Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Real:
HA I got you, how can you claim that your speculation is true but what you claim to be mine (You present no evedince) isn't?
And what do you mean modern, the geneticst creating life, well they done it so are, in religious terams shouldn't they be considered gods? but how reason to say it wrong is that you religion got there first, that a laugh.
Prehistoric also applies neo-nolithic people but they had temples and existed aroung the same time as the mayans (Or one of that lot). In fact prehistory, if I recall, talks about any caulture that doesn't have a written record of it existance, mind you I not to sure about that, my minds slowing due to lack of sleep.
Hang on, I just noticed you enitre arument seems to be your speculation is right, becuase a might well of be a work of fiction with added historical notations to give it extra unmp agianst the speculation of nealry all of the science comuinty who have presented tonns of evidence to prove it or have corrected its mistakes to fit with a ever growing bases of Knowlage.
Hell you might as well say that gravity doesn't exist as it only a spection of what causes us to be attracted to the planets core when in fact is tiny invable fairys pushing us down sheees.
|
As far as modern, I mean that the theory you support is trying to supplant on already in existance. Exactly what I said already. I'm not claiming mine is necessarily true. I believe it is, but you don't have to if you don't want to. I am saying that yours is, at this point, considered false, because at this point it has no proof to back it up, only speculation. And as it is put forth as a scientific theory, that makes it false. As a hypothesis, who knows, we'll just have to wait and see if it is true or not. But it is definitely not right now. No, when we divide blastocysts to create clones, and any other method of creating a clone or another species of plant, we are not a God in any sense of the word. We are, in actuality, playing with things that we really don't understand. I hope we never try such things with humans, as i fear it will lead to some drastic consequences. My reason to say evolution is wrong is not because creation was first, that is my reason to say creation is right. Because there is no proof that this new theory is correct. Until it can be proven correct, the old idea stands, and that idea is creation. You are correct, prehistoric means they had no written history. As such, we have no way of knowing what they believed. But once we start written history, we see that those people when that first writing began, believed in creation and a higher power of some sort.
I told you one reason why I believed in creation. It is the standing belief, and evolution has no proof, no foundation, to disprove it. Whether you believe the bible is true or not, the original scrolls are dated among the oldest of written history. And they talk of creation.
I cannot say that gravity does not exist, because there is plenty of repeatable proof and evidence to say that it does. It has gone beyong a theory and become a law. You version of evolution has yet to even become a theory.
------------------
"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon