Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

originally posted by: randyvs

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.

Oh I understand just fine.

I understand that you have little knowledge of the things you speak about.
I understand that regardless of others have to say you don't care about the information they provide.
I understand that even when others try and politely debate you, you make childish attacks back at them.
I understand that you have no respect nor understanding of science yet try and use it to support your theory's.
I understand that when challenged you simply ignore everything that conflicts with your opinions.
I understand that you are closed minded and a misinformed member of religious brainwashing.

I don't understand your lipstick comment however, nor do I see any reason for it other than to prove once and for all what an ass you are and to what lengths you will go to show it.

Since you don't seem intelligent enough to be a paid shill, I'm of the opinion that you must just be another troll who's only reason for existence is to confuse and misdirect others for your own amusement. This is hardly the only thread you've done this with either. I've tried to engage you in an adult manner but that doesn't seem to work. IMO you act against the very principles which you claim to uphold (truth seeking) and act against the very motto of ATS (deny ignorance). So go ahead and wallow around in your fantasies and illogical theories about whatever you want. You seem to be very proud of your confused perception of things so I'll just leave you to them.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What the point of this wall of text?

Anthropologists are paid to find pre-human fossils not Sasquatch fossils therfore your argument is invalid.

Neo-darwinism has completely left Symbosis in the dark and is a much more viable theory.

geneticist are using the very same concepts now to create the GMO foods and to produce new traits that were not present in

TextUm no.... You do realize that as one species continues to mutate and receive more adaptations it slowly stops looking and behaving like it started out as right? Eventually those changes add up and we call that new animal a different species. Why don't you try explaining why we can trace evolutionary lineage all the way back to single celled organisms through DNA gene sequencing?

No, The body is made up of single celled organisms. The cell itself didn't outgrow and evolve into something else.
When viruses attack and alter genes they allow completely new functions such as juices and chemicals/agents that bond cells, The cells further develop the nucleus into more complex cells. It can only happen when the right virus hits the right target at the right time so that the effected target does not die and carries that linage that way. It is not something that just *happens* as a progression of time it is a direction shock the species genetics through plagues that cause these changes.

If an animal differs slightly it is because the bacteria and virus differentiate as well. As animals and the symbiotic and lysogenic effects cause organisms to build complex immune systems for for defending against harmful pathogens.

Evolution does exist but not in the way you think it does. And the only reason why we have animal linages is because there are similar viruses that effect all species of the planet and the building blocks of those materials and their genetics and functions can be traced back to us. As proteins were borrowed from these infections.

But again this only occures WHEN A suitable virus takes on Germ line transmission which will have a persistance relationship with the host.

We can trace our DNA back to apes and many different animals, As many different animals were effected by the same ancient viruses that build the majority of carbon based lifeforms on this planet.

What darwinism tends to leave out is how important everything on a microscale is to the grand scheme of things.

Should maybe find another word for evolution, its been far to polluted with nonsense.


Again i will state, A fish will never become an ostrich. Because fishes belong in the sea and have always been there.

All of us were developed on land, Humans in particular are a mystery on this planet. But as for everything else.
im sure it evolved under the stress of millions and millions of years of plagues.

But adaptation only effects what genes are already present. You can't make a bat glow and a bat will never glow because it lacks those genes.... Not unless DIRECTLY effected by a similar animal linage that has been effected by a glowing gene brought up by disease with symbiosis or effected directly with the virus or bacteria that caused it in the first place.

You know your finger nails are made of fungus right? That was an inherited trait from a parasitic take over....
Not adaptation.

How hard is it to understand the differences?

You that that viruses in the ocean outnumber everything else by 6 to 1 right?

a reply to: mOjOm

Damn! I hope your not upset.

I don't understand your lipstick comment however, nor do I see any reason for it other than to prove once and for all what an ass you are and to what lengths you will go to show it.

Always the same with you people. You don't want to understand
and you will resort to name calling and violate the T&C so you don't
have too.

originally posted by: randyvs


Always the same with you people. You don't want to understand
and you will resort to name calling and violate the T&C so you don't
have too.

You may want to keep in mind that you are the one that said you didn’t understand evolution and didn’t want to. You might need to ask yourself why the majority on this thread have continuously asked you to clarify your point. The problem is, you don’t know enough about evolution to make an argument against it. I don’t believe the bible, but least I’ve read it. Most of it anyway, I skipped the begats, boring.

Know your enemy
Sun Tzu's The Art of War

a reply to: Phantom423

Admittedly, this entire technique is merely scientific speculation.

And a person would have to be out their skull just to postulate
such a speculation. Let alone attempt it! But I'm the one who
doesn't understand? I understand BS perfectly when I read it
and hear it.

a reply to: Pauligirl

You may want to keep in mind that you are the one that said you didn’t understand evolution and didn’t want to. You might need to ask yourself why the majority on this thread have continuously asked you to clarify your point. The problem is, you don’t know enough about evolution to make an argument against it. I don’t believe the bible, but least I’ve read it. Most of it anyway, I skipped the begats, boring.

Boring? What is so exciting about evolution?
Evolution what an adventure that is?

Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Somehow I just don't see you as any kind of warrior.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phantom423

Admittedly, this entire technique is merely scientific speculation.

And a person would have to be out their skull just to postulate
such a speculation. Let alone attempt it! But I'm the one who
doesn't understand? I understand BS perfectly when I read it
and hear it.

It would be really cool if you just explained why an advanced culture in pre-history disproves evolution. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even saying you need to tell us all you believe in evolution (because I don't even believe in evolution as far as the origin of life is concerned, because it CAN'T explain it).

Please just tell me why an ancient culture which built advanced things around 10000 bc or earlier means evolution couldn't have happened. That's all I'm asking. I'm genuinely trying to understand your thought process here (and I think a lot of others are too). It's a Genuine desire to understand how you came to this conclusion. Maybe you are feeling attacked right now, I don't know. But it would be nice if you just used plain english to tell me why you have drawn the conclusion you have.

originally posted by: randyvs
Evolution what an adventure that is?

YES! You got it. It's friggin amazing, requires no magic, and just works! Randy, I think you've finally got it! HORAH!

Randy, you're a great guy (as many other's will attest). However, there are now two possibilities... God created everything, planted fossils in the ground and blamed Satan... or it's all BS.

Life isn't magic, it's even greater than that - it's chemistry! Complex chemistry, and more complex chemistry, and ever more complex chemistry! Which, after about 3 billion years leads to creatures who can ask why!

Don't you think the idea of chemical evolution is far more potent than 'awwww god did it'. Because your interpretation of god must surely limit what it can do. Chemical evolution has no such limits....

a reply to: MarsIsRed

I dont get why both cant be true. I dont get why "God" or gods cant use science and existing natural forces to create or make things function for a greater mastery over the natural world.

I feel awe and see the power of life being able to exist or adapt and I cant explain it all away with a simple "evolution did it", OR a simple "God did it".

I like to TRY to figure out the HOW. How god thinks and how nature works.

I think that should be a common ground. One doesnt necessarily negate the other.

I dont think that evolution is correct with a neat little progression of "less developed" to "more developed" breeds within species leading to different offshoots like the chart of hominid evolution that evolutionists present for human progress. All I see are separate species with similar skeletal remains. I dont think "random" happenings in DNA are random to anyone but us because we cant see the intelligence and design behind them. I do accept evolution as a real process in nature though.

I dont like the simplistic and wrong interpretation by biblical purists who never studied the subject beyond a random interpretation offered to them by another person, itself taken off a skewed version and translation. I do accept God AND "false /carnate" gods as possible having always existed and possibly having once existed respectively.

Does that mean I will crap on either evolution or the bible or any other sacred text? No! That would be REALLY stupid and shortsighted of me in both cases! The bible and human mythology isnt tripe. Evolution isnt fuey. People who say otherwise are wrong to me. Plain and simple.

The two dont need to resist each other. I see them as complimenting each other. Then again I like to look into things and understand them as much as my intellect will allow me. Everything else is purely personal or agenda driven.

originally posted by: AnuTyr


What the point of this wall of text?

Wall of text?

Going by some of your points, the above comment, the text you quoted etc. I think you may have mixed up the posts you are replying to?

Anthropologists are paid to find pre-human fossils not Sasquatch fossils therfore your argument is invalid.

Do you mean Paleontologists/ Paleoanthropologists? Perhaps you meant Anthropologists are paid to interpret fossils a certain way?

Either way, it seems to show a very poor understanding of the subject.

Would make you wonder why some scientists see the name Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis as more accurate...could have something to do with the fact there was successful breeding between Neanderthal and Modern Human? This would necessarily make them a type of Human, wouldn't you say (though genetically and morphologically distinguishable from modern Humans)?

If your willing to believe that breeding populations of massive uncatalogued Homonids are running the length and breadth of North America, more power to you. I'm calling that a fantasy.

There is not one physically existent molecule (outside of bogus nonscientific claims) to indicate such a thing is extant in North America (or anywhere else). That leaves us with the only common thing...human cognition and perception. The sociology, psychology and neuroscience of this phenomena is fascinating. Though some claim "paranormal" and while I don't believe it (I am open to it), it seems more honest in that it at least acknowledges the lack of a physical bigfoot.

So I doubt your point invalidates anything. Could you point me to the Neanderthal/Bigfoot "fossils" from North America?

Neo-darwinism has completely left Symbosis in the dark and is a much more viable theory.

Ah...Symbosis (sic). Now I see...Will ahve a look at your points when I have more time. Though past experience reminds me of Dante's "Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes" (abandon hope, all ye who enter) type of futility re these debates. Not being a biologist, creationist claims seem easily made, yet can take a lot of research and discussion with real biologists to find the truth of, usually for naught, re debate. A thread with your claims might go better, I usually enjoy those type of threads and find them very educational, at any rate there will probably be some genuine biologists around who might wish to engage.

I'll be more interested when you can show me the "fossil rabbits from the pre Cambrian" as they say.

a reply to: tadaman

I get the distinct feeling that you and I are part of the lonely few who share this opinion around here. When you break it down into theological concepts, your soul doesn't depend on it anyways (origins). It depends on what you do in the here and now, where your heart is, and who your faith belongs to.

But yes, I have often shared in your frustrations. Especially when I observe the dogmatic approach to the subject by not only religious fundamentalists whose mind's are so tightly shut they are confident in limiting the ability of the creator Himself (THE Alpha and Omega), but also when I observe the antics of the anti-religious zealots who haven't bothered to question anything deeper than a textbook.

Troubling times when so many are so willing to stake so much on so little.

Personally, my faith is greater than ever.

I see no problem with believing in "God using Evolution". In fact if you are someone who believes in a Creative God I would think it would be automatic to say that God uses the Evolutionary process. I mean, how else would God be creating stuff if he wasn't using those Processes??? It's not like creatures just pop out of nowhere like magic, or simply fall from the sky and start roaming around.

Obviously the Processes of Evolution and Selection are happening so anyone who chooses to believe those processes were created and/or directed by a God just makes sense. Some people simply choose to leave God out of it until they find out for sure there is such a thing.

It makes me wonder just how those who believe in God think He's creating or manipulating life if He's Not using evolution to do it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I see no problem with believing in "God using Evolution". In fact if you are someone who believes in a Creative God I would think it would be automatic to say that God uses the Evolutionary process. I mean, how else would God be creating stuff if he wasn't using those Processes??? It's not like creatures just pop out of nowhere like magic, or simply fall from the sky and start roaming around.

Obviously the Processes of Evolution and Selection are happening so anyone who chooses to believe those processes were created and/or directed by a God just makes sense. Some people simply choose to leave God out of it until they find out for sure there is such a thing.

It makes me wonder just how those who believe in God think He's creating or manipulating life if He's Not using evolution to do it.

The problem is that at some point something miraculous HAD to happen. Evolution has no answers for the Cambrian explosion, nor can it answer how life itself originated. We are told that it all started with one single celled organism yet the theory itself has no answers for how the complexities of a cell were able to evolve within a living cell from a completely non-living source. We face the same issue if we push it back to the big bang. Something cannot come from nothing.

As a Christian I am readily willing to look at scientific evidence and reconsider my worldview as a result. Certainly, Satan is not responsible for dinosaur bones. However, that being said, I acknowledge that at the most fundamental origins, there must have been a source. The singularity is simply a ball of loose mathematics used to fudge this fundamental philosophical fact: That something cannot come from nothing.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You're right, science doesn't have an answer for the origin. Not a Provable one anyway. Science may never have that answer because scientific laws break down when you get that close to the origin of everything. But that is because for science to have an answer, it must prove that answer as correct, until then it's left unanswered. That is why science works and is something we can rely on.

Religion on the other hand may have an answer, but it is not a provable answer either. This makes the answer given by Religion just as pointless as not having an answer at all IMO. Now that would be different if such an answer could be proven to be true, but it can't and until it can, that still isn't really an answer. It's a guess. It's not even the only guess either. People have been guessing at that answer forever and still do it today and it hasn't done anything to actually answer it.

Just like you but as a Non-Christian I'm always willing to look at the evidence and change my mind. Do you really think for one second that if somehow I was shone proof of God I would ignore it??? Of course not. But that's just it. I have yet to see any Proof that truly answers that question.

Plus there is the problem that even if there was a God, what is his origin then??? Where did he come from??? If you say He always existed or created Himself then that is no different than saying the Universe Created itself or that it has always existed. You see the problem there???

a reply to: AnuTyr

Well, I watched your first video almost to the end (laughter interrupted of course) and so far the only obvious things I can conclude is that there is something very wrong with the education system and the people who made it aren't biologists either. lol. Some of the inaccurate claims (to put it politely) and fallacies seem staggering.

Seriously, would this be it in a nutshell...an observed relationship between modern life forms (symbiosis) = you can't explain that! (lol)=no evolution= god made it? This is their "serious conundrum" for evolution?

Will have a look at the others when I can.

a reply to: mOjOm

Plus there is the problem that even if there was a God, what is his origin then??? Where did he come from??? If you say He always existed or created Himself then that is no different than saying the Universe Created itself or that it has always existed. You see the problem there???

This is a commonly used argument by atheists but it really is a non sequitur. While I don't want to derail the thread, the reason this argument has no logical basis is because we can assume 3 things from the big bang:

-time began

-space began

-matter began

From these 3 scientific facts we can conclude that whatever initiated the big bang was outside of time, space, and matter as we define them today.

Cosmologists have attempted to fudge the numbers via the singularity, but in a philosophical sense, something that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (since none of these things existed prior to the big bang) need not obey any of the laws we associate with the aforementioned things .

Hence, the notion that "God" needed a creator is diametrically opposed not only to the very definition of what God is (eternal), but also to the idea that it must have obeyed the 3 things it created that did not exist prior to their definition in reality.

We can see this logical fallacy played out in the vain efforts of the atheist to postulate that we live in a simulation when they fail to address who coded it.

Edit to add:

I really would like a solid answer from Randy however, or maybe one of the people that gave his OP a star. I still don't see how the concept of civilizations in pre-history disproves evolution.

I'm sure there is much, much more to deal with, but just to pick one thing at random that screams out at me -

originally posted by: AnuTyr

You know your finger nails are made of fungus right?

Fingernails are made of the same stuff your hair and the epidermal layer of your skin is made of. The same stuff your dogs claws and a horses hooves and a gazelle's horns are made of. A protein called Keratin.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

From these 3 scientific facts we can conclude that whatever initiated the big bang was outside of time, space, and matter as we define them today.

We can??? I find it difficult to understand how we can conclude anything under those conditions. That there is something outside space or that there was an initiation of anything. After all, there is no Time nor Space so those terms are meaningless.

Cosmologists have attempted to fudge the numbers via the singularity, but in a philosophical sense, something that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (since none of these things existed prior to the big bang) need not obey any of the laws we associate with the aforementioned things .

Hence, the notion that "God" needed a creator is diametrically opposed not only to the very definition of what God is (eternal), but also to the idea that it must have obeyed the 3 things it created that did not exist prior to their definition in reality.

I see no need for the notion of "God" at all for that matter as of yet. You are simply imposing that notion as if by magic and for no known reason that I can tell other than you insist it must be there. Sure it's wonderful to be able to insist there must be a creator which is outside reality and somehow magically infinite yet also nowhere and everywhere all at the same time, but that is hardly reasonable now is it. If you can do that and insist it as true, you can just as well insist that anything is true. So what's the point??

We can see this logical fallacy played out in the vain efforts of the atheist to postulate that we live in a simulation when they fail to address who coded it.

Edit to add:

I really would like a solid answer from Randy however, or maybe one of the people that gave his OP a star. I still don't see how the concept of civilizations in pre-history disproves evolution.

Randy and I as well as others have already covered that part earlier. I also wondered about the stars as well. Basically the stars come from a silent group who love Randy just for being Randy and the reason why anything he said disproves evolution is only because he thinks it does. Myself and others have already countered that whole idea, but he wants to keep thinking it's true, refuses to hear otherwise and insists it must be correct even though it's not. So what else can you do???