World's oldest temple found in Turkey

[agentorange20]

How on earth material that expanded out of a pixel 13.73 billion years ago shows an age of just 11,000 years is beyond me.

Rhetorical question? How about the organic material they are dating didn't exist till relativley recently (some 60,000 years) in the first place.

I'm sure the atoms in that temple are much, much older than your 11,000 years.

Carbon dating, and other dating methods, date the decaying isotopes of the given element, not the atoms.

 

[Cabal]

Naw, sedentary civilization didn't dawn until sometime between the invention of color TV and "teh Inturwebs".

Scientists are divided on this point. There are those who actually think true sedentary human existence developed earlier, based on mankind's evolving ability to "order takeout" using a "telephone." This occurrence is known as the Domino's effect.

 

[Nooj]

Wikipedia has more information. Charcoal from the lowest levels of the site has apparently been dated.

The stated date seems strange to me, though, since it implies the building was erected before the development of agriculture. The article suggests some controversy remains, although it clearly is OLD.

Yes, it does predate agriculture. The archaeologists suggest that it was erected a large group of hunter-gatherers. They've certainly found a large amount of wild animal bones in the 'temple' area. No one's quite sure what it was used for, a temple is a possibility. They've barely scratched the surface in terms of excavation (in both senses).

To gain a sense of just how old this place is, it is 6000 years older than the Stonehenges. As distant as we are from ancient Sumer, Sumer is distant from Gobekli Tepe.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I'm pretty impressed by the find though. 11,000 is pretty much the dawn of sedentary civilization.

I think the article says something about it actually being built shortly before the dawn of agriculture. It describes a new hypothesis based on the find that says that the rise of agriculture was brought about due to gathering around religious/social centers, instead of the more widely accepted idea that societies and religious centers were built after agriculture was developed.

I do not know enough about archaeology and early civilizations and whatnot to make an educated statement on this, but it seems plausible at least.

 

[Tomk80]

How convenient.Even cosmologists would blow it, in my opinion.

In the meantime, though, and getting back to the OP, we have an 11,000-year-old temple that, just by sheer coincidence, was built 11,000 years ago, right?

Do I have that pegged right?

If so, then please explain how the rocks they used were brand new, i.e. with 0-years age.

Okay, I know what I'm going to say is offensive, but calling a spade a spade has it's value and this post is just plain dumb.

 

[dad]

Probably up there with Cabal's 9000-year-old tree that some scientist sat and counted each tree ring or something --- with a microscope, no doubt.

That is fine. Even if there were more rings than years to the flood, all that may mean, is that more rings came in a year than at present. Not that the microscope is wrong.

 

[Athrond]

A few things to clear up, this from the Wikipedia article.

Dating

The PPN A settlement has been dated to ca. 9000 BC. There are remains of smaller houses from the PPN B and a few epipalaeolithic finds as well.

There are a number of radiocarbon dates (presented with one standard deviation errors and calibrations to BCE):
Lab-Number Date BP Cal BCE Context
Ua-19561 8430±80 7560-7370 enclosure C
Ua-19562 8960±85 8280-7970 enclosure B
Hd-20025 9452±73 9110-8620 Layer III
Hd-20036 9559±53 9130-8800 Layer III


The Hd samples are from charcoal in the lowest levels of the site and would date the active phase of occupation. The Ua samples come from pedogenic carbonate coatings on pillars and only indicate a time after the site was abandoned- the terminus ante quem. [1]

He could have carbondated the bones too, and maybe he did. But as with many german archaeologists he choose to write about this in german. The bastard

On archaeologists as scientist:

This is debatable. I know of many archaeologists that I would not call scientists, as they fail to use the scientific method and make broad generalisations based on too little data for a proper conclution to their problem (whatever that may be).

An example of this is the excavators assumption of "shamanism" or "ancestral worship". I'm willing to bet that he pulled that assumption right out of his ear. Many archaeologist have this tendency to make up [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] like this despite the lack of data, or a thorough analysis of data, because it's "more interesting". Post-modern bullcrap

Athrond

 

[AV1611VET]

That is fine. Even if there were more rings than years to the flood, all that may mean, is that more rings came in a year than at present. Not that the microscope is wrong.

I know it, and you know it, but do they know it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, I know what I'm going to say is offensive, but calling a spade a spade has it's value and this post is just plain dumb.

That's right --- it was worded that way to make the point that an 11,000 year-old temple made of rocks radio-dated as 11,000 years old would make the rocks 0 years old when the cornerstone was laid.

I'll ask this a second time: if my church was made of Zircon, how old would my church be?

 

[Tomk80]

That's right --- it was worded that way to make the point that an 11,000 year-old temple made of rocks radio-dated as 11,000 years old would make the rocks 0 years old when the cornerstone was laid.

The date wasn't decided on the basis of the rocks, AV, as I'm sure people have already mentioned.

I'll ask this a second time: if my church was made of Zircon, how old would my church be?

Would depend on when it was build, wouldn't it? And we wouldn't be able to determine that from the Zircon, since the material has it's own age that doesn't suddenly change when we cut it out and build with it. That's why your Zircon question is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would depend on when it was build, wouldn't it?

Fair enough --- let's determine that this temple was built <6100 years ago, shall we? Or is there something specific that says otherwise?

 

[Tomk80]

Fair enough --- let's determine that this temple was built <6100 years ago, shall we? Or is there something specific that says otherwise?

Radiocarbon dating of the lowest levels of the site. This indicates when it was used for the first time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Radiocarbon dating of the lowest levels of the site. This indicates when it was used for the first time.

Yet, when it comes to my church, built of Zircon, it would "depend on when it was build [sic]".

Too bad your radio-carbon can't date the passage of time.

 

[Tomk80]

Yet, when it comes to my church, built of Zircon, it would "depend on when it was build [sic]".

If people would have burned something in your church, for example for a sacrifice or in a fireplace, they could determine the minimum age on the basis of the ashes as well. Or if it was built using wooden materials. Then we could determine the age of that church based on those things. Not based on the Zircon, but based on other indicators that give a minimum age of the building.

The reason being that the ratio of carbon stays the same until the organism dies. So we can determine the time that has passed since the animal died.

Too bad your radio-carbon can't date the passage of time.

It can. That you don't want to accept that, doesn't mean it cannot. It only means that you have problems accepting reality for what it is.

 

[MoonLancer]

If they found a temple made of zircon, wouldn't they say it is the oldest temple on earth?

quite simply its not that simple

 

[MoonLancer]

I know it, and you know it, but do they know it?

silly AV, special pleading is for kids!!!

 

[tanzanos]

The reason being that the ratio of carbon stays the same until the organism dies. So we can determine the time that has passed since the animal died.
It can. That you don't want to accept that, doesn't mean it cannot. It only means that you have problems accepting reality for what it is.

Perhaps God imbeded äge to c14 to deceive us heathens.

Jullie Hollanders waren altijd al heidenen

 

[Athrond]

Did you guys read the wiki at all?

To spell it out plainly (mostly for AV1612VET):

The date of the temple in radiocarbon years, and in calibrated BC years, wether it includes "embedded age" (wich according to your own philosophy of thought is impossible as was a dating of "once living" material. what was it? not embedded history or something?) the dates given by the tried and tested carbondating prosess were somewhere between 7370 BCE and 9130 BCE. Far, far from 6100 BP.

That is the structure was not used AFTER 7370 BCE.

There appears to be lots of different materials they could have used to date the site from coal,bone, thermoluminecense, archeomagnetic dating (although i have no clue how accurate it is, and it would have to have been a in situ burned clay thingy, the floor maybe). Basically etc etc.

So nothing, except your unique interpretation of the bible*, suggest that the "temple" is less than the dates given above.



* And if you wan't to assert "goodidit that settles it" - Fine! Just keep it out of debates, because it it useless in a rational exchange between people that don't agree on the issue, because for this to be fruitfull at all we have to agree on a common base to start from, and that cannot be [insert deity here]-diddit. puh.

Sincerely Athrond

 

[Tomk80]

Did you guys read the wiki at all?

Apparantly you didn't read my posts?

 

[Tomk80]

Perhaps God imbeded äge to c14 to deceive us heathens.

Jullie Hollanders waren altijd al heidenen