Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So Now, rather than produce this test of past nature you just claimed to have...we see you have nothing at all! Instead you ask me how we would test it!!
Hey! That happened to me the other night too!No, from reason.
The default is not to accept any claim anyone utters.
The default is disbelief until the burden of proof of said claim has been met.
Let's have an example:
I saw a Jessica Alba movie last night. An hour into the movie, the image froze and Alba crawled out of the TV screen. We had some wine and then sex. Afterwards, she crawled back into the TV and the movies started playing again.
Do you believe me?
Why not?
Why isn't the default stance to believe my claim, until proven false?
Not accepting faith based claims, is the opposite of "mythical and superstitious".
Didn't one accept one's father and mother based on faith or hearsay, please?
Especially origins sciences.
I don't see the evidence produced so far that is proving the theory. Now if you want to say that there is a theory, and evidence of the theory, frankly speaking, I don't see any evidence of whatever (not proof?) of the theory. Or theories. Of evolution. Evidence (such as a fossilized skull) may seem to fit into the theory, but since the theory basically works on micro and macro changes (i.e., evolution), I don't see the evidence of that. Something isn't right with the theory. Here's why: since there is no micro or macro evidence of the theory in material substance meaning fossils showing these distinct absolute changes in progress, and since you say that the theories don't deal in proof, only evidence, it's like me seeing a dog and its theoretical predecessor (apparently they say dogs came from wolves), and then saying, well that's evidence that the dog evolved from wolves, is that something on the phylogenetic tree. (See? I remembered the term...maybe because I think the tree is kind of cute, even if I think it's not true.)
P.S. In reference to mankind's written history, I find it interesting that there are no historical records (written) before about 5,000 years ago. Why is that interesting? Because mankind, according to evolutionists, has been around for about 200,000 years in its present homo sapien form. But only in the past 5,000 or so years has writing been around. Odd, very odd. No evidence of writing before that. Amazing. So in all those few hundreds of thousands of years mankind supposedly existed, about let's see -- 194,000 years passed with no writing. That's something. What's the theory about that?
P.S. In reference to mankind's written history, I find it interesting that there are no historical records (written) before about 5,000 years ago. Why is that interesting? Because mankind, according to evolutionists, has been around for about 200,000 years in its present homo sapien form. But only in the past 5,000 or so years has writing been around. Odd, very odd. No evidence of writing before that. Amazing. So in all those few hundreds of thousands of years mankind supposedly existed, about let's see -- 194,000 years passed with no writing. That's something.
So did humans (do you think/imagine/surmise?) not have the ability or need o write in order to communicate all those approximately 200,000 years they supposedly have been around? One might really have to think (believe) they must have been kind of dumb for all those many, many years to not have invented writing. Have any intermediary life forms, particular in the way of apes, developed writing? By the way, writing has to be taught by another, insofar as I know. Maybe there's evidence of feral children or adults figuring out how to write, that you know of?