britain on the opposite side of Earth so no one could look towards the solar system without looking upon Britain (unless the other pesky planets get in the way, but the odds of such an alignment are astronomical).
After this they used the services of Bertrand Russel to make anyone suggesting it is real look silly.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #173 on: December 08, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »
Correct. Team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter. Neither can Team Flat.
Team Flat knows for 100 percent, that a fiction is not real. Have you seen the adventures of sinner Harry Potter in wonderland? Really? If yes, then it is mental case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I would just say, for the love of absolute truth, can you just make a point.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #174 on: December 08, 2018, 03:11:27 AM »

I would just say, for the love of absolute truth, can you just make a point.
Be calm. Don't take a knife. Here it is, the point you asked: . Here is another one: . So, don't worry, be happy. We can help you all, friends in team Globe:

Just remember: there is no technical difference in Flat Earth and Globe Earth: the bridge is a deformation function. There is psychological difference: the methods of team Globe are not healthy.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #175 on: December 08, 2018, 03:54:10 AM »
Correct. Team Globe can not disprove fiction like pixies, Russel teapot, sinner Harry Potter. Neither can Team Flat.
Team Flat knows for 100 percent, that a fiction is not real. Have you seen the adventures of sinner Harry Potter in wonderland? Really? If yes, then it is mental case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
If team flat “knows” for “100%” that pixies are not true .. then prove it. It’s the whole point of this debate. 

You haven’t proven anything. You just provided a link to another source that says “pixies don’t exist”. That’s not evidence, that’s not proof.

I can easily link you a website that says “god does not exist”. By your standards I would be right and you would be wrong.
Be gentle

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #176 on: December 08, 2018, 04:26:10 AM »
Just remember: there is no technical difference in Flat Earth.
From what I can see you don't have any flat earth, other than in your imagination - but we have reality!

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #177 on: December 08, 2018, 04:46:31 AM »
Just remember: there is no technical difference in Flat Earth.
From what I can see you don't have any flat earth, other than in your imagination - but we have reality!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #178 on: December 08, 2018, 04:51:45 AM »
Just remember: there is no technical difference in Flat Earth.
From what I can see you don't have any flat earth, other than in your imagination - but we have reality!

Fleetwood Mac is not reality.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #179 on: December 08, 2018, 04:55:33 AM »
If you are trying to win this debate by linking YouTube videos, you’ve already lost. I am a master in that art.

Be gentle