Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	answer_n	answer_v	objection_n	2,644	5	9.4165	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47114	An examination of Dr. Burnet's Theory of the earth together with some remarks on Mr. Whiston's New theory of the earth / by Jo. Keill ...	Keill, John, 1671-1721.	1698 (1698)	Wing K132; ESTC R15430	75,308	201

Surface of the Land at the time of the Deluge was equal to a Cylinder whose base was equal to the Surface of the Land and its height two miles And because in two miles there are eight quarters of one mile it is plain that the water which was necessary to cover the Land must be equal to eight Oceans of water which together with the other twelve makes twenty Oceans of water But because the whole Land is not so thickly covered with Hills as I have supposed it being indeed not possible that it should be and because there are but few Hills so high as I have supposed them all to be we must at least allow two Oceans more on these two accounts so that the whole amounts to two and twenty Oceans of water which together with the water that doth now compose the present Ocean makes three and twenty Oceans of water which is the least that can be necessary for an Universal Deluge If the height of the greatest hills were four miles above the Surface of the Ocean as most probably it is by Varenius's Calculation the water that must be required to drown the whole Earth must be no less than twenty eight Oceans of water But I will here suppose there was no more water than what was required by the former supposition Tho it be easy for Mr. Whiston to suppose all this or even a much greater quantity of water to be derived from the Atmosphere of a Comet yet I believe he will not find it so easy a task to remove it again from the Earth He himself acknowledges that the Air could receive and sustain but very inconsiderable quantities of it in comparison of the intire Mass of waters which then lay on the Earth It is not possible that this water could descend through the Cracks and Fissures of the Earth which of necessity must have been all full at the time of the Deluge for water cannot ly on the Surface of the Earth till all the Cracks Holes and Fissures in it be first filled This is so evidently certain both to sense and experience that I think it beyond all contadiction true it being as impossible to make water ly on the Surface of the Earth before all its Cracks Pits and Holes are filled as it is to make a Vessel retain water whose bottom is bored through with holes But tho I should suppose that the Cracks and Fissures remained empty during the Deluge which is indeed an impossible supposition yet it is certain that these Fissures could receive but little more water than what was at first derived from them For the Crust of the Earth according to Mr. Whiston lying immediately on the dense and heavy Abyss and water being lighter than it it is absolutely impossible that ever water should settle it self between the Crust and the Abyss It is therefore clear that no more water could descend through the Cracks and Fissures of the Earth than what they were able to contain or what had first ascended through them to the surface of the Earth which Mr. Whiston supposes to be half the water necessary for making the Deluge and must be according to the former Calculation at least eleven Oceans of water Tho indeed I cannot easily understand how 't is possible for them to contain and receive so much What then can we imagin would become of the rest for after that the Channel of the Sea was compleatly filled there would remain eleven Oceans more to be disposed of which there is no imaginable place in the Earth able to receive And therefore it is clear even to a demonstration that all this water could never be removed by natural means These are the chief and most substantial points I have considered in Mr. Whiston's New Theory I might have made several objections against other parts of it and particularly I might have taken notice of some mistakes he has made in Geometry but because the Truth of his Theory doth not depend upon them I have passed them over If Mr. Whiston will be pleased to make any answer to the Objections I have here made I would desire of him that whatsoever difficulties he designs to remove he will do it by clear and distinct reasoning from Mechanical Principles If he find himself pressed with any objection which he cannot answer I doubt not but that he will have the Ingenuity to own it I know there are some Philosophers that never miss to tell their Readers they reason clearly and distinctly when no body else can discover the consequence but themselves And when they are sore pressed with any difficulty they make a long discourse about some thing the Reader knows not what and endeavour to get off in a mist of words but I expect no such dealing from one of Mr. Whiston's Candor and Sincerity FINIS * Dr. Burthogge * See the Preface and Page 125. first part and Page 147. part second Oxford Edition * Warren's Geology page 116. * Philosophical Transactions Number 192. * See the Figure of the 105 th Page * Archaeologiae Philosoph p. 320 321.

the flood had its axis perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptick it is says he the immediate result of gravity or libration that a body freely left to its self should settle in such a posture as best answers to its gravitation and this earth whereof we speak being uniform and every way equally ballanced there is no reason why it should incline at one end more than at the other towards the Sun as if you will suppose a Ship to stand North and South under the equator if it was equally built and equally ballanced it would not incline to one Pole more than to the other but keep its axis parallel to the axis of the earth so those great Ships that sail about the Sun once in so many years whilst they are uniformly built and equally poised keep steady and even with the axis of their orbits but if they loose that equality and the centre of their gravity change the heavier end will incline more towards the centre of their motion and the other end will recede from it so particularly our earth which makes one in that airy fleet when it escaped so narrowly being shipwrackt in the great Deluge was however so broken and disordered that it lost its equal poise and thereupon the centre of its gravity changing one Pole became more inclined towards the Sun and the other more removed from it in which skew posture it hath stood ever since Here the Theorist puts his false reasoning in fine words and dresses it out in gayety according to the present mode that it may go the smoother off but at the same time he shews us how little he is skilled either in Astronomy or Geometry for he tells us in one place that the earth stands inclined to the Sun or the Ecliptick but how a sphere can be inclined to a plane passing through its centre is far beyond my Geometry to conceive I am sure he will find no such thing said by the Geometers or the Astronomers before him but he may be easily pardoned for this small error because he meant well viz. that the axis of the earth was inclin'd to the plane of the Ecliptick with which it makes an angle of 66°½ But he has committed a far greater blunder than this which is not so easily to be forgiven him for a World-maker ought at least to understand something of Astronomy and of the Copernican system which he embraces but it is plain that he does not know the Elements of that system since he asserts that one Pole of the earth is more inclined to the Sun than the other this is a position I never heard was given to the earth before I wish he would inform us which of the two Poles is most inclined to the Sun for I am sure Copernicus Kepler and Gallileo the first revivers of the Pythagorean system never said any such thing they held that both Poles were equally removed from the plane of the ecliptick the axis which joins them making with it an angle of 66°½ and keeping a position alwayes parallel to it self and therefore whatever inclination one Pole had at any time of the year to the Sun the opposite Pole would have the same inclination at the opposite time of the year and therefore both Poles are equally inclined to the Sun 'T is true indeed that if one hemisphere were heavier than the other the heaviest Pole would alwayes look towards the Sun to which it gravitates and by consequence there would be no parallelisme observed in the axis of the earth for if there were a Globe swimming in water one of whose Poles were heavier than the other it is demonstrable that the heaviest side would alwayes be towards the centre of the earth but since the earth does alwayes keep its axis parallel to it self and by that means makes the variety of seasons which otherwise would not happen I think it a demonstration that the Theorist's opinion in this point is false and ridiculous For if at the Deluge the earth had lost its equal poise and its Centre of gravity had been altered as he will have it the true effect of this alteration would be that the Pole which was next to the Centre of gravity had been alwayes turned towards the Sun and the people living near it had injoyed a perpetual Summer and one continued day without any night whilst those in the opposite Pole had lived in perpetual darkness Frost and Snow having but one eternal Winter without any vicissitude of seasons These therefore being the necessary consequences of such a change of gravity in the earth as the Theorist imagines and since none of them did ever happen to it but the earth does still keep its axis parallel to it self I think it is demonstratively evident that the earth received no such shock by the Deluge as was sufficient to alter the Centre of its gravity and consequently the position of its Poles in respect of the Sun 'T is true a sphere put in aequilibration and made turn round about a point without any other motion necessarily keeps all its diameters parallel to themselves and by consequence the axis which is one of them must also be parallel to its self for since the time of its revolution is determined it will perform its period in that time with the least motion possible which is only when all the diameters of the sphere in all parts of its orbit are parallel to themselves as is demonstrated by the Geometers Nature generally taking the shortest courses in all its operations at least it takes that one and determinate method for performing its work which the Philosophers call the unicum in naturâ I wonder therefore why some should make a third motion for the Earth whereby it keeps its axis alwayes parallel to it self for this is rather the effect of rest than any new motion for it is not the parallelism but the declination of the axis from exact parallelism by which the Stars seeme to move tho very slowly according to the series of the signs which ought to be called a new motion But I will pass from this Subject and consider the Theorists Argument for the right position of the Earth drawn from its aequilibration which he sayes is the immediate result and common effect of gravity or libration For a Body sayes he freely left to its self in a fluid medium will settle it self in such a posture as will best answer to its gravity and the Earth being uniformly ballanced there is no reason why it should incline at one end more than at the other towards the Sun This he illustrates by the similitude of a Ship equally ballanc'd and placed North and South under the equator But after all this Argument and Similitude I can see as yet no reason why the axis of the Earth should be perpendicular to the plane of the Ecliptick more than any other of its diameters for it is demonstarted by the