Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: MrSpad

Does evolution not prescribe to a linear timeline?
And doesn't the theory insist on survival of the fittest?
With generations that progress to some goal of superiority?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: MrSpad

Does evolution not prescribe to a linear timeline?
And doesn't the theory insist on survival of the fittest?
With generations that progress to some goal of superiority?

Uh no. However, what that has to do with civilizations that lose technology through disaster or war etc. is beyond me. If the world were hit by a cosmic event and civilization declined for a couple of centuries losing the technology it once had that has zero to with evolution. How could you make any logical connection between the two? Also if you do not believe in evolution then how do you feel about your tail bone?

a reply to: MrSpad

What's wrong with my tailbone?

Ok so I know evolution has come pretty far from Darwins
Origin of Species and Humans now share a common ancester
at least with other primates. So humans should be able to
trace themselves in line back to that common ancester.
Of which there is no proof at all anywhere on the planet.

And we can't.

And IMO there never will be. But what we do find all over
the planet is evidence of a world erased from our memory.
And just happens to line up well with scripture. Now if
Oilantaytambo is !2,000 yrs old as some archeaologist suggest?

Then who knows how far back that pushes the date of
those blocks being carved. And isn't that beginning to press
on the model for an evolutionary time line? Also if time and
history are cyclical for us doesn't that at least begin to defy the
model for evolution? I don't believe a prediluvian world fits in
so well with the theory.

Or am I wrong?

EDIT Sorry

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: MrSpad

What's wrong with my tailbone?

Ok so I know evolution has come pretty far from Darwins
Origin of Species and Humans now share a common ancester
at least with other primates. So humans should be able to
trace themselves in line back to that common ancester.
Of which there is no proof at all anywhere on the planet.

And we can't.

And IMO there never will be. But what we do find all over
the planet is evidence of a world erased from our memory.
And just happens to line up well with scripture. Now if
Oilantaytambo is !2,000 yrs old as some archeaologist suggest?

Then who knows how far back that pushes the date of
those blocks being carved. And isn't that beginning to press
on the model for an evolutionary time line? Also if time and
history are cyclical for us doesn't that at least begin to defy the
model for evolution? I don't believe a prediluvian world fits in
so well with the theory.

Or am I wrong?

EDIT Sorry

I am sorry I can not make any logical sense out of what you are trying to say. If it was built 12,000 years ago (I see no credible source for that date) that was around the time modern humans began to practice agriculture and settle down in places. So the debate you should be having is how if that was the correct date did these people have the stone working ability of a more advanced stone age/bronze age civilization. How you drag floods and evolution in that debate makes no sense. Humans were at the evolutionary level 12,000 years as they are today. And why are tyring to drag a flood myth from the mid east to south america?

a reply to: MrSpad

I am sorry I can not make any logical sense out of what you are trying to say. If it was built 12,000 years ago (I see no credible source for that date) that was around the time modern humans began to practice agriculture and settle down in places. So the debate you should be having is how if that was the correct date did these people have the stone working ability of a more advanced stone age/bronze age civilization. How you drag floods and evolution in that debate makes no sense. Humans were at the evolutionary level 12,000 years as they are today. And why are tyring to drag a flood myth from the mid east to south america?

No reason to be sorry spad. It's up to me to articulate
what I'm trying to say. And you're obviously making a
genuine effort to understand and I recognise that.

I guess I just don't see how evolution is viable in the face
of the evidence of a far different story. That in no
way involves, " Hunter gatherers " evolving to a point in
our deep past, with the capabilities to carve rock in such
a way that, it leaves us mystified and ignorant, of how to even
attempt such a thing today. We simply can't cut blocks like that
out of the side of a mountain.

But someone just at the drop
of a hat, decided lets do this? Like it's just no big deal and it
wasn't the task that it would be for us, I tell you that. No
obvious evolution, of a skill learned over time, by an early
caveman that, couldn't perform a simple wheel. But woo boy
did they know their rock carving? And no one can see how try'n
to poke evolution in the midst of all this doesn't seem likely?

Utter nonsense... The problems we find with your claims are that they are not supported by any real evidence. But you just ignore the evidence, and everything is all right, eh?
You creationists start with a religious belief and manipulate, distort, misrepresent, deny, and otherwise abuse the facts until you can fool yourself into believing that a religious myth is correct.

In the end, any critical thinker will see your fantasies about magic pixies are not germane to whether we can test the theory of evolution, this in turn will consign your extinction, relegated as primitive beliefs.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: MrSpad

Does evolution not prescribe to a linear timeline?
And doesn't the theory insist on survival of the fittest?
With generations that progress to some goal of superiority?

No..

No..

..And No!

Lets first address number one "Does evolution not prescribe to a linear timeline?"

Evolution is not linear, Evolution is more of a tree, the image is that of a branching tree, all the new branches are still part of the original branch.

The scientific term that describes this is nested clades, you can read "clade" as being a "kind." A clade will have descendent clades. All descendent clades will be nested within the parent clades.

For more information on clades...Look it up.

a reply to: flyingfish

It just feels like Randyvs is trying way to hard to sound like he knows what hes talking about when in reality he just comes off at least to me as very ignorant and subversive to say the least. I immediately distrust him and have a natural caution towards him. Like what is being repeatedly said to him by many soundly logical people is that he has no evidence and takes advantage of defining keywords and manipulating those definitions into whole knew ridiculous premise to vaguely support his statement. its pure nothingness like talking to a chat bot.

originally posted by: randyvs

I guess I just don't see how evolution is viable in the face
of the evidence of a far different story. That in no
way involves, " Hunter gatherers " evolving to a point in
our deep past, with the capabilities to carve rock in such
a way that, it leaves us mystified and ignorant, of how to even
attempt such a thing today. We simply can't cut blocks like that
out of the side of a mountain.

I'm starting to understand what you're saying now. But I think your terminology is wrong and/or you are mixing together Evolution with History. What I mean is that even without fact checking the details of your theory, such as when the stone was carved, whether or not we could do the same today, etc. Using those examples doesn't disprove anything as far as Evolution goes, although it may be evidence to disprove the accuracy of our Historical Record as we've pieced it together.

Let's say you're correct about when the stones were carved and the difficulty involved. Now on top of that, let's also say we find even more evidence of a technologically advanced group of people who were around at that same time that were way far ahead of anyone else at the time. Even if that was concluded to be correct and a historical fact that wouldn't disprove Evolution at all, but it would show our historical record to be incorrect. The Evolution of the people wouldn't be different, only our understanding of what was going on in our History at that time would change.

We've been Evolutionarily the same biological creatures we are now for a really long time. Like tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Our advances in technology are not an accurate way of measuring our evolution. Think about it like this. If tomorrow we bombed most of the population of the planet and destroyed civilization including most all of our recorded knowledge of it. It would be only a couple of generations until, from an outside perspective looking in, we'd be living and acting like primitive man did thousands of years ago.

You see what I'm saying??? Your theory is more about our possible inaccurate historical account of man rather than the evolution of man.

I think this article is relevant to this thread.

I haven't seen any proof against evolution in the OP.

a reply to: randyvs

Hey Randy . . .

As other's have pointed out . . . this evidence or any "ancient alien" hoo-ha presents no argument against biological evolution. Any stumbling blocks to "timelines" rests in your mind, due to buying into a group of hucksters promoting a very profitable idea. The Ancient Alien con men, like Childress, Von Daniken, Dunn, present nothing but false dilemmas, starting with a misrepresentation or a lie about the actual site and claim the lie (or misrepresentation) is proof of modern scientific explanations being wrong.

Specifically, with the Ollantaytambo (correct spelling) site - second pic, you are assuming a lot from a picture and con man's explanation. The Ollantaytambo quarry is Andesite. Andesite, as opposed to the AA crowd claiming granite or diorite, is easily workable with even soft stone tools. Due to the way it cools during formation, it will easily break apart in large flakes. The Inca were masters with stone and would have easily been able to "chip" out large blocks simply by creating guidelines and carefully prying the block away from the quarry site. You, and the AA promoters, also assume that the remaining quarry site was stripped of blocks as big as the current holes, creating the "awe" factor to help along their game. However, current actual archaeological thought and evidence says the built ramps up to the higher areas and started knocking off blocks . . . continually moving down the stone face and creating the large "gaps" you see today.

Nothing at any of the Incan sites goes against Evolutionary Theory or even the accepted timelines, in any fashion. Unless of course you rely on people like Tsukolous for your archaeological education.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: MrSpad

Does evolution not prescribe to a linear timeline?
And doesn't the theory insist on survival of the fittest?
With generations that progress to some goal of superiority?

No. You really do not understand evolution, despite your rabid, irrational fear and dismissal of it. You hate what you do not comprehend, and what you do not comprehend, you cannot debate meaningfully or rationally. You are not the only creationist with this mindset, it seems to be the norm.

Evolution is far more complicated. There is no "goal" in evolution. Evolution is a process by which life changes and adapts to continue existing. There is so much evidence for evolution it is not funny. Wonder why we keep having to develop new vaccines and antibiotics to combat disease? Because of evolution. Bacteria and viruses, the most basic life forms, are constantly changing and evolving to resist vaccines and antibiotics. That's one aspect of evolution. Same applies for bugs and weeds that develop resistance to pesticides and weed killer. They do so because of evolution.

Also, through the study of DNA, scientists have found common ancestors for modern humans. So again, your argument fails. Ever hear of Mitochondrial Eve? Y Chromosomal Adam?

en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution is not the foundation for atheism, either, though many atheists believe it. The foundation for atheism is the total disbelief in god or other supernatural/mythological beings, due to their being a lack of any evidence for such beings, as well as the absurdity of religious texts.

You guys make my head hurt. God and evolution are not conflicting theories. Proving either one as valid does not disprove the other. Emotionally biased non-arguments from frightened children; grow up before you get us all killed.

And FYI, some cuts in nondescript stone doesn't illustrate anything other than people have cut stone. Even if science is confident that the site predates our recorded history, it does lend any credence to nullify a biological mechanism.

a reply to: mOjOm

Using those examples doesn't disprove anything as far as Evolution goes, although it may be evidence to disprove the accuracy of our Historical Record as we've pieced it together.

I know that and have stated that my OP and the title define my
argument. And have even further stated I'm not trying to disprove
anything. Even tho I made it clear where I stand. And even beyond
that admitted to struggling with the articulation or terminology if
you prefer, in my attempt to explain.

And any one speculating about me being disengenuous. Or trying
to sound like I know what I'm talk'n about when I don't? You may
end up being right. But I've been do'in this quite a spell now and
have openly admitted that ATS is my only education above 12th
grade Chino high. So if it looks like I'm try'n, it's most likely because
I am.

just figure out how they did it.

and maybe why?

a reply to: solomons path

Hey Sol, always good to see you.

The Ancient Alien con men,

But you should know damn well I don't buy their crap.

I'm only using the pics, to show how far back in time we have to go,
to date the time of the rock carvings. As we can clearly see it was
before the whole mountainside somehow was sheared off, sometime
after the carvings had been accomplished. My claim is a simple one
but the evidence and only sense to be made of it? Is right there in
the pic. That shows it did happen.

originally posted by: randyvs

I know that and have stated that my OP and the title define my
argument. And have even further stated I'm not trying to disprove
anything. Even tho I made it clear where I stand. And even beyond
that admitted to struggling with the articulation or terminology if
you prefer, in my attempt to explain.

I'm just now figuring out where you stand and exactly what your theory is. As I've said from the start, I didn't understand what you were trying to say so I'm just trying to be clear what we are talking about here.

Your title is: Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution
It would probably be better as: Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy History as we Know it

That's all I was trying to point out. That's why so many others are flat out against the idea. Because Man's Technology in Carving Rocks and The Evolution of Man are very different things. Unless you were talking about Man way, way back in time, well beyond 12,000 years ago.

In fact at 12,000 years ago, which is the date you are using. That fits right in the time frame of when man was doing a whole lot stone carving and building.

a reply to: mOjOm

Your title is: Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution
It would probably be better as: Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy History as we Know it

Mmmm,
I would have to try for a comprimise of: Two pics
from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy the history of
evolution as we think we know it?

But at least your cuit'n me some slack and I appreciate it.

Man you guys have me SWAMPED right now out of nowhere.
You're making some posts that I have got to read.

So apologies to everyone for my missing of the mark. I'm
take'n a break, then I'll catch up and try to procede with
dignity, that may be misconstrued how ever anyone
may so choose.

originally posted by: randyvs

I would have to try for a comprimise of: Two pics
from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy the history of
evolution as we think we know it?

But it doesn't. Estimates of Human Evolution with Human's making stone carvings range easily to 50,000 years ago while some say more than that even. Certainly 12,000 years ago mankind was carving up some serious stone blocks and other stuff.

For example, check out this sexy lady here:
Venus of Willendorf

She was carved up somewhere around 25,000 years ago!! Think about that. Your pics you date at 12,000 years ago and that statue is roughly 25,000 years ago. A difference of 13,000 years!!! That's a long time to work on your skill sets as a species ya know?!?!? Look what we've done in just the last 2500 years and how far we've come....

(None of which have anything to do with Evolution either because we've been the same creature in evolutionary terms for way longer than that. Basically, biologically, you could pluck a person from 12,000 years ago and he'd be basically the same as we are today. That's why using technology isn't a way to judge evolutionary progress. Show a 5,000 year old man what we know today and he's the same as man is today.)

The only way 12,000 year old stone carvings could defy Evolution is if we found evidence of Humans carving stones Millions of years ago. Before what we refer to as Modern Day Humans even existed.

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?