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.

 

Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I'll say it so you can't eacape understanding.
The marks in the rock disprove evolution if they don't fit
the theory. Period. Now what? Make em fit ?



+29 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Fit the theory of what??? Specifically???

The theory that old ancient people didn't carve rocks???

The theory that only God or Floods can carve rocks???

Please explain what you're talking about. You sound like a crazy person. (No offense to crazy people intended.)


+8 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Sorry Mr Randyvs, you are not explaining anything and to disprove or prove something an explanation of the evidence is needed.


+3 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




Because with out
evolution? Atheism hasn't the boniest leg in all of the holocaust
to stand on. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I am confused about this....
Why does atheism need evolution to exist?


As well as how this disproves evolution, unless you are going for that man was already advanced 12k years ago so they were fully evolved? But not from evolution?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Nyiah




Not to be a total jerk,


I'll try to help out when I can.


No problemo there

I was serious, though. I've come up with what I thought were awesome theories after a few beers too many. Except in hindsight everyone's o.O looks indicated they were more WTF than anything.


Well I've only pounded a half pint of Candy bar to be honest.

edit on Rpm51614v06201400000040 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Fit the theory of what???


Stay in context. Simple.

Obtuse?

Obtuse is not an arguement.


edit on Rpm51614v102014u06 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on Rpm51614v102014u55 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Also, if the rock was carved 12k years ago does that not disprove the bible according to some? its really confuse what you say man


+14 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: mOjOm




Fit the theory of what???


Stay in context. Simple.

Obtuse?



WTF???

No Acute.

Glad we worked that out.

Now, would you like to answer my questions or the questions of others as to what the hell you're blabbering about???

Now you're up to 5 stars!!! 5 stars even though nobody but yourself who's contributed to this thread knows what you're saying. Meaning that you're being supported by phantoms with no reason at all for why they agree with you. We are no on page 2 and you are still the only person who remotely even understands what the topic is and certainly the only one who agrees with you.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Can you please provide some evidence that is not backed up by a "flood"?

Please tell me how even there being a flood that washed away all of the tech used to create this proves evolution wrong?

Your theory holds no water. pun intended.


+11 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Christians stick together in support of their book no matter how much sense the argument makes..

didn't ye know?




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

This is an idiotic argument even for a christian though.

I understand what he is saying, the problem is that it doesn't correlate or even make sense.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Really???

You mean they just follow along without reason or questioning anything even when things don't make sense??? Are you suggesting that they would blindly support nonsense just to protect their own intellectual comfort zone thinking???

Eh, I'm shocked.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: Akragon

This is an idiotic argument even for a christian though.

I understand what he is saying, the problem is that it doesn't correlate or even make sense.


Thank you!! Please explain what he is trying to say for me and others...

He won't for some reason, so please help.


+1 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
C'mon guys... you seriously didn't realise this?

Look around the religion section of the forums... You'll find the some of the most upside down, backwards, baseless, illogical arguments in some threads relating to the bible that still have lots of flags...

IF it says "the bible is true"... Christians jump on board by the boat load... regardless of the argument



+5 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



Bye Bye evolution. Hello every truth that is the Bible.


Even if this did somehow prove that The Theory of Evolution is incorrect, which it most certainly doesn't, how would this in turn mean that everything in The Bible was true?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
IF Oilantaytambo dates back to at least 12,000 yrs. And
as we don't even understand in this day of technology
how the mountainside was carved of blocks. I think we can
easily ( more than many would like to ) assess that these
blocks were carved out of this mountainside, before the flood.




It was a crowd of Wankas,
(pre Incas) that were into all this stuff, using acetic acid and other things to dress the rocks, check them out. www.britannica.com...

And here,

davidpratt.info... As a matter of fact, spend some time reading this whole link..the Wankas are in there somewhere.

Partial quote,
"He draws attention to the extraordinary skill in fabricating stone objects displayed by the pre-Inca Huanka (or Wanka) civilization. Some contemporary shamans belonging to the Huanka tradition do not use tools to make their small stone objects, but use plant extracts to dissolve the stone material (which contains calcite) and then pour the slurry into a mould where it hardens. He believes the same technique was used to make the earlier statues."
edit on 16-5-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Like the others here. How the hell does this relate to evolution???? In what way does this disprove evolution???

Also, how the hell do you get 3 stars for a post that nobody as of yet even understands???


He gets the stars from creationists who rejoice when someone states " I am against evolution even more than I am atheism. " or something similar.


+5 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I think you're trying to state that because these ancient sites look to be carved with advanced technology, and because that technology cannot be found anywhere, a flood must have washed it away, therefore the bible is true and evolution is not. That's what I got out of it, anyway.

Not sure how that is supposed to debunk evolution while absolutely proving the bible.
I don't see anything that 100% disproves or proves anything at all, other than someone or something at some point in time carved some rocks.


+8 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
IF Oilantaytambo dates back to at least 12,000 yrs. And
as we don't even understand in this day of technology
how the mountainside was carved of blocks. I think we can
easily ( more than many would like to ) assess that these
blocks were carved out of this mountainside, before the flood.

The flood that sheared of the top of the rock hillside. Whereby
the rest of the two rectangular block chasms were once intact.
And the machinery that carved those squares in granite was
obviously lost to the flood. Bye Bye evolution. Hello every
truth that is the Bible.


I really enjoy a new argument or thesis, a new way of looking at or interpreting things around us, but the disconnect between your statements and any semblance of logic nearly defies even my willingness to give it some critical thought. Nearly. I'll bite on what I'm 99% is a pure troll post. The remaining 1% possibility is far less kind.

The essence of your argument appears to be that (i) these photos are evidence of a civilisation predating "the Flood", therefore (ii) evolution must be false.

How does one lead to the other? The last time I checked, evolutionary theory works to a timescale that spans the entirety of life on this planet. The presence of human life before "the Flood" (and I'm trying to avoid cracking open that whole can of worms) is entirely in line with evolutionary theory.

If you provided photos that proved the total lack of existence of any life prior to a defined point in time, followed by the presence of human so shortly afterwards that evolutionary theory could not account for the rapid development - that would be evidence that supported an argument against evolution. It still wouldn't be conclusive evidence of God or creationism in the biblical sense.

Why was any machinery "obviously lost to the flood"? Assuming it existed (itself another argument) why not just time, weather, and locals reusing the materials? They are all far more likely reasons for any machinery ceasing to exist.

How does the reality or otherwise of the Flood support or deny either the Bible or evolution? Even if the Bible accurately records a flood happening (see all the posts in ATS about the flood story predating the Bible and appearing in other historical sources) that is no guarantee or proof that the reason given in the Bible is true. Proof of the flood simply validates the accuracy of one particular bit of historical information that was recorded in the Bible. It does not validate the entirety of the book, it does not prove that God exists and it certainly does nothing to prove that evolution is false.

So, OP, you've posted some interesting photos. Your first point could vaguely be hung on those photos. Your second point has absolutely no logical connect to either the photos or the rather spurious assumptions in the first point.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your argument, in which case I would invite you to develop the points further.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Well then. It's pretty rare that somebody drops such a blatant non sequitur that he can't find a single word of agreement.




top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join