Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

I agree with the OP 100% what I see with the cut stone is the fact that dinosaurs played chess, so that means evolution is false....

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I agree with the OP 100% what I see with the cut stone is the fact that dinosaurs played chess, so that means evolution is false....

It's as good as any other extrapolation when he won't clarify what the hell he actually means after 10 pages... Whatever! I'm on board with chess playing dinosaurs.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I like the idea of chess playing dinosaurs will I come to think of their paws'n'claws.
All that I can see from the 'evidence' is that ancient man had techniques we have forgotten and technology that has not lasted.

What really intrigues me though is that at some time something wandered through our solar system that set Uranus rotating on its side as opposed to the rest of the planets, one planet missing totally destroyed and Venus rotating anti-wise to all the other planet's rotation.

This opens my mind up to wondering whether we had no end of a time when things were a'rye in our solar system if we were around at that time. We may have had some kind of polar shift which literally shook the planet and so created the water to move in huge waves encompassing the land where we had settled. Why does the flood have to b e a world flood, it could simply be that our ancestors lived by water - a requisite of survival and this when effected by whatever affected our planet simply was something inevitable due to the amount of water on the earth. Whatever it was probably caused earth quakes, eruptions and fire balls etc.

When something went wrong, perhaps it was a sequence of events that culminated in different evedntws all round the world which caused mankind to literally die off in many areas - not only caused by flooding but landslides, and a whole lot of other factors. Perhaps our geologists need to look at different parts of the world to see if various factors occurred at the same time. We forget just how high up and low down land can sink and the alterations this alone makes would hit mankind hard even to the point of extinction in various areas.

I susperctg our saving 'grace' is that we lived in most parts of the world and the people on the periphery and most independent survived. These were not the people who necessarily kept the records and things we would expect to find from a civilisation.

a reply to: AnuTyr

WRONG!

First off, who cares about anthropology? Evolution is studied through archeology and archeology would definitely study sasquash fossils, if they were found.

Humans evolved from animals that came from the sea, just like every other life form on the planet. We are just like every other animal on the planet. We think we are unique because we can reason and attempt to understand the universe around us, but that is JUST an evolutionary advantage that we developed by pure chance, just like any other evolutionary advantage. You really need to go back and study evolutionary theory. You have a gross misunderstanding of how it works.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, and have just made up your own version of things.

Evolution

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]

Emphasis added.

A fish wouldn't become an ostrich because the ostrich and the fish went down different evolutionary paths. HOWEVER that doesn't mean that a fish couldn't eventually evolve to become a land animal and then a flightless bird.

A bat COULD evolve to glow, but unless that bat developed a different a way to survive and eat then it currently does, it wouldn't be an advantage and that mutation would quickly die out.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Pauligirl

You may want to keep in mind that you are the one that said you didn’t understand evolution and didn’t want to. You might need to ask yourself why the majority on this thread have continuously asked you to clarify your point. The problem is, you don’t know enough about evolution to make an argument against it. I don’t believe the bible, but least I’ve read it. Most of it anyway, I skipped the begats, boring.

Boring? What is so exciting about evolution?

Evolution what an adventure that is?

You'll never know until you learn something about it.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Somehow I just don't see you as any kind of warrior.

I'm not and you missed the point. "Know your enemy" --know what you are talking about before you try to prove it wrong. Over the years, I've noticed that most (not all) that argue against evolution know the least about it.

originally posted by: Pauligirl

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Pauligirl

You may want to keep in mind that you are the one that said you didn’t understand evolution and didn’t want to. You might need to ask yourself why the majority on this thread have continuously asked you to clarify your point. The problem is, you don’t know enough about evolution to make an argument against it. I don’t believe the bible, but least I’ve read it. Most of it anyway, I skipped the begats, boring.

Boring? What is so exciting about evolution?

Evolution what an adventure that is?

You'll never know until you learn something about it.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Somehow I just don't see you as any kind of warrior.

I'm not and you missed the point. "Know your enemy" --know what you are talking about before you try to prove it wrong. Over the years, I've noticed that most (not all) that argue against evolution know the least about it.

Exactly. And still waiting for Randysvs to explain what evolution has to do with monoliths. I think the problem is that he/she doesn't know either

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phantom423

Admittedly, this entire technique is merely scientific speculation.

And a person would have to be out their skull just to postulate
such a speculation. Let alone attempt it! But I'm the one who
doesn't understand? I understand BS perfectly when I read it
and hear it.

Then why did you write your OP?

originally posted by: tadaman
I dont get why both cant be true. I dont get why "God" or gods cant use science and existing natural forces to create or make things function for a greater mastery over the natural world.

Why on earth would you equate science with a superstition?

It doesn't help to explain anything and only serves to unnecessarily complicate the issue.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Prezbo369
No I have not forgotten the post to which we are responding.
His quote states that there are no absolutes, then in his post he states that Evolution is no longer a "theory".
If one believes this then they may as well say that it is ABSOLUTELY true.

........sigh.....you even got that wrong! the quote says nothing of the sort, it says 'Only a sith lord deals in absolutes', not 'Sith lords say there are no absolutes!'.........and if something is no longer a theory, in either definition of the word, it doesn't mean it then can only be and must be absolute.

This is incorrect. Evolution is a theory, hence we call it "The Theory of Evolution".
It is still being added to and taken away from as we gain more knowledge on the subject.
Do I accept the "theory" as absolute truth as it stands today? No, only someone with a small, closed mind would do so.

You do not have even a basic grasp of science nor evolution and so your rejection of them both in favour of a set of myths and superstitions is to be expected (unfortunately).

I can tell that you fit into this category, you seem to assume you are right even when you are wrong.
You are caught up in what you think you know about others without ever really knowing the person.

No im just caught up in the fact that a person living in the developed west can be so willfully ignorant on the issue and yet still attempt to lecture others on it. How does a mind come to the conclusion that doing so is a good idea??

Evolution just like Relativity is a theory. Ask any scientist and they will tell you the same.
At what point, in your mind, did it stop being the "Theory of Evolution"?

Speak to many scientists do you?.....

Yurp its just a theory right? its just an idea those crazy 'scientists' have because they hate gawd....

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Prezbo369
No I have not forgotten the post to which we are responding.
His quote states that there are no absolutes, then in his post he states that Evolution is no longer a "theory".
If one believes this then they may as well say that it is ABSOLUTELY true.

........sigh.....you even got that wrong! the quote says nothing of the sort, it says 'Only a sith lord deals in absolutes', not 'Sith lords say there are no absolutes!'.........and if something is no longer a theory, in either definition of the word, it doesn't mean it then can only be and must be absolute.

Really?
As well as a basic course in science, I would suggest trying to hone your reading comprehension skills.
When someone says something like "Only a Sith lord deal in absolutes" basically they are saying "there are no absolutes"
You don't see any Sith lords running around, do you?
To suggest that Evolution has moved past a theory is to say it is ABSOLUTELY true. We know all there is to know.
This type of thinking is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

This is incorrect. Evolution is a theory, hence we call it "The Theory of Evolution".
It is still being added to and taken away from as we gain more knowledge on the subject.
Do I accept the "theory" as absolute truth as it stands today? No, only someone with a small, closed mind would do so.

You do not have even a basic grasp of science nor evolution and so your rejection of them both in favour of a set of myths and superstitions is to be expected (unfortunately).

I can tell that you fit into this category, you seem to assume you are right even when you are wrong.
You are caught up in what you think you know about others without ever really knowing the person.

No im just caught up in the fact that a person living in the developed west can be so willfully ignorant on the issue and yet still attempt to lecture others on it. How does a mind come to the conclusion that doing so is a good idea??

Evolution just like Relativity is a theory. Ask any scientist and they will tell you the same.
At what point, in your mind, did it stop being the "Theory of Evolution"?

Speak to many scientists do you?.....

Yurp its just a theory right? its just an idea those crazy 'scientists' have because they hate gawd....

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

You need to read this a few times until it sinks in a little.
Now do you see that Evolution is a theory? It has not nor will it be anything other than a theory until we know all there is to know.
I don't know about you but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Quad

a reply to: Quadrivium

Did you know gravity is also a theory? "Theory Of Gravity".. Some fake stuff scientist made up? an idea?

When are you gonna jump off a building to prove them wrong?




edit: A scientific theory is more than just an idea.... the "theory" you are thinking about is the one you learn in high school... where they tell you a theory is an idea. Sadly many people don't go past the high school thinking.

Something that is lablled as a scientific theory is because it cannot be proven 100%... for example, gravity is there but cannot be seen, but it can be tested but someone can come along and say, nope its not there because there is no way to see it.

Many of our modern medicine are made taking evolutionary biology into account, teh fact that these medicine works with our biological systems is proof(but still leaves it in the scope of scientific "theory") that evolution did happen and is happening(which we wont know until future).

It is called a theory because we would need a time machine to make it 100%. which i don't think is possible any time soon, so we will leave it at as theory, which means it could be 99% true.. oh and people that abide by these theories KNOW it will change(things will get added and taken away).

I'd like the OP to address the information I provided in my post - HERE . Part of the premise of the opening post counted on 'the flood' happening. I gave proof that it didn't. Would the OP please address and acknowledge the information I provided? Thank you.

a reply to: randyvs

The problem might be that evolution just doesn't make a lick of sense in the first place.

Are you simply talking about evolution and things evolving or the theory of evolution which I suspect you are?


Of coarse things don't make a lick of sense when you don't understand how things work, you might conclude magic, demons or God which many have in past when they cannot explain the process of how things work and conclude by simplifying their explanation to beings of faith.

And I'm not the only who makes that claim.

Yes many have burned at the stake for explaining reality in a more precise and decisive way than faith can.

I really don't care which way things get explained, science has a more in depth approach where an individual can change the face of science by being able to simply repeat their claims,

Religion is beautiful, every religion I have delved into has shown me the same divine path, there is no wrong unless we make things wrong or unless we don't have full faith in God and in his creation.

As many have pointed out if you could understand and debate the theory of evolution and have original ideas that might defy the theory then please do so,

However you say it doesn't make sense and you haven't shown you understand the theory enough (in this thread at least) to say it doesn't make sense from an informed view of the subject.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'd like the OP to address the information I provided in my post - HERE . Part of the premise of the opening post counted on 'the flood' happening. I gave proof that it didn't. Would the OP please address and acknowledge the information I provided? Thank you.

You may be waiting awhile, I haven't seen randy adequately address a SINGLE point from any poster in this thread.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Now do you see that Evolution is a theory?

The real question is do you understand what a scientific theory is?


Hint, Its not the hypothesis of Evolution, Its the Theory of Evolution, Do you know what theory is?

I know there's a difference But I just cant recall and you seem to have good grasp on the subject, could you maybe help me out a little to understand what theory is?

I can't believe that this thread still exists. What are the mods thinking? "Deny ignorance". Clearly, this is a stellar example.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Been addressed before. I believe the Bible not some
fake Christian and a bunch scientists with an agenda.
There addressed.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: FlyersFan

Been addressed befor. I believe the Bible not some
fake Christian and a bunch scientists with an agenda.
There addressed.

I see. So, you prefer a book of Bronze and Iron age myths over actual science. Interesting.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I see. So, you prefer a book of Bronze and Iron age myths over actual science. Interesting.

Ya I absolutely do. And it is far more interesting than
a pack of lying ass human beings with agenda to fill as
AnuTyr has so perfectly pointed out in the Loyd Pye video he
provided.

AI
I don't see the mods having to close a thread because
it's unpopular with the science committee. If it hurts
you? Quit adding to the pain.

a reply to: randyvs

Ya I absolutely do. And it is far more interesting than
a pack of lying ass human beings with agenda to fill

Right cause the bible was not written by men with an agenda lol.