Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: randyvs

Modern Man ( as we are Now ) have been around as Science Claims 250 thousand Years
and we have lost Knowledge , of allot of things , That Present day can not Explain as of WHY & How
nor Even We with out Modern Technology & Machinery have difficulty of Duplicating

to nave just a few of out many, like some areas of Pre Columbia ... ( a favorites of mine ) Puma Punku Easter Island , Teotihuacan, and old World BAALBEK MEGALITHS, Places of Egypt from monolith Statues, Tower needles to Pyramids for places let alone the Geometry to the stars!

and for Machinery
ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM, THE DENDERA LIGHTS,


Well Could it be, Just MAN has built these Wonders ?

and we just Lost the Knowledge? or could it be that Men from the Future and time traveled to the Past
Sound Far fetched ? Not if you have university Professors have Ideas and Theory's of how it can be done and how it Works Professor MALLOT for one .. Man has already had done teleportation ( in a monocular scale )

Chinese Physicists Smash Distance Record For Teleportation

The ability to teleport photons through 100 kilometres of free space opens the way for satellite-based quantum communications, say researchers
www.technologyreview.com...

Quantum Teleportation
researcher.watson.ibm.com...


Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities
by Elizabeth Howell, SPACE.com Contributor | June 21, 2013 03:07pm ET
www.space.com...

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space
Apr 14, 2012 by Lisa Zyga report


Read more at: phys.org...

What does the fourth dimension have to do with time travel?
Answered by Discovery Channel
curiosity.discovery.com...

Stephen Hawking

Space and Time Warps
www.hawking.org.uk...


STEPHEN HAWKING: How to build a time machine

By STEPHEN HAWKING

Created 7:47 PM on 27th April 2010
All you need is a wormhole, the Large Hadron Collider or a rocket that goes really, really fast
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Blackholes, Wormholes and the Tenth Dimension
Will these concepts be proven by a theory of everything?
mkaku.org...


just maybe ? what we see.. as what we think is aliens is US ? ALL US .. and Alien Grays are just Genetic BIO Robots/Probes of Man LOL.. in ALL we have been on this planet for 250,00+ years modern Man. and we just Started Advancing in a BOOST in just 100+ years time ? From Cave MAN to Spaceman in 40,000 years Plane in the air (1903) to Spacecraft to the Moon (1969) in 66 years ahh what the Hell .. whats left.. 210,000 years ! what was man Doing on the planet in that time..? that what Science should be asking!

2001 A Space Odyssey - match cut ( Note: Hominid not Modern MAN LOL )



I like the OP's Second PIC

interesting .. of how Primitive Natives Could do such a feat of a Smooth Slice without dropping nor Breaking it

Where the Tools the Equipment of Machinery to do it . and not One Scribe.. Nor Painter or Sculpture of how it was done .. Shame.. Tho Recently Rediscoverd of how Egyptians moved massive Stone Statues , with water? Oil? and Sand with Slaves.. Servants..




Physicists Think They Have Solved the Mystery of How the Ancient Egyptians Moved the Pyramid Stones
www.theblaze.com...

a reply to: Wolfenz

Wolfenz that is an elaborate answer to my premise.
Thank you.

and we just Lost the Knowledge?

This is where I have the ultimate problemo in defiance
(no mention of disproving anything) of evolution.
As we are METICULOUS RECORD KEEPERS. So there should
undoubtingly be records of how these buildings were
accomplished. Not to mention at least a record of the tech
it took to do these things that must have been accomplished
with a certain amount of ease. But there is zero? Zilch?
Nada? How so ? In defience of evolution I postulate.

What the hell am I supposed to see that those who are
busy insulting me, don't understand? Of course I would
never include you to such ignorance.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Or you Seraph.

To me, if one understands biology, abiogenesis and the current
anthropolgy, how can you not get what I'm trying to say?
How does that make any sense? When I'm just a damn simpleton
by my own admission.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Good article.
I just have a problem with the assumption.
This is why I ask questions.
So maco evolution is evolution over long periods of time UNLESS there is a mass extinction in which case it jumps into over drive to fill the nitches left behind by others.
So if for some reason every species on Earth perished except humans, do you believe we would evolve to fill these nitches?
Do you think we would devolve to become "leaf litter" foragers?
As I said before, evolution does explain the diversity we see, does that mean that it absolutely happened that way?
I think not.

a reply to: Barcs
Exaggeration Barcs? I don't think so.
The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.
Simple celled organisms have been around roughly 3.5 billion years.
20 million is a small nuber compared to the billions of years the Earth has been around.
As I said 0 to 60 in 1 second.
I always hear that "you don't know how evolution works, that's why you don't understand".
I understand the concept, Its the Macro part that throws it all out of wack.
First macro evolution is simply evolution over a very long period of time.
Yet, if the fossil record shows different, then it happens quickly.
I believe you and I have had this discussion before, a couple of years ago. I don't remember the title of the thread bt I remeber a member by the name of "itsthetooth".
I stated then that the "theory" of evolution had become bloated and basically resembles a string theory at this point.
My views have changed little since then.
Quad

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Wolfenz

Wolfenz that is an elaborate answer to my premise.
Thank you.

and we just Lost the Knowledge?

This is where I have the ultimate problemo in defiance
(no mention of disproving anything) of evolution.
As we are METICULOUS RECORD KEEPERS. So there should
undoubtingly be records of how these buildings were
accomplished.

Not to mention at least a record of the tech
it took to do these things that must have been accomplished
with a certain amount of ease. But there is zero? Zilch?
Nada? How so ? In defience of evolution I postulate.

Lets try to give this problem a little context instead of throwing our arms in the air with dry incredulousness. Different cultures progressed at different rates. There are many reasons for this. Access to resources, geographical isolation, differing levels of competition for resources, natural predators and on and on... All have impacts on the need for innovation. The simple fact that this disparity exists at all should lead you to question the creation story as the one true way that everything came to be. If everything started at the same time in the same areas with the same people at the same cultural and technological level, then the playing field should e fairly level yet we have countries in the West with opulent and extravagant, by world wide standards, ways of life living merely hundreds or a couple if thousand miles in some cases, from people who have only recently emerged from or are still I borderline Stone Age levels of technology.

For example, I think we could both agree that our current level of technology is pretty high and increasing exponentially. The say majority of our information is currently being stored on little silicon wafers. Who can say what directions similar technology will go in, especially when talking abut things like data storage. In another 100 years everything we currently know about computers and storage could and possibly will be, totally obsolete. Eventually it will get to the point where data retrieval is impossible.

It's not so different from the availability of ancient scrolls and texts. Depending on the medium(was it papyrus based, textile based, rice based etc...) what the local environment is, how it was stored and sealed. There could well be earlier forms of writing or primitive proto scripts that we will never know about because time, the elements and method of data storage either independently or all together destroyed or were made unrecognizable to our eyes. Just because we have what looks like a lot of ancient texts doesn't mean a whole lot, those are the very very lucky ones that survived the elements. It's the equivalent of taking every copy of every book written by Charles Dickens and destroying all but 2 or 3 copies of each book and then scattering them cross the globe and expecting to have the comp,eye set. T say its a tall order is a gross understatement.

None of that however precludes your supposition or incredulousness. Just because we haven't found or recognized their potential records doesn't mean they never existed let alone has any bearing whatsoever on evolutionary theory let alone denounces its plausibility. It really seems like grasping at straws and borderline proselytization which terribly disappoints me Randy. I've come to expect a little better from you. You came to the dinner party but didn't bring a dessert.

What the hell am I supposed to see that those who are
busy insulting me, don't understand? Of course I would
never include you to such ignorance.

Does it really matter what any other poster thinks you should be seeing? You approach it from a position of preconceived notions and superiority based on your theological proclivities. That is to say, that the conclusion is already forgone prior to you looking at a scenario because anything that conflicts with what you believe already based on your own interpretation of the bible. In the end, what you yourself are doing my dear friend is exactly what you seem to be accusing so many others of, extreme bias and an inability to look at the facts as they are.

Believe it or not, people who engage in biological sciences, anthropology and evolutionary theory in all its varying incarnations, really do look at all the evidence. One screw up in a published paper can be a career killer. And no, it's not any adhering to paradigms otherwise we wouldn't be hearing about sites like Gobekli Tepe or Tell Qaramal. I know you won't believe me but I can assure you that everyone in those fields wold welcome the opportunity to come across and present paradigm shifting information that wold make us all take a second glance at how we are viewing our past.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Good article.
I just have a problem with the assumption.
This is why I ask questions.
So maco evolution is evolution over long periods of time UNLESS there is a mass extinction in which case it jumps into over drive to fill the nitches left behind by others.

No, that is still macro evolution. We are still talking about many many generations over many many years. It is just occurring relatively shorter and faster.

So if for some reason every species on Earth perished except humans, do you believe we would evolve to fill these nitches?

Well, if that happened, we'd die out since the bacteria we have symbiotic relationships with inside our bodies wouldn't exist anymore and there wouldn't be any organisms to break down and recycle dead tissue. But I get the gist of what you are asking, so I'll address that.

Yes. We'd have to. What would we eat? The people who want to still eat meat would become cannibals and everyone else would become vegetarians. Naturally the cannibals would live separately from the vegetarians and grow apart. Eventually the two groups would grow unique characteristics that help them survive. This may even be aided by technology since humans are intelligent. Who knows? But through an evolutionary arms race, the two groups of humans would further divide and become more unique. It would actually be kind of interesting to see all these unique, intelligent species competing against each other. Though they'd probably destroy each other (we can't get along now as one race, what would do you think would happen if we really WERE multiple races?).

Also keep in mind that this example assumes that micro-biotic life and plant life still exists, so those life forms would continue to evolve and fill niches as well.

Do you think we would devolve to become "leaf litter" foragers?

There is no such thing as devolution, just evolving. Humans evolving into herbivores isn't us evolving backwards, just evolving to fill a niche.

As I said before, evolution does explain the diversity we see, does that mean that it absolutely happened that way?
I think not.

Of course not. I'm agnostic. I believe that since we cannot 100% say for sure about anything that nothing is definite, but that doesn't mean I can't play the odds and choose to believe the scientific explanations that have the most evidence going for it.

a reply to: randyvs

Theology is not science, Science is not theology.

Evolution is a proven scientific theory, the Universe exploded into being approximately 13.8 Gya in a "big bang" and the Earth formed shortly after our Sun and Solar System, approximately 4.5 Gya,

Fighting with this is not going to make our faith look logical, so please stop.

BioLogos, ReasonsToBelieve and the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can all educate you on why evolution and science need not contradict theology, but can even be complimentary...

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

God bless

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Evidence or speculation?
The purpose of science is to create useful models of reality.
These are brought about through observing and experimenting.
We can not observe macro evolution. We can observe adaptation.
I know many here will say "we observe macro evolution daily, because we see evolution and macro evolution is just evolution over a long spand of time".
Yet we do not actually observe it.
There are many parts of the theory that assume and suggest.
I believe there is only adaptation. This we can observe and test. There is no speculation needed.

originally posted by: randyvs
And there is far more than these two pics from around the
world, that evolution doesn't begin to explain. I am against
evolution even more than I am atheism. Because with out
evolution? Atheism hasn't the boniest leg [snipped]
to stand on.

Look at this

What I see in this pic are saw marks. Or the absolute equivelant
diametrically. Even the theory of Ancient Aliens points to a flood,
or some " Great cataclysm "to have wiped away the inhabitants
and the tools, it would take to do this. Because not one tool that
could have achieved these grooves has been found. So how did they
get there?

And this pic I believe to be the most damaging evidence on the face
of the earth, when it comes to evolution. Notice how the rock has
sheared off after the rectangular blocks were tapped from the hill side.

I'll rest my case against evolution right here for now. And invite all who
may be displeased to express themselves.

I can entertain the anti-evolution theory to some degree, but I still think the nut-sacks that choose to believe in a divine being like the concept of "God" are dead wrong.

If evolution indeed didn't happen, I would think that our kind got here somehow from outside Earth and either sought refuge or crashed. Heck, maybe we are a breeding experienment of some other race that have a 100.000 years on us in terms of evolution.
I think we will never know..... and honestly, I don't think it really matters anymore.

Whatever put us here or however we evolved, we don't owe anyone or anything tribute.

You don't have to feel sin for being alive or because someone told your a fairy tale about some character(s) that lived many years ago.
Your life will not better, different, harder or more blessed from knowing. It will be the same...

a reply to: Quadrivium

The evidence has to be observed, the phenomenon in question does not have to be observed in action....

You're still doing it wrong...........

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Evidence or speculation?
The purpose of science is to create useful models of reality.
These are brought about through observing and experimenting.
We can not observe macro evolution. We can observe adaptation.
I know many here will say "we observe macro evolution daily, because we see evolution and macro evolution is just evolution over a long spand of time".
Yet we do not actually observe it.
There are many parts of the theory that assume and suggest.
I believe there is only adaptation. This we can observe and test. There is no speculation needed.

Scientific Method

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have – their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on – to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology.

Emphasis added.

The situation you just tried to write off, is an example of induction. So yes it is a valid tool to use to determine a model of reality. Just because direct observation is impossible, doesn't mean we can't observe it indirectly and use induction to determine how it works on a larger scale. Especially when newer and newer evidence and information further validates this deduced result.

a reply to: peter vlar

Does it really matter what any other poster thinks you should be seeing? You approach it from a position of preconceived notions and superiority based on your theological proclivities. That is to say, that the conclusion is already forgone prior to you looking at a scenario because anything that conflicts with what you believe already based on your own interpretation of the bible. In the end, what you yourself are doing my dear friend is exactly what you seem to be accusing so many others of, extreme bias and an inability to look at the facts as they are.

So you want me to believe what you're saying doesn't
riprocate in both directions? Cmon Peter, that's quite
a bit to swallow. When I believe there's a far more
attractive agenda that scripture fits perfectly in our
midst today. So I will steer in the opposite direction
of saying you would purposefully present a falsehood,
because I feel I know you better. But I can't help believe
that you do believe a lie in this case.

But that's a good response in other ways.

a reply to: flice

I can entertain the anti-evolution theory to some degree, but I still think the nut-sacks that choose to believe in a divine being like the concept of "God" are dead wrong.

If evolution indeed didn't happen, I would think that our kind got here somehow from outside Earth and either sought refuge or crashed. Heck, maybe we are a breeding experienment of some other race that have a 100.000 years on us in terms of evolution.
I think we will never know..... and honestly, I don't think it really matters anymore.

Whatever put us here or however we evolved, we don't owe anyone or anything tribute.

You don't have to feel sin for being alive or because someone told your a fairy tale about some character(s) that lived many years ago.
Your life will not better, different, harder or more blessed from knowing. It will be the same...

Well good luck with what you personally think. And insulting everyone
who doesn't think making stuff up for them selves will ever work.
Because their smart enough to know the end will come and there
will be one truth for all. Period

a reply to: godlover25

BioLogos, ReasonsToBelieve and the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can all educate you on why evolution and science need not contradict theology, but can even be complimentary...

I disagree 100%.
So burn me. Have me drawn and quatered.
The Catholics have done nothing for Christianity.
And what does a pack of child molesters have to do with this
anyway? My faith is logical period. Sorry about yours.

a reply to: randyvs

Well then you can explain to God why you insulted His creation, why you doubted He could be big enough to make a 13.8 billion year old Universe, and why you led people away from Christ because you represented all Christians as uneducated imbeciles,

Again, I quote Saint Augustine, please read it:

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

a reply to: randyvs

Now you insult the Church that gave you the Bible that you misinterpret and taught your sect about the Christ you misrepresent?

I'm done here,

Lord have mercy.

a reply to: godlover25

The church that gave us the Bible did not give us scripture.
Damn right I insult an apostste church of Satan. It makes me
wanna vomit..

a reply to: godlover25

Quote any man you like I follow Christ! No other.
Oh and if the truth is insulting I'm you're guy.



Disgusting

Lord have mercy.

How much mercy has the Catholic Church shown anyone who
opposes it? Mercy will be shown to those who have mercy.
Yes, I'm confident in his mercy.

a reply to: randyvs

When I say the Catholic Church,

I do not mean the heretical Papist "church", I am not talking of the roman, although it is not Roman, catholic, although it is not Catholic, church, although it is not a Church,

I am talking of the Catholic Christian Church of God, the Church that has existed without fail since the first century, the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, the Church of the Martyrs and Saints, the Church of the Prophets and Apostles.

a reply to: godlover25

Well now you're talking to me. That's pretty hard to
separate in what you were saying. I don't believe we can
mediate to God thru anyone but Christ thru prayer.
I don't wish to insult those who seek worship of Christ
thru Catholisism but todays " Church " is a travesty as I
see it. I don't mean to start up a war here either.