Does the Bible support the idea of a spinning ball earth flying through space, or is that a Satanic, Masonic lie?

[RaceRunner]

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“This can only be described as an extraordinary book …. His arguments are certainly plausible and ingenious, and even the reader who does not agree with him will find a singular interest and fascination in analyzing the ‘one hundred proofs.’… The proofs are set forth in brief, forcible, compact, very clear paragraphs, the meaning of which can be comprehended at a glance.”—Daily News, Sept. 24. [28]
“Throughout the entire work there are discernible traces of a strong and reliant mind, and such reliance as can only have been acquired by unbiassed observation, laborious investigation, and final conviction; and the masterly handling of so profound a theme displays evidence of grave and active researches. There is no groping wildly about in the vagueness of theoretical speculations, no empty hypotheses inflated with baseless assertions and false illustrations, but the practical and perspicuous conclusions of a mind emancipated from the prevailing influences of fashionable credence and popular prejudice, and subordinate only to those principles emanating from reason and common sense.”—H. D. T., Woodberry News, Sept. 26, 1885.
“We do not profess to be able to overthrow any of his ‘Proofs.’ And we must admit, and our readers will be inclined to do the same, that it is certainly a strange thing that Mr. Wm. Carpenter, or anyone else, should be able to bring together ‘One Hundred Proofs’ of anything in the world if that thing is not right, while we keep on asking for one proof, that is really a satisfactory one, on the other side. If these ‘Hundred Proofs’ are nonsense, we cannot prove them to be so, and some of our scientific men had better try their hands, and we think they will try their heads pretty badly into the bargain.”—The Woodberry News, Baltimore, Sept. 19, 1885.
“This is a remarkable pamphlet. The author has the courage of his convictions, and presents them with no little ingenuity, however musty they may appear to nineteenth century readers. He takes for his text a statement of Prof. Proctor’s that ‘The Earth on which we live and move seems to be flat,’ and proceeds with great alacrity to marshal his hundred arguments in proof that it not only seems but is flat, ‘an extended plane, stretched out in all directions away from the central North.’ He enumerates all the reasons offered by scientists for a belief in the rotundity of the earth and evidently to his own complete satisfaction refutes them. He argues that the heavenly bodies were made solely to light this world, that the belief in an infinity of worlds is a monstrous dogma, contrary to Bible teaching, and the great stronghold of the infidel; and that the Church of Rome was right when it threw the whole weight of its influence against Galileo and Copernicus when they taught the revolution of the earth on its axis.”—Michigan Christian Herald, Oct. 15, 1885.
“So many proofs.”—Every Saturday, Sept. 26, 1885.
“A highly instructive and very entertaining work …. The book is well worth reading.”—Protector, Baltimore, Oct. 3, 1885.
“The book will be sought after and read with peculiar interest.”—Baltimore Labor Free Press, Oct. 17, 1885.
“Some of them [the proofs] are of sufficient force to demand an answer from the advocates of the popular theory.”—Baltimore Episcopal Methodist, October 28, 1885.
“Showing considerable smartness both in conception and argument.”—Western Christian Advocate, Cincinnati, O., Oct. 21, 1885.
“Forcible and striking in the extreme.”—Brooklyn Market Journal.
Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A., December 7, 1885.

 

[RaceRunner]

[Appendix to Third Edition.]
COPY OF LETTER FROM RICHARD A. PROCTOR, ESQ.

5 Montague Street, Russell Square, London, W.C., 12 Dec., 1885.
W. Carpenter, Esq., Baltimore.
Dear Sir,—I am obliged to you for the copy of your “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe,” and for the evident kindness of your intention in dedicating the work to me. The only further remark it occurs to me to offer is that I call myself rather a student of astronomy than an astronomer.
Yours faithfully,
RICHARD A. PROCTOR.
P.S. Perhaps the pamphlet might more precisely be called “One hundred difficulties for young students of astronomy.”

 

[RaceRunner]

[Appendix to Fourth Edition.]
COPY OF LETTER FROM SPENCER F. BAIRD, ESQ.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C., Jan. 6, 1886.
Dear Sir,—A copy of your “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a globe” was duly received, and was deposited in Library of Congress October 8, 1884. [1885] A pressure of much more important work has prevented any attempt at reviewing these hundred proofs:—which however have doubtless been thoroughly investigated by the inquisitive astronomers and geodesists of the last four centuries.
Yours very respectfully,
SPENCER F. BAIRD, Secretary S. I.
Mr. William Carpenter, 71, Chew Street, Baltimore, Md.
Copy of a letter from one of the several applicants for the “One Hundred Proofs” for the purpose of reviewing them. The writer is Professor of Mathematics at the High School, Auburn, N. Y., and, in his application for the pamphlet, says: “Am a Yale graduate and a Yale Law School man: took the John A. Porter Prize (literary) ($250) at Yale College.”
Auburn, Dec. 10th, 1885. My Dear Sir: Your treatise was received. I have looked it over and noted it somewhat. A review of it to do it justice would be a somewhat long and laborious task. Before I undertook so much thought I would write and ask What and how much you expect: how elaborately you wished it discussed: and what remuneration might be expected. It sets forth many new and strange doctrines which would have to be thoroughly discussed and mastered before reviewed. I am hard at work at present but would like to tackle this if it would be for my interest as well as yours. Hope you will let me know very soon. Very respectfully,
To Mr. W. Carpenter, Baltimore, Md. FRANK STRONG.
NOTE.—Unless a man be willing to sell his soul for his supposed worldly “interest,” he will not dare to “tackle” the “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe.” No man with well-balanced faculties will thus condemn himself. We charge the mathematicians of the world that, if they cannot say what they think of this pamphlet in a dozen words, they are entitled to no other name than—cowards!
Baltimore, Maryland, May 22, 1886.

 

[RaceRunner]

APPENDIX TO THE FIFTH EDITION.

Editorial from the “New York World,” of August 2, 1886:—
THE EARTH IS FLAT.
The iconoclastic tendencies of the age have received new impetus from Mr. William Carpenter, who comes forward with one hundred proofs that the earth is not a globe. It will be a sad shock to many conservatives who have since their childhood fondly held to the conviction that “the earth is round like an orange, a little flattened at the poles.” To find that, after all, we have been living all these years on a prosaic and unromantic plane is far from satisfactory. We have rather gloried in the belief that the semi-barbarous nations on the other side of the earth did not carry their heads in the same direction in which ours point. It is hard to accept the assertion that the cannibals on savage islands are walking about on the same level with the civilized nations of our little world.
But Mr. Carpenter has one hundred proofs that such is the unsatisfactory truth. Not only that, but the iconoclast claims that we are not whirling through space at a terrible rate, but are absolutely stationary. Some probability is given to this proposition by the present hot weather. The earth seems to be becalmed. If it were moving at the rate of nineteen miles a second wouldn’t there be a breeze? This question is thrown out as perhaps offering the one hundred and first proof that the earth is not a globe. Mr. Carpenter may obtain the proof in detail at the office at our usual rates. A revolution will, of course, take place in the school geographies as soon as Mr. Carpenter’s theories have been closely studied. No longer will the little boy answer the question as to the shape of the earth by the answer which has come ringing down the ages, “It’s round like a ball, sir.” No. He’ll have to use the unpoetic formula, “It’s flat like a pancake, sir.”
But, perhaps, after we have become used to the new idea it will not be unpleasant. The ancients flourished in the belief that the earth was a great plane. Why shouldn’t we be equally fortunate? It may be romantic but it is not especially comforting to think that the earth is rushing through space twisting and curving like a gigantic ball delivered from the hand of an enormous pitcher. Something in the universe might make a base hit if we kept on and we would be knocked over an aerial fence and never found. Perhaps, after all, it is safer to live on Mr. Carpenter’s stationary plane.
The “Record,” of Philadelphia, June 5, 1886, has the following, in the Literary Notes:—“Under the title One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe, Mr. William Carpenter, of Baltimore, publishes a pamphlet which is interesting on account of the originality of the views advanced, and, from his standpoint, the very logical manner in which he seeks to establish their truth. Mr. Carpenter is a disciple of what is called the Zetetic school of philosophy, and was referee for Mr. John Hampden when that gentleman, in 1870, made a wager with Mr. Alfred R. Wallace, of England, that the surface of standing water is always level, and therefore that the earth is flat. Since then he has combated his views with much earnestness, both in writing and on the platform, and, whatever opinions we may have on the subject, a perusal of his little book will prove interesting and afford room for careful study.” [31]
“The motto which he puts on the cover—‘Upright, Downright, Straightforward’—is well chosen, for it is an upright lie, a downright invention, and a straightforward butt of a bull at a locomotive.”—The Florida Times Union, Dec. 13, 1885. Editor, Charles H. Jones. [Pray, Mr. Jones, tell us what you mean by “an upright lie.”!!]
“We have received a pamphlet from a gentleman who thinks to prove that the earth is flat, but who succeeds only in showing that he is himself one.”—New York Herald, Dec. 19, 1885. [The reviewer, in this case, is, no doubt, a very “sharp” man, but his honesty—if he have any at all—is jagged and worn out. The “quotations” which he gives are fraudulent, there being nothing like them in the pamphlet.]
“The author of the pamphlet is no ‘flat,’ though he may perhaps be called a ‘crank.’ ”—St. Catharines (Can.) Evening Jour., Dec. 23.
“To say that the contents of the book are erudite and entertaining does not do Mr. Carpenter’s astronomical ability half credit.”—The Sunday Truth, Buffalo, Dec. 27, 1885.
“The entire work is very ingeniously gotten up …. The matter of perspective is treated in a very clever manner, and the coming up of ‘hull-down’ vessels on the horizon is illustrated by several well-worded examples.”—Buffalo Times, Dec. 28, 1885.
“The erudite author, who travels armed with plans and specifications to fire at the skeptical at a moment’s notice, feels that he is doing a good work, and that his hundred anti-globular conclusions must certainly knock the general belief in territorial rotundity out of time.”…
“We trust that the distinguished author who has failed to coax Richard Proctor into a public discussion may find as many citizens willing to invest two shillings in his peculiar literature as he deserves.”—Buffalo Courier, Dec. 27, 1885, and Jan. 1, 1886.
“It is a pleasure now to see a man of Mr. Carpenter’s attainments fall into line and take up the cudgels against the theories of the scientists who have taught this pernicious doctrine [the sphericity of the earth].”—Rochester Morning Herald, Jan. 13, 1886.
“As the game stands now, there is ‘one horse’ for Prof. Carpenter.”—Buffalo World, Jan. 16, 1886.
“It is interesting to show how much can be said in favor of the flat world theory …. It is fairly well written, although, we believe filled with misstatements of facts.”—Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Jan. 17, 1886. [We “believe” the editor cannot point one out.]
“It is certainly worth twice the price, and will be read by all with peculiar interest.”—Scranton Truth, March 8, 1886.
“Mr. William Carpenter has come to Washington with a “hundred proofs that the earth is not a globe.” He has a pamphlet on the subject which is ingenious, to say the least, and he is ominously eager to discuss the matter with any one who still clings to the absurd prejudices of the astronomers.”—The Hatchet, May 9, 1886.

 

[RaceRunner]

“It contains some curious problems for solution, and the author boldly asserts that until they are solved the globular theory of the earth remains unproven, and is fallacious, &c.”—The Presbyterian, Philadelphia, June 19, 1886. [32]
“His reasoning is, to say the least, plausible, and the book interesting.”—The Item, Philadelphia, June 10, 1886.
“Mr. Carpenter seems to have made a thorough investigation of the subject, and his arguments are practical and to the point.”—Sunday Mercury, Philadelphia, June 13, 1886.
“A gentleman has just called at the editorial rooms with a pamphlet which is designed to demonstrate that the earth is not a globe, but a flat disk; he also laid before us a chart from which it plainly appeared that the earth is a circular expanse of land, with the north pole in the exact center, and the Antarctic Sea flowing all around the land …. We went on to state that we lodged the care of all astronomical questions in the hands of Rev. R. M. Luther, to whom these perplexing matters are but as child’s play …. Our readers may, therefore, expect at an early date a judicial view of the astronomical and cosmological situation.”—National Baptist, Philadelphia, July 8, 1886. Editor, Dr. Wayland. [We hope that the Rev. R. M. Luther will give us the means of publishing his decision before many more editions of the “Hundred Proofs” be issued. We are afraid that he finds the business much more than “child’s play.”]
“‘One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,’ by William Carpenter, is published by the author, whose novel and rather startling position is certainly fortified by a number of argumentative points, which, if they do not shake the reader’s preconceived notions on the subject, will, at least, be found entertaining for the style in which they are put.”—Evening Star, Philadelphia, July 22, 1886.
“His ‘Proofs’ go a long way towards convincing many that his ideas on the subject are practical and sensible.”—Fashion Journal, Philadelphia, July, 1886. Editor, Mrs. F. E. Benedict.
“ ‘One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe’ is a curious little pamphlet that we can commend to all interested in astronomy and related sciences. It may not upset received notions on the subject, but will give cause for much serious reflection. Published by the author, Wm. Carpenter, Baltimore, Md. Price 25 cents.”—The Saturday Evening Post, Philadelphia, July 31, 1886.
“Here now is an able thinker of Baltimore, Professor William Carpenter, who presents the claims of the Zetetic philosophy to be considered the leading issue of our times …. One of the great proofs of the truth of the philosophy is that the regular astronomers do not dare to gainsay it …. They are well aware there is no South pole …. Prof. Carpenter, in a treatise that has reached us, furnishes 100 proofs that the earth is flat, and while we cannot say that we understand all of them we appreciate the earnestness of his appeals to the moral people of the community to rise up and overthrow the miserable system of error that is being forced upon our children in the public schools, vitiating the very foundations of knowledge. What issue can be more noble or inspiring than Truth vs. Error? Here is an issue on which there can be no trifling or compromise. In the great contest between those who hold the earth is flat and they who contend that it is round, let the flats assert themselves.”—Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug., 1886. [From a long article, “The Great Zetetic Issue.”]

 

[RaceRunner]

LETTERS TO PROFESSOR GILMAN, OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

71 Chew Street, Baltimore, September 10, 1886.
Prof. Gilman, Johns Hopkins University—Sir: On the 21st ultimo I wrote to ask you if you received the pamphlet, which I left for you at the University twelve months ago, entitled “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,” and, if so, that you would kindly give me your opinion concerning it. I write, now, to ask you if you received my letter. I am quite sure that you will consider that the importance of the subject fully warrants the endeavor on my part to gain the views which may be entertained by you respecting it. The fifth edition will soon be called for, and anything you may urge—for or against—I shall be happy to insert in the “appendix.” I send, herewith, a copy of the fourth edition of the pamphlet.
Yours sincerely, William Carpenter.
71 Chew Street, Baltimore, October 7, 1886.
Professor Gilman—Dear Sir: I am now preparing the appendix for the fifth edition of my “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,” and I should be glad to receive your opinion of this work to insert in the said appendix. I can offer you from a few lines to a page, or two if necessary. Of course, if this work as a whole be a fraud, it must be fraudulent in all its parts; and each one of the “hundred proofs” must contain a fallacy of some kind or other, and the thing would justify your disapprobation—expressed in few words or many. If, on the other hand, the work is what it professes to be, it will certainly claim your approval. Yours sincerely, W. Carpenter.
71 Chew Street, Baltimore, October 14, 1886.
Prof. Gilman—Dear Sir: A week ago I wrote you a letter to tell you that I should be glad to receive your opinion of the “Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,” of which work 5,000 copies are now in circulation. I wrote this work (26 pages) in one week, without neglecting my daily business: surely, you can reply to it in a week from this time. I will give you from one to four pages, if you wish that amount of space, and send you fifty copies, if you desire to have them, without putting you to the slightest expense. I will even take any suggestion you please to make as to the title which shall be given to this extra edition of my work containing your reply or opinions. I should be sorry to be under the necessity of printing this letter, with others, in my next edition, in the place of any such reply or expression of opinion; for I feel sure there is no one in Baltimore who is more capable of giving an opinion on this great subject. Trusting to hear from you in a few days, I am, Dear Sir, Yours truly,
William Carpenter.
71 Chew Street, Baltimore, October 22, 1886.
Prof. Gilman—Sir: This is the fifth letter—and the last—to you, asking you for an expression of your opinion concerning the “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe.” Which would you prefer—to see my words, or yours, in print? I give you a week in which to decide.
Truly, William Carpenter.

 

[RaceRunner]

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, OF BALTIMORE.

We are indebted to “Scribner’s Monthly” for the following remarks concerning this institution:—“By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of Baltimore, the sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a University and a Hospital, $3,500,000 being devoted to each. This is the largest single endowment ever made to an institution of learning in this country. To the bequest no burdensome conditions were attached.”… “The Physiological Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins has no peer in this country, and the other laboratories few equals and no superiors.”
In the First Annual Report of the University (1876) we read:—“Early in the month of February, 1874, the Trustees of the University having been apprised by the Executors of Johns Hopkins, of the endowment provided by his will, took proper steps for organization and entering upon the practical duties of the trust, and addressed themselves to the selection of a President of the University. With this view the Trustees sought the counsel and advice of the heads of several of the leading seats of learning in the country, and, upon unanimous recommendation and endorsement from these sources, the choice fell upon Mr. Daniel C. Gilman, who, at the time, occupied the position of President of the University of California.
“Mr. Gilman is a graduate of Yale College, and for several years before his call to California, was a Professor in that institution, taking an active part in the organization and development of ‘The Sheffield Scientific School of Yale College,’ at New Haven. Upon receiving an invitation to Baltimore, he resigned the office which he had held in California since 1872, and entered upon the service of The Johns Hopkins University, May 1, 1875.”—Galloway Cheston.
“In the hunt for truth, we are not first hunters, and then men; we are first and always men, then hunters.”—D. C. Gilman, Oct., 1883.
The “One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe” have been running around within the observation of the master huntsman and his men for a year or more: now let the hunters prove themselves to be men; and the men, hunters. It is impossible to be successful hunters for Truth, if Error be allowed to go scot-free. Nay, it is utterly impossible for the Johns Hopkins University to answer the purpose of its founder if its hunters for Truth do not first hunt Error with their hounds and hold it up to ridicule, and then, and always, keep a watchful eye for the Truth lest they should injure it by their hot haste or wound it with their weapons. Prof. Daniel C. Gilman, we charge you that the duties of your office render it imperative that, sooner or later, you lead your men into the field against the hundred proofs, to show the world that they are hunters worthy of the name—if, in your superior judgment, you decide that there is Error to be slain—or, show that your hunters are worthy of the better name of men, by inducing them to follow and sustain you, out of the beaten track, in your endeavors to uphold God’s Truth, if, in your superior judgment, you tell them, “There is a Truth to be upheld!”
[End of the Appendix to the Fifth Edition. Nov. 9, 1886.]

 

[RaceRunner]

PROFESSOR PROCTOR’S PROOFS.

“A proof, a proof!” cries Student Brown; says Proctor, “Very well,
If that is all you want, indeed, I’ve plenty I can tell:
But really I have scarcely time, or patience, now, to do it;
You ought to know the earth’s a globe, then, as a globe you’d view it.
I knew it long ago: in truth, ’twas taught me in my cot,
And, then, too old was I to doubt—too young to say ’twas not!”
“And you have never questioned it?” “Why should I, now, friend Brown?
I took it all for granted, just as daddy laid it down.
And as my duty clearly was,—no other way I saw it—
And that’s the reason why, of course, a globe I always draw it.
And so you want a proof! Ah ha: just cross the broad Atlantic,
And then a proof so strong you’ll have, with joy ’twill send you frantic!”
“You mean, that I shall see the ships come round the old earth’s side—
And up—and o’er the ‘watery hill’—as into view they glide!
No, Proctor, no: you say, yourself, the earth so vast in size is,
The surface seems a level one—indeed, to sight, it rises.
And ships, when coming into view, seem ‘bearing down upon us.’
No, Proctor, let us have a proof—no, no, come—mercy on us!”
“Well, Brown, I’ve proofs that serve to show that earth, indeed, a ball ‘tis;
But if you won’t believe them—well, not mine but yours the fault is.
Why, everybody, surely, knows a planet must be round,
And, since the earth a planet is, its shape at once is found.
We know it travels round the sun, a thousand miles a minute,
And, therefore, it must be a globe: a flat earth couldn’t spin it.
We know it on its axis turns with motion unperceived;
And therefore, surely, plain it is, its shape must be believed.
We know its weight put down in tons exactly as we weigh’d it;
And, therefore, what could clearer be, if we ourselves had made it?
We know its age—can figures lie?—its size—its weight—its motion;
And then to say, ‘’tis all my eye,’ shows madness in the notion.
Besides, the other worlds and suns—some cooling down—some hot!—
How can you say, you want a proof, with all these in the pot?
No, Brown: just let us go ahead; don’t interfere at all;
Some other day I’ll come and bring proof that earth’s a ball!”
“No, Proctor, no:” said Mr. Brown; “’tis now too late to try it:—
A hundred proofs are now put down (and you cannot deny it)
That earth is not a globe at all, and does not move through space:
And your philosophy I call a shame and a disgrace.
We have to interfere, and do the best that we are able
To crush your theories and to lay the facts upon the table.
God’s Truth is what the people need, and men will strive to preach it;
And all your efforts are in vain, though you should dare impeach it.
You’ve given half your theory up; the people have to know it:—
You smile, but, then, your book’s enough: for that will plainly show it.
One-half your theory’s gone, and, soon, the other half goes, too:
So, better turn about, at once, and show what you can do.
Own up (as people have to do, when they have been deceived),
And help the searcher after Truth of doubt to be relieved.
‘The only amaranthine flower is virtue;’—don’t forget it—
‘The only lasting treasure, Truth:’—and never strive to let it.”

 

[RaceRunner]

ODDS AND ENDS.

“We do not possess a single evident proof in favor of the rotation”—of the earth—“around its axis.”—Dr. Shœpfer.
“To prove the impossibility of the revolution of the earth around the sun, will present no difficulty. We can bring self-evident proof to the contrary.”—Dr. Shœpfer.
“To reform and not to chastise, I am afraid is impossible …. To attack views in the abstract without touching persons may be safe fighting, indeed, but it is fighting with shadows.”—Pope.
“Both revelation and science agree as to the shape of the earth. The psalmist calls it the ‘round world,’ even when it was universally supposed to be a flat extended plain.”—Rev. Dr. Brewer. [What a mistake!?]
“If the earth were a perfect sphere of equal density throughout, the waters of the ocean would be absolutely level—that is to say, would have a spherical surface everywhere equidistant from the earth’s centre.”—English “Family Herald,” February 14, 1885.
“The more I consider them the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy. I doubt whether we can with certainty know either the distance or magnitude of any star in the firmament; else why do astronomers so immensely differ, even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth? some affirming it to be only three, and others ninety millions of miles.”—Rev. John Wesley, in his “Journal.”
“I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet. As we ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede—actually to sink away—while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified slope, stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aeronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial basin below.”—Mr. Elliott, Baltimore.
In the “Scientific American,” for April 27, 1878, is a full report of a lecture delivered at Berlin, by Dr. Shœpfer, headed “Our Earth Motionless,” which concludes thus:—“The poet Goethe, whose prophetic views remained during his life wholly unnoticed, said the following: ‘In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear in due time some young scientist of genius who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics. The most terrible thing in all this is that one is obliged to repeatedly hear the assurance that all the physicists adhere to the same opinion on this question. But one who is acquainted with men knows how it is done: good, intellectual, and courageous heads adorn their mind with such an idea for the sake of its probability; they gather followers and pupils, and thus form a literary power; their idea is finally worked out, exaggerated, and with a passionate impulse is forced upon society; hundreds and hundreds of noble-minded, reasonable people who work in other spheres, desiring to see their circle esteemed and dear to the interests of daily life, can do nothing better or more reasonable than to leave to other investigators their free scope of action, and add their voice in the benefit of that business which does not concern them at all. This is termed the universal corroboration of the truthfulness of an idea!’ ”

 

[Fundaamental]

I counted over 100 IFS in theses posts lol. 😁

 

[Fundaamental]

Lol the earth is that big it appears to be flat, the fact you don't fall to the sky when the earth spins around and your upside down so to speak, is because of the size of the plannet and the fact of gravitation forces along with atmospheric pressures keep the earth perfectly balanced all around. So your never actually up side down lol.

 

[Dino246]

I counted over 100 IFS in theses posts lol. 😁

Kudos for reading them. I read only one of the "proofs" (so far) and had it dismissed as fallacious before I finished it.

 

[Dino246]

61. It is plain that a theory of measurements without a measuring-rod is like a ship without a rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not likely to be fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at all; and that as modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun’s distance from the Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance is not known, it is a system of measurements without a measuring-rod—a ship without a rudder. Now, since it is not difficult to foresee the dashing of this thing upon the rock on which Zetetic astronomy is founded, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

The distance to the sun is not the measuring rod for calculations of the Earth's circumference. This is no proof at all.

62. It is commonly asserted that “the Earth must be a globe because people have sailed round it.” Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous, and we have another proof that Earth is not a globe.

This is simply silly. Neither assertion constitutes "proof" of anything.

63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a “hill of water,” it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Long-since debunked as demonstrated on YouTube by SciManDan.

64. Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascends, says: “The horizon always appeared on a level with the car.” Now, since we may search amongst the laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The human eye cannot perceive the curvature until it is far above a habitable balloon. Again, not a proof at all.

65. The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram which is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says: “We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up,”—in the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, cannot be a system based on God’s truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Fallacy: appeal to "common sense".

I could continue, but five is enough. This "100 Proofs" is rife with logical fallacies and is good only for entertainment purposes.

 

[Ted01]

ODDS AND ENDS.

“We do not possess a single evident proof in favor of the rotation”—of the earth—“around its axis.”—Dr. Shœpfer.
“To prove the impossibility of the revolution of the earth around the sun, will present no difficulty. We can bring self-evident proof to the contrary.”—Dr. Shœpfer.
“To reform and not to chastise, I am afraid is impossible …. To attack views in the abstract without touching persons may be safe fighting, indeed, but it is fighting with shadows.”—Pope.
“Both revelation and science agree as to the shape of the earth. The psalmist calls it the ‘round world,’ even when it was universally supposed to be a flat extended plain.”—Rev. Dr. Brewer. [What a mistake!?]
“If the earth were a perfect sphere of equal density throughout, the waters of the ocean would be absolutely level—that is to say, would have a spherical surface everywhere equidistant from the earth’s centre.”—English “Family Herald,” February 14, 1885.
“The more I consider them the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy. I doubt whether we can with certainty know either the distance or magnitude of any star in the firmament; else why do astronomers so immensely differ, even with regard to the distance of the sun from the earth? some affirming it to be only three, and others ninety millions of miles.”—Rev. John Wesley, in his “Journal.”
“I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet. As we ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede—actually to sink away—while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified slope, stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aeronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial basin below.”—Mr. Elliott, Baltimore.
In the “Scientific American,” for April 27, 1878, is a full report of a lecture delivered at Berlin, by Dr. Shœpfer, headed “Our Earth Motionless,” which concludes thus:—“The poet Goethe, whose prophetic views remained during his life wholly unnoticed, said the following: ‘In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear in due time some young scientist of genius who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics. The most terrible thing in all this is that one is obliged to repeatedly hear the assurance that all the physicists adhere to the same opinion on this question. But one who is acquainted with men knows how it is done: good, intellectual, and courageous heads adorn their mind with such an idea for the sake of its probability; they gather followers and pupils, and thus form a literary power; their idea is finally worked out, exaggerated, and with a passionate impulse is forced upon society; hundreds and hundreds of noble-minded, reasonable people who work in other spheres, desiring to see their circle esteemed and dear to the interests of daily life, can do nothing better or more reasonable than to leave to other investigators their free scope of action, and add their voice in the benefit of that business which does not concern them at all. This is termed the universal corroboration of the truthfulness of an idea!’ ”

Why aren't you posting the whole book?

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

I would love to hear compelling and intelligent answers to that question. I have been asking that among the Christian community for 8 years now without getting an answer that holds water. If I asked "does the Bible support the idea that we live on a motionless plane, with the Sun, Moon, and stars circling around us, I would expect a flurry of Bible verses, since they are there. Going to bed now, but look forward to reading replies tomorrow.

I think you're asking a question that the Bible doesn't care about. It is the HISTORY of his Story. Of course, science has proven that the earth is round, but that's not the Bible's emphasis at all. It's not a scientific treatise but is God's love story to us through his work in history and especially through Jesus Christ and what he did for us. I suggest that you focus on the Bible's real emphasis instead of on this unimportant question.

 

[tourist]

The Bible is not a science book??? It is the standard by which we judge whether so-called science is true or false.

No, the bible is not really a science book although some scientific concepts are explained. Calling science to be true all false according to scripture is at best an opinion of the one interpreting such passages to substantiate a scientific claim.

 

[Zandar]

I believe that I can prove to you that the solar system doesnt exist. If it did exist, then the stars in the sky would be changing every night and every six months there would be an almost completely new sky with new constellations but that isnt the case.

 

[Moses_Young]

Mature Universe Principle takes care of that. The Photons were set in their places just like everything else. All these problems are manufactured by doubters. Let's not swallow their pablum.

That's a philosophically weak argument. Sure, God could have done it. The question that must be asked (as a scientist/theologian) is why would God put photons of light in place to indicate something that never happened? It would appear to have the intention of deception, and deception is not a characteristic of our God. It would be the same as the argument that God put dinosaur fossils in the Earth to test the faith of man, when dinosaurs never existed. Possible, but not aligned with the character of our God ('though very much aligned with the character of a wanna-be god who Christians are not ignorant of).

To repeat, although this can be an argument to explain the millions of light-years if one assumes a heliocentric universe, given the lack of scriptural or scientific support for a heliocentric universe, the simpler, more scientific approach is to reject heliocentricity outright. If heliocentricity is false, there is no need for stars to be millions of light-years away, and therefore, no need for the philosophically weak argument that God placed photons so far away to indicate events that never happened.

This also fits better with the Revelation scripture where the stars will fall from the sky. How can we see stars fall from the sky, if they're millions of light years away, and we don't have millions of years to wait to see them? Answer: Heliocentricity is wrong, and the stars are pretty close - certainly less than one light day away.

The absence of perception of movement is no reliable indicator of the actual absence of movement. We feel acceleration, not stable velocity.

Good argument. Only thing is the Earth is accelerating, according to the Heliocentric theory. A constant speed around the sun is not a constant velocity. The Earth is accelerating, as it's velocity is changing. Remember velocity is a vector quantity, speed is a scalar quantity. Although the Earth's speed might be argued to be constant in Heliocentric theory, it's velocity most certainly is not. Hence Earth is accelerating (in Heliocentric theory).

lol are you from Mars this post should be posted in the conspiracy forum.

Are you from Jupiter, given that this post appears to be made of the same stuff as its atmosphere? (Heliocentrically speaking).

Is the ability to view earth from space not true either ?.

Do you have the evidence to support the extra-ordinary claim that Earth can be viewed from space?

So you believe the sun does a full orbit of the earth every day.

And the earth doesn't move at all.

Is this not what we observe? Is this not what scripture records God did for Joshua, when God stopped the sun?

Lol do you have any idea how stagnant the water would become if the earth wasn't moving.

Then the clouds wouldn't move.

The rain would never rise and fall

There would be no tornadoes.

There would be no wind.

The earth would become highly scorched because of no ground water on the move as the sun passed over

The moon would drift away.

The tides would not rise.

There would be no continents moving, there would be no tectonic plates moving.

The earth mantle would get so hot in places from not being on the move you would get volcanoes erupting the size of mount Everest.

There would be hardly any atmospheric pressure.

There would be no plant life.

There would be minimal magnetic energy flowing from the south pole to the north pole, our planet would get scorched by the sun

As a result Are protection from the sun would be minimal.

You would get extremely hot temps well over the safe limit, also cold temps.

The land would get really dry.

The world would be a desert.

The water would vaporise and boil at day, and freeze at night

Eventually the water would just completely vaporise.

You would get no rain fall on land.

The sun's radiation would break through our magnetic field and you would get dust storms all day long.

Basically the planets eco system would collapse.

Do you know that these are all examples of the false cause logical fallacy?

 

[Sipsey]

I thought this theme was relegated to the Conspiracy room?

 

[Moses_Young]

I thought this theme was relegated to the Conspiracy room?

No conspiracy here - just bible discussion, right?