Modern TVs - What has taken man so long ?

What has taken man so long ?

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?

Public Comments

millions of years old and we just invented the car in the last century yeah right
Amen
Exponential growth.
Seems that someone has never taken a History class.. Maybe you should go pick up a book and learn that the Mesopotamians were the first civilization of man.. So everything has come since then.. People weren't around 100,000,000 years ago..
A huge part of that is because writing wasn't invented until about 3,500 B.C. or so. Imagine trying to do scientific research in a world where no form of writing exists.
Evolving and progressing takes time, not to mention religion is slowing down the process.
We didn't discover things 100,000,000 years ago because we didn't exist. The largest mammal was about the size of a small rat. We didn't discover these things 100,000 years ago, because we were too busy not starving to death, or being eaten by saber-tooth cats. All of those discoveries and inventions required all those that preceded them, and all the years they took, in order to happen. We just hadn't had enough time yet. It's not a particularly astonishing thought, unless you think we've only been here a few thousand years.
Back then, there were far fewer people and everyone had to struggle just to survive... in more recent times, the population has become much more abundant, allowing people more time to relax and contemplate, as there are plenty of other people working... in boredom, these people sought to make things easier for them and others... that's when people started getting lazier and trying to find ways out of work... that's why we have so many unecessary inventions today. And a few thousand years ago, civilization had advanced nearly as far as the people of the 18th century... there was even evidence of a sort of analog computer found made by the ancient Romans... unfortunately, society regressed a bit for a few centuries... then it recovered and here we are today. Personally though, I still suspect we're just the experiments of a race of super intelligent beings who have helped us some along the way... they're seeing if we turn out the same way they did. We were moving along too slowly, so they sped things up and gave us advanced technology in the last hundred years...
Evolution taught we were part ape part human. They teach we went around for years grunting and not knowing anything. How can they know this just from a few fragment fossils? Do they have a complete skeleton from each supposed ancestor of man. How can you tell how a ancestor thought or how they walked and reacted with just a few fragments of fossils? They can not. Its 5 percent fossil that tells a little and 95 percent imagination that they use to make up a complete picture of the species they say came from man from just a few fossils. Like they did with piltdown man and combined the jaw of a ape and the skull of a modern human and called it a ancestor of man. Then they claim this man lived millions of years ago. Just from a jawbone and a skull they came up with all this theory on how it lived what it did and how it looked. Here are some more examples Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska Man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska Man was even pictured with a whole family. In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. The fact of the matter is that the beings called Australopithecus in this imaginary scenario fabricated by evolutionists really are apes that became extinct, and the beings in the Homo series are members of various human races that lived in the past and then disappeared. Evolutionists arranged various ape and human fossils in an order from the smallest to the biggest in order to form a "human evolution" scheme. Research, however, has demonstrated that these fossils by no means imply an evolutionary process and some of these alleged ancestors of man were real apes whereas some of them were real humans. However, the first evidence refuting the allegations of evolutionists that Australopithecus were bipedal came from evolutionists themselves. Detailed studies made on Australopithecus fossils forced even evolutionists to admit that these looked "too" ape-like. Having conducted detailed anatomical research on Australopithecus fossils in the mid-1970s, Charles E. Oxnard likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecus to that of modern orang-utans: An important part of today's conventional wisdom about human evolution is based on studies of teeth, jaws and skull fragments of australopithecine fossils. These all indicate that the close relation of the australopithecine to the human lineage may not be true. All these fossils are different from gorillas, chimpanzees and men. Studied as a group, the australopithecine seems more like the orang-utan. (8) What really embarrassed evolutionists was the discovery that Australopithecus could not have walked on two feet and with a bent posture. It would have been physically very ineffective for Australopithecus , allegedly bipedal but with a bent stride, to move about in such a way because of the enormous energy demands it would have entailed. By means of computer simulations conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton also demonstrated that such a "compound" stride was impossible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: a living being can walk either upright or on all fours. A type of in-between stride cannot be sustained for long periods because of the extreme energy consumption. This means that Australopithecus could not have been both bipedal and have a bent walking posture.
Two words: Industrial revolution. Also, man hasn't been around millions of years, more like 100,000 years. And we were dealing with survival back then, not entertainment.