Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[CBR]

There was no shortage of temperate, desert and tropical regions during the last Ice Age, all with their own ecosystems and evolutionary pressures, and all of which had been present in inhabited areas for hundreds of thousands of years (according to secular timeframes). Why then the sudden advent of civilization?

Was Agriculture Impossible During the Pleistocene but Mandatory during the Holocene? (pdf)

Nonetheless, we propose that much about the origin of agriculture can be understood in terms of two propositions: Agriculture Was Impossible During The Last Glacial. During the last glacial, climates were variable and very dry over large areas. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were low. Probably most important, last-glacial climates were characterized by high-amplitude fluctuations on time scales of a decade or less to a millennium. Because agricultural subsistence systems are vulnerable to weather extremes, and because the cultural evolution of subsistence systems making heavy, specialized, use of plant resources occurs relatively slowly, agriculture could not evolve.

Constraints on the Development of Agriculture (pdf)

The development of agriculture was limited by external constraints, mainly climate, before the Holocene and mainly by social institutions after that. Population size and growth was important but ultimately did not determine where and why agriculture evolved.

[Rhyfelwyr]

CBR, good argument. But aren't a lot of crops grown globally in very different climates?

[Pannonian]

CBR, good argument. But aren't a lot of crops grown globally in very different climates?

The various crop + stock combos need to get from place to place, hence Eurasia being the powerhouse of civilisation. If Eurasia isn't hospitable enough, there is no spread of agriculture.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The various crop + stock combos need to get from place to place, hence Eurasia being the powerhouse of civilisation. If Eurasia isn't hospitable enough, there is no spread of agriculture.

Agriculture developed independently and at around the same time in Australia, Papua, the Americas and the Far East from what I have read.

That it happened to lead to civilization in the ancient Near East is I believe to do with the requirements of hosting agriculture in such a place. Max Weber says a fair bit about this - building the irrigation canals in Mesopotamia that were necessary for agriculture meant people had to band together under leaders and develop a system of almost slave labour. This process didn't happen in places that could rely on rainfall etc.

[Ironside]

Agriculture developed independently and at around the same time in Australia, Papua, the Americas and the Far East from what I have read.

That it happened to lead to civilization in the ancient Near East is I believe to do with the requirements of hosting agriculture in such a place. Max Weber says a fair bit about this - building the irrigation canals in Mesopotamia that were necessary for agriculture meant people had to band together under leaders and develop a system of almost slave labour. This process didn't happen in places that could rely on rainfall etc.

A small note, around the same time in this context are more than 2000 years. While small on the huge time scale, it is still calling the birth of you and Jesus a co-current event.

Another evolution thing. Most proteins are shared between species. That means that they do the same function, but are only similar in look. That's very stupid from an optimization viewpoint, but makes a lot of sense from a random chance and "good enough" principle.

[CBR]

CBR, good argument. But aren't a lot of crops grown globally in very different climates?

Today, yes, but it does not look like agriculture popped up in all types of climate at the same time. There seem to have been numerous preagricultural permanent settlements, yet not all grew into the bigger types of civilizations e.g. the big river cultures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Outside the US I think Creationism mostly exists in the minds of its opponents, I get pretty sick of the whole "do you believe in evolution?" question when people find I out I believe in God and want him to send me back in time to save the Roman Empire so we can all have jetpacks and have colonies on Saturn's moons.

[Greyblades]

You know, I never really understood why christians are creationists.

I mean creationism is from the old testament and the entire premise of chrsitianity kinda relies on the idea that the old testament is imperfect, otherwise what's the point of the new one.
So why is this part of the imperfect old testement being considered perfect truth when faced with irreputable evidence of it being false?

Outside the US I think Creationism mostly exists in the minds of its opponents, I get pretty sick of the whole "do you believe in evolution?" question when people find I out I believe in God and want him to send me back in time to save the Roman Empire so we can all have jetpacks and have colonies on Saturn's moons.

Mostly in our minds? Perhaps, most of the time I dont really care what people believe when they keep it to themselves and dont harm anyone.

Things get a bit different when they start meddling in kid's education.

Or get on US science councils.

[Gilrandir]

Outside the US I think Creationism mostly exists in the minds of its opponents, I get pretty sick of the whole "do you believe in evolution?" question when people find I out I believe in God and want him to send me back in time to save the Roman Empire so we can all have jetpacks and have colonies on Saturn's moons.

In fact, creationism and evolutionism don't contradict each other. The solution that welds them together is to say that the world was created and then all living beings started evolutioning.

I mean creationism is from the old testament and the entire premise of chrsitianity kinda relies on the idea that the old testament is imperfect, otherwise what's the point of the new one.

The anwser is the same as the one to the question "Why did they need Godfather 2?" Because it is the sequel. In case of movies and books the purpose is to get money, in case of testaments it is to get larger flocks of worshippers.

[Husar]

You know, I never really understood why christians are creationists.

I mean creationism is from the old testament and the entire premise of chrsitianity kinda relies on the idea that the old testament is imperfect, otherwise what's the point of the new one.
So why is this part of the imperfect old testement being considered perfect truth when faced with irreputable evidence of it being false?

I'd call the new testament more a shift in policy as to how you can get to heaven. It does not entirely invalidate the old testament. The prophecies are still relevant as quite a few of them are said to be fulfilled in the new testament, the old testament is seen as a perfectly valid historical document and so on. What changes is that the old testament says you have to sacrifice sheep in order to have your sins forgiven while Jesus says you can only get to heaven if you accept him as your lord and saviour and he will forgive your sins. Therein lies the big change. The old testament is not imperfect, it just contains some outdated rules of behavior that a christian would/should not follow anymore. Take this example where Jesus more or less seems to say that doing some work on a sabbath is okay if you're hungry for example:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/comme...e-sabbath.html

The jewish rules said the quiet on sabbath has to be obeyed but Jesus says the quiet was made so that people can rest, to benefit the people, not to force people to do nothing. He does not invalidate the old law, he just gives an interpretation of the spirit of the law that changes the way in which the old law should be applied. There's a change, some invalidation, some reinterpretation but not a complete invalidation, even some validation of prophecies as I said, Jesus is supposed to be the messiah who was prophesied in the old testament after all (jews would disagree of course).

[Gilrandir]

The old testament is not imperfect, it just contains some outdated rules of behavior that a christian would/should not follow anymore.

I would say that the new testament contains tenets that badly need updating now.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You know, I never really understood why christians are creationists.

I mean creationism is from the old testament and the entire premise of chrsitianity kinda relies on the idea that the old testament is imperfect, otherwise what's the point of the new one.
So why is this part of the imperfect old testement being considered perfect truth when faced with irreputable evidence of it being false?

The Old Testament is just as infallible as the New. The reason we have the two testaments is that the Old prophesied of Christ, while the New revealed him. Christians do not believe that the Old Testament is somehow faulty, we* believe it to be divinely inspired and free from error.

* naturally, I don't speak for all Christians, just what I see as the historic and correct Christian position

[Beskar]

Outside the US I think Creationism mostly exists in the minds of its opponents, I get pretty sick of the whole "do you believe in evolution?" question when people find I out I believe in God and want him to send me back in time to save the Roman Empire so we can all have jetpacks and have colonies on Saturn's moons.

It depends on what point in Roman history you want to go to, you might inadvertently destroy your faith.

[Major Robert Dump]

A guy leading a slave back from the market comes upon another guy beating his slave to death and says "bro, that's so old testament"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It depends on what point in Roman history you want to go to, you might inadvertently destroy your faith.

I was thinking just prior to the First Crusade, I'd take the formula for Portland Cement and the plans for a manuballista with me.

[Beskar]

I was thinking just prior to the First Crusade, I'd take the formula for Portland Cement and the plans for a manuballista with me.

Admittedly, I would have thought Justin if you want to go with the Eastern, maybe being fundamental to Constantine might be an excellent point too. Wasn't too fond of Alexios. Though, you could always go back to Caesar, you could meet Jesus the man himself, and give us a critique of how the person differed from the book, if he was better or worse than you thought, etc.

I definitely agree with cement, but I would definitely taken back eco-industrial technology, skipping the dirty industrial revolution.