If the world actually was only a few thousand years old, how would history play out different

[amorphous_constellation]

And this question goes mostly to the atheists, actually. If you believe that the world is only 5000 years old, then we already know your view.

Maybe it's not a good or interesting question, and I don't know if it belongs in the history or philosophy section, but I figured I'd ask it before I forget

I myself believe in the scientific explanation for how things came to be, mostly. That is, that there was evolution and millions of years of history etc.

However, our lack of paperwork for most the time we've been here, is what gives our origins a run for the money. Since we have only now entered paperwork culture, certain things are only now practically impossible to deny.

If however, science is all wrong, and we were only actually here for 5000 years, how would things be markedly different. Is it conceivable that all history would have played out the same way?

 

[ChristineM]

And this question goes mostly to the atheists, actually. If you believe that the world is only 5000 years old, then we already know your view.

Maybe it's not a good or interesting question, and I don't know if it belongs in the history or philosophy section, but I figured I'd ask it before I forget

I myself believe in the scientific explanation for how things came to be, mostly. That is, that there was evolution and millions of years of history etc.

However, our lack of paperwork for most the time we've been here, is what gives our origins a run for the money. Since we have only now entered paperwork culture, certain things are only now practically impossible to deny.

If however, science is all wrong, and we were only actually here for 5000 years, how would things be markedly different. Is it conceivable that all history would have played out the same way?

There is considerable paperwork crated by various dating methods, fossils, genetics etc. All were here long long time before paper (or humans for that matter)

If the world were only 5000 years old biological life would not yet have evolved

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There is considerable paperwork crated by various dating methods, fossils, genetics etc. All were here long long time before paper (or humans for that matter)

If the world were only 5000 years old biological life would not yet have evolved

I'm talking if humans just came to be 5000 years ago, as they are

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not a sensible question - like asking whether one would (dressed as you are) prefer to live on the Sun or on the Moon. So many things just wouldn't make any sense so as to make the question even possible. Erosion and weather makes it highly likely that most of the history of humans will have vanished, so I hardly expect much evidence in that direction, and what we get are just tidbits basically. Any who think there might a continuous serial link to our past is living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Not a sensible question - like asking whether one would (dressed as you are) prefer to live on the Sun or on the Moon. So many things just wouldn't make any sense so as to make the question even possible. Erosion and weather makes it highly likely that most of the history of humans will have vanished, so I hardly expect much evidence in that direction, and what we get are just tidbits basically. Any who think there might a continuous serial link to our past is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I think maybe I just didn't ask the question properly, as is often the case. I'm asking about if humans were placed here 5000 years ago, as they are. I'm not getting were your point on erosion is coming into play, or the 'continuous serial link' thing

 

[ChristineM]

I'm talking if humans just came to be 5000 years ago, as they are

Then the 22000 year old skull (my avatar) would make no sense

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think maybe I just didn't ask the question properly, as is often the case. I'm asking about if humans were placed here 5000 years ago, as they are. I'm not getting were your point on erosion is coming into play, or the 'continuous serial link' thing

I was thinking more about archeology and paleontology, as to our origins, and often to missing evidence for evolution - even though there is sufficient without this. If you said perhaps that we were just a species and plonked on the Earth, then what might have happened, well that too comes with issues, and perhaps assumptions. I can't get my head around such at the moment.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If you said perhaps that we were just a species and plonked on the Earth, then what might have happened, well that too comes with issues, and perhaps assumptions. I can't get my head around such at the moment.

Yeah that's really what I was trying to ask. What are the implications if everything was instead plonked here, and all the carbon dating or geology is illusion, and evolution theory

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Then the 22000 year old skull (my avatar) would make no sense

not as being something that old, in any case.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah that's really what I was trying to ask. What are the implications if everything was instead plonked here, and all the carbon dating or geology is illusion

Well, if scientific progress was as before (or developed, as it probably would), and continued, I suspect the inhabitants might find out what happened, and perhaps speculate as to their origins if they didn't actually know - so a bit like religious beliefs. Who knows whether these beliefs would be equivalent to religious beliefs though. They would have a cut-off point of 5000 years, but we have evidence in various forms to tie us to much further back. Things like DNA and genes might be rather problematic - unless no other life existed on this planet.

 

[ChristineM]

not as being something that old, in any case.

I dont understand what you are saying here,could you explain please?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I dont understand what you are saying here,could you explain please?

simply that the skull would be 5000 years old, even if it appeared to be 22000 years old, as it would have be plonked or generated here 5000 years ago as you perceive it. It would be just prop in the scene

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this question goes mostly to the atheists, actually. If you believe that the world is only 5000 years old, then we already know your view.

Maybe it's not a good or interesting question, and I don't know if it belongs in the history or philosophy section, but I figured I'd ask it before I forget

I myself believe in the scientific explanation for how things came to be, mostly. That is, that there was evolution and millions of years of history etc.

However, our lack of paperwork for most the time we've been here, is what gives our origins a run for the money. Since we have only now entered paperwork culture, certain things are only now practically impossible to deny.

If however, science is all wrong, and we were only actually here for 5000 years, how would things be markedly different. Is it conceivable that all history would have played out the same way?

The Age of Exploration would certainly have played out very differently if magnetic compasses went screwy every few decades.

There's a record of 183 geomagnetic reversals embedded in the structure of the rocks on the ocean floor. It would be quite a thing if they all happened over 5,000 years instead of over a few hundred million years.

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The Age of Exploration would certainly have played out very differently if magnetic compasses went screwy every few decades.

There's a record of 183 geomagnetic reversals embedded in the structure of the rocks on the ocean floor. It would be quite a thing if they all happened over 5,000 years instead of over a few hundred million years.

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia

Interesting, but in this 5000 year old earth I am thinking of , perhaps everything would appear the way it does just for effect. Or science could occur the way it does only after the 5000 year creation point

 

[exchemist]

And this question goes mostly to the atheists, actually. If you believe that the world is only 5000 years old, then we already know your view.

Maybe it's not a good or interesting question, and I don't know if it belongs in the history or philosophy section, but I figured I'd ask it before I forget

I myself believe in the scientific explanation for how things came to be, mostly. That is, that there was evolution and millions of years of history etc.

However, our lack of paperwork for most the time we've been here, is what gives our origins a run for the money. Since we have only now entered paperwork culture, certain things are only now practically impossible to deny.

If however, science is all wrong, and we were only actually here for 5000 years, how would things be markedly different. Is it conceivable that all history would have played out the same way?

If the earth were only in existence for 5000yrs there would be no life on it yet.

If humanity had only existed for 5000yrs, I suppose we would all be in Africa, bashing out the brains of antelopes with bones, or something.

More seriously, I'm not sure why you mention paperwork. The sciences of palaeontology and geology obviously don't rely on paperwork, except as a means of communicating scientific ideas and accelerating the rate of progress. Or do you mean the lack of written human history, before about 3000BC? But we deduce probable history from other artifacts too, apart from writing. For instance cave paintings go back to about 40,000 yrs ago. (I think.)

 

[amorphous_constellation]

More seriously, I'm not sure why you mention paperwork. The sciences of palaeontology and geology obviously don't rely on paperwork, except as a means of communicating scientific ideas and accelerating the rate of progress. Or do you mean the lack of written human history, before about 3000BC? But we deduce probable history from other artifacts too, apart from writing. For instance cave paintings go back to about 40,000 yrs ago. (I think.)

I guess I'm talking about if all these things gave false appearances, and humans were just placed here, or generated here, 5000 years ago, as you see them.

 

[BSM1]

Then the 22000 year old skull (my avatar) would make no sense

I've heard your skull only makes sense in French...

 

[ChristineM]

simply that the skull would be 5000 years old, even if it appeared to be 22000 years old, as it would have be plonked or generated here 5000 years ago as you perceive it. It would be just prop in the scene

You say god must be a deceiver. Why?

 

[ChristineM]

I've heard your skull only makes sense in French...

I don't know about that, the number of non french speakers who have castigated me for it seems to indicate it translates to bible belt American readily enough?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You say god must be a deceiver. Why?

good question, but that's really worthy of a separate thread.. maybe title it 'deception and god (s)'