God is Real and Space is Fake
Have you ever wondered why you've seen the image of the globe earth thousands of times but no astronaut ever took a picture?
Dearest Substack Reader,
I get it. You came here for the eugenics-critiquing and the vaccine-questioning and even for some good old-fashioned conspiracy-theorizing, but you didn’t sign up for any flat earth nonsense. After all, flat earth is a psyop designed to discredit real skepticism and to divide and conquer us, right?
Thanks for reading Critiquing Eugenics! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I certainly had this reaction when I heard Mark Sargent talk about flat earth on Canary Cry Radio’s Episode 089 back in 2015. In fact, I had stopped listening to CCR’s Basil and Gonz for long enough that I’d missed their Episode 133, Aethereal — The Truth is Stranger than Fiction, in 2018. So, not having heard that show, I wasn’t aware of Will’s biblical cosmology documentary, AETHEREAL — The Battle for Heaven and Earth, or any of his other work until May of 2021. That was when I started hearing from people who had watched Will’s We’re all in this [eugenics war] together, in which he talked about the return of our Revelations Radio News podcast and mentioned my book, The New World Order and the Eugenics Wars: A Christian Perspective. And that was when I began to take the flat earth topic more seriously.
Hearing the flat earth theory this time around, in 2021, my reaction to it was much different than it had been in 2015. Some of my change of heart may have been due to Covid-1984. Living through that craziness has made me ready to consider more “out-there” ideas—or at least to not dismiss them out of hand.
I’ve said for years that there are only two types of people—antivaxxers and people who haven’t researched vaccines. I believe the same dichotomy exists regarding flat earth: There are flat-earthers and people who haven’t researched the subject. Having said that, I won’t be offended by the anti-flat earthers who I expect to hear from in the comments section. After all, I was right there with you up until last year.
In this post, I’m not going to do a deep dive into the evidence for the earth being flat. But I will include some links to the conclusions I came to, so you can go much more in-depth if you’re interested. The conclusions I came to include:
If the moon landing was real, then flat earth is nonsense. Filmmaker Massimo Mazzuco (not at all a flat-earther) proves in his film American Moon that the moon landing was faked by NASA. Thus, what NASA says about the earth being round may also be fake.
If the earth is indeed a globe, the curve of the earth should be measurable and observable. For example, at a distance of five miles there should be 16.67 feet of curve, and at ten miles there should be 66.69 feet of curve.
Experiments (that can be replicated by anyone) do not match up with the expected curvature. FE Proofs Compilation
There is no allowance for curvature in engineering for bridges, canals, highways, communications towers, etc. FE Proofs 101
Pilots don’t calculate for the spin of the earth when they’re landing planes with no difficulty. See link above.
For more on flight paths and emergency landings, see 16 Emergency Landings Evidence for Flat Earth.
NASA has told plenty of other visual lies—everything from using miniatures to using jets to fake the space shuttle, from posting contradictory images of the globe to passing off an artist’s rendering of what “outer space” looks like as being pictures from a telescope.
Have you investigated the Hubble and Webb time-traveling telescope nonsense?
Have you seen the International Space Station’s green screen glitches?
Flat earth “Debunking” always comes back to straw man arguments and name-calling. Why not just measure the curvature of the globe? Why not just take a picture of earth from space?
I take into account my own personal observation that both the sun and the moon appear larger in Oklahoma than they did in Oregon.
The explanation of ocean tides being caused by the gravitational pull of the moon does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Bible clearly describes the earth as fixed, immovable, and on a foundation.
Biblical cosmology is clear from Genesis 1 (the separating of the waters from the waters, with the firmament in between) all the way through Revelation 21 and 22 (God’s lowering of new Jerusalem from out of heaven).
The flat earth theory makes denial of the Creator impossible. The realization that 100% there is a Creator, combined with the realization that scientism is one lie after another, has led many people to go from flat-earthers to Christians.
Biblical cosmology is very clearly spelled out in the Bible. Yet, because of the cowardice, ignorance, and compromised state of modern Christian academics and pastors, there are very, very few churches that teach the subject. In my own experience, I went to a church and a Christian school where Young Earth Creationism was taught in direct contradiction to Darwinian Evolution. But, even there, Copernican cosmology was accepted as settled scientific truth and never questioned. I then went to a Christian university where most (not all) faculty was on the Creationist side of the origins debate. But not once was there any hint that the biblical worldview actually contradicts Copernicus. At the very least, seminaries and Christian colleges should be teaching biblical cosmology as a way to better understand the worldview of Bible characters—from the writer of Job to King David (definitely a flat-earther) to John on the island of Patmos.
Francis Schaeffer wrote A Christian Manifesto (published in 1981) at a time when a materialistic view of reality was still dominant and Darwinian Evolution was still confidently taught in schools and universities.
Materialistic thought would have never produced modern science. Modern science was produced on the Christian base. That is, because an intelligent Creator had created the universe we can in some measure understand the universe and there is, therefore, a reason for observation and experimentation to be optimistically pursued. Then there was a shift into materialistic science based on a philosophic change to the materialistic concept of final reality. This shift was based on no addition to the facts known. It was a choice, in faith, to see things that way. No clearer expression of this could be given than Carl Sagan’s arrogant statement on public television—made without any scientific proof for the statement—to 140 million viewers: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” He opened the series, Cosmos, with this essentially creedal declaration and went on to build every subsequent conclusion upon it.
My only quibble with Schaeffer is that while he quite rightly points out the arrogance of Sagan’s claim that the cosmos is “all that is,” he leaves unchallenged the redefining of “cosmos” into the Carl Sagan version of endless stars, planets, black holes, etc. and away from biblical cosmology, where the cosmos consists of the earth and the heavens (no outer space). There is only one world, one cosmos, in the Bible.
Our view of final reality—whether it is material-energy, shaped by impersonal chance, or the living God and Creator—will determine our position on every crucial issue we face today. It will determine our views on the value and dignity of people, the base for the kind of life the individual and society lives, the direction law will take, and whether there will be freedom or some form of authoritarian dominance.
The authoritarian dominance that Schaeffer warned about over forty years ago is no longer so easy to dismiss, is it? When we remove the Creator from our worldview, whether He is replaced by nothing (as in materialism) or everything (as in pantheism), we also remove the reasons for morality, truth, justice, love, compassion, respect for human life, and freedom. The reason that removing the Creator leads inexorably to authoritarian dominance is that if the state is not under God and under God’s Law then the state will end up acting as if it is God.
God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.
Scientism is threatening a level of tyranny that tyrants of the past could only dream about. Technological advancements allow virtually everything we do to be tracked, traced, and databased. The tyrants haven’t gotten any worse (in fact, the current titular tyrants are most unimpressive), but the tools of their trade certainly have.
I am in favor of civic disobedience, united non-compliance, and all the great solutions that have been put forward. In addition, however, I suggest that we don’t grant scientism the premises on which it is based, since there is no reason to do so.
If you had not been taught since birth that you live on a spinning globe hurtling through space, would your own experience lead you to that conclusion? Or would you, like the majority of humans since the dawn of time (about 6,000 years ago), believe that you live on a stationary and solid earth, with the sun, moon, and stars going through their courses above? When you see the sun’s light shining right through a partly cloudy sky above a flat horizon, would you estimate the sun is 93,000,000 miles away from you?
I am not at all saying that our own observations are the be-all and the end-all of knowledge. I am saying that when our own observations match up much better with the infallible and inerrant Word of God than with the pronouncements of scientism, it is time to stop trying to make the Bible conform to scientism. If we can get more accurate information about cosmology from books of the Bible written thousands of years ago than from NASA today, how seriously should we take the gospel?
Francis Schaeffer A Christian Manifesto pg. 44
Ibid pg. 51
Ibid pg. 91
Excellent article. I hope folks get the thesis of the article and don't get wrapped up in a flat/sphere debate. I'm firmly in the I-don't-know camp. "I loves me a good flat earth argument", but suffice it to say, no one has driven a nail in the coffin for me from either side.The strongest argument in favor of your thesis is a healthy understanding of the sick human condition.
The pastor of the last church I went to regularly was an old-earther. I'm a young-earther. When I suggested Isiah 45:12 to explain the possibility that time isn't a steady-state, the pastor's wife said I was "making God out to be a liar". The pastor would often say "You don't need to check your brain at the door" when anyone would suggest anything resembling a literal, young-earth understanding of scripture. These two were/are solid, solid believers and I look forward to being with them again. But they are typical of how deep these roots are that keep our minds closed to new ideas about reality.
What would you say if I told you that I "cured" the mastitis in one of my cows using a device that "treated" a few drops of the expressed milk? The cow was in the barn, the device & drops in the kitchen, and the drops discarded after. "Bullcrap nut-job idea" was my response to the suggestion. It would be like curing someone of baldness by treating a snip of his hair. Things just aren't as they appear is all I have to say about reality. "Spooky", as Einstein would say. (mastitis=a bacterial infection of the mammary gland)
The lesson from the cow experiment, and many lessons like it, is it is best to start with the most God-honoring interpretation of scripture and take him at his word, which in your case supports the "non-ball" earth position very well.
Greetings my dear brother
And welcome to the wide, wide world of truth.
Much love and respect.
In One Accord