- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Feb 13
Originally posted by OdBodSwitches into rabid creationist mode...
Wonder what the creationists will make of that one?
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?
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you fellers don't take that over to the spirituality forum I am going to go back to my homophobic comments!!!!! lol
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]
13 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserIt is interesting to me in its own right. Could it really be 12K years old? I wonder if there is later work on this?
If you fellers don't take that over to the spirituality forum I am going to go back to my homophobic comments!!!!! lol
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!
13 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
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.
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?
14 Feb 13
Originally posted by KewpieAccording to your logic, doesn't the fact that you hadn't heard of it then make
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?
it more viable?
14 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe age has obviously been exaggerated. 😏
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]
14 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckHow 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.
According to your logic, doesn't the fact that you hadn't heard of it then make
it more viable?
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.
14 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is a ludicrously unfounded statement -Why 'obvious' and exaggerated by who? and for what purpose?
The age has obviously been exaggerated. 😏
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.
14 Feb 13
Originally posted by humyIt 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.
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.
14 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou 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.
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.
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.
14 Feb 13
Originally posted by KewpieHere's the wiki, carbon dating from charcoal apparently.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe