Smut for Smut

[tavarish]

If you'll read slowly and out loud, I very carefully posed it as rhetoric. The point of rhetoric is that the answer should be alluded to in the question, and you don't actually have to answer the question. The point was that I cannot post links to change your beliefs, and I was establishing that point with rhetorical question. I apologize if that went over your head. So may I repeat, I did not ask you to provide links and then laugh at them. I specifically asked you not to provide links. For the second time.

Please form your questions a bit better. It's not the issue of the reader to try to decipher what the author COULD have meant. Write what you mean clearly, as that question's rhetorical properties are clear as mud. Rhetorical questions have no clear answer. The one you posed has a clear answer, one that can be backed up with evidence.

You didn't mention the ecosystem, just the piece of lonely driftwood.

Reading > you.

Here's what I posted:

"You see driftwood along the beach. It functions as a wall as well as an ecosystem for microorganisms and sentient life. It is, by all definitions, complex. It has no singular function, but can assume many roles as a system. Who designed this?"

Last time I checked I am speaking legible english. I don't count whywontgodhealamputees.com as evidence. You did provide the link. You did support the link. I acknowledge that it may not be your website though...

Is my name Thor?

And, you're wrong! Try checking out http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ or http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/debates.html or http://godisimaginary.com/

You could also try reading "The God Delusion", or "God is not Great", or "Godless", or "The End of Faith".

I highly recommend all these sources. Of course, whether or not you actually take the time to check them out is up to you. You can lead a horse to water...

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3102-pos...l#pid60767

Because the officla Commission did such a terrible job that the "official" story cannot be true. Figure it out for yourself. One point out of millions. America's defense systems (on which they spend billions of dollars) failed catastrophically that morning.

So failure is evidence for a conspiracy?

But they were still able to release the photos and names of every suicide bomber (that were not on passanger manifests) within 2 hours.

First of all, they were on passenger manifests. They were not on the list of VICTIMS, which include all passengers other than the hijackers.
Second, the list was revised days after, when new information was presented, as there were mistakes made with individuals with similar names.

I don't see how this is evidence of a conspiracy.

And what are the chances that during the attack there were military training drills about the same attack. See 7/7 and other false flag examples for the pattern of military training while a 'terrorist; attack occurs.

There were four operations thought by conspiracy theorists to be running on 9/11 by NORAD, which had an effect on what happened that day.

1. Amalgam Virgo: Took place June 1-2 2001. It was an exercise involving a cruise missile and is an annual event.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/l...1jcmd.html

2. Timely Alert II: Scheduled for 9/11/2001. Absolutely no evidence to suggest it had anything to do with the attacks.

3. Northern Vigilance: Scheduled for 9/10-14/2001. An exercise in which fighters were set to Alaska and Canada as a preparation for a Russian attack with NATO fighters.

http://www.norad.mil/News/2001/090901.html

4. Tripod II - Scheduled for 9/12/2001 from Pier 92 in NYC, in preparation for a biochemical attack. On 9/11/2001, Pier 92 was made into a to treat injured and allow people to leave the city. The exercise was cancelled.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/19/se.01.html

No exercise took away any of the 14 planes that are ready and fueled 24/7 to intercept aircraft that day. However, this was not something they had trained for. The hijackers turned the transponders off, and it was simply unclear if it was a electronic malfunction or deliberate attack. They did not know where these planes were, nor did they know what the intentions of the crew were.

This is all in the 9/11 Commission Report. Have you read it in its entirety?

But simpky put, the official story is representative of such a terrible and flawed investigation, that my saying it is untrue is almost unarguable.

You making a statement based on assumption and bias doesn't make that statement true, not does it make it plausible. Back it up with something more than "OMG LOOK AT THIS COINCIDENCE!"

So when we are old men you won't be telling your grand children anything different than you now think about 9/11. The story will not be any clearer, or get refined any more. the version of 9/11 you believe in is perfect and will never change. I'm telling you that in history I am on the right side of this debate (methinks). you are of course allowed to think whatever you like.

You are on the side that has no cohesive list of events to put together. You fail to realize that the government did not tell the people what happened, the people told the government. For the US to be in on something on this monumental of a scale is nearly logistically impossible and ridiculously implausible. I'd rather be on the side with actual facts, peer reviewed scientific journals, and mountains of evidence.

Let me guess. You watched a couple homemade documentaries, and were made a believer. Then you watched a couple shiny pieces by Pop Mechanics and others, and flopped back. Good for you. I don't get why people say "i used to be a truther", well you wer'nt much of one if you 'used to be' one. I knew the game, and the part America played in it, long before that fateful day.

Ooh, good try, but far from the truth.

I could see the twin towers from my house, I live in an NJ town that borders NY. I knew people that died, and a memorial for those that the city lost on that day is erected not 5 minutes away from my front door. I was in utter disbelief at the sheer finality of it, watching news for hours on end for that entire week. I did a load of research, and actually wrote a thesis on why the attacks were planned, and convinced all of my friends of this. After all, why not blame the government for such a thing if the "official story" didn't make sense? This started from 9/11/2001. I didn't make any conclusions, but formed an argument that posited that America has something to do with attacks.

However, over some time, the conspiracy theorists seemed to have an obvious agenda, and most of the sites were simply spreading lies. I did research on progressive collapse, controlled demolition, learned the physics behind the planes hitting the towers, read the NIST report, read the 9/11 Commission Report, and studied both sides of the debate. You can only come to one logical conclusion if you value the scientific method and peer review. Belief has nothing to do with it, and just because you don't like an organization (the government), that doesn't mean they're guilty of murdering 3,000 people.

There is not one piece of evidence that a conspiracy theorist has provided that can stand up in court. Not one.

Please try harder. IT"S NOT LIKE AFTER LOOSE CHANGE I 'woke up' TO TRUTH. (emphasis mine)
BUT THAT FROM DAY ONE I KNEW. This doesn't mean, as it seems you assume that from 'day one' of watching loose change I 'woke up' to the truth. Day one was not the first day you watched the film. Say one was in 2001. God damn you're thick. Stop telling me what I did say after I have clarified what I already did say. Thanks.

That's even more loopy. How did you come to a conclusion on the DAY OF, with no information?

Hey, let's do it again! No, you are mistaken. That would mean that before loose change, the movie that did not create my opinion, I already held an opinion. Deep breaths...

"Even before I had information and evidence, I reached a conclusion".

How rational of you.

Try, as i suggested, reading slowed and may be out loud.

So I'm to blame for not understanding your vague assertions the way you meant them? "That day on", when you are clearly talking about watching a documentary, and not necessarily the subject of the documentary. Specify, don't assume others can read your thoughts.

The reason god dosn't interfere is because she loves us. God loves us enough to know not to interfere. This is a giant learning machine. A kind of matter based simulation. How would the learning machine function if you had a mommy making sure nothing happened to you?

I have a mom, she loves me and tries to protect me from harm. Guess what, I still learn about the world and make mistakes. What you're equating God to is an absent parent that let the kids drink the clorox all they want, and don't take them to the hospital when they fall down and crack their head open. Yes, love indeed.

I can imagine a deadbeat dad saying "I loved you enough to know not to interfere".

That is not the argument or theory of ID I support, that is kindergarten level stupid.

You have a habit of ignoring evidence. I gave you specific refutation of the bacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity argument you posted. That falls right in line with creationism.

I appreciate that, I made it special for this occasion. I tried to make one on par with comparing interdependent complexity with a piece of driftwood, which you were not involved in.

It's clear you didn't understand the analogy, nor read it fully.

Oh, keep stewing over it though. It's a great thing, and something to be thankful for, that we live in a world with causality, consequence and free will. Unfortunately, 1 out of 1000 of you may lose a limb. We're sorry. If you'd like to not live in a world with these rules, you know where the door is.

If the world functions perfectly well all by itself, why would you need a God? Why would you need that extra qualifying assumption?