until people start ordering "objectionable" items.
Will they print me up a FedEx truck?
And then... Boo!
The conspiracy pretty much ended when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face on camera.
Buzz: "I was merely demonstrating the formation of craters that match our surface photos."
Being one of the most well-known astronauts, Buzz should probably not be out in public without a bodyguard. Let the bodyguard bop the guy; less court risk and paper-work for Buzz.
evitaleR si emiT
Indeed. They could have created a whole product line around it, like The Sims, Hoaxing Edition.
"Buy Bigfoot Footprint Simulator II, Shaq Silver-Foot Edition also, and get Crop Circle Sims for freeeee!"
when Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face on camera.
That event was arguably better than the Eagle landing itself.
That was one medium punch for a man, one giant leap for troll riddance.
What some vids don't show is that Bart kept following and harassing him multiple times before the punch. Buzz would walk somewhere else to avoid him, and Bart would soon follow, sticking the Bible in his face and taunting him. If you didn't see the whole thing, it may look like Buzz was unreasonable. It shows that video evidence can strip out context if not complete.
Who was the first troll?
Conservative deniers are going to have a field day with this: "How can we trust scientists on evolution and global warming when the Big Bang turned out to be nothing more than God's dirty windshield!".
At first I read it as "Google Partners with LHC", and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up.
the religious would see creationism as validated no matter how much evidence you put in front of them
Those who are stubborn, mentally protect their ego against being wrong at all costs, or have an agenda (like offertory funds) indeed won't budge. But some are generally more curious than they are egotistical and not afraid to consider alternative viewpoints.
In other words, just become some students are stupid doesn't mean all are.
By the way, a creator is a valid scientific argument to consider. Monsanto is a creator of sorts, and we may be in a giant simulation managed by a being (sysadmin), which is not outside of physical possibilities and thus not inherently "supernatural" in the traditional sense.
But the hard part is how to test for intelligence. If somebody says that a being put red crusty stuff on their metal mailbox instead of it being natural rust, how does one go about testing for both possibilities? Why doesn't the plastic mailbox have the red stuff? Does Occum's Razor always favor natural processes? Get the wheels turning in students' heads.
The most compact description of science I've seen is "the process of finding the simplest model(s) that explains observations".
The model is typically math or algorithms, but is not necessarily limited to those (although life is usually easier if you do.)
The model may not necessarily reflect underlying reality, but until we have more data we cannot tell if it does or not. For example, epicycles and regression can produce "matching" models to an extent of certain physical phenomena, but further observations often end up showing they are limited, such as with 3-body orbits. (Epicycles and regression can offer prediction ability under a fixed set of circumstances, at least, which can still make a useful tool.)
If the global warming deniers can produce a model that is accurate (explains the past and continues to predict the future) that is of equal or lessor complexity than the human-caused global warming models, then they may have a leg to stand on. So far, they just criticize existing models without proposing a complete alternative.
We don't have to argue over who is the most biased or bribed; let the models do the speaking.
As far as the general public understanding the models, well, that's a trickier one. Complexity is complexity.
Don't tell people, let their phone win a little Darwin Award.