-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
35,000 year old Venus
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
In geological science, its hard for us to date rocks older than 100,000 years old. So so many factors affect the earth. Dating comes from experience in the field and eliminating variables where possible.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Warning--Not safe for reasonable minds:run:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1503216-post31.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1542766-post204.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1542820-post210.html
The Young Earth Creation Club
Biblical Young Earth Creationism
BTW, could someone repost this, think Enoch still has me on ignore
themadhair
Well-Known Member
It is relatively easy to put minimum dates on some sedimentary layers though. The snag with geology is that, should a rock lie there for a couple of extra hundred million years, it doesn't have a sign saying please add an extra hundred million years to my formation timescale.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Greetings!
As to where the idea of a 6- or 7,000-year-old earth comes from, it is a claim made by Biblical "scholars" perhaps 150 years ago.
But regardless, the "35,000 years old" figure remains highly suspect because this is ten times older than those human civilizations we currently consider "ancient!"
While there were indeed humans around that long ago (and probably people making images, too), the idea that Venus was a concept among them is HIGHLY suspect, to say the least!
Bruce
As to where the idea of a 6- or 7,000-year-old earth comes from, it is a claim made by Biblical "scholars" perhaps 150 years ago.
But regardless, the "35,000 years old" figure remains highly suspect because this is ten times older than those human civilizations we currently consider "ancient!"
While there were indeed humans around that long ago (and probably people making images, too), the idea that Venus was a concept among them is HIGHLY suspect, to say the least!
Bruce
I thought calling it "Venus" was just a nod to its accentuation of a woman's features, and possible connection to fertility. I don't think they were saying that this was actually the Venus.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
But the term Venus is a label we applied to the carving, not the original creators. It is a fertility image common among ancient humans which is why we call it a Venus.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
True, it is not "Venus" per se, but a model of an "earth mother" or goddess known to modern man as a "Venus".
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yeah, but you won the raceSimuls are so much fun.
Hi Themadhair ~ I have just come back from the Tree-Ring Research Lab at Univ. of Arizona in Tucson and Dr. Rex Adams spent over two hours showing my wife and I throught the whole lab. They have built up a tree-ring chronology for bristal cone pines that dates back from today to over 8,000 years ago PLUS they have another group of tree-rings that is over 3000 years that fits on the end of the 8000 years but as of April 2009 they have not found the missing trees that connects them together. So in reality It looks like the tree-rings chronology could be at least 11,000 years old. Just thought you would like the latest information.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Im well aware of it. Bristle cone pines are probably the best tree species for dendrochronology since they have phenomenally low rates of false/missing rings.
I still find it astounding how much information this research reveals regarding historical climate. It astounds me that this can even be done.
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
If they attended public school, such lack of seemingly common knowledge is very likely ----------- unfortunately.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Thing looks more like a fossilised chicken than it does human. My vote is that he was hungry.
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
A remarkable ivory carving is arguably the oldest sculpture of a human figure yet found, scientists say. The distorted object, which portrays a woman with huge breasts, big buttocks and exaggerated genitals, is thought to be at least 35,000 years old.
The key words here are "thought to be." Such words sound very scientific in the face of not having a clue...
The key words here are "thought to be." Such words sound very scientific in the face of not having a clue...
It makes me wonder if 35000 years from now someone will uncover my porn stash.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
You've never read many peer-reviewed science journals then.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Absolutely - it's far better to take the religious approach, and just go ahead and state things as indisputable fact, in the face of not having a clue.