What might Einstein think about flat earth theories?

There are plenty of resources available to debunk the proposition that the earth is flat. Some of the ones I think are most helpful are listed  in the resources section below. So “Why even bother addressing this theory?” you might might wonder. I pondered that question myself for a time, and decided I should address it for the following reasons:

1. Creationists are often accused of believing “crazy” things. Some make the charge that we are no different from believers in a flat earth, and some accuse us of believing in a flat earth.  In response, what better way to show creationists in general, (and this writer in particular) doesn’t believe in a flat earth than by debunking it? Doing so also gives the added benefit of distancing creationists from flat earth believers.

2. While many have approached this by providing various evidences of why the earth must be shaped like a globe, and not flat like a pancake as flat earth believers claim, I have not seen any debunkers that approach it this way – namely by looking at the physics of such a system as Albert Einstein might. So for these reasons I throw my hat into the flat earth debunking ring. Since I am approaching this from the stand point of an investigation of the physics as Albert Einstein might investigate it, let me describe the approach he would probably take, and the primary theory we must understand.

Einstein’s Experimental method: The Thought Experiment

Einstein’s theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity deal with the nature of light and gravity in a manner that he could not – with the technology of the day – directly experiment with and observe.  That was no object to Einstein, because his main method of discovery was not through physical experimentation, but rather experiments run in his mind, what he called thought experiments. “It’s what you and I would call ‘daydreaming’, but he gets to call them thought experiments because he’s Einstein”[1] says one Einstein biographer.  For this examination of flat earth theory, we will take up Einstein’s method of the thought experiment, and think through the consequences of physics if the earth were, as the flat earth adherents claim, flat, shaped like a pancake.

Before we do so we need to understand one of Einstein’s greatest contributions to science. I’m not speaking of his equation E=mc2  , which showed the equivalence between energy and mass; rather I’m speaking about his General Theory of Relativity which is basically an entirely new concept of gravity. His new theory supplanted Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity[2] as the correct way to view what we used to call the “gravitational pull.”  I say “used to call” because according to Einstein, there is no such thing as a gravitational pull.  Rather, what we experience as “gravity” is really the push of the fabric of space-time which was been curved by the mass of a nearby object. Thus rather than the pull of gravity, we experience the push of space time. Physicist Michio Kaku put it this way:

“There is no such thing as gravitational pull. The earth has curved the space around me and space is pushing me into this chair. Space itself can be curved.”[3]
Michio Kaku

Okay, so we’ve got our basic theory of gravity we’re working with. Now, let’s consider a model of the standard flat earth theory, which is depicted in this video:

Please take a few moments to view if not familiar with the flat earth model.  Got the picture? Okay, let’s commence with our thought experiments, which will highlight a number of insurmountable problems for this flat earth model.

Flat Earth Problems

Problem 1: Objects in orbit
Sun and Moon Orbital Problem
a) What makes the sun and moon orbit around the vertical axis?
Notice how the sun and moon are circling the earth.  According to both Einstein and Newton, the only way those objects could be circling the earth like that is if there were some massive body at the center of their orbit.  But a massive body is not visible on the vertical axis anywhere on the earth, and the flat earth model allows for no such massive body.  There’s another problem even if the flat earth model did allow for such an object. Since the earth itself is not in orbit around the object, the earth would fall toward the object and crash into it. Yet it hasn’t, likely because such an object doesn’t exist.  But the non-existence of such an object is a death blow to the flat earth theory.

GPS Satellite Orbit Problem

b) What keeps the satellites from falling into the gravitational groove at the edge?

The arrows in the picture above show conceptionally how gravity on a flat earth would be greatest around the edge of the earth and weakest at the center. This would create a gravitational  grove or rut of curved space around the flat disk of the earth that would cause all satellites to fall towards the arrows of greatest length (where gravity is greater) and thus eventually fall into the gravity groove at the edge.  Like the problem with the sun and moon, there is no massive object (like a large central sun; the flat earth sun is estimated to be only 32 miles in diameter and it’s not central or stationary) to keep satellites (especially geosynchronous ones) in orbit above the mass of the flat earth where people live. Thus all satellites would fall into the curved space gravitational groove around the earth created by the mass of the flat earth disk. Having GPS satellites fall into orbit around the edge of the flat earth would of course be very problematic for GPS and communication satellites – they would cease to work properly, becoming largely ineffective.

The “Firmament” to the rescue?

These problems are based on the flat earth model depicted in this video[4] where the Sun and moon are at an altitude of 3000 miles above the flat earth, and the star “dome” (the firmament apparently) is 100 miles above the Sun and Moon. I take this to mean the sun and moon are not a part of the firmament, and move within the bounds of the space inside the firmament. But some flat earth believers state that the sun and earth are embedded within the firmament, as in this video. [5]  Additionally, this video states “The heavenly bodies were placed inside this firmament.” (@22:51) and clearly depicts the sun and moon embedded in the firmament. It then states “The firmament is inherently solid.”[6]  If that is the case then, the Sun and Moon are held in place by the firmament, as are the stars; and the firmament becomes – at least according to the first video – at least 100 miles thick of solid material. (Which would make it difficult for rockets and space ships to get through, which is why most flat earth believers don’t believe in space travel, but we’ll come back to that.)

But there are problems with this model – where the sun and moon are part of the solid firmament – too. Let’s look first at an objection that Einstein would likely have, then we’ll take a look an the word “firmament” to see if flat earth believers are interpreting it correctly.

Problem 2: – Where are all the Gravitational Waves?
Einstein’s theory of gravity – General Relativity – predicts that moving objects create a ripple in space-time which move at the speed of light. He called such ripples  gravitational waves. Most gravitational waves are too small and minute to be detected. But large gravity waves can be detected by LIGO -the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory operated by Caltech and MIT. LIGO consists of two L-shaped, gravity wave detectors – one at  Washington (LIGO Hanford), and one at Louisiana (LIGO Livingston) and the two work together in concert to provided a verified detection of gravitational waves. The most recent detection was on January 4th, 2017,  when the two LIGO detectors detected the gravitational wave generated by the merging of two black holes some 3 billion light years away.[7]

If LIGO can detect a gravitational wave made by a tiny, minute portion of the universe (2 black holes out of all of the stars and black holes in existence) that’s 3 billion light years away, why isn’t it detecting the gravitational wave generated by the rotation of the entire universe (all stars and all black holes) only 3,000 miles away? If, as the flat earth believers state, all the heavenly bodies are embedded in the firmament, and the firmament is rotating every 24 hours, and it’s only 3,000 miles away, it should be generating such massive gravitational waves that LIGO is lit up all the time, 24/7. But that is not the case. The LIGO gravitational wave detections are few and far between. That alone sounds the death knell to the proposition that the sun, moon stars and all the other heavenly bodies are embedded in the “firmament” and rotating in a daily cycle 3,000 miles above a stationary earth.

So there are problems if the Sun and moon are not embedded in the firmament; and there are problems if they are embedded in the firmament. But where did flat earth believers get this idea of a “firmament” from? The idea comes from a misunderstanding of a Biblical text.

What is the “firmament”?

The idea for the firmament comes from the text of the Biblical creation account:

And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”
Gen 1.6

The bolded word in the original Hebrew is  רקיע  ( rāqīă‛ – raqiya ) and is translated by the NIV (1973-1984) as “expanse” and by the KJV and NKJV as “firmament.” (The current NIV translates it as “vault” which seems to lean toward a solid firmament.) “Expanse” points to something that is spread out and thus expansive, while “firmament” points to something that is solid – as the flat earth believers take it. But which one is it? The general rule for interpretation of the Bible is to let scripture interpret scripture. And we have a verse in scripture that speaks specifically of the act of creation that can clarify matters: Is 42.5.

Before we take a look at it, let me say a word about the difference in rhyming between English and Hebrew. In English when we rhyme, we use a repetition of the same sound. For example:

In this example I hope all can see
So there is no doubt and all can agree

Here there is a repetition of the “ee” sound in “see” an “agree”. In Hebrew rhyming is done not through repetition of the sound in the words used, but rather in a repetition in the ideas. This is very fortunate for us because that means that unlike English, Hebrew rhyming can be detected even across languages – even when the language translated into uses words that don’t rhyme. Here is an example of Hebrew rhyme from Psalm 1:

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
Psalm 1.1

Notice the repetition of ideas here:

Blessed is the man who
does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Notice how a posture verb (walk, stand, sit) is followed by a word that describes a sinful person (wicked, sinners, mockers).  The Hebrew rhyme is detectable even though the English words don’t rhyme.

Now let’s look at the text we’ll use to clarify Gen 1.6, which is Is 42.5:

This is what God the LORD says– he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
Is 42.5

There are a number of rhyming statements here, but lets focus in on the words in question which I’ve highlighted in yellow. (I’ll just note in passing that the verb “created” used here is the same verb – ברא [ bārā’ – bara] used in Gen 1.1 – “In the beginning, God created,” used here in participial form.) The word used for “stretched out” is the verb נטה (nātāh – natah)- to stretch out, to spread out. And what word is it rhyming with? That would be our old friend רקע  (rŏqă‛ – roqah) the participial form of the verb, which has the cognate noun  רקיע  ( rāqīă‛ – raqiya ) used in Gen 1.6. Recall raqiya could mean either an extended solid surface or a stretched out expanse, but the rhyming word – natah – means to stretch out. So the meaning of raqiya here, to complete the rhyme must also mean to stretch out, or expand.  And remember, this verse is paralleling the ideas in Gen 1.6. So the idea in Gen 1.6 is not the idea of a solid firmament. It must be the idea of a stretched out expanse. Cosmologist Russell Humphreys spoke about this stretching of the expanse in his recent visit to Creation in the 21st Century with David Rives.[8]  Thus at the end of the day, flat earth adherents have misinterpreted one of the basic texts used to support their theory.

Problem 3: The Missing Acceleration Object and Unexplained gravity

According to flat earth believers, there is no such thing as gravity. The following is from a flat earth site:

“According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity does not exist. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as “Universal Acceleration” (abbreviated as UA.”[9]

So instead of gravity, flat earth believers believe that the pancake shaped earth is accelerating up at a constant rate that exactly matches what we measure to be the force of gravity.  The problem with this is that according to Einstein, objects are accelerated in space only because curved space is pushing them. And space is curved because there is a mass in space curving it. Therefore under flat earth theory, there must be a super huge, massive object curving space sufficiently to accelerate the earth and the firmament, which you’ll remember includes all the stars and heavenly bodies, up at the precise rate of gravity as measured on earth.  There’s two problems with this theory:

1. Flat earth theory cannot account for such an object – since all heavenly bodies are in the firmament. The only thing above the firmament are the waters above the sky (Gen 1.7, Ps 148.4). But the waters above the sky are understood to be resting upon the firmament; in fact the firmament is supposed to be keeping those waters out.  If you place a magnet on your refrigerator, it stops moving once it comes in contact with the refrigerator since there’s no more distance to move through to reach it. Likewise if the waters above the sky are above resting upon the firmament, there is no space for the firmament to move through, so the waters would not be accelerating the firmament beneath it. Dark Energy has been proposed, but dark energy (if it exists)  doesn’t accelerate masses, it thins out space.

2. Missing Gravitational waves. If the earth is being accelerated up at the speed of gravity, that means that the firmament is also being accelerated up – or we’d smash into it. Thus the entire universe (earth and firmament) must be accelerating up. That’s a huge mass that’s moving. According to Einstein, it must be producing massive gravitational waves in the fabric of space. Such waves move at the speed of light. Why has LIGO not detected the gravitational waves from the  acceleration of the mass of the entire universe? A reasonable explanation would be because the described motion (accelerating upward at the speed of gravity) is not happening. Which would then mean flat earth theory has no explanation for what everyone on earth experiences as “gravity.”

An Easy Myth Buster Experiment to Prove (or disprove) the flat earth

When the myth busters Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman set out to prove that the NASA moon landings were not a hoax[10], one of the proofs they adduced was the reflection of a laser beam from retro-reflectors placed on the moon (which reflect light back at the source regardless of the angle). They went to the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation observatory (APOLLO) where they saw the return from a Gigawatt laser pointed at the moon. The distance to the moon is about 240,000 miles. But the diameter of the earth, according to flat earth theory, is only 25,000 miles.  So the flat earth, from end to end, is roughly one tenth the distance of the accepted, standard distance to the moon. Therefore the myth busters, or anyone else, should be able to shine a laser beam from one end of the flat earth to the other, assuming they’re high enough for the beam to go over the mountains. Many observatories are built upon mountains, so that shouldn’t be an issue. So an easy proof for flat earth believers would be to shine a laser from one end of the earth to the other, and have it reflected back.  That cannot be done if the earth is a globe.  With today’s technology, this seems to me to be an easy proof.

But getting access to an observatory may prove difficult. Here’s an easier test. You don’t really need to shine the light from one end of the earth to the other. To disprove a globe shaped earth, all you need to do is prove that light is visible past the supposed curvature of the earth. For instance you could go a tall building like the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower in Chicago, or the CN Tower in Toronto. Let’s take the CN tower. Its observation deck height according to Google is 447 m or 1467 feet. Next you need to calculate the distance to the horizon – beyond which you cannot see due to the curvature of the earth. Luckily there’s a site that will calculate that for you called Metabunk: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Just plug in your height, and it gives you the distance to the horizon, and even corrects for refraction by the atmosphere. For the CN tower, corrected for refraction, distance to the horizon is 50.66 miles. So if the earth is curved like a globe, you shouldn’t see a light from the tower beyond 51 miles. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, you should easily see the light from a distance of say, 100 miles. With a laser pointer and a trip to the CN tower, that is an easily do-able test. Station an observer 100 miles from the tower, go to the observation deck of the CN tower, and shine your laser pointer in the direction of your observer. Figure out some Morse code like unique signal to make sure your observer correctly identifies the light from the tower and have at it. An easy test.

So the question becomes, why have none of them done that to end all doubt? Why instead do communication experts tell us that radio communications are limited in distance due to “line of sight transmission?” Meaning that due to the curvature of the earth, radio transmissions (all in the EM spectrum including light) can only be received for limited distances. The answer to that gets us to an area which is a departure from the workings of the theory, but worthy of mentioning in passing.

The Grand Conspiracy

Flat earth believers, must necessary believe there is a grand conspiracy[11] in order to explain much otherwise un-explainable phenomenon. Like space travel, which is impossible due to the firmament. Therefore NASA must be lying, and it’s all a grand conspiracy. Due to the problems with the gravitational groove and satellites mentioned above, I still don’t know how they explain how GPS devices work since the GPS satellites could not stay in orbit. (Much less get to their 12,500 mile orbital altitude past the 3,000 mile altitude of the solid firmament.)  But it’s not just NASA, it’s a myriad of things: Radio distance limitations due to the curvature of the earth must be a lie; the shape of Antarctica is a big secret. (They believe it’s a 200′ wall that surrounds the flat earth that keeps the oceans from falling off the edge.)  Photos from space – especially of the earth – Photoshopped. The Chinese space program, false. In fact, all NASA missions to outer space, (The Moon, Mars, Saturn, Pluto, etc.) are all hoaxes. All lies to support the grand  conspiracy.  So if you want to join the ranks of flat earth believers, then you must become, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. And you’ll fit perfectly the profile I describe in Doubt the Bible? You might be a Conspiracy Theorist.

Final Thoughts

In passing, flat earth believers cannot claim to live on planet earth. They may live on earth, but earth would not be a planet. If earth is flat, it no longer fits the definition of a planet. According to the latest definition, a planet is;

“a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”[12]

The flat earth view fails at a couple of points: the earth is not in orbit around the sun in the flat earth view; and it has not assumed a nearly round shape because there is no gravity.

If my exploration of Einstein inspired “thought experiments” have not persuaded  you that the earth cannot be flat, then by all means check out the resources below. One I think is particularly persuasive is the Flat Earth Debunk Visualization [13]. Here are some of the easy to remember, but decisive points made against a flat earth:

  • No Sunrise/Sunsets: Do  you like sunrises or sunsets? Kiss them good bye with the flat earth model. At 3,000 miles above ground level, the sun will never be seen to be rising or setting over the horizon. Ditto for the moon.
  • Always visible sun: If the earth is flat, the sun would be visible all the times, 24 hours a day. As noted above, it would never set behind the horizon.
  • Daily lunar phases, not monthly: We’d see all phases of the moon every day. All of them – new moon, 1/4 moon, 1/2 moon, 3/4 moon, full moon and everything in between – every day, not monthly.

Obviously the items above are nothing like the world we observe. So if nothing else, this should serve to demonstrate that belief in a flat earth not only does not match the observable evidence, but it is also a detour off the scriptural path that leads you to a place that has nothing to do with the doctrine of Creation.

Duane Caldwell | posted 25 July, 2017 | printer friendly version


  1. Walter Isaacson, author “Einstein – His life and universe”, ref from “Einstein” History Documentary, 2008

2. No need to feel sorry for Sir Isaac, his theory of gravity – meaning the basic equations he derived – are still useful in the vast majority of cases where you don’t have to deal with relativistic space-time adjustments:

“…since under weak gravity, which is the case in most regions of a galaxy, apart from maybe inside or near a supermassive black hole at the core of the galaxy under consideration, Einstein’s general relativity theory produces the same equations of motion as Newton’s law of gravitation.”

John Hartnett, “Has the Dark Matter Mystery Been Solved?”, Bible Science Forum, April 6, 2017,

3. Michio Kaku, ref. from. “Einstein” History Documentary, 2008

4Flat Earth Debunk Visualization, YouTube, posted Oct 8, 2015 by David Ridlen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

5The Flat Earth Dome Firmament, YouTube, posted Sep 27, 2016 by Dorje Daka
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntxsQyKE2_c @22:51

6. The Flat Earth Dome Firmament, @23:32

7. “LIGO Catches Its Third Gravitational Wave!”, LIGO News Release, 6/1/2017, https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20170601

8 Creation in the 21st Century, episode “Starlight Time and Physics”, TBN broadcast 8/26/2016; archived here: http://creationinthe21stcentury.com/starlight-time-and-physics-with-david-rives-and-dr-russell-humphreys-on-tbn/

9. “Universal Acceleration”, The flat Earth Wiki of The Flat Earth Society, accessed 7/23/2017, https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

10 Myth Busters, Episode “NASA Moon Landing Hoax”, Documentary/Reality-TV, 2008

11. Flat earth believers do in fact acknowledge such a grand conspiracy.
See for example: “The Conspiracy”, The flat Earth Wiki,The Flat Earth Society, accessed 7/23/2017,

12. “A geophysical planet definition”, Matt Williams, Phys.org, 2/22/2017

13. Flat Earth Debunk Visualization, YouTube, posted Oct 8, 2015 by David Ridlen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

Flat Earth Resources

Web sites describing basic flat earth theory
Flat Earth Society  https://wiki.tfes.org/
The Flat Earth Society https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
Modern flat Earth Societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies

Videos Showing the flat Earth model
Flat earth Model

Night & Day in Flat earth

How the sun and moon work over the Flat Earth model

Articles debunking the flat Earth theory
A flat earth, and other nonsense
Debunking ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet

Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 13 September 2016, last updated 5 June 2017

Definitive (Observable) Evidence Regarding The Flat Earth | David Rives
David Rives, September 1, 2016

(A video presentation)

Is the Earth Flat?
Danny R. Faulkner, May 24, 2016

Videos debunking the flat Earth theory

10 Things That Would Happen If The Earth Was FLAT

Flat earth debunk Visualization
(Very nice graphics)

“Flat Earth” Debunked! 50+ Reasons The Earth Is NOT Flat! Globe Earth Proof


All images – used by permission from the license holders as noted below
Einstein ponders flat earth theory – Composite by Duane Caldwell © 2017
Gravity on Flat Planet Earth Conception
© Artur Balytskyi | Dreamstime (used by permission, updated by Duane Caldwell)
Einstein – By Underwood and Underwood, New York [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Blackboard and thought bubble – © dragonstock | Fotolia (used by permission)

14 thoughts on “What might Einstein think about flat earth theories?

  1. Perhaps the most deliciously ironic feature of this essay is the fact that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. In point of fact, Flat-earthism, Geocentrism and Creationism are respectively the conservative, moderate and liberal branches of the Bible-Science tree.

    The late Bob Schadewald was the unparalleled expert on the history and beliefs of the modern flat-earth movement. His 1987 essay “The Flat-Earth Bible” is still considered the premier essay on the subject. He points out that like creationists, “flat-earth advocates often give long lists of texts. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, cited 76 scriptures in the last chapter of his monumental second edition of Earth not a Globe. Apostle Anton Darms, assistant to the Reverend Wilbur Glenn Voliva, America’s best known flat-earther, compiled 50 questions about the creation and the shape of the earth, bolstering his answers with up to 20 scriptures each.”

    And in what is almost a from-beyond-the-grave nod to your essay on “You might be a conspiracy theorist,” he points out that “The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book.”

    • Hmm, I don’t completely buy that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world “is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible.” But to the degree that it is, as this article points out, 1. It’s a misunderstanding of the applicable texts and 2. This article is to distance flat-earthism from Creationism.

      • Ah… the old “misunderstanding of the applicable texts” canard. It’s the same argument used by theistic evolutionists to dismiss creationism. And it is just as legitimate in both instances. Both are based on the identical ideological incoherence, merely moving the line at which hypocrisy engages.

        But yes… though flat-earthism is as well supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, embarrassed creationists have long tried desperately to distance themselves from flat earthers. I remember more than 30 years ago when, iIn a public debate with creationist Duane Gish, paleontologist Michael Voorhies suggested that the Creation Research Society resembles the Flat Earth Society. According to a report of the debate published in the creationist newsletter Acts & Facts, Gish replied “that not a single member of the Creation Research Society was a member of the Flat Earth Society and that Voorhies’ linking of the two was nothing more than a smear.” Gish’s remarks brought a rejoinder in a subsequent issue of The Flat Earth News from an outraged letter writer (identified only as “G.J.D.”) who had read the Acts & Facts report. “G.J.D.” contested Gish’s claim that no members of the Flat Earth Society belong to the Creation Research Society, concluding, “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as I belong to both, and I am writing to him to let him know that he is wrong.”

        You can’t distance yourself from flat-earthers without compromising on Biblical inerrancy. They are creationists… just like you. As you move up the spectrum from flat-earther to geocentrist to creationist to theistic evolutionist to atheist you are merely moving the line regarding how much more “interpretation” you will allow of the Bible. Of them all, only the flat-earthers and the atheists are ideologically and hermeneutically consistent.

        Everyone else is lukewarm. Revelation 3:16 comes immediately to mind.

        • So tell me, with regard to evolution, Do you stick to classical slow and steady Darwinism; adhering to Darwin’s dictum: “Natura non facit saltus “Nature takes no sudden leaps;” or do you favor the Eldredge / Gould proposition of “Punctuated equilibrium”? It can’t be both, though surely you recognize both as evolutionists.

          What about the Big Bang? Do you stick with Lemaitre’s theory as originally proposed; or are you leaning toward the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary proposal to get rid of that pesky beginning of time issue? It can’t be both, though surely you recognize both theories as coming from Big Bang believers.

          Gould and Eldredge distanced themselves somewhat from Darwin, though I’m sure most people would consider both groups “evolutionists.” In the same manner I distance Biblical Creationism from flat-earth-ism, theistic evolution and geocentrism. And as this paper shows – if you read it carefully – I did so without compromising Biblical inerrancy.

          Just as there are different beliefs in the camps of evolutionists and Big Bang believers, creationism has different camps. The point of this article is to persuade people to my camp. Your refusal to see the difference between a Biblical creationist and believers in a flat-earth or theistic evolution is due either to ignorance or being willfully blind to the distinctions.

          Thus I can (and with this paper just did) distance Biblical Creationism from flat-earth believers. (That is not to say they are not creationists, just as I wouldn’t say Darwin isn’t a Darwinist because he didn’t believe in Punctuated equilibrium. It merely says they are incorrect in their belief about a flat earth.)

          • It is fascinating that you continue to invest so much energy in opposing science that it become more and more clear you have never bothered to understand. Yes… it can be both and it is both.

            Punctuated equilibrium is not in competition with earlier concepts of Darwinian evolution. It simply augments them with a more sophisticated understanding of tempo and mode. Hartle-Hawking does not contradict Lemaitre’s original proposition. It extends and refines that proposition to account for details Lemaitre had never even considered.

            The newer versions are not “different” from the earlier versions. They are “more.” Gouls and Eldridge did not distance themselves from Darwin, they embraced him. Hartle and Hawking did not turn away from Lemaitre in embarrassment, they polished the facets of his brilliant insight.

            Flat-earthism/geocentirsm/creationism are not in the tiniest bit analogous. Creationism is not some “later” idea that revised and augmented some original flat-earth version. The comprehensive Biblical cosmology IS flat-earth, geocentric and specially created. To gain your desired “distance” does not involve accounting for new facts or filling conceptual gaps. It requires you to carve away the embarrassing parts and pretend they are not there.

            But they are there.

            No version of any science can pretend reliability if it ignores data or treats different data differently based on some desired outcome. But that’s exactly what you are doing. There is no argument you can make against flat-earthism that is is not equally effective against creationism, because they are the same thing. They depend on the same “evidence.” They are founded on the same source and use the same arguments. They are equally “scientific,” equally dependent on scripture, equally reliable and true.

            Sure, flat-earthism is the embarrassing brother at the Thanksgiving Dinner… but it is still a brother even if you choose to disown it and try to drive it out.

          • I see you are in denial of the facts that Punctuated equilibrium stands as a rebuke and in contrast to Darwin’s “slow but steady” change scenario; and that Hawkins came up with the no-boundary solution to avoid the embarrassment of having a “beginning” just as it says in the Bible, “in the Beginning, God”.

            I see you also wish to remain willfully blind about the various distinct tenets that some Creationists accept, while other Creationists reject for good reason. That’s your prerogative. But a word to the wise: Don’t presume to know what I ” bothered to understand.” Your unwillingness to face clear contradictions in these various secular theories does not mean I don’t understand it. Continued assertions along those lines against your humble host, and you’ll see if I understand how to remove such comments from this blog.

          • You seem to take offense at my assertions regarding your “understanding.” A reasonable response to such an assertion would be a demonstration by you that you actually understand. But instead your response is to baldly repeat what has been challenged as false, and then threaten censorship.

            That would be weird. As far as I can tell I’m the only person reading your blog and posting comments at all. Given your effort to get “the message “out, one would have expected more enthusiasm for challenging discussion.

            I have no problem whatsoever denying what is not true. Your belief that either punctuated equilibrium or the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposals “rebuke” anything that came before is evidence only that you either do not actually understand them, do not understand what came before, or both. I’m happy to hold your hand and offer you a deeper understanding, but to this point I have seen no sign that you are genuinely interested.

            “Slow and steady” evolution was never a “tenet” of Darwinism. The tempo and mode of evolution was simply an unsettled detail of the larger conceptual framework. Gould and Eldridge settled the detail and further strengthened the framework. And science advances.

            Hartle-Hawking contradicts nothing in Lemaitre’s original model. Lemaitre was completely silent on the issue of whether the Big Bang was a moment of creation or of transformation. Neither was relevant to the insight or its communication… it was literally an issue left for later scientists to consider. Hartle-Hawking subsequently considered it. And science advances.

            These are not “competing camps” within evolutionary biology or cosmology. They never were.

            And neither are flat-earthism and creationism competing camps within bible-science.

            It is specifically this superficiality of understanding that renders almost your every argument inadequate. You argue against a cartoon, not against what is true. You assert “clear contradiction” but demonstrate no contradictions.

  2. You earlier expressed doubt that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world “is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible.” So… I thought you might enjoy being brought up to speed.

    Flat-earthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book “Christian Topography.” But Cosmas was fighting a losing battle, and the Ptolemaic system, based on a spherical earth, rapidly took over. By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick’s implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.

    The modern flat-earth movement was launched in England, in 1849, with the publication of a 16 page religious pamphlet, “Zetetic Astronomy: A Description of Several Experiments which Prove that the Surface of the Sea Is a Perfect Plane and that the Earth Is Not a Globe!” by “Parallax.” For the next 35 years, “Parallax” — his real name was Samuel Birley Rowbotham — toured England, attacking the spherical system in public lectures. His completely original system, still known to its adherents as “Zetetic Astronomy,” is best described in Rowbotham’s 430 page second edition of Earth Not a Globe, published in 1873.

    The essence of Zetetic Astronomy is as follows: The known world is a vast circular plane, with the north pole at the center and a 150 foot wall of ice at the “southern limit.” The equator is a circle roughly halfway in between. The sun, moon and planets circle above the earth in the region of the equator at an altitude of perhaps 600 miles. Their apparent rising and setting is an optical illusion caused by atmospheric refraction and the zetetic law of perspective. The latter law also explains why ships apparently vanish over the horizon when sailing out to sea. The moon is self-luminous, and it’s occasionally eclipsed by an unseen dark body passing in front of it. The entire known universe is literally covered by the “firmament” (vault) so often referred to in the King James Bible.

    Rowbotham and his followers made “Zetetic Astronomy” a household word in Victorian England, and the movement spread to America and the rest of the English speaking world. Few professional academics embraced it, though there were exceptions. Alexander McInnes, of Glasgow University, was a vehement flat-earther. So was Arthur V. White of the University of Toronto. White, a hydraulic engineer, designed several large hydroelectric dams built in Canada around the turn of the century.

    In the US, the center of “modern” flat-earthism was the “Christian Catholic Apostolic Church” in Zion, Illinois, headed by Wilbur Glen Voliva. He was the original radio evangelist, broadcasting on one of the most powerful transmitters in North America which could be heard as far away as Australia. In his radio station broadcast he ranted against round earth astronomy, and the evils of evolution. He offered a $5000 challenge for anyone to disprove flat earth theory. The church schools in Zion taught the flat earth doctrine. He was quoted about the sun as follows:

    “The idea of a sun millions of miles in diameter and 91,000,000 miles away is silly. The sun is only 32 miles across and not more than 3,000 miles from the earth. It stands to reason it must be so. God made the sun to light the earth, and therefore must have placed it close to the task it was designed to do. What would you think of a man who built a house in Zion and put the lamp to light it in Kenosha, Wisconsin?”

    He became increasingly focused on destroying the ‘trinity of evils’: modern astronomy, evolution and higher criticism, insisting on a strict interpretation of 24-hour days for creation and traveling to Dayton, Tennessee, to appear as a witness at the Scopes trial (he wasn’t called). Voliva also frequently predicted the end of the world: his predictions that the end would come in 1923, 1927, 1930, 1934, and 1935 were incorrect.

    After Voliva’s death, American flat-earthism was taken over by Charles K. Johnson… a delightful old kook with whom I carried on a lengthy correspondence in the 1980s. He piloted the Flat Earth Society until his death with arguments for flat-earthism indistinguishable from your for creationism.

    After he died, I stopped following the movement.

    • Thanks for the history lesson. That’s interesting. But you still didn’t prove that every instance of flat earth belief is due to (a misunderstanding of) the Bible. For example, please explain why all these non-Christian societies appear in Wikipedia’s description of cultures believing in a flat earth:

      Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl was common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

      The article continues:
      Ancient West Asia

      Imago Mundi Babylonian map, the oldest known world map, 6th century BC Babylonia
      In early Egyptian[7] and Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account from the 8th century BC in which “Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods.”[8]

      Are you now going to insist that all the non-Christian societies that believed in a flat earth did so because of belief in a book and a religion that they reject?

      • “But you still didn’t prove that every instance of flat earth belief is due to (a misunderstanding of) the Bible.”

        Why would I need to prove a claim I never made. Here… you even quoted my exact actual words. So let me quote you quoting me:

        “Hmm, I don’t completely buy that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world ‘is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible.’”

        So you challenge that assertion with examples from:

        Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East
        India until the Gupta period
        China until the 17th century
        Aboriginal cultures of the Americas
        6th century BC Babylonia
        Early Egypt
        Early Mesopotamia
        Ancient Greece


        What part of “in the English-speaking world” did you not understand? Exactly?

        • Let me clarify then. A brief history of a few characters as you gave does not prove all instances of flat earth belief is “entirely based upon the Bible.” To the broader claim of flat earth belief being based on the Bible in general – It is clear that flat earth belief does not originate solely from the Bible. The above examples are proof that flat earth belief is not the exclusive domain of bible believers; and your short history – from which you begin with the church fathers – who also didn’t speak English – doesn’t prove the “English-speaking world” to a person got its flat earth ideas from the Bible.

          If you intended examples to be limited to English speaking people, why did you yourself include Greek and Latin speaking Church fathers, and the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes? It appears you are making appeals to the wider base of flat earth adherents as I did.

          • Why do you immediately launch into a straw man that has already been set aflame? Nobody claimed that “all instances of flat earth belief is ‘entirely based upon the Bible.’”

            The claim was, “Flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible.” My intention was clear because it was explicit. You even quoted it. There is no mystery here.

            Why did I include Greek and Latin speaking Church fathers in the later discussion? To put as fine a point as possible on the fact that the Bible is a flat-earth book, that the Church fathers understood it to be a flat-earth book from the earliest days of the church, that repeatedly through history the Bible has compelled people to believe the earth was flat, and that the modern movement is not an innovation based on new scientific knowledge. It is (like creationism but with more integrity) a recognition that one cannot believe the Bible is literally true and accept real science.

          • I have read that six times. It makes no sense.

            What do you imagine I denied here? Exactly?