Conspiracy theories

JayD said:
Just as an aside. Why is it that if a person decides to have a different point of view, or belief, you call them "stupid" or "an idiot"? Surely anybody is entitled to their personal beliefs without being belittled or insulted!
For Gods sake, live and let live. Life's too short to be a hater!
Click to expand...

You are right JayD, people are entitled to an opinion.
They'll be telling us next theres no Father Christmas;)
 
PMK said:
Not really comparable though is it?

Conspiracy theories are usually associated with events that we do not experience first hand. So the information we receive goes through the normal rigmaroles of the media and/or government. If something doesn't add up (JFK a great example) then of course people with question the information they are fed.

Being handed an object and not believing its existence is completely different.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. How would you illustrate it?
 
I remember reading on the DS forum, a proponent of the lunar landing conspiracy theory offering as his proof "IF they Americans had the technology to land a man on the moon, they would have done it again". He didn't know about Apollo 12. Or Apollo 14. Or Apollo 15. Or Apollo 16. Or Apollo 17.:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Rapscallion said:
But how else do creationists view the evidence against creationism if not a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

I think religion is banned from discussion here, so I wont go any further with this as my views will offend some others and the thread will be derailed/locked :)
 
What gifts!?!?!? :eek:
 
new2me said:
I think religion is banned from discussion here, so I wont go any further with this as my views will offend some others and the thread will be derailed/locked :)
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure where science crossed over into religion in this subject...
;)
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I remember reading on the DS forum, a proponent of the lunar landing conspiracy theory offering as his proof "IF they Americans had the technology to land a man on the moon, they would have done it again". He didn't know about Apollo 12. Or Apollo 14. Or Apollo 15. Or Apollo 16. Or Apollo 17.:LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

dont forget apollo 18 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772240/)

or did that no happen :LOL:

it was a secret mission though
 
wegotitugetit said:
thats one for me too

i looked at this while at school we hade to chooose a project to do i chose this was a good one

no proof to who fired the shot

so plenty of consiprecy there for people to make
Click to expand...
I thought Red Dwarfs view was the best one, Where JFK shot himself from the grassy knoll.

:D
 
gramps said:
As an alternative, though misguided, view.
Click to expand...

I'm with you gramps. If we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon in only 66 years, I see no reason why old beardie couldn't have created the universe in 6000.
 
I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories cited in the first post, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all conspiracy theories are dreamt up by nutcases. Branding something as a conspiracy theory would probably be quite a good way of ridiculing any unwanted interest.

On the whole, I prefer the point of view someone - I forget who it was - wrote about a few years back. He wasn't interested in conspiracy theories but was very interested in theories about conspiracies.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I see no reason why old beardie couldn't have created the universe in 6000.
Click to expand...

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Click to expand...
(2 Peter 3:8)

Just to add to the intrigue.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I'm with you gramps. If we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon in only 66 years, I see no reason why old beardie couldn't have created the universe in 6000.
Click to expand...

Not sure how much this can be debated here. But lets try, since my pov is that evolution and creationism are 2 explanations of science.

How can the evidence from the fossil record, such as human evolution shown by differing skulls in clear chronological order, backed up by carbon dating, be logically countered?

PS if a mod feels this conversation re creationism crosses the line, please say stop rather than close the thread, i shall be happy to comply rather than spoil the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One event that springs to mind (IMO) that wreaks of some kind of conspiracy is the Diana & Dodi crash.

I have no emotional attachment to the story apart from it being a tragic loss of life, however from what I've seen, heard and read so much just doesn't add up about the whole thing.
 
Rapscallion said:
How can the evidence from the fossil record, such as human evolution shown by differing skulls in clear chronological order, backed up by carbon dating, be logically countered?
Click to expand...

Fossils are tricks put there by the devil obviously!
 
MartynK said:
Branding something as a conspiracy theory would probably be quite a good way of ridiculing any unwanted interest.
Click to expand...

(y) A Government favourite probably! lol It's a bit like attacking someone's credibility in court, same principle I suppose.


Here's a good one:

2004 Secret CIA Prisons

A story by reporter Dana Priest published in The Washington Post of November 2, 2005, reported that "The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement."[4]

The report contends that the CIA has a worldwide covert prison system with facilities in Asia, Eastern Europe, and in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The system is central to the agency's anti-terror role, and according to the report has been kept secret from government officials (including Congressional committees that oversee the CIA) through the agency's own efforts as well as cooperation with foreign intelligence services.

This conspiracy was proven in 2006 when President Bush admitted that indeed there are secret CIA prisons in Europe and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
Rapscallion said:
PS if a mod feels this conversation re creationism crosses the line, please say stop rather than close the thread, i shall be happy to comply rather than spoil the discussion.
Click to expand...

Creationism / evolution / science are fine but we are keeping a watching brief on the thread ;)


 
Cobra said:
Creationism / evolution / science / Norty are fine but we are keeping a watching brief on the thread ;)
Click to expand...
Tis only the mods that are allowed to do that :p

I heard archeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be the missing first page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon-dated in Bonne. It reads "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gman said:
Cool. So, the Bible..... I heard archeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be the missing first page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon-dated in Bonne. It reads "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Rapscallion said:
How can the evidence from the fossil record, such as human evolution shown by differing skulls in clear chronological order, backed up by carbon dating, be logically countered?
Click to expand...

Please explain how the discovery of "differing skulls in clear chronological order" proves evolution - by 'evolution' I mean ape evolving into human as opposed to ape changing by type or in response to environment etc but remaining ape by species.
 
A personal favourite of mine has to this one
It proves that Paul McCartney died in 1966 :D
 
Buttkicker said:
I am interested to see how many of the TP forum believe the various conspiracy theories

1
The moon Landings never happened

2
the US government were behind 9/11

3
the UK government was behind the death of Princess Diana

after watching various TV programs I was surprised at how many people believe them to be true
Click to expand...

And you believe what they show us on TV is Chris :wacky: ;)
 
gramps said:
Please explain how the discovery of "differing skulls in clear chronological order" proves evolution - by 'evolution' I mean ape evolving into human as opposed to ape changing by type or in response to environment etc but remaining ape by species.
Click to expand...

Creationisim fascinates me. Do you truly find it easier to believe that the human race was created by an entity. Rather than by observing the transition of fossils over time?

I mean, there is actually evidence of evolution, whether you consider it to be true or not is your interpretation but what actual evidence is there of proof that a "god" created us.

It's like people who believe in creationsim do so with no proof whatsoever and ignore any facts of evolution. But those who believe in evolution don't have any facts of creationism to consider
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Please explain how the discovery of "differing skulls in clear chronological order" proves evolution - by 'evolution' I mean ape evolving into human as opposed to ape changing by type or in response to environment etc but remaining ape by species.
Click to expand...

In science nothing is ever finally and completely proven. The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory which gives the best explanation we have at present taking into account all the available evidence. It's a pretty good theory and is supported by a mountain of evidence from many different fields of study (genetics, paleontology, geology etc). But it is just a theory and may well need to be changed.

That's the difference between scientific method and religious belief. Science is about evidence and when new evidence is found then scientific theories change/develop. Religion is based on faith and will not change when the evidence changes.
 
Last edited:
Uneducated_Rick said:
what about Kurt Cobain? have to say that one has me intrigued....
Click to expand...

What? Macca stepping for him for a Nirvana reunion at the Hurricane Sandy benefit concert earlier this month?

It is one of the unexplained mysteries of modern times.

:p
 
PatrickO said:
In science nothing is ever finally and completely proven. The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory which gives the best explanation we have at present taking into account all the available evidence. It's a pretty good theory and is supported by a mountain of evidence from many different fields of study (genetics, paleontology, geology etc). But it is just a theory and may well need to be changed.

That's the difference between scientific method and religious belief. Science is about evidence and when new evidence is found then scientific theories change/develop. Religion is based on faith and will not change when the evidence changes.
Click to expand...

yes exactly.

Science allows you resonable evidence to base your opinion on. Creationsim is a blind leap with nothing to proove it. It's probably the greatest conspiracy theory there is!
 
PatrickO said:
Religion is based on faith and will not change when the evidence changes.
Click to expand...

Religion is certainly based on faith (as is IMO much of the so-called evidence for evolution, which you so rightly remind us is a theory) however I do not agree that bible-based faith is blind to evidence.
The problem is that so few people who argue against the bible and creation have really made a study of the bible and its evidence but rather merely dismiss it as being irrelevant to their ideas.
Not that that in itself is difficult to understand as the bible is so often misrepresented even by many of those who claim to believe in the God who inspired it to be written.
On the one hand you have people whose faith is in the bible and on the other you have people whose faith is in the opinion of other humans.
 
Tim Minchin says it rather well.....

[YOUTUBE]bBUc_kATGgg[/YOUTUBE]

(Edit.....Look, I posted a You Tube!!! :clap: )
 
gramps said:
Religion is certainly based on faith (as is IMO much of the so-called evidence for evolution, which you so rightly remind us is a theory) however I do not agree that bible-based faith is blind to evidence.
The problem is that so few people who argue against the bible and creation have really made a study of the bible and its evidence but rather merely dismiss it as being irrelevant to their ideas.
Not that that in itself is difficult to understand as the bible is so often misrepresented even by many of those who claim to believe in the God who inspired it to be written.
On the one hand you have people whose faith is in the bible and on the other you have people whose faith is in the opinion of other humans.
Click to expand...

I dont think the bible can be used as proof or evidence of anything. It's words written down by someone. There are no photographs, no physical objects etc. Its simply words that someone wrote.
 
gramps said:
On the one hand you have people whose faith is in the bible and on the other you have people whose faith is in the opinion of other humans.
Click to expand...

The bible is a collection of books written by humans no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top