Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims

by Danny R. Faulkner

Flat earth fallacies are just one more way to muddy the waters in the creation and evolution debate, as well as trying to discredit the Bible as being inaccurate and Christianity as an empty hoax. Now, be prepared when faced with these untruths and misleading agendas and get the facts regarding the flat earth fallacy.

- Powerful answers to refute misleading and false flat earth claims
- Important, thoroughly researched, historical and scientific evidences disproving a flat earth
- Vital context of biblical truths and effective apologetics for Christians

Enjoy a fascinating look at discoveries, science, and the Church throughout history as it faces down and disproves over and over again flat earth fallacies.

Genres: Astronomy, Science, Physics

385 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2019

About the author

Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in physics from Clemson University, an MA and a PhD in astronomy from Indiana University, and he taught at the University of South Carolina—Lancaster for over 26 years. He has published over 100 papers in various journals.

Reviews

[Dogeared Wanderer]

I didn't think people believed in a flat geocentric earth until someone challenged me on my belief in a spherical heliocentric earth system. I know what I've been taught, but I also want to know how and why things are the way they are. I'm thankful for the challenge to search out these things and was incredibly awed by the research that went into this book.

Dr. Faulkner has years of experience in astronomy, history, hermeneutics, ancient Bible languages, and physics. He writes as someone who sought to know the truth of the matter, who thoroughly researched contexts and experiments, who tests both flat earth and spherical earth beliefs by the evidence.

The book covers these topics:
🚀The Bedford Level Experiment
🚀Eclipses 🚀Aspects of the sky
🚀Astronomy 🚀Physics 🚀Geocentrism
🚀NASA 🚀Misc. Claims
🚀Does the Bible teach flat-earth?
🚀How domed cosmology got imported into the Bible
🚀The Book of Enoch

I appreciated his honest and thoughtful evaluation of flat earth methods, including their lack of actual scientific evidence, their usage of eisegesis vs. exegesis, their refusal to look at evidence which goes against their beliefs (i.e., if it doesn't support flat-earth, it must be a lie), and more.

The book is thick because the evidence is huge. It literally took me three months to digest it, but it's worth it. If you're interested in reading an unbiased book that deals strictly with uncovering the truth and presents the evidence, this is it. If you're a science nerd as I am, this is a great book whether you care about flat earth theories or not!

[Jarmo Larsen]

This might be the only book out there that actively argues against what flat-Earthers believe. Astronomer Danny Faulkner does a solid job of addressing some of the most common arguments put forth by flat-Earth proponents. For some of these arguments, he provides clear and simple responses, while others become a bit too deep and technical for me—especially since mathematics and mathematical formulas aren’t my strong suit. When that happens, I tend to lose track. However, it’s evident that Faulkner has carefully considered his calculations, which makes his arguments well thought out rather than dismissive or poorly reasoned.

One drawback of the book is that it sometimes dwells too long on arguments that don’t necessarily need so many pages of explanation. Instead, Faulkner could have included more of the common claims made by flat-Earth believers and examined them in greater depth.

That being said, the book is definitely worth reading and contains many strong arguments and revealing insights. For example, Faulkner exposes how flat-Earth supporters fabricate "memes" that they spread on social media—memes that are often accepted without question and then used as “proof” for a flat Earth. One such meme involves the Moon landing, where flat-Earthers claim that the first humans on the Moon should not have been able to see Earth in the distance. While it’s true that such a view would be impossible from their landing site, flat-Earth proponents have gone so far as to take an original NASA image—one that did not include Earth on the horizon—digitally add Earth into the picture, and then use this manipulated image to "expose" how NASA supposedly faked the Moon landing. This is just one of many cases where flat-Earthers present outright falsified arguments and accusations to support their views.

Although Faulkner occasionally comes across as frustrated with flat-Earth believers, he approaches the topic with a level-headed perspective. He even conducts his own experiments to demonstrate that the Earth is, in fact, round. It’s obvious that he has studied this subject thoroughly.

All in all, this is an important piece of work, especially given the growing number of flat-Earth believers. However, I must admit that some parts of the book are quite technical and drawn-out, and that's some of the reason this book only got it's three stars from me, although three solid stars. That said, Faulkner clearly knows what he’s talking about, and as a physicist and astronomer, he is the right person to debunk this major flat-Earth conspiracy.

[Paige Gordon]

I never thought I would be reading a book like this, but I had a friend who asked me to do some research into Flat Earth because some dear friends of hers are true believers. So I decided to give it a shot.
The first thing I will say about this book is that when Dr Faulkner says it is a “scientific” refutation of flat earth claims - he is not kidding! This book is absolutely filled will all the charts and diagrams and formulas and experiments your nerdy heart could ever desire! But for the faint of heart, beware, it might be a little too much at times.
The second thing I want to discuss is the overall tone of the book. Despite obviously being against Flat Earth, I felt like Dr Faulkner did an outstanding job clarifying the claims of Flat Earthers, experimenting and clinically examining the outcomes of those experiments, discussing the outcomes critically and logically, and finally stating his case for WHY a spherical earth makes so much more sense in light of all the data he presented. At no point did I feel as if - if I were a flat earther reading this book - I would have felt attacked or belittled. The tone was respectful, insightful, and collaborative - which is no small feat when tackling such an emotionally charged subject.
Overall I would highly recommend this book if you are wanting to further understand the whole topic and clarify your own thinking as to why you (probably) believe the earth is a sphere, but don’t really know HOW you know that.


Favorite Quote: “Most people have not given this questions any thought because they have been taught their entire lives that the earth is spherical, so why worry about it? Consequently, with no idea of the reasons why we know that the earth is spherical, most people long ago entered a complacent state of taking someone else’s word for the matter… Perhaps the rise of the flat-earth movement is a symptom of a deeper problem. Far too much of our educational system is geared toward rote memoization of facts, without assimilation of those facts or reasoning to understand how we came to know those facts. Hence it’s understandable why most people know the earth is spherical, but don’t know how we know this.”

[The Bookworm (Jayden Mitchellson)]

What an incredible and informative read! You can tell that the author really knows what he's talking about. He's even done experiments of his own to prove the earth is round, but he's not at all condescending. All flat earthers need to read this book. Here are all the topics it covers:
1: History of the flat earth movement
2: How ships disappear into the distance
3: Eclipses
4: Aspects of the sky
5: Astronomy
6: Geocentrism
7: Physics
8: NASA
9: The shape of the sun and moon
10: Artificial satellites
11: Antarctica
12: Verses from the Bible that supposedly teach flat earth
13: The history of Bible translations
14: The Book of Enoch
Even if you're not a flat earther, or looking to debate flat earthers, this was a very informative and engaging read. I learned a lot of things I never knew before, especially about Christopher Columbus, and the history of the flat earth movement.
Here's a quote from the book that I loved.
"The preferred medium for disseminating flat-earth information appears to be YouTube videos. I think this is because many flat-earthers don't read much. Perhaps many flat-earthers don't read much because they find reading boring. And why do people find reading boring? People who find reading boring generally don't comprehend much of what they are reading. People who lack reading comprehension are just a small step above functional illiteracy."
In the end, it was an amazing book, one that I would highly recommend to both flat-earthers and round-earthers!

[Katie]

The earth is not flat. Now you don't have to read the book! 😂 Just kidding. If you're curious about why we actually believe the earth is round, this book accurately represents the reasoning behind that belief. And, at the same time refutes flat earth arguments completely.

[Jacob Akens]

Incredibly thorough and well-organized book! It certainly gave me a greater appreciation for God’s power and creativity on display across our universe.

I greatly enjoyed this book, and while I definitely appreciate the level of detail that the author went into to disprove numerous flat earth theories, I can understand that it might be difficult for everyone to understand every facet of this book because of just how deep the math/science/equations can get.

However, I do highly recommend it!

For my own future notes:

Page 9 - “Cosmology is the study of the structure of the universe. Unfortunately, much of what passes as cosmology today technically is cosmogony, the study of the origin and history of the universe. However, for our needs, it isn't necessary to discuss cosmogony, so I will restrict my discussion to cosmology proper.”

Page 9 - “Contrary to common misconception, the sun isn't an average star. Rather, the sun is a bit more massive, larger, and brighter than the average star. What confuses people on this count is that most stars are relatively small and dim, but the relatively larger stars are fantastically bright. There is an incredible range in stellar brightness so that if one merely compares the sun to the range in stellar brightness, the sun is average. If the sun is a star, then why do the other stars appear so faint? It is because the other stars are incredibly far away. The nearest star is 275,000 times farther away than the sun. Light diminishes with the inverse square of the dis-tance, so if the sun were as far away as the nearest star, the sun would appear 1/75 billionth as bright as it does now. But even if the sun were that much fainter, it would be among the brighter appearing stars in the sky, though not the brightest star. Other stars are much farther away than the closest star is to the sun.”

Page 9 - “In the flat-earth cosmology, the earth is flat and round. The North Pole is at the center of the earth, There is no South Pole. The edge of the explored earth consists of an ice wall that we call Antarctica.”

Page 13 - “Hence, it's understandable why most people know the earth is spherical, but dont know how we know this. This also explains why it is so easy for flat-earth arguments to Auster so many people. But compounding the problem is that some of the things we think are true aren't true. An excellent example of this is what I call our Columbus mythology. Most of us grew up learning that Columbus thought that the earth was spherical, so sailing westward from Europe to reach Asia was shorter and faster than traveling eastward. This wasn't just an academic exercise because Muslims had closed to Europeans the overland trade routes to the Far East. According to the story, nearly everyone opposed Columbus rash plan because they believed that the earth was flat, so such a foolhardy trip would end in disaster, such as falling off the edge of the earth. It may make for a good story, but it's not true.
Lo the contrary, at least in the West, for 2,000 years before Columbus nearly everyone had known that the earth was spherical. Most people today are astounded to learn this.”

Page 16 - “Galileo did lay his argument on thick. He was required to include a disclaimer that what the book taught wasn't true, but merely was an intellectual exercise. Galileo fulfilled this requirement by calling the book a fantasy, after all, he wrote, any fool knows that the earth doesn't move. Get it? Galileo subtly called anyone who disagreed with him a fool. The Ptolemaic supporter in his book was named Simplicio, which roughly translates as "simpleton." Galileo made Simplicio look foolish. To make matters worse, the pope had insisted that his views be included in the book, so since the pope believed the Ptolemaic model, Galileo put the popes words in Simplicio's mouth. Under-standably, the pope was furious. The uproar the book stirred resulted in a second trial in 1633. The pope had been sympathetic to Galileo, but Galileo's intemperate attitude had thrown that away, along with any other support he once enjoyed. Therefore, the decision of the court was a foregone conclusion. Galileo was found guilty of teaching a heretical doctrine, and he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. He further was forced to recant and was banned once again from teaching heliocentrism.
Note that Copernicus book, which had been much read and dis-cussed, wasn't banned for 70 years, and then only in response to Galileo's actions. Hence, contrary to common misconception, the Roman Catholic Church did not react to the heliocentric model per se. Had Galileo acted more prudently, the outcome may have been very differ-ent. Galileo wasn't quite the innocent victim of an overzealous Roman Catholic Church as many people today think. Rather, his caustic attitude invited the treatment that he received. And was that treatment so harsh? At that time, the Inquisition was executing people for real heresy or for just being Protestant, but Galileo never even came close to that sentence.”

Page 21 - “Beside the argument by analogy, Aristotle gave much better arguments for the earth's sphericity. He noted that as a ship departs, it progressively disappears hull first. If the earth were flat, the ship would appear progressively smaller as it moves away, ultimately reaching the vanishing point, but no part of the ship would disappear first. On the other hand, if the earth is spherical, then one would expect the curvature of the seas surface progressively to obscure more and more of the ship from the bottom up. Since this is what we see, the earth must be spherical. Ive always been a little skeptical of this argument, because without optical aid, this would be difficult to observe (the telescope was invented a little more than four centuries ago, long after Aristotle lived). On the other hand, Aristotle almost certainly was aware of a sort of reverse of this argu-ment. A lookout perched atop the mast of a ship will spot approaching land long before those on the deck will. Furthermore, Greece is a hilly country with many islands. From a beach, an island some distance off shore may not be visible, but it will become visible as one ascends a bluff by the shore. This is not possible on a flat earth, but it is if the earth is spherical.”

Pages 29-30 - “There are examples of early church authorities who taught that the earth was a globe. Three examples are Athenagoras (late second century, Methodius (late third century), and Arnobius (early fourth century).
However, early church fathers did not address cosmology much. There Probably are at least two reasons for this. One reason was that the early church was battling some very serious issues of considerably more immediate concern. Early on, there was the influence of gnosticism that had to be driven from the church. Then there were debates about the nature of Jesus Christ. The gospels portray Jesus as fully human, yet they also record that Jesus claimed to be divine. How could Jesus be both God and man? Different answers to this question arose, and they all could not be correct. The doctrine of the trinity eventually emerged as the proper understanding. After the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 315, fundamental doctrines, including the Trinity, clearly defined orthodox Christianity.
The second reason was that there probably was not much dispute about cosmology — why write about matters that don't appear to be doctrinal, especially on questions where there was no debate? Therefore, among Christians, there was not much impetus to discuss cosmology in the late ancient world and throughout the medieval period. However, discussion of cosmology began to appear more in the 13th century, as Thomas Aquinas explicitly wedded Aristotle's teaching and the Ptolemaic model to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. This set the stage for the Galileo affair 3½ centuries later.”

Page 97 - “The circumstances of total solar eclipses are such that total solar eclipses are very spectacular. And exceedingly rare — at any given location on the earth, a total solar eclipse occurs, on average, about once every four centuries. People who view this ultimate natural wonder either are very fortunate to live in a place and time to experience a total solar eclipse, or they go to some expense and bother to travel into the path of totality. This is the only planet in the solar system where such conditions prevail — the natural satellites of other planets either produce no total solar eclipses, or those eclipses are commonplace and not very spectacular.”

Page 102 - Flat Earth Belief: “The sun and moon are not spheres, but instead are round and flat like the earth. The shape of the dome varies in flat-earth models. In some versions, the dome is hemispherical. In others, the dome is squashed so that it resembles the dome of an indoor sports stadium. In this way, the dome has its least radius of curvature at its edges and its greatest radius of curvature above the North Pole. One may notice immediately that the sun always is above the horizon, so how does the flat-earth model explain night? The answer is that the sun's light is directed like a spotlight so that there is a cone of illumination below the sun. Once the sun moves far enough away from ones location, the observer is no longer in the cone, and night falls. Daylight returns when the sun's position is such that the observer is back in the cone of light.”

Page 117 - “Contrast this to the flat-earth model…In the flat-earth model, the earth is round and flat with the North Pole at its center. There is no South Pole. Above the earth, there is a dome on which the stars and other astronomical bodies are located. The north celestial pole is directly above the earth's North Pole. The dome of the sky is thousands of miles in radius, comparable in size to the radius of the flat earth. The earth does not rotate, but rather the dome of the sky spins around the north celestial pole each day. Because the dome of the sky is only thousands of miles across, an observer, such as at point O, will see the north celestial pole at an angle $ above the northern horizon. At the North Pole, $ will be a right angle, but $ will decrease with increasing distance from the North Pole. Notice that & will always be greater than zero degrees, so the north celestial pole will be visible from all locations on the earth. Notice that since a line may be drawn from any. point on the flat earth to any point on the dome of the sky, the entire dome is visible from all locations on the earth. That is, there are no stars that are visible from some locations, but not from others. However, at different locations, particular stars will be visible in different parts of the sky. There is no south celestial pole, so all motion will be around the north celestial pole.
How well do these predictions of the flat-earth model match what we see in the sky? Not very well. The star Polaris is within a degree of the north celestial pole. Being so close to the north celestial pole, Pola-fis appears to move over a very tiny circle around the north celestial pole. The naked eye generally cannot discern such a small change in position over hours, so Polaris appears to remain motionless over the northern horizon, while all other stars appear to spin around it. This is why we cal Polaris the North Star. Being so close to the north celestial pole, the North Star can act as a sort of stand-in for the north celestial pole. There is no bright star near the south celestial pole, so there is no South Star.* In the Southern Hemisphere, stars appear to spin around the south celestial pole (I have made numerous trips to the Southern Hemisphere and observed this for myself. However, in the flat-earth model, there is no south celestial pole, so this cannot happen.”

Page 118 - “The North Star is not visible south of the earth's equator. This is a matter of observational fact. For observers in temperate regions of the Southern Hemisphere, there is a circumpolar region surrounding the north celestial pole that is never visible. This region contains the North Star, the Big Dipper, and the Little Dipper.”

Page 152 - “Is the moon a disk, or is it a globe? In chapter 1, I explained that lunar phases make sense only if the moon is a ball illuminated by the sun. First, the moons terminator usually appears curved. This is easily explained if the moon is a sphere, but it defies explanation if the moon is a disk.
Second, as the spherical moon orbits the earth each month, the amount of the half-lit part of the moon facing the earth varies, producing the lunar phases. Flat-earthers generally respond by denying that this is the cause of lunar phases, insisting instead that the moon provides its own light and that something else must be the cause of the lunar phases. How-ever, that other cause is never explained.”

Pages 186-187 - “However, the situation is very different for large guns, such as artillery or guns aboard naval vessels. Here, the range can be many miles.
The Army Field Manual indicates that for artillery, corrections for the Coriolis effect must be made. For instance, the 1945 Army Field Manual says the following:
Rotation of earth. The rotation of the earth affects the location of the point of impact of the projectile in range and direction. The magnitude of these effects depends upon the latitude of the gun position, the direction of fire, and the range to the target.
Corrections for Rotation of the Earth. The firing tables
for certain long-range weapons give the range and deflection effects of rotation of the earth. These effects may be combined with the effects due to nonstandard conditions of weather and material, and the corrections applied in the same manner. For heavy artillery, rotation of earth effects always should be considered and applied as additional range and deflection correc-tions. The latitude of the piece is obtained from a map.
There are many other editions of the Army Field Manual, and all of them say much the same thing. Therefore, it is easy to refute the common claim of flat-earthers that no correction is ever made in firing guns.”

Pages 209-210 - “chapters 10 and 11, I discuss the supposed biblical argument for the carth being flat. There I mention a list of 240+ supposed flat-earth Bible verses? One heading on that list is Earth Is Fixed and Immovable.
That list includes verses that geocentrists have used for a long time. For instance, one verse on the list is 1 Chronicles 16:30, which reads:
“Tremble before him, all the earth;
yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
- Also Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 104:5…
All four verses clearly and emphatically state that the earth shall never be moved. Therefore, by the literal hermeneutic, the earth must be stationary. But let us consider Psalm 16:8:
I have set the Lord always before me:
because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved' (KJV).
Here, David is speaking of himself. If one is consistent in the literal hermeneutic, David must have remained stationary the remainder of his life.
No one would insist that is the case, so the meaning of the word "moved" here must mean something less than the completely literal sense.”

Pages 213-214 - “Furthermore, there is an inconsistency here. The flat-earth model today is one in which the sun moves in a circle around the sky. In this model, the sun doesn't pass below the horizon. Hence, in the modern Flat-earth model, the sun neither rises nor sets. To explain the phenomenon of sunrise and sunset, flat-earthers appeal to flimflam about perspective merely causing the sun to appear to rise and set. Many critics of geocentrism say that sunrise and sunset are phenomenological. That is, the sun passes above or below the horizon due to the earth's rotation, causing the sun to appear to rise and set. Modern (non-flat-earth) geocentrists respond that the statements of the Bible are absolute, not of mere appearance. This puts flat-earthers in a bind. They insist on a hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture, but the moment they appeal to the appearance of sunrise or sunset with the sun not actually rising or set-ting, they have made a radical departure from their literal interpretation.
Flat-earthers can't have it both ways.
Let me close this section with one verse the flat-earthers don't like to discuss - Psalm 99:1. In the King James Version, it reads:
The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth
between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
Notice that this verse clearly states that the earth moves. No wonder flat-carthers never mention this verse. Please dont misunderstand - I’m not claiming that this verse proves heliocentrism. Far from it. Rather, I'm using it to point out that a hyper-literal approach to interpreting anything, but especially Scripture, can get one into trouble.”

Page 221 - “Flat-earthers frequently bring up the Van Allen belts around the earth as proof that we never sent astronauts to the moon. Flat-earthers generally term the Van Allen belts as "deadly," and so claim that the Apollo astronauts could not have survived a journey through the Van Allen belts.
What are the Van Allen belts? The Van Allen belts are fast-moving charged particles (mostly protons, electrons, and helium nuclei) trapped by the earth's magnetic field. The inner belt extends from a few hundred miles to a few thousand miles above the earth's surface. Beyond the inner belt there is a safe zone with an outer belt from about 8,000 miles to nearly 40,000 miles above the earth's surface. The outer belt consists mostly of electrons. Both belts are toroidal-shaped with a tilt to the earth's equator.
The inner belt comes closest to the earth over the South Atlantic Ocean, a region called the South Atlantic Anomaly.
Exposure to fast-moving charged particles pose a risk to living things, but how significant is the risk? Contrary to the misconception of flat-earthers, the risk is cumulative, so a single exposure to the belts is not deadly. There are several ways to ameliorate the risk.”

Page 307 - “Flat-earthers frequently tie in biblical mentions of the earth having pillars to the earth being fat. There are three such passages — 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, and Psalm 75:3. Notice that the second and third verses come from the poetic books. But also notice that the first verse comes from Hannah's song of thanksgiving (1 Samuel 2:1-10), making it a poetic passage as well. As mentioned before, the poetic books have many instances of non-literal usage of language. Hence, one must exercise caution in determining the meaning of such passages. To insist on a very literal interpretation of poetic passages is to mishandle Scripture, particularly when a teaching gleaned that way is not supported elsewhere in the Bible.”

Page 315 - “Before examining those other passages, perhaps I ought to better explain what the Flat-earthers who espouse a biblical approach think of stars. Many flat-earthers think that stars are angels, and, hence, modern astronomers are completely wrong about the nature of stars. The equation of angels with stars is not unique to flat-earthers, for many Christians equate the two, at least in some cases.”

Page 334 - “At the time of the translation of the King James Version four centuries ago, no one would have understood 1 Timothy 6:20 to refer to natural philosophy, but instead they would have understood that it meant knowledge falsely so called. Consequently, nearly every modern translation of the Bible has the word "knowledge" in 1 Timothy 6:20 rather than "science." Even the English Revised Version (ERV) made this change. The New Testament of the ERV was published in 1881, Less than 50 years after the meaning of the word "science" had changed.”

[April]

I appreciated the detail and evidence presented although much of it was well beyond my mathematics and physics understanding.

[Steven H]

A PROMINENT CREATIONIST CRITIQUES THE FLAT-EARTH ARGUMENTS

Dr. Danny Faulkner is an astronomer who taught at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for 26 years, is editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, and is now a researcher and speaker for Answers in Genesis.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 2019 book, “There is a wide variety of theological beliefs within the flat-earth movement… In this book, I will be most concerned about the Christian version of the flat-earth movement because I see it as a great threat to true Christianity today. I want to provide answers for people who, when confronted with arguments that the earth is flat, may not know how to respond… I must respond to the biblical arguments put forth for flat earth as well.” (Pg. 7-8) Later, he adds, “there are two other reasons that I wrote this book. The flat-earth books of more than a century ago argued that the Bible taught that the earth was flat… I wrote this book to counter this wrong approach to the Bible… Finally, I’ve always suspected that there is a hidden agenda behind the recent revival of 19th century flat-earth belief… part of the motivation behind the modern flat-earth movement is to undermine the credibility of the creation science movement…. I wrote this book to counter this attack.” (Pg. 44-45)

Summarizing Aristotle’s book ‘On the Heavens,’ he explains his arguments for the earth’s sphericity: “He noted that as a ship departs, it progressively disappears hull first. If the earth were flat, the ship would appear progressively smaller as it moves away… but no part of the ship would disappear first… Another argument … was the visibility of stars in the northern and southern parts of the sky as one travels north or south. Traveling northward, starts near the northern horizon climb higher in the sky, even revealing stars that were below the northern horizon when the observer was farther south… However, the best argument for the earth’s sphericity from the ancient Greeks is the shape of the earth’s shadow during lunar eclipses… as the earth’s shadow creeps along the moon, it always appears as a portion of a circle… If the earth were round and flat… could it cast a circular shadow on the moon?” (Pg. 21-23)

He points out, “Imagine the flat-earth model with a dome covering the surface of a round, flat earth underneath. A line can be drawn from ANY point on the dome to ANY point on the disk below. Therefore, from any location on the earth, a person can ALWAYS see every point in the sky. Since there is no place on the dome that cannot be viewed directly from any point on the earth, the sun is always above the horizon. Therefore, the sun cannot rise and set in the flat-earth model” (Pg. 103)

He notes, “in the conventional model, the midnight sun ought to be visible in the Antarctic as well, but [Eric Dubay] says this is not seen because in the flat-earth model, this is impossible… As it turns out, there are videos on the Internet showing the midnight sun from Antarctica. These are very similar to the videos from the Arctic, except that the sun is going leftward rather than rightward, as is expected. What is the response of flat-earthers to these videos? Flat-earthers claim these videos are faked. This is so common with flat-earthers---they dismiss any evidence that contradicts their model as fake, but they utterly fail to understand that flat-earthers can and do fake data.” (Pg. 112-113)

He observes, “The North Star is not visible south of the earth’s equator. This is a matter of observational fact. For observers in temperate regions of the Southern Hemisphere, there is a circumpolar region surrounding the north celestial pole that is never visible… However, with the flat-earth model… there are no regions of the star dome that are not visible from every location on earth. Therefore, the North Star, the Big Dipper, and the Southern Cross ought to be visible from all locations on the earth. They demonstrably are not…” (Pg. 118)

He wonders, “If flat-earthers don’t believe in gravity, how do they explain the phenomenon that we call gravity?... One camp says that gravity is a result of buoyant forces, while another camp claims that what we call gravity is a result of electromagnetic effects. However… flat-earthers offer no detailed explanations of how buoyancy or electromagnetism might work to do this… Meanwhile, flat-earthers throw up silly objections, such as asking how gravity simultaneously can hold objects onto the earth’s surface and cause the moon to orbit. I call this a silly objection because… gravity can operate in a static situation…or a dynamic situation.” (Pg. 169-170)

He addresses the “Supposed Biblical Support for Geocentrism.” He quotes four verses that geocentrists use (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96;10, and Ps 104:5), but then cites Psalm 16:8, where David says, “I shall not be moved,” and he comments, “If one is consistent in the literal hermeneutic, David must have remained stationary the remainder of his life… Obviously, this example is meant in a figurative sense… It is grossly inconsistent to insist on a hyper-literal meaning in four of the verses, only to bail out on the fifth verse, insisting that it isn’t to be taken quite so literally.” (Pg. 209-210)

He continues, “For those who insist on taking EVERYTHING in the Bible as WOODENLY LITERAL, this is fraught with problems. For instance, Isaiah 66:1 states that heaven IS God’s throne, but Ezekiel and John made it clear that God’s throne is IN heaven. Both cannot be true literally… There are many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands … or eyes… are clearly not literal. So, does God literally place his feet on the footstool?” (Pg. 294) Later, he adds, “Such nonliteral use is common in the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Since the Apostle John frequently used metaphors in his gospel, he certainly was acquainted with their use.” (Pg. 325-326)

He argues, “Flat-earthers frequently challenge those who don’t agree with them to produce one verse, just one verse, that states that the earth is a globe and orbits the sun… Alas, no such verse exists. But it hardly follows that the earth if flat and remains motionless… I can demand one verse, just one verse, that states that the earth is flat… wouldn’t that require that a verse say something like, ‘The earth is flat’? Of course, no such verse exists… The problem is, flat-earthers begin by believing that the earth is flat, read biblical passages in a way that they think is consistent with the earth being flat… and so, in their minds, those verses say that the earth is flat.” (Pg. 335-336)

He concludes, “Flat-earthers concoct grand conspiracies to bolster their beliefs. NASA is a wicked organization that has faked everything it has done. Astronauts are all Freemasons. The world is run by a cabal… This attitude has a deleterious effect upon the creation-evolution debate. For a long time, evolutionists have falsely accused creationists of believing that everything in the Bible is literally true. But many flat-earthers proudly proclaim that they believe everything in the Bible is literally true… Furthermore, critics of creationists have often accused creationists of being flat-earthers. When there were no true flat-earthers, nearly everyone recognized that this was hyperbole. But now that there genuinely are people who believe that the world is flat, it is relatively easy for critics of creationists to lump creationists with flat-earthers… I suspect that the current flat-earth movement was hatched in an attempt, once again, to discredit the Bible, Christianity, and especially creationists… It is my desire that my modest efforts in this book can play a role in combating this great danger.” (Pg. 377)

This is an excellent book (with a variety of “scientific/experimental” evidences, as well), that will be “must reading” for Christians interested in the flat-earth issue.

[Dillon]

Before I read this book, I thought that a belief in the earth being flat was a crazy idea lost to history and that no one in this day and age would take it seriously. But Dr. Faulkner, an astronomer who works for the apologetics organisation Answers in Genesis, discredited that idea. In fact, he uncovers a flat earth movement that seems to be growing, indeed they even had their first International Flat Earth Conference in 2017.
Faulkner explains that flat earthers believe the medieval Christian church held that the earth was flat, and that the Bible supports a flat earth. He meticulously and convincingly sets about proving both these ideas wrong. He also tackles every foundational belief supporting the idea of a flat earth and dismantles them with logic, science and experimental evidence.
For example, he takes some photos purporting to ‘disprove’ the 1969 NASA moon landings and explains how they were faked or shows the original or complete pictures which tell a very different story. In short, he demonstrates that anyone who really believes that the earth is flat is deluded, ignorant or dishonest. He also exposes the strong links between a belief in a flat earth and other conspiracy theories.
Much of the book is scientific or mathematical in nature, dealing with formulae or concepts that were beyond me and it was difficult reading. I skipped over most of this material – about 10% of the book. Beyond that his explanations were clear and easy to follow, and more than adequate for someone who does not have a doctorate in science to follow.
A large portion of the book deals with the biblical evidence and whether it supports a flat earth or not. His exegesis is comprehensive, and he persuasively builds the case that it does not. In fact, he ably demonstrates that the flat earthers really don’t understand the Bible at all.
His conclusion, that the modern flat earth movement is really an attack on the veracity of the Bible is convincing, though somewhat cynical. It is a shame that some Christians have swallowed the biblical arguments of the flat earth movement, particularly because of the movement’s sceptical, anti-Christian origins.
Overall, this was a worthwhile read, even if it was just to be exposed to a crazy idea that I may need to contest at some stage. Some of the science was too advanced but the general information and the biblical evidence was very valuable. I will probably not be reading this book again, except maybe for research if I ever meet someone who believes the earth is flat.

[Robert Dallmann]

Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims offers a solid review of the "flat earth" question. It can be a bit "heady" at times, but keep on reading and you will get good information!

The author addresses the subject on many levels including: Scripturally, historically, cosmologically, etc.

I found some of the historical data to be particularly interesting.

[Alanna]

After coming across more and more people that make flat earth claims, I wanted to read a bit on the topic. I can't say that I read every section or understood it all, but I found it to be a fascinating topic.

[Joah Pearson]

The bits I read were top notch.

[Reid Selmer]

Thorough refutation. Much of the last chapter (specifically the portions regarding Facebook squabbles) was not needed and probably harms the book more than helps its case.