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: 36

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

9800 BCE? Nice.
What would be best of course would for the archeologists to find some sort of old-testament first drafts at the site

Exodus, the story of Nigel er ... Farquar um ... MOSES!

:D
LOL!
the sun is consuming itself @ a rate of 10 miles a year(getting smaller) so if we hypothetically "backtrack" the sun would be touching the surface of the earth within millions of years not "billions" as evolution calls for, so im open to a older earth,even 15-20,000 or more but not billions ,so what do you guys think of this "scientific" evidence ,if you want the names of the scientists that agree to this and observatories let me know, theres more scientific evidence you might of never heard of,PEACE!!!!!!!
Wow, not this old canard again. Are you reading Institute for Creation Research website for ideas?

There are a number of problems with this. First, it assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. This is an unsupported assumption. We've found a cyclical rate of expansion and contraction in other stars, so it is not illogical that our star might have a similar cycle.

Also, the data that the study you are referring to (one single, solitary study, done in 1980 and not replicated since) is full of noise. We've got vague data from the past 400 years. Only data going back 150 years or so is really very reliable, and even in that range, the more recent measurements are significantly more accurate than the older ones. This data shows a basic periodicity of about 80 years. You did know that our sun is a variable star, right?
if you want the names of the scientists that agree to this and observatories let me know, theres more scientific evidence you might of never heard of,PEACE!!!!!!!

Do tell.
Yes, do tell. Because I've come across them before, but don't feel like looking right now. As I recall there were only a few; and they were under-qualified or unqualified as astronomers or scientists. AND the entire astronomy and scientific community dismisses them.

They've started with their conclusion and are looking for evidence to support their conclusion. This is not how science works. Science starts with the evidence, draws up conclusions, then double-checks to see if the evidence still supports the conclusions.
the observatories are:Royal Greenwich Observatory(dozensof independent studies )also studies done independently at the U.S. Naval Observatory suggest that the sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of six feet per hour.Dr. John a. Eddy an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian High altitude observatory in colorado(not qualified johnny??)is one of the many scientists /scientific authors that document studies that indicate the sun's shrinking rate, here's more :d.w. dunham,a.d. fiala,j.r.lesh, andrew a. snelling,Thomas g. Barnes, Harold L. armstrong,John eddy, Hilton Hinderliter, theres more but lack of time doesnt permit me to write them right now ill try to send them later,p.s. also the "big bang hypothesis" is very unscientific because an explosion always,always, always cause "disorder and chaos" not" order" also there's nothing in space to stop moving material from an explosion and then for it to then start to spin in "order" and DAVE G, no i didnt get this from ICR, EXPLOSIONS ALWAYS CAUSE DISORDER AND CHAOS NOT ORDER ,PEACE!!!!!!!!!
"big bang hypothesis" is very unscientific because an explosion always,always, always cause "disorder and chaos" not" order" also there's nothing in space to stop moving material from an explosion and then for it to then start to spin in "order" and DAVE G, no i didnt get this from ICR, EXPLOSIONS ALWAYS CAUSE DISORDER AND CHAOS NOT ORDER ,PEACE!!!!!!!!!

First off....explosions are very organized despite what you may personally believe. Lets begin with something called forensic science which includes things such as finding the point of origins for explosions. We could not do this if explosions are "chaos", explosions expand in all directions in a very even fashion because the energy expelled from explosions goes out evenly in every direction. The materials that are effected by explosions are spread as far as the energy will take them as long as their aren't other forces acting on them.

Second...If you didn't know this, our universe is still expanding, it hasn't stopped. All matter has its own personally gravity and gravity causes matter to come together. So as our universe is rapidly expanding with all the matter rushing away from the point of singularity, they will also be attracted to each other. As time passes the energy from expansion starts to become over powered by the gravity of matter, thus allowing for things such as stars, planets, and galaxies to form.

Third....everything is not in order. Galaxies collide, stars die, black holes exist, pulsars have the ability to fry planets, and there is countless debris traveling through our universe that hits what ever is it its way. So no, once you take into account all the variables, our universe is not in order is indeed in chaos. What we have now is just what we lucked out with. Woo for us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjwF_-ydcM&feature=fvw
i agree with you that explosions are very organized and that they expand in all directions in a very even fashion ..........in every direction, i agree 100% with that statement,but what im refering to is the" unscientific" assumption that "that explosion" (big bang) caused higher order and more complexity , my point of refutation is not the"how" something exploded but to the "what" the supposed explosion "produced" explosions might "explode" in a "perfectly even fashion", but when have you seen an explosion "produce" higher order and greater complexity?
What explosion have you had 14 billion years to wait around and observe after it happened?
my point is no "explosion" ever has produced higher order and greater complexity , thats just common sense, and "repeatable"scientifically,When has someone blown something up and it became more ordered and more complex? Im sure i dont need to quote you the 2nd law of thermodynamics,right brother?

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 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