It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
Likewise!
Go on, Im genuinely interested in hearing whats wrong with what I said,.
THERE IS NO FIRST CAUSE
...
BUT EVERYTHING STILL HAS A CAUSE
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.
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.
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?
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.
The real question is, why are we so sure the current scientific method is the only right way/perfect?
Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by sirnex
Just like dark matter.. That's basically mumbo jumbo..
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]
Shifting burden of proof.
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.
Ah, so your assuming that they were eroded by water and that no other possible source of erosion!
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?
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.
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.
That old trick!
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?
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.
When the FRAK did I say that?
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?
That old trick!
LINK LINK
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?
Just to note: Ignoring valid information does not make your argument any more true.
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?
…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.
What was the point of that, it didint disprove my thought on infinity!
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?
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!
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
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!
Then you didn't read either link, it technically does.
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?
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]
Hypocrite.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!
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
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!
I have read both and neither disprove my notion.
THat data agrees perfectly with the arguement,
See, that was kinda pointless, and wikipedia no less.
HOW THE HELL DOES THAT IMPLY THAT I DEFINITIVELY BELIEVE IN AN ANCIENT SUPER ADVANCED CIVILIZATION?
PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
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.
Its really getting old you putting words in my mouth and Im pretty tired of it, lets continue like adults shall we, jeez!
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.
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?
Explain the statement then. What does "as evidenced by" mean?
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?
I quoted the text, LOOK AT IT!!
Your point is irrelevant as you would know if you bothered to actually look back at the suggested date, DO IT YOURSELF!!
Oh please this is just pityful, swallow your pride for crying out loud!
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?
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.
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?