Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: randyvs

I can't see the pics, they are gone, and opening them in another tab brings them up as blank 404's.

I am a new Christian and believe in God, i have experienced God's intercession in my life, and this is coming from a person who thought it was all bullcrap, then an alien who was too lazy to mine his own damn gold, and fought woth oohter aliens too lazy too mine their own gold.

No picture can dissipate my belief, but i still would like to see what this 30 plus ling page thread is about. Can you send them another way or something to me?

a reply to: bigman88

No problem.





The lower pic is the one that really gets my attention.
Because the carvings, were obviously done before the time
the mountain sheared off. Leaving only our view of part of t
he actual cut out. My premise is that this seems to DEFY the
known evolutionary time line.

I've been amazed at the constant obtuse reaction to this
simple minded thread. What's not to understand? And so
I react with suspicion to what is perceived as willful ignorance.

a reply to: randyvs

What's not to understand?

How are you arriving at your timeline and what is the supporting evidence of that timeline???

a reply to: Grimpachi

Gawd Grim I've explained till I'm blue in the face.
How many timelines are there? Respectfully?
I've even conceded to being out matched in knowledge
and education here. So why would admiting I'm
wrong mean anything to me. But most of this little
experience has only involved insults and what I can
only see as willfull ignorance. And this is what I get from
Intellectuals? What a GDFJ that is?

a reply to: randyvs

I haven't insulted you but I did ask pretty much the same question like on page 5 or 6. At that time you pointed me to a one liner on an ancient aliens site that claimed it was obvious to them the ruins were much older but they didn't back their assertion by any evidence so it was just an empty claim. Then you took it much further by adding 100,000 years or so. After that I pretty much left the thread but every once in a while it pops up on my recent list.

I saw your statement and question of what was so hard to understand. I was hoping that maybe after all these pages you could offer something more than you did before to support your theory.

As far as your questions of how many timelines are there. You are the one who has fabricated a new timeline for human development and my question was how did you come to those conclusions and do you have any evidence to back up your conclusions.

Sorry but I didn't know that would be a sore subject for you.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: bigman88

No problem.

The lower pic is the one that really gets my attention.
Because the carvings, were obviously done before the time
the mountain sheared off. Leaving only our view of part of t
he actual cut out. My premise is that this seems to DEFY the
known evolutionary time line.

I've been amazed at the constant obtuse reaction to this
simple minded thread. What's not to understand? And so
I react with suspicion to what is perceived as willful ignorance.

I have seen these on ancient aliens on history channel (that's what got me believing in the ignorant aliens from planet x quarreling with one another theory).

I get what you are saying about how this goes against evolution, but really, this goes even more against evolutionists. The presence of these obviously geometrically sliced up patterns in these naturally formed rock surfaces can indicate that the theory itself can still be valid (it's not), irrespective of whatever beings used whatever very advanced tools to laser/carve/cut these rocks up; it's just that the original theorists did not discover or regard these geological finds in any way.

The thing is the theorists assert that No intelligent being had nay hand in creating life and that beings such as these ones that carved up these rocks with the advanced tools, do not exist until the time that the evolutionists theorize. That, as presented here, is obviously not the case. Evolution's theorists of past and present have to now account for the established fact of intelligent, advanced beings, human or other, went around carving out rocks all over the place with whatever advanced tools. That within itself will not necessarily demolish there whole argument of no God, but no humans, or any other advanced beings, until so-and-so time they say they develop.

Any poster here who says this does not contradict evolution or it's theorists, and says that these advanced human or whatever beings could have existed alongside evolving animals, is just posing conjecture, and unfounded theories of there own at this point. They need to become scientists, and go prove what theories they pose themselves.

Natural selection is not ruled out, and i think that definitely is a possibility. That has more evidence behind than evolution though. Natural selection has been displayed in insects and changing environments as late as the 60's with a certain experiment i cannot remember the details of. But evolutionists must not definitely must figure out what's up with these carvings, structures and statues that were definitely done by human or non-human beings, hen humans were not supposed to be have been around at this time.

originally posted by: bigman88
I have seen these on ancient aliens on history channel (that's what got me believing in the ignorant aliens from planet x quarreling with one another theory).

I get what you are saying about how this goes against evolution, but really, this goes even more against evolutionists. The presence of these obviously geometrically sliced up patterns in these naturally formed rock surfaces can indicate that the theory itself can still be valid (it's not), irrespective of whatever beings used whatever very advanced tools to laser/carve/cut these rocks up; it's just that the original theorists did not discover or regard these geological finds in any way.

The thing is the theorists assert that No intelligent being had nay hand in creating life and that beings such as these ones that carved up these rocks with the advanced tools, do not exist until the time that the evolutionists theorize. That, as presented here, is obviously not the case. Evolution's theorists of past and present have to now account for the established fact of intelligent, advanced beings, human or other, went around carving out rocks all over the place with whatever advanced tools. That within itself will not necessarily demolish there whole argument of no God, but no humans, or any other advanced beings, until so-and-so time they say they develop.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life

for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

So humans reached the current evolutionary level that you and I (and the rest of humanity) is at, roughly 200,000 years ago. I'm pretty sure that 200,000 years is longer than the 12,000 or so years ago that those rocks were supposedly carved.

Also evolution makes ZERO, I repeat ZERO, claims about the existence of god.

Any poster here who says this does not contradict evolution or it's theorists, and says that these advanced human or whatever beings could have existed alongside evolving animals, is just posing conjecture, and unfounded theories of there own at this point. They need to become scientists, and go prove what theories they pose themselves.

Why is that? Are you saying that humans were unable to carve rocks for 190,000 years after they got to our evolutionary level and then suddenly they were able to do so? Or we were never able to carve those rocks? I'm really at a loss here what the hell you are talking about.

Natural selection is not ruled out, and i think that definitely is a possibility. That has more evidence behind than evolution though. Natural selection has been displayed in insects and changing environments as late as the 60's with a certain experiment i cannot remember the details of. But evolutionists must not definitely must figure out what's up with these carvings, structures and statues that were definitely done by human or non-human beings, hen humans were not supposed to be have been around at this time.

Why were humans not supposed to have been around at this time? What evidence do you have that suggests humans weren't evolved to the state to be able to carve rocks 12,000 years ago?

But you know, you bring up a good point. Even IF these rocks were carved at a time that predated humans being able to do so, that STILL isn't evidence that evolution isn't true. There is nothing saying that aliens couldn't have come and done it. This OP is literally evidence of NOTHING as it pertains to evolution and is a fail thread which has been outlined MANY times to the OP. The fact that you didn't read ANY of the thread and just blindly agreed with the OP shows you are uneducated on this topic.

originally posted by: bigman88




Any poster here who says this does not contradict evolution or it's theorists, and says that these advanced human or whatever beings could have existed alongside evolving animals, is just posing conjecture, and unfounded theories of there own at this point. They need to become scientists, and go prove what theories they pose themselves.

I am having a hard time deciphering your gobbledegook. What on earth are you saying, man?

There is no reason that this contradicts evolution.

It's just as well that I am a scientist (a geologist, specifically).

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Grimpachi

Gawd Grim I've explained till I'm blue in the face.
How many timelines are there? Respectfully?
I've even conceded to being out matched in knowledge
and education here. So why would admiting I'm
wrong mean anything to me. But most of this little
experience has only involved insults and what I can
only see as willfull ignorance. And this is what I get from
Intellectuals? What a GDFJ that is?

I don't think you ever justified your position, however. How does it actually conflict with or "defy" evolution? You haven't explained that part of it and you haven't conceded the fact that your assessment actually has nothing to do with evolution as I clearly demonstrated on the previous page. You kind of deflected that point when I brought it up and started talking about transitional fossils instead. Then on this page you repeat your original claim as if it still has merit. How does it specifically defy the evolutionary time line? I'm having a really hard time understanding your justification for your premise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigman88
I have seen these on ancient aliens on history channel (that's what got me believing in the ignorant aliens from planet x quarreling with one another theory).

I get what you are saying about how this goes against evolution, but really, this goes even more against evolutionists. The presence of these obviously geometrically sliced up patterns in these naturally formed rock surfaces can indicate that the theory itself can still be valid (it's not), irrespective of whatever beings used whatever very advanced tools to laser/carve/cut these rocks up; it's just that the original theorists did not discover or regard these geological finds in any way.

The thing is the theorists assert that No intelligent being had nay hand in creating life and that beings such as these ones that carved up these rocks with the advanced tools, do not exist until the time that the evolutionists theorize. That, as presented here, is obviously not the case. Evolution's theorists of past and present have to now account for the established fact of intelligent, advanced beings, human or other, went around carving out rocks all over the place with whatever advanced tools. That within itself will not necessarily demolish there whole argument of no God, but no humans, or any other advanced beings, until so-and-so time they say they develop.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life

for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

So humans reached the current evolutionary level that you and I (and the rest of humanity) is at, roughly 200,000 years ago. I'm pretty sure that 200,000 years is longer than the 12,000 or so years ago that those rocks were supposedly carved.

Also evolution makes ZERO, I repeat ZERO, claims about the existence of god.

Any poster here who says this does not contradict evolution or it's theorists, and says that these advanced human or whatever beings could have existed alongside evolving animals, is just posing conjecture, and unfounded theories of there own at this point. They need to become scientists, and go prove what theories they pose themselves.

Why is that? Are you saying that humans were unable to carve rocks for 190,000 years after they got to our evolutionary level and then suddenly they were able to do so? Or we were never able to carve those rocks? I'm really at a loss here what the hell you are talking about.

Natural selection is not ruled out, and i think that definitely is a possibility. That has more evidence behind than evolution though. Natural selection has been displayed in insects and changing environments as late as the 60's with a certain experiment i cannot remember the details of. But evolutionists must not definitely must figure out what's up with these carvings, structures and statues that were definitely done by human or non-human beings, hen humans were not supposed to be have been around at this time.

Why were humans not supposed to have been around at this time? What evidence do you have that suggests humans weren't evolved to the state to be able to carve rocks 12,000 years ago?

But you know, you bring up a good point. Even IF these rocks were carved at a time that predated humans being able to do so, that STILL isn't evidence that evolution isn't true. There is nothing saying that aliens couldn't have come and done it. This OP is literally evidence of NOTHING as it pertains to evolution and is a fail thread which has been outlined MANY times to the OP. The fact that you didn't read ANY of the thread and just blindly agreed with the OP shows you are uneducated on this topic.

What proof has evolution offered showing humans in our form were around 200,000 years ago?

Evolutionists make claims of there being no God.

What are humans 12,000 years ago using to carve those perfectly geometric patterns out of the side of the mountain?

What i am saying is evolutionists have lost credibility when it comes to this subject hen they do not have all the various subjects and factors; the giants remains and all their giant tools/weapons (plenty of which the Smithsonian incinerated. Nothing strange there), the conical skulls (had binding will not half of those skull shapes), the fundamental question of at what point does this sea breathing organism evolve to walk on land? Does the mother swim to shore, hold it's breath, and birth the offspring there? Does the offspring itself spend it's first few moments or years in water, then start growing physical land attributes? Was this offspring semi-aquatic, being able to live and breath on land, but needs water for survival also?

I did not blindly follow the op. I recognized that these carvings and rectangular chunks pf missing rock cannot disprove the concept of evolution itself (logic can do that all on it's own) evolution. It does disprove evolutionists of there current theory, and may need to re-work the original theory to fit with later discoveries.

a reply to: aorAki

Awesome word.

Read the above response KrazyShot.

originally posted by: bigman88

Evolutionists make claims of there being no God.

Actually, 'evolutionists' do not make such claims. Atheists make such claims. Evolutionary scientists can be of a religious bent.

originally posted by: bigman88What are humans 12,000 years ago using to carve those perfectly geometric patterns out of the side of the mountain?

I would hazard that they are using tools. Where are you getting the 12 000 BP date, by the way? There is plenty of well-researched information about the tools and methods that were used. Harte and Hanslune both have provided them, in various threads.

originally posted by: bigman88What i am saying is evolutionists have lost credibility when it comes to this subject hen they do not have all the various subjects and factors; the giants remains and all their giant tools/weapons (plenty of which the Smithsonian incinerated. Nothing strange there), the conical skulls (had binding will not half of those skull shapes), the fundamental question of at what point does this sea breathing organism evolve to walk on land? Does the mother swim to shore, hold it's breath, and birth the offspring there? Does the offspring itself spend it's first few moments or years in water, then start growing physical land attributes? Was this offspring semi-aquatic, being able to live and breath on land, but needs water for survival also?

It sounds like you are just reiterating what you have read on websites. It's really difficult to discuss matters with you when you rely on disinformation and pseudo-science.

originally posted by: bigman88 It does disprove evolutionists of there current theory, and may need to re-work the original theory to fit with later discoveries.

I'm not quite sure how this disproves evolution as we understand it?

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: bigman88

Evolutionists make claims of there being no God.

Actually, 'evolutionists' do not make such claims. Atheists make such claims. Evolutionary scientists can be of a religious bent.

originally posted by: bigman88What are humans 12,000 years ago using to carve those perfectly geometric patterns out of the side of the mountain?

I would hazard that they are using tools. Where are you getting the 12 000 BP date, by the way? There is plenty of well-researched information about the tools and methods that were used. Harte and Hanslune both have provided them, in various threads.

originally posted by: bigman88What i am saying is evolutionists have lost credibility when it comes to this subject hen they do not have all the various subjects and factors; the giants remains and all their giant tools/weapons (plenty of which the Smithsonian incinerated. Nothing strange there), the conical skulls (had binding will not half of those skull shapes), the fundamental question of at what point does this sea breathing organism evolve to walk on land? Does the mother swim to shore, hold it's breath, and birth the offspring there? Does the offspring itself spend it's first few moments or years in water, then start growing physical land attributes? Was this offspring semi-aquatic, being able to live and breath on land, but needs water for survival also?

It sounds like you are just reiterating what you have read on websites. It's really difficult to discuss matters with you when you rely on disinformation and pseudo-science.

originally posted by: bigman88 It does disprove evolutionists of there current theory, and may need to re-work the original theory to fit with later discoveries.

I'm not quite sure how this disproves evolution as we understand it?

I know not what website you speak of, or whatever source material. I thought up these questions on my own head. Someone, anyone, please answer this. You haven't. but yet these theories, which you show others have already posed, remain as pseudo-science. So show how it is.

Those fundamental questions alone still keep me from believing in evolution, and the dicsovery, and incineration of hundreds of giant skeletal remains and their equipment by an authority in this field, the Smithsonian institute (look it up, they really did) has sealed it for me.

a reply to: bigman88

the dicsovery, and incineration of hundreds of giant skeletal remains and their equipment by an authority in this field, the Smithsonian institute (look it up, they really did) has sealed it for me.

OK so I looked it up.

Yeah sure that looks legit.

originally posted by: bigman88
What proof has evolution offered showing humans in our form were around 200,000 years ago?

www.bradshawfoundation.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

anthro.palomar.edu...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

What i am saying is evolutionists have lost credibility when it comes to this subject

Nope. Evolutionary scientists have discovered ample evidence that verifies it. If ancient alien theory or creationism is true, then evolution is part of it or independent from it. It's still an obvious fact.

originally posted by: bigman88
What proof has evolution offered showing humans in our form were around 200,000 years ago?

I don't have enough time to post all that proof. You pretending it doesn't exist, doesn't make it so. Human Evolution Evidence

Here is a scholarly article on it (ie OFFICIAL evidence for it)
A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes

But you know, humans evolving to our current state 200,000 years ago is what evolution says. There is no one saying we evolved to our state 12,000 years ago. You cannot just randomly say that is the case then present the OP as proof that evolution is false. That is called a strawman argument and is a logical fallacy.

Evolutionists make claims of there being no God.

WRONG! Atheists make claims of there being no god. People who believe the theory of evolution range from all sorts of belief systems INCLUDING Christianity. Catholics recognize evolution as real.

Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!

That was back in 1996 by the way. So stop with the false claims.

What are humans 12,000 years ago using to carve those perfectly geometric patterns out of the side of the mountain?

Who cares? It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

What i am saying is evolutionists have lost credibility when it comes to this subject hen they do not have all the various subjects and factors; the giants remains and all their giant tools/weapons (plenty of which the Smithsonian incinerated. Nothing strange there), the conical skulls (had binding will not half of those skull shapes), the fundamental question of at what point does this sea breathing organism evolve to walk on land? Does the mother swim to shore, hold it's breath, and birth the offspring there? Does the offspring itself spend it's first few moments or years in water, then start growing physical land attributes? Was this offspring semi-aquatic, being able to live and breath on land, but needs water for survival also?

What you are saying has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is a COMPLETELY different scientific discipline.

I did not blindly follow the op. I recognized that these carvings and rectangular chunks pf missing rock cannot disprove the concept of evolution itself (logic can do that all on it's own) evolution. It does disprove evolutionists of there current theory, and may need to re-work the original theory to fit with later discoveries.

Yes you did. Either that or you have literally ZERO concept of what the theory of evolution is. Take your pick. Going by your responses after the one I'm quoting here, I'm going to have to go with you not knowing what the theory of evolution says. It would help if you would actually LEARN what it says so that you can properly debate it. Otherwise you look foolish (for example your response to me as well as the first response I replied to). Here are some links for you to go study. I HIGHLY suggest you go do so before continuing this argument.

Evolution - wikipedia
Welcome to Evolution 101!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: bigman88

the dicsovery, and incineration of hundreds of giant skeletal remains and their equipment by an authority in this field, the Smithsonian institute (look it up, they really did) has sealed it for me.

OK so I looked it up.

Yeah sure that looks legit.

You ARE MOST DEFINITELY JOKING!

You MUST be!

What is the point o showing some obviously stupid fake pic to respond to the facts of the Smithsonian destroying remains of Giants.

What is your response exactly? Word it for me. No, there are no giant remains? Or no, the Smithsonian did not torch any of it? As proof, look at this pic of an old time dude with a badly photo shopped in giant skull. There. Evidence.

You can do better. That was bad.

a reply to: Barcs

I already admitted the last part you just mentioned.

Are u saying that you have a way to date rock carvings??

Yiu aull soon be a rich man

Are u saying that you have a way to date rock carvings??

Yiu aull soon be a rich man