Danny Faulkner Accidentally Admits Flat Earth Requires Creator
Says biblical model is so contrived no one would seriously suggest it evolved
This post is Part Four of the review of Faulkner’s Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims.
You can access the first three installments here:
Top Twelve Flat Earth Claims to Hold Faulkner's Feet to the Fire
Does Danny Faulkner Rewrite Flat Earth History from Page One?
Today, we will examine some interesting claims by Faulkner about Biblical Cosmology. While Faulkner likely argues that he upholds Biblical Cosmology, his rendition differs from those who hold to ancient Hebrew cosmology or Flat Earth Cosmology.
When I speak of Biblical Cosmology, I refer to Biblical Flat Earth Cosmology since that is the model the Bible and true science support.
Faulkner rightly holds to a literal six-day creation and denies evolutionary theory. I applaud Faulkner and Answers in Genesis (AIG) for taking those elements of God’s creation literally. Regarding the globe, Faulkner also attempts to support that with the Bible. Therefore, technically, Faulkner also holds to a form of Biblical Cosmology. His model is merely tainted with worldly and pagan ideas not found in the Bible nor supported by physics, including a spinning globe, a vacuum of space, and an expanding universe.
The first chapter of Falling Flat addresses WHY Faulkner felt the need to write a book on Flat Earth in the first place. Interestingly, he spends the bulk of the chapter writing about the history of Flat Earth over the last two millennia. That’s what I’ll step into, lightly, in the next installment.
Now, I will investigate two claims made in Chapter One:
Why Faulkner feels biblical FE is a threat to Christianity.
Faulkner’s unintentional admission that FE requires a Creator (and by implication, the globe does not).
The Christian Version of Flat Earth
Early in Chapter One, Faulkner names a few prominent adherents to Flat Earth, highlighting Robbie Davidson and Rob Skiba, because they present a Christian version of Flat Earth.
Faulkner admits there are Christians in the Flat Earth movement and a Christian version of Flat Earth. Faulkner also says that is where he is going to focus his book. He writes, “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.” 1
We’ll talk about the great threat in a minute. First, let’s talk about the focus of Falling Flat.
Since Faulkner admits to presenting the Christian version of Flat Earth, we must AGAIN ask why Faulkner presents a straw man argument of Flat Earth on the cover of Falling Flat. 2
Read more about that here:
Again, this is not a good look for Danny Faulkner or AIG, especially now that we KNOW he is catering to Christians investigating Flat Earth.
He writes, “I want to provide answers for people [Christians] who, when confronted with arguments that the earth is flat, may not know how to respond to.” 3
Why give them a false impression from the start?
Knowing that Faulkner is writing to Christians about Christian Flat Earth, we can hold him to a higher account if he presents a straw man of FE Biblical Cosmology. We can also hold him accountable for how he treats the FE body of Christ, which he attempts to refute in Falling Flat.
Is Faulkner Qualified for the Task?
Faulkner claims he has:
Conducted extensive research on the FE phenomenon;
Read numerous FE books and much online material;
Attended FE conferences;
Has an extensive knowledge of astronomy and physics; and has
Spent decades studying the sky.
According to Faulkner, this plethora of research and experience “uniquely qualifies” him “to tackle” the task of refuting Biblical Flat Earth (BFE). 4
One thing he forgot to mention was his qualifications to interpret the Bible. Maybe he’ll address that topic later when digging into the Scriptures.
He writes, “Since the Christian version of flat-earth cosmology ostensibly is built upon a biblical foundation, I must respond to the biblical arguments put forth for flat earth as well.” 5
Later, Faulkner admits that his “personal observations that dispute” flat earth claims are met with great skepticism in the BFE camp.
He writes, “I’ve asked several flat-earthers who question what I say on these matters if I’m lying about my evidence or if I’m just so professionally incompetent that I can’t properly make and interpret such observations. That question usually is left unanswered.” 6
Ironically, that’s the same conclusion I came to after writing this article:
I sent Faulkner the article and communicated the same idea. Either he was unqualified to talk about BFE, or he was intentionally deceiving. Faulkner asked for my proof and I referred him back to the article. Faulkner refused to respond.
It is all documented here:
Faulkner also maintains that he will not cater his book to the flat earthers who mock him and the globe because he believes these people are unteachable and unreachable. 7
I respect that approach. Professing Christians should not mock people and their beliefs — whether they believe in a Flat Earth or a sphere. I am growing in this mindset myself as it is easy to laugh at some of the old beliefs I held about space and the globe. Yet, God tells us to correct those in opposition with gentleness and humility, if perhaps God will help them escape the devil’s snare. See 2 Timothy 2:24-26.
Let’s jump into the second half of the first claim.
The Great Threat of Christian Flat Earth
Why does Faulkner see Christian Flat Earth as a great threat to Christianity?
As mentioned, the bulk of Chapter One addresses the history of the Flat Earth Movement over the last 2000 years. I will wait until the next post to poke around that topic. Here, I’ll only mention one point.
Faulkner’s reason for presenting his historical timeline of Flat Earth in Chapter One is to refute the claim that “everyone thought the earth was flat until five centuries ago,” a claim that he says Christian flat earthers make.
And to what end? Faulkner writes, “It is a concentrated effort to discredit Christianity and the Bible.”8
This statement has an irony of its own. It is what Biblical Flat Earth (BFE) proponents claim of the heliocentric globe model.
So, who is correct?
I trust, that by the end of reviewing Falling Flat, the truth will rise to the top like cream on raw milk.
Further, Faulkner sees a problem with BFE proponents who say space is fake. When speaking of denying the testimony of astronauts, Faulkner writes: “It doesn’t seem to faze in the least professing Christian believers in the flat earth when I point out that this puts them into a position of accusing several Christian brothers of lying about one of the biggest things that has happened in their lives. 9
I have previously written on NASA and fake space, so I will not repeat myself. I share my position in Does TFE Settle the FE Debate once and for All?
Though Faulkner doesn’t specifically say that these are the reasons BFE is a great threat to Christianity, these are the best supports for his claim that I could find in Chapter One. They are further elucidated at the end of the chapter when Faulkner presents the three reasons for writing his book.
Three Reasons Faulkner Writes Falling Flat
To help people “who have encountered flat-earth arguments and are seeking help in deciding if those arguments are sound.” 10
To counter those who take a hyper-literal (wrong) approach to the Bible and conflate Flat Earth with orthodoxy. 11
To counter the hidden agenda of the FE Movement to undermine the credibility of the creation science movement, which Faulkner sees as a threat to his calling. 12
Rather than discussing the validity of Faulkner’s reasons for writing Falling Flat, I’d like to state my reason for refuting Faulkner. I love the truth. That’s all I’m interested in. Had Faulkner shared that as a reason, I’d respect that. However, using a straw man on the cover tips his hand that truth is not his primary objective. Instead, he wants to uphold the credibility of the creation science movement and his calling.
Now, let’s move on to the fun stuff. This is all fun, right? Drudging through history is not fun for me. And I will provide a shorter than expected response to it in my next post and explain why.
The following claim is fun. And it’s why I love to do this.
I also enjoy showing my globe-believing husband that I'm not wasting time writing about BFE.
Faulkner Admits FE Requires a Creator
I had to spend some time considering the next claim I’m about to discuss.
Faulkner writes, “Flat-earthers often remark that there are no atheists in their ranks. I suppose that’s because the flat-earth model is so contrived, no one would seriously suggest it evolved.”
There’s a lot to unpack there. Perhaps, I should have made this an entry all its own. I will attempt to discuss it as quickly as possible.
If a flat earther claimed that there were no atheists in our midst, it would be an "argument from omniscience" fallacy. No flat earther should make this claim. It is irresponsible. Yet, there is some truth in the idea that many people who come to Flat Earth conclude there is a Creator. It is almost inescapable. For this reason, Faulkner alludes that BFE is so contrived that no one [argument from omniscience fallacy] would seriously suggest it evolved.
What does contrived mean?
At first, it seems like a word with a negative connotation. And that is how Faulkner uses it. But when you break down what he is saying, there can be no other conclusion than that it means there is a creator — therefore, it [the BFE model] cannot have evolved. Likely, Faulkner suggests it was created by BFEers.
There are at least two meanings of contrived.
The first definition that comes up in a Google search looks like this:
The first entry says, “Deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.” Yeah, that sounds correct. It requires a deliberate creator with supernatural powers.
The other meaning suggests something created or arranged in an artificial and unrealistic way.
Both definitions require a creator. The first suggests a supernatural being as the creator. The second implies a manmade, artificial, or unrealistic model. This contriving can go both ways. The BFE model would seem artificial to someone who has believed in a globe all their lives. The globe model would seem artificial to someone who understands and accepts the BFE model.
Either model could be created by a supernatural being. Yet, according to Faulkner, there is one that could not be explained by evolution, namely the BFE model.
Here’s a valid question: Why would Faulkner evoke evolution in this discussion?
A proponent of creation research should be looking for a model that screams a creator. Suggesting that BFE is so contrived that not even the evolutionists would accept it — is admitting that evolutionists could accept the globe model, which doesn’t require a creator because it could have evolved.
The scripturally defined purpose of creation is to point to a Creator and leave men without an excuse that there is a God. See Romans 1:20.
Faulkner unintentionally admits that the BFE cannot exist without a Creator, but the globe earth can.
Concluding Thoughts
I wish to leave this discussion on a point of agreement. We’ve seen that Faulkner takes a diametrically opposite view of Flat Earth than one who supports a BFE. In the process, he embarrassingly uses straw man arguments.
Yet, I could not agree more with Faulkner on this point. He writes, “However, belief that there is a creator doesn’t necessarily lead one to faith in Jesus Christ, or, for that matter, belief in the Bible.”
I agree. Flat Earth doesn’t save. The globe doesn’t save. Jesus Christ alone saves.
If you are on the fence about the globe or BFE — that’s okay. Don’t be on the fence about Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Him. There is no other name given among men whereby they must be saved.
Access the next installment here: Danny Faulkner’s Contrived Flat Earth.
Lord willing, the next installment will finish Chapter One, so we can move on to Chapter Two.
Comments are behind a paywall to keep the trolls away. If you can’t afford to upgrade your subscription, contact me. If you are actively sharing/liking my posts, I will gladly upgrade you free for life. A work around it to restack the post with a note.
Page 7-8
The cover of Falling Flat was designed by Felicia Joyce Designs, LLC.
Page 8
Page 8
Page 8
Page 44
Page 44
Page 36
Page 44
Page 44
Page 45
Page 45
Could men have contrived either model? Sure. The ‘pancake in space’ straw man model is certainly contrived. As for the globe model, NASA employee Robert Simmon created or contrived the Blue Marble image that was used on the first iPhone. Could God have created the heliocentric model or paradigm? Sure... and if He did, He would describe it and talk about it, and display his power through it. We would be able to understand God’s nature, by studying the nature of His creation.
What’s odd to me, is in many cases, Theistic Heliocentrists (Christians who believe in the doctrines and pseudoscience of Heliocentrism) will adamantly exclaim that the Bible doesn’t speak to “science” or the nature of creation (especially on the topic of earth being a spinning sphere in a vacuum or not.) They will say it’s neutral on “the science.” Then when it comes to trying to describe and make sense of the universe, and questions come up--like deep time or earth’s place in the solar system--the fallback is, “God can do that, because He’s God.”
Well, sure He can!!! But the question is... DID HE? If we can’t find the wisdom and knowledge on that topic--His creation--then how are we to know? Heliocentrism seems to have many, many little excuses for why we DON’T experience what we would, if the earth was a spinning sphere in a vacuum. Whereas a Biblically based cosmological worldview, based on a simple reading of scripture, seems to make sense and is in tune with natural law without much effort. But you have to actually look into it, loving the truth, rather than rejecting the truth in unrighteousness.