Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[Elendur]

And they are right. It did.

Great, so now you can answer my question:

Originally Posted by dad

Jesus was seen killed then risen, as well as astounding prophesies fulfilled. Done deal.

​

Can you prove god said it?

And not having the bible as a source.

No I look at even pagan records and try to glean out bits of truth from them. I also look at God's record. I even look at the poor little records of science.

I do not believe you:
"No. Not a one. Your dates are wrong. They cannot be supported."

I gave you sources for the dates, even a creationist website:
What was the date of Noah's Flood?

Easy to do. Pick any date and try to support it. You won't be able to. So it is not proven right to begin with. No need to do much with it then, but laugh at it.

Great so read your links, take notes and get back to us when you can actually post a few sentences or even paragraphs from them that support the dates claimed. Then I will demolish it for you.

You haven't given me anything to prove it isn't right except "No." and "They cannot be supported." and similar answers.
Except "God's record" which you don't quote, or say what the correct dates are.

But for your pleasure here are direct quotes:




Written in Swedish:
_________________________
"De äldsta uppgifterna på metoder att registrera tal, som finns från Mellersta Östern, utgörs av små talsymboler av lera, som påträffats så långt tillbaka till 8000-talet f.kr."

"Framträdandet av de första grupperna av symboler 8000-7500 f.kr tyder på att systemet med att räkna och bokföra varor blev nödvändigt när överlevnaden blev beroende av domesticering av säd och lagring av skördade produkter. Med andra ord, symbolsystemet uppfyllde de nya behov för redovisning som uppstod i samband med jordbruket, och lagrandet av data kan ses som direkt relaterat till den 'Neolitiska Revolutionen' (Schmandt-Besserat 2000)."

{Snip}

"Med framväxten av stadskulturer under 3000-talet f.kr utvecklades bruket av talsystemet."

{Snip}

"Mot [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]et av 3000-talet f.kr. uppträder den första skriften som ristades i lertavlorna (talsymbolerna trycktes in). Merparten av fynden, över 6000 tavlor och fragment, kommer från Uruk i södra delen av nuvarande Irak men några kommer från utgrävningarna i norra Irak. Det finns också cirka 1600 tavlor från Susa och andra platser i nuvarande Iran (Englund 2004)."

{Snip}

"Ytterligare andra beteckningssystem användes, ett för areamått, ett för viktmått (Friberg 1999)."

{Snip}

"En skillnad mellan de för-elamitiska tavlorna och de för-sumeriska är att bland de förra också finns ett decimalt system, 'Decimal System D', som användes för att räkna 'levande föremål', i första hand husdjur och arbetare (Friberg 1992, Englund 2004).

De icke-numeriska symbolerna på lertavlorna kan indelas i tre olika typer (Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1994):

Tecken som avbildar det som de refererar till, piktogram, exempelvis "oxe": [picture]

Tecken, där man inte kan se vad tecknet avbildar, men som man kan anta hade en bildlik betydelse, exempelviss ett vassknippe för gudinnan Inanna:
[picture]

Tecken, där man inte kan finna någon koppling mellan tecknets form och det objekt som det representerar, exempelvis "får":
[picture]

Det finns ingen tydlig grammatisk koppling mellan de olika tecknen, utan de refererar direkt till objekt eller (kanske) verb; men ibland kan flera tecken kombineras och få en ny innebörd. De första indikationerna på att tecknen började få en fonetisk betydelse ligger något längre fram i tiden, från 2500 f.kr. Fram till dess kan man inte knyta symbolerna till något specifikt språk - även om den senare utvecklingen är knuten till det sumeriska språket och småningom också till akkadiska."

{Snip}

"Under 2000-talet f.kr. utvecklades skriftspråket från att ristas i lera till en skrift, kilskrift, där symbolerna trycktes in med en trekantig "penna", stylus."
_________________________




Translated by me:
(Remember, I'm no translator or writer by profession so grammatical errors may occur)
_________________________

"The oldest information regarding the methods of registering numbers, that are from the Middle East, constitutes by small number symbols of clay, that have been found as far back as 8000 b.c."

"The appearance of the first groups of symbols 8000-7500 b.c. indicates that the system of counting and accounting wares became necessary when survival became dependent of domestication of seed and storage of harvested products. In other words, the symbol system satisfied the new needs for accounting that rose, in correlation with farming, and the storage of data can be seen as a direct correlation to the 'Neolitian Revolution' (Schmandt-Besserat 2000)."

{Snip}

"With the rise of city cultures during 3000 b.c. the use of the number system evolved."

{Snip}

"Towards the end of 3000 b.c. the first scripture carved into clay tablets occurred (the number symbols were pressed in). Most part of the finds, over 6000 tablets and fragments, are from Uruk in the southern part of current Iraq but some comes from the excavations in northern Iraq. There are also about 1600 tablets from Susa and other places in current Iran (Englund 2004)."

{Snip}

"More denotation systems were used, one for areas, one for weights (Friberg 1999)."

{Snip}

"A difference between the pre-elamitian tablets and the pre-sumerian is that among the former there is also a decimal system, 'Decimal System D', that were used to count 'live objects', primarily pets and workers (Friberg 1992, Englund 2004).

The non-numeric symbols on the tablets can be divided into three different types (Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1994):

Signs that describe what they are referring to, pictogram, for example "ox":
[picture]

Signs, where you cannot see what the sign describe, but that one can assume had a graphical meaning, for example a bundle of reed for the goddess Inanna:
[picture]

Signs, where you cannot find any connection between the shape of the sign and the object it represents, for example "sheep":
[picture]

There is no apparent grammatical connection between the different signs, but rather they refer directly to objects or (maybe) verbs; but sometimes several signs can be combined and get a new meaning. The first indication that the signs were beginning to get a phonetic meaning is somewhat further into the future, from 2500 b.c. Up until that you cannot connect the symbols to any specific language - even if the later development is connected to the Sumerian language and eventually the Accadian."

{Snip}

"During 2000 b.c. the written language developed from being carved in clay to a writing, cuneiform, where the symbols where pushed in with a triangular "pen", stylus."
_________________________


Now, would you destroy this for me?

 

[dad]

Great, so now you can answer my question:

Originally Posted by dad

Jesus was seen killed then risen, as well as astounding prophesies fulfilled. Done deal.

​

Can you prove god said it?

And not having the bible as a source.


I do not believe you:
"No. Not a one. Your dates are wrong. They cannot be supported."

I gave you sources for the dates, even a creationist website:
What was the date of Noah's Flood?

Their dates then are based on...what? As for your Last Thursday must rule unless you accept present state only observations, no thanks. Reasonable evidence does exist for much of history.

You haven't given me anything to prove it isn't right except "No." and "They cannot be supported." and similar answers.
Except "God's record" which you don't quote, or say what the correct dates are.

Well the exact dates are not known. But within a reasonable degree of certainty the bible dates were looked at by Usher and others. So, whether they could be off by a few years or decades or even centuries is the only concern. But I accept them as close for now, subject to evidence. Therefore, if you claim dates at great variance with them, I would need to look at the basis for your so called dating.

Translated by me:
(Remember, I'm no translator or writer by profession so grammatical errors may occur)
_________________________

"The oldest information regarding the methods of registering numbers, that are from the Middle East, constitutes by small number symbols of clay, that have been found as far back as 8000 b.c."

Great, so..? How do you date clay at 8000 bc? Why blow dust here?

"The appearance of the first groups of symbols 8000-7500 b.c. indicates that the system of counting and accounting wares became necessary when survival became dependent of domestication of seed and storage of harvested products. In other words, the symbol system satisfied the new needs for accounting that rose, in correlation with farming, and the storage of data can be seen as a direct correlation to the 'Neolitian Revolution' (Schmandt-Besserat 2000)."

Great, so how do you know that what disappeared was in 8000bc?? Same thing empty claims unsupported in any language. Why blow gas here?

"With the rise of city cultures during 3000 b.c. the use of the number system evolved."

{Snip}

"Towards the end of 3000 b.c. the first scripture carved into clay tablets occurred (the number symbols were pressed in). Most part of the finds, over 6000 tablets and fragments, are from Uruk in the southern part of current Iraq but some comes from the excavations in northern Iraq. There are also about 1600 tablets from Susa and other places in current Iran (Englund 2004)."

{Snip}

"More denotation systems were used, one for areas, one for weights (Friberg 1999)."

{Snip}

"A difference between the pre-elamitian tablets and the pre-sumerian is that among the former there is also a decimal system, 'Decimal System D', that were used to count 'live objects', primarily pets and workers (Friberg 1992, Englund 2004).

Same as above, tossing out dates but not supporting how you get there.

The non-numeric symbols on the tablets can be divided into three different types (Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1994):

Signs that describe what they are referring to, pictogram, for example "ox":
[picture]

Signs, where you cannot see what the sign describe, but that one can assume had a graphical meaning, for example a bundle of reed for the goddess Inanna:
[picture]

Signs, where you cannot find any connection between the shape of the sign and the object it represents, for example "sheep":
[picture]

There is no apparent grammatical connection between the different signs, but rather they refer directly to objects or (maybe) verbs; but sometimes several signs can be combined and get a new meaning. The first indication that the signs were beginning to get a phonetic meaning is somewhat further into the future, from 2500 b.c. Up until that you cannot connect the symbols to any specific language - even if the later development is connected to the Sumerian language and eventually the Accadian."

{Snip}

So? There is no apparent connection to this Ikea moment to the thread.

Now, would you destroy this for me?

Done. All smoke no fire. Now, try to support your dates.


Maybe I can help, since you can't seem to get it. Radioactive decay. That is the big thing. Unless you want to use the king lists...good luck with that.

 

[dad]

... the moon obviously exists in a different state, my guess, cheese.

We have landed there. Try to get a grip.

 

[Elendur]

Their dates then are based on...what? As for your Last Thursday must rule unless you accept present state only observations, no thanks. Reasonable evidence does exist for much of history.

Therefore, if you claim dates at great variance with them, I would need to look at the basis for your so called dating.


Great, so..? How do you date clay at 8000 bc? Why blow dust here?
Great, so how do you know that what disappeared was in 8000bc?? Same thing empty claims unsupported in any language. Why blow gas here?

Same as above, tossing out dates but not supporting how you get there.
So? There is no apparent connection to this Ikea moment to the thread.


Done. All smoke no fire. Now, try to support your dates.


Maybe I can help, since you can't seem to get it. Radioactive decay. That is the big thing. Unless you want to use the king lists...good luck with that.

I haven't dated anything. I have no education regarding archaeological finds. But a bit of searching gives me this:
Dating methodologies in archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Works for ceramics and clays: )
Rehydroxylation dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archaeomagnetic dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thermoluminescence dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You seem to assume that I have to explain everything in depth to you, along with providing evidence for every step along the way while you dismiss everything.
I'm done. You're not interested in learning anything new, you're not interested in seeing both sides of a debate.

 

[Tiberius]

We have landed there. Try to get a grip.

Yeah, and that was what? About 50 years ago, almost?

That was in a different state past, dad! The state has changed! The moon is different now!

 

[dad]

I haven't dated anything. I have no education regarding archaeological finds. But a bit of searching gives me this:
Dating methodologies in archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Works for ceramics and clays: )
Rehydroxylation dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archaeomagnetic dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thermoluminescence dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You seem to assume that I have to explain everything in depth to you, along with providing evidence for every step along the way while you dismiss everything.
I'm done. You're not interested in learning anything new, you're not interested in seeing both sides of a debate.

So you offer decay for dates. You are done all right kid.

 

[dad]

Yeah, and that was what? About 50 years ago, almost?

That was in a different state past, dad! The state has changed! The moon is different now!

Can't debate seriously. OK. Is that mommy calling?

 

[Tiberius]

Can't debate seriously. OK. Is that mommy calling?

lol, that's rich coming from someone whose idea of debate is to simply decalre yourself winner, ignore any evidence presented against your point of view and then repeat the whole process.

If you want me to debate seriously, show me that you can do it too.

 

[Hobz]

I'm surprised anyone takes these threads seriously anymore, it's beyond beating a dead horse. Sometimes they can be funny though, that one thread where dad postulated about geysers on the ancient earth working like snow-making machines was gold. The hidden pockets of liquid nitrogen and the rest of it, had me in stitches for a while. Maybe dad is the ultimate Poe.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm surprised anyone takes these threads seriously anymore, it's beyond beating a dead horse. Sometimes they can be funny though, that one thread where dad postulated about geysers on the ancient earth working like snow-making machines was gold. The hidden pockets of liquid nitrogen and the rest of it, had me in stitches for a while. Maybe dad is the ultimate Poe.

Didja hear the one about Pluto being our 9th planet!?

Laugh track - YouTube

 

[Elendur]

So you offer decay for dates. You are done all right kid.

If I understand you correctly:

1. I present dates.
2. You reject dates because of lack of direct quotation.
3. I present direct quotation.
4. You reject direct quotation because the source doesn't mention methods used to date objects mentioned.
5. I present several ways to date objects mentioned.
6. This:

So you offer decay for dates. You are done all right kid.

What are you getting at?

 

[Nabobalis]

Didja hear the one about Pluto being our 9th planet!?

Laugh track - YouTube

You took that news very hard, I know you've not healed but we are all here for you.

 

[dad]

If I understand you correctly:

1. I present dates.
2. You reject dates because of lack of direct quotation.

No, because you do not say the basis for why you claim them. The quotes you gave just rattled off the dates in passing as if they meant something.

3. I present direct quotation.
4. You reject direct quotation because the source doesn't mention methods used to date objects mentioned.

Unless you mention how the dates are arrived at, no point in quoting people reciting dates!

5. I present several ways to date objects mentioned.
6. This:


What are you getting at?

You did? Such as..? Decay, magnetic reversals...etc? No problem. Nothing about any of it helps you. Naturally during the nature change time a lot of magnetic flux would go on...etc. Don't spam a bunch of links...talk about one thing, and try to show how it really dates squat.

 

[dad]

lol, that's rich coming from someone whose idea of debate is to simply decalre yourself winner, ignore any evidence presented against your point of view and then repeat the whole process.

If you want me to debate seriously, show me that you can do it too.

Wahhh

 

[dad]

I'm surprised anyone takes these threads seriously anymore, it's beyond beating a dead horse. Sometimes they can be funny though, that one thread where dad postulated about geysers on the ancient earth working like snow-making machines was gold. The hidden pockets of liquid nitrogen and the rest of it, had me in stitches for a while. Maybe dad is the ultimate Poe.

The truth is funnier than fiction. But to be clear, I do not say hidden pockets of anything made the big snow making machine. I merely propse that we do not know what was under the earth in the famous fountains of the deep, that also came up with the water in some places. I would think that we could say that a lot of salt came up in places. There are massive deposits in some areas of salt.

Of course we also need to ask which of the two big flood event factors..space ... and deep below did what.


But more topically here, the radioactive decay we know and see now is a feature of this present state. Therefore, to be clear, it cannot be credited with all the parent or daughter material we see now. Therefore no dates are possible. Not for the deep past.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course we also need to ask which of the two big flood event factors..space ... and deep below did what.

Too bad that just as with the "firmament," there is no "deep below."

 

[dad]

Too bad that just as with the "firmament," there is no "deep below."

There was. Big difference. The water came up. And there is a space where the sun and stars reside in...really.

 

[Elendur]

No, because you do not say the basis for why you claim them. The quotes you gave just rattled off the dates in passing as if they meant something.


Unless you mention how the dates are arrived at, no point in quoting people reciting dates!
You did? Such as..? Decay, magnetic reversals...etc? No problem. Nothing about any of it helps you. Naturally during the nature change time a lot of magnetic flux would go on...etc. Don't spam a bunch of links...talk about one thing, and try to show how it really dates squat.

Now I get it, you're a selective scepticist. Have fun with that.

I've got a sincere, final, question for you: How many years have you gone to school?

 

[dad]

Now I get it, you're a selective scepticist. Have fun with that.

I've got a sincere, final, question for you: How many years have you gone to school?

Too many. Hit the light on your way out son.

 

[Split Rock]

There was. Big difference. The water came up. And there is a space where the sun and stars reside in...really.

Here's the "firmament"
File:Flammarion.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia