Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: randyvs

Again, please explain to this audience what exactly you have show that disproves evolution? Cut stone does not.

And yes, I will call the mods to a thread that, as you admitted to, is used to push your religious agenda. That is NOT what ATS is for, which you have said is why you create the same threads over and over.

But - back on topic - tell us all how your OP disproves the theory of evolution. Give us facts - not your opinion.

Otherwise, all this thread is for is to push your Christian/Bible agenda on everyone, which is a shame. How shallow and insecure are you in your own convictions that you must push them on the rest of us? I don't mind if you're giving us facts - but you cannot claim to be giving facts from behind the Bible. That is not a factual book.

a reply to: noonebutme

That is NOT what ATS is for, which you have said is why you create the same threads over and over.

Here's a thought! Instead of just bird dog'n me?
Why don't you quote this big offense I'm all guilty of,
so the mods don't have to go hunting for it? Oh and I'm
sorry you're so upset.

tell us all how your OP disproves the theory of evolution.

And you're still off topic.

originally posted by: randyvs
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?

Again, what evidence is there that disproves the theory of evolution? This Great Cataclysm or Flood you mention - there is NO evidence that the story in the Bible was correct. No inhabitants were wiped away completely by anything.

This is evident in the fossil record, showing human evolution over millions of years.

We have the pyramids being built some 4000 years ago, and other civilisations (Sumeria) even older with cave paintings dating even further back.

So no - no one was wiped out by any Biblical flood. We evolved over a long period and left our mark.

Now, if scientific evidence refutes that - excellent! I will be the first to stand up on my atheist legs and with hand on my non-Jesus heart and admit i was wrong. And that's where we scientific atheists dominate you - we can admit we are wrong when evidence presents itself. As you are based solely on faith, you cannot.

So please, again, explain how your cut stone disproves evolution WITHOUT referring to made up fiction in the Bible. Use documented, scientific evidence.

a reply to: noonebutme

So please, again, explain how your cut stone disproves evolution WITHOUT referring to made up fiction in the Bible. Use documented, scientific evidence.

Why?

a reply to: randyvs

Stop being so churlish. He makes a very good point, and one that you have not answered.

I, too, am confused by your assertion and am wondering how those pictures disprove evolution.

Why is it that humans are the only animal that seems to be locked in some kind of never changing stasis, immune to evolution? Or is it like that with everything else living on the planet too?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah, why is that?

How do we know, indeed?

How on earth do we know?

Is Tattersal there is?

Yeah, stasis not!

a reply to: aorAki

What?

a reply to: noonebutme

Quote please?
You really need to take the fingers out of your ears!

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm not understanding how these two pictures disprove the theory of evolution?

Those cut marks and that rock face could be only 3,500 years old.

They are, in fact, only about 500 years old.

Harte

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: aorAki

What?
:

I mean that you have posted nothing that disproves evolution and nothing in the OP even suggests that.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: aorAki

What?
:

I mean that you have posted nothing that disproves evolution and nothing in the OP even suggests that.

Yup. I believe we figured out 20 odd pages ago that he wasn't talking about biological evolution, merely his own made up straw man definition of evolution that doesn't actually apply to reality. People love to create threads here and put the big E word in the title hoping it will gain attention, when the thread actually has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's pretty common in this section.

a reply to: Barcs

I agree, and as a palaeontology technician I am aghast, and yet surprisingly undismayed by this mindset, and this should tell us something about the state of research....I am saddened, and yet not surprised.

a reply to: randyvs

Then why start a thread like this? What's your point? Why bother making this thread?

Typically one makes an argument or statement of belief and backs it up with reference - verifiable evidence.

I really do not see why you did all this - unless, as I said before and you confirmed, these threads are nothing more than you pushing your religious beliefs on ATS members, which you alluded to here.

a reply to: noonebutme

I know, become a Mod yourself and then you can enforce this rule
I've so desecrated?

a reply to: randyvs

Again, we're all waiting for the proof or evidence you have that shows the cut stone disproves evolution, as your thread claims.

Please provide the empirical evidence and your rationalisation for why this is your belief. Simply claiming "because the Bible says so" is not evidence (and I know you have not actually said that, but using the Bible as reference is not evidence). I could just as easily "claim" a truth but without evidence, it's meaningless.

So please - using a scientifically approved methodology, with referenced based facts, explain how the cut stone disproves evolution. I'm really keen to understand your belief.

a reply to: noonebutme

So please - using a scientifically approved methodology, with referenced based facts, explain how the cut stone disproves evolution.

I'm not sure you understand anything. These are your words not mine,

Considering where this thread has gone, might as well have a little fun and sum up this whole anti-evolution argument.

Monty pythons Witch hunt scene

a reply to: randyvs

Randy, you are being churlish and, I suspect, deliberately obfuscatory. Getting back to the OP, could you explain why you think you have a case against evolution based on the pictures you posted.

You said: "And this pic I believe to be the most damaging evidence on the face
of the earth, when it comes to evolution" and "I'll rest my case against evolution right here for now." but you haven't made any case against evolution and when questioned you don't answer with any evidence, coherency or make sense. It appears that you are out of your depth and one gets the sense that you wish you hadn't started this thread, such are your deflectory posts.

Am I wrong in this assumption? Could you please explain your position to me? I'm tired of all the "lalalalala I don't hear you" replies you supply.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: aorAki

What?
:

I mean that you have posted nothing that disproves evolution and nothing in the OP even suggests that.

Yup. I believe we figured out 20 odd pages ago that he wasn't talking about biological evolution, merely his own made up straw man definition of evolution that doesn't actually apply to reality. People love to create threads here and put the big E word in the title hoping it will gain attention, when the thread actually has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's pretty common in this section.

But those threads usually DO gain the most attention. Albeit with low flags, but they are usually the ones that go on for 30 - 40 pages with a bunch of evolution supporters arguing with one or two stubborn Creationists who refuse to educate themselves on what the ToE actually says and claims. Then when the first batch of evolution supporters get frustrated and leave, a new batch shows up and reiterates the same points to the same brick wall *ahem* Creationists. All of this is clearly evident and on display in this very thread.

a reply to: aorAki

Lets say we've found pictured here, two different
examples of advanced technologies, used to cut blocks
of solid rock from a mountainside? Because to say they
were hand carved IMO is really stupid.

Because this endeavor, the building and carving was some
how made easy for it to ever be considered in the first place.
Now how does the given timeline for evolution, fit together
with what must of been a previous world? Whereby it was
around long enough, for such technological advances to be
employed and even mastered?

Add in some ancient depictions of dinosaurs living with men?
All the dinosaurs shapeshifting into birds? With an ELE event
from a comet/asteroid strike tossed in some
where? ( numbers questionable at 65 mill. ) When
science seems further and further from the truth? You
people argue with me when I say dinosaurs were reptiles!
Then I get an arguement when I say dinosaurs were mammals!


Now I surmise, very easily upon reading what I've just wrote here,
something seems to DEFY the timeline of evolution as I understand it.
And I don't give a birthday pony whether you denialists get it or not.
Because what I understand and also don't understand about it, is on
you people. Cause I'm not the one making stuff up as I go along.

But at least your question was fathomable.