posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 04:39 PM
Originally posted by dontreally
I asked you a simple question. Look at the pace of development and thinking between 3500 BCE and 1700, and you sidestepped the question.
I didn't understand it that way.
If you were talking about the pace of development then it's obvious that there was a difference between 1700 and before, but that difference has
always existed, we have never stopped progressing and the pace is always faster.
What do you think is meant by the "dark ages"? It was the turn away from the pagan science of Greek empirical philosophy. Where is your
organic "continuation" from A to B? There was an interruption, a falling back. The sciences, and indeed, the world around man, didn't change very
much for 5000 years of human history.
Science (or what was the equivalent before what is now known as "science" existed) has always evolved, I don't get where do you got that things
didn't change much for 5000 years.
Until you recognize this, you'll just be engaging in a game of sophistry, simply because you refuse to concede.
I cannot recognise something that I know is not true, as from what I understand of what you are saying (that there wasn't any real development for
5000 years) is not true.
What do you mean I keep "adjusting" the dates. I simply placed the date - 1840 - in the middle of the industrial revolution, where train
tracks began connecting cities the world over.
Adjusting the dates of the advancement, not the date from your theory, obviously.
But it's the 19th century in particular where the world 'takes off'. Look at how far we've come in a matter of 170 years since that
That's what I have been saying, it's a continuous, always accelerating, process, there's no "start" that we can pinpoint, knowledge, both the
collective and the personal, is something that we build up during our existence, and the more we have the easier it is to get more.
Again, I feel the need to remind you at this point that for 5000 years the world LOOKED the same. It took the 19th century to create
substantial changes in appearance.
The look is what matters in this case?
I thought it was about "earthly wisdom", meaning "physical wisdom, which is SCIENCE!", not about how things looked like.