Easter island heads have bodies!??

Excavations of the bodies have been going on for many years, you can find out more from the Easter Island Statue Project.  It’s generally accepted that the statues were made sometime between 1250 and 1500 AD. There is controversy surrounding why the bodies are buried. Was it time and erosion, or were they buried on purpose?  Aliens?   The soil surrounding the bodies for so long has preserved interesting carvings (petroglyphs, or rock markings)..

This one below has a sailing ship carved onto it…


525 Comments on "Easter island heads have bodies!??"

    1. Agreed….. this really knocks me off of my perch… this adds a whole new dimension to the Easter Island mythos…..

    2. Don’t feel bad, I’m in my 50’s and had never heard this before!!! How cool is this??!!!!

  1. Maybe they were there prior to Noah’s flood. The flood would have left a thick deposit of sediment.

    1. Dude, are your eyes painted on?
      From the text up top:
      “It’s generally accepted that the statues were made sometime between 1000 and 1650 AD.”

      1. Give me a break! The official story is utter nonsense. You’re subscribing to the belief that around the same time as Christopher Columbus there were people on Easter Island with the advanced technology required to erect stone megaliths some 270 tons in weight? And that in a mere 500 years enough sediment has been laid down to cover 20+ feet of statue? Impossible. These statues are Thousands of years old. Read Graham Hancock’s “Finger Prints of the Gods” or “Heaven’s Mirror” if you dare.

      2. It does not take advanced technology to erect statues that big. Just simple technology plus a whole lot of labor.

        The article above suggests that the bodies were buried on purpose, as one possibility, so a flood or millenia of sediment are not necessary.

      3. “Just simple technology plus a whole lot of labor”

        Especially in times when there was no Facebook, Twitter, a conversation platform like this or the Internet as for that matter ! And btw, there weren’t labor laws,bill of rights either :) If there were surplus population without occupation, the rulers getting them to build things like these could serve dual purpose, belief and welfare scheme.

        I am not speculating on the date of influence of other civilizations, sophisticated technologies, the only anomaly I find is population.

      4. You’re an idiot. What about Stonehenge, which dates to around 2400 BC? What about the pyramids? People figured out how to move big ass stones A LONG TIME AGO.

      5. It is quite possible that they “were” actually covered up by sediment at a later date. It’s Sunday morning and I can’t be bothered to fact check before I post so this is from my addled memory…

        At the time of the Rapa Nui civilisation(?), the island was exactly like other tropical islands. It was covered in forest, mainly palm trees. At some point there was a mass deforestation of the island and this is what is largely held to have led to the collapse of the original settler population. No trees, and vegetation equals no food, equals everyone starves to death.

        One of the well know consequences of deforestation is of course land and mud slides, especially in under heavy tropical rain conditions.

        So…. if you lose all the trees, and as a consequence, have decades of mudslides, it is more than possible for twenty (or more) feet of sediment to be moved from the upland slopes of the island and deposited on the coastal regions (which of course is where the statues are) in a geologically very short period of time.

        Ironically, one of the theories as to the cause of the mass deforestation is; the felling of trees for the transportation of the Moa (that is the big statues for the really ignorant of you) from the quarry to the coast. This is just a theory and so far as I am aware, it is not mentioned in Genesis.

      6. This is very plausible, thank you for your comment! I was wondering if mudslides had done it and I think it’s highly probable.

      7. Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only other person on earth who’d read this book, well over 40 years ago! It explains everything plausibly, nothing here is new.

      8. As a kid’s of the 60’s loved “Kon Teki” nothing new about this…

      9. I think that if it were mudslides, the statues would be buried at different heights. But they were always seen as just heads before. I can even recall seeing a photo of one buried deeper than that. It would be highly improbable for the mudslides to cover every area that evenly. Plus there would areas, especially closer to the water where the ground would have eroded away from the heads exposing the bodies again. I vote for the burying theory. Though why? At any rate I am glad they were buried. All those carvings would be lost by now if they had been exposed all these years.

      10. I take back the buried only up to the head. Some you can see a little shoulder. Still they are all still very close to the same depth.

      11. That makes very good sense and much of what I was thinking myself. Additionally, the decay of vegatation (much like mulch and composting) would possibly also contribute to a small amount of more rapid deposit of organic sedimentation. This of course would also contribute or support the idea as to why the soil in the photos looks to be more rich, brownish and soft in coloration, than would be if it were sand, mineral sediments.

        I hadn’t much time or inclination to research the Moa more in depth for myself yet, but would anybody have any idea as to how the date estimate was made or whether or not evidence supports that they could possibly be older?

      12. Has anyone considered the possibility that the statues were buried as they were being carved? This would make it easier to maneuver around the statue.
        Its also a probability that native beliefs may have contributed to the deliberate burying of the statues for religious and or superstitious reasons.

      13. You’re right, a magical invisible force that is inexplicable is much more plausible than things that we can observe.

      14. Who’s to say they are totally correct with the time those were actually placed there, Simon?

      1. what a worthless thing to add here. Is the entire world becoming populated by moronic fanboys that insist on adding their ridiculous fantasies to every forum or comments section on the web?

      1. Holy crap, all those stories about them being three apples high are lies! My childhood is ruined!

    2. How long did the flood last?

      If you say 150 days, you are correct according to Genesis 7:24

      If you say 7 months 17 days, you are correct according to Genesis 8:4

      If you say 10 months, unless you think Noah spent 2 1/2 months on Mount Arrarat, see Genesis 8:5

      See http://tinyurl.com/bibleerrors

      The flood as described in the bible would take almost 5 times as much water as we have. If god wanted to kill everything wouldn’t a few hours have done the trick? Where did Noah put the termites? How many of each animal did Noah take? 2 of every animal (Genesis 6:19-20) or 14 of every clean animal (Genesis 7:2)?

      1. Every ancient civilizations and beliefs had floods whether Pagans (where Christians copied from) or Native Americans etc. The Christians just copied it from others. But i guess they do not want to see the truth.

      2. Just because it is common does not make it true. There is absolutely no geologic evidence of a global flood.

      3. Umm, maybe because floods are extremely common along every major river system, and happen all the time, all over the world? Maybe because many coastal areas seem to experience tsunamis every couple of hundred years? Every ancient civilization having beliefs about floods is about as shocking as them having beliefs about birds, and is not proof of a biblical flood at all.

      4. ancient civilizations will never cease to amaze us though. In Canada, there is an area where the natives refused to live, calling it ‘the mountain that moves’. The white man decided it was all mumbo-jumbo, moved there, and opened a coal mine. The day the limestone broke from the mountainside and buried a chunk of the town, of the 100-150 people that could have at the time been in the area only 12 bodies were recovered. Just because a group of people do not use the same technology as another group, does not mean that knowledge passed down by people trained their entire lives to remember their history verbatim are making things up.

      5. Why are we even talking about the magical fairy tale of the bible in this article? Seriously, why does religion always get brought into it? SHUT UP ALREADY. Worship whoever you want but SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Seriously!
        Or to put it another way, I don’t come to where you worship and slap the priests dick out of your mouth, so…..

    3. The idea that people actually consider the Bible to be an historical reference for world events is truly mind blowing & scary. In any case…the fact that the figures are decorated with elaborate carvings all over their bodies inspires one to hypothesize that perhaps the natives that created these megaliths were tattooed & mirrored this practice on their sculptures to tell a story – similarly as to how modern day folks do as well. Pretty cool.

    4. Noah’s ark?? are you for real?? when will people wake up and realise the fricken bible isn’t real. don’t be so naive!!!

    5. Noah’s ark is a legend, that’s all. Every single detail of it is impossible from every conceivable angle and it is laughable that anyone over the age of four believes that all the world’s species were saved on a magic boat from a global flood. There is utterly zero evidence for a global flood – zilch, not a scrap, not a molecule that points to it ever happening.

      The statues were buried by a thing called “time.”

  2. I think Thor Heyerdahl discovered that fact in the fifties or sixties

  3. These are obviously the bodies of giant rock people from outer space who were buried up to their necks by interstellar pirates.

  4. haha Noah. Typical churchie. Knows nothing about science or anything else that is going on.

    1. Chill out, troll. Not all “churchie’s” are the illiterate freaks you think they are. Here’s one for you: Evolution is a THEORY!!! :O GASP! Charles Darwin was a Christian, but he was also a scientist. He had a theory that a bunch of “ignorant” people decided was fact. And did he go along with it? No. He died beleiving in creationism. So go ahead and talk smack in the one place people can’t see you.

      1. There is some significant evidence to suggest there was a very large flood like the one described in the bible. Look that up before you go calling someone stupid for having faith in something greater than humanity. Trust me, the human race is not half as awesome as people think it is. (There is ALWAYS a bigger fish. Qui-Gon Jinn) However, the dead sea scrolls (the original texts the bible was written on/copied from) are around a thousand years older than the Easter Island statues. So, you know, you’re both wrong.

      2. The logistics of building a boat long enough to occupy both tropical and arctic geographic regions (to safely house the mammals that live in those regions) would be truly miraculous. Incredible even. And by incredible, I mean not credible.

        I’m a believer but some things in the Bible should just not be taken literally. I’m sure there was a big flood once, but I’m equally sure it didn’t cover the Earth. World history does not mean “Western/Middle Eastern History.”

      3. I wanted to say that I think you should look into this more. Answers in Genesis is a great resource. Anyways, before the flood, the earth had a very different atmosphere than we have today, and didn’t have the extremes in temperature that there are today. All the animals that we have on earth today are related to the ones before the flood, but got much more diversified as they spread out, and adapted to their new environments. That means that he just needed two dogs/wolves on the boat, instead of all the different breeds of dogs that we have today. Only two bears.

      4. So every breed of butterfly existant today has evolved from the one pair of cocoons hanging from the giraffe enclosure on the ark, and ditto every breed of ant and roach and tick and centipede and the various species of beetle? And the whales and fish didn’t die from the alteration in salinity and temperature cause by the flood through a miracle, of course, and the birds – no, man, there’s too many birds. They can’t all have perched on the one little ark. And that’s not counting kangaroos and pandas (which are not bears) and koalas (also not bears) and platypuses and echidnas and anteaters and antelopes and moose and where on the arc did Noah hide the Aboriginals from Australia? It’s pretty amazing their rock paintings survived underwater, considering they’re just spit and dirt on the rocks.

        I’m trying to say, you’re pretty sheltered if you think the flood was real and global. It’s probably not your fault, but you should get out more and learn some real history instead of relying on one comparatively small book to explain everything in the universe just by saying “I don’t get it so it was a miracle.”

      5. there are many civilizations with tales about floods, with arks, or living on high ground for a time. way I figure it, each place managed to save some animals somehow, and what we have now is the result.

      6. Many civilizations have tales of floods because floods happen all around the world, all the time, and geology shifts. There is no evidence and no possibility of a single global flood, there isn’t even enough water to land ratio for it to have happened at any point since the dawn of terrestrial organisms.

      7. Everything you wrote in that comment is false. Except the part about ‘theory’, but clearly you do not understand what a scientific theory is.

      8. If your intention was to establish that not all “churchies” are illiterate fools, you did your crowd a disservice. Just about everything you said was wrong. Evolution is not “just a theory.” It is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record, and is regarded as fact for all intents and purposes. Much like atomic theory, plate tectonic theory, and the germ theory of disease, none of which are disputed by ill-informed religious persons.

        Darwin was originally a Christian who planned to go into church service, but in his travels he came to question the bible and became an agnostic. By no means did he die a creationist, nor did he have a rumored “deathbed recantation.”

        You might be more convincing in arguing that the religious are not illiterate if you weren’t so uninformed yourself.

      9. … I really, REALLY like your comment, but I feel the need to point out that if he were truly illiterate, he couldn’t have written that comment in the first place.

      10. Darwin may not have been a Christian or Creationist, but he did have doubts about his own theory.
        “Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.”
        ― Charles Darwin
        “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”
        ― Charles Darwin

      11. All scientists have doubts. That’s part of what makes them good scientists. Doesn’t mean they’re wrong. I’ve doubted loads of stuff and been right and wrong loads of times. Religious folks who have no doubts at all are the scary ones – they never change how they see the world, no matter what evidence they get. xplanation you think is better.

      12. Dryhn- you should really check YOUR facts prior to talking or typing.

      13. @Dryhn: BRAVO! Also, I should say in passing, look at the height of those statues in relation to the narrowness of their bases. Their center of gravity (also a theory, BTW) is very high, meaning that those statues would not stand on their bases very long – they would topple in the first strong wind. Therefore, the simplest explanation (Occam’s Razor) suggests that the creators of the statues dug those holes and shoved them in. Floods? Fuhgedaboudit!

      14. Many of you are missing the point. There are two kinds of evolution. Macro and micro.

        Micro evolution is where an animal (like a monkey) goes through changes over generations and some of it’s features like hair color, head and bone size, shape of facial features, etc. change and become altered. The monkey is still a monkey though, even after thousands of years. Microevolution is observable and I don’t know anyone that would disagree with this.

        Macro evolution would be where an animal turns into another type of animal over generations. Like a monkey into a human. This is false and there is no amount of evidence that supports this THEORY. Yes, I know the difference between scientific theory and just a theory. Macro evolution is nothing more than a false theory. You can’t call it scientific theory because there is no evidence to support this conclusion. This is where people fail to see the difference.

        Evolution is true in the sense all creatures go through small changes over generations that can eventually add up to larger changes. However, a species can’t turn into another species. Humans didn’t evolve from monkeys and there is no evidence even suggesting that, even though many uninformed and ignorant people would suggest otherwise.

      15. Apes and monkeys are different species, by the way, speaking of ignorance.

        The common ancestor is between humans and apes — not monkeys. There actually is a world of difference there.

        Micro and macro evolution are just a convenient, contemporary argument from Creationists to try and compromise with science. Admit to micro evolution, because the evidence is overwhelming, but deny that these experimentally observed processes could result in speciation.

        So, micro evolution can “add up to larger changes” — just not the largest changes that result in a new species.

        Umm, why? Why do you get to set the limit to how much is possible. Just because you can’t imagine a bacterium evolving into a snail doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Eventually. And with a multitude of other species branches along the way.

        I think the big problem is that people, with a life span of 70 years or so, simply cannot fathom changes that occur over hundreds of thousands — even millions — of years.

        I mean, just Man’s tampering alone with hybridization has given rise to an incredible diversity of dogs and cats over the course of, what, 5 to 10 thousand years.

        How can you not wonder what naturally developed over 65 MILLION years!!?!?

        Yes, they were small changes, that added up to large changes, that added up to really large changes! Micro and macro evolution are the one and the same — it is an artificial and disingenuous distinction that Creationists have fabricated.

        Even Darwin did not make this distinction, although he spoke of the whole spectrum of evolutionary change. To him, it was all part of the same process and same theory — just as any credible scientist would conclude today.

      16. Sorry, but you’re wrong again. We have diversity of dogs, but guess what? Dogs are still dogs. No dog has ever turned into another species, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You can’t because there is no such evidence. Macro evolution is not real. Apes can’t turn into humans or vice versa.

        Grow a brain.

      17. Really? No dog has “turned” into something in the last 5 to 10 thousand years that we’ve been breeding them. Who knows what we’ll have in a MILLION years…

        ALL domestic dogs are descended from the grey wolf — ONE wolf species. Did you know that? Did you also know that wolves and bears descended from the same common ancestor some 50 MILLION years ago? This when land mammal carnivores split into basically “dogs” and “cats”.

        Skunks, too, are “canines” — not “felines”. So all that PePe LePew baloney is just that — he could never mate with a cat, regardless of painted white stripes, because they are too different.

        (Well, he couldn’t mate with a black lab, either, but I digress…)

        What you fail to realize is that there IS fossil evidence for these mutations and changes over MILLIONS of years. You can cover your ears and say, “LA LA LA LA” all you want, but it doesn’t make the petrified bones disappear.

        And how ironic that you stoop to personal insults with “grow a brain”, when YOU are the one ignoring actual data and sticking with “God did it”, because you’re too stupid to admit you’re wrong.

        Fortunately, evolution seems to operate in philosophical and social systems, too, so you and your kind will eventually die out.

        Now there’s something to “Amen” about…

      18. Here’s what you don’t understand about speciation. 1) it’s all made up, just like the Biblical “kinds”. 2) it is extremely susceptible to a temporal anchor for two reasons: A) the data used for “making it up” has significant gaps and is ever-changing; and (THIS is the most important concept you need to get!) B) the species taxonomy, all the way up to Domain, is dependent upon at what time the biologist is classifying life!

        40 million years ago, a biologist would have called the proto-canine from which both bears and wolves descended, a “species”, because that is the bottom level of the taxonomy — the “leaves” on the “tree”.

        Already biologist are adding “subspecies” at a growing rate because more data comes in, yet so many animals are already “leaves” on the “tree”, so they have to come up with a new, even lower-level category.

        Even the definition of “species” has come under debate because of not only new information, but because of new hybridization techniques. For millennia, Man could only hybridize “naturally” — i.e. if the two animals could physically mate.

        Today, with in vitro fertilization, cloning, and genetic manipulation, “mating” two animals is much more complicated to define.

        For example, a Chihuahua cannot naturally mate with a Grey Wolf, or even a Great Dane! But in the lab they can, and are probably genetically similar enough to create embryos that the (larger) parent could give birth to, and themselves would be fertile.

        So, are they the same species or not? 200 years ago, they would not be the same species.

        And think of the biologist 100,000 years from now, assuming we haven’t so thoroughly jacked up this planet by then, and they still have the “wisdom” of their ancients — i.e. us! There will be an overwhelming number of “subspecies”! There will be subspecies with their own subspecies!

        That’s because the changes keep moving on. To a 20th century scientist, they may have seemed static because the changes occur over 50,000+ human generations! He’s never going to have to deal with the problem of his static classification scheme trying to define an ever-changing landscape of flora and fauna!

        In short, today the Grey Wolf is a Species, but in the future it will become a Genus, or maybe even a Family!

      19. @Momma Ern I have the feeling that you are unaware of what a THEORY is. A theory is not a guess, it is based on observation and facts. You, like many non-scientists confuse the word “theory” with “hypothesis”. A hypothesis is a guess, in essence.

        So, although in everyday, common, non-technical usage, lay people may happen to use the words “theory” and “hypothesis” interchangeably, but rest assured that that is not the case in science.

        For example, wouldn’t you think it strange if you heard someone say “Well, gravity is just a THEORY!” You would laugh at someone who thinks there is no such thing as gravity because it is called the theory of gravity, right? Google “Intelligent Falling” for more detail.

        You are welcome.

      20. Momma Ern: And learly you are one of those “ignorant churchies” because you’d know that

        1) People didn’t merely decide that evolutionary theory was accurate but accepted that it was so because of the incredibly huge mountains of evidence for it that piled up for it over the last 150+ years and continues to pile up for it;

        2) That “theory” in the scientific context means an model of reality that explains a large set of observations about an aspect of reality, leaving no observations out, and makes definite predictions about the futures observations that should be made if the theory is true. It is not a hunch or some wild guess you may have pulled out of your ass like how non-scientists use the word “theory” in every day speech; and

        3) Evolution is both a fact and a theory. There is the fact of evolution, the process which we can see happening in nature right in front of our very eyes (e.g. speciation events in progress like the hawthorn maggot, the London Underground mosquito and Goatbeard plants), and there is the theory of how evolution happens. Evolutionary Theory is probabaly most strongly supported theory in all of science.

        Also, it’s a lie that Charles Darwin died believing in creationism. “The Lady Hope Story,” published in 1915, has been shown to be an utter fabrication. Everyone in Darwin’s family denied the validity of the story. In 1918, Darwin’s son Francis wrote that “Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father’s agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so.” In 1922, Darwin’s daughter, Henrietta Litchfield, said she did not believe Lady Hope had ever seen her father and that “he never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A.”

      21. Ironically, of course, you don’t understand that the word “theory” has an entirely different connotation in a scientific context. Gravity is also a theory. So is relativity. And, frankly, I don’t know how you can be so smug about something that is based in faith. Faith doesn’t require evidence and can neither be proved nor disproved. If that’s what you like, then have at it, I, personally, like data.

      22. Theory has a different meaning in scientific circles than you think it does. http://www.notjustatheory.com/

        You also might want to recognize that we only have a “Theory” of gravity yet we were able to use that to get to the Moon, and Mars.

      23. From Darwin’s son: “Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply.” [17]
        From Darwin’s daughter: “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever.”[18]

      24. Mama Ern, while I respect Christianity for its core values, I must step in and clarify that a scientific theory is, by definition, drastically different than a common theory such as, “I bet Sally took my sandwich.” A scientific theory has not been disproven, and is established by the extensive gathering of evidence. I’ll remind you that gravity is also a scientific theory.

        Unlike creationism, science has no preconceived notions about the result of a study. If you’d like to research more about evolution before landing on an opinion, may I suggest visiting a local museum?

        Personally, I believe in God, and I think He wants us to use our brains and trust in logic before we trust in a book that had been politically edited countless times, hundreds of years ago.

        All the best.

      25. LOL you fail at understanding what the term “theory” means in scientific terms. Theories are analytical tools used to explain a given subject matter. Like gravity. If you actually believe in creationism, you not only disbelieve in empirical evidence, you fail at basic science. Good luck with your magical belief system! PS: Darwin was a creationist? HAHAHA. Nice one, troll. Try actually reading his writings. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic” not exactly the words of a “god-fearing christian creationist”.

      26. Sorry Momma Ern, but the definition of “theory” in the scientific community is a tad bit different than how you are using it here.

        Here are some other “theories” according to those mean ol’ scientists that you probably take for granted as fact:

        Cell Theory (you do believe that cells exist, right?)
        Atomic Theory
        Quantum Mechanics
        Wait for it . . . GRAVITY! Get out of town, gravity! Gravity can’t possibly be true! It’s just a THEORY! A Theory! My word, gravity. Those scientists are trying to pull a fast one one me. But I won’t let them. The word “theory” is after the word gravity, so instead of doing research about the definition of the word theory, I’ll just denounce that gravity exists. Life sure is easy this way.

        GASP! :O

        And to get your facts straight about Darwin. He only added the word “create” to The Origin of Species due to political & religious opposition to his work. It does not appear in the First Edition of Origin of Species. Sorry to burst your bubble, but he believed the stuffing out of evolution.

      27. Do you even know what a THEORY is? A guess is the common usage, but in scientific terms it has been subjected to mountains of tests and passed ALL of them and failed NONE of them. If you go to sleep and there is no snow on the ground and when you wake up there is snow on the ground it snowing during the night is a THEORY. There is no direct evidence that it snowed, but there is gobs of circumstantial evidence that it snowed. You parked in the driveway last night. If it snowed during the night there would be snow on your car. There is snow on your car! Further evidence in support of the theory that it snowed during the night. There is more evidence in support of the theory of evolution than there is for the theory that it snowed during the night.

      28. Yes, and gravity is also a “theory” but you don’t see people being flung into space all of a sudden, do you? Perhaps you should educate yourself on the scientific meaning of the word “theory.”

        “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” – American Heritage Science Dictionary

        A theory in science is different from a hypothesis, which is what many uneducated people confuse it with.

        “a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. ” – Random House Dictionary

        And frankly, unless you could read his mind and were present at his death, you can’t say with any certainty what his beliefs were. Darwin, in my opinion, was a man trying to reconcile his faith with scientific observation. Many scientists do this. Science is all about observation, and measurable facts.

      29. Oh Momma Em – you haven’t REALLY spawned, er, bred have you? Please say you haven’t!

        By the way, GRAVITY IS A THEORY. Just in case you didn’t know. Darwin believed in Creationism? That’s about as likely as you growing a brain…

      30. WRONG. Darwin never “took back” evolution, denied evolution or turned to creationism. He died accepting evolution as fact and still believing there may be a creator.

        Calling it “THEORY” in caps shows your gross ignorance. The word theory does, in fact, refer to a body of knowledge even after it has been conclusively proven, and evolution is observable on every level. The entire natural world demonstrates it very plainly, and anyone who studies it from any objective outlook will reach that same inevitable conclusion. The entire planet’s worth of scientific minds continue to support it regardless of their diverse spiritual backgrounds because it’s a simple, undeniable truth.

      31. Definition of a theory in the scientific community, which is what evolution is:
        “A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.”

        It’s a tested and experimented on explanation of a happening that can’t be 100% replicated, but is accepted to be the most plausible scenario. So, you saying Evolution is a theory doesn’t help your point.

        Second of all, Charles Darwin didn’t die a Creationist. From Wikipedia: “The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.” You can claim that Wikipedia can be edited, but at least they cite their sources. I cannot say as much for you.

        Your post does not help fight the notion that those who believe in religion are ignorant and uneducated, proven by the fact that both of your points are easily refuted with a minute of research.

  5. You know what would be refreshing? If we could all enjoy something really very exciting, such as these statues, without it being derailed into yet another tiresome and futile religion vs science debate.

    Just look at those photos! Some folks built something truly incredible and what a treat that we don’t yet know why or how.

    1. Thank you for this! How utterly amazing and astonishing and weirdly wonderful. Appreciation is nice, being humbled by it is nice but arguing about science and faith is futile.

  6. I wonder if there are whole statues buried. It would be interesting to see the details of the faces that hadn’t been eroded away by the weather.

    1. Maybe if they keep digging they will find statues that are completely buried. It would stand to reason that since some of the statues are mostly buried, then some maybe completely buried.
      As far as the aforementioned argument about the flood and age of the statues, If you believe in the Bible, literally, then the world is only about 5000 years old, and man afterall is the one who is theorizing on the age of the statues, not know for being correct all the time…

      1. I want to go on a treasure hunt now on Easter Island with a shovel! :P

    2. Now that they know the body part of the statues are buried maybe they will check into that.

  7. I’ve always felt there was something more to be revealed on Easter Island…these bodies and their carvings are magnificent. Oh, how exciting! I will be watching for more to be revealed as time goes on.

  8. This is very cool indeed! I have always found Easter Island fascinating. I am a creationist and I was surprised that the dating of the statues was rather reasonable. I would have expected them to much older but they really don’t seem so old now. I saw a cypress tree the other day that was older than these heads.
    I’d like to say something pertaining to the discussion above. Faith is exactly what it is. We Christians unfortunately can’t prove or disprove God or Creation. Sorry world, we are failures in the science field. Our arguments will forever be shot down by secular academics. Evolution and Creation will never see eye to eye for this reason. I am also curious as to why people are so intent on not believing in God and Creation no matter what. Why is it so hard for them to do? Literally they will believe in anything before they sink to that level. It’s very strange but it’s the original sin of man. People get automatically heated and agitated when the issue of faith and things larger and more important than themselves come into play. It is very cool to watch a person’s reaction to Creationism as their face turns purple and they get super angry. Wow! What an intense reaction. It is obvious that they feel threatened by it. Why else do people attack it so ferociously? If it was stupid or harmless no one would bother. “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”-Yoda
    My arguments are full of holes and so is everyone else’s. That is why you need a crazy little thing called faith. God and Creation are my convictions and my faith, while Evolution, Darwinism, and Atheism are the faiths of non-believers. We all have to believe in something even if that something is nothing. Don’t stop Believing!
    “Agnostic, lazy man’s atheist.”-Chevy Chase
    “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”-Yoda

    1. “I am also curious as to why people are so intent on not believing in God and Creation no matter what. Why is it so hard for them to do?”

      Because there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to support any of it. If you can believe without any proof at all, more power to you. NOBODY is “intent” on not believing in God or anything else; people are “intent” on believing things that can be empirically proved. Want to get an atheist to believe in God? Provide proof. REAL proof, not just your own subjective opinion.

      “It is very cool to watch a person’s reaction to Creationism as their face turns purple and they get super angry. Wow! What an intense reaction. It is obvious that they feel threatened by it.”

      Nobody actually does that. If you see people getting frustrated, it’s with creationists, not creationism. The “arguments” set forth by creationists are staggeringly dishonest, and it’s very frustrating to debate someone who refuses to accept objective evidence or apply logic, let alone set forth even one tiny bit of verifiable evidence to support their own position. It’s like arguing with a wall. And being annoyed by stupidity and mendacity is a world away from feeling “threatened” by a philosophical point.

      1. Look at it this way – if you were living in 1000 AD (for example) and you opened your door to see a Mercedes in your field and you cranked it up, put it in gear, and it started moving, taking you where you wanted to go, would you – – -as a rational person – conclude that all the parts of the car just fell together perfectly WITH NO DESIGNER and formed this very useful machine? OF COURSE NOT!! Yet that’s how evolutionists think! And when you consider that the human body is exponentially more sophisticated in design than the automobile and CAN EVEN FIX ITSELF, it becomes even more unbelievable that there is no Great Engineer! It doesn’t matter whether you believe him to be benevolent, evil or apathetic, but no logical person could conclude that there is no Great Designer.

    2. Also: “Evolution, Darwinism, and Atheism are the faiths of non-believers.”

      Everything in that sentence is completely wrong. Evolution is a fact, not faith. “Darwinism” (as you call it) is a scientific theory backed up by a couple of centuries of scientific observation and evidence collected across multiple scientific fields. Atheism is not “faith,” but a rational conclusion drawn from evidence; most atheists would change their minds if presented with real evidence of God/afterlife/mysticism. Your “non-believers” statement is wrong too, since there are many, MANY Christians (and Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and people of many other faiths) who accept the fact of evolution and the scientific explanation for why it happens.

      1. Yeah, I mean, I’m a Christian, but you know where I learned to accept evolution? In religious classes. you know why, because our teacher taught us about a little thing called metaphors, and the origin of scripture. We were taught not to take the bible literal and through this actually study where the viewpoints in the bible came from based on social, geographical and historical context.

        As such we were taught to see the big bang and evolution as the work of God, because quite simply creationism underestimates God and tries to pull Him down to human levels of understanding. It’s the lazy way out, instead of looking at the books of the bible, (many of them written hundreds if not thousands of years apart) and seeing the deeper meaning behind it, they take a millennia old game of telephone as literal truth, instead of a way for people of an ancient civilization to understand God.

        I don’t need to doubt evolution, because I personally see it as God’s hand in creation. (it’s also a nice bit of proof that God has a sense of humor, see the platypus)

        It’s just too bad that some creationists like to make the rest of us Christians look bad.
        I just wish that they got a clue and realized that science and faith can quite easily coexist. (though I really don’t get why any believer would want creationism taught in science classes, I mean, seriously, if you start with one version of creation, then you have to teach at the very least every other major creation belief as well. Can’t discriminate based on religion after all. I wonder how long these creationists would hold on to their demands, once a class on intelligent design featured pagan, Hindu, Buddhist and other creation myths alongside the Christian one.

      2. I am not a Christian, or a “Believer” of any kind…. I only know what I know…. but I agree with this…. If things work, it’s because they work… if things don’t work, it’s because they don’t work…. bringing belief into any argument is, well, tremendously stupid…. I believe in the Easter Bunny (NOT from Easter Island)…. does that make my other beliefs suspect…YOU BET YOUR SWEET BIPPIE…..

    3. I think that you can believe in God without any argument with science. Science is just a way to explore the world God made, using the minds and reason God gave. If there’s a disagreement between a book and the world we observe, which is more directly related to God: something written down and translated by imperfect humans, or the thing God actually willed into being?

      And which is more impressive: a universe breathed into life at the beginning, at the Big Bang, which has run exactly as designed since the beginning of time and which has resulted in our existence and ultimately this discussion – or something that was made fully formed with “traps” and “mistakes” and constantly needs miraculous tweaking and readjusting?

      I see science as the ultimate expression of faith and love and joy in discovery. We were given an urge to explore and minds to study and delight in knowledge. How then can we turn our backs on our nature and refuse these gifts?

  9. These have been there for longer than just a few hundred years. I would bet (given some of the markings on the works (The Astral Boat/Viking Boat)indicate astral events that occurred around 3114BC) They would have to be put up after this date but soon enough after that they may have first hand accounts of the events depicted in the skies. Of course I would recommend studying some plasma cosmology to decipher this.

    1. EXACTLY what I was thinking. Or perhaps even older. I just got through “Heaven’s Mirror” by Graham Hancock and am just starting on “Fingerprints of the Gods.” These Easter Island megaliths in some cases on the side of 270 tons and buried up to their necks in sediment could not have been built around the time of Columbus. Especially when it is factored in that they lie on a global longitudinal grid with numerological charectaristics relating to the (now) underwater megaliths in Japan, Ankhor Wat, the Giza Necropolis, the pyramids of Mexico and Nazca lines in Peru. I’m guessing the Easter Island statues were erected during the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. But by whom I will not speculate.

Comments are closed.