Young Earth Creationists (YEC) have a hypothesis that the earth is about 6000 years old; some concede that it might be up-to 10,000 years old. Funny then all the things that happened before the earth was created.

We all know their hypothesis doesn't hold up to real scrutiny; but just for good measure here's more proof their hypothesis is wrong:

Middle East Oldest Village Found In Iran
Posted Monday, 25 May 2009 - No author listed.

Iranian and English archeologists have discovered the Middle East's oldest village which dates back to at least 9800 BC in western Iran, Press TV reported.

The unique archeological discovery reveals Iran was the main Neolithic center of the Middle East.

"The historical site dates back to 9800 BC and evidence suggest inhabitance in the site continued until 7400 BC," said Hassan Fazeli, the director of Iran's Archeology Research Center.

Archeologists believe such findings prove that Iran's dwellers moved out of caves around 11,800 years ago and settled in plains.

Such discoveries strengthen the theory that with Iran being the main Neolithic center of the Middle East, the region was not only the center of agriculture.

"Cultural officials plan to introduce the oldest human dwelling to the UNESCO," Fazeli said adding "Opening the historical site for public viewing is a step to initiate the plan."

Tags: Middle-East, archeologists, archeology

Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You don't understand the big bang theory, so I don't expect you to understand that either.
And my point is that the Big Bang was not an explosion as you are claiming. The universe was not a giant lump of TNT that was set off.

And the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You are aware that that applies to the overall entropy of a closed system, and that even within a closed system, some areas can increase in order at the expense of an increased drop in order elsewhere, so long as the overall trend remains towards entropy?
i'd ask you the same question,PEACE!!!!! (about what explosion ive had 14 billion yrs to wait and observe......
The observable science that we have indicates that this is the most plausible theory.

Your answer is 'since we don't know for sure, the magic man dun it.'
I know for sure but you wouldnt understand,as for observable science did you know that the concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing? Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enough to have existed for billions of years.Even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most?
Luis, you're making erroneous projections again. This is no different than the sun shrinking claim.
Why is it creationists think that a study over a few decades immediately signifies a consistent trend of existence? Read a little real science, and find out about all the ways the globe has changed over the last 4.5 billion years.
I am really struggling to pull anything substantial out of this to support your claim. Listing dozens of unnamed studies at the Royal Greenwich Observatory or U.S. Naval Observatory does not constitute proof; it is not up to me to sift through the observatories' archives to determine what you are citing. I did Google the Harvard professor mentioned, and found his obituary. I don't see anything mentioned in a recap of the man's lifework to indicate that he thought a consistent rate of solar shrinkage supported the young earth theory. Surely something that significant would have been spoken of.

Also, how does refuting the big bang hypothesis logically connect with the sun consuming itself?
thanks for your comment,in "It's About Time:4.5 Billion Years"(report on symposium at Louisiana State Universitry),Geotimes,vol.23(september1978):p.18,quoting John Eddy.:"I suspect .....that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However,given some new and unexpected results to the contrary and some time for frantic adjustment,I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher's figure for the age of the earth and sun (approximately six thousand years). I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that." p.s. the comment on the big bang hypothesis was just a side comment of how unscientific it is.
He also ignores that Dr Eddy retracted his claim about the shrinking sun when additional evidence was presented
You can't dismiss a theory just because it conflicts with your faith or simply because you don't understand it. And by your statements you obviously don't understand the principles of the big bang. Learn more about it... Matt added some great info, and a video link... Here's another:
Excellent video Johnny! Very easy to understand.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 11 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service