http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/inspired/1091142-according-to-science-darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-totally-wrong/
In school we learned that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, and small mammals survived and evolved into other mammals and at some point around 250,000 years ago an apelike mammal evolved into what is now the modern human, right? Wrong. Newly discovered artifacts prove that humanity has been around much longer than originally thought, and that humans did not always live in a primitive society.
I think it’s about time to update our ancient history and science textbooks.
Here’s some prehistoric findings that baffle scientists about our human history:
1. The Antikythera Mechanism—Made over 2,000 years ago
Antikythera Mechanism
The Antikythera Mechanism is a 2000-year-old mechanical device used to calculate the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and even the dates of the ancient Olympic Games. (Wikimedia Commons)
Originally discovered in 1901, it wasn’t until modern scanning tools in the 21st century that the intricate interlocking gears were discovered. Made by the Greeks—this ancient computer can accurately calculate astronomical changes.
2. Mineral Paint in Caves—Painted 15,000 to 50,000 years ago
Cave paintings as old as 10,000 years in Valcamonica, Italy, show people wearing what some have said are space suits. (Wikimedia Commons)
Cave paintings as old as 10,000 years in Valcamonica, Italy, show people wearing what some have said are space suits. (Wikimedia Commons)
Inside different caves from around the world there are prehistoric paintings of society with graphic detail of an unexpected nature—such as people wearing shirts, pants, boots, and hats.
3. The London Hammer—110-115 million years old and encased within a multimillion-year-old rock
A hammer, the exact function of which remains unknown, was found in a creek bed by two hikers in London, Texas, in 1936.The hammer was encased in limestone upon its discovery which was said to be between 110 and 115 million years old, reports Glen J. Kuban at Paleo.cc. (Minghui.org)
A hammer, the exact function of which remains unknown, was found in a creek bed by two hikers in London, Texas, in 1936.The hammer was encased in limestone upon its discovery which was said to be between 110 and 115 million years old, reports Glen J. Kuban at Paleo.cc. (Minghui.org)
Found in London, Texas, in 1936 by 2 hikers—the hammer (of unknown use) is not just 110 to 115 million years old, but also it was found encased within a multimillion-year-old rock.
4. Shoeprint on Trilobite Fossil—Shoeprint was made 200-600 million years ago
A fossilized footprint stepping on a trilobite, an extinct marine arthropod. Trilobites are known to have gone extinct around 260 million years ago. (Minghui.org)
A fossilized footprint stepping on a trilobite, an extinct marine arthropod. Trilobites are known to have gone extinct around 260 million years ago. (Minghui.org)
In June 1968, a fossilized footprint with a trilobite proves nearly impossible since trilobites have gone extinct around 280 million years ago. The fossilized footprint—wearing size 13 shoes—is estimated to be between 200 and 600 million years old.
5. Nuclear Reactor in the Gabon Republic of Africa—1.8 billion years old
gabon-republic-shutterstock-52756330
Gabon Republic/Shutterstock
In 1972, a French factory imported uranium ore from Oklo, Gabon, and found that the uranium has already been extracted. Scientist from around the world went to study this phenomenon and discovered an underground nuclear reactor that surpasses the capabilities of our scientific knowledge.
Originally posted by whodeyTell us o maven of science, exactly why that proves evolution wrong, even if every bit of evidence in that piece is 100% right?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/inspired/1091142-according-to-science-darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-totally-wrong/
In school we learned that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, and small mammals survived and evolved into other mammals and at some point around 250,000 years ago an apelike mammal evolved into what is now the modern human, ...[text shortened]... ered an underground nuclear reactor that surpasses the capabilities of our scientific knowledge.
The antikythera mechanism? Exactly how does that disprove evolution?
This is just like the asssholes who say ancient Egyptians were not smart enough to have made the pyramids on their own, THEREFORE aliens are real and came down to help them, never mind why such aliens would WANT to help build pyramids as a monument to a single person.
So 200 million years ago a footprint was found? This disproves evolution?
At best it just says SOMETHING made that footprint. For instance, it aliens exist, it could have been a trip to Earth and they left their garbage behind including a footprint.
The same with the supposed space suits on the cave drawings. At best it just says aliens visited Earth. There is NOTHING in that that disproves evolution.
The same with the hammer. You seem to be implying that if true, humans were around 200 million years ago. Were there any human fossil bones found in that era? No. At best, it would show aliens coming to Earth left behind some of their junk. AT BEST.
At worse, have you perhaps heard about Piltdown man?
Do you hate science that much that you would resort to such obvious ploys?
Originally posted by sonhouseIt simply shows how far we have come in understanding our origins. In fact, some of what we were taught in school we can now see was wrong.
Tell us o maven of science, exactly why that proves evolution wrong, even if every bit of evidence in that piece is 100% right?
The antikythera mechanism? Exactly how does that disprove evolution?
This is just like the asssholes who say ancient Egyptians were not smart enough to have made the pyramids on their own, THEREFORE aliens are real and came ...[text shortened]... about Piltdown man?
Do you hate science that much that you would resort to such obvious ploys?
Originally posted by whodeyNo no, that was not an answer to sonhouse's question: "The antikythera mechanism? Exactly how does that disprove evolution?"
It simply shows how far we have come in understanding our origins. In fact, some of what we were taught in school we can now see was wrong.
Please answer the questions given to you, and stop anti-science arguments. That you can do in the Spiritual Forum, but not here. Here we discuss science.
So just answer the question "The antikythera mechanism? Exactly how does that disprove evolution?" If you cannot, then just say so instead of trying to go to other areas thus avoiding the question. Just answer the question in hand.
For others: Don't go into any line where religion may follow. Just discuss scientific questions. Don't feed any troll.
Originally posted by whodeySo are you telling us that you genuinely believe there were humans on earth with a nuclear reactor 1.8 billion years ago, or are you just trolling?
It simply shows how far we have come in understanding our origins. In fact, some of what we were taught in school we can now see was wrong.
Originally posted by whodeyThe antikythera mechanism, often attributed to Archimedes, is well within the capabilities of the technology of the time. It is very clever but doesn't prove anything other than that the Greeks could exploit the technological resources they had to the fullest extent.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/inspired/1091142-according-to-science-darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-totally-wrong/
In school we learned that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, and small mammals survived and evolved into other mammals and at some point around 250,000 years ago an apelike mammal evolved into what is now the modern human, ...[text shortened]... ered an underground nuclear reactor that surpasses the capabilities of our scientific knowledge.
Really interpreting 10,000 year old cave paintings as space suits is silly. Are you really going to claim that Greenlandic Anoraks disprove evolution, the suits look like them and there is no reason to believe the people knocking round in Europe at the time had something similar which is a much simpler explanation. Of course they were shown wearing cloths, people round then were perfectly capable of making them.
Claiming the London Hammer is older than a couple of centuries is childish beyond belief. I'll leave it to the Wikipedia page to debunk that one [1].
The shoe print on the trilobite probably has the same explanation as the hammer. The estimate of the age of the fossil is not the estimate of the age of the shoe print.
The nuclear reactor in Gabon is a natural formation, and quite interesting, but proof of nothing other than that nature produces a wide range of phenomena.
Really this is intensely silly. Instead of trying to find a rational explanation of phenomena you are asking us to believe that aliens visited our ancestors of some such. Having an open mind is a good thing, but not if it's open to any old nonsense.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer
Originally posted by whodeyI take it that the title of this thread “5 Reasons Darwin was wrong” is really meant to imply “5 Reasons evolution is wrong” but is a clumsy attempt to hide the latter motive?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/inspired/1091142-according-to-science-darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-totally-wrong/
In school we learned that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, and small mammals survived and evolved into other mammals and at some point around 250,000 years ago an apelike mammal evolved into what is now the modern human, ...[text shortened]... ered an underground nuclear reactor that surpasses the capabilities of our scientific knowledge.
Without the slightest contradiction, Darwin could have been wrong about a lot of things including many of the details about evolution AND evolution can be, just as it actually is, a proven scientific fact in this modern day of science and reason.
It is in the nature of science that scientific hypotheses either evolve or are replaced in the light of new evidence -that is just how science works. Thus, and contrary to what you apparently assume in your OP, the fact that some of the details of the theory of evolution has evolved in the light of new evidence simply indicates that is a scientific hypothesis, not a false hypothesis.
To date, no evidence has ever come to light that contradicts the basic theory of evolution. But, if hypothetically such evidence did come to light which simply couldn't be explained if evolution true, only then would the basic theory of evolution be replaced -with another scientific i.e. rational theory, which I guess isn't what you want!
Originally posted by humyWouldn't THAT be a kicker, evolution proved wrong SCIENTIFICALLY only to be replaced by another scientific theory that works even better than evolutionary theory🙂
I take it that the title of this thread “5 Reasons Darwin was wrong” is really meant to imply “5 Reasons evolution is wrong” but is a clumsy attempt to hide the latter motive?
Without the slightest contradiction, Darwin could have been wrong about a lot of things including many of the details about evolution AND evolution can be, just as it actually i ...[text shortened]... -with another scientific i.e. rational theory, which I guess isn't what you want!
Creationists would have to start over from scratch🙂
Originally posted by sonhouseDon't, sonhouse, don't provoke him. You only invite him here to discuss spiritual matters which is better discussed in the Spiritual Forum.
Wouldn't THAT be a kicker, evolution proved wrong SCIENTIFICALLY only to be replaced by another scientific theory that works even better than evolutionary theory🙂
Creationists would have to start over from scratch🙂
Don't feed the troll.
Originally posted by whodeyThis has been well explained and had nothing to do with people or ...[text shortened]... uclear reaction going. Very interesting Scientific American article on this about 20 years ago.
In 1972, a French factory imported uranium ore from Oklo, Gabon, and found that the uranium has already been extracted. Scientist from around the world went to study this phenomenon and discovered an underground nuclear reactor that surpasses the capabilities of our scientific knowledge.[/b]
a