Refuting the Flat-Earth theory

[FlatAssembler]

Well, how do you define "evidence"? If you define "evidence" as "p-values", then, it's true, none of those things are evidence, but neither is ships disappearing bottom first evidence by that definition. If you define "evidence for the Earth being flat" as "things that are easier to explain if we assume the Earth is flat than if we assume it is round", then most of those really aren't evidence, but sunrays not seeming parallel is. It is indeed easier to explain sunrays not seeming parallel as them actually not being parallel (coming from a source that is a few thousand kilometers up in the sky) than by explaining the optical illusion.

How is String Theory a theory? What predictions does it make? As far as I know, nobody has ever managed to make a testable hypothesis based on String Theory. And what does "dolt" mean?

Optical illusion?  Hell, if people can't understand perspective - something they see literally every day in nature (and was taught in grade 7 art class), then there is no hope for them.

I don't know about you, but it took me years before I fully understood why that "evidence" is wrong. The fact is that sunrays appear to converge even when they appear to be exactly vertical. So, for a long time, I thought "Since tall buildings do not appear to converge at the top, why should parallel sunrays do?". Here is a clue: unless the sun is at the zenith (which, in most places, it never is), sunrays aren't actually vertical.