I'm not a evolutionist nor a creationist. I'm agnostic. Intention of finding where everything came from doesn't seem that important when people are starving.
What I'm getting at is: What is the point to find the origins of mankind??? To find our origins on the absolute level of knowledge is like trying to become omniscient. Impossible (well, at least as far as I can tell). I know that the best way to determine what "evidence" suggests is by empirical study and logical thought. I just don't know how this evidence can be valid considering that evolutionists postulate Earth could be 4.6 billion years old! Then the other way around, which is considered by evolutionists ridiculous, around ten thousand years old. Your age of Earth is 4.6 million times the amount that creationists believe! A very significant gap, that is. Both claim to be valid, as they then accuse the other argument to be retarded, flawed, and should be pissed on to have some kind of use. I think relativity by interpretation of evidence is why both sides are right. It'd be funny if both are wrong. Again, what is the use of finding supposed "facts" for theoretical origins in which are not relevant when we could be otherwise be looking for more important problems of humanitie's existence, such as overpopulation? |