Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

originally posted by: randyvs
The flood that sheared of the top of the rock hillside.

There was no flood.

4,350 years ago (bible date approx 2350 BC) there was no global flood that took over the entire planet leaving only a single boat floating around which contained two pair of every critter on the planet ... critters who made their own way there and made their own way back to where ever they came from ... as well as contained 3 pair of reproducing humans. You could move the date back to 20,000 bc (as some people try to claim) and the genetics still wouldn't work.

If Noahs Ark happened .. then this 80,000 year old tree colony wouldn't have survived.
PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.

a reply to: randyvs

I guess what I fail to understand here is why you feel that an ancient civilization that existed in pre-history is evidence against evolution?

If you look at Göbekli Tepe, the site dates to about 10,000 BC and has pretty much re-written what archaeologists thought people were capable of at that time: en.wikipedia.org...

Yet this in no way invalidates the theory of evolution. Even if there were a truly advanced society that existed in even earlier times (and there is some evidence to suggest this may have been the case) how does this "prove" evolution never occurred? Why doesn't it simply mean that our timeline is pushed back, and that a certain group of people evolved enough to produce superior technology to other people of that time? Take for example the europeans when they encountered native people living in North America. The two cultures had evolved alongside each other in different parts of the world over thousands of years yet one group possessed superior technology to the other.

I guess I just don't see how this invalidates the theory of evolution at all. Additionally, if you concede that these cultures existed in pre-history and created these large stone structures, then it pretty much invalidates the biblical narrative of early genesis as interpreted by young earth creationists, since if you trace history back solely on the generations listed in the bible, Adam would have lived around 5000 BC at the earliest. Who then, were the people building these structures nearly 5000 years prior?

Clearly there is a disconnect somewhere along the line, and this is demonstrable when we consider that many of the stories in early portions of Genesis are based on older myths from Mesopotamia (where/whence Abraham is said to have come from in the bible) and even older still, Sumeria. Does this necessarily invalidate the bible completely? No. But it does force us to reinterpret the biblical narrative in light of modern archaeology.

Also, one more very interesting thing to consider is the story of Cain and Abel found in Genesis chapter 4. Shortly after Cain slays his brother, Genesis reports his punishment:

Genesis 4:10-17
King James Version (KJV)
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

There are 3 very interesting pieces of information contained in this story:

1) Cain is afraid that he will be killed by other people. If Adam and Eve and their two sons are the only people on the earth at that time, who is Cain afraid of? Clearly there are other people.

2) Cain leaves Eden and travels East to the land of Nod. There, he lies with his wife and has a son (Enoch). This would seem to suggest that Cain met his wife in Nod, not in Eden, thus implying there were other people there.

3) Cain proceeds to build a city in Nod. If he and his wife are the only people in Nod (after leaving Eden), how would he build a city? It takes a large number of people to build a city and dwell in it. Clearly there were other people on the earth other than Adam and Eve, even according to the bible.

cool thread bro...hey, let's look at some manipulated inanimate objects and extrapolate form that an argument against a fact of life: EVOLUTION

FAIL

Having looked at the pictures, the question still remains, how does pictures of cut stone equate as proof that evolution does not exist?

There are many things that the ancient prehistorical societies did, that even now we are rediscovering. Mesoamerican natives were known to trepan a skull and the person survived, ancient doctors were proficient with the tools of surgery and the patients survived. Even more technological feats were shown to be accomplished, yet this has no bearing on the evolution what so ever. It is however a mark of civilization.

a reply to: randyvs

Nothing explains the age of the ruins of the city
beneath what the Incas built. Nor the grooves, nor
the sheared off mountainside occuring post giant
block carvings.

Randy your link doesn't give any evidence for the age of the ruins under the city. By their own words they admit they could be a few thousand years older than 1440 AD. A "few" may equal 2 or 3 thousand years difference but certainly not 10 thousand. They made a claim that it is obvious that some ruins are 12,000 years old but gave absolutely nothing for evidence to back that up.

As far as the sheared off mountainside that is actually real easy to explain. As I said when I was trying to figure out how you got the 12,000 year date I was reading up on the archeological site and almost every source will tell you that the area is plagued with earthquakes, all it would take is a single hairline fracture from carving out the stone and one earthquake later it would shear off. Mystery solved on that I am afraid. As far as what was sheared off it may be laying nearby after rolling down the mountain or they could have hauled it off as building material.

I am far more interested in the archeological dating methods of the site and article you are sourcing than the evolution bit. It doesn't seem the article can hold up to much scrutiny, but I still like stuff like this.

I guess someone doesn't know as much about evolution as they thought. I'm glad we're here to rectify that. And by the way, just posting two pictures and declaring a conclusion before further discussion even has a chance to take place is not science, it is assumption. Which is the opposite of science. But like I said, we're more than happy to fix that for you.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I guess someone doesn't know as much about evolution as they thought.

That same someone doesn't even know what kind of person would
want to know about it.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I guess someone doesn't know as much about evolution as they thought.

That same someone doesn't even know what kind of person would
want to know about it.

Not sure what you just said, but okay.

I believe the rock could be carved that way by hand, using some harder rock, perhaps on a stick, to rub against the surface until it was ground away in that pattern. Just a theory of course, and i don't know many people who would spend that much time to create such a thing.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You are correct. There are a couple of mentions of other "peoples" or groups mentioned in the Bible.

For one Lilith was at one time a real part of the Genesis story, a tale that we see as happening one day after another when in reality it is referring to different ages. In fact most of the OT can be understood like this.

Lilith rebuked Adam for wanting to be her superior when she saw herself as his equal. It is said she left Adam and birthed a new "people" and was seen as the Matriarch of that society. Her descendants were said to have sprouted from the red sea or near it and were "red". An actual source would be nice I know. I am on my phone food shopping so when I get home I will elaborate on that.

Basically there were others.

Not 2 people on earth, not two of every animal on a boat...ect...

Those are ideas that came about as a result of marginalia errors and translation errors. What we know of the OT varies much from what was originally taught of it. For the best understanding of the OT talk to a Rabi or get a hold of a mechanical translation of the OT from Aramaic, Hebrew to English.

EDIT TO ADD:

www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

Here is a great resource for the Lilith connection to other people and an alternative creation to that of Yahweh. She is borrowed over from Babylonian tales like all of the old testament. She is mentioned more in accompanying texts like the Talmud and such. She isn't really explained much since many of the time were already familiar with her enough. She is said to be Inanna and like her she preyed on young men as a demon and pregnant women since she was made barren as a punishment by some accounts.

originally posted by: randyvs


That same someone doesn't even know what kind of person would
want to know about it.

Well, being that you are arguing against it (evolution) I would hope that YOU would want to know about it!!

Otherwise anything you have to say, for or against it, is completely pointless since you have no knowledge of the subject.

The fact that you would even say that shows you have no interest in knowing the truth about you own topic. You really can't get any more disingenuous than that!!!

One of the worst threads I think I ever read here at ATS. Animals and people have adapted and evolved for over 3 billion years. DNA is the coding that shows how similar we all are and shows that tiny changes in the code makes life evolve and you don't have to be an atheist to realize that as I 100% believe in god just not the one organized religions have created. I really don't know where the op was trying to go with this at all? Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were put here by the devil to deceive us?

a reply to: Slickinfinity

I don't even understand the flags myself really.

a reply to: mOjOm

The fact that you would even say that shows you have no interest in knowing the truth about you own topic. You really can't get any more disingenuous than that!!!

You either understand what I'm getting at, or you don't
But I wish you'd make up my mind.



After a while it becomes like a blonde putting lipstick on her forhead.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: mOjOm

The fact that you would even say that shows you have no interest in knowing the truth about you own topic. You really can't get any more disingenuous than that!!!

You either understand what I'm getting at, or you don't
But I wish you'd make up my mind.

After a while it becomes like a blonde putting lipstick on her forhead.

Well, your response certainly explains how you arrived at your current understanding of evolution. *cough*

a reply to: AfterInfinity

What's to understand?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What's to understand?

That's what we're all trying to figure out...

I thought I would elaborate on my previous post since I am home, caffinated and kind of really into this now.

-Different peoples besides Adam and Eve-

so

There were two creations in the Book of Genesis. The first is mentioned in Chapter 1 and the second in Chapter 2.

God said that he will make man in his image after his likeness (Gen 1:26).
He made mankind male and female after his image. Image and likeness are not the same. The hebrew word /words often used for "creation" describing the earth as empty and void implies a prior judgement and destruction. Genesis is telling us that God judged the prior world and it was left void and empty. That would be a better description following the original wording used. One creation was more like him, the other was just similar to him. A distinction is being made.

God rested on the 7th day after creating everything- or RE-creating it all, rebuilding it all. Again I am just following a mechanical translation of the original words.

There is no exact time referenced beyond saying a "day". The hebrew wording isnt DAY it relates to a passage of time. It should be noted that the Sumerian creation stories were broken up into 7 books of creation. Later the Babylonians adopted the same beliefs for the most part and continued with the 7 book breakdown. Abraham , the patriarch of the Jewish nation was a citizen of the babylonian city of Ur. Much of what the OT says is borrowed from them so 7 days isnt 7 days, but rather 7 time periods as per the wording and the source material. We can infer that much was borrowed since this was the the unified accepted teaching of the time from the most advanced and civilized society of the time. Their influence and reach is seen in many cultures and there is plenty of supporting evidence for this.

anyways, God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. The word used in Hebrew text was formed or fashioned and not created or made. This suggesting that before the fashioning or forming of Adam that there was already something existing physically. Create and recreate are two separate words even to us and connotate a different meaning all together. You were born, not reborn. A car is made, not remade. When we say we "rebuild" something we are expressly saying that it existed before and we simply "reformed it" later. This is the choice of words used in Genesis. Big difference.

Another mention of worth is that there are many creation myths the world over saying something similar. South American cultures believed that humanity was made from the bones of the last age of men when a god snuck into the underworld and stole the bones of the older creation of man to forge him again. The god was put through many tests and he dropped the bones, breaking them and thus when they were reforged the different sized pieces of bones led to different sizes of new mankind.

back to Genesis-

God chose Adam to be a special type of man. He was a son of God having eternal life both spiritually and physically.

He was made explicitly for the care and existence in the Garden of eden, the home of God. Similarly Adapa, the Sumerian /babylonian version of Adam whose name means the same exact thing (red man) was created for that very purpose. The care of the Gods in their home and was to be a prince among men. Set apart from the toil of the others.

The wording used for when God forged Adam implies that the physical material was already there as a version of mankind was created on the 6th day. God endowed Adam with a spiritual side and made him more in Gods LIKENESS AND IMAGE as mentioned in Genesis 5:1, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him." Adam was made LIKE him. Not just in his image. It is also worth mentioning that Adapa (Sumerian Adam) wrote a book for his generations containing all the things the Gods taught him. The word for God-(Elohim) can be plural. I guess that a simplified version of this book was mixed into the OT in genesis.

This all implies a difference between the mankind created on the 6th day and the one forged AFTER the 7th day. The time between "days" between the recreation of mankind on the 6th day and the making of Adam could be a stretch of any amount of time. Years, millenia, what ever we dont know. Adam was LIKE god, while the other mankind already created was just made after his (their) image.

We can say that 6000 years ago during the time of Adam that there were some 7 million people on earth going by genetic evidence.

A literal interpretation is absurd unless you are using a literal translation. The actual wording explicitly supports the evidence we are coming to accept as provided by scientific study. There was a creation already that was judged, destroyed, and then remade. Adam is the main character in the story of a rebuilding of that prior creation and a refinement. IMO Adam was a prince to set a new standard and relaunch civilization. There were others that splintered from this original mission and tried to set up their own relaunch. Lilith was one such person who saw the monopoly on the future of civilization being unfair and tried to set up her own societies.

There were others. Cain was one, Abel was to be the other but he was killed for being given a better standing. Apparently who ever was in charge at the time thought that making one role superior to others would be a good idea. This mentality got Adam /adapa divorced and pitted his blood line against that of his ex-wifes and then got his kid killed in the process for the same reasons. It could have happened all at the same time period and cain could be the son of lilith who killed his brother who was the son of Eve. One royal bloodline killing off the competition...its not that crazy. Abel was going to be the ruler of the new civilized world and cain was just going to be his subject.

One was not equal just like Lilith was not seen as equal to Adam.

Ok, thats enough for now, coffee is getting cold.

@Randyvs

Ever hear the expression "sink like a rock"?? Well, if the stones were placed there by the "Great Flood", they must have been hollowed out and filled with helium because the law of gravity says - They Would Sink Like A Rock! Wow, what a concept.

And about evolution, the rocks don't have any DNA as far as I know.

Here's the real story - just in case you're interested:

The Inca Empire possessed a lost art of stonemasonry in which they could maneuver multi-ton blocks, carve them into precise jigsaw-like pieces and fit them together, all without metal tools or even the wheel, let alone modern technology.
Perhaps even more incredibly, all of these giant blocks were somehow transported from the mountainside ten kilometers away, across the valley and beyond the Urubamba River.


...Because the Inca left no written records of their techniques scientists have hypothesized how the process might have worked. In terms of transporting the stones the Inca laid down an extended zigzag path from the quarry down the mountainside, allowing hundreds of men to drag the rocks with ropes, perhaps with the assistance of wood rollers or sled-like sliding beams.
Some people have even suggested they may have diverted the Urubamba around the boulders, allowing them to drag the stones across the river without getting them stuck in the water.
The masonry process might have worked like this: after carving the desired shape out of the first boulder and fitting it in place, the masons would somehow suspend the second boulder on scaffolding next to the first one.
They would then have to trace out a pattern on the second boulder in order to plan the appropriate jigsaw shape that would fit the two together.
In order to make a precise copy of the first boulder's edges, the masons might have used a straight stick with a hanging plum bob to trace its edges and mark off exact points for carving on the second boulder.
After tracing out the pattern, they would sculpt the stone into shape, pounding it with hand-sized stones to get the general shape before using finger-size stones for precision sanding.
Admittedly, this entire technique is merely scientific speculation. The method might have worked in practice but that doesn't mean this is how the ancient Quechua stonemasons did it. To me, though, our lack of knowing the truth only adds to my respect for this lost art.
s8int.com...