Göbekli Tepe is an ancient archaeological site in southern Turkey, dated to around 12 thousand years ago.

Do young earth creationists say:

  • that is not 12,000 years old?
  • that it was created immediately after man was created 12,000 years ago?
  • that it was from a previous creation/"world"?
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Lita Cosner and Robert Carter (Creation.com) say:

First, we find it rather curious that this site is being used as if it’s something that should be a big challenge to creationists because of the date. Our response to that is the same as the dates that put the earliest Egyptian pyramids before the biblical date for the Flood and those that claim dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago—the dates are wrong. In this case the dates are based on carbon dating, something we’ve written much about previously. We would agree though that it’s probably one of the earliest big human monuments we have—a tentative dating would put it soon after the Flood. The site’s location is about perfect for it to be the product of one of the early post-Flood or post-dispersion people groups to have built it.

To put things in perspective—archaeologists are claiming that, 12,000 years ago, people were capable of carving these huge monuments. This is supposed to be long before any sort of written language, thousands of years before the Egyptian pyramids, and prior to the settlement of Sumer. Out of nowhere, we have this ancient monument, and then humans supposedly put down their chisels and don’t build anything for thousands of years more—but when they do, we get Sumer and the Egyptian pyramids. This stretches credulity.

  • 1
    Okay, so that it is not 12,000 years old. Thanks. +1 – Ruminator Aug 10 at 0:41

The simplest answer I can give at this stage is that alleged radioisotope "dating" is not empirical science by modern scientific research methods which Scientism claims to follow. I encourage you to look further into this.

To elaborate, independent attempts outside of structured university systems to date artifcts, bones or any other material produce wildly-differing results from what I understand.

In any case the nail-in-the-coffin of radioisotope "dating" is this: It is inherently untestable and therefore unscientific. For example, if I plant a tree, record the date it's planted and take a photo, in 20 years' time I can say, this tree is 20 years old because of x y z empirical evidence. Of course by the empirical scientific method there should be other corroborating evidence, such as aerial imagery, other people taking photos of the tree and neighbourhood, etc.

Compare this with the Scientism dogma of radioisotope "dating". Not only does it assume a high level of knowledge of radioisotope composition today and in the past hundred years, they extrapolate - key word there - to thousands, millions, and even hundreds of millions of years. This again is untestable as we have no current test of a certain artifact measured over a period of even say a hundred years and showing change in said artifact (going by the modern discovery of radioactive decay, etc). Maybe in the next few decades and century they can demonstrate said artifact and measure it, but again extrapolating a few hundred to thousands let alone millions of years, is, simply, unscientific.

  • 1
    I got mixed up on the actual question. The point is, not to provide one's own viewpoint but rather that of the party in question. – Ruminator Aug 13 at 0:19

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.