It freaks me out that this is 40 000 years old

Retard

T. Creationist.

What's your problem?

You're a sad little retard, carbon dating IS reliable in this case and in most cases

>You're a sad little retard,

How so?

>carbon dating IS reliable in this case and in most cases

No. That is simply not true, and you're either willfully ignorant, or deliberately lying.

You're a complete fuckwit, Carbon dating is one of the most precious told in archaeology, you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, read any archaeological article or book written after the 50s and you'll se always references to Carbon dating

I have to take other user's side in this case, anything over 30,000 years is unreliable at best

Ha ha

Don't be stupid. Humans didn't even exist 40,000 years ago it was just dinosaurs and stuff.

Nigger what? Do you even know how that shit works?

I'm mad because it's so blatantly obvious that you've never read an archaeological publication in your life, carbon dating is a commonly accepted tool in the academic world.

No, carbon dating can be reliable up to 50,000 years ago

What this user said. It can't be older than the age of the world

Keep deluding yourself, little man.

What a colossal retard

>I have to take other user's side in this case, anything over 30,000 years is unreliable at best

You know there are other radiometric isotopes one can measure besides carbon-14 right?

I was referring to carbon dating, because so was he

Ancient German furries

Now the dick might have shrunk because of the cold but why are his balls, not the sack, the testicles themselves, so tiny?

babbydick has been an artistic style in Europe since forever

In your example the testicles are notably larger than in the illustration.
I'm aware of babydic symbolizing a kind of refinement or something (savage characters often having larger dicks in Greek sculpture), so wouldn't you expect the opposite.
Also this picture seems to recent for it to be about style

my theory on this is that the people portraying these men simply didn't want to spend a lot of time drawing or sculpting a man's dick and balls

There's no way to prove it.

"Carbon dating" is the only "proof" yet that's been shown to be completely unreliable.

On the otherhand we have proof that the world is about 6000 years old as seen in the bible.

>pick up a rock
>it's ~200 million years older than the oldest known minerals in the world

You're right to be nervous, pepe

What freaks you out about that? It's really, really old. You had pre-historic cave people making little figurines. So what? Hell, I find it interesting/comforting to realize that there's a great deal of similarity, that there were artistic impulses even that far back.

>If you recognize the unreliability of carbon dating you must be a creationist bibletard.

Just stop. You're pathetic.

So because I cite the bible as a source i'm a creationist bibletard?

Tip your fedora someplace else.

Yawn

Stop replying to me. You're wasting both of our time.

Watch this and stop peddling r/athiesm nonsense.

youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig

>This is my religion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

>Recognizing the nonsense and bullshit of bible cultists who aren't real christians mean that you are an atheist.

Go away, retard. You are not fooling anyone with your attempts at discrediting anyone who can think and recognize that current dating methods are fundamentally flawed, you scientistic piece of shit.

It's only been two minutes and already this is already completely full of nonsense. Like I get that here we're all just having a grand old time trolling each other but I didn't realize it was actually this bad elsewhere.

that's bullshit but I believe it

No, but you must be an uniformed retard who doesn't know what he's talking about and is upset carbon dating proved the shroud of Turin is a forgery.

Not him, but how the hell do people take the Turin shroud seriously? I mean, it's very first mention in the historical record is how the local bishop didn't think it was real, poked around, and discovered the guy who made it, who copped to the forgery.

It's taken very seriously, I remember my religion teacher in highschool making us watching a sensationalistic documentary about it, she also had a very poor grasp of history and often said completely inaccurate or made up stuff about ancient people and their history

Faith its magical, its rooted in the capacity of people to forgot and forget.

If they already have made their minds about a subject, any hint of evidence will drive them in that direction.

Most of the time, I just hope they had a secondary most rational reason.

As an artist, I also subscribe to this theory.

>As an artist, I also subscribe to this theory.

Bullshit.

Its known fact that all artists are sexually unorthodox.

Is Michelangelo was alive today, he'd be posting drawings of technicolor fox guys onto his DeviantART and Tumblr accounts.

Im an artist and i enjoy drawing huge wangs, balls and titties.

(((artist)))

What does the shroud of turin have to do with this, idiot?

See

And die of cancer.

They are very well researched and crafted dongs. I spare no effort trying to improve my dongmancery every day.

(((researched)))

>Its known fact that all artists are sexually unorthodox.
Leave my proclivity toward bestiality out of this, sir.

Indeed, i pay attention to details and constantly study to bring you a life-like dong experience.

How does carbon dating account for the fact that the age of the figure is not the same as the age of the material it is made out of?

It does not.

I'm an artist too. But i prefer drawing tits. I used to draw penises when I was about 7, I had a penis superhero character that fought stds and had a sperm sidekick hitman.

(((study)))

This.

Wouldn't carbon dating just determine the age of the material, not when it was actually used to make the statue?

Are Materialists really this much of a mess?

It indicates when the wood was cut, presumably the statue was made not too long after that

Not him, but ivory in this case.

Still, organic material.

It would date when the organic material it was carved out of stopped being attached to a living thing. If you were to date the layer it was found in you would know when it was burried. That gives you a range to work within.

>On the other hand we have proof that the world is about 6000 years old as seen in the bible

Even if carbon dating we're unreliable, I'd still put more faith in it that bullshit claims like that.

No, there is definitive, measurable proof that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Gotcha thanks

>the buttmad in the comments

>Hovind

Right into the trash it goes. Consider suicide.

>OP about fascinating ancient artifact
>whole thread is some retard shitposting about creationism

Even when Veeky Forums makes good topics it's still terrible.

>christcucks derail yet another thread

Do your fucking job mods

What's even more disconcerting is the notion that the sphinx of Egypt is likely the same age

What's wrong with Hovind?

>You're a complete fuckwit,

Ad hominem

>Carbon dating is one of the most precious told in archaeology

Ad verecundiam

>you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about,

Ipse dixit

>Read any archaeological article or book written after the 50s and you'll se always references to Carbon dating

Ad verecundiam

You didn't explain how it work and why we should believe in it, thus OPINION DISCARDED

>Carbon dating is extremely unreliable

I watched th Hovind video, and he gave numerous examples of times when carbon dating showed error of up to 700%. When dealing with thousands/millions/billions of years, how can a method procure such a large margin of error and still be considered valid?

>I have absolutely zero evidence to support any of my bullshit......better break out the high school debate team terms to avoid actually having to discuss the issue...

Every.
Single.
Time.

>You didn't explain how it work and why we should believe in it, thus OPINION DISCARDE

You're the one who makes outlandish claims, you're the one who's got to explain why carbon dating is "extremely unreliable"

>Ipse dixit

If anything Ipse dixit would apply to the claim I made before, retard, though it hasn't since the academy world is made of experts who use scientific tools

To all the anons disputing age,

It's at least 30 000, probably more.

During this period, in northern Europe where this statuette was found, humans were making art, musical instruments, and so on. There isn't much anatomical difference between a human from the upper paleolithic and us. If you met one on the street, you wouldn't see a meaningful difference. They had language, culture, and so on. There's nothing unusual about this figurine at all, except that it's so rare for us, now, to find them.

Humans did everything in wood and bone, using simple stone tools to make more complex, precision tools (like sewing needles from animal tendons or bird bones, for instance). Most of the hard evidence has just composted away over time. Humans didn't transition into using metals until the chalcolithic period, around 7000 years ago.

We've been wearing clothes and jewelry, building hearths, making art (and almost undoubtedly music), and communicating with language for at least 300 000 years, and probably longer than that.

>It hasn't

Meant it doesn't

He intentionally peddles misinformation and poorly understood science, attempting to debunk what he considers the theory to be rather than what it actually is.

Most of his arguments are baseless, based on outdated science, show total ignorance of the science altogether, or are deliberately disingenuous.

He has absolutely zero credibility and that he's literally been convicted for fraud should tell you everything you need to know about his integrity.

>your entire post

Ad Æutism

I didn't claim anything, i merely analyzed the(non argumented) post of this user

I also asked for proofs but you can't give them anyway

>You're the one who makes outlandish claims, you're the one who's got to explain why carbon dating is "extremely unreliable"

I'm not OP

>If anything Ipse dixit would apply to the claim I made before, retard, though it hasn't since the academy world is made of experts who use scientific tools

"your clueless because i said so", thus ipse dixit

Ad hominem

...

The video is not truthful.

So the data, with citations, he showed was simply lies? That's your refutation?

>I also asked for proofs but you can't give them anyway

Ad hominem.
Am I doin' it right?

Materialism is a meme. Relax.

>could have had an interesting thread about the mysteries of prehistory
>instead we have to pretend that atheist false-flaggers actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old

t.Christcuck

The data that he uses and the assumptions and conclusions that he reaches are very different things.

At least he understands what a half life is.

>carbon dating yields hilarious wack results
>therefore carbon dating is unreliable

Where's the fault?

kek

Can't say I'm surprised?

>carbon dating
>millions of years
Oh fuck off, why comment if you have no idea what you're talking about? Most large errors in C14 dating are to do with exposure to fire/other taphonomic processes.

MODS DO YOUR FUCKING JOB

>my theory on this is that the people portraying these men simply didn't want to spend a lot of time drawing or sculpting a man's dick and balls
>greeks
>not being homo's

>40,000 years old
If that is 40,000 years old, why is the current year 2016?

Checkmate, atheists.

>tfw live in the oldest mountain range on earth
>tfw every creek used to probably be a raging river
>tfw every hill used to be a snowy mountain peak

>Humans didn't transition into using metals until the chalcolithic period, around 7000 years ago.
>We've been wearing clothes and jewelry, building hearths, making art (and almost undoubtedly music), and communicating with language for at least 300 000 years, and probably longer than that.
Wht does this fact make me anxious.

>Reminder shitposting is at least 2000 years old.