Wow, just wow. I'd recommend a book, Radical Evolution, which discusses probable causes and results of our exploding base of knowledge...but methinks you'd missunderstand it.
10/12/2007 11:09:57 AM
Discover ink? Well it wasn't really there for discovering, unless you're speaking of the squid variety. Man has for a VERY long time created paint and ink like substances to paint with. Ever heard of cave paintings?
Also, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with technology.
10/12/2007 11:13:34 AM
Man was still using DOS a million years ago.
10/12/2007 11:16:57 AM
The Last Conformist
Because, as everyone knows, today inscriptions on public monuments are done in ink.
10/12/2007 11:22:39 AM
This is one of the weirdest arguments against evolution I've seen.
And what about asking if God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, why did he write them upon stone? Why not give Moses the DVD version (along with a player and a really cool plasma TV) so he could watch them during those boring nights at the desert?
10/12/2007 11:25:59 AM
Because mankind didn't exist millions of years ago. And because your religion held back all scientific advancement for almost a thousand years.
10/12/2007 11:27:10 AM
If, as fundies claim, man was intelligently designed, why is David J Stewart so spectacularly unintelligent?
10/12/2007 11:35:40 AM
In fact, man did discover ink millions of years ago! It was discovered by "Thrunge the black fingered" in 1,005,204 BC, but as he didn't discover paper at the same time, he couldn't write his discovery down and so it was soon forgotten.
(It's ironic that paper was actually invented before ink, but again the discovery could not be written down and was soon lost again. The discoverer of paper was "Gru!it with the very clean anus".)
10/12/2007 11:48:16 AM
Because there's no reason the evolution of organisms and the evolution of ideas should start at the same time or proceed at the same rate; they are distinct and operate via different mechanisms (reproduction of organisms with chemical mutation and the exchange of ideas with mutation via misinterpretation, respectively). In fact, some kinds of idea exchange are much faster than evolution, because new ideas can be formed by the logical combination of existing ideas in a single step, rather than getting to the same idea by gradual selection and amplification of beneficial traits over many generations, coupled with mutation in transmission. Of course, the ideas of formal logic and rationalism can only have been generated by processes without reference to formal logic or rationalism, ie modelled on an evolutionary pattern. Thus, there is a gradual development of ideas via conventional evolution prior to the rise of rationalism and logic, but once we have them they can be used to short-circuit the evolution of knowledge, leading to a sudden, massive increase in the rate of generation of ideas.
10/12/2007 11:49:01 AM
Mankind had to break out of the centuries-long European christian lockdown to promote widespread literacy, and the propagation of ideas.
Most of the early technology of literacy was imported from other cultures.
The Industrial Revolution began, thanks to the Enlightenment. The typewriter was developed in the 19th century, and the electronic technology after the 1950s.
We have laser printers now, thanks to the technology that was recovered from the Roswell NM crash debris, and reverse-engineered by American companies.
10/12/2007 11:49:18 AM
Because writting was less complex, was a human invention and the scientific basis was already established?. Comparing the Biological achievements of a human being with their technical ones is like comparing pears and apples.
10/12/2007 11:53:49 AM
I told you earlier this morning that the meds are in the cabinet behind the Maalox. I am really sorry that I didn't check them first, because it is now apparent that you have been OD'ing on them and have, consequently, dulled your thinking.
It's Cold Turkey Time, Davie!... I've made some really strong coffee, and we're gonna ride this out!!
10/12/2007 11:58:29 AM
Man did not develop a civilization until about 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile, mankind in it's present form has only existed for about 130,000 years. Once Humans figured out that they could plant their own crops 10,000 years ago they had a stable source of food and were able to settle down in large groups. From there part of the population would harvest the food for a larger population which could now focus on tasks that did involve survival. Thus inventions began to become more complex. This is pretty basic stuff, kiddo.
10/12/2007 12:16:32 PM
The Ten Commandments were not 'written upon stone' at all, at least in the earlier versions.
The letters were cut right through the tablets, which could somehow still be read from either side. In the case of letters that included a loop a fragment of stone hung magically in mid-air to fill the space.
These stories are in the Talmud, but were dropped from the Bible. Please research your own myth before posting.
10/12/2007 12:18:08 PM
10/12/2007 12:18:27 PM
Someone doesn't understand exponential growth very well.
10/12/2007 12:19:32 PM
Your incomprehension is not evidence, or even an argument.
10/12/2007 12:33:39 PM
Wow, you don't understand history, science, or math. That's fantastic.
10/12/2007 12:40:51 PM
Wow. My professors were wrong. There *are* stupid questions
10/12/2007 12:41:46 PM
And if Kimi Raikonnen is a professional race driver, how come he doesn't go from the start of the race to the finish instantaneously?
10/12/2007 12:47:52 PM
Technology and human knowledge both follow an exponential progression up to the degree supported by communications systems. The faster people can communicate, the faster new things can be learned and discovered. That's why "the singularity" slides around and can't have a definite date. Relative to us today, it's maybe another 50 years out. Relative to people in 1700, it was closer to 100 years away.
For those who don't know, "the singularity" in this context is essentially the estimate of the next point after which current predictions of technological understanding at a future date fall apart. The point by which time, we can no longer predict what new discoveries could be made and how they would shape our future understanding. Things like the discovery of the transistor or fundamental shifts in the type of technology (printed word to phones, for instance).
10/12/2007 1:20:19 PM
Sady, the fundtard thinks this is a clever, well thought out argument.
10/12/2007 1:27:33 PM
The dark ages played a big roll in slowing our technological development...
10/12/2007 1:41:41 PM
Because we've only been able to progress with science without religion clouding our judgement for less than a thousand years. The Renaissance was the first step forward, because religion took a back seat to the quest for knowledge. Even then, it wasn't all science. For example, Galileo was imprisoned for his radical claim that the earth was not, in fact, the center of the universe.
10/12/2007 1:45:41 PM
Well David, I'll take you to the wilderness and tell you that you will have to survive using only what is available naturally. I doubt you'll build a lazer printer anytime soon let alone have a need for ink.
10/12/2007 2:14:46 PM