Its my understanding that the demographics of people who believe in flat earth are also most likely believe in creationism, chemtrails and watch Info Wars. Fine, people want to live in ignorance its their choice.
Its my understanding that the demographics of people who believe in flat earth are also most likely believe in creationism, chemtrails and watch Info Wars. Fine, people want to live in ignorance its their choice.
:-)
So, if someone has a different opinion than you it must be due to ignorance?
No possibility a person can examine evidence on both sides of an argument and reach a different conclusion than you?
Well, good luck with that. I'm sure it will serve you well in the future developing personal relationships with anyone interesting...
No I didn't say 'if someone has a different opinion than you it must be due to ignorance'. The point is that Flat Earth and Creationism are not real, that is not my opinion its a point of fact not debate.
Actually, you can't prove either so I think you have a false definition of fact. I think the earth is round, but I can't prove it. Maybe NASA can, but they haven't.
As for creationism, there's no way you can prove it false. Even atheists who travel the world debating theists, like Christopher Hitchens admit that.
I still think your thinker isn't working correctly.
No you are simply incorrect, the fossil record disproves creationism just for a start, and we don't need to wait for NASA to prove that the flat earth is nonsense. I really don't need to prove either of these things as they are already proven in many spheres and by many people. http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae535.cfm
Once again, you're not thinking logically. The fossil record in no way disproves creation. Even if the commonly accepted theory of the fossil record is granted, all that proves is that the Earth is old, not that it couldn't have been created. In order to prove there wasn't a creator, you need to explain why there is matter at all, in light of the second law of thermodynamics which implies that everything is falling apart. That leads to the implication that everything had a beginning state.
How do you explain that without a creator? You can't just say something is a fact without evidence or reason.
Your standard of proof seems to be that if you read something in a scientific magazine it has been proven true. That's not science, that's scientism, i.e. faith in science. Not the same at all.
For instance, there is no way to verify the fossil record was actually laid down gradually over millions of years. The radiometric dating used on any leftover organic materials always assume constant solar radiation, which we now know for sure is incorrect. Also, there isn't a good explanation for the Cambrian explosion that I have ever heard, except explanations that use processes never before witnessed by scientific observation.
If I am incorrect, show me where. Specifically about creation. I'm not a flat earther so I'm uninterested in the topic, besides to point out that you are using a faulty concept of "proof."