Is the earth flat as depicted in the bible?
Debate Rounds (4)
You've already shown that the bible is a flat earth book, but did you know it was flat? I can offer several scientifically sound proofs that it is, and disprove any argument that it is a sphere. Making the bible's acount true, and condemning all atheists to a lake of fire in the process. Con can start with his proofs in the first round, or he can accept in this round. The debate doesn't have to be formal.
So, what makes the earth a sphere? Quite a few things actually. But I think the better question here is whether it is flat or not. This is up to little debate these days because, you know, it's a well known fact that's it's a sphere.
But, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent here comes from the Great Unknown. From the deep dark corners of the flat earth, bravely fighting off reptilian FBI agents and CIA illuminati to debate this very topic. He's quite an obscure soul, but loveable nonetheless :D
My first proof is this photo of earth taken by NASA: http://www.nasa.gov...
This is from an altitude of 1.6 million km. Untill Pro can prove that this image has been tampered or made up, then this evidence stands.
My second proof is gravity. Gravity tends to bunch a large enough mass into a spherical shape. The earth has more than enough of this mass, so it should naturally bunch up into a ball. Untill pro can prove that all understanding of gravity is wrong, and that gravity doesn't do such a thing, then this evidence stands.
My third proof for spherical earth is the fact that the bottom of ships disappear over the horizon before the top part:
This phenomenon is predicted by the spherical earth model below:
This phenomenon is not explained at all in the flat earth model.
My fourth proof for spherical earth is the fact that the spherical earth model predicts that lunar eclipses will occur (where the earth gets between the sun and the moon). The red shadow on the moon from earth is mostly circular, which indicates that the earth is spherical.
My fifth proof for spherical earth is that the spherical earth model explains well why the moon turns red during a lunar eclipse. This is because the earth gets between the sun and moon and its atmosphere scatters the blue colour while bending the red light. The red light is then shown on the moon. This phenomena can be seen at other times as well (I.e. Sunset and sunrise will look reddish).
My sixth proof for spherical earth is the fact that higher altitudes give us a better view of objects far away. This is because the earth's curvature can act as an obstruction to the viewer on lower altitudes. On a flat earth model. This shouldn't happen. Objects should be able to be seen at any hight, yet this is not true. If you went on a boat, and traveled into the middle of the ocean, you should be able to see land in all directions regardless of hight (according to flat earth model). But you don't. All you see is a big circle of water.
My seventh proof for spherical earth is the fact that you can not only use technology that depends on satellites (which in turn depend on a spherical earth to orbit) such as the Internet and GPS, but you can also see the ISS from earth (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov...)
My eight proof for spherical earth is the planets. Any astronomer can see all the planets are spherical (due to gravity). Due to the fact that gravity is an objective fund elemental force of nature that governs all mass, we should assume that the earth is likewise spherical.
My ninth proof for spherical earth is the fact that solar eclipses are a thing. These are perfectly explained by spherical earth model, yet are entirely ignored in flat earth model.
My tenth proof for spherical earth is that the conspiracy to make it seem it's true would be so massive it would be impossible. Not only would the whole of NASA employees need to keep their mouth shut, but so would:
Lithuanian space association
Sri Lanka space agency
Isreal space agency
United Nations office for outer space affairs
INSTITUTE FOR ASTRONOMY, ASTROPHYSICS, SPACE APPLICATIONS & REMOTE SENSING, GREECE
UK space agency
Canadian space agency
Ect ect etc
This...is f****** HUGE. And FOR WHAT??? Why in hell would ALL these agencies and MORE keep such a secret? For what purpose? What reason is so important that all these and more space agencies would keep this hidden?
Let's apply Occams Razor:
What's more likely, flat earth model (and its fan club) is screwy OR earth is indeed a sphere? Voters may decide.
Nothing wrong with a little mud slinging, after all this is what you are programmed to do to anyone who questions official statements. The globe is embedded in our minds since birth, I call this indoctrination. You or I have never seen the Earth's shape in full.Therefore you are taking somebody's word for it. I will now disprove your proofs. I've seen hundreds of proof to the contrary.
Proof 1 pictures
Do me a favor, download the image you provided, and open it up in any image editing software. Flip the image upside down, and look carefully in the now right hand side upper corner. If you can't see it I will point it out to you below. My 8 year old brought this image home on her very first dictionary. These anomalies have been shown to exist in most if not all of NASA images of earth, perhaps the images' creators are trying to tell those of us with multiple-called brains (since you started out the debate with ad hominem) that it is a fake or maybe they're just having a laugh on our accounts. NASA actually admits that most if not all of their photos of Earth or in fact stitched together in Photoshop. As this can be done on a flat earth with high altitude flights, we can conclude that NASA has doctored these images, and cannot be used as a reliable source, and proof 1 is a false one.
Ah gravity, that magical force that (without observation) causes things over an uncertain mass to make some things stick to it, while others float around it in a circle. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims "gravity" does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets. What we can observe is that things of high density, when placed in a less dense medium will sink while less dense objects in a more sense medium rise. At what amount of mass do these magical things happen? It doesn't, it's a theory, and we're taking someone's word that it even exists. Kinda reminds me of some or most religions, telling us to believe something that can't be proven or observed in a real world environment.
For more gravity shenanigans.
Ships never go over any curve (which goes against common sense seeing that the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface), they only disapear because they, and everything else follow a few rules of perspective, atmospheric perspective and the law of perspective. As we can barely make out the last mountain in the photo below, it isn't because it is over any curve. Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust, anything that hovers close to the flat earth that will eventually, at a distance, block light from coming through all together. As it is thicker at lower altitudes, an object going away from you will appear to disappear from the bottom up, until it hits the vanishing point. A telescope (1)will bring it back into view, provided it can see through the dense atmosphere, which gets thicker with distance. Any videos, I've seen and proven this, that show boats going over the horizon only lower the camera to below where the waves break. A source of this claim that I couldn't prove did so might sway my opinion. I've yet to see a legitimate video of this happening though.
We have no reason to assume that objects in the sky relate in any way to the ground beneath our feet. This is tricky one because we haven't really fully figured out exactly what it is, we may never know. We do know it's not what we're told by modern astronomers though, I will discuss a few reason for this.
1) blood moons
Never in scientific history has a solid object created a red shadow.
Several accounts say that both the sun and moon were visible above the horizon. This would be impossible if the earth were directly between the two.
More and more people are filming an anomaly happening on moon that can only be described as a refresh rate line. Similar to what you see through a security camera footage of another output device, or screen. The line actually changed the position of the moon. It's hard to catch but around 7 people have filmed it over 12 times. I'm not sure what it is myself but it looks cool as folk!
4) clouds behind the moon(4)
5) lunar landings hoax. (5)
Even the most skeptical can watch one documentary about the lunar landings and with a little research, come to the conclusion that we didn't go to the moon. If you still think we went to the moon, this should wake you up.
There are more, harder to explain proofs, but we will start with these 5 things that tell us that the moon is not what we are told, and that the earth does not block the light on the moon at all. Ancient people describe a black sun called rahu that blocks the light.
I have already explained atmospheric perspective, the fact that if we're to go above some of this atmosphere, we would be looking through less of it. You are not looking over a curve. Objects would be leaning away from you at an angle if you were.
Gps was developed and is maintained by the government. Before satellites were dreamed up, we did the same thing with ground based technology. The idea that this practice was abandoned for a more expensive route instead of improving on it is ludacris. This goes back to the pictures section, further debunking all pictures of earth from space, because there are supposedly thousands of these giant pieces of aluminum orbiting the earth, but none of them can be seen in any of the photos of earth, or iss footage. Matter of fact, no real photos exist of them anywhere. You can actually control the iss! Pull up any locater, change the time on your pc or device and see it's position jump. Debunkt.
Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, my favorite is the recent pictures of pluto, that I have assigned as my profile picture, and NOT photographs. Telescopes also use curved mirrors and lenses that create a bulge in the center of any object viewed, making these wandering stars appear spherical.
Solar eclipses have nothing to do with the earth's shape. It is the moon going in front of the sun.
NASA has stolen (adjusting for inflation) about $1 trillion from the American people. These space organizations have decided it would be foolish not to do the same. Governments of the world conspire.
As for a reason, I can think of a few, let's start with treason. They wanted to win the space race, so they faked it. Stanley Kubrick coded a confession in "the shining" JFK prophesied going to the moon before 1970, they figured out it was impossible and hired the creator of 2001 a space odysee to help out and show superiority to the world. There may be lots more land past Antarctica. Some have referenced the Great Deception as depicted in the bible. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist. They have convinced us that we are random coinidences in an insignificant corner of a vast universe.
AWSM0055 forfeited this round.
Started out ok. Th though, vote pro!
Here's my rebuttals:
"NASA actually admits that most if not all of their photos of Earth or in fact stitched together in Photoshop"
"As this can be done on a flat earth with high altitude flights, we can conclude that NASA has doctored these images, and cannot be used as a reliable source, and proof 1 is a false one."
You still haven't proven that the images are fake, but I will assume they are just to appease you.
Firstly, gravity isn't magic. It's a fundamental force of nature.
Secondly, the sun is proof alone. The sun is massive and contains most of the solar system's mass. Therefore, it has the strongest gravity of all the bodies in our solar system, which is why everything orbits IT. Jupiter and Saturn is another example. Because they also have a lot of mass, many moons orbit them, whereas smaller bodies have less moons. Also, the Apollo 15 hammer/father drop also proved gravity is subject to the mass of an object. Furthermore, Einstein's General theory of relativity explains how gravity works (objects with great mass bend space time) with mathamtical proofs and proven predictions WITH ACCURACY. They have also given evidence of gravitational waves recently. Are you telling me that every one of these experiments are wrong? If so, prove it.
"What we can observe is that things of high density, when placed in a less dense medium will sink while less dense objects in a more sense medium rise."
The heck does that mean? We're not talking about water. How can something sink in a vacuum.
"At what amount of mass do these magical things happen? It doesn't, it's a theory..." Theory...THEORY...SCIENTIFC THEORY??? A theory (scientifically) is the highest and most well supported an idea one can get scientifically. Einstein's general theory of relativity explains how gravity works with mathamtics and proven predictions (quick rundown, things with more mass and take up larger space bends time and space more drastically, causing gravity. Here the mathamtical proofs and experiments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...)
3. "Ships never go over any curve (which goes against common sense seeing that the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface)"
No, gravity causes waster to level in relation to the ground, which is curved, therefore curving water. And yes, you do see ships going over a curve (my pictures showed it quite clearly)
"they only disapear because they, and everything else follow a few rules of perspective, atmospheric perspective and the law of perspective."
No. If this was true, the whole ship should disappear slowly into the horizon and fade away as a whole. But we don't see that do we? We see the ship, in effect, sinking into the horizon (shown in my picture).
"As we can barely make out the last mountain in the photo below, it isn't because it is over any curve."
It's a mountain you moron, of course there's going to be fog! And of course no curvature will be noticble! Its extremely uneven unlike the sea, so you wouldn't notice the earths curvature at all.
"As it is thicker at lower altitudes, an object going away from you will appear to disappear from the bottom up".
But that's not what we see. We see the ship dissapear below the horizon. The bottom of the ship doesn't simply fade away, it sinks. Also, the change in atmosphere density doesn't change drastically enough for the bottom to dissapear before the top. The troposphere (the lowest and thickest part of the earths atmphere) extends 12 km up. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org...)
"We have no reason to assume that objects in the sky relate in any way to the ground beneath our feet"
Yes we do, especially when the shape of the objects in the sky are controlled by a fundamental force that has been around since the beginning of time (literally). This same fundamental force should likewise dictate the shape of earth, because everything with mass has it, and earth has mass. Logic 101.
1) Red glass? No? Must be another illuminati conspiracy. Besides, I just explained why the earth does tint the Suns light to create a red shadow on the moon.
2) lol, "several accounts". Nice anecdotal evidence there. Also, the YouTube video didn't show anything you just described (sun and moon being both visible above the horizon). It just showed the moon waning. What's the difficulty here again?
3) That is highly irrelevant. And I didn't see any refresh rate line either. And the camera filming the supposed "anomaly" was shaking like a rattle snake. Is this supposed to prove the moon is a hologram? Who in the f*ck built it! The bible mentions the moon way way before technology and before NASA even existed. Who built the moon hologram! Let me guess "Aliens".
Also, YouTube videos? Really?
4) The video was 40mins long and I can't be bothered playing a video for that long. All I can say is that the "explanation" that the sun is a hologram is beyond retarded. Who built it? The "hologram" sun has been there for billions of years. Who the hell built it? Aliens? Also the sun is very bright and could easily shine through thin clouds to give a appearance like the one in the video. Also, the video didn't show the moon (from what I saw). Get a shorter clip. Better yet, don't use YouTube!
5) Don't have time to watch a doco. And stop using god damn YouTube.
It's not rahu, it's CATHULU *face palm*.
The object would have to be massive to get an appearance like what you just described (leaning away). And the person looking at the object would have to be miles away. We simply don't have such an object.
"The idea that this practice was abandoned for a for a more expensive route instead of improving it is ludicrous". Really? The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on improving military technology, some of which is quite ludicrous. It's not mentally out of the box to assume that the military would take advantage of such a useful tool as satellites. Not only that, but satellites can also be used for spying without being detected, which is much more advantageous than spy planes etc.
Also, the satellites are really really tiny compared to earth, and the satellite that took the picture was approx 1,000,000 kms up. To expect to see the satellites is stupid.
Also, the ISS has experienced many prices of space junk floating past them:
Plane? A square or disk? Also, like I said, since the objects in the sky are shaped by a fundamental force (gravity), and since we are also controlled by this fundamental force (gravity), it follows that we are shaped similarly to the objects in the sky.
Also, the stars are light years away, so a disk shape appearance is definitely what we should see, not spherical shape.
"Solar eclipses have nothing to do with earths shape", I was using the flat earth society model. Please give a picture of your model.
"NASA has stolen 1 trillion from American people". Not really, unless you call tax stealing, which it's not. You're a lunatic.
Also, if NASA indeed faked the moon landing, wouldn't the Soviet Union say something about it? They had everything to gain from calling it fake but even they admitted it happened.
And then you go on a slippery slop of lunacy.
I appreciate the skepticism, but are insults and childish name calling absolutely necessary? I asked voters to consider this behavior when casting their votes . Source for my composites claim.
So only two or three actual "photos" exist? Lets evaluate these 2 or 3.
The 2015 blue marble we have already evaluated, but here is an article that has the direct link from NASA. http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...
The 1969 image was supposedly done in the way to the moon, presumably in the middle of the Van Allen Belt, which scientists are now considering very dangerous, and must send dummies up first to test the future safety of astronauts. Why don't they just reproduce the flight from '69?
If you were one of the first people to go to the moon, you'd strut like a peacock everywhere you went thinking your feces smelled of roses for years. The pride would swell within you, and it would push beaming smiles every time you spoke about it for the rest of your days. I personally would work something about it into everyday conversation at least 4 times a day for the first year. So do these 3 people look like they just got back from the moon? Or do they look more like they are being pressed to lie possibly with death threats. Ya, it's that bad.
I have successfully ruled out any photos of earth taken from space, and con agrees. Taking this information, we can deduce that NASA is an unreliable source, and they probably did not go to the moon.
Con ignores the fact that gravity, in the celestial bodies sense, has never been reproduced or proven in a real non-hypothetical manner. Instead he suggests that the "recent " discovery of gravitational waves as proof that it exists, along with the hammer and feather presentation on the moon. (again we have ruled out NASA as a reliable source, and that we did not go to the moon)
https://youtu.be... they had the technology to do this in the sixties here on earth. This in no way proves gravity, the strength of gravity is proportional to its mass, the feather should still be slower coming to the "moon", as the bowling ball and hammer still has more mass compared to the feather even with no air. With no air, the space between the feather \ hammer and the floor is that much less dense, and they fall to the more dense area, the floor. There is no friction between so they fall at the same speed. This experiment actually disproves gravity if you look at it correctly, and proves my explanations of densities and weight and buoyancy, as I explained in a round or two ago. Your argument about the sun and it gravity depends on the fact that it is 93 Brazilian miles away. It is not however, it is about 3,000 miles away, and 32 miles in diameter. Crespicular rays prove this. As triangular geometry goes, you can figure out the 3rd side's length of a triangle with the measurements of another, and some angles in the triangle.
We know that b is about 3,000 miles and with the sun directly above California at noon(90°), and the east coast would be looking at a 45° to the sun at the same time, side a must be about 3,000 miles also. Proving every experiment wrong, and gravity, as requested.
By sink mean drop in altitude.
It seems my opponent is struggling with the definition of theory and its difference from fact. And he insults my intelligence. Let me just help you out with that.
noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
A theory is an idea explaining observations that we see on a daily basis. It is in no way a fact until it has been proven, then it becomes a law. With your logic, we can assume that this theory is fact also. Con has effectively debated himself!
No, your photographs did not show a ship going over any hump. You can see both of these ships entirety in both pictures. Because of the gain an altitude, you are overcoming a portion of the law of perspective allowing you to see more land than before. You are also well above the breaking waves and swells. As I mentioned before, a video of a ship going over the hump would sway my opinion, but as of yet I have not seen an uncut video of this ever happening. In fact the link I provided shows both of these laws that I mentioned before going into effect while the ship should in fact be well over the hump. Which is an easily measurable 8" for the first mile, and 8" per mile squared thereafter. Therefore the hump of water between California and Hawaii(a distance of about 2,500 miles) would be over 700 miles high.
You obviously have not understood the laws of perspective I explained. Let me use this in a more understandable way, that even children can understand. You watch a car drive off in the distance in a long flat stretch of highway, as the law of perspective starts taking effect, you notice the tires shrink, and slowly disappear, soon the car will appear to be dragging it's undercarriage on the highway. The tires have not gone over any hump in the flat road. They only get far enough to blend in with the horizon. A close-up of a plane shows that it is very large, but in the sky, they are almost invisible. Distance makes things disappear. Fact.
Your rebuttal of the planet's is laughable. If the ground has any bearing on objects in the sky, you could say that the ground beneath our feet were on fire, as the stars (and wandering stars) appear to be, furthermore, since you call objects in the sky, and the object you stand on both planets, we can assume with this logic that all cats are dogs. Since cats are animals, and dogs are animals. Logically they are different. (you look down to see one and you look up to see the others)
Light shining through earth's atmosphere, and going into space does not create a red shadow, watch a video of sunrise from space.
Selenelions, the video stays in the moon, but you can clearly see sunrise has occurred at the end of the video. Here is another https://youtu.be...In their video, the shadow of the earth is obscuring the moon from the top down rather than the bottom up, contrary to what would be expected when the earth is passing between the moon and sun. The sun's light should be peeking over the earth's horizon and hitting the moon from the top down, and the shadow would go up the moon. They try to explain it away with refraction. And the ridiculous proposition that the sun is somehow peeking under the earth to produce this effect, when we can clearly see it is not under the earth. Optical illusion indeed.
Are we to believe that "refraction" has not only placed both the sun and moon in opposite directions that far above the earth's surface, but has moved the shadow the wrong way to boot? We can now clearly deduce that the earth never blocks the sun's light on the moon.
What if God built it? It's not necessarily a hologram, it could be a projection into the firmament. I'm not sure how you didn't see the line, maybe the voters are not legally blind.
Again with the videos, you have ample opportunity to disprove any of my sources. You have not, instead I disprove yours, repeatedly. Did you expect me to use .gov or mainstream sources to disprove their own accounts? He calls me a moron.
Cthulu is a mythical creature, Rahu is an invisible object in the sky. Honestly, you should do some research before you incessantly ramble. Facepalms indeed.
I have officially run out of room.
I treat the mentally retarded accordingly (and their dumb*ss "theories").
"Source for my composites claim"
No, that is a forum. I didn't want that, I wanted the direct link to NASA saying "all our photos are photoshopped". And no, I'm not going to go hunting around reading the forum post looking for it. Give me the direct quote and link and then I'll concede.
"The 1969 image was supposedly...blah blah blah"
Irrelevant. We are discussing whether the earth is flat or not. Red herring and poisoning the well.
"f you were one of the first people to go to the moon, you'd strut..." Blah blah blah same as above.
"I have successfully ruled out any photos of earth taken from space, and con agrees. Taking this information, we can deduce that NASA is an unreliable source, and they probably did not go to the moon."
No, I just conceded that the pictures are fake to humour you. I didn't concede that NASA is unreliable or that they didn't go to the moon. AND STOP WITH THE YOUTUBE VIDEOS.
"Con ignores the fact that gravity, in the celestial bodies sense, has never been reproduced or proven in a real non-hypothetical manner."
Really? How does the moon orbit earth? How does the earth orbit the sun? How does the rest of the planets orbit the sun? How do the other moons orbit their respective planets? How is it that Einsteins GTOR has made highly accurate predictions regarding gravity that I mentioned earlier?
"again we have ruled out NASA as a reliable source, and that we did not go to the moon"
No we didn't.
"This in no way proves gravity, the strength of gravity is proportional to its mass, the feather should still be slower coming to the "moon", as the bowling ball and hammer still has more mass compared to the feather even with no air."
The feather and ball's gravity is so weak it's negligible. You need a ton of mass to produce gravity. Thankfully we do (planets, sun, moon etc etc etc). And surprise surprise surprise, the less mass, the weaker the gravity...duuuur
"This experiment actually disproves gravity if you look at it correctly,"
LOL no it doesn't.
"and proves my explanations of densities and weight and buoyancy, as I explained in a round or two ago."
No it doesn't at all. You only repeated a known process, you didn't describe gravity.
"Your argument about the sun and it gravity depends on the fact that it is 93 Brazilian miles away. It is not however, it is about 3,000 miles away, and 32 miles in diameter."
A giant ball of hydrogen plasma is only 3000 miles away? And only 32 miles in diameter? Holy god, you need to go to a psychiatric ward...
"Crespicular rays prove this. As triangular geometry goes, you can figure out the 3rd side's length of a triangle with the measurements of another, and some angles in the triangle."
You're begging the question. You assume line "B" is flat, to prove the sun is only 3000 miles away, to prove the earth is flat. If the map was round, the difference of the sun's position in the sky would be much more noticible on the ground.
"By sink mean drop in altitude."
So when you say:
"What we can observe is that things of high density, when placed in a less dense medium will sink while less dense objects in a more sense medium rise."
You basically mean that gravity is:
When an object of high density (let's say, a lead ball) is placed in a low density medium (atmosphere?), it will sink (drop in altitude), while a less dense object (balloon?) in a more dense medium (atmosphere?) rises.
That's true, but you haven't explained why a dense object in a less dense medium sinks at all. Furthermore, the dense object shouldn't go anywhere if there is no atmosphere or less dense medium, yet it still does because:
"A theory is an idea explaining observations that we see on a daily basis. It is in no way a fact until it has been proven, then it becomes a law. With your logic, we can assume that this theory is fact also. Con has effectively debated himself!"
You really are retarded. Einsteins GToR is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is different from the everyday term "theory".
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."
A theory is better than a law.
"No, your photographs did not show a ship going over any hump. You can see both of these ships entirety in both pictures."
You need to go to your optometrist immediately. Actually, seems how your not using your brain, can I have it?
And here's a video:
"You obviously have not understood the laws of perspective I explained"
Ok, the car disappears over the horizon due to it getting smaller and smaller. The video AND the photos both showed undeniable evidence of a ship sinking into the horizon. Case closed.
"Your rebuttal of the planet's is laughable. If the ground has any bearing on objects in the sky, you could say that the ground beneath our feet were on fire, as the stars (and wandering stars) appear to be"
You're right, but we aren't talking about a natural phenomena that only happens under certain conditions (I.E. Stars going through a fusion reactions with a lot of hydrogen). We are talking about a fundamental force that effects everything in the universe (gravity). The earth should logically be round because the earth has more than enough mass and therefore gravity to shape itself into a ball. If you have a problem with this, take it up with gravity.
"Light shining through earth's atmosphere, and going into space does not create a red shadow, watch a video of sunrise from space."
I don't need to go into space, I can see a sunset from earth. The red light doesn't get scattered as much in the atmosphere as the blue light. That's why astronomical objects sometimes appears red in space (I.E. The sun) while the sky appears blue (because blue light gets scattered more).
Because of this, the atmosphere give a red tinge on the moon during Luna eclipses as the red light goes right through to the moon while the blue light scatters into space.
The video never showed a clear image of the moon, and when it did, it showed a picture (like a still pic) midway. How do I know the moon and sunrise shots weren't taken at seperate times? How do I know it's not also fake Mr. NASA-pics-are-all-fake-obviously-how-convenient.
"What if God built it?"
What if the xenomorphs did it...durrrrr
"You have not, instead I disprove yours, repeatedly. Did you expect me to use .gov or mainstream sources to disprove their own accounts? He calls me a moron."
Oh yeah and YouTube videos are so much more reliable (hint: dat wus sarkasm)
"Cthulu is a mythical creature" durrrr
"Rahu is an invisible object"
Yes and there is an invisible teacup in space orbiting the sun...durrrrr
And you wonder why I insult you...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||2|
Reasons for voting decision: While I applaud pro for maintaining professionalism despite Con's aggressiveness, pro had inferior sources are never fully proved NASA as an incredible source other than conspiracy theories with, again, inferior sources as compared to con. Good debate on both sides, but con had superior sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.