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: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao




just figure out how they did it.
and maybe why?



Ya! Ha ha REALLY !




posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: randyvs

No problem and thanks for listening to those posters.

Here is what I think what you meant in the OP -

Premise #1: The Biblical Flood occurred (you believe that)
Premise #2: The Bible is true
(your interpretation of it - Creationism especially)
Premise #3: The Earth is only 6,000 to 100,000 years old.

Evidence #1: Mankind had in possession of high technlogy before the flood right after the Earth was created.
"Evidence" #2: Flood occurred (Premise #1) washing away any evidence of technology right after Mankind just started.

Therefore the Evolution Theory is wrong.

Is this the gist of what you are trying to explain in the OP?



You've got everything right except the part after, " No problem".


I'm kidding of course. But I don't really prescribe to any earth age.
Other than that, hey, good call.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Denying evolution in this day and age is equivalent to insisting the world is flat. Evolution is not a theory anymore.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
We are not the first to achieve these heights of technology. We also had help from others outside of this world. Atlantis, Kumari Kandam, Mu. These civilizations were of high mind and technology. Guess which one we don't display?
edit on 19-5-2014 by Oannes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
"But in reality, AA theory and creationism are virtually the same thing. "

How are they the same thing?

I can see how it would be so 1000 years into the future.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: randyvs

No problem and thanks for listening to those posters.

Here is what I think what you meant in the OP -

Premise #1: The Biblical Flood occurred (you believe that)
Premise #2: The Bible is true
(your interpretation of it - Creationism especially)
Premise #3: The Earth is only 6,000 to 100,000 years old.

Evidence #1: Mankind had in possession of high technlogy before the flood right after the Earth was created.
"Evidence" #2: Flood occurred (Premise #1) washing away any evidence of technology right after Mankind just started.

Therefore the Evolution Theory is wrong.

Is this the gist of what you are trying to explain in the OP?



You've got everything right except the part after, " No problem".


I'm kidding of course. But I don't really prescribe to any earth age.
Other than that, hey, good call.


It doesn't matter if you believe the earth ages or not. You are trying to debunk something with a carving that was made only a fraction of the time that scientists say humans in their current form have been on earth. So if you don't believe the scientists' account, you have to debunk THEIR account of things, not just make up your own version of things and debunk that.

But hey let's look at the pictures more carefully here. First you say that these things were chiseled out like 12000 years ago. Well I hope that you don't believe the YEC account of the bible, because you just disproved it. But it seems you are also going on about a global flood. Would you care to explain why there isn't any evidence in your pictures of dead sea life or signs that those rocks were under water? If we have some rocks that were supposedly carved 12000 years ago, they predate the supposed global flood. Therefore they were under water when the flood occurred. Therefore there should be evidence of those objects having been submerged for a length of time. So if anything, your pictures do a better job of debunking YOUR position and not so much evolution (not that they do a good job of that either, just trying to put things in perspective).



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: mahatche




I think the evidence for evolution is so strong, that placing the validation of your religion against it isn't in your best interests if you wish to stay religious.


I'm not at all worried about that. And this isn't
at all my first trip thru the ATS meat grinder I've
subjected myself unto. So the abuse is in for thought
and I even welcome it when it's done with taste and
humor. I make it a practice to try and see things
differently and will take a beating if that's what ensues.

Why would I troll for that?

At any rate it's all good. I make it a point to acknowledge
my handicapp, never hold any grudges, I post my thoughts
and let the #### fly. If that offends follow my example and
get over it, would be my attitude.

A WTF coma!




posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
Denying evolution in this day and age is equivalent to insisting the world is flat. Evolution is not a theory anymore.


Ya, because it's so easy to see it happening around us every day.
Or was that God?

(Shrugs)

a reply to: Krazysh0t


just trying to put things in perspective).


And yet another way of saying it would be:

in your own perspective.
edit on Ram51914v262014u51 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Rocks do not evolve.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: damwel
Denying evolution in this day and age is equivalent to insisting the world is flat. Evolution is not a theory anymore.


Ya, because it's so easy to see it happening around us every day.
Or was that God?

(Shrugs)

a reply to: Krazysh0t


just trying to put things in perspective).


And yet another way of saying it would be:

in your own perspective.


Well me and the rest of the world who follow traditional rules of logic. But I've got an idea, if my perspective is flawed, how about you point out where my reasoning is lacking? I mean I'm still trying to understand how you can make a jump from saying that a rock was carved 12,000 years ago and that disproves evolution even though evolution says that man has been evolved to his current form for the past ~200,000 years. Last time I checked 200,000 > 12,000. So where is the discrepancy?

Heck if we assume that it takes roughly 6,000 - 12,000 years for humans to develop technologically to our point or similar points, out of 200,000 years, we could have reached this technological point 16 - 33 times already. Now if you could find evidence of a rock carved millions of years ago by humans THEN we may have something, but that may just mean we have to push humans' evolutionary line back some. It still may not definitively disprove evolution.
edit on 19-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I knew as soon as I read the excerpt this was going to be a great thread. By great, I mean a comical thread. What a shocker, a zealot that doesn't believe in evolution, and then connects one thing that has nothing to do with the other as proof.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I thought I had to use the bathroom but couldn't go once I got there. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Kennedy murder was a setup.

This is the same sort of reasoning that you are using. They are not related in any way, shape or form and the stretches to say that the photographs disprove evolution are such an extreme to the point that it works against your argument instead of for it.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Memetic evolution right before our eyes.

I wonder which side will get selected out first.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Most religions have some kind of creation myth, Randy. If evolution is proved false, does that mean all those religions are true?


Never mind the similarities that point to one actually
being the truth. Darwins idea makes living far more comfy for all of us.

See why I don't listen to or like, what you people have to say?
No.1 reason, it's self serving. 2. It doesn't make a lick of sense in
the grand scheme. So you deflect by trying to show how creation
is flawed. I don't buy it. It's non sense that makes non sense out of
every sensible thing our Father in Heaven has done for us, in an all to
sensible way. Exampled perfectly right here on ATS and in this very thread.


edit on Rpm51914v192014u30 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
Denying evolution in this day and age is equivalent to insisting the world is flat. Evolution is not a theory anymore.

It may serve you well to read the quote you selected diplay at the bottom of each of your post.
With that quote in mind, please read what you have written above...........
See the problem?
Even the theory of "relativity" is still a theory.
The "theory of evolution" does not explain diversity on this planet any better that creation and adaptation.
We were given the ability to adapt and we do just that.
Quad



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: randyvs

Rocks do not evolve.


Rocks do not evolve and there for, creation is a myth.

Logical riciprocation?
edit on Rpm51914v462014u21 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
It may serve you well to read the quote you selected diplay at the bottom of each of your post.
With that quote in mind, please read what you have written above...........
See the problem?
Even the theory of "relativity" is still a theory.
The "theory of evolution" does not explain diversity on this planet any better that creation and adaptation.
We were given the ability to adapt and we do just that.
Quad


It may serve you well to.....ahh enough with the pomposity......just read this and realise how incorrect and just plain wrong that entire post was.


edit on 19-5-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



Never mind the similarities that point to one actually being the truth. Darwins idea makes living far more comfy for all of us. See why I don't listen to or like, what you people have to say? No.1 reason, it's self serving. 2. It doesn't make a lick of sense in the grand scheme. So you deflect by trying to show how creation is flawed. I don't buy it. It's non sense that makes non sense out of every sensible thing our Father in Heaven has done for us, in an all to sensible way. Exampled perfectly right here on ATS and in this very thread.


I'm a tad confused, could you humour me and answer a few questions for clarity?

Can you explain your statement that Darwin's ideas make living more comfortable? Perhaps you could also explain the inference that religion makes life more uncomfortable? Could you also expand the idea that religion is not self serving.

What is it exactly about evolution you are defying? Is it purely the idea that man came from a less complex organism, or is it the idea that all life came from less complex organisms? Why do you believe that God in all his authority and power could not come up with a mechanism for change?

What is the purpose of man in your mind? Did God create us simply to worship/love him? Does not the fact that the mind of man can counter his heart lend credence to idea of evolution? That to choose the opposite of why are here is evidence in itself that we are evolving?

Or is your argument purely one of disdain for a man who so many put unwarranted faith in?

If you choose to ignore this post, that's fine, as you're arguments so far seem based solely in the realm of faith and not truth and that, by your own statements, nullifies your point.

I'll restate: God, creation and evolution are not conflicting theories. To pit them against each other is to miss the forests for the trees. You belittle the idea of God when you believe that man is a static entity.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




IF Oilantaytambo dates back to at least 12,000 yrs. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Randy can you tell me how you came up with 12,000 years? I have been reading a little about the site, but I haven't found any website that dates it at 12,000 years old.

Now I do know humans have been in the Americas for over 12,000 years we have found some of their remains in places like this Skeleton of 12,000-year-old girl could show where first Americans came from.

I understand you said "IF" but how did you come up with that "what if" scenario? You didn't give us much to go by just two pictures with no links and a couple claims. I would appreciate it if you could clear up where you are coming up with the dating of said ruins and the methods that were used or at least a link to them.



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neil said it better than me so please look below.




top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join