Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[Shadow Wolf]

That’s big talk coming from someone who claims that theories are facts.

Wanna jump off a building to prove the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wanna jump off a building to prove the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

I predict that he will now make the error of claiming that gravity is a law.

 

[Tazarah]

You contradicted yourself. It is rather basic logic. If you do not understand you should ask questions.

Once again you predicted that an arc should form (and you have yet to admit that was a foolish prediction regardless of model) You did not understand how a globe works. You have shown that many times with your water on the bottom of the Earth.





And don't try to use logic. You do not know how it works. Just give up.

Oh what the heck, no, that is not "according to me" That would be according to you. Once again you do not understand logic. You were the one that put a true conditional there which means that that is your statement, not mine. Just as you put a conditional in your statement about an arc, which means you said that there would be one. Not me.

I did not state that there would be one, I directly claimed that one was not formed and I never said that there was. No matter how you try to twist it. Everybody else understood what was being said, you are the only person who is trying to be a smart a** about it because you realized that I didn’t say what you thought I said after it was already too late.

 

[Tazarah]

Wanna jump off a building to prove the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

Gravity has been tested and proven.

When has human evolution been tested by the scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not state that there would be one, I directly claimed that one was not formed and I never said that there was. No matter how you try to twist it. Everybody else understood what was being said, you are the only person who is trying to be a smart a** about it because you realized that I didn’t say what you thought I said after it was already too late.

Your posts are there for all to see with the conditional statement in it.

Yes, you did claim that one was not formed, but only after you said that one would. Again, I understand what you said and what you meant. You only understand what you meant. You can't afford to let yourself understand what you said.

Did you or didn't you start the debated part with a conditional statement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity has been tested and proven.

When has human evolution been tested by the scientific method?

So has the theory of evolution. To bad that you do not understand how theories are tested. There have been countless tests for human evolution.

Would you like one?

 

[Tazarah]

Your posts are there for all to see with the conditional statement in it.

Yes, you did claim that one was not formed, but only after you said that one would. Again, I understand what you said and what you meant. You only understand what you meant. You can't afford to let yourself understand what you said.

Did you or didn't you start the debated part with a conditional statement?

So... if I said that one was not formed...

And I said that one didn’t form...

That means that I claimed that one did not form, because one did not form.

It’s simple as that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... if I said that one was not formed...

And I said that one didn’t form...

That means that I claimed that one did not form, because one did not form.

It’s simple as that.

Only after you said that one would be.

You contradicted yourself.

 

[Tazarah]

So has the theory of evolution. To bad that you do not understand how theories are tested. There have been countless tests for human evolution.

Would you like one?

I’m not talking to anybody who puts words into my mouth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... if I said that one was not formed...

And I said that one didn’t form...

That means that I claimed that one did not form, because one did not form.

It’s simple as that.

You are forgetting that you had a conditional statement in your post. Why is this so hard for you?

Have you ever considered taking a course on logic?

 

[Tazarah]

Only after you said that one would be.

You contradicted yourself.

How about we ask your new friend what she thinks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not talking to anybody who puts words into my mouth.

I never put words into your mouth. I am using your words and your words only.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Gravity has been tested and proven.

By your own reason, gravity is "just a theory" and isn't a fact.
Germs are also a theory. So is the combustibility of oxygen. So are magnets. And also plate tectonics. And also General and Special Relativity.

When has human evolution been tested by the scientific method?

It's been tested, scrutinized, and combed through for errors ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species - on numerous occasions. And all the evidence has only further strengthened the idea--now a theory and fact--that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not talking to anybody who puts words into my mouth.

Oh she is enjoying this. I can guarantee you that.


I offered to give you a test for human evolution. Are you afraid again?

 

[Tazarah]

By your own reason, gravity is "just a theory" and isn't a fact.
Germs are also a theory. So is the combustibility of oxygen. So are magnets. And also plate tectonics. And also General and Special Relativity.

It's been tested, scrutinized, and combed through for errors ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species - on numerous occasions. And all the evidence has only further strengthened the idea--now a theory and fact--that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

OK. Very quickly —

Regardless of whether or not the earth is round, a square, or a the shape of a bowling pin — if I say:

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

^ does that mean I myself am claiming that the railway in question is forming an arc? Even though it does not form one.

According to sub, by making that statement, I am “logically” claiming that an arc was formed because the earth is round — even though the railway examined in the experiment does not form an arc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By your own reason, gravity is "just a theory" and isn't a fact.
Germs are also a theory. So is the combustibility of oxygen. So are magnets. And also plate tectonics. And also General and Special Relativity.

It's been tested, scrutinized, and combed through for errors ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species - on numerous occasions. And all the evidence has only further strengthened the idea--now a theory and fact--that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

He had a fit earlier that when I pointed out that by calling evolution a theory that he was acknowledging that it was a proper explanation of how life go to its current state. Not understanding terminology will bite one in the rear end when one tries to argue against that concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Very quickly —

Regardless of whether or not the earth is round, a square, or a the shape of a bowling pin — if I say:

“if the earth were round, then at a certain point the railway should form an arc reaching a certain height — which it does not.”

^ does that mean I myself am claiming that the railway in question is forming an arc? Even though it does not form one.

According to sub, by making that statement, I am “logically” claiming that an arc was formed because the earth is round — even though the railway examined in the experiment does not form an arc.

Sorry, you can't say "regardless" since the round earth is a key part of your conditional statement. As a result the rest of your post is nonsense. Now you have contradicted yourself before you even began.

 

[Tazarah]

Sorry, you can't say "regardless" since that is a key part of your conditional statement. As a result the rest of your post is nonsense. Now you have contradicted yourself before you even began.

I can say regardless — because regardless of what the actual shape of the earth is, an arc was not formed and I did not say that one was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can say regardless — because regardless of what the actual shape of the earth is, an arc was not formed and I did not say that one was.

Not if it is part of your conditional statement. Once again you are contradicting yourself since the condition in about the railway involves whether Earth is round or not.

You need to be logically consistent in your arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can tell that this simple concept seems to be beyond you. Would you like to discuss a test for human evolution?