9/11 Very interesting !

Rkootknir said:
Prometheus said:
They found every other link between different species, even though those remains are millions of years older. Yet they can't find the 'missing link', which is suppose to be a lot more recent. Why? Because it doesn't exist and has never existed.
Click to expand...
Really? I refer you to Talk Origins.
Click to expand...
They've proven that dinosaurs existed. Claiming they existed up to 100's of millions of years ago. They say that birds come from dinosaurs and have "proven" that by giving us the pterodactyl. Again, where is what they have dubbed the missing link? Their theories claim for our brain capacity to have doubled in only a few thousand years, an increase over four times as much as in any other period throughout history. Again where are their explanation. At least we "creationists" have the explanation for that, but they don't want to accept that explanation because it proves their TOE to be incorrect.
Rkootknir said:
Prometheus said:
I've gone somewhat off topic here, but this shows you that the widely accepted idea isn't always the right one.
Click to expand...
Really? Please refer me to where you showed any such thing.
Click to expand...
With all the hole in their theories how can you still claim for their theories to be correct. All they have proven to me is that they are constantly changing their mind when they are proven wrong and will continue to do so. At least the "creationist" theory is more or less consistant.

We can continue this here Creation over Evolution
 
Creation/evolution

so where did all this "stuff" everything evolved from come from? How did any matter exist to start with...

If you claim to be intelligent and scientific, etc. etc. then surely you can agree that it's easier for a hurricane to assemble a 747 in a junk yard than for us to get to the point that we are at today without some help other than an accident.

But unfortunately as they say... for many, seeing is believing... looking at a chimp is sometimes all the proof they need.
 
Last edited:
Science is always contradicting itself to "make sense" of something unfathomable. I remember having to learn about light... first the wave theory - this worked well for many other theories... then the quantum theory... for those theories that just didn't work with the wave theory... Theories come and go. Isn't it strange that Darwin thought his own theories to be foolish when he was on his way out.

Make no mistake... I believe in evolution... to a point... I mean - it stands to reason that my Collie wasn't always a shepherd, and he displays those charactaristics despite the fact that we don't have sheep. BTW... where did apes come from, and why are there still apes... etc.

You gotta admit that there are some pretty compelling arguments to support intelligent design... or creation...
One of the fastest evolving things around are theories behind all these things.
http://www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/fo...heet_4_(2).pdf
 
Last edited:
halicon said:
wtf has all this got to do with 9/11? or are you saying the americans are regressing into apes?
Click to expand...
they already are there :D cant go any more backwards
 
Darwin didn't get religious at the end of his life, this was an urban legend created by religious fanatics for their own ends.

I'll try to explain evolution as I understand it briefly.

Natural selection plays a large role, basically this comes down to small differences in species, for eg. some humans are a lot taller than others, imagine a nation of warrior-types that need to be tall and strong for survival. Slowly the smaller and shorter guys will be phased out, as they're not as likely to survive the conditions. That civilization ends up being mostly tall or whatever.

Same thing happens with intelligence, I've got a few really smart friends and it seems to run in the family, the genetics get passed down through the generations. Also, every now and then 'normal' people have a really smart kinda prodigy kid even when the parents aren't particularly smart.

The same thing could've happened to apes, basically, I mean very basically; imagine a group of apes slightly more intelligent than the norm, I mean, they're just able to understand what would be most beneficial for them in terms of survival, they start using rocks as tools or whatever, while the other apes don't understand. They split off and start their own group and continue their line.

Anyway I don't want to get too involved in this explanation but it makes sense to me. And to all you people thinking that religious 'creationism' explains this, you are truly fooling yourself to such a high degree that I'm actually kinda impressed. Creationism doesn't *prove* anything, it's entire hypothesis is based around saying "Oh, we can't possibly explain such a magically fantastically wondrous thing like this ourselves, we gotta chalk this crap up to that guy up in the clouds, and his little kid, oh yeah - don't forget the ghost."

It's a terribly backward way of thinking, the kind of thinking that can take us back to the dark ages. Why don't you want to try to understand why we are the way we are? Why are you so against this idea? Why do you find it so easy to disregard it as something 'incomphrensible to our mortal minds' when we are actually on our way to find out the truth?
 
mooK said:
Natural selection plays a large role, basically this comes down to small differences in species, for eg. some humans are a lot taller than others, imagine a nation of warrior-types that need to be tall and strong for survival. Slowly the smaller and shorter guys will be phased out, as they're not as likely to survive the conditions. That civilization ends up being mostly tall or whatever.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, the Dutch people are getting taller and taller... Must be the limited space they have, with everybody growing to the sun, like trees! :rolleyes:

mooK said:
Creationism doesn't *prove* anything, it's entire hypothesis is based around saying "Oh, we can't possibly explain such a magically fantastically wondrous thing like this ourselves, we gotta chalk this crap up to that guy up in the clouds, and his little kid, oh yeah - don't forget the ghost."
Click to expand...
Sorry mooK, just lost my respect for you! Even if you don't believe in God, you may respect other people's feelings a bit more!

mooK said:
It's a terribly backward way of thinking, the kind of thinking that can take us back to the dark ages. Why don't you want to try to understand why we are the way we are? Why are you so against this idea? Why do you find it so easy to disregard it as something 'incomphrensible to our mortal minds' when we are actually on our way to find out the truth?
Click to expand...
Are we? Have they invented a time-machine to go and have a look? :)
 
I apologise for being insensitive, I was getting carried away in that post, I admit it.
 
Prometheus said:
The interesting part is that the attack showed up in government reports before it took place, how's that for evidence. .
Click to expand...

Got references for that? Not necessarily disagreeing, just curious.
 
It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.
Click to expand...

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter
 
Syndyre said:
Got references for that? Not necessarily disagreeing, just curious.
Click to expand...
Once they release the reports yes. Unfortunately it's classified as always. :rolleyes: What is there to hide? ;)
 
If it's classified then how the crap do you know about it?

Jesvs, conspiracy theorists...
 
mooK said:
If it's classified then how the crap do you know about it?
Click to expand...
The point is that there was this rumour, they don't want to disprove it, so it stands to reason they have something to hide. If it's not that then it's something much worse.
 
The reason why most western civilized legal systems have 'innocent until proven guilty' as a rule, is because it is infinitely more difficult to disprove something than it is to prove something.

Think about it.
 
mooK said:
The reason why most western civilized legal systems have 'innocent until proven guilty' as a rule, is because it is infinitely more difficult to disprove something than it is to prove something.

Think about it.
Click to expand...
I would still like to know what is in that reports and on those tapes. Until the original copies are not released everyone including me can only wonder what is in them. Naturally all kinds of strories are going to develope. If they don't want this to happen they should release what they have so people can see the truth whichever way it points.
 
I agree with you, but such is government. Although, I believe there are some things the general public should not know for the sake of national security. I don't know where the line is drawn.
 
Originally Posted by Prometheus
The interesting part is that the attack showed up in government reports before it took place, how's that for evidence.
Click to expand...
My link above is in direct reference to the government reports you mention - :rolleyes:
 
National security are things like missile launch codes and security codes. Not information on events gone past unless they want to use such information in a trial in which case they have to turn it over to the defence first (oops, wrong century, they don't have to do that anymore because of new terrorism legislation. So much for fair trials in the land of freedom and opportunity)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X