Hi doma,
Well, I think you are correct that you are on a long shot with people that have a body of knowledge independent of your source (and by that I don't mean the Sumerian tablets but the fellow who wrote his own free translation of them). I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. I'm sceptical of the Moonies and the Hindus and the Christians, but I am interested in why they believe what they believe. And I invited you here so you could have a space in which you could expound your theory and not have it deleted.
If it's a good theory, it should withstand a few questions, shouldn't it?
I've read some of Sumerian literature. I must say, it never occurred to me to believe that their accounts of the Gods were more than mythology of a type that is normal in early cultures. Pretty much every primitive culture has a creation myth. I have never had a conversation with someone who took the Sumerian creation myth seriously as a foundation of belief. But it's cool with me that you do so.
But if it is uncomfortable for you that I should kick the tyres, so be it. I guess this board isn't a great space to share it after all.
As regards your theory about evolution, the wondrous thing about science is that any hypothesis is based on facts and that for it to survive, it must withstand attempts at disproof. There is plenty of support for the modern evolutionary synthesis. I'll have to look into your chromosomal theory as I've never heard of it (I know about the chromosomes but not about the splicing). But even if it were true, it wouldn't actually contradict evolutionary theory as far as I can see. Human beings modify the genes of crops, and this does not nullify the theory of evolution either. Nature still progresses via its selection process.
So the difference between the modern evolutionary synthesis and religion is that religion requires you to believe things which are not susceptible to disproof. The reason folks believe in scientific theories is that they are robust against the facts. In the case of evolutionary theory, it has withstood every attempt at disproof thus far. But if it fails at some point, then it is history. That's the great thing about science. It evolves.
But maybe implicitly you are surrendering this point in your post. Your religious view has its basis in a free translation of cuneiform by your faith's leader. And that is as good as any other religious theory that's out there. They all have a foundation in a claim that cannot be falsified. Astronaut Gods are as good as any other, I guess.
But after that, when you try to build theories which conform with your religious view, it starts to get a bit weird. I'm still curious about your gold theory. Where are those mines? What about currency debasement? How about those monoatoms? If it makes good history or good economics, it should stand on its own, right? Why does it collapse into defensiveness about the extent of my knowledge? If it's a good theory, it shouldn't hide. Give it more light.
| 