Quote:
Originally posted by Starboy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starboy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,
History is what humans have documented in writing or by other methods. History is about words recorded ( or as art or symbols that can be interpreted for information about a era of human activity). Otherwise you have pre-history. Pre-history is all that took place before some humans keep some kind of documented record of it. Pre-history and history are not the same thing. Nor shall post history be the same as history because writing will be a obsolete form of commuication.
And so in most schools of thought we have.
Pre-history.
History.
and the potential of post-history. |
Not even historians will buy your concept of history. A great deal of history is constructed from physical evidence. Archeological sites, old documents, relics, myths and stories both verbal and written. Many of these sites being excavated are well within the time frame of written history. The problem with any written account is that it is a single person’s view and in many cases was written long after the event occurred. There is much in history that is purported to have happened that is just myth and much that has happened that has just gone unrecorded. If your guy is calibrating his method against written history I am already doubtful.
Historians created the titles Pre-History and History, not me.
How do you excavate both verbal and written evidence from a archeological site? I mean the verbal part, do they listen to hear what the stones are saying?
Historians have indeed appionted dates to historical events and have dated when a certain culture and they have come to a basic agreement as to when happened during what dated age. They even appointed a date for the Big Bang and other such events they have made a theory about. To the best of their abilty they have dated undocumented parts of pre-history such as when a certain dinosaur was around. Without those dates the whold concept of history would fall apart as well as any science about evolution. If you did not know that came before what it would just be a blur of timeless happenings. And a number of different sources of research have confirmed the data about the dates we now have used for our latest history books. You might not wish to agree with those dates buy you stand somewhat alone in your personal opinion.
Are you kidding? Rare blood disorders due to genetic mutations. Blood types that only exist in isolated populations. Island populations that are mostly color blind. Differences in skin color, hair pigmentation, shape of the eyes. Where do you think race comes from? Soul please do not use [Techno] in your name. You are just too clueless about physical reality.
They are still speculating about why we have different races of people, no absolute explaination has been estabished, just guesswork at this stage of the game. To suggest what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race, that this would mean one race is better then another one, the KKK would like that interpretation. If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another the where is the "evolution"? How can having red hair and not black hair be explained as evolving? How are modern humans any different the people who lived 2000 years ago relative to their physical shape or apperance?
aTechno, random variation is an important part of evolution. Perhaps you should learn the theory of evolution.
Been there and done that, took a class in evolution at UCLA and worked a dig at the Irvine Ranch.
I have already told you how to support these claims scientifically. They need to run the experiments.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
If you wish to flip flop and take a religious perspective then that is fine with me, but not sure wich point you are trying to establish, or where-in your confusion sits.
Technosoul. |
What perspective is that? Can you explain the scientific perspective? I doubt it. Every post you have made confuses religion with science. You continuously exhibit your profound ignorance of common scientific knowledge yet you like to let on that you are hip when it comes to science. Please stop the charade.
according to you the scientific explaination is "no one knows yet". The persepctive of science is they must do more research before they can claim any answer. That is your opinion about science. But the fact is they do know things, and are not totally in the dark, and they do not claim all their research is useless because there is more to learn. Science is also about taking what they know and making a useful applicaiton of it via some invention or whatever. If the microwave oven works then that is proof enough that the theory was correct. Not withstanding that another theory might lead to yet a better type of cooking appliance.
Not everything is "up in the air" and just pure speculation. Without the certainty of some sort of proof you are left with a choice between faith or just nothingness. Science cannot construct a theory without assuming they are building it on other known facts.
Knowing is not a no-no.
Technosoul.
Starboy[/b][/quote]