Flat earth does not work

I don't get what you think exactly is going on here but you literally have no fucking right to tell me what I don't or do believe.

Never mind, there is a first amendment right to tell people that they don't believe something they do. It's a bullshit right and is not even enforced legally on a private website. 

In 7 days God spun the globe did he? A stationary globe that's fixed in place and has pillars and foundation to it?!

ok? I was talking about RM's stupid profile pic

What are you attempting to prove, that the bible validates you?

If you believe what some loony website has told you, what is it to me? Knock yourself out.

If you think heavenly bodies like the moon and the earth, formed in space from coalescing dust into non-spherical shapes, or that the sun, which is not solid, is any shape in space other than a sphere, go ahead.

My only interest here was that the bible not get dragged into this nonsense.

@RationalMadman

I'm not trying to tell you anything.

I'm simply stating a fact.

Which is, that everyone knows that the Earth is spherical.

What else you care to get up to in your spare time is entirely up to you.

Well. 

He's made me feel important.

The moon is geolocked and always faces us the same exact same way.  Im not sure how that would work with disks, but it is very unlikely everything happens to face us dead on.

Seasons are explained perfectly fine in a space globe model. I thought you were going to debunk my concerns with the flat earth model, like lunar eclipse and a lack of perceived change in size of the sun as it speeds away or as we approach the sun?

It is not impossible, just very unlikely. I demonstrated that things can face us in a fixed position, not the rest of those concepts. I am not a flat earther.

I agree it is a silly concept overall, but whether i take the debate seriously depends more on my opponent then the subject. Besides, i believe i have a iron clad argument against it, i want to try it on a non agitated opponent please :)

No they don't. You are assuming what everyone believes or knows. How would you feel if I told you that your beliefs are fake and you actually believe something else?

"geolocked" do you not realise how unrealistic it is that a random coincidence occurs such that no matter what the moon spins around itself at the same speed as it turns around us?!

The mechanism of tidal locking (sorry i used the wrong term) is well known and something that ends up in that position due to gravity, not random chance. Before we get into that, i was hoping you would address the issues i repeatedly brought up regarding flat earth, or do you admit an inability to explain my questions?

@Rational Madman.

The data is out there and consequently in there.

Your "Belief" is simply open denial of the data. That is to say, how you deliberately chose to output data.

Nonetheless spherical data is unavoidably in there, and spherical data is knowledge.

And you might as well unblock me, because you know you love it.

Only a body that revolves around the earth can have one side always facing Earth. The sun cannot.

Noble of you.

Your argument against so far has been weak. RM would beat you in a debate.

Lol OK. But RM will have to find a way to remain non agitated on his own, because I'm going to keep posting what I think.

Good luck!

Which arguments that i made against RM have been weak in your opinion?

Also the earth can be tidal locked to something that doesnt go around the earth if the earth goes around it, like the sun. However you are right that not everything can be tidal locked if they are not in some form of orbit.

how convenient.

By data you mean images that NASA themselves confess are photoshopped from apparently 'real' composites? Have you even noticed how they struggled to keep images even consistent in colouring of blue, because they had to fake changes over time? Do you even know how absolutely fake every single space mission looks (even after film began to develop to a higher technological level, it still looks 100% feasible in circumstances involving harnesses, greenscreen and perhaps submarines or planes spinning around in a deserted area to achieve 'zero gravity effect', at times).

I do not love you one bit. You also should know that you are probably among the single least people I will ever unblock. To be so arrogant that you not just laugh at my belief but ridicule that idea that I even believe in it not only attacks my intelligence but also my integrity. You are worse than people calling me an idiot, you are calling me a lying idiot.

How convenient what? You said you were going to debunk my claims, now you seem to just be dodging them.

The only 2 I've seen you offer. The apparent change in the circumference of the sun if the claims of flat Earth are true, and eclipses. 

You are right of course, but both are very weak arguments.

The best way to beat a flat Earther, is to find a scientific principle he agrees is true, like for example, why droplets and bubbles are spheres...

And then have him explain a flat Earth claim that contradicts the very scientific principle he has agreed is true.

He defeats himself.

Completely disagree. Your doing the same mistake most round earthers do, you don't understand flat earth arguments. They dont believe in gravity, and droplets do not form spheres due to gravity. The analogy falls flat, so does your argument. Im afraid your the one making a weak point in the context of your opponent.

I do agree that a common point is necessary, and we all agree lunar eclipses happen. I think my argument against flat earth is much stronger then yours, no offense.

Tidal locking is nothing more than utter bullcrap excuse. So utterly convenient that it will do that to justify the one side only ever being seen. Never seen anything other than the Moon do that. Why doesn't Earth tidal lock to the Sun???

You know more than ethang about flat earth theory, I will give you that.

Have you ever read the explanation for tidal locking before dismissing it?

I countered ethang's argument playing devils advocate using my research on flat earth. Would you dare to try making an educated devils advocate argument for tidal locking?

Tidal Locking be real beec-c-uzz dem naiiice NASA foke dun sedd it! Y'know you c'n truss' 'em cuss good ole' Nixon, the least corrupt pres was the one to take us to th'mewn! Oh them there tidal lawkins be becuss... Wait... Why them thurr be sayin' us hillbillies be tha flat eartherrs? Oh maybe cuss we the smarrt ones, yeah sawrry I don't be trustin' noone on the blind shake of a corrupt politician's hand I guess y'all be the hurr durr rednecks and I be the fine hillbilly! No doubt awn that lawd almaaatee!

Wow, that was disappointing. As i said before, i dont mind discussing any subject as long as i have a quality opponent, and that showed that you do not fit the bill. As much as flat earth is an absolutely retarded idea, i tried to take you seriously, but that was not returned.

Btw, if you think tidal locking, which nasa does explain in detail without relying on their authority, is bonkers, how do you interpret the "shadow object" flat earthers use to explain a lunar eclipse? A mystery object with no explanation that is completely invisible at all times except when it is in front of the moon... lmao. Wtf?

I did say you were the *most* competent flat earth defender here, it was clearly well short of actually competent, or even not being a troll. Thats the end if this convo.

Also the fact of a sphere earth, space, and gravity all predate nixon and the trip to the moon. Just another dodge. You said you were gonna debunk my claims after i answered the flat earth question you sent me. Suns size not changing as it travels. Lunar eclipse. Nothing but dodging.

I legit put effort into that and played devil's advocate, don't know what the issue is with you unfriending me for that, honestly get lost. You believe it because NASA told you it's true, there's no fucking reasoning behind the devil's advocate case, it's literally blind trust. Don't know who you're trying to fool.

They don't predate anything, they were assumptions, until trip to the moon nothing was 'confirmed'.