The dawn of man is all based on theories.
God is a theory in his own right.
(As was explained to me, I apparently have the technicalities of this comment confused, but as I understand the definition of theory, it is correct.)
If the Roman Empire exsisted before the Middle Ages like they say; how is it that the Romans could configure their own modern plumbing and filtration systems that resemble ours today, but yet, during the Middle Ages, which was supposed to come laterin history, all of that was lost and became a completely foreign idea when they were reduced down to using a pot.
Apparently, time and sequence are only a human concept, as was also explained to me.
I don't believe that religion and science can coincide with each other if we lack the knowledge and certainty of a higher exsistance or evolution. The basis for either of these theories both lack a signifigant amount of physical evidence or any other measures of proof, other than a few lost and broken artifacts on both sides and some "theories" from some guy sitting in a lab.
If the theory of evolution can be taken out of the textbooks and they think that they're being more "politically correct" by renaming the eras, then they should stop basing the eras off of the birth of Christ. Neither theory can be proven. Why give one the victor because of popular religious belief?
Maybe I should stop caring what they preach versus what they teach.