Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Prevalence of moon landing conspiracy theories

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Pro abortion is ideological, not anti science.
    Not when it comes to claims that the unborn baby is nothing but a clump of cells and not alive.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post


      Never been to California or not there much I take it?
      While it is true that anti-vaxers can be found all across the political spectrum as ox said, it is hardly a coincidence that nearly all the areas that we've seen a resurgence of diseases like Whopping Cough and the like happen to be in and around liberal strongholds.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        To declare that the unborn are not humans is anti science driven by ideology.



        Never been to California or not there much I take it?
        Pro abortion/anti abortion is not a scientific issue.

        I said i am aware of the fact anti vaxers cross the ideological spectrum. But they are not on the same scale as yec or anti agw.

        Jin
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          Pro abortion/anti abortion is not a scientific issue.

          I said i am aware of the fact anti vaxers cross the ideological spectrum. But they are not on the same scale as yec or anti agw.

          Jin
          Yeah, people who compare babies to alien parasites aren't antiscience.

          Comment


          • #35
            Jim to claim a fetus is not a human being but part of the mother so it can be destroyed is antiscience. Biology says that a new human being is created at conception. Most health nut anti-GMO guys are liberal. People who try to claim you can change genders by just deciding you want to be one of 57 different genders are anti-science and exclusively liberal as far as I can tell. Most people who are against Nuclear power are liberals. I think there are a lot of liberal spiritualists that believe in astrology and wicca and other new age nonsense.
            Last edited by Sparko; 12-15-2018, 01:48 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              The two largest anti science groups i know of are yec, which is almost exclusively evangelical republican and the anti AGW crowd which is also almost exclusively republican. Whatvanti science groups are there that are of similar scope on the liberal side?

              Jim
              I'm pretty sure that those who support the idea of being transgender vastly outnumber those who support YEC. It's also somewhat disingenuous to call YECs "anti-science" when what they are against is the mainstream interpretation of evidence pointing to the age of the universe and its constituents, not science per se.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                I'm pretty sure that those who support the idea of being transgender vastly outnumber those who support YEC. It's also somewhat disingenuous to call YECs "anti-science" when what they are against is the mainstream interpretation of evidence pointing to the age of the universe and its constituents, not science per se.
                Right, same evidence, different interpretation.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Right, same evidence, different interpretation.
                  No. Just no.


                  Many Young Earth Creationists (YECs) often claim that the interpretation of evidence depends upon the outlook or world view. That we have the same evidence, but we arrive at different conclusions or interpretations concerning it based on our a priori commitment to a worldview or starting presuppositions. And that, in the end, all the evidence put forth in support of an ancient Earth and Universe could just as well interpreted in a YEC framework.

                  This is a defense against the apparent overwhelming scientific evidence that exists that seems to disprove the YEC positions and bolster those in which they oppose that is seen time and time again. For example, here is AnswersinGenesis’ (AiG) Ken Ham:

                  Source: Creation: ‘where’s the proof’?


                  Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

                  The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  So, do the YECs have a case? Or are they merely engaging in the denial of contrary evidence to prevent disparity between what is believed and the implications of the evidence (i.e., Cognitive Dissonance).

                  First it should be acknowledged that assumptions do affect how we view evidence. We all filter information and try to make sense of it. Background beliefs differ, and consequently, where bystanders are operating under different paradigms, it is completely conceivable that rational bystanders could find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event.

                  But does this mean that the YECs are correct and that it’s all just a matter of worldview and preconceptions? No, and for several reasons.

                  First, it assumes that scientists, or anyone else, are completely incapable of looking beyond their prejudices and as the early history of geology demonstrates, this is not true.

                  Most of the first geologists were devout Christians (many belonging to the clergy) and took the concept of a young Earth shaped by a recent global flood pretty much for granted though a large percentage went out explicitly looking for evidence of this. To cut a long story short, they came away not only finding no evidence to support their beliefs but strong evidence that those beliefs were wrong and that the Earth was far older than they presupposed and the geologic strata wasn’t laid down by a worldwide deluge as they assumed. Like fair and neutral observers they ignored their prejudices and allowed the evidence to take them were it led – which is to an old Earth.

                  And this isn’t an isolated instance, for the history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Some time ago the concept that stones fell from the sky was scoffed at; being explained as either having been from a volcano that ejected them up into the upper atmosphere or resulting from a tornado picking them up and flinging them. Today, even young children are aware of meteors and meteorites.

                  Another more recent example would be the acceptance of Continental Drift and later Plate Tectonics, though they’re now nearly universally accepted. The reasons these new theories have unseated the previous ones is because of the evidence presented. Evidence that anyone could check out for themselves. If it had just been a matter of re-interpreting the evidence then the old theories would still be in place.

                  A good scientist, regardless of his/her ideological background is trained to rely on the evidence (which exists regardless of whatever preconceptions he/she might have) and is supposed to seek good explanations using scientific methods. Now, as stated, everyone has to some extent prejudices that could potentially influence their research, but since their findings are available for others to check, and different people have different prejudices, anything that's been missed can be (and usually is) immediately pointed out. This scrutiny makes sure that the scientist strives to make his/her case strong enough to endure any inquiry, and the best way to do this is to root their case only on the evidence and not opinion.

                  If they fail for whatever reason (scientists are people and individual scientists can still cling to various prejudices just like anyone else), it will be quickly pointed out. This is because, while individual scientists may be dogmatically opposed to a particular theory or concept, science itself isn't. As I briefly mentioned above, different scientists having different preconceptions enable them to identify other's "blindspots."

                  So it seems that it is indeed possible for scientists to overlook their own preconceptions and go where the evidence leads them. And if they don’t, someone with a differing worldview usually will quickly point it out.

                  Second, the YEC assertion of ‘same evidence, different interpretation’ assumes that all scientific interpretations are of equal worth. This is not the case. Proper interpretations must fit into a coherent framework and be consilient with all the data.

                  But that is precisely what the underlying implication of the different interpretation contention is. No thought is more supported by the evidence since all ideas are created equal and therefore deserve equal respect – and equal time in the classroom.

                  But if this idea is true then this concept would have to be applied equally to all ideas. After all, there are all sorts of supposed "scientific controversies" and they’re all going to want equal time to present their theory and air this or that grievance.

                  The geocentrists who believe in a stationary and utterly immobile Earth will probably be the first to demand equal time. Of course you might say that that Foucault’s pendulum demonstrated that the Earth turns on its axis and thus moves way back in 1851. But that is just an “interpretation” of the data they’ll retort. They see it differently; that the pattern of Foucault’s pendulum is a result of orbiting stars pulling on the pendulum.

                  Under the belief that all-interpretations-are-equal philosophy the geocentric explanation is no less valid than the mainstream one and both should be presented equally. But to a rational person, it is fairly obvious that even the most ridiculous claims can be made to fit the evidence if you just interpret the evidence the “right” way. The thing is that real science requires that the conclusions reached are the most likely ones.

                  In the end, even the YECs should acknowledge that some interpretations are utter rubbish and nothing more than baseless speculation.

                  Third, the claim that it is merely a matter of seeing the evidence from a different worldview, assumes that the YECs really do examine the empirical evidence rather than just spout a stream of ad hoc scenarios that as likely as not contradicts the one just given to hand wave away some other difficulty.

                  Not that legitimate scientists aren’t faced with contradictions when formulating a theory, it’s just that you’re expected to make a rigorous attempt to resolve it. YECs show very little, if any, compulsion to do likewise. I once heard a lecture by a YEC where he described the Flood as being indescribably violent to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon and then only moments later portray the waters of the Flood being still and quiet in order to explain how the Green River formation varves were formed. He didn’t perceive of any contradiction with roaring waters being simultaneously still.

                  In any case, this gets back to the point that not all interpretations are equal. Providing a series of often contradictory ad hoc explanations just is not a good interpretation of the data. For the YEC accounts to ever be considered a better explanation that that which has so far been provided by legitimate science, it has to do more than attempt to explain how the evidence might work, it has to explain how it was most likely to work.

                  But this won’t ever happen as long as the YECs won’t deal with all the evidence and continue to provide explanations that are internally consistent. Until they do this they cannot honestly say that they’re coming to conclusions based on the evidence. It is trying to deny the evidence. As some wag once put it, the way YECs look at the evidence (and then ignore most of it) is like looking at a year calendar - and saying only December exists. You can’t cherry pick your evidence and ignore what you don’t take.

                  Another related issue is that some YECs have also been known to misrepresent, twist and distort what evidence they do bother to examine. By this I don’t mean that they merely confuse things and get them in what is my opinion wrong. I mean they alter and warp it in such a way that it is barely recognizable when they’re finished. The only issue is whether it is done intentionally or not.

                  One such method employed is the attraction YECs ostensibly have for quote-mining, or misquoting in an attempt to provide evidence in support of their views by misrepresenting the position of others so that they appear to say the opposite of what they really said.

                  A classic example of such an extracted quote is “There is no God” (Psalms14:1). While those words do occur in that order in Psalms 14:1 you will discover that the author wasn’t denying the existence but was instead referring to those who, in the author’s opinion, foolishly denied the existence of God. A far more precise quote would have been “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” which more accurately conveys the author’s meaning.

                  Sometimes it’s just a simple matter of taking a quote out of context like the example of above. But other times they cut and snip statements and then splice them together to get the desired statements.

                  For a couple of examples of YEC quote-mining one can look here. Pay particular example to the bottom one for an instance to what I was referring to. Ken Hovind cobbles together a quote out of lines from a book that were separated by at least 91 pages!

                  It is very difficult to believe that such butchery of the text as was displayed by Hovind could be done in any other way that was not a deliberate attempt to mislead people by severely distorting the evidence. And when you are doing such things as this you can hardly be claiming that it is simply a matter of having a different interpretation of the evidence.

                  And this is far from the only source showcasing creationist quote mines. Here is one of the larger collections put together, many of which we see time and time again. In fact, quote mining scientists is such a popular tactic of creationists that many prominent biologists have taken to deliberately wording their lectures and publications in ways to make quote mining more difficult.

                  As you can see it wasn't without reason that the late Stephen Jay Gould condemned YECs for “their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents” in an article called “The Verdict on Creationism” published in the Skeptical Inquirer, in the 1980s.

                  But probably the ultimate evidence in support of my charge that YECs ignore evidence they don’t like are the statements of faith that organizations like Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and AiG require their employees (including writers) to adhere to that obliges them to ignore evidence that goes against their reading of various Bible verses, meaning that they only accept what they already assumed. Consider this part of AiG’s Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”


                  There are several other points to consider as well that don’t fit very well into the three categories above (without me taking them further off track than I did . I’ll cover them briefly…

                  …In the case of an old Earth and Universe, as well as the ToE, the "same evidence, different interpretation" complaint totally ignores the sheer mass of evidence that supports it. While many different interpretations of the evidence is possible when the number of data points is small, as they increase with the addition of more evidence, then the number of likely explanations becomes smaller and smaller.

                  …People who accept the scientific method as a means of tackling questions involving the physical world (as opposed to the spiritual one) don’t accept an old Earth and Universe or the ToE because of preconceptions. They accept them for the same reasons they accept the Theory of a Heliocentrism, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Limits (on which calculus is based), the Atomic Theory of Matter – it is by far the best explanation we have that explains the observed evidence. ALL of the observed evidence. The observation of evidence comes first, and theory is developed to explain the observations. Then predictions are made to test the accuracy of the theory.

                  …Often the "presuppositions" used by science are actually NOT presuppositions - they are rules of physics, chemistry, gravity, etc

                  In conclusion the different interpretation claim is completely false. It is a tactic that is used to make YEC unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter what legitimate scientists produce as way of evidence as long as some kind of explanation can be presented. It doesn't matter if the explanation is hopelessly ad hoc with no reference in the Bible or any evidence in reality.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Pro abortion/anti abortion is not a scientific issue.
                    When one argues for something using unscientific arguments, they are indeed being anti science.

                    I said i am aware of the fact anti vaxers cross the ideological spectrum. But they are not on the same scale as yec or anti agw.
                    Apparently you’re new to the internet or don’t have school aged children.
                    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 12-15-2018, 06:23 PM.
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Jim to claim a fetus is not a human being but part of the mother so it can be destroyed is antiscience. Biology says that a new human being is created at conception. Most health nut anti-GMO guys are liberal. People who try to claim you can change genders by just deciding you want to be one of 57 different genders are anti-science and exclusively liberal as far as I can tell. Most people who are against Nuclear power are liberals. I think there are a lot of liberal spiritualists that believe in astrology and wicca and other new age nonsense.
                      The moral ideas that drive the abortion debate are not science. Science can answer questions like when does the developing baby feel pain, when does its heart beat, when does it have brain waves. It can't answer the moral question of whether or not that developing persons rights are equal to its mothers. It can't judge under what circumstances it is acceptable to terminate the pregnancy and when it is not. We define those things based on our morals and our ideology. Science can't define what is wrong or what is right. That is a moral, ideological judgement. If our moral judgement says a person has rights once they can think, then we can use science to determine when that developing baby starts to think. But abortion is fundamentally a moral issue, not a scientific one.


                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        I'm pretty sure that those who support the idea of being transgender vastly outnumber those who support YEC. It's also somewhat disingenuous to call YECs "anti-science" when what they are against is the mainstream interpretation of evidence pointing to the age of the universe and its constituents, not science per se.

                        It is not disingenuous at all. There is no proper application of science that will yield an age of the Earth less than 4 billion years, there is no proper application of science that will yield an age of the Universe less than twice that. They claim science supports their ideas when the reality is it does not, and anyone that knows any of the fields that they distort to any depth can explain exactly where and how they go wrong. There isn't a much clearer definition of anti-science or pseudo-science than YEC. They are so hostile to what science actually concludes that they feel they must do something to change it legislatively and have tried many times to get pseudo-science taught in schools as an alternative. It's just what it is.

                        And they do a fairly good job, because here you are thinking there is something legit (scientifically) about their position when there isn't.


                        Jim
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Let's not pretend that world-view trumping science is limited to the right side of the political spectrum.
                          Who's pretending?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            But probably the ultimate evidence in support of my charge that YECs ignore evidence they don’t like are the statements of faith that organizations like Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and AiG require their employees (including writers) to adhere to that obliges them to ignore evidence that goes against their reading of various Bible verses, meaning that they only accept what they already assumed. Consider this part of AiG’s Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
                            Thank you for providing this, at least. It's not quite as damning on its face as you imply, since the qualifiers on "evidence" would not refer to actual evidence - but it would not surprise me if it was used to dismiss actual evidence. There is a reason I no longer support AiG. I no longer think the YEC interpretation is especially likely.

                            That said, you're doing a whole lot of broad brushing in your screed, much of it having little to do with actual evidence. You complain of cherry-picking while engaging in it extensively yourself. Just my 0.02.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              No. Just no.
                              Yes, I've heard that song and dance before, and it doesn't get any better the more I hear it.

                              For the record, I have no firm opinion about the age of the Earth one way or the other. I think a good case can be made for a variety of hypotheses, and it doesn't much matter to me which one happens to be correct, because it doesn't change anything as far as my worldview is concerned.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Yes, I've heard that song and dance before, and it doesn't get any better the more I hear it.

                                For the record, I have no firm opinion about the age of the Earth one way or the other. I think a good case can be made for a variety of hypotheses, and it doesn't much matter to me which one happens to be correct, because it doesn't change anything as far as my worldview is concerned.
                                ...always go back to the Cross....
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                233 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X