How to refute team "Globe"?

  • 257 Replies
  • 40008 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #120 on: December 06, 2018, 10:24:14 PM »
I am sure, the God likes more team Flat, because team Globe is more evil - it rejects the God completely.
I would not be so presumptuous as to claim to speak for God in claiming that "team Globe is more evil - it rejects the God completely.".

Your claim that "team Globe . . . . . rejects the God completely" is totally unjustified for exactly the same reason as racism is unjustified.
You are judging a whole class of people by what you see as the shortcomings of some members of that group!

Would you dare claim that a group like Creation Ministries "rejects the God completely"? But they are assuredly part of team Global!
The people in team Globe are called to be silent about own faith, while they act within team Globe: "No God in Science!" - their methodological naturalism. But the team Flat is free from this satanic methodology.
Thus, for us the pixies, Russel teapot, FSM are not confirmable, thus are not part of Science.

These three things are not be comming together: 1. be a Globe follower, 2. be theist, and 3. talk about God in peer-review physics journals.
Let's look at some historical members of team Globe: The Venerable Bede, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galilee Galileo, John Calvin and Martin Luther were all most certainly members and don't you dare claim that they rejected God!

And I'll come along with plenty more if you like!
The God was their hobby. They have not put the function of God in their equations.

Just to break it down from Team Globe's standpoint.  Absolute truth, several bullets, etc., all that aside you're just re-stating that tired old Rowbotham, Lady Blount, Voliva, Shenton thing that if you believe in a globe you're going against scripture. We get it. Carry on.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #121 on: December 06, 2018, 10:51:20 PM »
The God was their hobby. They have not put the function of God in their equations.
Yes, because God has no place in science as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Now then, we were discussing absolute truth.
Are you going to accept pixies as absolute truth as you can't disprove it?
If not, are you going to admit that there is more to it?

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #122 on: December 06, 2018, 11:18:26 PM »
The God was their hobby. They have not put the function of God in their equations.
Yes, because God has no place in science as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
It is problem not of Theism, but of satanic Methodology.
So, I ask team Flat depart from Popper's absurdity.
And adopt the positive thinking: "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted."

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #123 on: December 06, 2018, 11:40:13 PM »
The God was their hobby. They have not put the function of God in their equations.
Yes, because God has no place in science as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
It is problem not of Theism, but of satanic Methodology.
So, I ask team Flat depart from Popper's absurdity.
And adopt the positive thinking: "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted."
Here is the example of God function in peer-reviewed Science:
http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?On-the-value-of-David-Bohms-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #124 on: December 07, 2018, 12:50:12 AM »
The God was their hobby. They have not put the function of God in their equations.
Yes, because God has no place in science as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
It is problem not of Theism, but of satanic Methodology.
So, I ask team Flat depart from Popper's absurdity.
And adopt the positive thinking: "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted."
Here is the example of God function in peer-reviewed Science:
http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?On-the-value-of-David-Bohms-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf
  • To me that paper looks to be no more than a series of hypotheses, just adding an arbitrary "God function".
    Is your " 'God function' confirmable"? In other words I've no idea whether God interacts in that way.

  • But irrespective of the correctness of that paper, why is it any support for a flat earth?
    I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2018, 02:15:44 AM »
The God was their hobby. They have not put the function of God in their equations.
Yes, because God has no place in science as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
It is problem not of Theism, but of satanic Methodology.
So, I ask team Flat depart from Popper's absurdity.
And adopt the positive thinking: "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted."
Here is the example of God function in peer-reviewed Science:
http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?On-the-value-of-David-Bohms-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf
  • To me that paper looks to be no more than a series of hypotheses, just adding an arbitrary "God function".
    Is your " 'God function' confirmable"? In other words I've no idea whether God interacts in that way.

  • But irrespective of the correctness of that paper, why is it any support for a flat earth?
    I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions.
The paper shows a way to include God into Physics. That is great novelty. All Globers, if they are in institutions, are methodical atheists. Hereby they are refuted by their own "Science is refutable." and "Universe should not exist." What is left then? Team Flat.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 02:25:49 AM by Astronomy »

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #126 on: December 07, 2018, 02:23:13 AM »
It is problem not of Theism
Yes, because theism doesn't care about the truth.
But again, we aren't discussing theism. We are discussing your definition of absolute truth.
By your definition pixies are absolute truth. Going to admit it?


but of satanic Methodology.
Well Satan is the good one in the Bible, so even though he is fictional that is still vastly superior to any God Methodology.

So, I ask team Flat depart from Popper's absurdity.
So far the only one coming up with absurdity is you.
According to you, the simple inability to prove something wrong means it is absolute truth.
That means anything, regardless of how insane it is, is true unless you can prove it is false.
And that means all the non-falsifiable claims are true according to you.
Even the ones which contradict other ones.

I find that to be quite absurd.
Meanwhile science rejects garbage like that, dismissing any non-falsifiable statements as meaningless.

So again, going to accept pixies as absolute truth, or going to admit your definition is wrong?

Here is the example of God function in peer-reviewed Science:
http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?On-the-value-of-David-Bohms-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf
I would be very hesitant to call that "peer-reviewed science".
From what I can find out about that journal, it is a for-profit journal which will happily publish any garbage to get money.
They are also happy to blatantly lie to appear good, like claim they are indexed by Thomson Reuters, while Thomson Reuters' core product for such a thing has no entry for them. They claim to have a Copernicus Index CVI score of 7.5 points, yet they currently don't have one and have never had a 7.5 rating. The only information they have there is 2 citations.

So no, that is not peer-reviewed science. That is a publishing house no better than penguin books.

But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, this is most of the Abstract:
" Because I stay within the dogmas of the Orthodox Christian Church, I suggest to read the text without criticism. It is simply the beautiful and meaningful picture of my personal world."
Suggesting people read without criticism is not science. It is just pathetic preaching.
It is saying God violates the laws of physics so we need to add in an extra BS term so god doesn't violate physics.

Now stop with the distractions.
Going to accept pixies as absolute truth or are you going to admit your definition is wrong?

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #127 on: December 07, 2018, 02:36:22 AM »
I would be very hesitant to call that "peer-reviewed science".
From what I can find out about that journal, it is a for-profit journal which will happily publish any garbage to get money.
They are also happy to blatantly lie to appear good, like claim they are indexed by Thomson Reuters, while Thomson Reuters' core product for such a thing has no entry for them. They claim to have a Copernicus Index CVI score of 7.5 points, yet they currently don't have one and have never had a 7.5 rating. The only information they have there is 2 citations.

So no, that is not peer-reviewed science. That is a publishing house no better than penguin books.
Have you never heard, of Open Access? The journal Physical Review charges 800 USD without even giving Open Access for that - their Open Access is additional 1000 USD. My journal is not the one of team Globe used to write to? Thank you, you have proved, that this paper is not of team Globe. That paper is more of team Flat and talks about God Almighty. I guess, the paper more of holiness, than of sin.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 02:40:09 AM by Astronomy »

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #128 on: December 07, 2018, 02:55:35 AM »

And that means all the non-falsifiable claims are true according to you.
Even the ones which contradict other ones.
According to method "Science is confirmable" the non-falsifiable claims is subject of Science.
Give us example of two contradictive non-falsifiable claims.

The pixies are made up fiction? Yes. Fiction is not reality? Yes.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #129 on: December 07, 2018, 03:04:25 AM »

And that means all the non-falsifiable claims are true according to you.
Even the ones which contradict other ones.
According to method "Science is confirmable" the non-falsifiable claims is subject of Science.
Give us example of two contradictive non-falsifiable claims.

Opponent: “the Holy Spirit in Catholicism comes from Son, but in Orthodoxy it comes only from Father.”

Simply ask the God after the Second Coming.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #130 on: December 07, 2018, 03:10:32 AM »
Have you never heard, of Open Access?
Yes I have. That doesn't magically mean that the crap you linked is a science journal.

The journal Physical Review
Doesn't exist as far as I can tell.

I guess, the paper more of holiness, than of sin.
You are confusing sin and reason.

According to method "Science is confirmable" the non-falsifiable claims is subject of Science.
So according to the method of unscientific science, something is science? Don't care.
If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.

Give us example of two contradictive non-falsifiable claims.
Magic pixies make things fall and it is only magic pixies that do so.
The FSM make things fall and it is only the FSM that does so.

The pixies are made up fiction? Yes. Fiction is not reality? Yes.
Your god is made up fiction? Yes. Fiction is not reality? Yes.
Regardless, who cares. According to you absolute truth doesn't need to be reality. It just can't be disproved.

Now again, going to accept pixies as absolute truth or going to admit your definition is wrong?

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #131 on: December 07, 2018, 03:27:20 AM »
Your god is made up fiction? Yes. Fiction is not reality? Yes.
If God is made up, He is not God. We came to contradiction, so, the God is not fiction.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #132 on: December 07, 2018, 03:41:11 AM »
Your god is made up fiction? Yes. Fiction is not reality? Yes.
If God is made up, He is not God. We came to contradiction, so, the God is not fiction.

Replace the word God with pixies and read that back to yourself.
“Once, every village had an idiot. It took the internet to bring them all together.”

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #133 on: December 07, 2018, 03:59:22 AM »
Your god is made up fiction? Yes. Fiction is not reality? Yes.
If God is made up, He is not God. We came to contradiction, so, the God is not fiction.

Replace the word God with pixies and read that back to yourself.
Pixies are absolutely known to be fiction. But atheists know nothing about God and gods.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #134 on: December 07, 2018, 04:00:16 AM »
Here is the example of God function in peer-reviewed Science:
http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?On-the-value-of-David-Bohms-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf
  • To me that paper looks to be no more than a series of hypotheses, just adding an arbitrary "God function".
    Is your " 'God function' confirmable"? In other words I've no idea whether God interacts in that way.

  • Bu4t irrespective of the correctness of that paper, why is it any support for a flat earth?
    I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions.
The paper shows a way to include God into Physics. That is great novelty. All Globers, if they are in institutions, are methodical atheists. Hereby they are refuted by their own "Science is refutable." and "Universe should not exist." What is left then? Team Flat.
As I stated before, "I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions."

So before you can claim any victory you must prove that there link between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth.
How does one's belief in God prove that the earth is flat? I and many others would assert that there is absolutely no connection.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #135 on: December 07, 2018, 04:10:34 AM »
Here is the example of God function in peer-reviewed Science:
http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?On-the-value-of-David-Bohms-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf
  • To me that paper looks to be no more than a series of hypotheses, just adding an arbitrary "God function".
    Is your " 'God function' confirmable"? In other words I've no idea whether God interacts in that way.

  • Bu4t irrespective of the correctness of that paper, why is it any support for a flat earth?
    I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions.
The paper shows a way to include God into Physics. That is great novelty. All Globers, if they are in institutions, are methodical atheists. Hereby they are refuted by their own "Science is refutable." and "Universe should not exist." What is left then? Team Flat.
As I stated before, "I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions."

So before you can claim any victory you must prove that there link between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth.
How does one's belief in God prove that the earth is flat? I and many others would assert that there is absolutely no connection.
The scientists who say, that Globe is flat, are ignoring God in their Labs. They do not add functions of God into equations.
The people who say, that Earth is Flat are not bounded by that Methodology. Because team Flat is not part of the system.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 04:12:22 AM by Astronomy »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #136 on: December 07, 2018, 05:01:53 AM »
As I stated before, "I see no connection between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth - they are totally unrelated questions."

So before you can claim any victory you must prove that there link between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth.
How does one's belief in God prove that the earth is flat? I and many others would assert that there is absolutely no connection.
The scientists who say, that Globe is flat, are ignoring God in their Labs. They do not add functions of God into equations.
The people who say, that Earth is Flat are not bounded by that Methodology. Because team Flat is not part of the system.
Madonna
I'm not interested in any stupid Madonna video!

But you have not yet shown that there is any "link between the belief or rejection of God and the shape of the earth".

Your "scientists . . .  ignoring God in their Labs" are totally irrelevant to the question as to whether the earth is a Globe or flat.

The shape of the earth is a physical fact to be determined by observation and measurement and you haven't offered a trace of either in support of a flat earth.
You haven't even a flat-earth map that shows even roughly correct distances and can be circumnavigated around the equator and via both poles.

I would venture to say that there is no flat-earth model that can even explain what I can see and observe myself let alone all the other evidence.

Put up a workable flat-earth model that explains simple things like:
       The sun and moon rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon.
       The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year.
       The sun and moon staying the same angular size from rising to setting.
       The northern hemisphere stars rotating anticlockwise around the North Celestial Pole and southern hemisphere stars rotating clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.
Except for Polaris at the North Celestial Pole, I can see all of those with my own eyes.

They're just the easy things to observe. No "scientists in their Lab" needed for them.


Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #137 on: December 07, 2018, 05:12:41 AM »
Put up a workable flat-earth model that explains simple things like:
       The sun and moon rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon.
       The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year.
       The sun and moon staying the same angular size from rising to setting.
       The northern hemisphere stars rotating anticlockwise around the North Celestial Pole and southern hemisphere stars rotating clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.
Except for Polaris at the North Celestial Pole, I can see all of those with my own eyes.

They're just the easy things to observe. No "scientists in their Lab" needed for them.
The Dark Force I have introduced in the post can account for any visible paradoxes of Flat Earth model.
The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models.
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #138 on: December 07, 2018, 05:50:06 AM »
Put up a workable flat-earth model that explains simple things like:
       The sun and moon rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon.
       The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year.
       The sun and moon staying the same angular size from rising to setting.
       The northern hemisphere stars rotating anticlockwise around the North Celestial Pole and southern hemisphere stars rotating clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.
Except for Polaris at the North Celestial Pole, I can see all of those with my own eyes.

They're just the easy things to observe. No "scientists in their Lab" needed for them.
The Dark Force I have introduced in the post can account for any visible paradoxes of Flat Earth model.
The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models.
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.
Team Globe has large history of godless ignorance, godless lies, and pointless godless fight against godly reason:


Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. (Matthew 23:1-2)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 07:13:46 AM by Astronomy »

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #139 on: December 07, 2018, 06:21:09 AM »
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.
Is funny, how in song below is said: "money makes the World GO ROUND". They admitted the deception! LOL.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #140 on: December 07, 2018, 08:46:40 AM »
Put up a workable flat-earth model that explains simple things like:
       The sun and moon rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon.
       The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year.
       The sun and moon staying the same angular size from rising to setting.
       The northern hemisphere stars rotating anticlockwise around the North Celestial Pole and southern hemisphere stars rotating clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.
Except for Polaris at the North Celestial Pole, I can see all of those with my own eyes.

They're just the easy things to observe. No "scientists in their Lab" needed for them.
The Dark Force I have introduced in the post can account for any visible paradoxes of Flat Earth model.
The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models.
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.
Dude ... The earth is round or flat because it has that specific attribute and NOT because of the methodology used to determine its shape.

An orange is still orange, even if you look at it through a blue filter (I know, it’s a simplified analogy).

If you don’t see the fallacy in this reasoning of yours then this thread can be closed as far as I’m concerned. There’s no way “Team Science” will win this debate
Be gentle

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2018, 08:58:32 AM »

And that means all the non-falsifiable claims are true according to you.
Even the ones which contradict other ones.
According to method "Science is confirmable" the non-falsifiable claims is subject of Science.
Give us example of two contradictive non-falsifiable claims.

Opponent: “the Holy Spirit in Catholicism comes from Son, but in Orthodoxy it comes only from Father.”

Simply ask the God after the Second Coming.

And we shall all be dust win that happens. Earth included, flat or round.
And that be the truth.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #142 on: December 07, 2018, 09:27:50 AM »
If you don’t see the fallacy in this reasoning of yours then this thread can be closed as far as I’m concerned. There’s no way “Team Science” will win this debate
Sure, comrade. LOL:
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 09:29:52 AM by Astronomy »

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #143 on: December 07, 2018, 09:53:39 AM »
Excellent band. Good choice of song. Although you might want to listen to one of their more fitting songs.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 11:45:22 AM by Lamaface »
Be gentle

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #144 on: December 07, 2018, 12:29:52 PM »
If God is made up, He is not God. We came to contradiction, so, the God is not fiction.
Nope, no contradiction there.
If God is made up, he isn't real. That only makes him not god in the sense that he isn't real.
Just like if pixies are made up, they aren't pixies.
So no contradiction.

Pixies are absolutely known to be fiction. But atheists know nothing about God and gods.
Gods are absolutely known to be fiction. But apixiests know nothing about pixies.

Pixies are assumed to be fiction, not know to be. If you wish to assert they are fiction you will need to prove it.


The scientists who say, that Globe is flat, are ignoring God in their Labs
No, they just aren't trying to force it in.

They do not add functions of God into equations.
Because there is absolutely no reason to.

The people who say, that Earth is Flat are not bounded by that Methodology. Because team Flat is not part of the system.
Yes, because they reject reason and just spout garbage instead. Many will outright reject reality because it clashes with their religious delusions.

Notice how you aren't trying to establish Earth is flat with any reason? Instead you are just lying about science, lying about absolute truth and asserting a bunch of religious garbage.

Here is some news for you, if your religion contradicts reality your religion is wrong, not reality.

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2018, 01:25:31 PM »
They do not add functions of God into equations.
Because there is absolutely no reason to.

Are you absolutely sure, comrade? LOL:

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #146 on: December 07, 2018, 01:40:59 PM »
Just like if pixies are made up, they aren't pixies.
So no contradiction.
If sinner Harry Potter is written only, he is not Harry Potter?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 01:58:26 PM by Astronomy »

Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #147 on: December 07, 2018, 01:52:13 PM »

Pixies are absolutely known to be fiction. But atheists know nothing about God and gods.
Gods are absolutely known to be fiction. But apixiests know nothing about pixies.

Pixies are assumed to be fiction, not know to be.

I disagree on that! Look up in Wikipedia:
"A fairy is a type of mythical being"
"Myth is a folklore genre "
But God is existent:
"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[3] "

Notice how you aren't trying to establish Earth is flat with any reason?

You are so honest, that it hurts. LOL:

The Dark Force I have introduced in the post can account for any visible paradoxes of Flat Earth model.
The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models.
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #148 on: December 07, 2018, 02:33:07 PM »
Are you absolutely sure, comrade?
I'm not a russian, but yes, I am sure.
By reason, I mean rational, based upon reason.

A god does nothing except push the problem back.

If sinner Harry Potter is written only, he is not Harry Potter?
He is not anything, as he isn't. You need to exist to be anything.

I disagree on that! Look up in Wikipedia:
So all you have are baseless claims that they are mythical?
Can you prove they are actually mythical, or just repeat the claims?

The only different between religion and mythology is that a large number of people believe in a religion.
Your god is just as mythical as pixies.

You are so honest, that it hurts. LOL:
Well if you want to stop the pain, quit with the BS.
You have done absolutely nothing to rationally refute a globe. So far all you have done is lie and assert BS.

Now then, can you actually disprove pixies? Not just claim they are fake, but actually prove that they are?
If not, are you going to accept them as absolute truth? If not, are  you going to be honest and admit your definition is wrong?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« Reply #149 on: December 07, 2018, 04:33:40 PM »
Put up a workable flat-earth model that explains simple things like:
       The sun and moon rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon.
       The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year.
       The sun and moon staying the same angular size from rising to setting.
       The northern hemisphere stars rotating anticlockwise around the North Celestial Pole and southern hemisphere stars rotating clockwise around the South Celestial Pole.
Except for Polaris at the North Celestial Pole, I can see all of those with my own eyes.

They're just the easy things to observe. No "scientists in their Lab" needed for them.
The Dark Force I have introduced in the post can account for any visible paradoxes of Flat Earth model.
The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models.
Incorrect! Hypothesising a Dark Force to patch up all the wholes is totally unacceptable.
You claim "The amount of Dark Force can be calculated while deformation function between Flat and Globe models" so do it!
Please calculate the dark force deformation function that explains 
       "The correct directions for sunrises throughout the year" where I live.
If you need the location then you have failed immediately because the Globe predicts it everywhere quite closely.

Quote from: Astronomy
The Flat Earth model has preference before the Globe, because their members are not forced to follow any nonsense like "Science is refutable, there is no omnipresent God in a Lab." Why? Because team Flat is not paid.
That's total rubbish and evidence of nothing! The evidence for the Globe was gathered long before there were labs!
And many of the people gathering evidence and proposing better models were certainly people that did not reject God. Including Johannes Kepler!
Quote from: Cornelia Faustmann
Johannes Kepler – A Life for Science and Religion 

In western science Johannes Kepler was the turning point from a magical-alchemistic to a rational-mathematical conception of the laws of nature. In his life he worked on both sides, but what earned him eternal fame are his three laws of planetary motion. Johannes Kepler was both a scientist and a religious man. In his time a career in these two fields was not that astonishing as it seems for us nowadays – because the view of the world was not yet separated into a religious and a scientific one. Therefore religious as well as scientific thoughts can be found in one and the same work of Johannes Kepler (e. g. in “Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena” about optics). Although his scientific discoveries are very important, he never fulfilled his biggest wish namely to become a Protestant pastor.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Like Nikolaus Kopernikus (1473-1543), whose work inspired him, Kepler was a very religious man. He saw his studies about universal features as his Christian duty and its fulfillment to understand the Universe that God had created. But contrary to Kopernikus, Kepler’s life was far from being peaceful and poor in events.

As I said before No "scientists in their Lab" are needed for much of the evidence for the Globe.
That evidence can be seen with the unaided eye and measured with relatively simple equipment.

But where is your evidence for a flat earth?  Do you have any at all?