AIG Says the Earth Really Isn’t Flat

For some unfathomable reason, the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else — are very proud of themselves for not being flat-earthers.

But they believe the Earth is young, as is the whole universe. They believe in a global flood and Noah’s Ark. They believe in Adam & Eve and their sin that caused Yahweh to curse all of creation and condemn us to the Lake of Fire. They believe all of that, but somehow they don’t believe the Earth is flat — and for that they’re feeling quite smug.

Their new post is Reflections on the Flat-Earth Movement. It was written by Dr. Danny Faulkner, AIG’s creationist astronomer. Here’s AIG’s biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University.

Danny already wrote a few posts for AIG attempting to deny that the bible is a flat Earth book — see, e.g.: Answers in Genesis & the Flat Earth, Part 3. And recently, ol’ Hambo himself wrote about the subject — see Ol’ Hambo Is Not a Flat-Earther.

It’s amazing that they keep doing this, because the bible is absolutely clear on this subject — see The Earth Is Flat! Our guess is that they’re in denial because they fear that if they accepted the plain wording of the bible on this subject, they’d look stupid — and as young-Earth creationists, they can’t afford to look stupid.

For whatever reason, they think the subject is important enough to write about again. Here are some excerpts from Danny’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I have been studying the flat-earth movement for nearly three and a half years. In this time, I’ve published more than a dozen web articles or blogs on the flat-earth movement, and I’ve written a book on the subject that will soon be published. As I’ve studied this movement, I’ve become fascinated with its sociology. I’m very curious as to what motivates flat-earthers, how they became convinced that the earth is flat, and what their thought processes are.

This is really very funny! It brings to mind a passage from Matthew 7:5 (King James version, of course):

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Anyway, Danny says: “I gathered my thoughts on the sociology of the flat-earth movement into 20 bulleted points” and he puts them all into his post, which is very long. It’s way too long for us to deal with in one blog post, and this isn’t important enough to write about in a series of posts.

So what are we going to do? We’re going to give you only one more excerpt. With absolutely no sense of irony, Danny writes:

I have found that flat-earthers readily believe almost anything that a fellow flat-earther says. A flat-earther comes up with a very lame argument that he posts on the internet; soon, another flat-earthers endlessly repeat the poor argument, an argument that is easily refuted and often contains demonstrably false information. [Just like creationists!] Yet it is nearly impossible to convince flat-earthers of the folly of the claim. At the same time, flat-earthers are highly resistant to any arguments for the conventional cosmology. Consequently, flat-earthers have no skepticism for the claims of fellow flat-earthers but have nothing but skepticism (or is contempt a better word?) for those critical of flat-earth views. I’ve suspected for some time that many flat-earth arguments are created by people who don’t believe the earth is flat, but simply want to see how many people they can snooker with very bad arguments. They must get perverse delight out of fooling gullible people.

Go ahead and read the whole thing, dear reader. Danny is right, of course — the Earth isn’t flat. But at the same time, Danny works for ol’ Hambo, purveyor of young-Earth creationism. We can’t figure it out. Can you?

Copyright © 2019. 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

19 responses to “AIG Says the Earth Really Isn’t Flat

  1. Flat earthism isn’t about sociology, it’s about low intelligence and bad reasoning skills!

  2. Derek Freyberg

    I *think* the difference is that flat-earthers as such do not claim divine inspiration. Some may indeed draw inspiration from the Bible, but I don’t think all do. Hambo, on the other hand, does indeed claim divine inspiration – everything he tells us comes from God’s mouth into Ham’s ear and so on to us through that marvelous echo-chamber in Hambo’s skull that should contain his brain, except of course for the parts that Hambo just completely makes up, like the dinosaurs on the ark.
    But they’re both equally deluded, and frankly it seems that the average flat-earther lies a lot less than Hambo does.

  3. So unintentional (self-)parody really is a thing. Absolutely brilliant and Dannyboy doesn’t even realize it. Or does he?
    This is Poe’s Law inverted.

  4. It’s hard to believe that he can’t see the irony in his own pitch; it’s almost word for word what we all say about his theological beliefs.

  5. Karl Goldsmith

    “I’m very curious as to what motivates flat-earthers, how they became convinced that the earth is flat, and what their thought processes are.” The lack of self awareness is astounding.

  6. General Kenobi

    I think it’s hilarious AIG won’t stop talking about the flat earthism. Like, ok…. I was doing my best to *refrain* from drawing a parallel between flat earth and creationism (yeah, I’m one of those “nice people”), but AIG keeps making the connection all on their own. The irony is entertaining.

  7. Eric Lipps

    Creationists themselves have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging that, yes, species really can change. (Just don’t use the e-word!) Forced to do that, they drew on the King James translation of the Bible to cook up the notion of “kinds,” each embracing any number of species from just one (humans) to You-Know-Who alone knows how many, which define the limits of such change.

    One has to wonder how much farther they’ll go given enough time. Will the creationists of, say, 2159 accept that evolution really has occurred and is occurring, and that the planet Earth really is billions of years old, and merely insist that God created the universe In The Beginning? After all, it only took the Catholic Church, what, 200 years to remove Galileo’s work from the Index Expurgatorius, and another century-plus to apologize for his trial. Why shouldn’t the fundamentalists march into the future at the same brisk pace?

  8. Now that Youtube has changed their recommendation algorithm, I’m definitely encountering fewer rabid, evangelical flat-earthers on the various corners of the Internet where I spend my time. A few months ago, I suggested that flat earthism would become part of mainstream creationism within ten years. Now I’m not so sure.

    There’s a personal element to all this as well, because my dad became a flat earther last year along with all the other conspiracy folks on the Internet. He’s kind of a bellwether for that sort of thing.

  9. “It’s hard to believe that he can’t see the irony in his own pitch”
    “The lack of self awareness is astounding.”

    Every creationists that I have ever talked to and read is totally oblivious to irony. For them it is some kind of weird alien concept. For example, one creationists told me that Henry Morris (a creationist “leader”) didn’t know what he was talking about and less than a minute after than he used a moronic argument that Morris had used to support his (the local creationist) belief that there was a world wide flood. They really are oblivious to irony and reality in general. And when you point out their obvious errors that becomes merely your “biased opinion”, as though their spectacularly uninformed opinions have weights equal to or even exceeding well known facts.

  10. He even mentions the Dunning Kruger effect.

  11. Dave Luckett

    I wonder what a Venn diagram of flat-earthers and creationists would look like?

  12. I remember an interview with Charles K. Johnson, the old-time flat earther, many years ago. He was determinedly a flat earther because of the Bible, he made that clear. After his passing, I don’t think that there was any serious movement. Flat Earth groups accused each other of insincerity. The geocentrists made a point of distancing themselves from the Flat Earth.

  13. Steve Gerrard

    Some flat-earthers also fashion themselves to be experts on science and the methodology of science. Consequently, they think of themselves as competent to dictate to scientists, both godly and ungodly, on how science ought to be conducted. But their definitions and practice of science appear to be formulated to make science as generally understood impossible.

    Tsk, tsk, Danny. You are treading in dangerous territory here. If someone were to accidentally think “creationists” when you say “flat-earthers,” they might get the idea that creationists are guilty of hubris too. Your boss won’t like that.

  14. Eddie Janssen

    Who runs the asylum?

  15. Eddie Janssen

    This is quite illuminating.
    https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions

    An example:
    How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?
    Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it’s day. When it’s not, it’s night.

  16. Yeah, brilliant, isn’t it? So much for Huygens’ wave model of light. They should try it in an otherwise dark room with an orbiting bulb at the ceiling.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens-Fresnel_principle

    Not that Dannyboy and his overlord Ol’Hambo are any better – let me discuss cosmic background radiation a bit.

    https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/comments-on-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

    Reading the conclusion is enough.

    “The CMB remains the sole evidence for the big bang theory.”

    https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

    “The recent creation model needs a plausible explanation for the CMB, but recent creationists have yet to suggest one.”
    “a plausible alternate explanation of the CMB within the recent creation paradigm.”
    For some reason “Goddiddid” is not on the cards. Still Gen. 1:3 reads “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Light is a form of radiation, so the devout and faithful fundagelicals have that “explanation” right in his/her favourite Holy Book. When their god created light he created CMB as well.

  17. Creationists like to show the world how ‘science literate’ they are. It gives them the opportunity to look down on somebody even dumber than they are.

  18. @FrankB
    Indeed.
    I seem to recall that the dsicovery of the primordial radiation was welcomed by Bible readers as vindication of Genesis. (Bible readers had long accustomed themselves to ignoring the prior existence of the chaos of wind and water in Genesis.) As was earlier the finite age of the universe.
    BTW, the third major category of evidence for the Big Bang is traditionally the prediction of the the ratio of numbers of light nuclei.

  19. “welcomed by Bible readers”
    Ah, a source would be lovely. Mean spirited as I am I already see how I can use this against YECers.