You do the same thing, telling us "stars should whizz around the sky." That's based on nothing.
The hieroglyphs were planted...? Well, that's a new one for me.

damn

@Drewski4343 its obvious when you think about it. napoleon just waltzes in and finds the most important discovery in history? and its not found in the pyramids or any other significant artifacts? how interesting

burden of proof is on the man walking around like his theories are facts and talking down with muh science appeal to authority fallacies

i'll look into that later

@*ᶜʳᵒⁿᶜʰ*

Burden of proof, I'm afraid, lies on anyone trying to turn over established science.

That's a big bone

what is te story behind that pic?

liek some private guy dug it up?

@Drewski4343 “established science” more appeals to authority based on theories and faulty math

Let’s stop generalizing with a condescending tone, i realize you were brainwashed to behave that way so I forgive you

As soon as you have a working theory, Dew, I'll be happy to weigh the two and come to a conclusion.
I wasn't trying to be condescending, I do apologize if it came off as such. I enjoy a good debate.

@*ᶜʳᵒⁿᶜʰ* the most convincing evidence is the architecture they destroyed which was obviously made for giants. check this channel out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnK3gIeVugsW_MzkG82pcUQ

sure

@Drewski4343 thats not how logic works.

??

i don’t need a theory to prove that your theory isn’t facts. thats a fallacy

You haven't proven my theory to be false. You appealed to a conspiracy.

words like “established” are meaningless. it was “established” that we went to the moon and thats nonsense too

i have proven your theory to be a theory, which you waltz around with like its a fact

with your buzzwords like “established science”

^

i can smell the appeals to authority and condescending establishment snobbery before he even makes the post

I am appealing to established science because that is what I am trusting as a source. When this discussion started, I was being told that the current standard of heliocentrism was proven false by its own view of the stars. I stated that, according to this standard, the view is correct, to which I was suddenly barraged with a switched flat earth viewpoint.

muh established science, muh everything that contradicts the mainstream narrative is a “conspiracy theory”

your language is fallacious by default, you hold modern theories to the standard of facts, even though they change constantly, and your very language is designed to condescend to competing theories

So, it makes sense for me to argue with viewpoint of established science.
I believe you mentioned you didn't want to be condescending.

“established science” keep saying this like it means anything

its how snobs talk down whilst defending their narratives. you and your “facts”

Established science is something. I know it makes you angry, but it does mean something. Established science built the computer/phone you're talking to me with right now.

its a phrase designed to generalize with a popularity and appeal to authority fallacy

Please refrain from the ad homs.

deflecting from the fact that your “established science” is based on theories and no factual measurements

don’t play the fallacy game with me mr “established science”

as if science is in stone, and not constantly changing by default

how quickly you shift your opinion of “established science” depending on your audience

Dew. I'm happy to have an adult discussion with you about this, but you are being aggressive. Would it help to move to <#538929818834698260>?

I’m sorry you don’t like your condescending language being commented on. perhaps you’re not used to having your religion of Science questioned and so you don’t even realize how much you talk down to alternate theories by default with your very language itself

I'm quite used to it - I enjoy the debates here and on other servers. But I prefer a civil debate.