Time Is UP! Challenge

  • 30 Replies
  • 1497 Views
*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Time Is UP! Challenge
« on: February 28, 2020, 02:22:15 PM »
And to be clear, my distance to said bodies - and my beliefs - differ from Tom's. This is Tom's challenge. If you'd like to try this again, I'd be happy to wipe the floor with you on any topic you think round earth explains better than the non-euclidean flat earth.

Of course given your performance in the whole infinite flat earth thread, I'm not sure you are up to meet this challenge.

To avoid the meta discussion I'll state the challenge clearly:

Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth. Pick one, and stick to it in your first post on that thread.

If you can't show it fits the data BETTER than the non-euclidean flat earth, you lose.
If you change topics, you lose.


On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.


We will both provide closing arguments at ten pages or when we both agree it is reasonable to do so.

After ten pages or said event, the results will be judged by a panel of three neutral outside observers of my choice. I can make said choice at any time, or times, and will post my choices as I wish. It is stipulated at least one of these must be a round earther. I will tend towards choosing two round earthers out of interest for fairness, should they be available.

Only posts by yourself or myself will be considered; it will be requested that other users respectfully decline posting in said thread.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2020, 03:23:12 PM »
On another discussion John Davis, flat earth scientist presented this challenge.

If you'd like to try this again, I'd be happy to wipe the floor with you on any topic you think round earth explains better than the non-euclidean flat earth.
Of course given your performance in the whole infinite flat earth thread, I'm not sure you are up to meet this challenge.
To avoid the meta discussion I'll state the challenge clearly:


Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth. Pick one, and stick to it in your first post on that thread.
If you can't show it fits the data BETTER than the non-euclidean flat earth, you lose.
If you change topics, you lose.
On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.
We will both provide closing arguments at ten pages or when we both agree it is reasonable to do so.
After ten pages or said event, the results will be judged by a panel of three neutral outside observers of my choice. I can make said choice at any time, or times, and will post my choices as I wish. It is stipulated at least one of these must be a round earther. I will tend towards choosing two round earthers out of interest for fairness, should they be available.
Only posts by yourself or myself will be considered; it will be requested that other users respectfully decline posting in said thread.


I, of course, accept the challenge, though your selection of the judges is rather concerning.

The challenge is for both sides in this debate to provide solid and verifiable empirical data that can be shown to support one's belief as to both the size of the moon and its distance from the Earth

The question to John Davis is; does he agree to this challenge and does he promise to conduct it in a fair and honest way without resorting to abuse or other forms of foul play, such as changing or deleting posts. The only other caveat I would add is that any data from any reputable verifiable source should be permissible even if the other side does not recognize its validity. This debate should be judged honestly by the data provided and not be distorted by any prejudice from either side.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 03:32:08 PM by Timeisup »

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2020, 03:26:34 PM »
As this is the home of the Flat Earth Society it's only correct and fair that he be allowed the opening salvo to put forward his Flat Earth beliefs as regards the challenge.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2020, 03:41:40 PM »
On another discussion John Davis, flat earth scientist presented this challenge.

If you'd like to try this again, I'd be happy to wipe the floor with you on any topic you think round earth explains better than the non-euclidean flat earth.
Of course given your performance in the whole infinite flat earth thread, I'm not sure you are up to meet this challenge.
To avoid the meta discussion I'll state the challenge clearly:


Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth. Pick one, and stick to it in your first post on that thread.
If you can't show it fits the data BETTER than the non-euclidean flat earth, you lose.
If you change topics, you lose.
On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.
We will both provide closing arguments at ten pages or when we both agree it is reasonable to do so.
After ten pages or said event, the results will be judged by a panel of three neutral outside observers of my choice. I can make said choice at any time, or times, and will post my choices as I wish. It is stipulated at least one of these must be a round earther. I will tend towards choosing two round earthers out of interest for fairness, should they be available.
Only posts by yourself or myself will be considered; it will be requested that other users respectfully decline posting in said thread.


I, of course, accept the challenge, though your selection of the judges is rather concerning.

The challenge is for both sides in this debate to provide solid and verifiable empirical data that can be shown to support one's belief as to both the size of the moon and its distance from the Earth

The question to John Davis is; does he agree to this challenge and does he promise to conduct it in a fair and honest way without resorting to abuse or other forms of foul play, such as changing or deleting posts. The only other caveat I would add is that any data from any reputable verifiable source should be permissible even if the other side does not recognize its validity. This debate should be judged honestly by the data provided and not be distorted by any prejudice from either side.
On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.

I will not be providing any data. I am happy to use whatever data you provide. It is presumed that the data is accurate and agrees with the round earth model described in part by the theories of relativity on your part. It is not fair play to take data that disagrees with your own point of view, is bad data, or is otherwise "bunk" as fairly as can be determined.

I'm happy to play fair, as I think I always do; it is rare when I use my moderation powers at all. I will leave any "name calling" or such out of this, and make efforts to do so outside of this thread as well except when faced with bigotry or behavior that warrants and justifies it as tolerance of bigotry is almost as dangerous as bigotry itself.

Your point of contention is ill formed; the distance to the moon is not a static number, but changes based on many things including time even in the round earth model. I will assume that this is understood by both parties. Likewise, it is assumed that data cannot be "solid" but that you are referring to verifiable data.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2020, 03:57:09 PM »
It's looking like you are unwilling to accept my challenge, breaking at the outset my single caveat that you do not change any of my posts. The fact you are unwilling to provide any of your own data preferring I imagine to just pick holes in what I present is not very fair. While I am quite willing to provide data to support my views, data that you are at liberty to critique, you, on the other hand, are not willing to replicate. Why is this? How can an honest debate on this subject be conducted if only one side is prepared to present their cards?

Are you willing to do this in a fair and honest way with both sides presenting, as you said in your initial challenge empirical data? What you said was:-

Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth.

Are you now going back on that? How can the merits of both sides be adequately judged if only one side provides empirical data? How do you expect your position to be judged?

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2020, 03:58:09 PM »
Why did you change my initial post, why did you not just start your own?

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 14294
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2020, 04:06:31 PM »
Why did you change my initial post, why did you not just start your own?
He did start his own. He started it before you did. Your threads were essentially identical. And his was started first. So I merged them.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2020, 04:07:48 PM »
As this is the home of the Flat Earth Society it's only correct and fair that he be allowed the opening salvo to put forward his Flat Earth beliefs as regards the challenge.

Thank you. I will do this.

I will denote my arguments towards the reasonableness of the model by numbered and lettered points.

1. Flat is to be defined as a surface that can be traversed through a series of points creating lines in which each line is the shortest distance between those points through space-time. The simplest example of this in euclidean space is a plane. It is not assumed that the plane is perfectly flat; mountains exist as do valleys. Other arguments down this line should be considered as aside the point.

1a. Euclid's axioms may not fit the data provided. This should be apparent by the name of the model and in the round earth context from modern astronomy.

1b. It is valid to say that if the space outside an object is flat, and that an object inside that space that is of similar shape and at an equal distance to said outside object at all points, the inner object is also flat. The similar situation here on a round earth would be a globe within a globe or a sphere inside a sphere sharing a common center.

2. Newton's Laws of Motion hold; this should fit any data you supply.

3. The equivalence principle holds. This is to say that data shows that experimentally feeling acceleration means that one is changing either direction or speed in space-time.

5. The flat surface of the earth is a closed surface. This means there is no "edge" aside from the one touching what is called "space" or the "heavens" in a non-biblical sense.


I am open to defending any of these points that disagree with data you provide.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2020, 04:08:53 PM »
This confusion was not made by my hand and I ask all moderators to stand down. I simply copied the reply I was putting in your thread and put it in this one I made first. Again, I ask everyone who is not myself or time to kindly butt out for fairness.

I forego my right to supply data. I should not need to have some 'special' data to justify my views. If the data is accurate, it should fit reality (ignoring the philosophical qualms here), whatever that reality is. I'm happy to defend this with one hand tied behind my back as it is.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 04:16:20 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2020, 04:28:58 PM »
Why did you change my initial post, why did you not just start your own?
He did start his own. He started it before you did. Your threads were essentially identical. And his was started first. So I merged them.


Not true. I started mine first, thatís a blatant distortion of the truth.
John Davis clearly stated no other member should post on this topic! I clearly requested that my posts should not be changed. You took it upon yourself to totally disregard both requests. Why?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2020, 04:39:07 PM »
Do you wish to waste your posts on such paltry things? The line has been drawn, let us spar. If you like simply mention in your response for me to split out these posts into CN or somewhere non-consequential and I will temporarily rescind my pledge to not use my moderator powers and do so at your request and that only.


EDIT: I expect to be judged on how well my worldview fits the data as per the agreement, whomever supplies it.

I will also denote any edits made via EDIT:


EDIT 2: I am also open to just having an additional page added to our agreement; it allows for this in that it allows for any time we both deem acceptable.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 04:54:08 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2020, 10:41:43 PM »
When the challenge will be met, I will throw the gauntlet down. You can reach me at john@theflatearthsociety.org if I don't respond in time.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2020, 02:03:14 AM »
Do you wish to waste your posts on such paltry things? The line has been drawn, let us spar. If you like simply mention in your response for me to split out these posts into CN or somewhere non-consequential and I will temporarily rescind my pledge to not use my moderator powers and do so at your request and that only.


EDIT: I expect to be judged on how well my worldview fits the data as per the agreement, whomever supplies it.

I will also denote any edits made via EDIT:


EDIT 2: I am also open to just having an additional page added to our agreement; it allows for this in that it allows for any time we both deem acceptable.

Fair enough.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #13 on: February 29, 2020, 02:11:55 AM »
Well let me know when you wish to defend your side of things.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #14 on: February 29, 2020, 02:28:59 AM »
As far as Iím concerned the Challenge is still:-

The challenge is for both sides in this debate to provide solid and verifiable empirical data that can be shown to support one's belief as to both the size of the moon and its distance from the Earth

If I can start by addressing some initial points you made;

Your point of contention is ill formed; the distance to the moon is not a static number, but changes based on many things including time even in the round earth model. I will assume that this is understood by both parties. Likewise, it is assumed that data cannot be "solid" but that you are referring to verifiable data.

I fail to see how or why the challenge as issued is ill formed, especially when its answer is extremely significant as flat earth belief proposes very different answers from the accepted scientifically derived answers. I would say the answer to such a challenge is pretty fundamental to both conventional science and flat earth belief as there can only be one correct answer and only one truth. Someone has to be wrong.

I also wonder how you can state that the distance from the earth to the moon is variable. From a flat earth perspective how did you determine and prove this to be the case? Arriving at such a statement that deals with actual distances would have required that you or someone else in the flat earth community actually made these measurements. As you yourself stated we should deal with empirical data what was nature of your empirical method used. For the record you could also provide the distances arrived at.

You mention that the moon earth distance is affected by a number of factors according to flat earth belief. It would be useful to know a) what these factors are and b) what the underlying mechanisms of these factors are that allow them to influence the earth moon distance.

From my perspective I don't think anything can be assumed about the nature of this challenge.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2020, 02:38:32 AM »
If you don't want to meet us on common grounds, then good day sir. Thank you for playing as fair as you can. I will assume this challenge was not accepted. Best to you. You can treat yourself as a winner, like those in Flanders.

If you do, I would ask you respond to my claims with empirical data that contradicts it.

There is no doubt I will die with a gun in my hand, so to speak, but I'd like to see how this plays out. Others might too. If not, fair enough as I teach folks to say. Its nice to know where the information is coming from.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #16 on: February 29, 2020, 03:01:00 AM »
If you don't want to meet us on common grounds, then good day sir. Thank you for playing as fair as you can. I will assume this challenge was not accepted. Best to you. You can treat yourself as a winner, like those in Flanders.

If you do, I would ask you respond to my claims with empirical data that contradicts it.

There is no doubt I will die with a gun in my hand, so to speak, but I'd like to see how this plays out. Others might too. If not, fair enough as I teach folks to say. Its nice to know where the information is coming from.

Whatís the problem John? I was just responding to the first comment you made, pointing out why I thought your initial statement was wrong, and then asking you to clarify some statements you made. Is that not how debate works?
To use a WW1 analogy is rather over the top donít you think?, though itís topical for me as Iím writing a play at the moment that touches on events on the Somme in 1918 where my grandfather was killed. I donít think you risk anything like that by responding positively to my questions.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 03:03:36 AM by Timeisup »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2020, 03:02:39 AM »
Like I said, if you can't meet us on common ground you can walk off all proud to have won your little medal.

If you actually give a fuck then supply your data.

This has all been a very useful fishing exercise.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2020, 03:07:19 AM »
Like I said, if you can't meet us on common ground you can walk off all proud to have won your little medal.

If you actually give a fuck then supply your data.

This has all been a very useful fishing exercise.

What were you expecting John? Iím struggling to understand your reluctance to stand by and qualify your initial statement and why you have racked up the anti so soon when we have hardly started. Do you not agree that the whole question surrounding the moon is pretty significant? If not please explain. I thought you said I could pick any subject I liked?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 01:26:59 AM by Timeisup »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2020, 03:10:02 AM »
For sure you are. Provide any data. If it gets to that second page before you get any data you can walk home with a big win. You picked the topic - the distance to the moon.

I have been more than fair, but suit yourself.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #20 on: February 29, 2020, 04:03:52 AM »
For sure you are. Provide any data. If it gets to that second page before you get any data you can walk home with a big win. You picked the topic - the distance to the moon.

I have been more than fair, but suit yourself.

How do you expect me to understand your own position if you won't make your position clear? If you wanted to know what conventional science has to say in regard to the moon there are possibly more than a million references you could consult as that will no doubt form the basis of what I happen to believe. You know where I am coming from but I have no idea where you stand. That fact makes debate rather difficult. Other than you appear to believe that moonlight is dangerous I have no idea what your own beliefs are in regard to the moon, and that includes the empirical data on which you formed your beliefs. If you were so firm in your beliefs in regard to this very significant topic I can't understand why you would not want to share what you know with the world. The debate should be more than me just lining up various arguments that you knockdown, I know that's the type of 'debate' you are after, one where you give nothing away. To my mind that certainly does not constitute a fair debate. As far as I understand a debate should have this form, as this is one that is generally accepted:-

CLAIM - Is your argument expressed in one simple and clear sentence. This is not a restatement of the debate topic, this is one reason why you are in favor (PRO) the debate topic statement or one reason why you are against

(CON) the debate topic statement. You may (and usually will) have multiple claims to support your side. A typical opening speech has three claims.

WARRANT - Is the evidence or proof that you are using to support your claim. Evidence often comes in the form of a quotation, statistics/data, or cited reference but also can include powerful examples or analogies.

IMPACT - Explains why the evidence matters. Your information may be true, but you need to go further to explain how this proves your point. What is significant about your evidence? How does it all support your side of the debate?

Would you agree or are you after something other than a debate?

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2020, 03:51:08 PM »
For sure you are. Provide any data. If it gets to that second page before you get any data you can walk home with a big win. You picked the topic - the distance to the moon.

I have been more than fair, but suit yourself.

The topic is indeed to do with the moon and as I have said to avoid a rather one sided non debate, it would help if I knew at the outset what I was debating against. So if you could provide youíre  starting position, moon size and distance and the methods you used to determine both dimensions then we could have a meaningful debate; you explain the merits of your beliefs, while I will explain the merits of my own. I would call that a pretty fair basis on which to proceed.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 01:30:04 AM by Timeisup »

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2020, 02:16:51 AM »
The flat earth movement makes many claims that are at odds with what science has discovered, one of the most notable being in relation to the size of the moon and itís distance to the earth. The reason why this is a fairly notable topic is that there have been a number of different methods that have been used for the last 2000 years that have all yielded more or less the same magnitude of result, as the moonís distance is variable. In other discussions on this topic flat earth believers have been reluctant to give their own figures and any supporting methodology by which they were arrived at. Other points worth noting is that some of the methods used can be replicated by members of the public, ruling out any hint of conspiracy.

In science if a claim is made using a particular methodology and this is repeated a number of times by others who all produce the same answer then these findings are normally accepted as fact. If a series of different methods are used that all employ different approaches that still produce the same answer then itís normally taken as a given that the answer is pretty well cast iron and watertight.

 Such is the case of moon distance and moon diameter both measurements have been arrived at using different methods all agreeing broadly and within acceptable limits on both distance and diameter. The issue in this debate is that flat earth believers disagree with the results of ALL of the methods used.

The interesting point here is that they, flat earth believers, refuse to acknowledge  the accepted measurements, distance and diameter, not because they have employed a range of different methods that have yielded different results, but more because a small near moon is required for their beliefs. Accepting the results of conventional science would turn their flat earth belief upside down!

There is no published verifiable flat earth methodology that could be employed that would produce different results from those that are generally accepted. This leaves flat earth believers in a position of just being able to disagree with all the methods used rather than providing any of their own.

This is why an open and honest debate on this subject with both sides revealing their cards and stating their own provable position is not possible as flat earth believers have no hand to play.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 02:18:26 AM by Timeisup »

Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2020, 08:58:44 AM »
What is loosely called flat Earth 'theory' should really be called flat Earth belief. Which itself is based on nothing more than a rebellion against mainstream science.  Because that seems to be all it is based on. Flat Earth people are nothing more than rebels who for reasons best known and only known to themselves chose not to accept the mainstream view. Seeming just because they want to be different. They base their beliefs on a twisted, alternative explanation of what is otherwise well established evidence. Their attitude is 'we will only believe it if you can prove it'. But proof is only proof if you are willing to accept it as such and obviously no flat Earther will accept anything as proved which counters their belief. 

The heliocentric model as it stands is the best model to explain everything that we witness around us. Day and night, the variation in the length of day and night during the year at different latitudes, the length of the year, the behaviour of the Moon each month, the distance of the Sun and Moon and the variation in the constellations visible with each season. In that respect everyone on the 'RE' conforms to the same model since it explains everything satisfactorily and it predicts future events correctly as well.

On the FE side there are several 'models' which just leads to confusion on all sides since no single model seems to be able to singularly explain or account for everything we witness in nature. As a result whenever as question is asked about how does FE explain this or that, invariably the answer comes back as 'that is currently unaccounted for' or 'it depends on which model' you choose.

So until FE can sort themselves out with a universally accepted model (which I predict they never will) they are hardly in a position to criticise anything else.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 09:06:09 AM by Solarwind »

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2020, 12:21:14 AM »
Well it looks like there will be no debate as John Davis has banned himself for two weeks for being drunk while in control of a keyboard.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85010.0

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2020, 02:31:01 AM »
Just while we wait for John to return here are a couple of the many hi-res images of the moon that are on-line. With the tech and software required being so readily available many amateurs are taking thousands of shots then stitching together to create images just like the first one.  With such visual information readily available it makes it difficult for people like John to invent no proof ideas about the moon. While we canít see Johnís bioluminescent bacteria, what we can see clearly are the shadows created by sunlight thatís illuminating the surface, particularly in the craters. The second one is from NASA but as it correlates exactly with all the amateur ones there is no reason for the NASA conspiracy crew to jump up and down and cry fake.



https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4442/36165171112_4e40ddd5bf_o_d.jpg


*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2020, 02:40:49 AM »
Images like these put paid to Johnís far fetched  idea that moonlight is a result of bioluminescent creatures. I think he looses that one, unless of course he can provide cast iron evidence.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4442/36165171112_4e40ddd5bf_o_d.jpg

With such information freely available and checkable, its impossible for any one agency like NASA to invent such images, or flat earth groups to invent far fetched ideas about the moon.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2020, 02:46:47 AM by Timeisup »

Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2020, 08:59:01 AM »
I don't think that these images (great images by the way) or any others that we could post would change the made up mind. Those who want to think that the Moons illumination is caused by some microbes capable of emitting their own light will continue to do so, if only because their mission in life is to rebel against what every one else knows.

The evidence for it being sunlight that illuminates the Moon could not for me be any clearer or any more obvious.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2020, 10:13:17 AM »
Really, nothing will change the minds of people who honestly hold a belief, whether it is based in facts, faith, or skepticism.  When you believe something strongly, all opposing "evidence" is invalid, all opposing viewpoints are wrong and sometimes "evil".  True believers of an ideal wont be swayed by any amount of opposition to their beliefs.  The argument isn't to change the mind of the person holding an opposing belief, it is for the undecided who may be swayed.  Of course there are plenty of people who espouse an opposing belief for fun or for some other type of gain.  Those individuals will never walk back what they pretend to support either.  So don't worry so much about changing the minds of someone who you think are wrong, just state your case for the peanut gallery watching.  Bringing actual evidence to your arguments helps, but apparently for some, is not a necessity.
What do I know though, I gave up trying to actually argue on this site a while ago.   

*

rabinoz

  • 26350
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Time Is UP! Challenge
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2020, 02:06:41 PM »
Images like these put paid to Johnís far fetched  idea that moonlight is a result of bioluminescent creatures. I think he looses that one, unless of course he can provide cast iron evidence.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4442/36165171112_4e40ddd5bf_o_d.jpg

With such information freely available and checkable, its impossible for any one agency like NASA to invent such images, or flat earth groups to invent far fetched ideas about the moon.
But everybody "knows :o" that photographs are not regarded as reliable evidence unless that support the flat Earth ;D.