[ScienceFirst]

I have been here for a bit and have asked a few questions and no one, not even those who claim to understand this very well and propagate for it enough to make a website, will try to feed a curious mind who may possibly be convinced if given a good solid argument. Agreed, I do not have a degree in physics but I promise you I am not stupid! I understood the round earth without question and try me for the flat earth. Something personal here to show you how open I am to discussion and argument and changing my mind if you can convince me- I used to be strongly pro-choice, but after multiple debates with some new friends who were pro-life, i found myself changing my mind to something i thought went against my every belief- because their points were solid and i could not find any fault in them.
That is all I asked for- if you are going to say that the whole world is wrong, that all the research the GPS the maps the satellites the derivations everything is actually wrong, that NASA is lying to us, and not be bothered to reply to any posts other than to tell us we are stupid, Im not really convinced there was any points you had to begin with!

To me it now seems like you are all just looking for a chance to diss people and call them stupid without any back up knowledge of your own to support that arrogance.

Report me if u want junker. or block me or whatever, I just needed to say this before i leave this forum - where I have been really polite and asked questions even directly to you, but have received no replies.

[Tom Bishop]

The number of Round Earthers to Flat Earthers here is about 100 to 1. You are going to have to research a lot of this for your own self.

[ScienceFirst]

I have tried! And there is no research out there! Except for the paper from the 1800s! You could understand how one really old paper with inadequate method and structure doesn't present itself as the most scientific source of evidence for something so drastically different from the currently accepted model?

[Tom Bishop]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

[Curious Squirrel]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

His work has been worked on and refined since then, not to mention was meticulously documented compared to EnaG. Simply proclaiming "this is how it happened" or "this was clearly wrong" in some manner, especially on the basis of a single experiment makes a poor reference, regardless of age of material. The way age of EnaG comes in, is many of his objections are based on objects who have come quite a ways in refinement and more since then. Pretending nothing he has issues with has been fixed by advancements is foolish.

[Ratboy]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

People believed in phlogiston until close to the 1800s.  I doubt anyone still does.  Phlogiston agreed with a lot of observations but it got harder and harder to account for everything observed.  The introduction of the concept of oxygen pretty much killed phlogiston but some societies continued to fight the idea that better reflected all observations.

[Tom Bishop]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

His work has been worked on and refined since then, not to mention was meticulously documented compared to EnaG. Simply proclaiming "this is how it happened" or "this was clearly wrong" in some manner, especially on the basis of a single experiment makes a poor reference, regardless of age of material. The way age of EnaG comes in, is many of his objections are based on objects who have come quite a ways in refinement and more since then. Pretending nothing he has issues with has been fixed by advancements is foolish.

What makes you think that we wrote Eatth Not a Globe and stopped there? After Earth Not A Globe we had The Earth Not a Globe Review journal and many Flat Earth works which refined and corroborated the findings.

Just because I don't spam book titles at you, it doesn't mean that ENAG is all we have written in 150 years. ENAG contains the primary source content and so you should start there.

[inquisitive]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

His work has been worked on and refined since then, not to mention was meticulously documented compared to EnaG. Simply proclaiming "this is how it happened" or "this was clearly wrong" in some manner, especially on the basis of a single experiment makes a poor reference, regardless of age of material. The way age of EnaG comes in, is many of his objections are based on objects who have come quite a ways in refinement and more since then. Pretending nothing he has issues with has been fixed by advancements is foolish.

What makes you think that we wrote Eatth Not a Globe and stopped there? After Earth Not A Globe we had The Earth Not a Globe Review journal and many Flat Earth works which refined and corroborated the findings.

Just because I don't spam book titles at you, it doesn't mean that ENAG is all we have written in 150 years. ENAG contains the primary source content and so you should start there.

Please give links to latest documents.

[ScienceFirst]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

No, but research has to be evolved and continued! I am in the medical profession and we value evidence based practice more than everything else, so papers from that long ago with no follow up are not appraised as very solid! I am just wondering if there is anything even in the last decade? As far as what you have previously told me, and my search, there is not!

It is also not just abut the time, its the structure, I think any person in the scientific field would be sceptical about the paper- it does not have any structure or support! It seemed more like a story than a research paper, to be honest.

Again, I did not come here for a fight. But it does make me a little upset that the only replies I get are to tell me that I am too stupid to understand your ideas! I am just curious, and could even be on your side if you could convince me!

And I know you are not here for the purpose of convincing me, but if you are propagators of a controversial belief that you care about enough to make a forum, shouldn't you want to?

[Ratboy]

Again, I did not come here for a fight. But it does make me a little upset that the only replies I get are to tell me that I am too stupid to understand your ideas! I am just curious, and could even be on your side if you could convince me!

And I know you are not here for the purpose of convincing me, but if you are propagators of a controversial belief that you care about enough to make a forum, shouldn't you want to?

When I was young, I first heard of continental drift and rejected it.  I had seen the maps where the continents fit together so nicely, but for some reason I was not convinced.  But by looking enough at all the evidence, it makes total sense to me.  When I was young the big bang theory was not the dominant model of the universe.  I liked the steady state model.  Only when I realized that if galaxies were steady, the gravity would pull them all together, and the singularity of a big bang makes sense.  The universe is not infinite.  In both cases, I believed one thing and changed my mind based on what I see. 
I think most of us here, and I can speak certainly for myself, would change our minds about the earth being flat if there was some way to explain everything we can see that fits a flat earth model better than a round earth.  I used to believe in crap like the Bermuda Triangle until I read too much stuff.  How can there be a Bermuda Triangle that makes things disappear and yet no insurance company has ever been asked to cover this mysterious disappearance.  If things just vanish, there would be newspaper headlines and court cases and investigations and lots of material other than just books claiming it to be true.  I changed my mind on all these things based on looking at stuff.

[AATW]

 
I think most of us here, and I can speak certainly for myself, would change our minds about the earth being flat if there was some way to explain everything we can see that fits a flat earth model better than a round earth.

Well, quite.
And this is the problem. The earth IS round. That really isn't a theory, even the ancient Greeks worked that out by noticing things like how shadows are angled differently when measured at the same time in different places - not possible on a flat surface. You mentioned plate tectonics. Again, this isn't a vague theory, the edges between plates are well known and it explains earthquakes and the fact the Himalayas are still growing as the plate India is on  slowly pushes north.
The way people in the different hemispheres see different constellations and see them rotating in different directions. The Coreolis effect and the way that makes weather systems rotate differently in the different hemispheres.
And of course the fact that we have PHOTOS and VIDEO showing a globe. And not just from NASA, we have plenty of pictures and video from space agencies in multiple countries showing this going back 50-60 years.
We have GPS and satellite TV which demonstrably work. We have an airline industry which use great circles to plot their routes.
All of this clearly demonstrates we live on a globe, none of this can be explained by a flat earth.

It seems to me the only way of being a flat earther is to assume a flat earth and then try and explain all this evidence away with phoney science and shout FAKE at everything else or just ignore it.

[Rounder]

What makes you think that we wrote Eatth Not a Globe and stopped there?

The fact that you refer us to Earth Not a Globe and stop there.  That’s what makes us think it.

[ShowmetheProof]

What's wrong with the 1800's? Is Darwin's Origin of the Species invalid because it is old?

Are you suggesting that before the 1900's there was no government cover-up? If so......:
Seleucus of Seleucia: discovery of tides being caused by the moon in the 10th century
Nicole Oresme: discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction in the 14th century
1543 – Nicolaus Copernicus: heliocentric model
1570s – Tycho Brahe: detailed astronomical observations
1600 – William Gilbert: Earth's magnetic field
1609 – Johannes Kepler: first two laws of planetary motion
1610 – Galileo Galilei: Sidereus Nuncius: telescopic observations
1619 - Johannes Kepler: third law of planetary motion
1687 – Sir Isaac Newton: classical mathematical description of the fundamental force of universal gravitation and the three physical laws of motion
1865 – Rudolf Clausius: Definition of Entropy
1877 – Ludwig Boltzmann: Statistical definition of entropy

[ShowmetheProof]

If you want more, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries#14th_century