Ken Ham Still Prefers Debunking Flat Earth and Only Obliquely Hinting Against Geocentrism?

Answering Ken Ham on Distant Starlight · And No, I am STILL Not a Flat Earther · Ken Ham Still Prefers Debunking Flat Earth and Only Obliquely Hinting Against Geocentrism?

I ask, because at the end of my comments, I actually ask him to notify Danny Faulkner about my challenge. As long as I have no clear refusal, I cannot really affirm. I'm lousy at taking ghosting as "clear" in this kind of respect.

The Flat Earth Movement Is Growing RAPIDLY—Are They Right About This?
Ken Ham | 30 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B4EhBZZ-DA

1:06 I have two problems with that comment.

1) Doesn't work for Apocalypse 7, since the angels are standing in specific places, each is not standing in a whole quarter of the Earth. I presume at least.
2) And the Four Corners are a marvellous proof text against the modern Flat Earth movement, precisely if you take them literally.

If your flat earth, as for Cosmas Indicopleustes or perhaps a few more, is basically a Mercator projection, and there is simply no sea crossing between California and China, that doesn't prevent an Earth disc from having four corners. Or continents on a round earth disc from having them.

However the modern Flat Earth map instead has the North Pole in the middle. The continents then have three corners, unless you want to give two on just Australia.

So, the text is a refutation of the modern Flat Earth movement. Because the corners are four, not three.

Shifting the goalpost

@Wordsaladz3y

You can have four corners on a circle, draw a square outside it

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Wordsaladz3y In that case, the four corners would be outside the (on their view, not mine) "Antarctic Ice Wall" and inverifiable.

But the four corners passage in the Apocalypse implies a peopled area.

So, no.

2:14 And some astronomic science is presumed to be knowledge about things at a great distance where you never go.

St. Thomas says that things are not scientifically known if they are:

• contingent (like not necessary, not 2+2=4, but rather "is the triangle red or green?")
• in the past, future, distance or hidden.

So, exit "ape to man" (even before the specific problems). Exit "we will be able and need to do travel to outer space to find inhabitable planets to survive". Exit "alpha Centauri obviously isn't moving between January and July, so it has to be Earth that's moving" OR "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away". Exit also "if Hans Georg Lundahl says he's Geocentric but not Flat Earth, he really means he's both, but doesn't dare to admit the latter". Since I'm not admitting it, it would, if true, be hidden, and so you could have no scientific knowledge about it.

2:33 The way you present now depends on a very small set of eyewitness testimony.

You personally know them, I don't personally know you.

There is a way that is way more comprehensive, namely verifying that travels have been made:

• in Europe and Asia, from East to West (like Transsibirian from Vladivostok to Moscow or St. Petersburg, not sure which, and then Russia to Poland, Poland to Vienna (a journey my mother took during early stages of my pregnancy), Vienna to Paris, Paris to Le Havre,
  
  
• Le Havre over the Atlantic to New York City. OR Vienna to New York City by plane (landing for plane change in in London in 1977), but the boat journey helps you make sure you are still going from East to West and not mixing up the cardinal directions.
  
  
• In the Americas, like New York City to San Diego or Los Angeles or San Francisco.
  
  
• Over the Pacific.

The parts I haven't done myself are like anything East of Warszaw or West of California. But my Geography teacher (who was slightly Marxist) took a trip on the Transsibirian, and I have heard of one Bishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco who has obviously crossed the Pacific. I have also not done the Atlantic in boat, only by plane.

So, there is a much more multiple and uncontested eyewitness testimony that Earth has topological equivalents of a full circle. So much that this is why modern Flat Earthers have no will to defend the old Flat Earth maps, with the Cosmas Indicopleustes outlook. This leaves them in a quandry about how the four corners fit, and also to explain why travel South of the Equator is shorter and not longer per coordinates. I think that can be verified by air flight.

I think Robert Carter did an excellent job proving that by air flights. I also recall, he was very dismissive against Geocentrism, but at one point he admitted it was less easy to disprove than Flat Earth, whereon he proceded to not even trying.

DIY Trepanning

@DIYTrepanning

Anyone who's not an utter dunce can debunk the flat Earth religious fantasy just by using simple high school level trigonometry & geometry. Navigation is not possible on the flat Earth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@DIYTrepanning A Flat Earther from the Middle of India is arguably less than normally aware of Navigation.

And it may have sth to do with anti-Portuguese sentiment.

3:27 "You can see the earth spinning around."

If I took a footage from a train window, you could see trees and hills move.

Mister Wilmore is "no doubt an honorable man" (trying to sound not too much like Marc Anthony), but that doesn't change that his testimony cannot, only reason can to some extent settle whether it was Earth that spun around or he was taking the video from a space station spinning around Earth.

I'd say, as God has put 8 billion pairs of eyes on Earth, and only very few men with very big expenses have put very few pairs of eyes into that space station, that might be a hint about which of the views is the more truthful one.

3:38 That the earth is a sphere is observational.

That it spins around isn't. The observation can have been flawed by being from a moving observer. And in the case of Wilmore, there is a specific reason to suspect it, he took a route not given directly by God as the normal everyday observations we have, like when we see Sun and Moon and (with good binoculars) space stations and stars move around us each day.

4:04 You seem to be willing to argue only with people who trust you.

I have, since 2001, argued extensively with among others people who mistrust me, to the point of mistrusting whether I'm even sane.

So, if we trust you, these three men are Christians and in the testimony of two or three ... why don't you try to give an answer that will work even for people who distrust you?

Arguing over the internet is something very different from a teacher asking a pupil to trust him.

You seem mostly a trustworthy man. Until I analyse the question why you spend so much time on Flat Earth, and so little on Geocentrism. St. Augustine was a Young Earth Creationist, as can be gathered from his treatment of Flood, pre-Flood Patriarchs, post-Flood patriarchs in City of God. He was also a Geocentric, who believed the universe spins around Earth, as you can see from his De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII, book I. There is a Budé edition, so I think there should be a Loeb edition too. Reading a sentence or a Bible chapter in Latin is no problem, but reading longer texts, I prefer having translations at hand. The same book also clarifies that he's definitely not a Flat Earther. What's up with limiting the debate to people who differ from him in at least one of the three areas?

4:45 As I looked up Analemma, I noticed Danny Faulkner, a non-Geocentric astronomer you are promoting, knows some history of astronomy.

Would you mind asking him how he'd refute the following, starting with positions of Riccioli:

• Heavenly bodies move around Earth (directly, or indirectly, some then directly around the Sun) each day, roughly speaking (between Stellar Day that's shorter than 24 hours and Lunar Day which is slightly longer).
• Each individual body is moved by an angel.

However, Riccioli would have said, it is moved Westward through totally Empty space by the angel. Empty space shouldn't make rotational vectors on Earth, like Foucault's Pendulum or Geostationary Satellites, so, let's see what Riccioli replaced, in St. Thomas God moves the sphere of the fix stars, that moves (simply by contiguity) the sphere of Saturn, which moves the sphere of Jupiter, which ... finally you get down to the Moon and below that the Atmosphere and the Oceans.

However, the problem with this model is, there aren't solid crystalline spheres encapsuling the planets. Tycho disproved that by observing a comet.

So, what would work?

God is each day turning a big portion of the aether, globe shaped and centred on Earth, around us each day. Aether is said both as Maxwell would have used it when talking of electromagnetic waves (waves are ripples of something) and also as the substance in which space is located and in which Newtonian vectors are transmitted. If Einsteinian gravity is true, it's the substance that bends around a heavy object (Einsteinian terms: space, spacetime, fabric of spacetime). Within this, the movement provided directly by God is full circle in a stellar day, other speeds and directions, from retrograde to parallax (misnomer on this view) are provided by angelic movers.

Will you kindly notify Danny of the challenge?