Not only is it that there are evidences and proofs supporting a flat and stationary earth, but also there is no scientific evidence ever supporting an earth that is spherical and moving through a vacuum of space.
The only proofs put forward by supporters of the globe/heliocentric model are images and videos from space agencies, and observations of phenomena that they attribute to their model. But there are problems with these.
The problem with images and videos are, that they cannot be evidence or proof for a scientific theory, since globe/heliocentric model is scientific theory it needs scientific evidence or proof. The reason for this is that images and videos can be shown to be irrelevant or wrong, if for example they were presented in a court of law. The opponent can simply provide justifications for why these images and videos do not necessarily prove the claims. Not only that, but also the images could be shown to be faked via methods like photo-forensics, which has been the case for countless images and videos from agencies like NASA.
As for the apparent observations that globe-defenders try to put forward as proofs, for instance, "lunar eclipse works" or "seasons work"
This is a common error that stems from people misunderstanding how science works. This error results from people conflating a scientific observation from the working of a model that tries to explain it.
In science, we always try to build models based on observations, and we try to explain that observed event with the model. But that does not necessarily mean our model is accurate, or that our explanation is accurate.
On the other hand, just because our explanation is wrong, doesn't necessarily affect the event that happened. The event is independent of the model itself, and what we should do is to change our models to fit the observation.
But in the globe model, people try to fit the observation, into the model. Which is the opposite process. And they also try to make the claims fit with the models.
The problem with this is that their claims themselves need to be proven. Just because someone came up with a plausible explanation for an event, doesn't necessarily mean their explanation is the truth. They have to prove that it is the truth.
The only proofs put forward by supporters of the globe/heliocentric model are images and videos from space agencies, and observations of phenomena that they attribute to their model. But there are problems with these.
The problem with images and videos are, that they cannot be evidence or proof for a scientific theory, since globe/heliocentric model is scientific theory it needs scientific evidence or proof. The reason for this is that images and videos can be shown to be irrelevant or wrong, if for example they were presented in a court of law. The opponent can simply provide justifications for why these images and videos do not necessarily prove the claims. Not only that, but also the images could be shown to be faked via methods like photo-forensics, which has been the case for countless images and videos from agencies like NASA.
As for the apparent observations that globe-defenders try to put forward as proofs, for instance, "lunar eclipse works" or "seasons work"
This is a common error that stems from people misunderstanding how science works. This error results from people conflating a scientific observation from the working of a model that tries to explain it.
In science, we always try to build models based on observations, and we try to explain that observed event with the model. But that does not necessarily mean our model is accurate, or that our explanation is accurate.
On the other hand, just because our explanation is wrong, doesn't necessarily affect the event that happened. The event is independent of the model itself, and what we should do is to change our models to fit the observation.
But in the globe model, people try to fit the observation, into the model. Which is the opposite process. And they also try to make the claims fit with the models.
The problem with this is that their claims themselves need to be proven. Just because someone came up with a plausible explanation for an event, doesn't necessarily mean their explanation is the truth. They have to prove that it is the truth.