Confusing mice with mousetraps

you can also find broken tools (and other evidence of the workers) in the rubble under the sculptured faces that are consistent with the tool marks (and that would show evidence of being handled).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

one could argue that the "old man" was just a much older sculpture that had weathered to where all evidence of it's manufacturing was obliterated, and had originally been of an equally compelling historical figure that has since been lost in time. what was the original face of the sphynx before it was recut?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

But again, going with the precept, how could you show that?We can show the rushmore evidence because it is contemporary, but we have no evidence of the original face on the sphynx because it is lost in time.How can you tell that the face was not so weathered that it looked like a natural that looked like a face? the weathering would be expected to be asymetrical and random in effect so you would end up with a highly degraded image.What would be the evidence to show the lack of design?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ahahahahaasend him some and see?

that was in response to your "You could ague that, but you'd be wrong." comment.the question was that if the Old Man in NH had originally been a sculpture several thousand years old and now badly weathered, would you be able to discern that it was designed or not?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

not to be too blunt, but how?by the absence of the same information around rushmore? not good enough, it needs evidence that it couldn't have been altered by design.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

don't you know?:astonished: :LOL:the pre-flood culture!(which also explains the extreme wear and .....)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are the one who said it would be obvious. I'm just asking how.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm just playing devil's advocate here Most definitely, and always. It may be indicative, but it isn't evidence. Which should be easy to demonstrate, yes? My old HS english teacher said that if you state something is obvious (in a paper) you should be able to demonstrate it.Don't forget the one viewpoint issue with the total lack of symetry in the old man 'face' and other angles showing a rock outcrop that does not look like a face.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ice is water that isn't wet. Buddhist monks are used to drinking boiling water (when the tea is just made) and got severely burned when forced to lower elevations by the chinese. these are relative things.the issue is about confusing what is designed by {people\etc} with what is designed by natural action.if you can tell that something is {apparently} designed but cannot determine the process that resulted in the {something} then you cannot state what the process was, whether you want it to be an IDer or a natural process.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Again, you are the one that made the assertion. The best you can say is that everyone who has studied the old man formation has concluded that it is a natural formation.and yes it was the word "obviously" that set you up. now have a good lol eh?{added by edit} ps == forgot to mention people walking on fire...This message has been edited by RAZD, 03-03-2005 21:42 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

fire walking as in some people get burned and others don't. so is it still obvious that fire burns?and ice is still {H₂O}_{multiple molecules} just as liquid water is.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

welcome to the fray. solipsism fits any religion as a last gasp answer.btw if you look you will see there are two kinds of reply buttons: one at the end of all the posts that makes a general reply (like your post) and one at the lower right hand corner of every post that makes a reply specifically to that post (like this one). you can set your preferences to get e-mails for replies to your posts and thus track a conversation interwoven through all the others.you can also use the [peek] button to look at how other have formated or linked things.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}