Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by av8r007

Really lame beginning. I am truly honestly sorry that you find it impossible that something beyond your intelligence created you.

My mom and dad had sex, that is what created me. If you don't wish to give your own parents credit where credit is due, then fine. I understand it's kind of icky to think that our parents one had sex with each other, but that's just how life works.

So... The Universe appearing out of NOWHERE, including life, gravity, and the laws of physics seems more plausible to you? Give me a break.

I am not religious, so I make no claims myself to have absolute knowledge without evidence of where or how the universe came to be. This is one of the many wondrous thing's about science in my opinion, the drive to learn our origins. Not to simply huff and puff that we arrogantly think we know where it came from. I won't pick one religion out of thousands as the absolute truth. If you wish to be that intellectually lazy, that is also your choice.

Evolution is a crock. The Creator set those processes in motion so that the species would be able to adapt to a changing world. You wouldn't be here if He didn't.

Seeing as how I value evidence over speculation, do you have any evidence for this?

The simple fact that everything in this universe has laws it is bound to.

Saying laws as if to imply a lawgiver is not evidence of one. You will have to do better.

The fact that this planet has the perfect conditions for life, nothing more, nothing less.

Which particular conditions are you speaking about? There is life existent on this one planet that survive in very hostile conditions that are not suited for most of the life on this planet. This also assumes that no life can exist anywhere else in the vast cosmos of our universe. Do you claim absolute knowledge of everything in the universe?

The fact that there are systems in effect on this planet to keep it from drying out and becoming a cold barren chunk of rock floating in space.

What systems are you referring to? From my understanding, the sun will expand to consume the Earth one day.

IT IS JUST SIMPLY TOO COMPLEX TO HAPPEN BY MERE CHANCE. IMPOSSIBLE.

If you can prove to me beyond a shadow of doubt that chance actually exists, then I may take this statement into consideration. Till then it will sit in the realm of crap spouting for me.

Oh, but I thought Science knew everything about how the conditions for life began. I thought it was proven fact. Evolution has just as many holes as any other theory.

This was never a statement made by me. Evolution as an observation occurring in nature is a fact, the theory involves the process of evolution itself, not the observation. The theory of the process is incomplete, yes, but that doesn't detract from the observation of it. It's like you want to start denying gravity exists because not a single theory of gravity is correct or agrees with other theories of gravity.

reply to post by Key2life


Interesting point, but it still leaves us wondering where the creator came from. Where his creator came from. Where that other creator came from. ID also isn't true because there is no evidence for ID in anything at all. Even if you take the cosmic computer programmer route, we still are left wondering how his universe came to be. I love the matrix movies too, but let's get a little realistic here.

And yet you have consistently avoided showing what evidence it is that is being interpreted differently.

Nope I havint, I presented plenty of previous points that like i said we interpreted differently!!!

I call BS, research the Egyptians better. We don't build pyramids today that way because we have more efficient building methods today, nor do we have a need to build like that despite actually being capable of easily replicating them today. We have cranes capable of lifting and moving 3,0000lbs, so this constant whine that we can't do it today is unsubstantiated.

Okay lets leave the Egyptians for another thread, we clearly disagree okay?

So because we don't know how they did it, you then want it to mean it was a more advanced ancient civilization that left no records of it's existence?

Emm, THEY ARE RECORDS!!! A testament to a lost ability that has NOT been recorded in ANY Egyptian texts!!!

The orientation of the Great Pyramid in relationship to true north is such as to cause it to be declared the "most accurately oriented edifice on earth." That is to say, its four sides are directed to the four cardinal points of the compass with less than 3 minutes of one degree off true north. By comparison, the Paris Observatory is 6 minutes of one degree off true north. It is possible that originally the Great Pyramid was absolutely perfectly orientated and the slight error measured today is the result of centuries of contraction or expansion of the earth's crust or from earthquakes, which seismography records as not being infrequent in the territory contiguous to the Great Pyramid.

That actually make's no sense. I know of no mythology depicting more advanced civilizations or technologies at all, and I love ancient mythologies! If all traces of this civilization were destroyed it would have to be at least one thousand years older than the earliest known civilizations we know about today. Yet we see no evidence that anything more advanced before that even existed. No mines, no mythologies, and not even all the various monuments appear to be of the same age. I don't know, but if you ask me, despite how cool it may sound, we can't just claim something existed without having *any* evidence at all. Do you have any other evidence beside who else could have built these things?

There is PLENTY of evidence, jeez Ive cited a lot already, explain to me where the SUMERIANS GOT THEIR KNOWLEDGE of the planets positioning in the sky, explain how the dogon and many other cultures knew Sirius was multi star system before we ever discovered it, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE EGYPTIANS BUIL THE PYRAMIDS!!!

Ah yes, only requires a few to cover it up despite hundreds to thousands of people working in the area. Do you have any evidence of any of this?

Man its hopeless with you on this, forget it!!


[edit on 8-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

Originally posted by np6888
Nothing violates known laws of physics? I guess you've never heard of something called quantum physics. In the quantum world, the rules of cause-and-effect are suspended, that is particles can appear out of nothing(which follows that God can appear out of nothing.) Concepts like quantum entanglement and the double-slit experiment violate all what we deem "common-sense." The beginning of the Big Bang also violates Newton's first law.

The problem is that people are following the Newtonian line of thinking, or the "traditional common sense." And really, Newton's theory of gravity is anything but a proven theory, much less a law. Einstein "disproved" it with his theory of relativity by showing that gravity is not a force, but merely a curvature of space, caused by matter. At the moment, all experiments and predictions have agreed with his theory of relativity, therefore, we'd do better to side with Einstein.

What we call forces, may be merely nothing more than the interactions between Energy and Space. From an intuitive standpoint, without space, there would be no individual identities, as everything would still be connected. Instead of thinking of matter and gravity, it would serve us well to think of them in terms of energy, curved space, and even consciousness.

Also, I believe that micro-evolution cannot be random, because let's use Darwin's finches as an example. To say that something is random means that it would happen, regardless of the environment, in which case, changes to the finches' wings should be as likely to happen as changes to their beaks. Yet what happened? The trait that changed was the one that was a "direct response" to the environment. In other words, the mutations were NOT random.

Why is that? If all mutations were truly random, then we should at least see some changes in the wings, or the legs, or the neck. Heck, how about a 3rd eye on the back? Instead, the one thing that changed was the trait that helped them adapt to the environment.

You say, so what's so surprising about that? It has a brain, so it should "know" to make those changes. Well, let's go back to the period where an organism hasn't developed the brain. Now the development of the brain, I believe, consists of successively small steps, leading first to the sensory system, then the billion of neural pathways. Let's assume that the first step evolved "randomly." However, at this point, the brain has not developed, and in conjunction with the random mutation theory, it could not have "known" that this step is good. And if it doesn't know that this step is good, then there is no reason for it to retain this information in its cells("random mutations theory says mutations happen all the time, if that's the case, then why keep certain information over the others?)

We can see that the only way for it to keep having successive beneficial steps is to "know" that each step is good and "keep" it. However, how could it have known this? After all, it's still in the process of developing the brain. The only conclusion is that it must have some sort of inherent or proto-intelligence in its cell nucleus, that can tell each step is good or bad, for it.

Intersting, I agree, until we factor in consciounsness as a more prominent *force* we could be missing the real prize, though dont forget that just because in qp things appear from nowhere, its most likely not nowhere, just somewhere we haveint detected yet.

Interesting point, but it still leaves us wondering where the creator came from. Where his creator came from. Where that other creator came from. ID also isn't true because there is no evidence for ID in anything at all. Even if you take the cosmic computer programmer route, we still are left wondering how his universe came to be. I love the matrix movies too, but let's get a little realistic here.

Again because you interpret evidence differently, as for you paradox, it is solved by infinity, I have seen nothing to disprove the notion that space and tim are infinite, technically cause and efffect, equal and opposite reaction, proves infinity.

Maybe there isint a *designer* as such, however the intelligence is unquestionable.

I am a Bible beleiver, I am very wary of ID.

It seems to be a result of Thesis, antithesis Synthesis, in order to make a horrible luke warm diluted soup of frothy half truths.

I think if you look at the intelligent design root you will find they are talking about alien intelligence rather than God.

Here is a blurb for Dr. Scott Johnsons audio entitled The Intelligent Design LIE

"We will then see how 'Intelligent Design' is NOT Biblical, but actually has its original roots in 19th Century Deism; in the New Age Movement; and currently in pseudo-science and mathematics which disbelieves Biblical Creationism. Yet, most Christians believe that 'Intelligent Design' is Biblical! In the 1990's the New Age authors began to teach 'Interventionist Creation', in which Aliens came to earth millions of years ago and created Earth as we see it now (including all humans) and then they left. This heresy has now evolved into the modern day New Age theory that supposes that super-intelligent aliens intervened in world history at just the right time to create the world as we know it. Today this theory has a new name (with pseudo-science and mathematics to make the concept believable) the term for this 'new' theory is 'Intelligent Design'. So in other words (in its purest form) this theory teaches that millions of years ago mankind was created by aliens claiming to be the gods of our creation. (AKA: The Ancient Astronaut Theory)."

Click the link below if you wish to download the audio (16 or 36 kbps).

www.sermonaudio.com...

reply to post by Outlawstar


HAHA I like the logic you use... You presume cause and effect are notions of Infinity. Sounds like something like Thomas Aquinas used to prove god. Now the notions you used were Philosophically based and Not Science based which leaves you in the same field as those who claim science proves god. The fact that you say nothing proves that that time/space might infinite are totally based on nothing and we have a great deal more to prove that space/time might be finite.

Okay to Sirnex I like how you say ID isn't true based on the argument that there is no evidence for it. Ha really! Just because there is no evidence doesn't make ID untrue. Take String theory and all the other theories I mentioned. Each one of there assumptions doesn't show shroud of evidence! That doesn't make them Untrue, Like Peter Woit said of String Theory,"It's not even wrong. Now the question is if ID were true what makes you think the Universe should be any different? Now when I use the term ID I am referring to some Entity which created the universe for what ever purpose. It isn't based on any one religion. 90% of religions believe in a higher source or being. Yes this isn't Science but it can't be proven wrong which doesn't make it Untrue. Might the creator be Infinite in all aspects. The questions you ask are beyond what we can know and the question becomes irrelevant to our discussion. The question is akin to what happened before the Big Bang. Neither can be proven and we should base our beliefs on what ever we prefer. That is all I want to get across

HAHA I like the logic you use... You presume cause and effect are notions of Infinity. Sounds like something like Thomas Aquinas used to prove god. Now the notions you used were Philosophically based and Not Science based which leaves you in the same field as those who claim science proves god. The fact that you say nothing proves that that time/space might infinite are totally based on nothing and we have a great deal more to prove that space/time might be finite.

Actually you really cant prove otherwise, so yeah emm.
Lets consider my statement philosphical for now then ey

Okay to Sirnex I like how you say ID isn't true based on the argument that there is no evidence for it. Ha really! Just because there is no evidence doesn't make ID untrue. Take String theory and all the other theories I mentioned. Each one of there assumptions doesn't show shroud of evidence! That doesn't make them Untrue, Like Peter Woit said of String Theory,"It's not even wrong. Now the question is if ID were true what makes you think the Universe should be any different? Now when I use the term ID I am referring to some Entity which created the universe for what ever purpose. It isn't based on any one religion. 90% of religions believe in a higher source or being. Yes this isn't Science but it can't be proven wrong which doesn't make it Untrue. Might the creator be Infinite in all aspects. The questions you ask are beyond what we can know and the question becomes irrelevant to our discussion. The question is akin to what happened before the Big Bang. Neither can be proven and we should base our beliefs on what ever we prefer.

That is all I want to get across

Very true.!!!

The Big Bang which is our best theory for the origins of the Universe states that Time/Space/Energy/Matter/Information were all created at a singularity in space/time. This is more evidence then you have of the Universe being Infinite. It doesn't mean that the Universe maybe Infinite but is a great deal more then you have. So lets us hear your arguments for the Universe being Infinite. So lets us consider the Universe to be finite unless proven otherwise...

[edit on 10/15/2009 by Key2life]

reply to post by Outlawstar

Nope I havint, I presented plenty of previous points that like i said we interpreted differently!!!

Asking where X came from is not evidence of anything else, it's an inquiry of where X came from.

Okay lets leave the Egyptians for another thread, we clearly disagree okay?

OK

Emm, THEY ARE RECORDS!!! A testament to a lost ability that has NOT been recorded in ANY Egyptian texts!!!

Wait! But you just said... Lost ability? We've been moving stones for thousands of years!

The orientation of the Great Pyramid in relationship to true north is such as to cause it to be declared the "most accurately oriented edifice on earth." That is to say, its four sides are directed to the four cardinal points of the compass with less than 3 minutes of one degree off true north. By comparison, the Paris Observatory is 6 minutes of one degree off true north. It is possible that originally the Great Pyramid was absolutely perfectly orientated and the slight error measured today is the result of centuries of contraction or expansion of the earth's crust or from earthquakes, which seismography records as not being infrequent in the territory contiguous to the Great Pyramid.

True north in what time period and to which which star? If you bother too look into many of these pyramid claims, you'll be pleasantly surprised that most are pure bunk.

There is PLENTY of evidence, jeez Ive cited a lot already, explain to me where the SUMERIANS GOT THEIR KNOWLEDGE of the planets positioning in the sky, explain how the dogon and many other cultures knew Sirius was multi star system before we ever discovered it, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE EGYPTIANS BUIL THE PYRAMIDS!!!

There is PLENTY of evidence, jeez Ive cited a lot already, explain to me where the SUMERIANS GOT THEIR KNOWLEDGE of the planets positioning in the sky, explain how the dogon and many other cultures knew Sirius was multi star system before we ever discovered it, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE EGYPTIANS BUIL THE PYRAMIDS!!!

How about this, show actual evidence that the Sumerians and Dogon knew what they are claimed to have known. I've already given you a video showing that one man alone is capable of moving well over at least a nine tonne stone block quickly and effortlessly without modern technology. Your claim that the Egyptians couldn't have done it is unsubstantiated.

Man its hopeless with you on this, forget it!!

I don't think you understand the difference between a real conspiracy and a fabricated money making lie.

reply to post by Outlawstar

Again because you interpret evidence differently, as for you paradox, it is solved by infinity, I have seen nothing to disprove the notion that space and tim are infinite, technically cause and efffect, equal and opposite reaction, proves infinity.

An effect requires a cause, so with that in mind when considering infinity we're left with a problem of where the first cause came from. I don't see how creating a paradox prove a point.

Maybe there isint a *designer* as such, however the intelligence is unquestionable.

I find that statement questionable. What do you see out there that is definitive of intelligence. Please define intelligence here.

reply to post by Key2life

Okay to Sirnex I like how you say ID isn't true based on the argument that there is no evidence for it. Ha really! Just because there is no evidence doesn't make ID untrue.

Really? What an odd view of thing's you have! So, you admit that you don't require evidence for thing's? AHHH, lemme guess, you believe in God huh?

Take String theory and all the other theories I mentioned. Each one of there assumptions doesn't show shroud of evidence!

String theory isn't an accurate depiction of how the universe works in my opinion. Nor is there evidence in favor of it. Nor is it testable that I am aware of. So, if I made a claim that my crap talks about as much **it as you do, you would take it on faith without evidence that it is true?

Now the question is if ID were true what makes you think the Universe should be any different? Now when I use the term ID I am referring to some Entity which created the universe for what ever purpose. It isn't based on any one religion. 90% of religions believe in a higher source or being.

Hypocritical argument, I'll leave you to figure that one out or at the least, reword it.

Yes this isn't Science but it can't be proven wrong which doesn't make it Untrue.

Piss poor argument.

Might the creator be Infinite in all aspects.

Piss poor argument part two. I honestly hate assumption based arguments. Like the FIOS commercial says: Seems dumb.

The questions you ask are beyond what we can know and the question becomes irrelevant to our discussion. The question is akin to what happened before the Big Bang. Neither can be proven and we should base our beliefs on what ever we prefer.

Your welcome to believe what you wish, but if your going to claim that belief is absolute truth or based on evidence then you are going to have to back it up. I make no claims as to where the universe came from nor is this thread about that. I am thankfully not arrogantly retarded enough to jump around like some moron saying I figured out how the universe got here.

Originally posted by Key2life
The Big Bang which is our best theory for the origins of the Universe states that Time/Space/Energy/Matter/Information were all created at a singularity in space/time. This is more evidence then you have of the Universe being Infinite. It doesn't mean that the Universe maybe Infinite but is a great deal more then you have. So lets us hear your arguments for the Universe being Infinite. So lets us consider the Universe to be finite unless proven otherwise...

[edit on 10/15/2009 by Key2life]

Actually, the BBT is riddled with it's own holes which is why we are left developing new invented unseen and admittedly untestable forces to explain away observations we see. BBT is based on the assumption that redshift is a constant accurate depiction of velocity while yet shown in lab studies that redshift is variable to a point of being a faulty tool of measurement.

Wait! But you just said... Lost ability? We've been moving stones for thousands of years!

Sorry bout that, the generalization of @weve been moving stones for years is clearly silly!.

True north in what time period and to which which star? If you bother too look into many of these pyramid claims, you'll be pleasantly surprised that most are pure bunk.

Pure bunk?
This is a well established FACT, the bunk is Egyptologies fairytales that they present as FACT and is presented as FACT in history books, for example my little brothers history book is FILLED with "facts" and "bunk", it says as fact that the pyramids were tombs of the pharaohs when there is NO evidence to state that, it explains how they were built when it is still a RAGING debate in Egyptology, and endless other tripe, and thats just the history books, dont get me started on the LIES in his geography book, geez are you starting to see a pattern?

How about this, show actual evidence that the Sumerians and Dogon knew what they are claimed to have known. I've already given you a video showing that one man alone is capable of moving well over at least a nine tonne stone block quickly and effortlessly without modern technology. Your claim that the Egyptians couldn't have done it is unsubstantiated.

Read Robert Temples book on the Dogons, evidence galore, the sumerian tablet which could depict the solar system is certainly debatable, and I concede my rashness in presenting it as fact in my last post, sorry about that, get ahead of myself sometimes, the Dogon story is fascinating though!

And I wish I could remember this exactly, its fascinating, there were a particular peoples who said that a certain planet, perhaps venus, had a physiological effect on the kidneys, something to do with a certain metal in the kidneys, seemed crazy, till we found that its true, its in the SECRET HISTORY OF THE WORLD, will have to remember that and cross ref it, crud, was pretty amazing though.

Man its hopeless with you on this, forget it!!

I don't think you understand the difference between a real conspiracy and a fabricated money making lie.

Likewise.






[edit on 8-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

If you understood what I am telling you there shouldn't be any confusion. I only said that if we don't have evidence of a particular subject it doesn't make that subject any less true then if we did have evidence. The Atomist in the greek era believed in atoms which composed the Universe. There Argument were sound but they had no empirical evidence and it doesn't make there assertions untrue. It just resist the scientific scrutiny of there time. It took over 2000 years to show that their arguments were true(To Some Extent). There can be things which have yet to show any evidence but can be true and await further advances.

Who said you had to believe String Theory??? I was only relating it to theoretical physics. And your opinions are your own but that doesn't mean it is wrong unless you show us evidence otherwise.

If (I) have no evidence of there being a man walking on the moon as I speak. Then does that make the statement untrue? Just because I have no evidence does not mean it is untrue. Hell (I) have no evidence of there being a colony on mars. But that doesn't mean that there aren't.

I am open to any argument that you may assert. Make me a believer on your own thoughts. All you are doing is listing arguments based on what you believe. I tried to list mine as an argument for both sides. Read my posts again because it appears you are confused. HAHA Where do I assert that I know about the whole Universe. What I asserted was backed up by science. Oh my, I know the secrets to the Universe Thank you for Enlightening me! And no where I asserted absolute belief. I showed arguments that showed you can't prove or disprove god and the whole argument is based not on science but belief for what ever we choose to believe.

An effect requires a cause, so with that in mind when considering infinity we're left with a problem of where the first cause came from. I don't see how creating a paradox prove a point.

There was no first cause, ITS INFINITY!!!
It may seem like a paradox when not thinking in terms of infinity, it wsa just a thought though, nothing more!

Maybe there isint a *designer* as such, however the intelligence is unquestionable.

I find that statement questionable. What do you see out there that is definitive of intelligence. Please define intelligence here.

You would, lol.
My definition of intelligence is varied, there are multiple levels of intelligence, one could be considered the ability to do something in such a way that it works, rather than in such a way that it doesint, which many aspects of nature do all the time, else it wouldint work.
I will answer this in more depth when my eyes arent hanging out of my head

reply to post by sirnex



Yes the BBT has its own holes but it is much more complete then anything else we can come up as of now. And yes they are all untestable for the foreseeable future.

Actually, the BBT is riddled with it's own holes which is why we are left developing new invented unseen and admittedly untestable forces to explain away observations we see. BBT is based on the assumption that redshift is a constant accurate depiction of velocity while yet shown in lab studies that redshift is variable to a point of being a faulty tool of measurement.

But isint real science based on sound evidence, and not on*presumption* and *speculation*?

See this is what Im talking about, its presented as FACT without any other side to the arguement in many textbooks and shows, you call that science?
No, its just as religious as religion!!

reply to post by Key2life

If you understood what I am telling you there shouldn't be any confusion. I only said that if we don't have evidence of a particular subject it doesn't make that subject any less true then if we did have evidence. The Atomist in the greek era believed in atoms which composed the Universe. There Argument were sound but they had no empirical evidence and it doesn't make there assertions untrue. It just resist the scientific scrutiny of there time. It took over 2000 years to show that their arguments were true(To Some Extent). There can be things which have yet to show any evidence but can be true and await further advances.

The Greek atomism is no where near the same as atomic theory today and was wrong, although the basic idea of matter being composed of smaller bits of matter was correct. Now, just because they came up with a very similar idea doesn't make it the same idea as today's atomic theory. The problem with ID *not being accepted* is not because it's some new theory of where our species came from, but because there is no evidence for it anywhere in this universe. If ID were scientific then we should see some form of evidence for it. Our genetics doesn't show ID, the ecosystem doesn't show ID, nothing does. As was already pointed out, the concept of ID was created as a new term for creationism by God's hand alone. If you wish to bring in either Aliens or ancient civilizations on Earth into the picture, then we are able to quickly shoot down those idea's as they would leave definitive tangible evidences for them.

Who said you had to believe String Theory??? I was only relating it to theoretical physics. And your opinions are your own but that doesn't mean it is wrong unless you show us evidence otherwise.

I think you need to learn what burden of proof is. It is not my job to bring evidence against string theory, it is the physicists job to show evidence for it or their proponents who claim it is true.

If (I) have no evidence of there being a man walking on the moon as I speak. Then does that make the statement untrue? Just because I have no evidence does not mean it is untrue. Hell (I) have no evidence of there being a colony on mars. But that doesn't mean that there aren't.

There is evidence that man went to the moon, plenty of it, so the analogy is pretty piss poor. If you claim there are colonies on Mars, I would presume that you would have evidence to back up that claim and I would personally demand evidence if your claiming that.

I am open to any argument that you may assert. Make me a believer on your own thoughts. All you are doing is listing arguments based on what you believe. I tried to list mine as an argument for both sides. Read my posts again because it appears you are confused. HAHA Where do I assert that I know about the whole Universe. What I asserted was backed up by science. Oh my, I know the secrets to the Universe Thank you for Enlightening me! And no where I asserted absolute belief. I showed arguments that showed you can't prove or disprove god and the whole argument is based not on science but belief for what ever we choose to believe.

If your going to claim God did it, then you are certainly claiming absolute knowledge of where the universe came from. But, I have to disagree that we can't disprove God. We can trace the concept of God or many Gods back through time and see how we developed the various concepts of these supernatural entities. Showing the earliest form of God(s) being used to explain why natural phenomena occurs is an accurate model of the evolution of later concepts as we developed knowledge of how those phenomena occur in reality.

Yes the BBT has its own holes but it is much more complete then anything else we can come up as of now. And yes they are all untestable for the foreseeable future.

Considering the many paradoxical observations contrary to the current standard model and the need to invent thing's to make it work, I would say it's no where near complete.

reply to post by Outlawstar

Sorry bout that, the generalization of @weve been moving stones for years is clearly silly!

When unable to refute argue semantics!

This is a well established FACT, the bunk is Egyptologies fairytales that they present as FACT and is presented as FACT in history books, for example my little brothers history book is FILLED with "facts" and "bunk", it says as fact that the pyramids were tombs of the pharaohs when there is NO evidence to state that, it explains how they were built when it is still a RAGING debate in Egyptology, and endless other tripe, and thats just the history books, dont get me started on the LIES in his geography book, geez are you starting to see a pattern?

There is plenty of evidence that the pyramids were used as tombs. Look it up. Just because someone says a fictional lie like, no mummies have ever been found in a pyramid doesn't make that fictional lie true. Truth is, mummies have been found in various pyramids. The three at Giza are not the only pyramid structures.

Read Robert Temples book on the Dogons, evidence galore, the sumerian tablet which could depict the solar system is certainly debatable, and I concede my rashness in presenting it as fact in my last post, sorry about that, get ahead of myself sometimes, the Dogon story is fascinating though!

I've looked into the Dogon myth before, it's fabricated.

And I wish I could remember this exactly, its fascinating, there were a particular peoples who said that a certain planet, perhaps venus, had a physiological effect on the kidneys, something to do with a certain metal in the kidneys, seemed crazy, till we found that its true, its in the SECRET HISTORY OF THE WORLD, will have to remember that and cross ref it, crud, was pretty amazing though.

Can you cite sources? I have never heard this claim in my life.

There was no first cause, ITS INFINITY!!!
It may seem like a paradox when not thinking in terms of infinity, it wsa just a thought though, nothing more!

Can you prove it?

My definition of intelligence is varied, there are multiple levels of intelligence, one could be considered the ability to do something in such a way that it works, rather than in such a way that it doesint, which many aspects of nature do all the time, else it wouldint work.
I will answer this in more depth when my eyes arent hanging out of my head

I think you will have to go into more depth there.

See this is what Im talking about, its presented as FACT without any other side to the arguement in many textbooks and shows, you call that science?

I don't know of any textbook that has called the big bang a fact, everything I have read explicitly states it is a theory. Nor is it the only theory on where the universe had come from.