Is this the reason for the 4000BC start?

[r_rolo1]

I dunno. The OT moderators mightn't appreciate it.

Btw, why does the manner need to be very specific? Much of what we supposedly see with our eyes is constructed in our mind anyway. My favourite example to think about, related to this, is the first sightings of European ships by native Americans, where many simply could not see the ship. However, it's entirely possible that too is a myth.

I mean that only a local/global concave curvature ( from the surface point of view, that is ) of the rays of light for distant sources could produce the sinking ship ilusion on a flat earth...

And that story of the native americans not seeing ships ... it is suposedely true , but it was not the first ones That suposedely happened whem Magalhães ( damned you english people for using the castilian aliteration ) expedition got to Tierra del Fuego and met the Patagonians. The issue is that it is hard to confirm that story with the Patagonians because no one seen them after that :/

 

[FireStorm5]

I also have a masters degree in history so I think I'm more than qualified to speak on this subject.

Well I guess a liberal arts degree has to make you qualified for something...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I have a theory that all life on Earth was created by a sentient pink cupcake that lives at the centre of the galaxy, but which is completely invisible. And even though it's invisible, it is still definitely pink. Once I've managed to convince half the world of this I can angrily post on the internet if anyone dares to suggest I might be barking mad.

 

[WolfHound22]

If the worst anybody can do is say "we don't really know anything" and bash my degree as if its something bad then I'm not particularly impressed. And for the record I was originally giving my opinion as to why the 4000 BC start date was probably not influenced by the religious right. However I saw it necessary to respond to a lot of bunk directed at me for a sentence i tacked on the end of one of my initial posts. In the end after much goading I had to actually present reasons that civilization couldn't have begun around 2000 BC. Its not so much proving that the earth is 4.5 billion years old that has been raised here but proving that it is not 6000 years old and not completely flooded 4000 years ago. This is about as easy as proving that tigers are not purple.

 

[Cowman]

If the worst anybody can do is say "we don't really know anything" and bash my degree as if its something bad then I'm not particularly impressed. And for the record I was originally giving my opinion as to why the 4000 BC start date was probably not influenced by the religious right. However I saw it necessary to respond to a lot of bunk directed at me for a sentence i tacked on the end of one of my initial posts. In the end after much goading I had to actually present reasons that civilization couldn't have begun around 2000 BC. Its not so much proving that the earth is 4.5 billion years old that has been raised here but proving that it is not 6000 years old and not completely flooded 4000 years ago. This is about as easy as proving that tigers are not purple.

I thought you said you grew up in a Christian home. I would have thought you've heard all the counter-arguments to what you have put up to the plate (considering your degree in history). But, just in case you haven't, allow me to explain why the "scientific" way of explaining the universe is, yes, just like any other religion.

Let's begin with your literal translation of the Christian Bible. It is debated in the Christian world that many stories are not to be taken literally. For instance, the story of Adam and Eve. Taken literally, the Bible states that humanity began with one man and one woman and from that all other humans originated. However, it is debated that "Adam" could mean men and "Eve" could mean women-meaning that in the beginning of the world God created man and woman (not just one of each but many). This can be applied to many other scriptures such as the story of Noah. Taken literally, the Bible states that from 8 people all modern civilizations originate. However, it is debated that those 8 people could stand for 8 tribes, etc.. I would have thought you would have known this since you have that almighty degree in history.

However, lets say that the Christian Bible should be taken literally and that all modern life did truly come from 8 people. Who's to say that God did not then create the indigenous people of Australia or the Americas? If there is a God then he is all-powerful correct? Then why is it so hard to believe that God did not recreate animal and plant life? Is this so hard to fathom? Why then are religious people marked as nut-jobs? And by the by, the Bible does not state the true age of the Earth. So, just like any other belief system (including atheism) the Christians do not KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are correct.

In regards to carbon dating, there is no way of us to know that the system works 100%. I'm not trying to be foolish, however. I am sure that this method of dating has been tested on things we do know the age of. I am sure that scientist don't just take wild guesses about the age of things such as the globe. Then again, neither do religious people. We may discover in 10 years that carbon dating gives false results and that (for some chemical reason) it does not work for something over 1000 years old. Carbon dating is just as reliable as the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran or any other religious text.

You are correct, no one alive today was alive in 1880 AD. Does that mean that we have no idea of what occurred at that time? Of course not. We can have some idea of what occurred in that time period. However, we do not know for sure. History is written by the victor, I'm sure you learned that in history class. Why then when someone analyzes that time period in a different way than you they are classified as zealots? (And I thought religious people were the intolerant ones.)

There is no evidence in existence to prove 100% where we came from. Perhaps civilization on Earth has existed for millions of years but every time civilization builds itself up, it destroys itself again. Maybe aliens lived on Mars until the planet was hit by and asteroid after which they fled to Earth. Maybe we are all just figments of a larger beings imagination and when it wakes up we all will cease to exist. Maybe the "Big Bang" theory is correct and we have evolved over thousands of years from single-celled organisms into the people were are today. And maybe there was a God who created man thousands of years ago. No one knows. So no one has the right to say another persons theory is wrong. They can bring up points to show why they feel they are right or try and convince others of such, but they have no right to say that they know 100% that the are correct and the others are wrong.

Remember, I'm not talking about the little science experiments you did in college where you proved what paper towel roll can soak up the most moisture. I am talking about the "scientific" theories which NO ONE can prove. The theories that are JUST LIKE any theory brought up by a religion. Both of which are gathered from an assumption of what occurred in the past and by evidence seen today. I am not trying to say that any one theory is wrong or right. All I am saying is: Who are you to say that you know for a fact that all creationists are incorrect?

When the crap hits the fan, atheists are just like any other religious person. Just like a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, or Jew will defend their "evidence" to their last breath, any atheist would do the same. The only thing that bothers me is that atheists claim that they are above religion. That they do not need a crutch to hold them up in life. Well, I'm sorry to be the one to point this out to you, but you have a crutch to, in scientific THEORIES. Every person has basic needs. Water, food, social interaction, and a spiritual need. Yes, every person. No one is above it. Religious people choose to fill that need with a religion of their choice. (Involving a God or other creationist ideas) Atheists choose to fill that need with scientific theories. Theories that CAN NOT be proven true just like any other religion. WE ALL have to have FAITH in whatever it is we believe to be true. No one can prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. No one is above having faith in what they believe to be true. (Even if they have a college degree.)

 

[PieceOfMind]

Cowman, any good scientific theory cannot be proven to be true. A good scientific theory is one that is falsifiable, one for which there exist experiments that if it were wrong, would prove it wrong. Well established scientific theories (like gravity) exist because they have yet to be disproven. That is the experiments that would have hopefully disproven it, did not manage to do so.

Do you use experiment in religious theories? Or scripture? Or word of mouth? Or teachings?

Experiments are what make science different. Science may not be able to answer the difficult questions like the meaning of life or what happens after death, but frankly that's why it doesn't try.

Really, I think you will understand the point of science better when you stop assuming that everything in science have to be proven with 100% certainty for it to be considered true. As I said earlier, the example of the Earth being round cannot be 100% proven, but it is a well accepted fact. If I had to go around every day qualifying my statements about the world being round as just a theory and that alternative theories might be true, things would quickly get tiresome.

To summarise, science does not "prove" things. It "disproves" things. When science fails repeatedly (e.g. over hundreds or thousands of experiments) to disprove a theory, that means there is evidence supporting the theory, but not that it is proven.

 

[WolfHound22]

Cowman, you quoted my last post but you haven't really responded to what I brought up in the one before that.

First of all, I don't meet the definition of a hardcore atheist. I'm more of an agnostic, and yes I did grow up in a Christian home, however we're not discussing non-literal interpretations of scripture in this thread. This thread began by invoking the Ussher Chronology and asking whether or not that particular chronology (dating creation at 4004 BC and a flood around 2000 BC) had any influence on the start date for Civ IV. I gave my reasons as to why the chronology didn't influence the start date. After some prodding i also gave some reasons that the earth cannot be 6000 years old and a worldwide flood could not have occurred 4000 years ago.

I have heard plenty of counter-arguments to evolutionary theory and I've seen creationists poke at various parts of the general chronology of the earth's pre-history that has come together with science, however what I have NOT heard are responses to the problems I gave. Yes I've heard all about the bombardier beetle and the banana and how Noah could have taken lots of baby animals onto the Ark instead of adults. I have never heard a good explanation as to how civilization could have developed from 2000 BC when history (including primary source written history) and science shows that cities and states began appearing in 4000 BC and that the earth's major landmasses had all been populated with humans by 10,000 BC. You can say "Well God just created it all again" but that's sort of a copout. If he could do that why didnt he snap his fingers and make everyone except Noah's family poof into smoke rather than bother with a flood and a re-creation? Not to mention, most conservative theologians take offense to the idea of creation occurring continually, either in the modern age or after the creation week.

Edit: And I must add, if God independently created the natives of Australia and the Americas after the Flood, this means they are not descendants of Adam and Eve and therefore not affected by Original Sin.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The only spiritual need I have is the need to not be told that I have one, because I don't. If you see "science" as just the same as any other religion, then you haven't understood what science is at all. It's a philosophy, a way of looking at the world with questioning and logic, with an open mind, and with a willingness to be proven wrong. Admittedly you will find many academics who are just as stubborn and closed-minded as any religious zealot, I've met many myself, but this just makes these individuals bad examples of what a scientist should be, it doesn't undermine science itself.

Of course, no scientific endeavour is totally devoid of emotion or intuition, because it is always driven by human beings. Many scientists are driven by a belief or a lack of belief in a certain phenomenon, and this is what steers their research. But this is no bad thing if the scientist is always willing to back down and admit defeat when he is shown to be wrong. Even the pig-headed scientists previously mentioned can still do valuable work.

If you want any evidence of how well the scientific method works, then just consider all the chemical engineering, quantum theory, relativity, electromagnetic theory etc etc that is allowing us to even have this conversation on an internet forum. Of course, it may be the case that what we think are electrical circuits that work in accordance with our own theories might actually just be the precise shape and form to channel angel magic in just such a way as to make computers work the way we expected them to. But the beauty of science is that, if you can actually show some evidence that angel magic is real and electromagnetism is wrong, then we would all have to accept that and move on. Science is a process of being wrong most of the time, but gradually finding your way forward anyway. The suggestion that this is akin to some sort of religion based around theories that we have no real idea of the tuth of is frankly insulting.

And if the best argument you can come up with to support your own point of view is just that none of us know anything and therefore you're likely to be as right as anyone else by taking a complete guess, then that's a pretty weak argument.

I recognise that it's only right and proper to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, for the sake of civility if nothing else. But as my previous fatuous comment about the pink cup cake shows, this can quickly become farcial. And if you start throwing around assertions that "science" and "atheism" are exactly the same as religions, and state as fact that everyone has a spiitual need, then you already crossed the line of tolerance and I'm not particularly willing to countenance someone forcing what I believe to be utter nonsense down my throat without saying a little in return.

 

[MarcoPollo]

70% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Cardiac Kids]

70% of statistics are made up on the spot.

really? are u sure??

 

[Bruindane]

Oddly enough, I always thought it was a nod to Ussher. I've played various versions of the game, and the "In the beginning..." brought to mind creation stories.

I suppose it was coincidence all along.

 

[webster]

Bruindane what words were they suppose to use it started one day. To start describing the creation of earth.

 

[Jerrymander]

First, there was nothing.

And then: Sid.

 

[bhavv]

The game starts in 4000 BC with the first cities being built and civilization starting.

That doesnt mean that the entire earth and humankind are begining at 4000 BC in Civilization:

 

[Bruindane]

Bruindane what words were they suppose to use it started one day. To start describing the creation of earth.

That's true! Though in civ terms, the game begins 4000 years before the lightbulb of theology

 

[fdgsgds]

If the worst anybody can do is say "we don't really know anything" and bash my degree as if its something bad then I'm not particularly impressed. And for the record I was originally giving my opinion as to why the 4000 BC start date was probably not influenced by the religious right. However I saw it necessary to respond to a lot of bunk directed at me for a sentence i tacked on the end of one of my initial posts. In the end after much goading I had to actually present reasons that civilization couldn't have begun around 2000 BC. Its not so much proving that the earth is 4.5 billion years old that has been raised here but proving that it is not 6000 years old and not completely flooded 4000 years ago. This is about as easy as proving that tigers are not purple.

What? You're saying tigers aren't purple?

I guess the earth is 6000 years old after all... I was wrong saying it was 4.5 billion years old.