Face on Mars
Thunderkatz (Talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Recent high resolution photographs have shown the idea to be false. | Recent high resolution photographs have shown the idea to be false. | ||
| − | Besides the fact that proponents of the idea have no [[proof|evidence]] of an intelligent designer, they also make an error that many anti-evolutionists make. Seeing a series of coincidences in a single area, they understand the probability that these were created naturally to be small. From there, they assume that as the probability was small, it must have had a designer, ignoring the fact that the post-probability is exactly 1, as that ''is'' the way it naturally turned out. It is just as likely that the 'face' could have ended up two feet north of its current position. It is just as likely that all of these shapes could have ended up in a different area of Mars. It is | + | Besides the fact that proponents of the idea have no [[proof|evidence]] of an intelligent designer, they also make an error that many anti-evolutionists make. Seeing a series of coincidences in a single area, they understand the probability that these were created naturally to be small. From there, they assume that as the probability was small, it must have had a designer, ignoring the fact that the post-probability is exactly 1, as that ''is'' the way it naturally turned out. It is just as likely that the 'face' could have ended up two feet north of its current position. It is just as likely that all of these shapes could have ended up in a different area of Mars. It is less likely that Mars could have ended up covered in faces. However, none of these happened, as the only current situation happened. This is similar to the [[monkey typewriter theory]]. |
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] | [[Category:Pseudoscience]] | ||
Revision as of 12:20, 23 June 2008
This topic is a pseudoscience, and is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid discipline.
Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology.
Remember: just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's actually right.
| Style over substance |
| Popular pseudosciences |
| Random examples |
The face on mars refers to a feature that some think shows that an alien civilization carved a face on the surface on the planet Mars, specifically in the area of Cydonia Mensae. One of the most persistent supporters of this idea is Richard C. Hoagland.
Recent high resolution photographs have shown the idea to be false.
Besides the fact that proponents of the idea have no evidence of an intelligent designer, they also make an error that many anti-evolutionists make. Seeing a series of coincidences in a single area, they understand the probability that these were created naturally to be small. From there, they assume that as the probability was small, it must have had a designer, ignoring the fact that the post-probability is exactly 1, as that is the way it naturally turned out. It is just as likely that the 'face' could have ended up two feet north of its current position. It is just as likely that all of these shapes could have ended up in a different area of Mars. It is less likely that Mars could have ended up covered in faces. However, none of these happened, as the only current situation happened. This is similar to the monkey typewriter theory.