Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   


Something is valid only when you can produce evidence for validity. You can't just say i think it's valid and poof it's valid. You have to substantiate your claim made by showing a series of events that prove that there is some actual validity to it.


Likewise!






Think logically and really hard about it. Put some honest effort into it. Pick it apart in your own reply before I answer the obviousness inherent there.


Go on, Im genuinely interested in hearing whats wrong with what I said,.







Did you verify the work yourself or more aptly, how sure are you of the claims if you haven't verified the work? I'm unable to find any verified documented scientific research papers suggesting what your claiming here.


Im very sure, there is no real complication, it is an accepted geoloical fact that rain hasint fallen on the Plateau for at least thousands of years before the alleged date of the sphinx, which like teh pyramids, is derived from faulty sources based on assumptions, and if thats the cse and the observable vertical erosion on the sphinx arent holograms, then the conclusion is obvious, now unless your gonna read the book, produced by men as I said of excellent credentials, then your arguments are unfounded.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by Outlawstar]




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Likewise!


Shifting burden of proof.


Go on, Im genuinely interested in hearing whats wrong with what I said,.



THERE IS NO FIRST CAUSE
...
BUT EVERYTHING STILL HAS A CAUSE


If there is no first cause, then not everything has a cause. Correct? Or maybe you can school me in on this one like I asked.


Im very sure, there is no real complication, it is an accepted geoloical fact that rain hasint fallen on the Plateau for at least thousands of years before the alleged date of the sphinx, which like teh pyramids, is derived from faulty sources based on assumptions, and if thats the cse and the observable vertical erosion on the sphinx arent holograms, then the conclusion is obvious, now unless your gonna read the book, produced by men as I said of excellent credentials, then your arguments are unfounded.


Ah, so your assuming that they were eroded by water and that no other possible source of erosion!

LINK

How erosion occurs in a desert:


Aeolian turbidity currents are better known as dust storms. Air over deserts is cooled significantly when rain passes through it. This cooler and denser air sinks toward the desert surface. When it reaches the ground, the air is deflected forward and sweeps up surface debris in its turbulence as a dust storm.


Considering the sphinx and pyramid are in dessert climates and both claimed and documented by the Egyptians to have been built by themselves and also mentioned by the Greek historian Herodotus and given that dust storms in a desert climate can create erosion patterns similar to in looks to those of water, you still really want to claim it was some ancient really super duper advanced civilization that did it without providing a damn single shred of credible evidence?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
If your point is...

You have an opinion and that opinion is different than some other people...

Then, yeah, you made you point.

But that doesn't change the fact that the answer to the question the OP of this thread asked is...

People say that Intelligent Design is not scientific because it does not meet the criteria to be considered scientific.
But people never consider that science might need to change.. Every theory needs to fit into current science, even when it's far from perfect. Science is supposed to be the search for knowledge. That's broad. But now it has limited itself to materialistic and/or mechanical knowledge. It's always about finding a mechanism for everything, like everything is a machine. In my opinion, the real question is not, why doesnt ID fit into science. The real question is, why are we so sure the current scientific method is the only right way/perfect?

[edit on 10-11-2009 by vasaga]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



But people never consider that science might need to change..


Why? Change to what?


Every theory needs to fit into current science, even when it's far from perfect.


Every theory needs to adhere to the scientific method, sorry to correct you there. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method because it demands evidence to back up a theory before it is accepted. Without the scientific method people can run around and claim whatever they want and then we're left with a big huge mess on our hands of trying to figure out what is truth from what is pure BS. That would hinder progress in my opinion.


Science is supposed to be the search for knowledge. That's broad.


And that is certainly what it *is* about.


But now it has limited itself to materialistic and/or mechanical knowledge.


There doesn't appear to be any evidence to the contrary so I fail to see the problem here.


The real question is, why are we so sure the current scientific method is the only right way/perfect?


Because the other way you propose wouldn't work at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding evidence. If you feel there is something wrong with someone saying do you have any evidence to back up your claim that your left pinky is the creator of the entire universe and of pink magical unicorns, then please explain to me where the wrong exists in there.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I don't know if you might have guessed, but I have a small philosophical background.. When something is logical it might not need physical evidence.. And that's exactly what the axioms/postulates are for, and yet, they are only there to support mechanical means in science, when it's convenient.. Just like dark matter.. That's basically mumbo jumbo..

You already disagreed to this, but science came from philosophy, since all sciences where branches within philosophy. Pythagoras for example was a philosopher.. You might think there is no evidence for anything other than mechanical. But really.. You're using the mechanical view to discard something that might not be mechanical... Not really logical.

But I guess, we'll never agree on this, so there's no point on going on with it.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by sirnex
 

Just like dark matter.. That's basically mumbo jumbo..


Dark matter is generally accepted because concrete evidence points to it (its the most simple explanation of some phenomenons without breaking proven physical laws - Occams razor).
What evidence points to the creator?


[edit on 10-11-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Well despite everything. I have something in science that has never been proven, and is generally accepted. The first and second law of thermodynamics. It's an assumed "fact" based on "experience". In other words, a postulate. Now tell me, why can't they do that with ID?"


The theory of thermodynamics is useful until an alternative theory explains more, is more robust, more useful. In other words the theory is falsifiable, can be disproven and is therefore scientific.

ID 'postulates' as you call them, cannot be falsified and are therefore unscientific.

You as a philosopher would appreciate the views of Karl Popper regarding the philosophy of science. They are very enlightening ;-)

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 10-11-2009 by jonno]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Hi all,

Sphinx water erosion is a minority view -
en.wikipedia.org...

"Most Egyptologists, dating the building of the Sphinx to Khafra's reign (2520-2492 BCE), do not accept the Water Erosion Theory. Alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering, from Aeolian processes and acid rain to exfoliation, haloclasty, thermal expansion, and even the poor quality limestone of the Sphinx, have been put forward by Egyptologists and geologists, including Mark Lehner,[15] James A. Harrell of the University of Toledo,[22] Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,[23] Alex Bordeau,[24] and Lambert Dolphin, a former senior research physicist at SRI International.[25]

The chief proponents of the Water Erosion Theory and others have rejected these alternative explanations. Reader, for example, points to the tombs dug into the Enclosure walls during Dynasty XXVI (c. 600 BCE), and notes that the entrances of the tombs have weathered so lightly that original chisel marks are still clearly visible. He points out that if the weathering on the Enclosure walls (up to a metre deep in places) had been created by any of the proposed alternative causes of erosion, the tomb entrances would have been weathered much more severely.[26] Similarly, Schoch points out that the alternative explanations do not account for the absence of similar weathering patterns on other rock surfaces in the complex.[19]"

K.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   


Shifting burden of proof.


That old trick!




THERE IS NO FIRST CAUSE ... BUT EVERYTHING STILL HAS A CAUSE If there is no first cause, then not everything has a cause. Correct? Or maybe you can school me in on this one like I asked.


Right, seeing as you are incapable of understanding simple logic, Ill explain it again, there IS no contradiction, in an infinity there would be no first cause, obviously otherwise it wouldint be an infinity!!
Following me here?, however everything within that infinity, every effect, would have a cause, obviously,otherwise it wouldint exists, please tell you get this now?






Ah, so your assuming that they were eroded by water and that no other possible source of erosion!


Im not ASSUMING that, its the opinion of highly credentialed geologists, and there is no dessert erosion type that can explain the erosion other than vertical water fall.






Ah, so your assuming that they were eroded by water and that no other possible source of erosion!





you still really want to claim it was some ancient really super duper advanced civilization that did it without providing a damn single shred of credible evidence?


When the FRAK did I say that?


[edit on 11-11-2009 by Outlawstar]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Hi all,

Sphinx water erosion is a minority view -
en.wikipedia.org...

"Most Egyptologists, dating the building of the Sphinx to Khafra's reign (2520-2492 BCE), do not accept the Water Erosion Theory. Alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering, from Aeolian processes and acid rain to exfoliation, haloclasty, thermal expansion, and even the poor quality limestone of the Sphinx, have been put forward by Egyptologists and geologists, including Mark Lehner,[15] James A. Harrell of the University of Toledo,[22] Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,[23] Alex Bordeau,[24] and Lambert Dolphin, a former senior research physicist at SRI International.[25]

The chief proponents of the Water Erosion Theory and others have rejected these alternative explanations. Reader, for example, points to the tombs dug into the Enclosure walls during Dynasty XXVI (c. 600 BCE), and notes that the entrances of the tombs have weathered so lightly that original chisel marks are still clearly visible. He points out that if the weathering on the Enclosure walls (up to a metre deep in places) had been created by any of the proposed alternative causes of erosion, the tomb entrances would have been weathered much more severely.[26] Similarly, Schoch points out that the alternative explanations do not account for the absence of similar weathering patterns on other rock surfaces in the complex.[19]"

K.



Ha the Egyptologists disagree, what a surprise?
Of course they have NEVER given a better explanation and refuse in general to accept the water erosion theory, it makes you wonder why?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



I don't know if you might have guessed, but I have a small philosophical background.. When something is logical it might not need physical evidence.. And that's exactly what the axioms/postulates are for, and yet, they are only there to support mechanical means in science, when it's convenient.. Just like dark matter.. That's basically mumbo jumbo..


I'm not sure if I agree. I've come to a point after believing in all sorts of different thing's we see posted here on ATS, but after really looking into a lot of the claims myself, I found that most of the people making wild claims were hoaxing/lying and any evidence they had I learned wasn't real actual evidence. I'm now at that point where I accept nothing that I can't see tangible evidence for. I don't believe dark matter/energy exists because I don't believe it's actually been observed. I find it odd that it was only "observed" after what was previously observed didn't fit the "proven" maths on paper of what we should see out there. For me, it sounds more like that "proven" stuff is wrong and that is why they needed to invent unseen forces that they admit can not interact with matter at all except gravitationally. Yet, there exists modified gravity theories that take away the need to invent unobserved/unseen new forms of matter.


You already disagreed to this, but science came from philosophy, since all sciences where branches within philosophy. Pythagoras for example was a philosopher.. You might think there is no evidence for anything other than mechanical. But really.. You're using the mechanical view to discard something that might not be mechanical... Not really logical.


Since the day we discovered fire, flint knapping, spear making, agriculture, domestication of animals, that was all the start of science. There was no philosophy in any of that, it was sheer trial and error. Philosophy is more like a different branch of science in itself than it is the father of science. Without evidence of anything that is not mechanically described *as you put it*, I see no reason to readily and blindly believe it to exist.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



That old trick!


I'm assuming you have no actual evidence then.


Right, seeing as you are incapable of understanding simple logic, Ill explain it again, there IS no contradiction, in an infinity there would be no first cause, obviously otherwise it wouldint be an infinity!!
Following me here?, however everything within that infinity, every effect, would have a cause, obviously,otherwise it wouldint exists, please tell you get this now?


LINK

LINK



Im not ASSUMING that, its the opinion of highly credentialed geologists, and there is no dessert erosion type that can explain the erosion other than vertical water fall.


Your assuming that is true and sticking to it in light of me already posting a type desert erosion that occurs and produces vertical erosion marks.


When the FRAK did I say that?


Sorry, I felt the need to sensationalize that you don't think the Egyptians had built it, but if I'm not mistaken you have implied or outright mentioned belief in an advanced ancient civilization. I would personally not rather have to go through 20 pages to find that statement.


Ha the Egyptologists disagree, what a surprise?
Of course they have NEVER given a better explanation and refuse in general to accept the water erosion theory, it makes you wonder why?


You were already given a link that discussed vertical erosion in a desert climate. Here it is again. LINK

Just to note: Ignoring valid information does not make your argument any more true.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

That old trick!


I'm assuming you have no actual evidence then.




LINK LINK


What was the point of that, it didint disprove my thought on infinity!






Your assuming that is true and sticking to it in light of me already posting a type desert erosion that occurs and produces vertical erosion marks.


Im assuming its more plausible than the other explanations, and until a better one comes along I will continue to do so, isint that how science works?


When the FRAK did I say that?





Sorry, I felt the need to sensationalize that you don't think the Egyptians had built it, but if I'm not mistaken you have implied or outright mentioned belief in an advanced ancient civilization. I would personally not rather have to go through 20 pages to find that statement.


Okay, well I dont BELIEVE in an ancient advanced civilzation, I believe in the distinct possibility that at lest one existed, I know you DONT so lets not go there!


Ha the Egyptologists disagree, what a surprise?
Of course they have NEVER given a better explanation and refuse in general to accept the water erosion theory, it makes you wonder why?








Just to note: Ignoring valid information does not make your argument any more true.


I didint ignore it, it just happens to be irrelevant and explains nothing to do with the erosion patterns on the sphinx.

Oh and *just to note*, ignoring valid information doesint make it less false either, and the info wasint valid, at least in relation to the sphinx
You claim to use the scientific method, yet you won even bother considering this clear evidence!

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Outlawstar]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vasaga
But people never consider that science might need to change.. Every theory needs to fit into current science, even when it's far from perfect. Science is supposed to be the search for knowledge. That's broad. But now it has limited itself to materialistic and/or mechanical knowledge. It's always about finding a mechanism for everything, like everything is a machine. In my opinion, the real question is not, why doesnt ID fit into science. The real question is, why are we so sure the current scientific method is the only right way/perfect?


Well,

Scientific method has been honed over the course of several centuries. It has shown itself to be a highly successful method for examining natural phenomena.

At this point in time, the only people clamoring for changing scientific method is certain groups that want some pet beliefs accepted as “scientific” when they really have no scientific merit.

One group in particular is the Discovery Institute.

They are not happy with the fact that scientific study shows major flaws in their preferred perception of reality. That are quite aware they can not use scientific method to make their pet beliefs seem plausible scientific conjectures.

That is the whole reason for the Discovery Institutes Wedge Strategy. Their goal is to rewrite scientific method in a way to make it more amenable to modern Christian beliefs.

Here is a quote straight from the Wedge Strategy document:



…Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.


So, you want to believe Intelligent Design is a scientific conjecture...

The scientific community says…

“In order for ID to be accepted as a scientific conjecture it must meet the criteria to be accepted as a scientific conjecture. At this point in time ID does not meet the criteria to be accepted as a scientific conjecture.”

So, instead of squeezing ID through the wringer of scientific method in an attempt to show that ID actually meets the criteria to be accepted as a scientific conjecture…

Your answer is “Change the way science is done, so we can have ID accepted as a genuine scientific conjecture without having to bother mucking around with actual scientific research.”

Got news for you. That’s not likely to happen anytime in the near future.

After 10 years...

Why not just start attempting to apply scientific method to ID?

You want ID to be accepted as a scientific conjecture?

Arguing that ID should be accepted as having scientific merit will not change the fact that the scientific community will not accept ID as having scientific merit, without ID being subjected to scientific method.

There is a lot of arguing being done...

But there is no actual science being done.

Remember the tag line from the commercial..

"Just Do It."



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



What was the point of that, it didint disprove my thought on infinity!


Then you didn't read either link, it technically does.


Im assuming its more plausible than the other explanations, and until a better one comes along I will continue to do so, isint that how science works?


Um, it is more plausible considering the sphinx is in a desert surrounded by dust storms. If you read the link you would have noticed that these dust storm leave vertical erosion marks like we see on the sphinx.

Climate history of the region doesn't even agree with your argument either. LINK

How did the Giza pyramid and sphinx builders live in an even larger desert region than what exists today?


Okay, well I dont BELIEVE in an ancient advanced civilzation, I believe in the distinct possibility that at lest one existed, I know you DONT so lets not go there!


Hypocrite.


what if we discovered evidence for an ancient race of humans that were equally if not more advanced than us, as evidenced by such stunning monuments as Baalbeck and the Pyramids


It appear by your own words that you do think there is an advanced ancient civilization, at least as advanced as we today or even more so!


I didint ignore it, it just happens to be irrelevant and explains nothing to do with the erosion patterns on the sphinx.


Are you dense? What does vertical erosion marks mean to you? Both water *and* dust storm produce vertical erosion, the sphinx is in a desert with dust storms being a regular norm. Duh?


Oh and *just to note*, ignoring valid information doesint make it less false either, and the info wasint valid, at least in relation to the sphinx
You claim to use the scientific method, yet you won even bother considering this clear evidence!


I wish it were true, I wish it were true, I wish it were true. Oh how great it would be if a super duper advanced ancient civilization built the pyramids and sphinx. Oh, I so wish it were true!



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   


Then you didn't read either link, it technically does.


I have read both and neither disprove my notion.






Um, it is more plausible considering the sphinx is in a desert surrounded by dust storms. If you read the link you would have noticed that these dust storm leave vertical erosion marks like we see on the sphinx. Climate history of the region doesn't even agree with your argument either. LINK How did the Giza pyramid and sphinx builders live in an even larger desert region than what exists today?


THat data agrees perfectly with the arguement,




The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[14]


See, that was kinda pointless, and wikipedia no less.





Hypocrite.

what if we discovered evidence for an ancient race of humans that were equally if not more advanced than us, as evidenced by such stunning monuments as Baalbeck and the Pyramids
It appear by your own words that you do think there is an advanced ancient civilization, at least as advanced as we today or even more so!


HOW THE HELL DOES THAT IMPLY THAT I DEFINITIVELY BELIEVE IN AN ANCIENT SUPER ADVANCED CIVILIZATION?
PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!




Are you dense? What does vertical erosion marks mean to you? Both water *and* dust storm produce vertical erosion, the sphinx is in a desert with dust storms being a regular norm. Duh?

The sphinx has been covered in sand most of its life, the erosin from dust storms is clearly distinguishable due to its differing effects on different rock types, and even that said, you admit water can do it too, so you cant just discount it.


Oh and *just to note*, ignoring valid information doesint make it less false either, and the info wasint valid, at least in relation to the sphinx
You claim to use the scientific method, yet you won even bother considering this clear evidence!





I wish it were true, I wish it were true, I wish it were true. Oh how great it would be if a super duper advanced ancient civilization built the pyramids and sphinx. Oh, I so wish it were true!



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



I have read both and neither disprove my notion.


Liar lol. The first one show how infinite causal regression, which your attempting to primitively describe is inherently illogical. Essentially, your description is a chicken/egg argument. The second link even describes the illogicality of it. Obviously you read neither if you still think they are in agreement with your argument.


THat data agrees perfectly with the arguement,


How so? Explain it.


See, that was kinda pointless, and wikipedia no less.


Are you serious? lol ... what was the date suggested? 11,500 years for the sphinx? So, for the 6,000 some odd years between that period it never eroded, but then decided to erode when the rains started around 5,000 years ago?


HOW THE HELL DOES THAT IMPLY THAT I DEFINITIVELY BELIEVE IN AN ANCIENT SUPER ADVANCED CIVILIZATION?
PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!


Explain the statement then. What does "as evidenced by" mean?


The sphinx has been covered in sand most of its life, the erosin from dust storms is clearly distinguishable due to its differing effects on different rock types, and even that said, you admit water can do it too, so you cant just discount it.


LOL, in your opinion *considering I know you won't have evidence for this* When did the sphinx get covered? How long has it been covered by sand?


Its really getting old you putting words in my mouth and Im pretty tired of it, lets continue like adults shall we, jeez!


Until you can explain what you mean by "as evidenced by" then all I am doing is sensationalizing what you've already stated.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   


Liar lol. The first one show how infinite causal regression, which your attempting to primitively describe is inherently illogical. Essentially, your description is a chicken/egg argument. The second link even describes the illogicality of it. Obviously you read neither if you still think they are in agreement with your argument.



Liar lol, arent you funny, it shows a possibility based on an understanding it gives NOTHING provable, and you even said it technically disproves it, we ll chew on this, it TECHNICALLY doesint, lets just frakking leave it, it was only a thought I had, jeex!


THat data agrees perfectly with the arguement,





How so? Explain it.


I quoted the text, LOOK AT IT!!





Are you serious? lol ... what was the date suggested? 11,500 years for the sphinx? So, for the 6,000 some odd years between that period it never eroded, but then decided to erode when the rains started around 5,000 years ago?


Your point is irrelevant as you would know if you bothered to actually look back at the suggested date, DO IT YOURSELF!!





Explain the statement then. What does "as evidenced by" mean?


Oh please this is just pityful, swallow your pride for crying out loud!






LOL, in your opinion *considering I know you won't have evidence for this* When did the sphinx get covered? How long has it been covered by sand?


Hold on a minuite, before I present evidence, I just want to clarify, are you actually humorously laughing off the notion that the sphinx has been covered in sand for much of its life cycle?




[edit on 11-11-2009 by Outlawstar]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



I quoted the text, LOOK AT IT!!


I understand the quoted text, I'm wondering if your interpretation of it shows understanding itself.


Your point is irrelevant as you would know if you bothered to actually look back at the suggested date, DO IT YOURSELF!!


The point is very relevant. Let's see...

Supposed age = 11500 years old.
Rain came around = 5000 years ago

11500
-
5000
That leaves us an estimated period of 6,500 years between those two dates.

So between the time it was built and up till it rained it was covered by sand? Then when it rain it got uncovered so it could erode and then got covered back up so the erosion process stopped so we could dig it back out of the sand so it could erode today by the desert heat and sand?

I don't know man... Maybe you can explain this one better lol.


Oh please this is just pityful, swallow your pride for crying out loud!


That's a piss poor explanation!


Hold on a minuite, before I present evidence, I just want to clarify, are you actually humorously laughing off the notion that the sphinx has been covered in sand for much of its life cycle?


No, I agree it's been covered for a long time, I just don't agree that it's been covered for ... let's see...

6500 plus ... another estimated 3000 on top of that... soo, nine thousand or so years? Seems sketchy.

Hell, maybe my math is wrong. Can you show me where it's wrong?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   


The point is very relevant. Let's see... Supposed age = 11500 years old. Rain came around = 5000 years ago 11500 - 5000 That leaves us an estimated period of 6,500 years between those two dates. So between the time it was built and up till it rained it was covered by sand? Then when it rain it got uncovered so it could erode and then got covered back up so the erosion process stopped so we could dig it back out of the sand so it could erode today by the desert heat and sand? I don't know man... Maybe you can explain this one better lol.


Wait are you talkin about the sphinxs supposed age in relation to John Anthony Wests theory?
And yep that is what happens to the sphinx, and the desert sand and heat erosion as you refer to it, is not the culprit in any substantial way on the sphinx.













No, I agree it's been covered for a long time, I just don't agree that it's been covered for ... let's see... 6500 plus ... another estimated 3000 on top of that... soo, nine thousand or so years? Seems sketchy. Hell, maybe my math is wrong. Can you show me where it's wrong?



Obviously the Egyptians have looked after it during their time, and evn fixed certain parts of it, however yes there is no reason why the sphinx wouldint be covered in sand for such large periods of time.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join