Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

page: 34
39
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I think I covered that in the "etc"







posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Well at least it's encouraging to see that you have no response at all to any of my points and have essentially given up on your ridiculous argument, despite being too proud to admit it directly. Hopefully you have learned for the future that if you want to make a thread about the bible, name it based on the bible instead of some false premise about evolution. This way all rational folks that understand science won't have to even open it.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
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


All you asked me is if it was possible. You didn't ask me if it was accurate or reliable. That is moving the goalposts. I knew you'd try to use this cop out lol. You still haven't held up your end of the bargain and explained why rock carvings are relevant to evolution.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Im not saying it is.

Im trying to keep the debates honest

You said rock carvings could be dated

They cant

And for the record I never moved the posts

You just found that honest bone and probably read the link u provided and realized u were wrong

If something isnt accurate or reliable the its not useable as a defence

Aka u moving goal poats. Since I proved your statement wrong,and u cant be wrong, u simply say that ANY date is ok as long as it fits with your preconceived notion

U can pigeon hole the carvings but not me



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

No I provided a link that shows how scientists date rock carvings. That is what you asked for. YOU started telling me that it wasn't reliable and some such. All you asked for is if it was possible.

Here is your original question:

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So can u date rock carvings?

Yes ir no


I gave you a link that shows that, yes, you can date rock carvings. So everything you are saying is moving the goal posts. Whether the dating method is indirect or not is irrelevant. If you wanted to know if it was DIRECTLY possible to date rock carvings, you should have asked that, but you didn't. The fact is that it is possible (indirectly) and that is the answer to your question.

But AGAIN tell me how rock carvings are relevant to evolution!
edit on 11-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol @ u

Yiur reading and comprehension skills are lacking

A . I did answer your question

Its the first line of my last post

But so u dont have to admitt u were wrong ....

You know what

Never mind you are just talking circles

Rock carvings cant be dated

Yiur own links tells you as much

If u can't admitt it thats yiur problem



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Alright whatever, you don't know how to ask questions correctly. I don't care. Moving on.

ONE MORE TIME:

What does rock carvings have to do with evolution?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Another_Nut

Alright whatever, you don't know how to ask questions correctly. I don't care. Moving on.

ONE MORE TIME:

What does rock carvings have to do with evolution?


Argh yiur reading comprehension is gone

Here let me quote myself



A . I did answer your question 

Its the first line of my last post



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Then what is the big deal? Who cares about this topic? It's stupid.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Another_Nut

Then what is the big deal? Who cares about this topic? It's stupid.
i

To quote myself again

" im just trying to keep the debate honest"


Maybe u should work on yoour reading skills



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Well as long as we are attacking each other's skill sets, how about working on your typing and spelling skills?

If you truly wanted to keep the debate honest, you'd side with us since rock carvings (REGARDLESS of when they are or aren't dated to) have ZERO to do with evolution. THAT is keeping the debate honest. Arguing semantics on direct, indirect, or slotting time spans is ALL irrelevant and a waste of time since this topic is a complete waste of time.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Typing on a phone that is two sizes to small for my fingers....

And autocorrect doesnt help.

But in order to keep people honest u have to start somewhere.

I would have moved on to other posts but it seems trying to get either side to admitt when they are wrong is neigh impossible

So both sides of this debate are just nutters in my mind

Since both sides have no qualms making unsubstantiated claims

If u had just admitted that the carvings are undateable I would have moved on

But pride on this site often gets in the way of truth



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Here's what I'll admit. Rock carvings can't be DIRECTLY dated, but we can indirectly date them as I showed with the link. The reason that we end up with time range is because of the indirect dating. It is STILL dating the rock carving though.

I think you just wanted to argue with me since you knew this whole OP was a HUGE strawman from the beginning and didn't have a platform to launch your argument from, so you latched onto the possibility of dating rock carvings.
edit on 11-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Just sick of going in circles. I'm dizzy.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I hear ya, but that's kind of what happens when you won't address counterpoints. You never get past stage one of the argument. It'll only go in circles if you let it.
edit on 11-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

All the facts in the world don't make you right.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

All the facts in the world don't make you right.



...but they sure can make YOU wrong....




posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

All the facts in the world don't make you right.



Right about what? All I'm saying is that your pictures from the OP have nothing to do with biological evolution whatsoever and you refuse to even explain how any of it has anything at all to do with evolution. It doesn't. Bottom line. Every reason you give is repetition of your original claim, which is why it goes in circles. You haven't explained anywhere how or why those things conflict with the theory of evolution or it's timeline. You admitted that you were outmatched as far as knowledge of evolution goes, yet still cling to your faulty premise. All I'm asking is that you admit this fault and move on or explain what you are really talking about here by "evolution."

edit on 24-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join