Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darwinism; What a Fake

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


But it's the archaeologist that find the stuff that says otherwise. I mean, do we really know what happened back then?

Most would say yes and go with the idea of evolution, others would say no and keeps searching, and some would say yes and go off an artifact that could kill the idea of evolution.

Ok, now this one, really boils my blood.

Off the coast of Peru, near Puna, there is a garden, what was in it, were sculptures, The garden was called the Gold Gardens. What was so special about it? Everything in it.



Every living thing was reproduced in gold and silver models. Trees,
even to the roots, and lesser plants with leaves, flowers and fruit fashioned
in natural size and style; some ready to sprout, others half-grown or in full
blossom.

Golden birds sat perched on silver trees, as if singing, while others were
flying and sucking honey from flowers.

Whole fields of maize were imitated—roots, stalk, flowers and cob; the
beard of the husk in gold, the rest in silver.

Other plants were similarly treated—a flower or anything of a yellow
tint in real life was done in gold, the other parts in silver. From the trees
hung nuggets of fruit.

Nothing remained uncopied: rabbits, foxes, mice, lizards, lions, tigers,
stags, snakes. All were set in their natural surroundings to enhance reality.
And as if that were not enough, golden butterflies flitted around in the
breeze.

Life-size fish, ropes, hampers, baskets, bins and even woodpiles for
burning were all fashioned in gold and silver, soldered together.

Such gardens, would you believe, graced all royal residences.


Why are they not there anymore? Spanish Conquers took them and melted them.

So if people come to me and say we were dumb apes, then explain this. Why was such a beauty as those garden there? And who made them?




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   


Look at how we all look the same at the early stages of being a embrio.
Here is more you can read about it.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


and do you know anything that happened within those 4.5 million years?

At least I do. Man was there, along with dinosaurs, and we had a grand life.

But seeing that you don't want to learn what happened back then, I believe it's best to leave you to your books written by lab rats.

Cheers, mate.
edit on 23-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 




Fortunately it isn't actually catching tho!



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


How come we have not found human fossils with the dinosaur ones then? in the same layers of the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic periods where we find dinosaur fossils.
A grand life? even If true how do you know this? I imagine It would have been blooming scary as fick.
edit on 23-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


History is a knowledge of the past based on testimony.

Look over the Book yourself.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


and do you know anything that happened within those 4.5 million years?

At least I do. Man was there, along with dinosaurs, and we had a grand life.

But seeing that you don't want to learn what happened back then, I believe it's best to leave you to your books written by lab rats.

Cheers, mate.
edit on 23-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)


Erm, whut? Eh? Man co-existed with dinosaurs? Please provide a single scrap of evidence for this.... remarkable statement, because as far as I know everything I've read (big papery things filled with things called facts) says that we evolved over the past 3 million years, but the dinosaurs died off about 66 million years ago.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


History is a knowledge of the past based on testimony.

Look over the Book yourself.


No, it's based on facts. Verifiable, testable facts. Dateable facts as well.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


But it's the archaeologist that find the stuff that says otherwise.

There have never been any archaeological or palaeontological discoveries that contradicted the theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course, you wouldn't know that from reading creationist books and web sites, which are full of stories about Paluxy dinosaur tracks and such-like. But those stories aren't true, and the claims made by creationists about them are false.


I mean, do we really know what happened back then?

Not in detail, obviously (and we never will), but there is a broad narrative as well as a wealth of detail that arises clearly enough from the observed facts. It leaves no room for doubt that Earth is very ancient, that life emerged upon it billions of years ago, and has been evolving to attain its present diversity of form ever since.

About this:


Off the coast of Peru, near Puna, there is a garden... Why was such a beauty as those garden there? And who made them?

I suppose you found it here. Why do you believe it? It cites no sources and is full of obvious errors. There is no town or island in Peru known as Puna – it is a region. The name of the town is Puno. The location of Tartessus, a western Mediterranean port referred to in some ancient writings, is unknown (though it was probably near the mouth of the Guadalqivir river in Spain) and there is not a smudge of evidence to tell us that ships from the New World ever put in there – or anywhere else in the Old World – until after 1492.

Yes, there was a courtyard in pre-Colombian Peru full of golden artworks. It was known as the Coricancha or Qurikancha and it was in landlocked Cuzco. It was part of the principal temple of the Inca empire, so it is was a very special place – there were no 'courtyards like it up and down the land' as your source claims. And yes, the Spaniards did take the gold away and melt it down – gold was one reason why they were in the New World in the first place. Where did it go? It went to Spain (if it didn't go to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean or into a pirate's purse) and from Spain it spread around the Old World. Most of it probably still exists, in the form of coin, bullion, jewellery and so on, to this day.

But what makes you think all this signifies the existence of some ancient, forgotten civilisation? The Incas themselves were capable of fine gold work, and it is safe to assume that they were the creators of the Qurikancha. Inca civilisation is far from ancient – their empire got its start only five hundred years or so before the Spanish arrived – but before the Incas, there were earlier peoples – there are remains dating back five thousand years in Peru, though evidence of gold working only appears after the time of Christ. We know that there have human beings in the New World for around 20,000 years, maybe longer, so there was plenty of time for gold mining and working to develop. Where is the mystery in all of this?

But I see that you have put your cards on the table now, and they proclaim that the truth of history is based on some science-fictionalised version of fundamentalist Christianity. If that is what you really believe, then no amount of reasoning with you is going to change your mind, is it?

edit on 24/7/13 by Astyanax because: of the Guadalquivir.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
There have never been any archaeological or palaeontological discoveries that contradicted the theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course, you wouldn't know that from reading creationist books and web sites, which are full of stories about Paluxy dinosaur tracks and such-like. But those stories aren't true, and the claims made by creationists about them are false.


Kind of makes you wonder about the folks who can so easily ratinoalise not following "Do not lie"......perhaps they can't count as high as the 9th commandment??




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


It's art. I'm a person that has an appreciation for art.

But dark art, is what I don't want in my life. Dark arts involve killing, so I'll drop it right there.

Anyone who doesn't have such appreciation for art, is less than a slave.

I mean, would you burn a piece of paper?

Then later you realized that the piece of paper you burn was the "Mona Lisa" The multimillion $$$ artifact of Da Vinci's work, and it was the last one.

So, when I read this, I think about that.



I suppose you found it here. Why do you believe it? It cites no sources and is full of obvious errors. There is no town or island in Peru known as Puna – it is a region. The name of the town is Puno. The location of Tartessus, a western Mediterranean port referred to in some ancient writings, is unknown (though it was probably near the mouth of the Guadalqivir river in Spain) and there is not a smudge of evidence to tell us that ships from the New World ever put in there – or anywhere else in the Old World – until after 1492.

Yes, there was a courtyard in pre-Colombian Peru full of golden artworks. It was known as the Coricancha or Qurikancha and it was in landlocked Cuzco. It was part of the principal temple of the Inca empire, so it is was a very special place – there were no 'courtyards like it up and down the land' as your source claims. And yes, the Spaniards did take the gold away and melt it down – gold was one reason why they were in the New World in the first place. Where did it go? It went to Spain (if it didn't go to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean or into a pirate's purse) and from Spain it spread around the Old World. Most of it probably still exists, in the form of coin, bullion, jewellery and so on, to this day.

But what makes you think all this signifies the existence of some ancient, forgotten civilisation? The Incas themselves were capable of fine gold work, and it is safe to assume that they were the creators of the Qurikancha. Inca civilisation is far from ancient – their empire got its start only five hundred years or so before the Spanish arrived – but before the Incas, there were earlier peoples – there are remains dating back five thousand years in Peru, though evidence of gold working only appears after the time of Christ. We know that there have human beings in the New World for around 20,000 years, maybe longer, so there was plenty of time for gold mining and working to develop. Where is the mystery in all of this?

But I see that you have put your cards on the table now, and they proclaim that the truth of history is based on some science-fictionalised version of fundamentalist Christianity. If that is what you really believe, then no amount of reasoning with you is going to change your mind, is it?



The reason why you never heard such findings is because they are silenced. Which means digging in the right places, the dimmest places of them all.

I don't focus on the brightest to those kind of books, only the ones who people will pay to be silenced.

And no, that is not where I found such a source. It would be more of a compilation of sources. Same author, different book, "Dead Man Secrets." But that is the thing about gold mining, mind what you say.

How did they get it? Some gold was, in your term, impossible without certain procedures.

Creationist fact? That is a load coming from someone who hasn't read the book. If you don't know who the man is, then a person has no right to taunt that person or the person who said such writings from their point of view. If they do, they do it in Dishonor.

But, going off of a book call "Etidorhpa" publisher "John Uri Lloyd"


Man's mind is a creature of doubts and questions. Answer one query, and another arises. His inner self is never satisfied, and you are not to be blame for wishing for a sign.


(Referance, Etidorhpa, John Uri Llyod, Chapter 24, Page 168)

In other words, it's okay. I acknowledge your doubt, and I cannot cure it. Only you can. If you ask for evidence, I just point the direction. Nothing else.

Last thing, if you'll please.



Not in detail, obviously (and we never will), but there is a broad narrative as well as a wealth of detail that arises clearly enough from the observed facts. It leaves no room for doubt that Earth is very ancient, that life emerged upon it billions of years ago, and has been evolving to attain its present diversity of form ever since.


Ok, Metal. What do we know about it today? Rough and hard with some, soft and smooth with others, and over a hundred of others in between. There are hundreds of ways to harvest them, and a thousand ways to shape them.

But to some, they are not willing to admit that they, in the past, were better. I mean, super-heat furnaces, some found in USA that can reach 9000 degrees Celsius and another in Peru can reach 1773 degrees Celsius.

And what else? Steel Tweezers (Armenia, 2500 B.C), Hardened bronze that is equal to high-grade steel (THAILAND, 3000 B.C.). The list goes on. We are not smart, I'll give everyone that.

When we think we are, we are not. And because of that, pride steps in and says, "We are smart! W do not need help from those who came before us!"

A.G. Bell. One who started the telephone because he focused on the past invention.


The old devices have been reinvented.


Frederick Soddy



He wondered whether the ancients might “not only have attained our present knowledge, but a power hitherto unmastered by us.”


Learn from the past, make the future better.



He who controls the Past, controls the Future.

He who controls the Present, controls the Past.

-George Orwell


Thank you sir.
edit on 24-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: Incomplete



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Your dinosaur idea, How?

No, it wasn't a asteroid, if so, we're dead, all of us, dead. Because it would be like shooting a .45 caliber at supersonic speeds, 200 feet away, at a solid dirt ball. Usually everything goes BOOM when that happens.




No, it's based on facts. Verifiable, testable facts. Dateable facts as well.


Then you don't know.

Instead of dismissing this, in your words, "A lairs book." Read it for a change.

Because the saying, "Never judge a book by it's cover." Holds true for everyone, including me and you.

But since you are so adamant on saying, "It's a lairs book." might as well, point you in the direction.

Page 84.

Feel free to read it or don't.
edit on 24-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   


The universe could not have begun itself. EVOLUTION SAYS matter and energy created itself from nothing.


You say god appeared from nothing, what's the difference?

I think we are going to find that existence has no beginning and no end, and thus no need for a creator god.

I like the brane multiverse theory, which basically says there are many universes (branes) and sometimes they pop into or out of existence like a bubble, but there are always universes in existence somewhere so existence is infinite.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


I'm wondering if this guy is actually just the world's best Poe?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


In the beginning, there was The Word.

If it begins with The Word, then it'll end with The Word.



I think we are going to find that existence has no beginning and no end, and thus no need for a creator god.


Ah, you forgot, 1st law of thermodynamics, what was it agian? You can't start something with nothing.

Because it'll be like digging through a planet one after another, one after another, just to find 1 answer. It's long, hard, tedious, so most give up.



I like the brane multiverse theory, which basically says there are many universes (branes) and sometimes they pop into or out of existence like a bubble, but there are always universes in existence somewhere so existence is infinite.


Can't. Theory isn't law. Realms, yes. That's law, because it can be traced. And the rule, "As above, so below" states it.

Also, there are no two identical designs. If that was false, then yes, Brane Multiverse Theory would be true.

Cheers. mate.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Your dinosaur idea, How?

No, it wasn't a asteroid, if so, we're dead, all of us, dead. Because it would be like shooting a .45 caliber at supersonic speeds, 200 feet away, at a solid dirt ball. Usually everything goes BOOM when that happens.




No, it's based on facts. Verifiable, testable facts. Dateable facts as well.


Then you don't know.

Instead of dismissing this, in your words, "A lairs book." Read it for a change.

Because the saying, "Never judge a book by it's cover." Holds true for everyone, including me and you.

But since you are so adamant on saying, "It's a lairs book." might as well, point you in the direction.

Page 84.

Feel free to read it or don't.
edit on 24-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)


Ah, I see. You have no idea at all do you, and I'm guessing that you're not going to bother to find out more. By the way, two small points. I think you mean 'liars' and not 'lairs'. There's a big difference between the two. Secondly I have an O-level in Scripture. All that bible study made me become an atheist, because I realised that it was all a load of honk.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Is it?

It doesn't matter, in fact, Interesting guy, just like you. More like two people, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton a famous English journalist, I found their stories... interesting.

Both atheist and skeptics. And both with a set intention to destroy Christianity.

They agreed that to destroy it, two things were necessary:

1. They must prove that Jesus never rose from the tomb.

2. They must prove that Saul of Tarsus, a hired assassin
and killer, and fiercely anti-christian, was never
converted to Christianity.

Their stories were interesting, and their journeys...Thrilling.

But I'll leave it there.

Nothing more to talk about,


Cheri-O.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Is it?

It doesn't matter, in fact, Interesting guy, just like you. More like two people, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton a famous English journalist, I found their stories... interesting.

Both atheist and skeptics. And both with a set intention to destroy Christianity.

They agreed that to destroy it, two things were necessary:

1. They must prove that Jesus never rose from the tomb.

2. They must prove that Saul of Tarsus, a hired assassin
and killer, and fiercely anti-christian, was never
converted to Christianity.

Their stories were interesting, and their journeys...Thrilling.

But I'll leave it there.

Nothing more to talk about,


Cheri-O.


Erm, you don't have anyone more modern you can mention?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Freedom go to this thread and explain the vid please.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tells us how the US court has said ID is not science and explains many questions you have asked.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


By the way, I find it interesting that you somehow equate trying to find out more about Jesus and if he existed (which is something of a tricky proposition given the lack of evidence outside the Bible) with 'destroying Christianity'. Burn down many churches did they?






top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join