Yet another nail in the creationist coffin

[ThankGodforGod]

Looks like we have found a log structure that predates stonehenge by about 500 years meaning it dates to around 6000 years ago.

London's Earliest Timber Structure Found During Belmarsh Prison Dig

I do wonder how so many adults can look at alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the different and independent fields of science pointing away from the arbitrarily chosen (remember that 6000 years is never in the bible, just a best guess) 6000 years old date and still come to the conclusion that it is all fake but then enjoy all the benefits of modern science. It is kinda like denying the internet is real while posting this.

 

[marktheblake]

Looks like we have found a log structure that predates stonehenge by about 500 years meaning it dates to around 6000 years ago.

The article doesnt say 'around' it says 'nearly'. If the revelation is so powerful why did you feel the need to stretch the age a bit.

So its nearly 6000 years old, obviously there is a margin of error attributed to this dating also, so how much would that be?

Like any ancient discovery the date of the artefact's will likely be subject to some scrutiny with different lengths of time by various groups. This was only first reported this week, I do not have any concern that this is a 'nail in the coffin' at all.

 

[Albion]

I also think we need to say that few "Creationists" adhere to the idea of the creation of the world having occurred at a specific and known date, usually taken to be about 6000 years ago.

Most "Creationists" believe that the world and life was created by an act of God at some time in the past, as opposed to all that exists having simply evolved on its own out of primitive chemicals, etc. whose origins can't be determined.

IOW, the discovery of some structure placed at 6000 years in age doesn't represent anything new or challenging in this particular debate.

 

[Tenebrae]

The article doesnt say 'around' it says 'nearly'. If the revelation is so powerful why did you feel the need to stretch the age a bit.

So its nearly 6000 years old, obviously there is a margin of error attributed to this dating also, so how much would that be?

Like any ancient discovery the date of the artefact's will likely be subject to some scrutiny with different lengths of time by various groups. This was only first reported this week, I do not have any concern that this is a 'nail in the coffin' at all.

Hey Dude

Lets not play sematics.

Around, nearly, same difference really, different words for saying the same thing

 

[ThankGodforGod]

The article doesnt say 'around' it says 'nearly'. If the revelation is so powerful why did you feel the need to stretch the age a bit.

Are they not the same thing? Why do you see dishonesty in my position, I have the proof on my side, remember.

So its nearly 6000 years old, obviously there is a margin of error attributed to this dating also, so how much would that be?

I didn't see that it mentioned a dating method in article but rest assured that there is more than one way to date things in that time period. I think even c14 will work accurately out to 50,000 years with a margin of around 50-100 years. Keep in mind thought this is not the first piece we have unearthed that was older than 6000 years, I mean we know the Sumerians were making beer around that time.

Like any ancient discovery the date of the artefact's will likely be subject to some scrutiny with different lengths of time by various groups. This was only first reported this week, I do not have any concern that this is a 'nail in the coffin' at all.

It is "yet another" nail since everything we find that we can prove to be older than 6000 years proves that the earth is far older. We already have a wealth of examples of this but some people would rather live in the dark.

 

[ThankGodforGod]

I also think we need to say that few "Creationists" adhere to the idea of the creation of the world having occurred at a specific and known date, usually taken to be about 6000 years ago.

Most "Creationists" believe that the world and life was created by an act of God at some time in the past, as opposed to all that exists having simply evolved on its own out of primitive chemicals, etc. whose origins can't be determined.

IOW, the discovery of some structure placed at 6000 years in age doesn't represent anything new or challenging in this particular debate.

Just more evidence for one side to ignore really.

 

[marktheblake]

Are they not the same thing? Why do you see dishonesty in my position, I have the proof on my side, remember.

Because 'nearly 6000' years doesn't help your argument much, more than 6000 does.

eg 5900 years +/-100 doesnt disprove anything.

I didn't see that it mentioned a dating method in article but rest assured that there is more than one way to date things in that time period.

and all will have differing results. You can pick the oldest one, the creationist will pick the youngest, nobody wins.

It is "yet another" nail since everything we find that we can prove to be older than 6000 years proves that the earth is far older.

I'm not worried. Am sure plenty more old nails will turn up.

 

[Cabal]

TGFG, don't worry if this one isn't convincing, there's still the matter of the 9000 year old tree discovered a few years ago.

 

[wlajoie74]

Because 'nearly 6000' years doesn't help your argument much, more than 6000 does

SO YOU THINK ADAM AND EVE WALKED UP TO LONDON AND BUILT A STRUCTURE AND THEN WALKED BACK TO EDEN WITHIN 100 YEARS OF THEM BEING CREATED JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT. DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO ME. KINDA SEEMS LIKE THAT UNDERTAKING WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN GENESIS.

 

[ThankGodforGod]

Because 'nearly 6000' years doesn't help your argument much, more than 6000 does.

eg 5900 years +/-100 doesnt disprove anything.

So you are saying allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the evolution of earth that we have observed happened in 100 years. Lets not forget that you are also leaving just 100 years not only for man to evolve but also for him to develop civilization and construction.

and all will have differing results. You can pick the oldest one, the creationist will pick the youngest, nobody wins.

I'm not worried. Am sure plenty more old nails will turn up.

Not in the least, they all converge (with varying levels of accuracy) around the same place. These dates are not a shot in the dark, they are independently confirmed by more than one test. One of the problems we do see with creationist is that they don't understand limitations of dating methods and will use something like carbon 14 to date a fossil.

 

[Albion]

So you are saying allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the evolution of earth that we have observed happened in 100 years. Lets not forget that you are also leaving just 100 years not only for man to evolve but also for him to develop civilization and construction.

It appears that you have some of your facts scrambled. First, you said that this disproves Creationism, by which you meant that variety which holds the world to be only 6000 years old. But if this timber structure is not 6000 years old--and it is not said to be that old--then OF COURSE it could have been built as Creationists suppose.

"All the evolution of earth?"

There is nothing about a timber sructure and an axe that equals "civilization," let alone the whole course of human development. The Bible that you are out to disprove says that Cain and Abel were tilling the soil and had houses, so you are not really telling us anything special--and certainly nothing that puts any nails in any Creationist coffin.

 

[Cabal]

The Bible that you are out to disprove

Interpretations of the Bible, actually - not the Bible itself.

Very important not to conflate the two.

 

[Albion]

Interpretations of the Bible, actually - not the Bible itself.

Very important not to conflate the two.

I think we all understand that.

The issue is between the OP and a certain variety of Creationism. The OP suggests that this Creationist view is proven wrong by a perhaps 5800 or 5900 year old dig.

But in fact, it doesn't.

I'm not on either side myself, but if we are asked to consider this find to be a nail in the coffin of that POV, it isn't. It is entirely consistent with the Bible interpretation that the Creationists make and, in fact, with parts of Genesis that can hardly be interpreted any other way. The findings do not disprove anything.

OTOH, there are other finds that are said to be 8-10,000 years old. THEY would pose a problem if the dating is correct, but not this particular discovery in London.

 

[marktheblake]

SO YOU THINK....

No I dont think that, you should address what someone says and not what you think that they think, and you didnt really need to capatilise your strawman, it was obvious anyway.

So you are saying ....

Not at all. I said what I said, not what you said. I have no issue with people being in England within a few hundred years of creation date. It seems remote however, but is not something anyone can exclude. Even Arthur Dent travelled almost the whole world in his own lifetime.

what Albion said

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't find debating creationism very interesting. If somebody wants to believe the contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken literal, that's their right, but it's not rational. When they want to sneak that sort of fantasy into the public schools, though, that when I and they are going to have to go to fist city.

 

[Albion]

I don't find debating creationism very interesting. If somebody wants to believe the contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken literal, that's their right, but it's not rational. When they want to sneak that sort of fantasy into the public schools, though, that when I and they are going to have to go to fist city.

I'd hope you aren't actually prepared to resort to violence, especially since there is no effort to put this into the public schools.

There's a lot of hysteria on the part of those on the Left who oppose religion in public institutions, unless it's their own religious views of course, but this one is a red herring.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'd hope you aren't actually prepared to resort to violence, especially since there is no effort to put this into the public schools.

There's a lot of hysteria on the part of those on the Left who oppose religion in public institutions, unless it's their own religious views of course, but this one is a red herring.

Like the Bible I use metaphors. There is no red herring about the sneaking in of creationist stuff into public schools though, as news from Dover, Pennsylvania; Kansas and Texas clearly attest.

 

[Albion]

Like the Bible I use metaphors. There is no red herring about the sneaking in of creationist stuff into public schools though, as news from Dover, Pennsylvania; Kansas and Texas clearly attest.

I believe that you are incorrect, and the facts speak for themselves. In case after case the intention was to have "Intelligent Design" taught (alongside Evolution). It was not to have "Creationism" taught; and if there is any uncertainty about the difference, this is a good time to learn it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I believe that you are incorrect, and the facts speak for themselves. In case after case the intention was to have "Intelligent Design" taught (alongside Evolution). It was not to have "Creationism" taught; and if there is any uncertainty about the difference, this is a good time to learn it.

"Intelligent Design" is a hoax created to slip creationism into the public schools.

 

[sk8Joyful]

It is "yet another" nail
since everything we find that we can prove to be older than 6000 years, proves that the earth is far older.
We already have a wealth of examples of this, but some people would rather live in the dark.

that too many creationists currently, about scientific-Discoveries & advances (thus proving GOD's truths, if only they could add 2+2 ) remain confused , bothers you? - what a colossal waste!

A much more productive way to spend your time, would be to share with us Creationists with
increasing & teaching awarenesses, and positively-contribute to this Exchange... in this GOD bless you!
.