Why is it?

Originally posted by amannion
But of course we would see such exponential development. We don't live in a vacuum. We're a species that relies on culture and learning - that is, we learn from our ancestors and pass this learning on to our descendants.
So our civilisations have skyrocketed as a result.
There's nothing startling about that.

That does not explain the last 6000 years assuming mankind has walked the earth for a million or so years. I suppose you could say that over the last 6000 years mankind learned to stress writing down information to pass to subsequent generations at best.

Originally posted by whodey
That does not explain the last 6000 years assuming mankind has walked the earth for a million or so years. I suppose you could say that over the last 6000 years mankind learned to stress writing down information to pass to subsequent generations at best.

The written record enabled a huge change in what we could pass on. That does explain the last few thousand years ...

Originally posted by amannion
The written record enabled a huge change in what we could pass on. That does explain the last few thousand years ...

OK, so your arguement is that it took a million or so years to evolve to the point that we decided to write down information in order to learn from it?

Originally posted by whodey
OK, so your arguement is that it took a million or so years to evolve to the point that we decided to write down information in order to learn from it?

That's the thing with exponential growth - it starts slow ...

Originally posted by whodey
That does not explain the last 6000 years assuming mankind has walked the earth for a million or so years. I suppose you could say that over the last 6000 years mankind learned to stress writing down information to pass to subsequent generations at best.

As pointed out repeatedly by rwingett, there is nothing special about the 6000 year figure, and he even showed that there are many other dates which are clearly special in various ways. In fact you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever for there being anything special about that date. You started off by talking about written history. Please provide links to any source which places the earliest writing within a 1000 years of your claimed date.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Do you think is important for people to evolve spiritually?

It's called growth not evolution.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, let me put it another way. The last 6000 years have seen an explosion in terms of technology. These advancements seem to have exploded exponentially since the Stone Age. Therefore, to say that there is nothing special about the last 6000 years is blantantly false.

Yes, we have seen an explosion of technology within the last 6,000 years. But it was a slowly building process, stretched over long periods of time. There was no sudden burst in ingenuity that commenced on 4,000 BCE. So there's nothing special about that particular date. In fact, the most spectacular bursts of creativity were fueled by purely secular means. The scientific revolution and the industrial revolution propelled mankind forward by leaps and bounds. If you want, you could pick the 1700s or the 1800s as being watershed centuries in human development, but you don't because your bias requires you to remain committed to your preferred date of 6,000 years ago. Your entire line of argument is a complete waste of time.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, we have seen an explosion of technology within the last 6,000 years. But it was a slowly building process, stretched over long periods of time. There was no sudden burst in ingenuity that commenced on 4,000 BCE. So there's nothing special about that particular date. In fact, the most spectacular bursts of creativity were fueled by purely secular means. ...[text shortened]... r preferred date of 6,000 years ago. Your entire line of argument is a complete waste of time.

Sorry, all we have to go on is archeology and written history which began only 6000 some years ago.

Originally posted by whodey
Sorry, all we have to go on is archeology and written history which began only 6000 some years ago.

Archaeology gives us a great span of dates for various human activities as I have demonstrated. The archaeological evidence for writing systems is similar. Writing systems didn't just appear out of nowhere fully formed. They, too, evolved slowly over great periods of time. We have evidence of ideographic symbols being used as early as early as 7,000 BCE, which functioned as a sort of proto-writing. From Wikipedia:

Notably the Vinca signs show an evolution of simple symbols beginning in the 7th millennium, gradually increasing in complexity throughout the 6th millennium and culminating in the Tartaria tablets of the 5th millennium with their rows of symbols carefully aligned, evoking the impression of a "text". The hieroglyphic scripts of the Ancient Near East (Egyptian, Sumerian proto-Cuneiform and Cretan) seamlessly emerge from such symbol systems, so that it is difficult to say, already because very little is known about the symbols' meanings, at what point precisely writing emerges from proto-writing.

The earliest known cuneiform script was created by the Sumerians around 3,000 BCE. So writing didn't just pop into existence at 6,000 years ago. It evolved from simple pictographic symbols over a few thousand years. So once again, there is no special importance about your chosen watershed date of 6,000 years ago.

Originally posted by rwingett
So once again, there is no special importance about your chosen watershed date of 6,000 years ago.[/b]

Once again, as the records indicate man developed civilizations that we are accustomed to today and also a developed form of written language that we are accustomed to today and a coherent religious tradition we are accustomed to today after thousands of years of evolutionary development. I don't think either of us are arguing this point, rather, I seem to be the only one acknowledging the importance of these things finally culminating together in its totality some 6000 years ago. However, for people like Josephw there is the added bonus of believing that mankind cannot trace his roots back a millions of years ago because we have no written record of modern man having a coherent existence.

Originally posted by whodey
Once again, as the records indicate man developed civilizations that we are accustomed to today and also a developed form of written language that we are accustomed to today and a coherent religious tradition we are accustomed to today after thousands of years of evolutionary development. I don't think either of us are arguing this point, rather, I seem to b ...[text shortened]... lions of years ago because we have no written record of modern man having a coherent existence.

They didn't just "come together" 6,000 years ago. As I pointed out, they came together 3,000 years prior to that at Catal Huyuk. We see another example, with the city of Jericho being inhabited as early as 9,000 BCE. Your myopic attachment to this fairy tale date of 6,000 years ago is completely unsupportable in any way.

As for Josephw, we obviously don't have written records that precede the invention of writing, but there is indeed an abundance of other physical evidence to allow us to trace our roots back millions of years. You don't need written records to have tangible evidence of something.

Your arguments are complete garbage.