Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Feb '13 15:02 / 1 edit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA

    Anyone know of independent verification of the dating? They say 12K years back.

    This is an incredible find, regardless of age.
  2. 09 Feb '13 17:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA

    Anyone know of independent verification of the dating? They say 12K years back.

    This is an incredible find, regardless of age.
    Wonder what the creationists will make of that one?
  3. 09 Feb '13 21:12
    Originally posted by OdBod
    Wonder what the creationists will make of that one?
    Switches into rabid creationist mode...

    Were you there 12000 years ago?!??!?

    Did Y0u see iT youreslf???

    Right, you werent were you.

    So you can't know that it's 12000 years old.

    But I can because god has told me it's actually 5700 years old just before the great flood.

    So there!!!!


    ... switches back to sanity.


    Did I miss anything?
  4. 09 Feb '13 21:17
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Switches into rabid creationist mode...

    [b]Were you there 12000 years ago?!??!?

    Did Y0u see iT youreslf???

    Right, you werent were you.

    So you can't know that it's 12000 years old.

    But I can because god has told me it's actually 5700 years old just before the great flood.

    So there!!!!


    ... switches back to sanity.


    Did I miss anything?[/b]
    If you fellers don't take that over to the spirituality forum I am going to go back to my homophobic comments!!!!! lol
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Feb '13 17:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    If you fellers don't take that over to the spirituality forum I am going to go back to my homophobic comments!!!!! lol
    It is interesting to me in its own right. Could it really be 12K years old? I wonder if there is later work on this?

    Seems like a huge deal if it was verified dated to 12k years old. 10,000 BC. It would lend credence to that movie 10,000 BC!
  6. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    13 Feb '13 22:23
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA

    Anyone know of independent verification of the dating? They say 12K years back.

    This is an incredible find, regardless of age.
    I was always taught: believe half of what you see, a quarter of all you year, and nothing of what you read. In other words, question EVERYTHING. Since the internet came along I've added it to my "nothing" batch.

    That clip was uploaded to YouTube more than 18 months ago. How is it that we've heard absolutely nothing of it since?

    How can we establish for ourselves how much of it is factual? Has anyone seen any information on the topic, other than this clip?
  7. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    14 Feb '13 00:44
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    I was always taught: believe half of what you see, a quarter of all you year, and nothing of what you read. In other words, question EVERYTHING. Since the internet came along I've added it to my "nothing" batch.

    That clip was uploaded to YouTube more than 18 months ago. How is it that we've heard absolutely nothing of it since?

    How can we establis ...[text shortened]... much of it is factual? Has anyone seen any information on the topic, other than this clip?
    According to your logic, doesn't the fact that you hadn't heard of it then make
    it more viable?
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    14 Feb '13 01:43
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Switches into rabid creationist mode...

    [b]Were you there 12000 years ago?!??!?

    Did Y0u see iT youreslf???

    Right, you werent were you.

    So you can't know that it's 12000 years old.

    But I can because god has told me it's actually 5700 years old just before the great flood.

    So there!!!!


    ... switches back to sanity.


    Did I miss anything?[/b]
    The age has obviously been exaggerated.
  9. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    14 Feb '13 05:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    According to your logic, doesn't the fact that you hadn't heard of it then make
    it more viable?
    How do you conclude that? I'm suspicious of everything, whether from multiple sources or just one source. I've seen many photoshopped images, and faked-up video clips, and its obvious that even a multiplicity of sources can't be trusted, because they're often getting their information from the same (dodgy) original source. So I always start with disbelief, and sometimes allow myself to be convinced where someone thinks it's worth their trouble to justify their statements.
    Further research, not on the History.com site but in more general areas, indicates that most of the video's factual statements can be supported, but not all by any means. No authoritative professional appeared in the clip, they're reporters, authors of speculative books and the like. And my previous ignorance of other sites was not supported by the facts either, it's just that most of the information available appears to be in German. There's almost certainly a good number of inaccuracies in the history.com video clip.

    Regarding the 12,000 year age estimate, it seems reasonable enough, although I'd be very surprised if the human race was quite so advanced at that time.
  10. 14 Feb '13 11:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The age has obviously been exaggerated.
    That is a ludicrously unfounded statement -Why 'obvious' and exaggerated by who? and for what purpose?

    The video mentions carbon dating but carbon dating obviously only works on things that contain carbon which was once living and NOT on stone and the video, extremely stupidly, doesn't mention exactly how and to what that carbon dating was applied to thus making it completely impossible for us to rationally assess the validity of their claim that the finding is really that old but, presumably, they probably applied it correctly to something that contains carbon.
    But, until we have the full details for that, we cannot be absolutely sure of the soundness of their claim but, until if or when we get the full details for that, you cannot possibly have any rational reason to believe that their claim is unsound or even merely probably unsound even if it is unsound.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    14 Feb '13 12:52
    Originally posted by humy
    That is a ludicrously unfounded statement -Why 'obvious' and exaggerated by who? and for what purpose?

    The video mentions carbon dating but carbon dating obviously only works on things that contain carbon which was once living and NOT on stone and the video, extremely stupidly, doesn't mention exactly how and to what that carbon dating was applied to thus ma ...[text shortened]... eve that their claim is unsound or even merely probably unsound even if it is unsound.
    It is obvious to me that we can not date anything back to 12,ooo years. The exaggeration in dating has been done by the evil-lutionists for the purpose of supporting the theory of evil-lution.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Feb '13 14:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is obvious to me that we can not date anything back to 12,ooo years. The exaggeration in dating has been done by the evil-lutionists for the purpose of supporting the theory of evil-lution.
    You can believe your bull shyte all you want but it won't change the validity of carbon dating, which is accurate to around 40,000 years back.

    All you have to do is read up on carbon dating and see for yourself it has been verified 100 times over.

    But of course your cognitive (and I use that term loosely) dissonance will never let you even contemplate actually doing such study for yourself.
  13. 14 Feb '13 14:25
    "I was always taught: believe half of what you see, a quarter of all you hear,
    and nothing of what you read."

    But that leaves a quarter.

    What about to the missing quarter?

    Believe a quarter of what you see on YouTube?
    (Only look at the first 25% then switch it off).
  14. 14 Feb '13 14:47
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    How do you conclude that? I'm suspicious of everything, whether from multiple sources or just one source. I've seen many photoshopped images, and faked-up video clips, and its obvious that even a multiplicity of sources can't be trusted, because they're often getting their information from the same (dodgy) original source. So I always start with disbelief, ...[text shortened]... , although I'd be very surprised if the human race was quite so advanced at that time.
    Here's the wiki, carbon dating from charcoal apparently.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Feb '13 15:05
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Here's the wiki, carbon dating from charcoal apparently.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
    So the oldest remains there are 11,000 years old. Wow.

    Is this the independent verification or the first work?