Globesters cite this as proof of their globe. What sort of fallacy is it when assuming the shape of the earth is causing the shadow on the moon?
It is not a fallacy, because that isn't how it works at all.
You act as if on the basis of absolutely nothing they just assume that it is Earth causing a shadow on the moon.
But that is not the case.
Instead, careful observations of the angular separation between the moon and the sun clearly demonstrate that the moon is illuminated by the sun and extrapolation of those positions to when both are not visible show that a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, Earth and moon are aligned with the sun and moon on either side of Earth.
Based upon this we recognise that Earth is blocking the light of the sun from reaching the moon, and thus Earth's shadow is what we see causing the eclipse.
You are saying when the sun is lined up with the moon and Earth (which btw, should happen almost every night!)
No, it shouldn't.
Just what makes you think it should happen almost every night?
You are demonstrating the BS mentality of the Bible of the moon being the "light of night" as if it remains opposite the sun.
We can see crescent moons, where the moon is clearly quite close in angular position to the sun. How is it meant to get from there to directly opposite to align up at night?
You are just asserting pure BS to pretend there is a problem with the model when you know you can't show anything.
the shadow of the sun hitting the Earth kinda bounces back just so that it turns the moon blood red.
Wrong again.
The light from the sun is mostly stopped by Earth, but some still passes through the atmosphere and is scattered, with the red light being scattered less and able to go through the atmosphere to illuminate the moon.
Meanwhile the shadow from everything else is black.
Wrong again.
Have you never held up a piece of coloured plastic to a light?
Old style coloured lights were made by taking a white light and placing a coloured material in front of it so the "shadow" produced is coloured.
And btw, you seem to think the moon gets its light from the sun, but how exactly is this possible when the
Because that is what all the evidence shows, with no one able to provide a viable alternative, and no one able to provide anything that challenges it.
Just look at you, you couldn't' even finish your sentence and instead need to spam other crap.
1. Shadows cannot be driven backwards.
And no one is saying they are.
2. If a light has no apparent source, the only way it can cast light is if it is a source of light.
I assume by this you are saying if you can't figure out the moon is just reflecting the light of the sun it must be casting its own light?
If so, your wilful ignorance doesn't change reality.
You failing to understand how the moon reflects the light of the sun doesn't mean it isn't.
the bicycle in the woods paradigm. That you can't just have something exist without a cause.
Which is just a pile of delusional crap, and isn't even the right one.
What you want is a watch in the woods.
But the fact you recognise the bike as special compared to the woods demonstrates the problem with this argument. All the trees there are clearly different.
What you really want is a bicycle in a field full of bicycles, where none are special.
And then to further double down on that foolishness, these people proclaim that if something exist it must have a cause, to then go on to assert this cause is God, God exists, but God does not have a cause.
Meanwhile, sane people recognise that if something existing means it needs a cause, then if God exists it needs a cause, and whatever caused that god likewise needs a cause and so on. And then each of those gods could have just gone straight to creating the bicycle, skipping all the in-between gods.
So they recognise you end up with an infinite sequence of unneeded gods, and so they rightly discard them all as unneeded.
The only solution is to have things not need a cause. At which point why should we need your god?
Sane people also recognise the difference between a bicycle and biological systems.
Biological systems are composed of chemicals which can spontaneously react to form complex structures; and then go on to replicate with slight changes to the structure.
Bicycles are not and instead need someone to put it together.
That is the difference.
"The fool says in his heart there is no God."
Yet continues to pretend to believe. While an intelligent person recognises there is no reason to believe in a god and discards it as the garbage that it is.
5. Oh yeah, and you still haven't explained what exactly is different from a regular new moon, or a regular shadow.
For a new moon, the moon is very close to the sun, instead of directly opposite as in a lunar eclipse.
Likewise, a new moon occurs roughly 14 days after a full moon, while a lunar eclipse occurs during an otherwise full moon.
And during a new moon, the moon is incredibly faint and usually not visible. During an eclipse the moon appears red.
As for a shadow, most shadows you appeal to are from objects in Earth's atmosphere with light only travelling a short distance through the atmosphere.
The lunar eclipse comes from Earth blocking most of the light, but the passage of the light through the atmosphere causes it to appear red as the blue light is scattered away and a small amount of red light is scattered to the moon.
Here is a somewhat comparable example (but still far from perfect):

Notice that the object appears blue due to the scattered light and in the shadow we have a bright orange spot.
Actually, they kinda did.
Actually, they didn't.
And science happening to match a part of the Bible which has been quite twisted to pretend it matches, doesn't mean it actually matches.
Likewise, getting some things coincidentally right doesn't mean they understood.
Where in the Bible does it show they recognise water evaporates to produce clouds which then fall as rain?
Ambient light and darkness (what your "science" cannot account for
You mean what science can trivially account for and has already been explained to you with you just ignoring it because it shows you are wrong?