10,000 year old site in Oregon found

[Merlin]

Hello,
I'm a 'creationist'.

I don't have a problem with the *possibility* of 10,000+ years because the counting of years by generations from the Bible could be off a bit.
It's still not billions of years of evolution.
6000 ish or 10,000ish is still close.
It seems more to support creationism.

 

[JGL53]

Hello,
I'm a 'creationist'....

Why, hello there to you too.

...
I don't have a problem with the *possibility* of 10,000+ years because the counting of years by generations from the Bible could be off a bit....

"off a bit"? (What word is the anonym of the word "exaggeration"? - Oh, yeah - "underplaying".)

...It's still not billions of years of evolution....

Quite positive, are you? Absolutely positive? Like, omnisciently positive? Well, let's see - only a god, in theory, could be omniscient, so ....what am I to conclude here?

...6000 ish or 10,000ish is still close.
It seems more to support creationism. ...

Creationism is the idea that quite complex entities - humans, for example - were popped into existence from sheer nothingness, fully formed, by some unknowable magical process, by some invisible immaterial Superperson, said process and said person neither being subject, in principle, to scientific understanding.

Once a person is willing to swallow that giant ball of roiling snakes, philosophically speaking, then what possible difference does some timetable really make? "Creation" could have taken place two seconds ago - or 900 quadrillion years ago. There is no limit on omnipotence. That's why it is called omnipotence.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Merlin]

Quite positive, are you? Absolutely positive? Like, omnisciently positive? Well, let's see - only a god, in theory, could be omniscient, so ....what am I to conclude here?

Yes, I am quite sure that the find does not prove billions of years of evolution, and no, it doesn't take god-like qualities to realise that.

Creationism is the idea that quite complex entities - humans, for example - were popped into existence from sheer nothingness, fully formed, by some unknowable magical process, by some invisible immaterial Superperson, said process and said person neither being subject, in principle, to scientific understanding.

That is being incredibly simplistic.

Once a person is willing to swallow that giant ball of roiling snakes, philosophically speaking, then what possible difference does some timetable really make? "Creation" could have taken place two seconds ago - or 900 quadrillion years ago. There is no limit on omnipotence. That's why it is called omnipotence.

That's what you believe?

Am I missing something here?

Yes, quite a bit.

 

[MQTA]

Creationism is the idea that quite complex entities - humans, for example - were popped into existence from sheer nothingness, fully formed, by some unknowable magical process, by some invisible immaterial Superperson, said process and said person neither being subject, in principle, to scientific understanding.

Once a person is willing to swallow that giant ball of roiling snakes, philosophically speaking, then what possible difference does some timetable really make? "Creation" could have taken place two seconds ago - or 900 quadrillion years ago. There is no limit on omnipotence. That's why it is called omnipotence.

Am I missing something here?

The AIDers have a different story. They say we weren't 'popped into existance from nothingness', they say we were created using DNA manipulation. They answer all the questions of evolution and creationism as our misunderstandings and levels of understanding through our history.

 

[MartinM]

...AIDers?

 

[MQTA]

Atheistic Intelligent Design.. I just read their ebook and my head is still spinning from it. They're saying we were created via DNA manipulation

http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1

 

[MartinM]

Ah. Lunatics. Gotcha.

 

[MQTA]

Lunatics... those are Moon worshippers?

Or are they those who think Yahwah has a base on the dark side of the moon?

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=215257&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

 

[JGL53]

Yes, I am quite sure that the find does not prove billions of years of evolution, and no, it doesn't take god-like qualities to realise that....

Who implied the recent find proved anything about a billions of years of evolution? And "realize"? No, I think the word you're looking for here is "believe" - as in naked unsubstantiated belief.

That is being incredibly simplistic

Really? Then fill in the holes for us.

That's what you believe?...

What is this - verbal Jujitsu? I was describing "creationism" - that which you claim to believe. I view creationism as superstition.

Yes, quite a bit...

Well then fill us in. There is scientific evidence for the theory of creationism? And what would that be - exactly?

 

[Elduran]

Mmm, jujutsu...

 

[CoreyD]

OSU team finds 2nd-oldest site of habitants on Oregon's coast

Discovery - Remains of a stone hearth and other evidence south of Bandon date to 10,000 years ago
Wednesday, February 01, 2006 RICHARD L. HILL

Archaeologists exploring a windy bluff on the southern Oregon coast have found evidence of people in the area about 10,000 years ago, making it the second oldest such site on the state's shoreline.

Remnants of a stone hearth, chunks of charcoal and stone flakes were discovered in the small excavation in the Bandon State Natural Area just south of Bandon.

A team led by archaeologists Roberta Hall and Loren Davis of Oregon State University reports the discovery and calls for a more complete investigation in the journal Radiocarbon. Four years ago, the team found evidence of people about 12,000 years ago -- the oldest coastal site ever found -- in Boardman State Park north of Brookings.

Read the rest of the article HERE

.

I was reading this article.
Might this affect how we view these estimations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was reading this article.
Might this affect how we view these estimations?

Why? I find the claims of precision dating from genomes to be dubious. It relies on the propagation of genes in populations to be modeled correctly and for a site that is not only far prior to any historical remains (those not dated by radiocarbon, or the exact same methods used to calibrate radiocarbon), but one with a more limited genetic data base to build from.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like Young-earth Creationism's been debunked. With this debate over, what are all of us to do?

Discuss embedded age.

 

[BCP1928]

Discuss embedded age.

Why?

 

[Astrid]

Why?

Because it’s the final fig leaf?

 

[BCP1928]

Reply

Because it’s the final fig leaf?

Because nobody else is particularly interested in it. It is like "Last Thursdayism" in that it is an falsifiable proposition and so has no relevance to science.

(notice that I did not say it is the same as Last Thursdayism,)

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like Young-earth Creationism's been debunked. With this debate over, what are all of us to do?

Discuss embedded age.

Why?

So you won't sit around with nothing to talk about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it’s the final fig leaf?

You could say that.

Kinda like saving the best (or truth) for last.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reply

Because nobody else is particularly interested in it.

If you're interested in YEC, I would assume you're interested in embedded age.

At least for the sake of discussion.

It is like "Last Thursdayism" in that it is an falsifiable proposition ...

But you can't falsify it the way you think you can.

... and so has no relevance to science.

Science can take a hike ... right?

(notice that I did not say it is the same as Last Thursdayism,)

So noted.

 

[BCP1928]

If you're interested in YEC, I would assume you're interested in embedded age.

No, YEC is basically political in nature but embedded age is not.

At least for the sake of discussion.



But you can't falsify it the way you think you can.

Got me! I meant unfalsifiable.

Science can take a hike ... right?



So noted.