I haven't read everything previous, just skimmed it, so I may be repeating here, but...
I personally feel that allomancy was around before the ascension, but not right before it. Like, it had been created, but was not in use. I also think that it is likely that this is due to a condition of the mists that was not being met that was required for allomancy to work. I think it likely that the lord ruler made the changes necessary for it to work. But this is all insane speculation, and I have no real evidence to support it.
WEAK. All of your quotes were weak. Each one was of either a speculation or a character assuming that the Deepness was the problem...weak. However, i have updated my theory, for many obvious reasons, and i think you might agree. What if the mist doesn't become the Deepness until the sun rises? That would explain why it's begining to cling on a little while longer after sunrise. It would also explain why the Deepness was such a bother then; at night not many people were out on the streets--but during the day? Problem.
Is that a better theory?
Ummm.....I'm kind of at a loss here. So you're telling me that you're going to present a theory based entirely off of speculation, then when I provide evidence to counteract it you tell me that it's weak? When you have anything at all out of the books to support your theory I'll listen to you. However, as per Chaos request, we shall discuss it in the Vin as HOA thread.
In defense of my quotes, they are not in any way shape or form weak. These are characters from the time of the deepness describing it in Primary Sources. Who would know better what the deepness is than someone who has seen it and has seen what it can do? But even if your seriously going to debate that Alendi and Kwaan don't know anything about the deepness.... EVERYONE in the current mistborn world thinks of the deepness as being terrible. You'd think that would give you some clue.
The main problem I can see with the mist not being the deepness till after sunrise is that we have numerous examples of people going out after sunrise and not being deepness-ified. It's possible, but I still think it likely that the deepness and the mists are two separate things. It just fits better with the logic of what we've been able to work out so far.
I have one primary complaint to lodge, elmandr1. You request that we all support our opinions to debunk your theories with evidence, but I have yet to see anything from the books backing you up. If you're going to require that we supply quotes to get rid of your theories, and want it to be seen as more than just wishful speculation, then you have to provide quotes to establish plausibility. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're suggesting ideas, but you seem to come up with an idea, post it before it's fully formed, then let it develop based on response. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but once it's up, you attack anyone who tries to present evidence to the contrary and modify it left and right till no one knows what you're talking about.
That being said, I do really enjoy the discussion you generate, as well as the fact that you are presenting new ideas. You seem to be an extremely pleasant person, and one who is easy to converse with. You also seem to be quite intelligent. Please don't think I mean to insult you with this post, because I don't. But please try to not be so defensive of your theories. We're here to figure out what is going to happen before the book comes out. We all get theories shot down all the time. If evidence is presented that revives the theory, I revise my opinion based on the evidence. Until then, I consider it likely that the theory won't happen (or at least not all of it. There are parts that I really like).
If I totally misread the tone of your posts, please forgive me, but it seems to me that you're trying too hard to defend it when you don't have any evidence. You can still believe it, obviously, but don't waste you time trying to convince me without anything to support. So, I guess what I'm saying is we'll have to agree to disagree.
Edit. Just found this comment from you in another thread. It expresses what I'm trying to say quite well.
At this point its pure speculation, I have found that a lot of the good theorizing that goes on here is often brought out by pure and simple speculation. Once a good theory is formed then it is time to go investigate. Why would I spend the time looking into it if I posted an idea and someone told me I was "wrong and here's why" right off the bat. I like to test ideas off of the other posters first. Plus that gives others the chance to think about the idea and investigate for themselves giving alternate perspectives on the same idea.
Ehm. i didn't say you were wrong, i just find it difficult to accept a rejection to a theory unless the reject or or debater presented some sort of explanation.
From what i understand, you want to counter for the sake of? huh? i don't mean to offend you. Really. I'm all for hearing all kinds of theories, and though it may not seem so but i have been researching everything you and i have discussed in this and other threads. When you can prove otherwise or i can find reason to stray from this theory, i will update and present it.
when people are speculating you need to test their theories with the straight forward question, the obvious. If it can survive that, then it can be deem meritable. Other wise its just another thought.
Listen to yourself. You say their just speculation but defend them like their religion. I don't deny being wrong when i am so. Really. However, i expect you and myself to present topics and theories that you've at least thought some about--it helps to wash out all the unnecessary posts.
