Flat earth debunked.

[Dino246]

All flat earth arguments are based on negative evidence, lack of understanding/knowledge, therefore all flat earth arguments are based on ignorance.

Therefore flat earth is ignorant.

Or at least replete with fallacious arguments.

 

[kinda]

Well that’s a minute and half I’ll never get back…

Sorry to waste your time. I feel your pain though, I spent some time in the flat earth threads.

Actually, wait a second. I'm not sorry about wasting your time. If you didn't see any value in that video, than that's to bad. The video clearly shows how airplane flights work in a concave hollow earth. So, if that wasn't worth a minute or so of your time, than just pay attention to the discovery channel, or other mainstream science.

Having an open mind isn't for everyone. lol

I actually spent many hours listening to flat earthers, just to see their perspective. I don't agree with them at large, but I like to know different view points. And some of their points are correct, just not the flat earth part. Some of their points on why Heliocentric model is wrong, are on point, but that will just be a waste of time to most.

 

[Cameron143]

i can debunk the solar system

You are going to mess up a lot of 4th grade science fair projects.

 

[Cameron143]

Anyone who wants to see a horizon should lay flat on their backs and look towards their toes.

 

[kinda]

Anyone who wants to see a horizon should lay flat on their backs and look towards their toes.

This must be some sort of trick, because I see a white wall.

 

[RaceRunner]

Saying evolution and atheism go hand in hand is uninformed. I can debunk easily both evolution and flat earth.

 

[Gojira]

I have a lot of nosy little potatoes. I've learned not to trust my spying fries also.

But they're cute!

 

[kinda]

All flat earth arguments are based on negative evidence not positive evidence. They go something like this.

I don’t understand how water can stick to bottom of a ball, therefore gravity is a myth and the earth must be flat.

I don’t understand how we can be spinning over 1,000 mph at the equator without everyone flying off, therefore we must be flat and motionless.

I don’t understand how we can be hurling through space at thousands of mph and the air doesn’t fly off, therefore we must be flat and motionless.

It’s never positive evidence that someone personally sailed around Antarctica and it was actually an 80,000 mile ice wall. It’s never someone flying up and touching the dome or photographing a small, local sun.

All flat earth arguments are based on negative evidence, lack of understanding/knowledge, therefore all flat earth arguments are based on ignorance.

Therefore flat earth is ignorant.

A few problems with your superior logic.

1. You didn't cover all flat earth points, but made a conclusion about all flat earth arguments.
2. Flat earth can't be ignorant, since it doesn't have a mind.
3. You didn't disprove why the points you listed are incorrect, but jumped to a logical fallacy.
4. Just saying something is ignorant, doesn't make it ignorant. Although, I agree with some of your accusations.

Therefore....
My conclusion, you didn't receive a passing grade in a college Logic Class, or failed to demonstrate what you learned. lol

 

[kinda]

very true, i thought i might give them a chance anyway

Good luck with that.

Some people are hard wired to go along with the crowd and others are hard wired to go against social norms.

 

[Gideon300]

View attachment 252088

What is your point?

 

[Gideon300]

Airplane pilots or folks who have circumnavigated the globe by sea would be unable to observe any curvature. Some have not succombed to Heliocentric indoctrination. It is often admitted by Heliocentrists that the curvature of the Earth cannot be seen from a plane. Certainly, those who travel by sea have some of the best evidence against Heliocentricity, as lighthouses can be seen beyond where the horizon should be on a ball-Earth (i.e. over the alleged curve of the horizon). Next time you are on a plane, check out of both windows. On a clear day, you will be able to see the horizon through both at the same time - the horizon rises to the eye level. This is because Earth is flat - on a ball Earth, the horizon would/should drop away the further from the plane the land was. However, according to some die-hard Heliocentrists, this is simply because a plane is not at a high enough altitude to observe curvature.

As stated above, the Earth's curvature cannot be seen from a plane, and certainly not a ship. Some die-hard Heliocentrists argue this is simply because a plane is not at a high enough altitude to observe curvature. NASA is required by Heliocentrists, because it is the only organisation to have claimed to photograph ball-Earth. However, their evidence is fraudulent.

In Heliocentricity, the gyroscope should have flipped by the time a plane crosses from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. That it doesn't is proof that the Earth is flat.

No they haven't. Just because someone thinks he has seen something doesn't mean he has. The evolutionary archeologist may think he has seen evolution in fossils. He hasn't. Heliocentrists think they see the ships travelling over the curve of the horizon. That a telescope will bring the ship back into view proves their belief wrong.

The curvature of the earth is clearly visible from the air. Of course you have to be at a high enough altitude. That is simply because the earth is so big. You are making assertions, not stating facts. Do you not know that slander is as wicked as adultery, according to the 10 commandments? You call people liars, with no justification, while you promote a patently false concept yourself.

 

[Moses_Young]

The curvature of the earth is clearly visible from the air. Of course you have to be at a high enough altitude. That is simply because the earth is so big. You are making assertions, not stating facts. Do you not know that slander is as wicked as adultery, according to the 10 commandments? You call people liars, with no justification, while you promote a patently false concept yourself.

No, I am stating facts. As I've already explained, NASA's testimony is disqualified, as it has been determined to be a false witness. When a witness lies in court, his entire testimony may be discounted. This is the case with NASA. I have been on numerous flights, up to 10km in the sky, and no curvature was observed. If you're talking higher, then we're in disputed testimony, because NASA and their ilk are dishonest witnesses, and very few others can get that high.

 

[Moses_Young]

All flat earth arguments are based on negative evidence not positive evidence. They go something like this.

I don’t understand how water can stick to bottom of a ball, therefore gravity is a myth and the earth must be flat.

I don’t understand how we can be spinning over 1,000 mph at the equator without everyone flying off, therefore we must be flat and motionless.

I don’t understand how we can be hurling through space at thousands of mph and the air doesn’t fly off, therefore we must be flat and motionless.

It’s never positive evidence that someone personally sailed around Antarctica and it was actually an 80,000 mile ice wall. It’s never someone flying up and touching the dome or photographing a small, local sun.

All flat earth arguments are based on negative evidence, lack of understanding/knowledge, therefore all flat earth arguments are based on ignorance.

Therefore flat earth is ignorant.

Nope. Its called burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Everyone observes a flat earth. So there is no need to "prove" it, it is the default position. The Heliocentric theory is contrary to observation - this is what must be proved, or the default position is accepted, by default.

 

[Dino246]

Nope. Its called burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Everyone observes a flat earth. So there is no need to "prove" it, it is the default position.

You are making the claim, "Everyone observes a flat earth."

According to your own words, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim...

So, prove it.

 

[Dino246]

No, I am stating facts. As I've already explained, NASA's testimony is disqualified, as it has been determined to be a false witness. ... NASA and their ilk are dishonest witnesses, and very few others can get that high.

That's a fallacious argument. Just because NASA has been found to be dishonest (and I don't accept that claim either, but I'll run with it), does not prove that any other agency is dishonest. Further, you cannot simply broadbrush "their ilk" and conveniently include any person or agency within that category every time there is evidence against your delusion. Step up and provide the evidence in each case. You want to use a courtroom analogy to discredit a witness, the same will be used to discredit your argument.

 

[RaceRunner]

You are making the claim, "Everyone observes a flat earth."

According to your own words, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim...

So, prove it.

 

[tourist]

This must be some sort of trick, because I see a white wall.

At least it's not an ice wall.

 

[tourist]

What is your point?

There is no point.

 

[Cameron143]

There is no point.

If people are going to have to have a point there will be way less interaction. Pretty soon people will need to start making cogent points and then...it's a very slippery slope. So please, please...don't start making points.

 

[Dino246]

View attachment 252184

Since the first picture is not what I see, your "proof" is irrelevant.