NationStates Jolt Archive

They are in at least this respect--they've both gendered multiple, huge-ass threads on Nationstates.

But that wasn't what I had in mind for this thread topic. I think they're similar in kind. Hear me out.

Intelligent Design isn't really a theory, for starters. It's creationism without using the word God. But one of the objections often given by people (like me) who want to keep it out of the public school system is that it doesn't explain how anything came to be. It only "attempts" to poke holes in the existing theory of evolution (and is painfully bad at it).

And that, I think, is the main similarity ID has with 9/11 conspiracy theories. To be sure, the 9/11 theories poke much more effective holes in the accepted story than ID does in evolution, but in the end, most 9/11 theories--and I'm focusing on the "that wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" one--still don't answer the question "what happened to the missing plane and all those people?" And there are similar questions to be posed about the theories surrounding the other planes as well.

So am I nuts? :D Or are they completely different kinds of craziness?

Despite the fact that the only argument against ID is a huge coincedence, or an infinate number of universes means it's more likely.

-Snip-
Be honest; you just wanted to save time by having a thread in which you could bash both at the same time. ;)

I believe that they are two different crazies. I am all for teaching creationism provided it is done along side evolution. As to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I just ignore those as they are not worth the effort.

I think you're on to something. In NS debates with 9/11 conspiracy nuts they tend to do some of the same things as creationists.

1) They regurgitate arguments they've gotten from other sources and never bother to check the facts in those arguments.

2) They simply ignore evidence that contradicts their point of view when it's presented to them.

3) They repeat debunked "evidence" repeatedly as if the number of times it's posted makes up for the fact that it's been shown to be false.

Despite the fact that the only argument against ID is a huge coincedence, or an infinate number of universes means it's more likely.

I think that ID actually happening would be a bigger coincidence than the rigorously supported (by many many many scientific disciplines,) Evolutionary theory.

I think you're on to something. In NS debates with 9/11 conspiracy nuts they tend to do some of the same things as creationists.

1) They regurgitate arguments they've gotten from other sources and never bother to check the facts in those arguments.

2) They simply ignore evidence that contradicts their point of view when it's presented to them.

3) They repeat debunked "evidence" repeatedly as if the number of times it's posted makes up for the fact that it's been shown to be false.

Thats the same with everything, not just ID.

I think that ID actually happening would be a bigger coincidence than the rigorously supported (by many many many scientific disciplines,) Evolutionary theory.

One can believe in ID and evolution. (depends on what sort of ID you are talking about).

Be honest; you just wanted to save time by having a thread in which you could bash both at the same time. ;)
Heh. I tend to stay out of the 9/11 threads because I don't pretend to be an expert in that kind of stuff. But I've taken enough biology classes--I was a Chem major before I got my degrees in English--to be able to hold my own in the evolution threads. And like I said, the 9/11 challengers are poking better holes in the standard story than the ID people are in evolution.

Hmm, yes, most 9/11 conspiracy theories are devoted entirely to simply criticizing "the official version," with their conclusions being only along the lines of "if the official version isn't 100% correct, the government/aliens/Illuminati/Jews/reptilians must be behind it all."

Of course, there are ALSO conspiracy theorists who do try to prove their conclusions in a manner that isn't simply poking holes in "the official version."

They generally fail tests of logic though.

Could be!

I have heard a few dooseys

My fav is that that government went into the 2 towers and placed charges to collapse the buildings just like when they demo large buildings.

This way they could blame Sadaam.....

It's primarily like "ID" in that it misrepresents and ignores evidence and posits opinions as facts.

"[in my opinion] life is too complicated for it to have come about naturally"
"[in my opinion] the heat from the burning jets could not have made the towers collapse"

"[in my opinion] because rocks dont spring to life, life didnt evolve"
"[in my opinion] because a little tower in spain didnt collapse, fire can't collapse buildings"

They are in at least this respect--they've both gendered multiple, huge-ass threads on Nationstates.

But that wasn't what I had in mind for this thread topic. I think they're similar in kind. Hear me out.

Intelligent Design isn't really a theory, for starters. It's creationism without using the word God. But one of the objections often given by people (like me) who want to keep it out of the public school system is that it doesn't explain how anything came to be. It only "attempts" to poke holes in the existing theory of evolution (and is painfully bad at it).

And that, I think, is the main similarity ID has with 9/11 conspiracy theories. To be sure, the 9/11 theories poke much more effective holes in the accepted story than ID does in evolution, but in the end, most 9/11 theories--and I'm focusing on the "that wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" one--still don't answer the question "what happened to the missing plane and all those people?" And there are similar questions to be posed about the theories surrounding the other planes as well.

So am I nuts? :D Or are they completely different kinds of craziness?

let me grab a bong ....I need to smoke a bit and get back to ya on this ...:D

This doesn't mean 20 years from now after I overthrow the U.S with an army of weasles, that the truth about 9/11, and ID won't come out. Oh yes. Then we will find out that it was really Colonel Sanders who shot Kennedy, and O.J was behind the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I thought the example of a 9/11 conspiracy theory would be the one proposed by George W Bush: that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it.

I thought the example of a 9/11 conspiracy theory would be the one proposed by George W Bush: that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it.
Bush has said recently that he was just kidding.

You are not even remotely nuts. You're dead on.

Both groups cling to random quasi-facts, bits of extrapolation, quotes taken out of context and appealing to authorities who have nothing to do with the field that the current discussion is about. My primary disagreement with you is that the 9/11 folks are just as wrong, they're just better at presentation.

You are not even remotely nuts. You're dead on.

Both groups cling to random quasi-facts, bits of extrapolation, quotes taken out of context and appealing to authorities who have nothing to do with the field that the current discussion is about. My primary disagreement with you is that the 9/11 folks are just as wrong, they're just better at presentation.
I look at it the other way around. I mean, at least the IDers can rely on the mysterious workings of God to explain the holes in their logic.

I look at it the other way around. I mean, at least the IDers can rely on the mysterious workings of God to explain the holes in their logic.
Yeah, "God did it" is SUCH a convienient answer.
At least until someone asks "How?".
Then it falls totally apart.

Yeah, "God did it" is SUCH a convienient answer.
At least until someone asks "How?".
Then it falls totally apart.
No, the answer to that is easy. God can do anything, so that is how He did that. By the way, ask a three year old if their dad could lift up a truck over his head if he really had to. I think you'll find a similar answer. Which reminds me of that line from the Crow, "Mother is the name of God on the lips and hearts of all children."


I think I'm in a bad mood.

I like this theory. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934788900154749704)


But seriously, I think you're on to something there. Maybe it's the "In Search Of" effect, where if we couldn't explain something it must have been aliens, after so many years of that we just accepted that a hole is just as much evidence as evidence is.

Yeah, Nazz, you're right. The 911 conspiracy theories aren't truly an alternative to the accepted truth, so much as a detractor to it. However, I would argue that ID and 911CT's are seperate in the fact that ID wants to be accepted as an alternative, whereas 911CT's wants the alternative investigated further. I personally subscribe to the idea that the official story of 911 is a sham, however I can only suspect that it was an inside job. I wouldn't dream for a second that 911CT's should be adopted as the norm, however I think most people should open their mind to the possibility. The whole state of affairs just smells like the Reichstag all over again.

In any case, 911CT's generally don't try and be regardedas an offical explanation, so much as poking holes through the existing one (as you said), to come closer to a possible alternative. Most sane people recognise there is only one truth, and thus don't want their idea taught alongside another as an equal unless they want it to replace the other. However ID wants to be regarded as an alternative in it's hole-poking self, without any further proof. I see ID as a call for a replacement, and 911CT's as a call for an investigation into a replacement.