Danny Faulkner's Contrived Flat Earth

Also ignores answers in Genesis to promote science fiction cosmology

I have a knot in my stomach as I write this post. How can Christians be so deceived by a veneer of reality based on lie upon lie? The truth is so plain to see, so biblical, so observable. Yet, men who profess God cling to a science-fiction version of the cosmos with little to no investigation, trusting anyone who will tell them what they want to hear, even if it defies logic, physics, mathematics, and the Bible.

This post is part five of my review of Danny Faulkner’s Falling Flat. I had thought I would talk about FE history today, as that is the bulk of the material in Chapter One. Yet, as I started to go through the chapter with a fine-tooth comb, I was shocked by something I had previously glossed over. In my first read-through, I had only skimmed the chapter’s surface to find support for Faulkner’s claim that the Biblical Flat Earth (BFE) was “a great threat to true Christianity today.” I cover that in #4 below.

If you have not read the first four installments, you can access them here:

1. “Falling Flat” by Danny Faulkner: A Cover-to-Cover Review

2. Top Twelve Flat Earth Claims to Hold Faulkner's Feet to the Fire

3. Does Danny Faulkner Rewrite Flat Earth History from Page One?

4. Danny Faulkner Accidentally Admits Flat Earth Requires a Creator

In the previous installment, we saw that Faulkner claimed the Biblical Flat Earth model was so contrived that even an evolutionist would have to admit there was a creator. Today’s review will expose that Faulkner has contrived a Flat Earth model of his own, creating another straw man.

I admit that Faulkner’s FE gaffe confounds me. Yet, I’m willing to be corrected. So please message me if you have any information to add to this discussion to help me sort this out. I will include a link to message me below.

Before we get to the glaring blunder [as I see it] — which is so egregious that it can’t even be called a stereotype fallacy — we will examine Faulkner’s cosmology against the Bible’s cosmology.

Let’s dive in.

Conventional Science Fiction Cosmology

Beginning on Page Nine, Faulkner explains the difference between modern-day cosmology and BFE cosmology. He writes, “Cosmology is the study of the structure of the universe.”

Faulkner proceeds to describe the structure of the globe model that we have grown up to love and believe in. He writes, “In the conventional understanding of cosmology, the earth is one of eight planets revolving around the sun.”

Remember, Faulkner is part of Answers in Genesis (AIG), where Ken Ham and gang repeatedly refer to the first three chapters of Genesis as the foundation for God’s created order. Yet, Rob Skiba rightly pointed out that when it comes to cosmology, AIG becomes ANIG — Answers Not In Genesis.

Nothing in the creation account of Genesis One remotely hints that eight planets orbit the sun. Moreover, nothing in Scripture indicates the earth moves at all, unless there is an earthquake. The Bible speaks nothing of any other kind of land or terrestrial objects outside the earth. Adding to God’s creation is vain speculation at best and a doctrine of demons at worst.

Furthermore, Faulkner calls the sun a star. Can you show me what verse in the Bible supports that? There is none. The Bible calls the sun a great light — and calls stars something altogether different. The New Testament confirms this in 1 Corinthians 15:41: “There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.”

The Bible never conflates the sun with a star. The idea is pure fiction. There is zero biblical proof for this claim. Nor is there any physical evidence, save that created in a lab, studio, or computer program.

What confuses people, claims Faulkner, is that the sun appears so much brighter and the stars so much fainter in comparison, that it is hard to grasp that they are of the same substance.

Or maybe, God was correct. The sun and the stars are altogether different.

Evolutionists have billions of years to make their system work; Faulkner has billions of miles. While the sun is a proposed 93 million miles away [Faulkner conveniently leaves this number out of this cosmological discussion], the next nearest star, he claims, is 275,000 times further than the sun. I wasn’t sure if my calculator could calculate that high — but it could.

93,000,000 X 275,000 = 25,575,000,000,000

For those who struggle with big numbers (like me), that makes the closest star 25 trillion, 575 billion miles away.

Conventional science fiction claims: “The closest star to us is actually our very own Sun at 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000 km). The next closest star is Proxima Centauri. It lies at a distance of about 4.3 light-years or about 25,300,000,000,000 miles (about 39,900,000,000,000 kilometers).” ¹

For the record, that’s 272,043 times further.

Close Faulkner. Yet, you’re often missing the mark. Nevertheless, I’ll accept that you rounded up the numbers. However, rounding down might have been better. Or maybe the numbers keep changing. Who knows? I wish you had provided context so the reader could see how astronomical (pun intended) the numbers are. Modern cosmology takes evolutionary numbers to new heights. We’ve moved from the billions to the trillions.

Science fiction. That’s all.

If you want to do some research, ask AI how we measure the distance to Proxima Centauri. Then, ask AI what assumptions are used in those calculations. And then dig deeper. It is assumption upon assumption.

But that’s merely the beginning. Faulkner reminds us:

Other stars are much farther away than the closest star is to the sun. I could go on to include a description of the Milky Way Galaxy, a collection of billions [big number again] of stars to which the sun and stars we see belong, and that there are billions [!] of other galaxies in the universe, but that is at best tangential to the discussion of flat earth.

Tangential?

How about unscriptural?

Okay. Moving on to Faulkner’s contrived version of Christian (biblical?) Flat Earth cosmology.

Faulkner Straw Mans BFE, Again?

In my inaugural post, I wrote about Faulkner’s first straw man in Falling Flat right on the cover. You can revisit that here:

"Falling Flat" by Danny Faulkner: A Cover-to-Cover Review

I also wrote about Faulkner’s propensity to straw man the BFE in this discussion of The Final Experiment.

Does The Final Experiment Settle the FE Debate Once and For All?

My friend Scipio from

Dispatches from Reality

warned me that the straw-manning would continue to be a theme in Falling Flat. He was correct.

For those of us who know we live on a flat, stationary plane — we understand that it is nearly impossible for globe proponent to present a true and accurate FE model because it would be too telling. This forces globe proponents to use straw men and fallacious arguments, hoping the reader/listener will not verify the facts, but instead trust in the laurels of organizations like AIG. While I cannot read minds, I can think of no other explanation for this strawman phenomenon.

Using strawman arguments is to be expected from the non-believing world. Yet, when Christians employ this kind of rhetoric, it is shameful. I am reviewing the second printing of Falling Flat. The first printing was in August 2019; the second was in July 2024. This five-year interim provided ample time for Faulkner to make corrections based on feedback from the BFE community.

Christians must hold Faulkner and AIG accountable for their positions that don’t match reality.

In the previous installment, we saw that Faulkner’s focus in Falling Flat was the Christian version of Flat Earth. Additionally, Faulkner named two BFE proponents, Robbie Davidson (who I knew nothing about) and Rob Skiba.

Since Faulkner named Skiba and Davidson as BFE proponents, I would expect him to refute their version of Flat Earth. But is that what Faulkner does? Not to my understanding.

Let’s examine Faulkner’s version of BFE.

Biblical Cosmology?

I’ll mostly ignore those points to which I agree. Yet, it is essential to point out that there is no consensus in the BFE movement unless it is found in the Bible. For example, many hold to the Gleason Map, while others do not.

Faulkner acknowledges some variety among BFEers, but instead of choosing the most common BFE model to explain Biblical Cosmology to his readers, he presents a fringe version so unique that I had never heard of it before. More importantly, his rendition is not a position held by Rob Skiba. And I could find nothing hinting that Davidson held to the model Faulkner presents. Yet, Faulkner presents the fringe version of BFE as the model the majority accepts. I’m open to correction here. If you have it, please send me proof to the contrary. Until I have evidence otherwise, I will have to accept that Faulkner is providing a straw man model of the Biblical Flat Earth that he has contrived. Moreover, you will see shortly that the Scripture does not teach his fringe position.

Stating that Faulkner’s position is a straw man argument is generous. According to Wikipedia: “A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.”

According to this definition, one may argue a straw man unknowingly. Yet, I have evidence that suggests that Faulkner knows full well that his rendition of BFE is not the position held by Rob Skiba.

It confounds me why Faulkner would make a claim about BFE that is not held by the majority, nor by those in the movement he named.

Faulkner’s Contrived BFE

When presenting his version of BFE, Faulkner claims, “Above earth is a dome in which the stars are embedded. The dome rests on Antarctica beyond the ice wall.” ²

First, what does Faulkner mean by a dome? All BFE believers I know hold to the firmament of Genesis Chapter One as a solid structure. Most agree that it is dome-shaped. Yet, the majority of Christian FE believers (that I know) do not maintain that the stars are embedded in the firmament dome. Since researching, I have heard David Weiss suggest the idea,³ but he does not claim to be a Christian.⁴ And there may be a handful of others who hold this position. Perhaps there are many more. Reach out to me and let me know if you think the stars are embedded in the firmament.

Nonetheless, the question remains. Where did Faulkner get the idea that the stars are embedded in the firmament? It wasn’t from Skiba. According to Rob Skiba, Danny Faulkner was present during this 2018 Flat Earth debate between Skiba and geocentric, globe-believing Robert Sungenis.

During the live debate, Skiba called out Faulkner, saying something like, “I know you are here Danny, but I’m gonna call you out anyway.” ⁵

Mind you, this debate took place the year before the first printing of Falling Flat. Sungenis and Skiba went round and round about whether or not the stars were embedded in the firmament. BFE Skiba repeatedly maintained that the sun, moon, and stars were not embedded in the firmament. Instead, they were inside (or underneath) the firmament like a person in a house or a tent says they are inside it. Being inside the house doesn’t mean they are inside the roofing material. It means they are under the ceiling. ⁶

While Faulkner doesn’t cite his source for where he came up with his idea that the stars were embedded in the firmament, he didn’t get the idea from Rob Skiba, who argued against it the year before Falling Flat was first published. This first claim is relatively benign. It’s the following claim that had my head spinning (no pun intended).

Faulkner’s following BFE claim was so contrived (using Faulkner’s words) — it made ME laugh. I realize that was not the proper response. There may be some BFE believers who hold this view. And I should not laugh, but I don’t believe the Bible teaches it.

Let’s look at his contrived BFE claim now.

Faulkner writes:

Each day, the dome spins around an axis passing through the earth’s North Pole. This causes the stars to move in the sky. The North Star is located almost directly over the North Pole, so it remains nearly motionless while the other stars go in loops around it. In most flat-earth models, the sun and moon are above the earth but generally below the dome. They also orbit around the axis of the North Pole each day, which accounts for their daily motion. The sun and moon move at a slightly different rate from the dome, which accounts for their motion with respect to the stars.

Before reading Faulkner’s Falling Flat, I had never heard my BFE friends or teachers claim the solid firmament spins on an axis around the North Pole. But I had to be sober-minded and consider that maybe someone did or does teach the concept of a moving dome.

So, I started asking my BFE friends. None suggested that the solid firmament of heaven moved. I even reached out to David Weiss. I’ll share some of the most pertinent responses I received.

First, from David Weiss. Although he is not what I would call a BFEer, he does use the Bible. Here’s the question I asked, “Do you know of any biblical flat earthers who claim that the solid firmament dome moves and that’s what causes star rotation? I’ve never heard that view and it sounds ridiculous. But maybe someone adheres to it. I thought you would know. TIA.”

Here’s how he responded to my email:⁷

Weiss didn’t quite answer whether or not anyone teaches a moving dome in the FE Community, but it doesn’t sound like he thinks it’s moving.

Here’s the question I asked in Jen’s Biblical Flat Earth Academy:

Jen Murray, the founder of Jen’s Biblical Flat Earth Academy, responded like this:

Here are some additional responses that strongly suggest that the Bible does not teach a moving dome. Instead, God presents it as fixed and immovable. 

Skiba’s BFE model shows how the earth is fashioned like a footstool. ⁸

Only one BFE friend told me they had heard something about the firmament moving. My friend did not hold the position, but had heard it somewhere before, he thought from David Weiss.

In a poll, one person said that it was the firmament that moved. That person also voted that it did not move, canceling his vote.

Concluding Thoughts

Even ChatGPT admits that a moving firmament is not the mainline position of those who hold to Biblical Cosmology.

The prevalent position among Flat Earth proponents appears to be that the firmament is stationary, while celestial bodies such as the sun, moon, and stars move beneath or within it. This interpretation is rooted in scriptural cosmology, particularly the biblical description of the firmament in Genesis, where it is depicted as a fixed and solid structure separating the "waters above" from the Earth below.

When asked why Faulkner might present a rotating dome as the prominent flat earth position among Christians, ChatGPT writes:

Faulkner’s claim about the rotating firmament being the “Christian version” of Flat Earth is not accurate and misrepresents the mainstream beliefs within the Christian Flat Earth community. It’s either a mistake, a rhetorical exaggeration, or a misunderstanding of the movement. If this is the basis of his argument, it would undermine his credibility in accurately discussing the topic. Given his background in astronomy, Faulkner would be expected to understand the diversity of views within any movement he critiques, and this particular claim would be an example of overgeneralization or misrepresentation.

Rarely do I agree with AI — but here I do.

I would love to know where Faulkner came up with a moving firmament dome. Even more, I’d like to know WHY he presented this straw man as the Christian FE position.

You can access the next installment here: Danny Faulkner’s Malicious Flat Earth God and Reified Moon.

Let me know what you think. Comments are behind a paywall [to keep trolls away], but you can always message me here:

Again, a special thank you to those supporting my work with a paid subscription. It makes a difference. You are sponsoring my research. When you contribute to me, you are helping reach people with the truth of God’s creation and helping expose the works of darkness. That means you’ll share in the rewards in heaven.

1. https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/208-Which-star-is-closest-to-us-#:~:text=The%20closest%20star%20to%20us,miles%20(about%2039%2C900%2C000%2C000%2C000%20kilometers).

2. Page 10. Comments in brackets are mine.

3. This information comes from a 2024 podcast with Josh Monday (BFE) and David Weiss [FE]. Weiss suggests the idea that the stars are embedded in the firmament. Josh Monday disagrees.

4. In this podcast, Weiss admits he was born Jewish, believes in the Bible, and believes in an unnamed personal creator god:

5. Rob Skiba and Robert Sungenis Flat Earth Debate.

6. Ibid.

7. Email on 1/22/25

8. Taken from Enoch’s Domed World by Rob Skiba.