Is the Earth Flat?
Select Commentary
G.D.O'Bradovich III
July, 2017
An essay, Is the Earth Flat?, by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner dated May 24, 2016 on the website Answers in Genesis was recently brought to our attention. We consider ourselves fortunate that this article was brought to our attention, as the majority of refutations of the flat earth concept are written by amateurs, not professional astronomers. The Gentle Reader should not construe our statement as disparaging the efforts of amateurs, however, we expect professional scientists to coherently present their evidence and their reasoning.
We know that the internet is open to all opinions, while admittance into doctoral programs are highly competitive.
Our fundamental issue with modern astronomy is that its foundation is based on two suppositions: the heliocentric model and gravity. If either gravity or the heliocentric model are discarded, then the results from the work of the preceding three centuries is questionable, if not worthless. When the Gentle Reader encounters responses to the flat earth model from astronomers and physicists that are dogmatic, he will know why these learned individuals refuse to acknowledge that gravity cannot be assigned three different attributes, of which two are contradictory positions (the earth’s gravity holding the moon in orbit, while attracting almost everything else to the earth's surface).
As we know this, then there is no doubt professional scientists know it.
Many people will probably wonder why it is necessary to write an article defending [a spherical earth.] Recently I had a conversation ...about a Christian young man … who frequently argues that the earth is flat. Mind you, this young man does not actually believe that the earth is flat.
If the young man is not seeking facts, but only wishes to “argue”, we suggest he may be narcissistic, a sociopath, or a friend of Apprentice Denver.
Rather, he finds the topic interesting and the discussion of it stimulating.
We agree that the topic of the flat is interesting, for if the premise of a flat earth were blatantly false, then it would be easy to demonstrate the validity of the spherical earth model.
I always asked the same sort of question in my introductory astronomy classes to motivate my students ... Most of my students ... learn that the facts of history are very different.
Faulkner brings to the forefront the issue between accepted opinions, or conventional wisdom, and facts. Of course, facts of history are different from, and inferior to, observations that can be verified.
The question of the earth’s true shape had been settled two millennia before Columbus.
Faulkner explicitly states that the shape of the earth has been “settled” and implicitly accepts the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius, promoted only since the 16th century.
Rarely could any of my students give a good reason why the earth is spherical.
Faulkner seeks a “good reason” from his students, while Yours Truly seeks reasoning; one expectation requires recalling information, the other, analyzing information.
Most people ... have been taught ... that the earth is spherical ... Consequently, with no idea of the reasons we know that the earth is spherical, most people” [enter] “a complacent state of ...taking someone else’s word for the matter.
Faulkner states there are reasons for a spherical earth. We distinguish between knowing something and acknowledging evidence for a conclusion. Accepting the opinions of others is not limited to the subject of the flat earth.
When someone … who has given this [the flat earth] some thought and begins to raise what appear to be simple objections to the earth’s spherical shape, it doesn’t take much to fluster most people.
We note the dismissive wording of “some thought” and “simple objections”. The objections to a flat earth are simple and understood by laymen, however, the responses supporting a spherical earth are oftentimes involved, if not convoluted and contradictory.
[When questioned,] “people generally respond ... that we have photos from space that clearly show a spherical earth. However, the clever speaker will respond that such photos easily can be faked.
We do not know if the hypothetical speaker is “clever” or not, but he is truthful.
[Because everyone knows] that it is very easy to fake such photos, perhaps those photos don’t prove much after all.
We note it is easy to fake not all photos, but “such photos”, presumably photos from space, as not everyone has access to space. It is possible that the conditional word “perhaps” is used ironically.
[Those] photos have been available only for a little more than a half-century. Belief in a spherical earth goes back much earlier than this, so obviously there must be better responses.
“Belief” in a spherical earth is suggested, not the expected wording conveying “knowledge” of a spherical earth, implying that this “knowledge” is not available. It is not obvious that there “must” be better responses to flat earth claims.
Once the space photos of a spherical earth are [dismissed, the] “response is to dismiss the person, [as] everyone knows that the earth is round. The other response is to [search] for errors in their [flat-earthers] facts or logic.
Facts are available to all researchers, while there may be errors in reasoning. Of course, errors will be corrected by the honest researcher.
[Lacking] the knowledge … to refute the case for a flat earth, most people … quickly find ...websites ... promoting the flat earth, but precious little ... refuting it.
Most people have neither the knowledge nor the reasoning to refute the various claims of the flat earth position.
Some people emerge a few hours later, their egos bruised and their intelligence a bit insulted, because they still think that the flat earth is nonsense but are frustrated that they can’t seem to answer many of the arguments they’ve just encountered.
We doubt the researcher’s intelligence is insulted by research into the flat earth model; rather it is the overturning of their unsupported opinions that results in “bruised egos”. It may be more accurate to state that people “can't answer” these flat earth arguments, rather than stating that people “can’t seem to answer”.
Pythagoras [6th century BC] correctly understood that the cause of lunar eclipses is the shadow of the earth falling on the moon.
Faulkner makes the statement that Pythagoras understood the cause of lunar eclipses without any evidence. Of course, we reconignze this statement as an appeal to authority.
[Lunar eclipses] can happen only when the moon is opposite the sun in our sky, which coincides with full moon. [During] a lunar eclipse we see the earth’s shadow creep across the moon.
The existence of the earth’s shadow is assumed.
Because the edge of the earth’s shadow always is a portion of a circle, the earth’s shadow must be a circle.
The statement that the shadow on the moon is the result of the earth, and not another object, is a conclusion of various suppositions of the heliocentric theory and Newtonian physics.
If the earth were ... a disk, it could cast a circular shadow, but only for lunar eclipses that occur at midnight. For a lunar eclipse at sunrise or sunset, the earth’s shadow would [vary,] depending upon how thick the disk was compared to its diameter. However, the earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse is always a circle, regardless of the time of ... the eclipse...
Once again, the conclusion that the shadow on the moon is due to the supposed spherical shape of the earth is stated. From this refutation, Faulkner presumes the sun can be located on the other side of the earth; however, no evidence is presented for the presumption that the sun is located in the other side of the earth.
The only shape that consistently has a circular shadow, regardless of its orientation, is a sphere.
We agree.
As the earth rotates each day, c[elestial objects] appear to spin around the north celestial pole...
Faulkner presumes that the earth rotates and he denies the evidence that is available to all researchers: the celestial bodies “spin around” the north pole. He suggests that these motions are not real, but are in appearance only. Modern astronomy claims there are millions, if not billions, of stars and, as a result of the sky filled with innumerable stars, we would expect the night sky to be indistinguishable from the sky during the day. However, the night sky is not illuminated by an untold number of stars.
[Many ancient] people thought that the celestial sphere rotated each day around a non-spinning earth. The altitude of the North Star is noticeably higher in the sky at northern locations than it is at southern locations. This can happen only if north-south motion is along an arc.
The height of a skyscraper is noticeably higher the closer the observer is to the building and, further away, the building is not as high. This can only happen on a curved surface.
There is a region around the North Star in which the stars do not rise or set ... and appear to go in circles around the north celestial pole.
Once again, the stars “appear” to go around the north pole, implying that the researcher is not capable of reaching the correct conclusion regarding the earth's movement.
We call these circumpolar stars, meaning “around the pole.” The region of circumpolar stars is larger at northern locations than in southern locations. The northern circumpolar region ... is very large, and the southern circumpolar region ... is also large. Closer to the earth’s equator, the two circumpolar regions are smaller. This too shows that the earth is curved in the north-south direction.
According to Faulkner, the researcher is capable of correctly determining that the area of circumpolar regions decreases as one moves toward the equator, however, the researcher is not capable of correctly concluding that the stars circle the north pole.
Not only is the earth curved in the north-south direction, it also is curved in the east-west direction. There is a time difference of three hours between the east and west coasts of the United States.
We acknowledge that the circuit of the equator is approximately 24,000 miles and a day consists of twenty four hours. However, time differences could occur on a flat earth, or a section of the earth that is not several thousand miles apart. For example, sunrises are seen first in Indianapolis, and later they are seen in Terre Haute. Of course, the time difference is due to time zones and these are arbitrarily defined by political considerations: Terre Haute is in the same time zone as Boston; hence, solar noon in Terre Haute is almost three hours removed from solar noon.
A lunar eclipse obviously must happen simultaneously for everyone on earth, but it will be different times at different locations.
The careless reader may not realize that “simultaneously” and “different times” are contradictory.
For instance, a lunar eclipse may start shortly after sunset ... in Greece. However, ... in Spain, the moon would already be in eclipse when the moon rose that night. This means that the lunar eclipse began before sunset/moonrise in Spain, but after sunset/moonrise in Greece.
This shows that the earth is curved in the east-west direction. If the earth is curved in both the north-south and east-west direction, the most likely shape of the earth is a sphere.
One again, it is presumed that the earth is the reason for the shadow on the moon. From the arguments, we are surprised that Faulkner writes “If the earth is curved” and concludes that the earth is a sphere. We are also surprised that the conditional wording, “most likely”, is used.
Ancient sources ... mentioned that the hulls of ships disappeared before their masts did as ships sailed away. This would happen only if the earth is spherical.
From this evidence, the idea of a flat earth is completely refuted, as this effect, the topmost part of a ship is the last to be seen from an onshore observer, is observable today. Faulkner writes that this effect is only possible in a spherical earth, without considering the physical limits of unaided human vision.
The appeal to authority, especially fictional accounts, is not to our liking, however, movies invariably depict pirates using telescopes to clarify the nature of objects beyond their vision. If Faulkner is correct that the ships are beyond the earth’s curvature, that is, if they are physically hidden from sight by the existence of curved water, and as telescopes cannot see through water, they are of limited utility. We conclude that pirates never used telescopes to view objects through the horizon and Hollywood perpetuates the myth or conventional wisdom that pirates relied upon telescopes. To paraphrase Faulkner, ”the facts of history are very different” than what moviegoers imagine.
The appeal to authority, especially fictional accounts, is not to our liking, however, movies invariably depict pirates using telescopes to clarify the nature of objects beyond their vision. If Faulkner is correct that the ships are beyond the earth’s curvature, that is, if they are physically hidden from sight by the existence of curved water, and as telescopes cannot see through water, they are of limited utility. We conclude that pirates never used telescopes to view objects through the horizon and Hollywood perpetuates the myth or conventional wisdom that pirates relied upon telescopes. To paraphrase Faulkner, ”the facts of history are very different” than what moviegoers imagine.
Without optical aid, this is difficult to see. However, one easily can see a related effect. If one is perched atop the mast of the ship, one can spot land or other ships before people on the deck can. This is why spotters often were placed in a crow’s nest high above a ship’s deck.
We doubt that anyone denies that the higher an observer is above sea level, more distant objects can be seen.
If the earth were flat, there would be no advantage to being above the deck.
If a football field were flat, then there would be no advantage in having either grandstands or private suites. Hence, by this analogy, the unbiased researcher must conclude that football fields are curved.
[Eratosthenes] “accurately measured the size of the earth around 200 BC. One particular year on the summer solstice, Eratosthenes was in southern Egypt ...
While the ancients of 200 BC presumably knew the date of the summer solstice, as late as the 15th century European astronomers struggled to determine this date within two weeks of its occurrence, as medieval astronomers lacked accurate clocks to determine the length of days, and by extension, the days of the solstices and equinoxes. Therefore, the mediaeval astronomers could not know the length of the solar year within one day.
We omit the section on Eratosthenes as he presumed the earth was a sphere. Therefore, his efforts cannot be considered as evidence for a spherical earth. The most that can be said is that he determined the size of the earth that is presumed to be spherical.
We omit the section on Eratosthenes as he presumed the earth was a sphere. Therefore, his efforts cannot be considered as evidence for a spherical earth. The most that can be said is that he determined the size of the earth that is presumed to be spherical.
Why do so many people today assume that everyone thought that the earth was flat until the time of Columbus? The argument at the time of Columbus was not over the earth’s shape, but over the earth’s size.
After stating that the ancients determined the size of the earth, Faulkner expects the reader to not question that the earth’s proposed size was still being debated in intellectual circles in the 15th century.
To make his proposed voyage more palatable, Columbus ... decreased Eratosthenes’ measurement of the earth’s circumference.
Columbus successfully misled the royal advisors concerning the long accepted size of the earth.
In other words, Columbus was wrong, and his critics were right!
In the late nineteenth century, ... Andrew Dickson White and John Draper [suggested] that throughout the Middle Ages the church had taught that the earth was flat.
We feel that the clarification of the “western Christianity” is a necessary correction for “the church”. It seems that people in the 19th century were easily fooled by this deception. “Ancient peoples” since the year 200 BC knew the size and the shape of the earth, hence the researcher must conclude that the western Church in the Middle Ages could not have successfully taught the flat earth model.
Draper and White suggested that the church could redeem itself for this supposed error on the earth’s shape by getting in on the ground floor of Darwinism. This ploy was very successful [and it] also falsely altered history.”
Faulkner writes that as recently as the last half of the 19th century, history could be falsified, however, this suggestion of falsifying history is difficult to accept, as we know Pythagoras lived in the 6th century BC, Eratosthenes lived in the 2nd century BC, and Columbus lived in the 15th century- these historical facts are beyond dispute. [An Attempt To Date Columbus]
It is this false version of history that most people have learned.
It seems that people are as easily fooled in the 21st century as they were in the 19th century by a false version of history.
[Faulkner met] two young men [who] apparently had become convinced that the earth may actually be flat.
The flat earth is a reasonable conclusion based on the observable evidence.
[Various inquiries] suggested that there must be some sort of movement … within Christianity promoting the flat earth.
The presumption that the movement is Christian based is not without merit. Regretfully, “Christian” is an ambiguous term, so to discover if a Christian movement is promoting the flat earth is worthless.
This immediately raised two questions: who are the people responsible for this recent interest in a flat earth, and what is their motivation?
In our minds, the “who” and their motivation are irrelevant.
Most people [think] that the Flat Earth Society is a serious group ...dedicated to promoting their own peculiar view of the world.
We caution that there is a vast difference between dogmatically promoting a “peculiar” worldview, such as modern astronomy, and earnestly seeking explanations.
[Some] people promoting a flat earth appear to enjoy watching people squirm uncomfortably when confronted with an argument that they disagree with but can’t quite manage to refute.
We agree it is enjoyable to engage people, especially professionals, who cannot refute facts or make compelling arguments based on facts.
[These people will not disclose] that they are anything but serious about the flat earth. This is perverse.
The difference in the result between supposed perversion and potential irony is negligible, and should not be lost on the Gentle Reader. We are less concerned about the possible motives of the questioner, than the difficulty of refuting the flat earth conclusion. Regardless of the motivation, the arguments remain valid.
We have omitted the section entitled “Examples of Flat-Earth Proponents” as these are not arguments.
We have omitted the section entitled “Examples of Flat-Earth Proponents” as these are not arguments.
Let us discuss some of the more frequent claims that supposedly prove that the earth is flat rather than spherical.
We caution that proofs are only applicable to logic and mathematics. The most one can expect when dealing with scientific inquiries, whether the subject is evolution or the flat earth, is multiple examples of compelling evidence.
Most of the supposed evidences are negative; that is, they are attempts to show that the earth is not spherical.
A lengthy section concerning the Bedford Level Experiment has been omitted. As Faulkner notes, this experiment is frequently cited, however, this observation is not available to all researchers.
[Alfred Russell Wallace] placed two identical objects at different locations along the Bedford Level. Wallace examined either object from a telescope mounted on a bridge. He found that the nearer object appeared higher than the more distant one, consistent with the results predicted by a spherical earth.
The Gentle Reader may have experienced viewing a row of streetlights on a long road: the nearer streetlight appears higher than distant streetlights. We suggest this observation can neither confirm nor refute the shape of the earth.
Why the difference? The density of air decreases with increasing height. Because this causes a slight change in the index of refraction in air, rays of light passing close to the earth’s surface are bent downward.
Incidentally, this well-understood effect [atmospheric density] causes the sun to appear to rise about two minutes earlier than it actually does.
Once again, the earnest researcher is led to question his observations when they are not in agreement with modern astronomy.
A temperature inversion, where the temperature increases with height, is common at low heights along ... bodies of water. Temperature inversions accentuate refraction … [and] can even cause objects in the distance to appear above the horizon.”
The possibility exists that objects below the horizon “can”, but not always, appear above the horizon. Of course, the horizon is horizontal, not curved.
Those who promote the flat earth often mention the Bedford Level Experiment as proof that the earth is flat.
We agree that many people appeal to this experiment as “proof”. However, we know evidence is not proof, theories are not facts, and few people can duplicate the experiment.
When those experiments are properly conducted to minimize the effect of refraction, they are consistent with a spherical earth.
The modern researcher must take into account the effects of refraction; the implication is that the researcher who ignores refraction is not capable. Fortunately, research into the flat earth can continue without observations over bodies of water.
A lengthy section on the north pole and Arctic Circle has been omitted. Frankly, we could not follow neither the reasoning nor the conclusion of the evidence, since, in our mind, the constant height of the midnight sun confirms the flat earth model. Clearly, this is not Faulkner’s position, hence, our omission of the section.
A lengthy section on the north pole and Arctic Circle has been omitted. Frankly, we could not follow neither the reasoning nor the conclusion of the evidence, since, in our mind, the constant height of the midnight sun confirms the flat earth model. Clearly, this is not Faulkner’s position, hence, our omission of the section.
If the earth’s axis were aligned with the North Star at point A [for example, the winter solstice], then the earth would not align with the North Star six months later when the earth arrives at point B [for example, the summer solstice]. This effect is well enough known to warrant a name: parallax.
Faulkner presumes the earth has an axis. We can state that the idea of parallax is well known, while the effect of parallax is disputable.
We omit the calculations for the parallax for the North Star, although the result “is 4.3 x 10-6 degrees, or a little more than four millionths of a degree.”
We have grave reservations accepting a claim of accuracy of four parts in one million of a degree
We omit the calculations for the parallax for the North Star, although the result “is 4.3 x 10-6 degrees, or a little more than four millionths of a degree.”
We have grave reservations accepting a claim of accuracy of four parts in one million of a degree
Obviously, this is a very small angle, far too small for our eyes to notice. Therefore, this supposed proof that the earth is flat is specious.
Faulkner admits this angle cannot be observed and only capable of being measured as recently as the 18th century, yet parallax is considered as evidence of earth’s orbit. The irony of using the word "obviously" and then stating the angle is "far too small for our eyes to notice" should be apparent.
[Eric Dubay] explicitly stated that there are no parallax measurements. Despite being very small, it is possible to measure parallax for the stars closest to earth.
Regardless of technological advancements, astronomers presume the earth returns to the exact location every year, so that their telescopes are not displaced by even a thousandths of an inch.
[From] “the HIPPARCOS mission … we have parallax measurements ... within 600 light years. The Gaia mission ought to give us parallax measurements out to 6,000 light years. It is not clear if Dubay is ignorant of the status of parallax measurements, or if he knows better and has chosen to say otherwise.
An astronomical unit (AU) is defined as the distance between the sun and the earth and there are 63,241 AU in one light year. The number of AU is close to the number of inches in a mile (63,360), therefore we will use the more familiar inches, for astronomical units, and miles, for light years. Parallax uses the extremes of the earth’s annual orbit, or 2 AU.
Astronomers claim to accurately measure the equivalent of an angle of a triangle formed by a height of two inches and a distance of 600 miles (2 AU and 600 light years). With advances in technology, we are expected to accept that angles of distances of 6,000 miles are also measured accurately.
Astronomers claim to accurately measure the equivalent of an angle of a triangle formed by a height of two inches and a distance of 600 miles (2 AU and 600 light years). With advances in technology, we are expected to accept that angles of distances of 6,000 miles are also measured accurately.
Dubay ... claims that rockets cannot work in space because there is no air. Rockets work because of Newton’s third law of motion (action-reaction) not because they push off air.
It can be said that submarines and ships “push off” water and airplanes “push off” air. Although the third law does explain observations in a medium, either water or an atmosphere, we are uncertain if a rocket would be propelled in an unnatural construct: a vacuum.
Dubay protests that gravity seems to have two contradicting properties: making things stick to the earth and causing other things to orbit the earth.
If Dubay’s position “seems” contradictory, then it may be due to the conflicting claims of modern science. For example, gravity “pulls” an Olympic diver to the pool, but once in the water, buoyancy supersedes gravity: the diver is less dense than the water and he will surface.
If Dubay understood even elementary physics, he would know that because of Newton’s first law of motion, an object requires a force in order to orbit. Gravity provides that force.
We do not know if Dubay knows elementary physics, yet, it seems he is aware that Newtonian physics is based on certain assumptions. However, we do know that gravity’s effect can be seen on earth. We only know of two exceptions to the universal law of gravity: a balloon filled with hydrogen and a balloon filled with helium.
This is no different from any object that goes in a circular path. A weight whirled around a string is compelled in its orbit by tension in the string. In similar manner, gravity provides the force required to make the moon orbit the earth.
In this example, the string is observable and restricts the weight, but we are unsure why the analogy is made between the visible string and invisible gravity. Gravity forces the moon to orbit the earth, fortunately, gravity does not force the moon to collide with the earth.
As a child, Yours Truly was thrown from many “Merry Go Rounds”. Presumably, I was an “object” going in a “circular path”, yet gravity did not not hold me in place.
As the earth's strong gravity has no discernable effect on hydrogen filled balloons near the earth's surface, we seriously doubt that gravity has any effect on the faraway moon, let alone holding the moon in orbit.
As a child, Yours Truly was thrown from many “Merry Go Rounds”. Presumably, I was an “object” going in a “circular path”, yet gravity did not not hold me in place.
As the earth's strong gravity has no discernable effect on hydrogen filled balloons near the earth's surface, we seriously doubt that gravity has any effect on the faraway moon, let alone holding the moon in orbit.
Many of the arguments put forth by Dubay and others for a flat earth are so poor, that one has to wonder how serious these people must be.
Dubay seems serious enough, but could he really fail to understand so many things?
Many of the statements put forth by scientists for gravity, when properly considered, are so poor, that one has to wonder how serious these people must be: gravity attracts Olympic divers, gravity holds the moon in orbit, and gravity has no effect on hydrogen or helium balloons. The harvest from the field of Newtonian physics is meager.
I wasn’t able to find a single source responsible for renewed interest in the flat earth among Christians.
We are uncertain why Faulkner would expect a “single source” from fragmented western Christianity.
”The Biblical Flat Earth Series: The Global Lie Flat Earth Revelation Documentary” makes the claim we do not see stellar parallax, and so concludes that the earth must not be moving.
The “claim” that we do not see stellar parallax is correct, as it must be measured, unlike the rising sun, which can be seen by everyone and requires no measurements offering evidence of a previously unknown phenomenon called “sunrise”.
As already mentioned, this is patently false. This is so easily refuted, it makes me wonder if this documentary is a serious attempt to support the flat earth or if it merely is yet another subtle ... project to reel-in unsuspecting people.
We wonder what other projects exist to attract naive people.
Also included is a denial that the sun’s source of energy is nuclear, even though there is evidence for that.
We are surprised that Faulkner admits there is “evidence” for a nuclear reactions in the sun, instead of making a categorical statement.
The old Aristotelian claim that a moving earth would leave its atmosphere behind is there too.
Astronomers claim space is a vacuum, yet our atmosphere is not dispersed into infinite space, therefore, either there is a physical barrier between the vacuum of space, or space is not a vacuum.
Again, this is all so bad that I have to consider the possibility that this entire documentary is satire or lampoon.
[There is an] appeal is made to the foundational importance of Genesis. This sounds similar to the message of Answers in Genesis. Is this some sort of slam of Answers in Genesis?
While Faulkner is involved with Answers in Genesis, we doubt that few people are familiar with it, and the number of individuals who want to “slam” it through the video productions using the flat earth as a platform must be negligible to non-existent.
“Once one postulates a flat earth, it leads to other preposterous claims.”
Once one accepts the evidence if a flat earth, various deductions should follow. We are unsure why these conclusions are “preposterous” or “contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous”, as various claims of modern physics concerning the spherical earth are “contrary to … common sense.”
“If the earth is flat rather than a sphere, then it is inconceivable that we have ventured into space.
This would be a reasonable conclusion, although space travel remains a possibility, provided there is no physical barrier.
Eric Dubay denies “that there are any satellites orbiting the earth or that astronauts have gone into space.”
This is a reasonable conclusion.
“He claims that all photos and videos taken from space are faked” and “says that the famous photograph of the earth taken by the Apollo 17 [December, 1972] astronauts is a computer-generated image.”
“Of course, this line of argumentation automatically requires belief that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes.”
Dubay is not providing arguments, but making claims, a technique that compels the curious reader to engage in his own research. However, we agree that the premise of a flat earth can lead to a denial of space travel.
There “are good reasons to believe that we really did land on the moon during the Apollo program.”
We are unsure of the nature of “good reasons” or bad reasons, as our interest resides in compelling evidence.
“Christians ... ought to know that during ... 2006, astronaut Jeffrey Williams photographed the earth more than any astronaut in history. Some of Williams’ photos are found in his book, The Work of His Hands: A View of God’s Creation from Space. Many of the photos show that the earth is spherical.”
We are uncertain why Christians are addressed and not individuals seeking facts.
“It ought to be apparent from the book’s title that Williams is a Christian, but the book’s content makes it abundantly clear.”
It is uncertain why the book’s title should be assigned to a Christian, rather than another religious belief or the publisher’s suggestion.
“Hence, to doubt that the earth is spherical or that astronauts have gone into space is to accuse a Christian brother of perpetuating a tremendous lie.”
Faulkner abruptly changes from the suggestion of the moon landing being a hoax to the credibility of Christians.
Faulkner wants the unsuspecting reader to conclude that Christians do not lie.
We quote Saint Paul (2 Corinthians 12:16):
Faulkner wants the unsuspecting reader to conclude that Christians do not lie.
We quote Saint Paul (2 Corinthians 12:16):
International Version
Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery! New Living Translation But others still think I was sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery. English Standard Version I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit. Berean Study Bible ... but crafty as I am, I caught you by trickery. Berean Literal Bible ... but being crafty, I caught you by trickery. New American Standard Bible ... nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit. King James Bible ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. Holman Christian Standard Bible ..m yet sly as I am, I took you in by deceit! International Standard Version ... was I a clever schemer who trapped you by some trick? NET Bible Yet because I was a crafty person, I took you in by deceit! New Heart English Bible But, being crafty, I caught you with deception. Aramaic Bible in Plain English ... but as a crafty man I robbed you by treachery. |
New American Standard 1977
... nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit. Jubilee Bible 2000 ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. King James 2000 Bible ... nevertheless, being crafty, I took you with guile. American King James Version ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. American Standard Version ... but, being crafty, I caught you with guile. Douay-Rheims Bible ... but being crafty, I caught you by guile. Darby Bible Translation ... but being crafty I took you by guile. English Revised Version ... but, being crafty, I caught you with guile. Webster's Bible Translation ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. Weymouth New Testament But being by no means scrupulous, I entrapped you, they say! World English Bible But, being crafty, I caught you with deception. Young's Literal Translation ... but being crafty, with guile I did take you; |
Faulkner appeals to the authority of Charles Duke and we have omitted most of the text.
Charles Duke: “Some people are questioning the fact that we landed on the moon, alleging that it is a big hoax. Well, we did land on the moon six times, and the evidences are overwhelming.”
We are assured there is not a piece of evidence, but multiple “evidences”. Furthermore, the quality of the evidence is “overwhelming”.
“If we faked the landing, why did we fake it 6 times? One needs only to look at the photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from my mission.”
Charles Duke: “The photos of our landing site shows the descent stage, the lunar rover, the experiments package, and the tracks we left on the moon.”
We are curious to learn who took the photo of the descending stage. We are eager to learn of the overwhelming evidence.
Charles Duke: “Every landing site has similar evidence. There are many other proofs that conclusively show that Apollo actually landed on the moon six times.”
Earlier in the essay, it was admitted that photographs could be faked, yet now we are presented with “evidence” and “other proofs” in the form of pictures. We remain eager to learn of the overwhelming evidence.
“Again, Christians who think that the earth is flat or that men never set foot on the moon are effectively accusing several Christian brothers of lying about one of the biggest things that ever happened in their lives.”
“Are the Apollo moon landing deniers prepared to make this accusation?
It could be understood that the astronauts are lying, not about the biggest thing to happen in their lives, but are lying about a non event.
Conclusion
“Are these people who believe in a flat earth for real? It’s hard to say. They could be well-intentioned but seriously misguided people.”
“Well-intentioned” and “seriously misguided” can applied to those zealous individuals who have beliefs, are incapable of correct reasoning, and advocate a “peculiar” agenda.
“Or they could be attempting to discredit the Bible and Christianity.”
Flat earthers could be attempting to discredit modern Christianity and its Bible and, if true, we are uncertain why they are using the flat earth as a vehicle for their agenda. It is evident that modern Christians have done more to discredit Christianity that they can realize.
“If the latter, their approach probably is “If you think that the Bible is literally true, then I’ll show you just how literally true that the Bible is!” But this is a false dichotomy.”
We are uncertain how “literally true” could be suggested as a false dichotomy to “literally true”
“We here at Answers in Genesis don’t say that the Bible is literally true. Rather, we understand that the Bible is true because it is inspired by God.”
As there is no evidence suggesting the Bible is “inspired by God”, we have no opinion on this assumption. Of course, we cannot know if something is inspired or not, we can only know that it exists. The claim of being inspired cannot be refuted, nor can it be verified.
“As such, it is authoritative on all matters and is reliable.”
Since the claim of the Bible being inspired is not subject to verification, we are uncertain how the Bible can be claimed to be “reliable” and to be “authoritative”.
“The Bible contains imagery and poetry. However, those passages are easy to identify.”
If the claim that these poetical passages are easy to identify is true, then we wonder why there is little agreement among 40,000 protestant churches.
“When it comes down to the sorts of questions that matter here (such as “Did God create the world?”), the Bible must be read and understood historically and grammatically.”
We are amused, as the modern Bible has a short history, the Hebrew alphabet has no vowels, and Hebrew grammar has no tense.
“That is, historical narrative does not lead to symbolic interpretation. Hence, the creation account is literally true.”
No evidence is provided that the Genesis is historical, rather than poetical. In fact, a valid argument could be offered that there were no human observers for the first creation account found in Genesis.
While the claim may be made that the six days of creation in Genesis is inspired, the account is also reasonable, hence, it is understandable and could be written by man.
While the claim may be made that the day of creation in Genesis is inspired, the account is also reasonable, hence, it is understandable and could be written by man.
While the claim may be made that the six days of creation in Genesis is inspired, the account is also reasonable, hence, it is understandable and could be written by man.
While the claim may be made that the day of creation in Genesis is inspired, the account is also reasonable, hence, it is understandable and could be written by man.
“At least some of the people behind this upsurge in the flat earth movement may be lampooning the creation movement. As such, they clearly are no friends of the church; rather, they oppose Christ and His kingdom.”
We wonder when “creationism” became a dogma of Christianity, equivalent to belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Once again, we are uncertain why attacks against modern Christianity would use the flat earth theory. We note that “creationism”, “Christ” and “the church” are confounded, so that any critique of creationism is an attack on Christ’s “kingdom” which, according to the Master, is not of this world. The Gentle Reader may recall reading “false dichotomy” earlier in this commentary.
“I recommend that Christians be very discerning about their teachings.”
Discerning: “able to see and understand people, things, or situations clearly and intelligently”.
Conclusion
According to the “Answers in Genesis” website, Dr. Faulkner has his terminal degree from a certain Big Ten university, specifically, that "school" down south.
It is a reasonable assumption that Dr. Faulkner has a vested interest in the promotion of astronomy and physics.
The essay began with a youth who enjoyed arguing about the flat earth. We wonder if this youth initially made statements regarding facts, then made reasonable conclusions from these facts, and these actions that successfully challenged certain opinions were subsequently interpreted as arguing.
Arguing should be relegated to debating teams, whereas earnest discussions to reach valid conclusions are a legitimate aspect of scientific enquiry. Legitimate scientific research is not limited to specialists.
Claims that are beyond legitimate study, such as comparing the merits of Zeus versus the merits of Apollo, are never addressed by mature people. Hence, we must conclude that the flat earth model has some basis for scientific study, otherwise, professional astronomers and physicists would ignore these justly perceived irrational attempts to promote the flat earth model. Since certain professionals engage in this discussion, we conclude that these professionals are attempting to disprove the viability of the flat earth model.
We will not speculate why these professionals do not publicly acknowledge that modern astronomy and modern physics are based on specific presumptions. We have written about the weird properties that gravity supposedly possesses: it has no effect on certain balloons; it sometimes it is no longer effective in water, stones continue to descend, but wood will float; and it ensures that the moon orbits the earth.
Regarding the media of the atmosphere and water, density will always predict the behavior of a given object, whereas gravity is capricious, sometimes operating, sometimes not. Therefore, we justly question the supposition that earth's gravity attracts most objects to the earth’s surface, while it simultaneously holds the moon in orbit.
It is apparent that questioning the spherical earth leads to researching other subjects. Since modern astronomy supposes the earth is a planet, then astronomy, physics, and cosmology become viable topics to be explored and unwarranted prepositions to be identified and questioned.
We enjoy the flat earth theory for two reasons: the enquiry is available to all, it is not the domain of specialists; and an understanding of elementary, or practical, physics undermines both three centuries of assumptions and increasing complex formulas.Additionally, competent professionals must realize that space cannot be a vacuum that miraculously leaves our atmosphere undisturbed. They must also realize that density consistently explains all phenomena currently assigned to gravity.
The gravity of the moon causes tides, yet, the properties assigned to gravity cannot explain why the earth’s gravity temporarily fails to operate, allowing the moon’s gravity to form high tides, but the earth’s gravity re-exerts its influence to create low tides. Of course, the effects of the moon’s gravity is not observed on lakes.
We believe a sufficient number of examples of evidence supporting the flat earth model and a sufficient number of criticisms of modern science have been provided for the benefit of the Gentle Reader.
As always, the Gentle Researcher will reach his own informed conclusions regarding the viability, and likelihood, of the flat earth model.
It is a reasonable assumption that Dr. Faulkner has a vested interest in the promotion of astronomy and physics.
The essay began with a youth who enjoyed arguing about the flat earth. We wonder if this youth initially made statements regarding facts, then made reasonable conclusions from these facts, and these actions that successfully challenged certain opinions were subsequently interpreted as arguing.
Arguing should be relegated to debating teams, whereas earnest discussions to reach valid conclusions are a legitimate aspect of scientific enquiry. Legitimate scientific research is not limited to specialists.
Claims that are beyond legitimate study, such as comparing the merits of Zeus versus the merits of Apollo, are never addressed by mature people. Hence, we must conclude that the flat earth model has some basis for scientific study, otherwise, professional astronomers and physicists would ignore these justly perceived irrational attempts to promote the flat earth model. Since certain professionals engage in this discussion, we conclude that these professionals are attempting to disprove the viability of the flat earth model.
We will not speculate why these professionals do not publicly acknowledge that modern astronomy and modern physics are based on specific presumptions. We have written about the weird properties that gravity supposedly possesses: it has no effect on certain balloons; it sometimes it is no longer effective in water, stones continue to descend, but wood will float; and it ensures that the moon orbits the earth.
Regarding the media of the atmosphere and water, density will always predict the behavior of a given object, whereas gravity is capricious, sometimes operating, sometimes not. Therefore, we justly question the supposition that earth's gravity attracts most objects to the earth’s surface, while it simultaneously holds the moon in orbit.
It is apparent that questioning the spherical earth leads to researching other subjects. Since modern astronomy supposes the earth is a planet, then astronomy, physics, and cosmology become viable topics to be explored and unwarranted prepositions to be identified and questioned.
We enjoy the flat earth theory for two reasons: the enquiry is available to all, it is not the domain of specialists; and an understanding of elementary, or practical, physics undermines both three centuries of assumptions and increasing complex formulas.Additionally, competent professionals must realize that space cannot be a vacuum that miraculously leaves our atmosphere undisturbed. They must also realize that density consistently explains all phenomena currently assigned to gravity.
The gravity of the moon causes tides, yet, the properties assigned to gravity cannot explain why the earth’s gravity temporarily fails to operate, allowing the moon’s gravity to form high tides, but the earth’s gravity re-exerts its influence to create low tides. Of course, the effects of the moon’s gravity is not observed on lakes.
We believe a sufficient number of examples of evidence supporting the flat earth model and a sufficient number of criticisms of modern science have been provided for the benefit of the Gentle Reader.
As always, the Gentle Researcher will reach his own informed conclusions regarding the viability, and likelihood, of the flat earth model.