The Earth is Flat

OP's claim that "The Bible firmly establishes the belief that the Earth is flat" is sketchy at best; most Bible scholars would agree that while aspects of the Bible can be quoted out of context and interpreted as implying the Earth is flat, there's pretty much a consensus that whoever wrote the Bible was not trying to convey this as literally true. There's also the fact that this is a secular forum, and so any argument presented ought to be convincing to members of any or no religion- the vast majority of people will not be convinced by the claim that because the Bible asserts that the Earth is flat, the Earth therefore is flat, even if we make the rather large leap of faith to the premise that the Bible does so. "To assume that the Bible is round, you must also assume that the Holy Bible and Christianity is false, and that the "Word of God" is fallible. " I disagree with your premise, and even were I to grant you it, you've only argued that either the Bible must be untrue or the idea that the Earth is round must be; in order to convince us the Earth is flat, you would then have to convince us that the Bible is all true, and that you've not come close to doing so. "In this experiment, the objective was to try and calculate the absolute speed of the Earth relative to the fixed ether. " The idea of an "ether" is outdated and has been refuted repeatedly, and is void as a scientific concept. The closest we can get is an inertial relativistic frame based on the centre of momentum of the sun, or something similar, and relative to that, the Earth has been shown to travel at a speed of approximately 465 metres per second. That experiment also neglects relativistic effects and the fact that the speed of light is ~3x10^8 m/s; way too fast for the equipment they had in 1887 to detect. "If Earth really was a globe, rivers such as the Mississipi would have to flow uphill to each the sea - flowing uphill 11 miles in its 3,000-mile length," That is a nonsense claim. They'd have to flow uphill relative to a flat plane, but the assumption that therefore this can't happen already presupposes that the Earth is flat. As such, this argument is a classic circular reasoning fallacy. "If Earth really is spinning, bullets fired upwards would land hundreds of feet Westwards. They don't," Clearly, the person OP is quoting has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. All motion is relative. Imagine you're on a train which is travelling horizontally at a constant velocity relative to the ground. If you throw a ball upwards while on this train, it rises, then slows, then accelerates downwards and lands in your hand again. The motion of the train has no effect on the trajectory of the ball relative to you, as you are also on the train. By analogy, the motion of the Earth has no effect on the trajectory of the bullet relative to you, as you are both on the Earth. In short, that's just not how physics works. "In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 350 feet tall blocking my view" This is a nonsequitir fallacy- how does the Earth being *convex* suggest there should be a 350 foot tall bulge? The water is *dropping* as you go away from your own position, not rising. Assuming the maths Pro provided is correct (it is not), you would see a 350 foot *drop*, not bulge, and you do see the effect of a drop; hence the horizon exists; if no curvature were present, you would be able to see as far as your eyes would allow you until the atmosphere blocks your view; the horizon would be a continuous haze rather than a thick line. The thick line indicates that there is a 350 foot *drop* at that distance, not a rise. Incidentally, you can't see 23 miles away; the horizon is typically about 3 miles away (see source 1), and that is precisely because the dip caused by the Earth's curvature obscures everything else from your view beyond that point. The "scientific evidence" provided by Pro is simply various different misunderstandings of physics and mathematics. Now, on to refutation of Pro's refutation, as it were: I'm glad we've clarified what is actually meant by a flat Earth. Has this been clearly defined from the beginning, I would have provided evidence that the Earth rotates on an axis, as this would contradict the flat-Earth model that Pro provided. "A fair amount of people (such as Flat-Earth theorists) question the credibility of NASA and other services which use and provide satellite images of "Earth. " Many people even question the famous Moon Landing. " This is an Argumentum ad populum (or "bandwagon") fallacy (see source 2). A fair amount of people think that the Earth is 6,000 years old. "A fair amount of people" can be wrong. "Many people even question the famous Moon Landing. " There is overwhelming evidence that the moon landing happened. You can even detect mirrors left on the moon by NASA by using lasers. "Real climate science" is a conspiracy theorist website, and nothing more. They are hilariously unreliable as a source. "For example, researchers of the website, Evidence Press, explain that the Red Shift provides leverage to these claims because, as evidenced by the Red Shift, or electromagnetic energy of other planets, "the galaxies are bunched into groups and the groups are arranged into concentric circles around the Earth,"" This shows a clear misunderstanding of redshift (see source 3). Redshift is an example of the doppler effect (see source 4), and the fact that redshift appears to be centred around the observer is always true, regardless of where one is; if we were on Mars, it would look as though redshift is centred around Mars. If we were in the Andromeda galaxy, it would look like redshift is centred around the Andromeda galaxy, and so on. Refutation complete. The evidence is clear- to quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "The Earth isn't f**king flat" (See source 5). Sources: 1: . https://www.google.co.uk...;* 2: . https://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . https://en.wikipedia.org... 4: . https://en.wikipedia.org... 5: