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: 33
39
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Why don't you explain why rock carvings have anything to do with evolution first and maybe I'll answer your question. Even if these rock carvings are millions of years old, it still doesn't disprove evolution. All it shows is that there was another intelligent life form on the planet at some point in the past (which may or may not have evolved here).
edit on 10-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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!


"Scholarly" articles such as this and the researchers paid big money to publish it, have not taken into account the many types of remains discovered, and the possibility that there were several different species of human-like organisms created before the creation of US-humans. These human variants existed alongside us. There is no solid proof that we evolved from apes or monkey's, no mater what any paid corporate researchers says.

As i stated to another poster above, the Smithsonian institute has destroyed too much evidence pointing that evolution theory, at the least, is incorrect, and at the most, seriously flawed and needs rework. They burned some, kept the damn others wherever the hell they stashed them. Me reading anything on there web page won't sway me, nor should it anyone else who considers an organizations shady activities that directly deal with a subject.



Okay, i'll concede with religious individuals siding with evolution. I bow.

What i will not conceded to is the obviously, overtly, caught red-handedly, Satanic catholic church, documented in drug, child sex and drug trafficking, slavery, mass murder, pedophilia, satanic ritual torture and murder, rape, collusion with despots and dictators. all organized, all hidden, all un-investigated, blocked from being investigated, or blcoked from prosecution or justice if investigated, never mentioned unless their arm wrung, even then they come out with little to nothing, and the implicated or guilty members protected, NOT KICKED OUT, and shuffled to another location as their same position they had in the Vatican, if not kept right there.

Nope, don't care what the head of a religious organization doing all that nonsense, hiding it, and covering for there discovered perpetrators say. Moving along.

Th reason why i dwell on the question is because there is no way any regular tools we know of, with regular knowledge we know, will be able to do that to rocks.

Does not evolution include claims of certain land creatures evolving from certain sea creatures? And vice versa? Isn't it that all life came from water based cellular organisms? So why is the exact process of these organisms shifting from sea to land irrelevant?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because yiur assertion that u can date rock carvings is what is the issue

Back up the claim or admitt u made it up to look like u had a point

So can u date rock carvings?

Yes ir no



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigman88
"Scholarly" articles such as this and the researchers paid big money to publish it, have not taken into account the many types of remains discovered, and the possibility that there were several different species of human-like organisms created before the creation of US-humans. These human variants existed alongside us. There is no solid proof that we evolved from apes or monkey's, no mater what any paid corporate researchers says.


*Sigh* WOW you are seriously misinformed. First off, we definitely evolved from apes (not monkeys). This is indisputable. Second off that scholarly article that you dismissed without even reading discussed the genetic (DNA) descent and migration of humans over the last 200,000 years. That is LITERALLY what you asked me to provide.

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

See? That's what you asked for and that is what I gave you. Therefore you were wrong. Now you are moving the goal posts back. Evolutionary theory says that modern humans evolved to the point we are around 200,000 years ago. Stone carvings made 12,000 years ago doesn't violate evolutionary theory.


As i stated to another poster above, the Smithsonian institute has destroyed too much evidence pointing that evolution theory, at the least, is incorrect, and at the most, seriously flawed and needs rework. They burned some, kept the damn others wherever the hell they stashed them. Me reading anything on there web page won't sway me, nor should it anyone else who considers an organizations shady activities that directly deal with a subject.


This is assumption, hearsay, and slander. You have no proof of any of this.


Okay, i'll concede with religious individuals siding with evolution. I bow.

What i will not conceded to is the obviously, overtly, caught red-handedly, Satanic catholic church, documented in drug, child sex and drug trafficking, slavery, mass murder, pedophilia, satanic ritual torture and murder, rape, collusion with despots and dictators. all organized, all hidden, all un-investigated, blocked from being investigated, or blcoked from prosecution or justice if investigated, never mentioned unless their arm wrung, even then they come out with little to nothing, and the implicated or guilty members protected, NOT KICKED OUT, and shuffled to another location as their same position they had in the Vatican, if not kept right there.


I agree with you, but this is irrelevant to the conversation. I was just showing that religious organizations also believe in evolution. Here is a picture that breaks down the percentage of people BY religion that believe in evolution



Nope, don't care what the head of a religious organization doing all that nonsense, hiding it, and covering for there discovered perpetrators say. Moving along.

Th reason why i dwell on the question is because there is no way any regular tools we know of, with regular knowledge we know, will be able to do that to rocks.


Even IF this statement were true (hint: it's not), it's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with carved rocks. Why do I have to keep telling you this? Like I said even IF humans didn't carve and place these rocks (and aliens did as you seem to suggest), that STILL doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is violated.


Does not evolution include claims of certain land creatures evolving from certain sea creatures? And vice versa? Isn't it that all life came from water based cellular organisms? So why is the exact process of these organisms shifting from sea to land irrelevant?


It certainly does make that claim, but at no point were we talking about organisms evolving from ocean based to land based organisms. We were talking about cut rocks that were cut WELL after humans evolved to our current form.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because yiur assertion that u can date rock carvings is what is the issue

Back up the claim or admitt u made it up to look like u had a point

So can u date rock carvings?

Yes ir no


Introduction to rock art dating

By my count there are about 12 different ways to date rock carvings/art of the past listed on that page. So now your turn, how are rock carvings relevant to the theory of evolution?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



Really Grim ? What kind of tactics do you call this?
A disgrace? You people aren't worth talk'n too.


edit on Rpm91014v452014u45 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bigman88


All I can say, after that diatribe of ignorance, suspicion, unfounded and without supporting evidence is "seek help".
Please.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see yiu dont read yiur own links

Here


Most of the systems described below are relative dating systems, which attempt to slot sites into a place within an existing chronological framework.


Aka yoi cant date rock carvings

You can only slot them where you think they should go



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

Double fail on the part of the OP in this particular area since the quarrying shown is only slightly over 500 years old.

You see, rock "carvings" certainly CAN be dated by the people that cut the stone. And these "carvings" were claimed by the Inca when the Spanish met them.

And you can't claim the Inca lied, because they denied being responsible for Tiahuanaco and we have since proven they were telling the truth there, so why would they lie about Ollantaytambo?

Some of the people who actually erected the fort were still alive when the Spanish came and personally told them about it.

Harte
edit on 9/10/2014 by Harte because: I said so



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte


But that can't be so!!! (stamps feet and runs out the door going "lalalala I can't hear you").

You're part of the corrupt system-supporting cabal of corporate shills anyway, so whatever you say is filled with the words of the arch-trickster Santa -sorry, Satan- and can't be trusted. I don't want to see your supporting evidence, nor hear your well-evidenced information. I would rather be suspicious and make up ideas that other easily-led people will blindly follow than believe for a minute that you have anything positive to offer this thread.





edit on 10-9-2014 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
OK so I looked it up.


Yeah sure that looks legit.


Incredible what you'll find when you type 'Obvious Fake Photo Giant Human Skeletons' in a search engine.


Obviously a fake, but it still looks more credible than most of Darwinism's skeletal 'remains'...





edit on 10-9-2014 by Murgatroid because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs


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?


It's not about admitting you were wrong - everyone makes mistakes.

Your "perceived" community insults and willful ignorance was from the members' reading your thread where your title states pictures that "100% defy evolution" (which they do not) and your post which was lacking in any real content or explanation of your evidence or why you believed it. Instead of really giving us your reasons, you made these allusions to Biblical catastrophes, assuming we all, a) understood that and b) believed in that.

Had you posted the title along the lines of, "Could these two pictures defy evolution?" and then shown the pictures and fully explaining why you believe they do, this thread would NOT have gone down how it has.

Instead, you stated a fact against a theory and had no supporting arguments apart from the Bible.
edit on 10-9-2014 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Ya I know, but it just so happens the Bible is good enough for me.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Which part?
The part where homosexuality is condemned?
The part where female servitude is recommended?
The part where a fellow survives inside a whale?
The part where there is a global flood?
etc....



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

From the Alpha to the Omega of course.


edit on Rpm91014v462014u08 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on Rpm91014v222014u59 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigman88

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.



Joking?? No. Maybe you are joking.

Your the one who said:




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.


So I looked it up with the parameters you set and that was one of the first links. Do you mean you had some other thing in mind.

Here is an idea. When you make a claim instead of telling people to look up crap to support "YOUR" claim you can do the bare minimum and provide a link that corroborates "YOUR" claim.

Otherwise the claim you made would be the joke.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Grimpachi



Really Grim ? What kind of tactics do you call this?
A disgrace? You people aren't worth talk'n too.



The one pulling tactics was the poster who made a claim then told everyone to look it up. I did look it up and that is what came up. How many links should I have to look through to find something to back his assertions?? In truth I shouldn't need to be trying to find any links. The onus is on the person making claims. I am pretty sure that is how it has always worked.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Well, that's fine. But that's also your problem. If the Bible is all the "truth" you ever need, then great - but don't be surprised if you start a thread like this, using that as your point of evidence, only to find a great deal of incredulous looks and shocked comments.

If you're going to argue against a scientific theory (which you are absolutely entitled to do, and something science actively encourages) then please do - but do not make the mistake of wading into that debate armed with the Bible. Regardless of your convictions, you will be torn to pieces, evidence-wise.

Just a suggestion for next time



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme




Just a suggestion for next time


Oh I'll definitely be deterred by that I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: randyvs

Which part?
The part where homosexuality is condemned?
The part where female servitude is recommended?
The part where a fellow survives inside a whale?
The part where there is a global flood?
etc....


You forgot the part where you are condemned for wearing clothing made of mixed fabric (Randy must eschew cotton-polyester shirts, or even wrinkle-resistant,) or eating (or touching) pork, or eating (or touching) catfish.

Whoops! There goes the entire economy of Memphis!

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join