- Canadian Ehhh
- |
- Elder Mythic Member
I don't bite, I rant!
Real Custom Games - Breaking the Halo Cookie Cutter One Gametype at a Time
Posted by: GoldenSniper456
He's just a genius in the computer and game world. Enough said.
Posted by: hunter117
Alright you want facts and quotes here are a few.
Let's see, hopefully people will read this before further posting, as they think your a retard who actually beleive the origional post was for real.
Posted by: hunter117
Humans have been on earth 2 million years right, the first life was on earth about a billion years before that right so that means the halos were activated at least a billion years before the humans came to earth. It would not take them that long to get to earth the humans in the books could travel much faster than that.
Not necesarily, your forgetting the possibility of earth being the ARK, that would mean that all sentinate life on the planet could survive, supposing ofcourse that thats the purpose of the ark. Then again though my evidence is circumstantial and assumes certain things, so is yours, only it assumes the opposite. Stalemate :)
Posted by: hunter117
Also if you think they placed life forms on earth that would evolve into humans than there is no way that they would look anything like forerunners because they evolved on a completely different planet.
Well who says it's a completely different planet, maybe it's even the same planet. Once again your assuming things in your argument, then again so is pretty well everyone who voices there arguments on the plot. Once again neither proves the other wrong as it could be a completely different planet we don't know. Stalemate :)
Posted by: hunter117
They would be some thing completely new. No matter how you look at it, it has been a billion years since the rings were activated and in a billion years of evolution they will be completely different form the original organism, it’s like saying we evolved from small one celled organisms so we must be small one celled organisms.
Well that comparison at the end is illlegitimate as if the forerunners planted organsim to evolve, well those organisms are forerunner so we wouldn't be saying we are forerunner because we evolved form them. We'd be saying we're forerunner because we evolved form the same cells as them though they would have to be genetically engineered to evolve in a certain way. Either way I not nor you have any evidence for or against that can't be argued and proven only a possibility. Stalemate :)
Posted by: hunter117
But the fact that they would even try to preserve life is dumb why would they build a weapon that could wipe out all life if they wanted to save preserve their race.
Well the weapon was built to destroy all the life in the universe so that the flood would not consume them. Destroy their race to save it, it was a act of desperation as they new it would not survive if they didn't destroy the flood. I'm afraid I have point here, but it's a circumstential point like always.
Posted by: hunter117
Also the monitor says his creators and all life were wiped out, not some life all of it.
Well if you can find that quote please do so, that would be a major point in your favour, but I need the quote because i do not remember him saying that.
Posted by: hunter117
Even if they saved some life they would not be able to survive because they would have nothing to eat.
Well what if they saved food aswell. Once again the earth may be the ARK thus preserving food. Aswell if they had as some (not me) beleive left organism to evolve, what makes you say they only left pre-human organisms. Since I made no point here but only proved your deligitmate. Stalemate:)
Posted by: hunter117
Even if they could or would make a life form that would evolve to be them on earth after a billion years that would make them gods and not at all humans.
Who says it's been a billion years. This is a video game they can decide wther humans are right or wrong in this universe. Besides if the earth is the ark and the ark works life we think then they wouldn't of needed to have evolving organism to recreate themselves. Once again neither is really evidence, only ideas that if something works this way then....So once again No Points:) (you thought I was gonna say something else weren't you).
What everyone needs to undertand is that there is no solid evidence, only circumstantial and hints. So no matter what you say about the way things are, there is no solid backing, only a few hints. We need to realize that none of us know and that though we may debate we must realize that there can be no clear winner and we must undertand that others have good reason for think the way they do even if it opposes the way you think which may also have good reasoning. We as a race too often resort to taking sides in an rather then having a neutrel discussion. I think my next post i'll make much more neutral and try to discuss both sides. the reason I atatcked Hunters arguments was because I do beleive that the humans are forerunners and I did not find is arguments to be good evidence otherwise.