Flat Earth — Free Fire Zone

While we’re waiting for news of The Controversy between evolution and creationism, we urge you to pay attention to this video. In our ceaseless efforts to expand your worldview, your Curmudgeon proudly brings you an interview with Daniel Shenton, president of the Flat Earth Society.

The video is only three minutes long. Take a look. You’re not afraid, are you?

After that, use the comments for an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. Say what you will, but play by the rules — The Curmudgeon’s rules.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Flat Earth — Free Fire Zone

  1. Ceteris Paribus

    Very cogent arguments from the flat-earther. My Tea Party Congressman should prepare for a primary challenger if there is a flat-earther in my district.

  2. Wild Juggler

    I was afraid when I saw this post. It turned out that I was right to be afraid. The arguments the flat-earther made were so powerful and irrefutable that I am now a flat-earther. I can’t believe I believed the earth was round for all these years!

  3. The Flat-Earthers are ahead of the Discovery Institute in one very important aspect: Flat-Earth theories are testable.

  4. I like how the guy didn’t even want to use the word ‘global’ (at about the 1:35 mark), I guess because ‘global’ implies ‘spherical.’ You could almost hear him doing finger quotes. Don’t do anything half-assed, Flat Earth Guy!

  5. At least some of the YouTube commenters agree with Shenton, like this one:

    edurocha05 3 days ago
    I believe the earth is flat. It is said so in many passages of the bible. The Satan has enough power to change people’s minds and confuse them, to get us away from Christ.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Did you see the entry for Marshall Hall at the EoALs? Geocentrist seems even nuttier than a flat-eather. http://www.fixedearth.com/

  7. The only reason why I believe the Earth is round is to escape accountability to my Creator, thus justifying my self-indulgent, hedonistic lifestyle. If the Earth is flat, I’d be morally accountable to my Creator and I want to persist in my immoral behavior. Also, evidence.

  8. Eddie Janssen

    What is their opinion on the moon and the sun. Also flat?
    Or Betelgeuze and Eta Carinae?

  9. I love the Flat Earthers!
    1. They have a much less wrong case than the creationists. A great deal of phenomena in physics can be perfectly described by the Flat Earth Model. Admit it: if you calculate how much time you need to travel from home to the supermarket you use the FEM too. Moreover it’s great fun and a pretty good exercise in thinking to formulate objections to FEM and then construct purely mathematical solutions. In other words: there is much more controversy to teach! But rather not in high school – just for nerds.
    The biggest problem of FEM is that we would expect to see all the stars from everyt single point of the Earth.

    2. They tend to be more honest about their motivation: the Bible says so. Just visit their forum:

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

    3. They do not defend their case to make a financial profit.

    https://www.justgiving.com/theflatearthsociety

    Ain’t that cute?

    4. If you’re not convinced yet then read this thread:

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56836.0#.UjcA6-XgjX8

    They even have some skeptical skills! I got to love them.
    Of course they are completely nuts, albeit in a nice way and that nice way will probably disappear if they ever manage to grow and become substantial. So I still hope they never reach the 10 000 member limit (worldwide I mean). Only that way I can keep on lovin’ them.

  10. Yikes!

    1. Terry Pratchett writes fiction. The Diskworld novels are not documentaries.

    2. My math may be off but if this disk were accerating upward at 9.8 m/s squared to simulate gravity wouldn’t the disk be moving at just under light speed after about 3 years? All the incoming starlight would be so blue shifted to would hit us as gamma rays and kill us all. Not to mention kinetic energy of hitting any dust or gas at that speed.

  11. @Eddie Janssen: for your questions consult

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions

    Then you’ll find

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sun

    and

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

    Yup, FEM is exact science. It’s also wrong science, while creationism isn’t science at all. The only let down is that they turn to conspiracy theories when it comes to moon landings and stuff. That shows such a lack of inspiration.

  12. MNb: “They have a much less wrong case than the creationists.”

    Flat-earthers are creationists. As you might know, I almost never use the word “creationist(s),” but since every one else does, you might as well use a definition that works. Unfortunately we can’t afford to switch definitions like the ID scammers do.

    Tomato Addict: “The Flat-Earthers are ahead of the Discovery Institute in one very important aspect: Flat-Earth theories are testable.”

    Which is why I tried and failed, ~10 years ago to argue that ID is “not creationism.” All other brands, including flat-earthism, and the “heliocentric YEC” that most fellow “Darwinists” obsess over, even though less than half of evolution-deniers favor, are technically closer to real science than the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID scam.

  13. Sure it’s possible to be a flat earther ánd a creationist, it’s even likely, but it’s not necessary. There are Flat Earthers who accept the Evolution Theory:

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.0#.Ujcww-XgjX8

    Of course they are still nuts.
    Now who I’d really like to find is an atheist Flat Earther, but I failed.

    “you might as well use a definition that works”
    In my dictionary everyone is a creationist who ánd thinks Evolution Theory is wrong ánd argues that for new biological species to emerge the interference of some supernatural entity is necessary, either directly or indirectly and no matter how.
    Of course there are all kind of subsets: notably YECers, literalists and IDiots. But theist evolutionists, who typically argue that divine interference was necessary to give homo sapiens consciousness (hardly better imo), are no creationists indeed.

  14. Myself, I prefer geocentrism and Concave Hollow Earth Theory over Flat Earth Theory; and my favored version of Young Earth Creationism is Omphalism.
    It’s too easy today to show that there is something amiss with a flat Earth – things like time zones (it is a commonplace to have conversations with people from different time zones), and Christianity has long ago made peace with interpreting the Bible as compatible with a round Earth. Geocentrism is much harder to deal, and it has a long history of being the accepted reading of the Bible. Concave Hollow Earth and Omphalism challenge the very notion of evidence in a way that even How-Do-You-Know-Were-You-There-Micro-Not-Macro-YEC doesn’t dare.

  15. @FrankJ: Of course ID is Creationism. We have right-wing Republicans who have hijacked the party and taken it away from it’s core values, and we still call them Republicans – not to wander off-topic – but the point is that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Ray Comfort are Creationist who make scientific claims that religion has no business making. They have hijacked Christianity away from what it was intended to be. Intelligent Design takes this even further, with more pretense of science but even less substance.

    Hmmm … I started that paragraph in strong disagreement (with FrankJ), and before I finished I was wondering if I might be making his point. Something to think about.

  16. TomS — the link to concave hollow world theory isn’t working.

  17. @realthog – I don’t know why it isn’t working. It was a pointer to the Wikipedia article ” Hollow Earth” under the heading “Concave hollow Earths”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_hollow_Earths

  18. @TomS

    Thanks! I was wondering if it was Koreshianism you were referring to, and indeed it was. I must lay hands on the Gardner book the article mentions; I’ve read many of his in this field (discarded or crackpot science) but not that one. It was I think in his Fads and Fallacies that I first came across Koresh, and was entranced by the folly of it all!