FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief.
This isn't necessarily true. First, gravity is highly out of vogue even among globularists.
Further, the Davis Model, for example, has no issue with gravitation. Nor do I particular have issue with gravitation. Assuming something very much like GR is true, the earth must exhibit some gravitation.
Fair enough - for now.
I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth?
I don't know of any contemporary flat earth models which feature the celestial bodies orbiting the earth.
So answer me this, why, as the earth continues to ascend, do the sun and the moon continue to affect as
at all? If Earth is not orbiting the sun and the sun is not orbiting the Earth and the Earth is gradually moving upwards then why for Pete's sake don't we eventually pass the sun and the moon?
If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else.
Does not follow.
All right, so you believe in
some gravity. Now answer me this: is this gravitational pull enough to leave you with no need for an ascending, accelerating planet, and if so, then back to my first statement, why doesn't the earth just turn into a ball anyway? Or is there some balance of ascension as well as gravity? In which case, my second point still stands.
These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space?
Why can't you dig to China?
I can't dig to China because I would burn up as I approached the Earth's core. Not to mention, even if the heat weren't a problem, I would get stuck in the middle of a theoretical tunnel because the gravitational pull would be equal on all sides of me. That or I would fall down at one end, reach the other, and be shot back down the other side. In your model, I'm not sure if you have a core, where it would be, or if gravity would be as big of a deal as it would be on a spherical world. These questions I wait for you to answer.
How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement?
Assuming tectonic plates theories are true, is there a reason you believe they could not operate in the same manner they would on a globular earth?
I may have a poor argument for this one, but I fail to understand why a FE would remain perfectly circular, and why it isn't some other abstract shape.
what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?
Distance?
Gesundheit?
Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible.
In what manner?
For starters, please explain to me how a massive cylindrical heavenly body was formed and perpetuated after the supposed big bang.
And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either.
You've not met all our members then.
This I can not argue; I have not in fact met all of the members of this forum. However, I'm going to assume that they base their belief for a flat earth off of Job 26:7 or Isaiah 40:22. Dr. Jason Lisle agrees that these verses don't inherently imply that the Earth is circular, but they apply for a spherical Earth just as well.
Also, I said creation
scientist, specifically, meaning having a degree of some sort.