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: 22
39
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:18 AM
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.


That kind of suggest that civilization is a bit older than we thought previously. It does not really address evolution at all. I do think that history is much longer than we currently think, with a lot of evidence of it wiped out during the last ice age or submerged when the glaciers retreated.




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Here's Virusguards post.


evolution has some truth in it but does not tell the whole story.

if from the day you was born you lived with a 360 degree computer screen around you and a XBox controller in your hand and then at the age of eight someone in mine craft said that what you think is you is nothing more than an illusion then would you beleive them.

We had the MKI Escort and then the MKII and MKIII but that does not mean a car just happened to be because one lump of iron bumped into another and made an engine.

Evoloution is part of any design and this designing is happening inside some type of computer simulation that is way above our minds to understand.


Do you notice anything about the mechanical evolution of cars, as he
talks of them? How much evidence is there for the evolution of the car?


edit on Ram81814v33201400000013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Here's Virusguards post.


evolution has some truth in it but does not tell the whole story.

if from the day you was born you lived with a 360 degree computer screen around you and a XBox controller in your hand and then at the age of eight someone in mine craft said that what you think is you is nothing more than an illusion then would you beleive them.

We had the MKI Escort and then the MKII and MKIII but that does not mean a car just happened to be because one lump of iron bumped into another and made an engine.

Evoloution is part of any design and this designing is happening inside some type of computer simulation that is way above our minds to understand.


Do you notice anything about the mechanical evolution of cars, as he
talks of them? How much evidence is there for the evolution of the car?



Evolution as a general term, is used in reference to things that change and develop over time. The car has "evolved" from a model T to a Ferrari over time, but that does not imply outside influence. There is plenty of evidence to support this--we have watched the cars get better, faster, and more efficient. We can see the blue prints and many of us own examples of older and newer cars.

Societies have evolved and devolved over time. The rise and fall of empires and cultures as an example.

I assume by "evolution", you mean to discuss it in reference to the biological entity, yes?


edit on 18-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Evolution as a general term, is used in reference to things that change and develop over time. The car has "evolved" from a model T to a Ferrari over time, but that does not imply outside influence. There is plenty of evidence to support this--we have watched the cars get better, faster, and more efficient. We can see the blue prints and many of us own examples of older and newer cars.

Societies have evolved and devolved over time. The rise and fall of empires and cultures as an example.

I assume by "evolution", you mean to discuss it in reference to the biological entity, yes?


Ultimately yes, but here's what I'm noticing. The evidence for the evolution of civilization is abundant.
The evidence for mechanical evolution is bountiful. The evidence is beyond any denial and obvious to
everyone. Now for the big question, do you see where I'm going with this?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: NavyDoc




Evolution as a general term, is used in reference to things that change and develop over time. The car has "evolved" from a model T to a Ferrari over time, but that does not imply outside influence. There is plenty of evidence to support this--we have watched the cars get better, faster, and more efficient. We can see the blue prints and many of us own examples of older and newer cars.

Societies have evolved and devolved over time. The rise and fall of empires and cultures as an example.

I assume by "evolution", you mean to discuss it in reference to the biological entity, yes?


Ultimately yes, but here's what I'm noticing. The evidence for the evolution of civilization is abundant.
The evidence for mechanical evolution is bountiful. The evidence is beyond any denial and obvious to
everyone. Now for the big question, do you see where I'm going with this?



I see where you are going with this, the difficulty is that evolution in a biological sense takes such long time periods, that it is quite difficult to observe and quantify as it is in societal or mechanical evolution.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I would think that with all the diversity of life on this planet
including those species now extinct. The evidence for
bio-evolution should be everywhere. But it's not. In fact one
could say the only evidence that exists, has been nutured
and paper clipped together. With the shoe string hopes of new
found fossils. In fact, the whole damn theory seems to only look
like the evolution of a design.

Just exactly like the car.


edit on Ram81814v182014u12 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: NavyDoc

I would think that with all the diversity of life on this planet
including those species now extinct. The evidence for
bio-evolution should be everywhere. But it's not. In fact one
could say the only evidence that exists, has been nutured
and paper clipped together. With the shoe string hopes of new
found fossils, in fact, the whole damn theory seems to only look
like the evolution of a design.

Just exactly like the car.



Evidence for evolution (google search)

Stop saying there is no evidence for evolution. It is simply not true. What you SHOULD be saying is that you don't accept the available evidence for evolution. At least that statement doesn't make you sound as foolish as the "no evidence for evolution" statement.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not saying there isn't any evidence as much as I'm saying
there isn't enough. Not by a damn site. The idea is invalid
simply by the obvious lack of evidence, whereby there should
be an over abundance.

And don't try to dictate what you want me not to say!
That's just funny.



Evolution is a house of cards.

Is that better?

edit on Ram81814v532014u29 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Nice to see you back Randy. You got roasted pretty hard in this thread, even by me. Glad to see you just needed a break.

I thought I'd share something with you from one of my favorite Christian thinkers on evolution:




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not saying there isn't any evidence as much as I'm saying
there isn't enough. Not by a damn site. The idea is invalid
simply by the obvious lack of evidence, whereby there should
be an over abundance.

And don't try to dictate what you want me not to say!
That's just funny.


So there isn't enough evidence for evolution, despite the mountains upon mountains that have been posted in this thread. Wow you really have a high standard for proof.... or not because you believe in god, in the case where there is no objective evidence whatsoever. By your logic that would make god WAY MORE invalid than evolution. LOL.

So why the double standard? You take something like god as fact, despite having virtually no evidence, but refuse to believe evolution despite tons of evidence. I don't get it.
edit on 18-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Did you watch the vid? Bet not!



Wow you really have a high standard for proof


Obviously not Barcs, you know I walk by faith. What's easy to see is I
simply employed the standard of your faith back on itself.


edit on Rpm81814v352014u38 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Damn boy, if there were ever an example of a perfect answer to a
question, that certainly qualifies.


And did you see the brain on that guy?


Thanks Sereph.
edit on Rpm81814v47201400000014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Please cut to the chase for me...is the OP basically saying that these pictures prove The Flood as actually happening and since that was depicted in The Christian Bible then everything in that book is a proven fact?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not saying there isn't any evidence as much as I'm saying
there isn't enough. Not by a damn site. The idea is invalid
simply by the obvious lack of evidence, whereby there should
be an over abundance.


That "damn site" as you say is a google search that came back with 56.3 million hits.

Here's google scholar with 1.77 million hits
evidence for evolution (google scholar search)


And don't try to dictate what you want me not to say!
That's just funny.


Fair enough, you are free to look a complete fool. Just trying to give you advise so you stop doing that


video removed


Videos aren't proof of anything. Also, I don't watch them at work.


Evolution is a house of cards.

Is that better?


Well at least that description admits that there is evidence for it.
edit on 18-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I've seen that vid years ago. Can you summarize the important parts? Hopefully they actually refer to scientific studies and not just this one guy's opinion, because if not that would be appeal to authority. Thanks.
edit on 18-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I already know you don't want to talk numbers. Unless you're
do'in the talk'n and the numbers favor evolution. Or, popularity
isn't proof.

And believe me, I know what a fool I am to challenge your great intellect.
But I did it anyway. Are ad hominems part of the scientific method? I
don't recall, but they sure seem to be on stand bye in the scientific
community. At least you're not alone!


Well at least that description admits that there is evidence for it.


So that's the secret! Take what you can from anything said and run like hell?

Maybe I was right to challenge you after all. No, I'm sure of it.
edit on Rpm81814v242014u11 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I have attempted to discuss evolution with many fundamentalists/creationists or, more accurately, I discussed evolution and they discussed that which they thought was evolution. Typically, fundamentalists talk about the Big Bang, how humans did not evolve from apes, and how there's no evidence of animals popping into existence from the ether fully formed because that's what they think the theory of evolution claims. It's not. They also don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theorum (ie. theory). Until they have a basic education in science and critical reasoning, it's a waste of time to discuss this with them. The fact that not a single credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-viewed journal of biology anywhere in the world refutes evolution does not deter them from keeping a death grip on their position that all life on earth was poofed into existence fully formed by a supernatural deity for whose existence there isn't a shred of evidence.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: randyvs

I have attempted to discuss evolution with many fundamentalists/creationists or, more accurately, I discussed evolution and they discussed that which they thought was evolution. Typically, fundamentalists talk about the Big Bang, how humans did not evolve from apes, and how there's no evidence of animals popping into existence from the ether fully formed because that's what they think the theory of evolution claims. It's not. They also don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theorum (ie. theory). Until they have a basic education in science and critical reasoning, it's a waste of time to discuss this with them. The fact that not a single credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-viewed journal of biology anywhere in the world refutes evolution does not deter them from keeping a death grip on their position that all life on earth was poofed into existence fully formed by a supernatural deity for whose existence there isn't a shred of evidence.


So!




LMAO

Get it?

I'm actually very proud of this post.
But I don't expect many of you to understand why.
edit on Rpm81814v312014u05 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
Until they have a basic education in science and critical reasoning, it's a waste of time to discuss this with them.

That premise has one massive flaw...

It is impossible to understand propaganda by STUDYING propaganda.

Nor does one understand a cult by joining the cult and reading their own writings.

You are right about one thing though, it IS a waste of time.


In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous ways.
Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public


The absolute sheer irony of a Darwinist saying there isn't a shred of evidence for a supernatural deity while at the same time Darwin's 'theory' is so full of holes would be laughable if you were not so serious.

So many things prove it to be nonsense that it becomes extremely obvious what the real 'faith' is...

Scientific facts prove that Darwinism is an impossible deliberate fraud which is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science.


"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Toward a True Science of Life



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Tangerine
Until they have a basic education in science and critical reasoning, it's a waste of time to discuss this with them.

That premise has one massive flaw...

It is impossible to understand propaganda by STUDYING propaganda.




You're claiming that science and critical reasoning are propaganda? What is your background in these fields or, in keeping with your position, have you bypassed all education in science and critical reasoning?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join