RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:05 am
(October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am)Esquilax Wrote:(October 8, 2013 at 6:43 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You just have assumptions and live in denial.
No, I don't have, nor do I need, assumptions, because what I have is actual evidence that doesn't rely on an argument from (unparalleled) ignorance in order to function. Did you even read the articles?
Quote:Does the temple have a date on it? Like 11000 BC.
Just now, I wrote "Created 8-10-11000 BC" on a piece of paper; does that make the paper eleven thousand years old, you moron?
Quote:Prove it is 11,000 years old.
So you didn't read the article at all, hmm? For starters, radiocarbon dating (I'm awaiting your idiotic "there's no error bars" type response there) of surrounding civilizations place them at around the same time. In fact, there's this line from the article itself:
Quote:at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.
Do you think that maybe these sheep herding, field tending people, with their own holy sites, were surprised when god started constructing the universe around them? How does the fact that there was life before god started doing that impact your religion's claims that he is the alpha and the omega? Or your claims that complex life needs a creator?
Perhaps the creator of these civilizations also created your god, and he was just copying the trend!
(October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Error ranges are always quoted for any radiometrically calculated dates whenever published in official papers/sources. If a reporter subsequently chooses not to report those ranges, for whatever reason, that's the choice of the reporter; it does not mean the margins of error weren't calculated or that those who calculated were falsifying any data. If there were no margins of error calculated, the results would not get published in any worthwhile journal because they wouldn't get past peer review.
You're right, of course, but it doesn't matter: Grace didn't provide any sources for the dates she showed, so it just seems like she picked some numbers out of thin air, did the same with her error bars, and bullshitted her way to her conclusion.
1. I have already proved that atheistic origin science is false.
Therefore "the God did nothing" assumption has already been proven false forever.
You cannot use dating beyond recorded history because you do not know what God did.
You have an assumption of no God that is already been proven false.
2. Radio carbon dating is inaccurate beyond several thousand years.
The reason is that the CO2 levels were much higher in the past (before the flood) so the technique is useless for dating back beyond the flood.
