Thread: 9/11

Originally Posted by 14Russian

LOL But, do you try any research yourselves?!? NOPE!

Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

LOL! So, out of the source, you question the kind of language?

No, nevermind what is proved or what the findings are or the arguments but the language is suspicious and questionable. Ok, you pretty much have expressed explicitly that you're brainwashed like Mr. Crocodile and a waste of time.

P.S. Of course, I've researched but I'd only have to read a few pages and watch a few videos to say I've researched more than you have.

Many of the sources dedicate much of their life to investigating the event but because China/Russia doesn't show up, they're not credible? I'm not sure how you reach your argument but it's absurd.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

I partially disagree with the applicability of your example. A while ago I tried to find a material that could put up the existence of dinosaurs with the Bible and ultimately failed. Yet I can't easily 'buy' your (presumed) inference that Darwinians are unequivocally right simply because thus far Darwinian scientists have never demonstrated how the very first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism. And this is a pivotal element. Moreover, according to other religions, Hinduism for example, life and the universe exist in cycles for eons of years and their origin is obscure and generally beyond human comprehension. So, the fact that Christian sources provide us with presumably faulty knowledge points out only on the weakness of the particular religious standpoint and can't prove that Darwinians have won the battle and provided us with the unequivocally satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. It’ just a hypnoses like the Big Bang and other scientific 'superstitions' which may not stand the test of time in the long run IMO.

Originally Posted by diogen_

I partially disagree with the applicability of your example. A while ago I tried to find a material that could put up the existence of dinosaurs with the Bible and ultimately failed. Yet I can't easily 'buy' your (presumed) inference that Darwinians are unequivocally right simply because thus far Darwinian scientists have never demonstrated how the very first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism....

I agree with your general point, although I deliberately used the example of "Young Earth Creationism" because it runs afoul not only of biology, but also geology and nuclear physics and astronomy. But you're absolutely correct that "atheistic evolution" and "Genesis literalism" are not the only two options available. (There are theistic cosmologies from many other religions, and there are various forms of "theistic evolution" arguing that the God of Abraham -- or some other Supreme Being -- in some way or another designed and supervised the evolutionary development of life over billions of years.)