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: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage





my apologies Randy I didn't intend to derail your thread. I'll quietly back out now.


Not at all my good man. If the only thing that comes from this thread
is a prelude to Tadamans thread. I'm far and away good with that.



edit on Rpm51614v56201400000041 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Wholly crap do I owe you an apology. The post I made
about being off topic was not meant for you at all. It
was meant for AK. I do humbly apologize.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I agree, why couldn't there have been an advanced civilization of beings on this planet before us? I think it was a very long time ago though, long enough for most of what they created to dissolve back into the earth. Now a very evolved species would not create plastic that would be a problem for thousands of years. Any metal objects that would resist deterioration would have been recycled and possibly accredited to the creation of a future civilization. There is no way of dating when a gold object was made, except by comparing it to a civilization that possessed similar objects possibly that they found somewhere and collected.

I can see many possible circumstances where the same evidence can apply.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Thanks Ricky, now I don't feel so alienated.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Why would ancient man having more advanced tech than we currently think was possible disprove evolution???


Not just beyond what we think they had, but beyond what we have today was the statement. I am open to this possibility, and if it were true that would defy evolution since in this case we have obviously devolved since then.

Hey Randy, I know the "Christians" haven't jumped on to defend you but I will get behind you on this. You've made a point that no one can really desprove. I know the accepted theory, and I know there is a lot that doesn't fall in line with that. So much of the record has been ignored by those pushing "evolution" and I'm not talking about evolution in it's pure sense, because certainly that is occurring. I'm talking about the 'religion' of evolution. Sorry I jumped on here kind of late...

edit on 5/16/2014 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: wtbengineer



because certainly that is occurring. I'm talking about the 'religion' of evolution.


Excellent obsevation and thank you. Scientifically, I
stand as much chance of disproving evolution, as I do proving Gods
existence to an atheist. I know before hand that I can show what
defies evolution. And then I even have an up hill battle doing that.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
If you believe in the biblical flood and Noah you almost have to believe in evolution as all earth animals could not come close to fitting on the ark. So explain the bio diversity around the world.

Could a Earthquake do the damage observed?
edit on 16-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

This world is divided up into two camps. I know this is off topic, but you can never persuade anyone who's mind is set. I think the task is to take the message to those who've not yet heard and in this day and age there's no one left. The job has been done.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire



If you believe in the biblical flood and Noah you almost have to believe in evolution as all earth animals could not come close to fitting on the ark. So explain the bio diversity around the world.


Dragon please, try to envision a time when God, capable of all things,
was actually still interceding with men. Even after the flood. The Bible
accounts for all this historically and has been put aside purposefully
to be rendered impotent. That's the truth of what has been going on
here.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
I'll say it so you can't eacape understanding.
The marks in the rock disprove evolution if they don't fit
the theory. Period. Now what? Make em fit ?


The longer I try to follow the posts in this thread (CRINGING, I admit)...the more I get the impression you mistake "evolution" with "our current interpretation of man's history".

Are you aware there is a GIANT difference of what evolution is as compared to our records/understanding of history?
Otherwise I simply cannot explain your bizarre reasoning since (and I am sorry to say that) your OP has NOTHING to do with evolution, at all...neither do some theories of the AA and still unexplained feats of what people did in past-gone times prove the validity of the Bible. Concluding from missing evidence/understanding of HOW people allegedly made things in the past (eg. cutting stone with still unknown techniques) to the "flood" and then validity of the bible is an extreme stretch of wishful thinking.
edit on 5/16/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
haven't seen any other explanation, tho.

maybe homer simpson did it.

all i've seen is "no!"

lol.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Chronogoblin

I guess I always thought to ancient advanced civilizations. It was more of a childhood day dream theme I liked. I have always liked history and ALL mythology and read as much as I could about it. I also just read allot of the bible and had allot of it read to me. After a while you see a pattern. A science article here, a conversation picking at a persons mind there, and eventually it all makes sense. The hunch turns into a nagging feeling which forces you to look deeper.

As far as neanderthal, I always thought that they seemed to be pretty awesome. I started out looking into them just trying to prove how wrong we were about them. I may be part neanderthal...lol I get pretty pissed when I hear people make them out to be dumb cave people.

It all started out as childhood fancy. The more I learned, the more I realized that the kid in me was onto something so I just kept an eye out for relevant information. Eventually one thing lead to another.

I may be horribly wrong, though I feel it in my gut that I am not. I have found more people who agree with me though, so its been nice to see these ideas develop independently.

I hope that answers your question.

have a good one.

EDIT:
Oh, yeti....

I think they are just another race of hominid. We live side by side with countless primates today, sentient beings that we are. I dont see why that wasnt always true. I would think there have been many more types of "modern" man than we would even like to admit. We may just be one of many sharing this planet at any given point in history.


edit on 5 17 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
So here is a question surrounding a scenario...

As a species we develop to a point where we take our environment past a livable state.

On mass we shift back a more basic way of life.


Would that be considered evolution or De-evolution.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Did you miss this maybe?




And as far as your own beliefs about such matters I have no problem.
But I believe if mans history is more cyclical than linear. It definitely
works full bore in the defiance of evolutionary theory.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: wtbengineer

Not just beyond what we think they had, but beyond what we have today was the statement. I am open to this possibility, and if it were true that would defy evolution since in this case we have obviously devolved since then.


No, it wouldn't mean that at all. Some of you really don't have a very clear understanding of Evolutionary Theory. Not that I'm an expert or anything, but some of you need to do some reading.

Evolution is not measured by the level or degree of our Technological Progression. It is also not as simple as Evolution in one direction and Devolution in the opposite. It's about adaptation and selection and survival. For example there are some creatures that haven't shown any type of change in thousands of years or more because they haven't needed to adapt to survive.

Back to the technological side of it though. That has nothing to do with natural evolution. In fact we could evolve, for example, in a way which we would no longer require much of our technology anymore and might just discard it. In fact just because we have really cool tech today could either help or hinder our evolutionary progress depending upon it's influence. Even then, changes in Evolution aren't really considered to be simply positive or negative, they are just changes.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Even then, changes in Evolution aren't really considered to be simply positive or negative, they are just changes.


Well then where does this fit in what with what you're saying?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: mOjOm




Even then, changes in Evolution aren't really considered to be simply positive or negative, they are just changes.


Well then where does this fit in what with what you're saying?


Personally I would put that in the "Highly Theoretical" verging on "Fringe" section of Evolutionary Changes of Humans. I say that because it's dealing with attraction which is very subjective. However, I'll play along for now.

Attractive traits in today's world may in fact allow Men to have more possible chances to have offspring versus the historical advantages of strength or health. But I also think there are many different variables to consider besides just how attractive you are. Especially when you consider that how sexy a guy is has only a slight influence to his ability to mate. There are other much more important reasons why a woman would choose a man for procreation. Plus, in today's world, with the increased chances of STD's, the quantity of partners may actually not be an advantage when compared to the quality of partners. That of course is just off the top of my head, but could be an interesting idea when you think about it.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
You say that you are against evoloution, yet you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word let alone the concept of evoloution.
Some people do make you question evoloution, maybe some just aren't as far along...



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: moonrunner

You're right I don't understand evoloution.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
So what your saying is, you do not think that these things could have been done with the technology of ancient man, despite the fact we see they managed to do these things all over the world all the time. So they must have had much more advanced technology than they did, so they got it from aliens or something. Then there was a flood and it washed away the advanced technology. I have no idea how you fit evolution in all that.

So a real life example would be that the Romans had advanced technology and when Rome fell that technology was lost. The people who lived after could not figure how the Romans had managed many things so often made up myths and tales about how they did so. In time civilization recovered and understood and surpassed those levels. Again nothing to do with evolution but, a real historical event that is similar to your claim of lost technology.




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join