[StinkyOne]

There is no proof that there is a molten outer core, nor a solid inner core for that matter.  The structure of the earth is a theory that is supported by observable facts.  E.g.  Seismic surveys, the behaviour of the magnetic field, volcanic activity, tectonic plate movement, and so on.  Theories change as our understanding of the planet gets better and technology improves.  40 years ago we believed the earth had a molten inner core and a solid outer core. 

Anyway, I digress.  The question I posed was how does the flat earth theory explain how the magnetic field of the earth flips ?

The magnetic field might not flip - look at the data and judge for yourself if we can determine was occurred 100,000's of years ago.  Think of this statement provided by NASA regarding pole reversal: "Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal. A reversal happens over hundreds or thousands of years, and it is not exactly a clean back flip."  The numbers in this statement are astronomical when considering the life span of a typical human (let's say 100 years).  How can any information in that statement truly be proven?  If you say because science says so - that is not good enough for me.  The fact that those numbers are that huge explains there is no real proof of this occurrence.

If you continue reading the article it tells you how they determined the fields have flipped. Don't believe them, go take a core from a dried lava field of sufficient age and figure it out for yourself.

I don't need to continue reading the article because I know things occurring in even over 3,000 years cannot be proven.  They are claiming every 200,000 to 300,000 years.  Why progress further?

You THINK you know. FTFY. Are you an expert in all fields of study or just someone that thinks they are? Your assertions are baseless. I know dinosaurs existed because fossils. I also know that they are over 3000 years old because there is no written record of giant beasts terrorizing humans.

You THINK dinosaurs existed but you do not know for sure - trust me.

You THINK the Earth is flat but you do not know for sure - trust me. We could do this all day.

[ScaryGary]

Nope !! So go on - give me the proof !

I have nothing to prove because I am not making large claims of having records from over 700,000 years ago.  Can you prove how we are able to obtain records dating back until then?  I believe I need more proof from you regarding any of the claims.

You just asserted that obviously nothing over 3,000 years ago can be proven. What is your proof for that, was the question.

Easy, oldest known texts are ESTIMATED to be +/- 3,000 years of age.  How can anything outside of this range be known if records were not kept? 

[juner]

video

Arguing with a flat earther !!

Refrain from low-content posts in the upper fora. Warned.

[Mark_1984]

Well, the oldest tree is 5062 years old.  But how do you KNOW that the oldest texts were 3000 years old.  It's not like they had a date on them ?

Take carbon dating.  We know how long the half life of Carbon 14 is.  We know that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is constant in living things, but carbon 14 decays and isn't replenished after they die.  Therefore we can date organic things up to about 50,000 years. 

Oh, before you dispute carbon dating, how do you think they dated early texts ?

How old are the dinosaurs ?  Do your research.  There is a whole wealth information that can be found on Google.  It comes from many different independent sources, so we can be reasonable sure it's reliable.

[Mark_1984]

video

Arguing with a flat earther !!

Refrain from low-content posts in the upper fora. Warned.

Sorry, it's frustration.  I ask for an explanation from a flat earth point of view, and can't get a straight answer.  I get distracted, and disputed with comments that are clearly nonsense.  I'm up for an honest to goodness debate, but at times it's like arguing with a 5 year old.
For the record, I haven't said the earth isn't flat, I've just asked for an explanation of an observed phenomena which fits with the flat earth theory.

[ScaryGary]

Well, the oldest tree is 5062 years old.  But how do you KNOW that the oldest texts were 3000 years old.  It's not like they had a date on them ?

Take carbon dating.  We know how long the half life of Carbon 14 is.  We know that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is constant in living things, but carbon 14 decays and isn't replenished after they die.  Therefore we can date organic things up to about 50,000 years. 

Oh, before you dispute carbon dating, how do you think they dated early texts ?

How old are the dinosaurs ?  Do your research.  There is a whole wealth information that can be found on Google.  It comes from many different independent sources, so we can be reasonable sure it's reliable.

Carbon dating is another thing we have been told to accept but you or I have not proven it ourselves and are accepting what the scientific community tells us about it.  OK I will run with that.  But what you just claimed is the carbon dating method allows us to.decipher ages of up to around 50 k years....how do you THEN explain a claim indicating something has not happened for over 700,000 years but usually happens once every 200 k to 300 k years? 

[Mark_1984]

So, you'll accept carbon dating as fact.  Therefore you must accept we can have reliable records older than your 3000 years. 

As for the flipping of the magnetic field, records show (geological records  - they are written is stone !) that the 'flipping' is very variable. 

Back to my original question.  Let's assume that I am not disputing that the earth is flat.  How can the magnetic pole move on a yearly basis, and flip on an occasional basis, according to flat earth theory.  If you must, just answer the first part as that is indisputable. (I've seen compass errors checked first hand)

[ScaryGary]

So, you'll accept carbon dating as fact.  Therefore you must accept we can have reliable records older than your 3000 years. 

As for the flipping of the magnetic field, records show (geological records  - they are written is stone !) that the 'flipping' is very variable. 

Back to my original question.  Let's assume that I am not disputing that the earth is flat.  How can the magnetic pole move on a yearly basis, and flip on an occasional basis, according to flat earth theory.  If you must, just answer the first part as that is indisputable. (I've seen compass errors checked first hand)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood me.  I believe this conversation has been going nowhere ever since it begun.  Your view is lacking things you can prove or understand but you still stand by it, why is that so?  Afraid to question things or just naive and believe everything you are told?

[StinkyOne]

So, you'll accept carbon dating as fact.  Therefore you must accept we can have reliable records older than your 3000 years. 

As for the flipping of the magnetic field, records show (geological records  - they are written is stone !) that the 'flipping' is very variable. 

Back to my original question.  Let's assume that I am not disputing that the earth is flat.  How can the magnetic pole move on a yearly basis, and flip on an occasional basis, according to flat earth theory.  If you must, just answer the first part as that is indisputable. (I've seen compass errors checked first hand)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood me.  I believe this conversation has been going nowhere ever since it begun.  Your view is lacking things you can prove or understand but you still stand by it, why is that so?  Afraid to question things or just naive and believe everything you are told?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe we don't feel the need to question whether the Earth is flat because it has already been established beyond any reasonable doubt that it is?? I've been on this site for awhile now and I have yet to hear a single compelling piece of evidence that the Earth is flat. All I ever read are made up ways in which a flat Earth might match reality. They are obvious attempts at trying to polish a long disproven theory.

[Mark_1984]

No no, I haven’t misunderstood you at all. I’ve asked easily understood questions in plain English which you haven’t answered. I assume this is because you can’t answer them, but don’t want to admit it. Mind, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round and you ignore that so I shouldn’t be surprised.

[ScaryGary]

No no, I haven’t misunderstood you at all. I’ve asked easily understood questions in plain English which you haven’t answered. I assume this is because you can’t answer them, but don’t want to admit it. Mind, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round and you ignore that so I shouldn’t be surprised.

No, it's the fact that you have proven nothing and believe everything you are told which is troubling.  You cannot tell me what is inside the earth based on a 7.5 mile deep dig and seismic waves....NOOO.  You cannot tell me something has happened in the past and claim it has happened over 100,000's of years.  There is no truth behind anything you have mentioned other than webpages claiming these things from some agency everyone (you and people like you) believe in.  Think logically and explore some of these things for yourself.  What you want me to answer is garbage because none of it is true.  If you refuse to look into anything you are told then I feel bad for you.

[StinkyOne]

No no, I haven’t misunderstood you at all. I’ve asked easily understood questions in plain English which you haven’t answered. I assume this is because you can’t answer them, but don’t want to admit it. Mind, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round and you ignore that so I shouldn’t be surprised.

No, it's the fact that you have proven nothing and believe everything you are told which is troubling.  You cannot tell me what is inside the earth based on a 7.5 mile deep dig and seismic waves....NOOO.  You cannot tell me something has happened in the past and claim it has happened over 100,000's of years.  There is no truth behind anything you have mentioned other than webpages claiming these things from some agency everyone (you and people like you) believe in.  Think logically and explore some of these things for yourself.  What you want me to answer is garbage because none of it is true.  If you refuse to look into anything you are told then I feel bad for you.

Do you have a life or do you spend every waking moment proving everything you are told? You act like you're superior because you question everything and don't believe anything some agency tells you. And yet you go along your merry way benefiting from the work done by others without question.

Prove the Earth is flat for us. This site needs a genius like yours to get to the bottom of this. 

[devils advocate]

ScaryGary

You have referred to me, and others as "sheep" who mindlessly believe what we are told. I admire the ideal of challenging facts and congratulate you on your dedication to refuting all science that you cannot personally verify.

Would you mind enlightening a sheep such as me how a mind such as yours has come to the conclusion that earth is flat?

Baaaa

[ScaryGary]

No no, I haven’t misunderstood you at all. I’ve asked easily understood questions in plain English which you haven’t answered. I assume this is because you can’t answer them, but don’t want to admit it. Mind, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round and you ignore that so I shouldn’t be surprised.

No, it's the fact that you have proven nothing and believe everything you are told which is troubling.  You cannot tell me what is inside the earth based on a 7.5 mile deep dig and seismic waves....NOOO.  You cannot tell me something has happened in the past and claim it has happened over 100,000's of years.  There is no truth behind anything you have mentioned other than webpages claiming these things from some agency everyone (you and people like you) believe in.  Think logically and explore some of these things for yourself.  What you want me to answer is garbage because none of it is true.  If you refuse to look into anything you are told then I feel bad for you.

Do you have a life or do you spend every waking moment proving everything you are told? You act like you're superior because you question everything and don't believe anything some agency tells you. And yet you go along your merry way benefiting from the work done by others without question.

Prove the Earth is flat for us. This site needs a genius like yours to get to the bottom of this. 

Lol, you guys are funny, stinkyone and devilsadvocate.  You guys are obvious trolls because you religiously hover around a flat earth forum.  What are you so intrigued about - constantly interacting on a forum which presents an opposing view?  Maybe you are not trolling and are on the fence.  Anyways, I am not going to spell it out for you because the information is everywhere.  The leg work has been done by others through various videos with tons of proof using factual information (can even fact check documents in most cases being presented).  You need to explore what you know and discover the truths out for yourself.  Don't rely on the word of an anonymous forum poster.  In this thread I have just been challenging things which cannot be proven other than BS.  If you do not want to go deeper than the surface on any of these topics then I cannot help you and your view is etched in stone.  Happy truth hunting for you two!

[ScaryGary]

ScaryGary

You have referred to me, and others as "sheep" who mindlessly believe what we are told. I admire the ideal of challenging facts and congratulate you on your dedication to refuting all science that you cannot personally verify.

Would you mind enlightening a sheep such as me how a mind such as yours has come to the conclusion that earth is flat?

Baaaa

Go watch some more NASA CGI, LOL.  Or for more lols check out inner spaceship vids and explore the magic of harnesses being exposed everywhere.  Maybe look for an air bubble or two? 

[Rama Set]

To be fair ScaryGary, Mark has tried to bring this conversation back to the OP based on agreed upon facts and you insist on making it a conversation about epistemology without even shedding light on how you know what you know. Perhaps the topic of epistemology can be addressed in its own thread? It’s a very interesting topic.

[Mark_1984]

Thanks RS.  I think we have to come to the conclusion that Scarygary is trying to give the impression he won’t answer the questions, whereas the truth is he can’t answer the questions.  Not even a simple, undisputed fact like the magnetic Poles move.  Why ?

[ScaryGary]

"Undisputed" "based on agreed upon facts"... Then why does this forum even exist?  You really meant to say based on the agreed upon story we have been told.  Fixed it for ya

[Mark_1984]

See, can’t answer a simple question......

[Rama Set]

"Undisputed" "based on agreed upon facts"... Then why does this forum even exist?  You really meant to say based on the agreed upon story we have been told.  Fixed it for ya

I didn’t say “undisputed” and I said “agreed upon facts” because you agreed to concede certain facts for the sake of conversation. Now, that being said, don’t tell me what I mean today because I said what I wanted to say. It doesn’t need your snarky attempts to shoehorn me in to your worldview. Deal with what others actually believe in good faith and perhaps you can try and change a mind along the way.