Question for the Panel : Unproveable and Proveable - God and Criminal Conspiracies

[T S Justly]

The unproveable, of the subject title, is creationism, which, I believe, is a belief promoted by people who believe in the literal word of the Christian bible.

The unproveable, of the subject line, is also a rejection of the exist-
ence of God, creationism, and systems that promote these things.

The unproveable, of the subject line, also is the belief that either may be possible or impossible.

All three have never been proven one way or the other in a court of law.

Criminal conspiracy allegations haven been proven and disproven in courts of law through-out history.

So, are those who conflate the unproveable with investigations of allegations of offical wrong doing, within and outside government, doing so for a reason I haven't discovered yet, or did I miss where and when the explanation was given? Or, is the comparison one of methods only? And, do governmental/contractor crime researchers need to prove or dissprove the existence of god in order to find the approval of their opposite numbers, before a discussion of offical crimes and cover-ups
can occur in a rational and respectful manner?


Thank-you for your time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. ?

There is no apparent reason why a discussion of official crimes and cover-ups cannot occur in a rational and respectful manner. In fact, I think it happens. Not so often in this forum, to be sure.

[T S Justly]

2. Thanks. But, do you have any insights on why creationism...

... or birtherism or any number of other issues has relevance to criminal conspiracy research, unless there's some evidentiary value in those topics that I'm missing?

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. ??

Birthers presumably consider themselves criminal conspiracy researchers. I don't.

Maybe that moves toward an answer to whatever you are trying to ask about?

[T S Justly]

4. Thanks... but you offered a presumption, rather than an insight...

into a question the OP did not ask.

..."Birthers presumably consider themselves criminal conspiracy researchers. I don't".

So, what facts about the birther issue can be legitimately transposed
to a discussion about criminal conspiracies so that rational value
can be gained from it? That is, if you know. Is it that bithers haven't
proved their case so that means other researchers of criminal conspiracies haven't proven theirs? If you know, can you tell me what one has to do with the other?

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. I don't know what question the OP asks

I can read the words, but I can't discern the point. My attempts to engage you don't seem to be helping.

So, what facts about the birther issue can be legitimately transposed
to a discussion about criminal conspiracies so that rational value
can be gained from it?

Frankly, who cares? I don't.

[T S Justly]

6. Thanks, anyways! (nt)