Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 8:55:28 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:
Most of your questions are answered here...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#crater

... the Grandaddy of all debunking sites...

Really, you need to be several fries short of a Happy Meal to buy into
these conspiracy theories...







GOOD COMEBACK.
Nothing like resorting to personal insults during a debate.
And extra points for deleting my whole reply.

So, now that you have set the bar to the lowest peg, I guess my next
counter reply should be .,......."Oh YAA,...well so's yer mom"

You can consider yourself "ignored" from now on

de·bate
noun
1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting ... in which opposing arguments are put forward.

This discussion is hardly formal, and all I did was put forward an opposing argument. albeit with a comment.

Being ignored by a science denier is no great loss for me. Science deniers cannot be reasoned with in any case, and are therefore best ignored in any event ... and now I have the advantage of saying whatever the heck I want, and I won't need to be concerned about you coming back with yet more of your bull**** because you are now ignoring me! Perfect!

The question is, why would a science denier be on an astronomy forum in the first place? Would it be because they enjoy being insulted and disparaged? Because they like to be shown wrong, over and over again? There is virtually no argument that can be made denying man's visit to the moon that cannot be scientifically refuted, no matter how much a science denier repeats it. Every single argument can be scientifically refuted, and have been for a long time.

Science deniers think they have presented evidence in support of their position, but they have not, their evidence is always fatally flawed. They are in the vast minority to start with, and perhaps this is the way they like it to be, active for the minority, no matter the controversy. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here because I really do not understand the mindset of the science denier... except to understand that a huge majority of them are in no way actual scientists, and have apparently embraced the old "I don't understand it and therefore it must be wrong" posture and have decided to stick with that through thick and thin... which is a losing strategy, and always will be.

Science is rarely wrong in the long run, although it certainly has happened (depending on how you choose to define 'long run'), and the scientific method ensures that poor hypotheses are weeded out sooner rather than later. That's what scientists do, try to disprove any and all new hypotheses... and it only takes one such 'disproof' to blow a theory up, and cause it to be modified or abandoned. It is foolish to bet against mainstream science because it is so well monitored by all the other scientists in the pool, each of whom is gunning for the others, constantly attempting either confirm or refute their claims. That's how science works, and it works quite well.

It is not a smart bet to be a science denier, that's my point.