No, the earth is not flat.

Correct - but, sometimes they are really good for illustration...

Not fascinating. But if you are going to change people's beliefs, you will need to be able to have explanations for phenomena.
Ball earth has a hot core emanating heat from the core to the surface. Below the crust is a molten layer that provides elasticity and heat provides the energy for convection.
I'm not beholden to any model, but the explanations associated with ball earth make sense. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it reasonable.
I'm open to other explanations, but it's hard for me to accept alternatives that can't explain things that happen everyday.
My goal here isn't to tear down your theory. I just think a theory is made stronger when it answers more and not fewer of people's questions.

Excess death statistics from the ABS. If the average life expectancy for an Australian (male) was 81 years and excess deaths are at 17%, this drops 14 years. Congratulations, life expectancy is now 67, and we're not at the end of it yet.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/h...ovisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release

View attachment 256542

You've been refuted so many times, I don't care to count. Then you use the same tired, old canard on a different thread, hoping that those who refuted you previously will tire of proving you wrong.

Since there are people by the thousands all over the world who have died suddenly - and people by the millions all over the world whose bodies and lives have been "messed up" - after getting the jab --- I would say - beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever - that Moses has made the more/most reasonable/truthful statement...

11 July 2023 — In Australia, a boy born in 2019–2021 can expect to live to the age of 81.3 years and a girl would be expected to live to 85.4 years.

Your misuse of statistics simply proves that you know as much about it as you do about the shape of the earth - nothing.

I think you've got your science back to front. Science isn't about accepting the status quo until another theory comes up that better explains reality. It's about questioning the status quo and testing it against reality, and if it doesn't add up, throwing it out, or at least admitting it is wrong or seriously flawed, whether or not you have a better explanation.

Ball-Earth theory has nothing supporting it except NASA's fraudulent photographs. Most of the other theories aren't even dependent on the shape of the Earth - a Flat Earth might have tectonic plates just the same as a ball-Earth. I know the dude you questioned is pushing crazy concave Earth, but the scientific philosophy of throwing out the rubbish (i.e. ball-Earth and heliocentric theory) whether or not you have something to replace it with is the same.

Unless someone erroneously assumes the wrong point(s) to illustrate. Then they are useless.

Illustration of the true facts is never useless. And, [I am quite certain that] cognitive dissonance is never useful. (Except, of course, for evil-doers who do not want you to know the truth.)

Thought that was what I was doing. But who accepts new things if they can't explain known phenomena?

Who is too proud to admit they don't know what they don't know? That is science. And trying to explain it. But not hiding behind a smokescreen of demonstrably false lies - that is what cultists do.

I don't disagree. But if one posits a belief and has no answers for regularly occurring phenomena, what is the impetus for believing something else.
I'm open to different ideas. Even when I disagree with someone, I investigate why someone believes as they do. That's what I was attempting to do with @kinda.
So how does flat earth explain earthquakes and volcanoes?

It doesn't need to. The shape of the Earth has nothing to do with earthquakes and volcanoes. So just use whatever explanation for those that you already do.

Not sure I can. You see, the answer to one question directs further inquiry.
Whenever I ask questions concerning different theories, I get answers like you just gave. Inquiry is shut down.
My suggestion to him and to you is the same. If you are going to posit a theory, you should be able to answer questions for those who ask. Otherwise, you hinder, not help, your cause.

That's not really a wise approach, in my opinion. You can never understand everything. It's like trying to learn algebra, but not bothering 'cause you can't do integration yet. Even if you could learn everything (you can't), you've got to start somewhere.

I respect that we can't learn everything. I'm trying ro share with you how people learn. I homeschool my children. Children are naturally curious. So when questions come up, I stop and explore the answers with them. If you don't, you train them to stop asking questions, stifling their creative thought processes. They end up accepting what is told them. And this becomes their pattern for life. This harms them creatively, but and more importantly, critically. This makes them susceptible to propaganda. This is what happens in our schools in America.
So you can stick to your guns if you want. But sometimes you only get one opportunity to influence others. If you were witnessing and someone asked a question, I hope you would have an answer for the hope within you.

Of course. But if they told me they couldn't believe the gospel message because I couldn't explain to them the workings of a volcano, I'd tell them the problem laid with them, not me.

Same as the sky being blue. It is a fact.

That's very funny. And I didn't mean to imply you don't share your faith. I was pretty sure you did. And that's the point. You answer their questions so they will change their mind. How do you expect to change people's minds about ball earth if you aren't prepared to give answers?

The fact is that the sky is all different colours.

But that was my point. Volcanoes and earthquakes have as much to do with the shape of the Earth as they do with the gospel message. Nothing.

Nope. It is blue. But you believe the Earth is a giant ball, so I can understand you don't want to believe the sky is blue.

Sure. But we weren't discussing the gospel. We were discussing earthquakes.
I only used witnessing to make the point that why would anyone accept what you espouse if you can't explain your position, whatever the subject.