Imagine you found a box while cleaning out your parents' closet.
Inside the box you found adoption papers. Photos, notarized docuмents, the whole nine yards. In short, proof positive that you were adopted and that your "parents" are not your biological parents.

The "fact" that your parents were your biological parents just got FALSIFIED.

Now imagine going to your best friend and telling him about this. He asks, "Well, who ARE you real parents?"
You respond, "I don't know. But isn't it crazy that it turns out I was adopted? ..."

But your friend stops you. "Hold the bus. Until we figure out who your real parents are, those ARE STILL your parents. You have to have parents."

"Um...no. This nice couple may have loved me and taken care of me for years, but they are clearly not my biological parents. That was proven when I found these adoption papers."

"I disagree with you."


See the problem? The "friend" is an idiot. When something has been falsified, it's not true, period. REGARDLESS of whether or not you can ever get to the truth about what DID happen (9/11, one's real parents, or a complete God's-eye model of Creation)

The official "conspiracy theory" (Twin Towers taken down by amateur pilot ragheads with box cutters) isn't somehow automatically true just because I can't magically get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, down to the smallest detail.

And the Globe models (there is not one model, BTW) has really spoiled us all by CLAIMING TO KNOW EVERYTHING with cock-sure confidence. But it doesn't change the objective fact that they are full of BS 99 times out of 100.

Countless parts of the various mainstream models have SERIOUS issues, some of them leading to objective falsification of the model in question. For example, the whole gravity model doesn't work; they have to make up wild nonsense to rescue their theories. For example, they claim 97% of the universe is "dark matter" and "dark energy" which is some mysterious thing that can't be detected or measured. Sure, buddy.

Perfect analogy.  This notion entails a combination of begging the question with false dichotomy, where you assume the truth of your model (begging the question) until there's another model that works (false dichotomy).  Your model can be falsified even if there's no other model (rejecting false dichotomy).  In addition, the entire point of FE is that the globe model has been falsified.  Once a model has been falsified, how does the scientific method work?  You then propose another model that you think fits the facts better.  That too can be falsified.  Then you move on to another one.  For all these types have sacrificed Sacred Scripture on the altar or modern science, I've never seen individuals who act more in opposition to the actual scientific method than most globe believers.

Fact of the matter is that the globe model (at least with a globe that is of the size they claim it is) has been thoroughly falsified.  Feel free to propose your own model, e.g., a globe that's 10 times larger in diameter than what modern science claims, and then that model can be tested against other competing models.  But the current globe model is an epic fail.

Besides that, there's no such thing as a singular monolithic model.  There are in fact a multiplicity of models that describe different phenomena, different slices of aspects of reality.

In addition, this "you have no model" comes from individuals who are clearly ignorant of the fact that there is a working model out there that explains many/most of the phenomena we see.  They're ignorant because they never studied the question nor even gave it the time of day, so to speak.  It's obvious they don't know what the model is because they never looked at it, and therefore claim that their ignorance means there isn't one.  FE model explains many/most of the phenomena we see, and hasn't been falsified, unlike the globe model, which has.  So the working FE model is closer to the truth that the globe model.  Certainly FEs don't have the scientific apparatus to investigate all the details of the model, but it works conceptually and is in the state of hypothesis (you know, of the old "scientific" method, which these adherents of scientism evidently know very little about), and is subject to amendment or actually falsification.  If it's been falsified to the point that no adjustments to the model can salvage it, then it will be time to seek another one.  Until its falsification, however, as more data and observations come in, the model will be continually refined.  This has happened even with the solar system cosmology.  Initially the orbits of the planets were ovals, then they became ellipses.  Initially everything orbited the sun, then later, after gravity had been "invented", everything orbited the center of mass.  In fact, until Newton invented gravity, they had absolutely no idea how the planets revolved around the sun.  Many heliocentric models had these layers of "solid spheres" around the sun.  First the sun was 1 million miles away, then 5, then 7, then 10, then 23, then 30, then 50, then 70, then 100, and now 93 million miles away (with each distance also affecting its size).  Based on the "logic" of the globers, heliocentrism should have been invalidated every time they got one of these details wrong.

Then, of course, for those of us who actually have faith in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the FE model is clearly back by the Sacred Scriptures, written by the Holy Ghost, wherein the cosmos is describe in a way that's consistent with the FE model and which falsifies the globe model, despite the Modernistic explaining-away that needs to be done, turning everything into metaphors, non-scientific language, and then finally going to the well of "Scripture didn't intend to teach about science" Modernist maxim.

Please post it……

I second that.

I forwarded the link to my husband.  He has a doctorate in Math, so far he hasn't seen any really good evidence for flat earth.  Mathematicians spend there whole live disproving equations.  If they can find just one mistake then it is back to the drawing board, but they don't get upset if they have been disproved, they just try again.

Is that the same thing that you mean when you say falsification, to be disproved?

The other thing that I take issue with is that if the understanding of something (like gravity) is disproved.  All that means is that a particular concept needs to be relooked at, it does not mean the everything associated to that topic is also disproved (like if there is questions with gravity it doesn't necessarily mean that this falsifies the shape of the earth, it just means that we need to go back to the drawing board and figure out what makes things fall to the earth when they are 25 miles above the earth, but not when we are 100 miles above the earth)

Interesting read on the atmosphere
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/layers-of-atmosphere