What is the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist?

[Subduction Zone]

I have been watching some YouTube videos lately where they try to explain to Flat Earthers how they are wrong. The flerfers always end up going through some massive cognitive dissonance and end up denying reality. I have noticed the same behavior from creationists.

Would any creationists care to try to explain how your beliefs are any different from theirs?

 

[Polymath257]

I think it would be interesting to see a creationist try to convince a flat earther that they are wrong.

 

[Augustus]

A flat earther is worse, as they have to deny a more visible reality than a YEC.

Not that I'm excusing YEC, but you have a bit more wiggle room by dismissing certain scientific techniques than you do for dismissing a visible reality.

 

[Salvador]

I have been watching some YouTube videos lately where they try to explain to Flat Earthers how they are wrong. The flerfers always end up going through some massive cognitive dissonance and end up denying reality. I have noticed the same behavior from creationists.

Would any creationists care to try to explain how your beliefs are any different from theirs?

I suppose creationism in terms of God-did-it is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Whereas, the Earth's shape is verifiable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose creationism in terms of God-did-it is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Whereas, the Earth's shape is verifiable.

Yet, just as the Earth's shape is verifiable so is the evolution of life.

And to respond to @Augustus at the same time the same methodology that leads to us knowing that the Earth is a globe leads us to realizing that life is the product of evolution. It puts the creationists in a bit of a dilemma.

 

[Salvador]

Yet, just as the Earth's shape is verifiable so is the evolution of life.

And to respond to @Augustus at the same time the same methodology that leads to us knowing that the Earth is a globe leads us to realizing that life is the product of evolution. It puts the creationists in a bit of a dilemma.

However, theistic evolution is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Evolution in of itself is proven fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A flat earther is worse, as they have to deny a more visible reality than a YEC.

Not that I'm excusing YEC, but you have a bit more wiggle room by dismissing certain scientific techniques than you do for dismissing a visible reality.

I also have more sympathy for creationists, since they've generally had creationism drilled into them by their family and society from long before they had the capacity for rational thought; it can become the status quo for them that they need to expend real energy to question and break away from. It can also be attached to ideas they have of the fate of their eternal soul.

OTOH, flat eartherism isn't generally drilled into anyone as a child and isn't enforced on anyone by social pressures; in fact, people usually experience some fairly significant pressures not to adopt something that absurd. IMO, flat earthers only become flat earthers by putting some pretty serious effort into investigating things... they just go about that investigation in completely irrational ways and end up with a ridiculous result.

A person can be a YECcer by no fault of their own, but it takes real determination to be a flat earther.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

However, theistic evolution is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Evolution in of itself is proven fact.

Right. I suppose I'm a creationist of a sort as I believe that life was nurtured by sacred beings. Creationism is a very broad concept. YEC is an extreme fringe belief in creationism.

 

[Thief]

my grandfather was a flat earther

one of the few discussions where we parted in disagreement

he was sure.....decades ago
and insisted I had no proof the earth is round

and over a kitchen table.....I found it difficult to assure him
and failed to convince him of his error

 

[Jose Fly]

I have been watching some YouTube videos lately where they try to explain to Flat Earthers how they are wrong. The flerfers always end up going through some massive cognitive dissonance and end up denying reality. I have noticed the same behavior from creationists.

Would any creationists care to try to explain how your beliefs are any different from theirs?

Psychologically, denialism is the same regardless of what's being denied. Deniers of the holocaust, global warming, spherical earth, evolution, vaccines....they all employ the same general defense mechanisms.

 

[Thief]

Psychologically, denialism is the same regardless of what's being denied. Deniers of the holocaust, global warming, spherical earth, evolution, vaccines....they all employ the same general defense mechanisms.

I suspect my grandfather leaned to evidence

I had none as we sat at the table

he did not quote scripture or verse

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. I suppose I'm a creationist of a sort as I believe that life was nurtured by sacred beings. Creationism is a very broad concept. YEC is an extreme fringe belief in creationism.

Usually the term "creationist" refers to a denier of evolution since creationism was a negative reaction to Darwin's theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also have more sympathy for creationists, since they've generally had creationism drilled into them by their family and society from long before they had the capacity for rational thought; it can become the status quo for them that they need to expend real energy to question and break away from. It can also be attached to ideas they have of the fate of their eternal soul.

OTOH, flat eartherism isn't generally drilled into anyone as a child and isn't enforced on anyone by social pressures; in fact, people usually experience some fairly significant pressures not to adopt something that absurd. IMO, flat earthers only become flat earthers by putting some pretty serious effort into investigating things... they just go about that investigation in completely irrational ways and end up with a ridiculous result.

A person can be a YECcer by no fault of their own, but it takes real determination to be a flat earther.

Most Flat Earthers also seem to be conspiracy theorists. Believing in a Flat Earth helps with Lunar Landing denial. And once you make government part of your conspiracy, anything goes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Usually the term "creationist" refers to a denier of evolution since creationism was a negative reaction to Darwin's theory.

I know. Non-Abrahamic perspectives are usually totally ignored in this society, anyway. For instance, concepts such as "supernatural" or miracles don't make any sense in my worldview since divinity is viewed as immanent and deities don't break the laws of nature to put on a magic show. But I certainly don't believe that the emergence of life had no intelligence behind it. I'm an animist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Most Flat Earthers also seem to be conspiracy theorists. Believing in a Flat Earth helps with Lunar Landing denial. And once you make government part of your conspiracy, anything goes.

I think pretty much all denialists are conspiracy theorists. It's how they explain (and cope with) the fact that the rest of the world doesn't agree with them.

 

[Salvador]

my grandfather was a flat earther

one of the few discussions where we parted in disagreement

he was sure.....decades ago
and insisted I had no proof the earth is round

and over a kitchen table.....I found it difficult to assure him
and failed to convince him of his error

I've done a simple experiment proving the Earth's nearly spherical shape and size.

I've calculated the Earth's circumference by observing and measuring the North Star's angle of view from my horizon with a clinometer at 46 degrees latitude and then comparing Polaris' angle of view from my horizon at 43 degrees latitude. Using an odometer, I measured the 200 miles of distance I traveled north to south on I-29 between 46 and 43 degrees latitude.
I then took the 200 miles distance difference and divided it by the 3 degrees latitude difference and calculated 66.666 miles per 1 degree of distance. Then I multiplied 66.666 miles * 360 to calculate the Earth's circumference at 24,000 miles.

 

[Shaul]

However, theistic evolution is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Evolution in of itself is proven fact.

No, evolution is a verifiable theory, it is not a proven fact. If you wish to presume the mantle of defender of science it would help if you use correct scientific terminology.

 

[Shaul]

Here we go again. The presumption that the Biblical account is irreconcilable with the scientific theory of evolution is dubious. I reject it.

 

[Thief]

I've done a simple experiment proving the Earth's nearly spherical shape and size.

I've calculated the Earth's circumference by observing and measuring the North Star's angle of view from my horizon with a clinometer at 46 degrees latitude and then comparing Polaris' angle of view from my horizon at 43 degrees latitude. Using an odometer, I measured the 200 miles of distance I traveled north to south on I-29 between 46 and 43 degrees latitude.
I then took the 200 miles distance difference and divided it by the 3 degrees latitude difference and calculated 66.666 miles per 1 degree of distance. Then I multiplied 66.666 miles * 360 to calculate the Earth's circumference at 24,000 miles.

good stuff

and there is a means of measure...involving a stick in the ground and the measure of it's shadow
haven't tried it.....but it is alleged to work

grandad would have been difficult
even with yardstick in hand

not that he was stubborn...….
just set in his ways

and needing proof of really simple means
real simple

 

[Salvador]

No, evolution is a verifiable theory, it is not a proven fact. If you wish to presume the mantle of defender of science it would help if you use correct scientific terminology.

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.