Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Lunar Conspiracy Theory & Scientific Creationism Theory

  1. #1

    Lunar Conspiracy Theory & Scientific Creationism Theory

    Anyone see the parallels to the methodology of both camps?

    ie... baaaaad science?

    discuss.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,576
    Yep, bad science, using one thing that can't be readilly explained as proof of their point of view and bringing up the same tired old arguments every few years that have been disproven over and over and over.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    31
    That was not meant to begin a discussion, that was meant to start at arguement.

    Your comparision is childish, and wrong.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,752
    However, it is true. Those who support these theories usually (and I say usually, so as to not generalize) use horrendously incorrect science to "prove" their points.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
    However, it is true. Those who support these theories usually (and I say usually, so as to not generalize) use horrendously incorrect science to "prove" their points.
    I wouldn't say usually, but I know that many "evidences" and "proofs" that creationists use are bad science or just based on bad information. However, the history of the evolutionary theory is just as tainted, if not more so.

    In fact, you can say that about just about every theory. Hence my comment that the original post was childish and not at all innocent.

    For the record, I do believe in God and creation as described in the bible.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,752
    Sorry. I'll try again. Most of the people who support these theories, who are discussed on this board, prove things with incorrect facts and knowledge.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Clifton
    That was not meant to begin a discussion, that was meant to start at arguement.

    Your comparision is childish, and wrong.
    What you call an argument.. provocatively so.. I call.. debate.

    support your assertion that it's wrong.. and I'll ignore the ad hominem "childish" comment.

    -cheers

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    133
    in the interest of keep the peace here, if people would like to discus the science vs religion thing i actauly encourage such debates as long as they don't turn into name calling and hair pulling. Here's the site.

    Anything that is related to subjects discussed on BABB will be refered back here. Anything else is welcome.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Clifton
    That was not meant to begin a discussion, that was meant to start at arguement.
    Your comparision is childish, and wrong.
    You cannot state the motive of the poster as fact with so little evidence. Your statement counts as an ad hominem. Consider this an official warning. Don't do it again.

  10. #10
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,671
    Similarities include the selective use of evidence. They both will trumpet evidence they can twist to support their beliefs but will ignore, or acuse of fraudelence, evidence that does not.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    94
    Both also do not seem to grasp basic principals of physics.

    For the record, I believe in God, but also in evolution, and not even intelligent design, either. But then again my religious beliefs are bizzare to everyone but me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    865
    I believe in God and evolution as well. Why couldn't evolution or some form of it have been the tools that God used to make everything?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,080

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Clifton
    snip

    I wouldn't say usually, but I know that many "evidences" and "proofs" that creationists use are bad science or just based on bad information. However, the history of the evolutionary theory is just as tainted, if not more so.



    snip
    Nip over to talk.origins and say that!

    or look at www.talkorigins.org

    Why aren't claims like this made about any oterh branch of the sciences?

    from the FAQ

    Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

    Without evolution nothing in biology makes any sense.

    this isn't the place to discuss it though, it should be taken to the talk.origins newsgroup.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    539
    Just off the top of my head, similarities I can see include:

    A willful ignorance of the idea of consilience of evidence. Both HBs and Creationists tend to spend their time hunting for one detail in the historical record or the fossil record (or our current interpretation thereof) that doesn't quite fit, in the belief that that will bring the entire edifice crashing down.

    A belief that whatever their chosen meme happens to be is the default position; if the current theory of biological evolution should prove to be in need of serious revision, then the creationist assumption is that the fundie xtian creation myth is therefore proved; if the Apollo record should prove to be flawed then the HB assumption is that the scenario of an impossibly massive and sophisticated conspiracy is therefore proved.

    A tendency to recycle disproved arguments endlessly. These things live on Web sites and keep rising, zombie-like, to eat the brains of the living. "Evilution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics" has become every bit as tiresome as "The flag is waving! They must have filmed the astronauts on Earth!"

    This last has given rise to sites like talkorigins.org and clavius.org, where a knowledgable analysis of the top Moldy Oldies is available for easy FAQ-like reference.

    A belief that mainstream science is engaged in a massive evil conspiracy to suppress their views.

    Obvious dissimilarities:

    I have yet to see an HB fling an "I'll pray for you" as a parting shot after having his arguments wiped all over a discussion forum.

    Give 'em time though... :wink:

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    I think it's important to try to draw appropriate comparisons and distinctions between these various modes of thought. I believe there may be an underlying psychological or social cause for "wrong" thought. If I'm right about that, there's little I as an engineer can do about it.

    A willful ignorance of the idea of consilience of evidence.

    There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of proof, especially in historical cases. For authors, a "smoking gun" provides an anchor around which books may be written that rehash the same topics over and over. Kaysing's "smoking gun" was the moving flag. Ralph Rene's "smoking gun" was radiation. Bart Sibrel's "smoking gun" was obscure film footage. David Percy's "smoking gun" was misplaced shadows.

    "Smoking gun" arguments manifest the same fundamental laziness as the proofs according to the Holmesian maxim (cf. http://www.clavius.org/holmes.html ). The author circumnavigates his case and leaps headlong for the conclusion. If the conclusion is established by some isolated "irrefutable" bit of evidence, then the reader is forced to believe that all its absurd antecedents were met. At no point does the author take responsibility to explain the absurdity. He simply points to the "proved" conclusion and argues that since the conclusion holds, those pesky antecedents must "somehow" have been satisfied even if he can't tell you precisely how.

    There is a basis for this type of reasoning in deductive logic. If a conclusion, for example, is known to be false, then the argument leading to it must be wrong. There are many ways in which an argument can be wrong, and it is not necessary to discover exactly why some argument is wrong if its conclusion is directly contradicted by observation.

    But unfortunately this doesn't extend to the assertive case; it holds only for refutation. Stated formally, I can say that if A implies B and B is observed to be false, A must also be false. But if A implies B and B is observed to be true, I cannot say that A must also be true. I must first verify that there exists no C such that C implies B.

    The "smoking gun" approach presumes that any historical argument must be airtight in order to be held. This presumption is the means by which conspiracists wrongly believe they have "refuted" NASA's claims simply by showing that there exists a conjectural possibility by which NASA's claims might not be true. This faux refutation is meaningless unless some evidence can be shown to suggest that the alternative claim is far less than conjectural.

    Similarly, conspiracists often expect us to establish our claims to an airtight standard. They expect us to shoulder their notion of our burden of proof, and it's often frustrating to them when we do not. They expect that we should have to prove the authenticity of the Apollo missions in order to demonstrate their conclusions false. They are unfamiliar with the simple act of refutation, which merely shows the flaw in one line of reasoning without necessarily advocating any other line of reasoning.

    The inability of the conspiracists to understand epistemology and logic is what likely gave rise to Twain's advice never to argue with a fool because a bystander won't be able to tell you apart. Despite the ad hominem sentiment, it's good advice. Someone who doesn't understand when he has lost an argument, or why, simply won't shut up.

    A tendency to recycle disproved arguments endlessly.

    This is a natural consequence of the misguided "smoking gun" approach. The conspiracist is uncomfortable getting down into the nitty-gritty of any one particular argument. Most conspiracists aren't well enough versed in the appropriate sciences. And so when it appears that one smoking gun isn't having the desired effect, the conspiracist drops it and draws the next smoking gun.

    The conspiracist wants to make the entire complicated question a matter of one absolute black-and-white litmus test that decides the question once and for all. Then all those "details" will just "fall into place". Somehow.

    A belief that mainstream science is engaged in a massive evil conspiracy to suppress their views.

    This is by far the most amusing and alarming feature. Taking a step back, it's pretty clear that we should examine the mental state of someone who argues that a vast shadowy force is arranging for all the visible evidence to point to one particular conclusion that's nevertheless wrong.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    I'll chime in with one significant (I think) difference.

    The Creation Science believers are, without exception, motivated by religious conviction. The Moon Hoax proponents, while often religious in their fervor, are not necessarily or obviously motivated by religious faith.

    Along with that comes the fact that Creationism beliefs are held by large groups of like-minded folks, whereas HPs tend to be lone wolves (or at most, a very small cadre).

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-26, 08:43 AM
  2. Replies: 156
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-05, 06:23 PM
  3. Conspiracy Theory
    By lazyj in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 2004-Apr-15, 03:08 AM
  4. holes in scientific theory
    By ringtau in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2003-May-30, 02:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: