Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

Are you actually claiming that speech is only 6,000 years old?Is that really what you are saying?

You are posting absolute, uninformed nonsense.All we need to do is compare human skeletal morphology, particularly the hyoid bone and brain size.There is no sudden change at 6,000 years. The change in the hyoid happened more like 300,000 years ago. Brain size was getting pretty decent by then also.Or is this your way of trying to claim the earth is only 6,000 years old?Here is a link that may shed some light: How the Hyoid Bone Changed History

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Let's see the evidence.And don't bother with creationist websites -- when it comes to science they lie (they have to).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your links do nothing to show that language developed just 6,000 years ago.But they do show that you have absolutely no grasp of science, nor of history.And they have shown me that discussing these matters with you is a total waste of time.

You just don't get it!A calibrated date is a radiocarbon date that has been calibrated using the calibration curve. In the examples above the calibrated date is the accurate figure, while the uncalibrated figure does not take into account atmospheric variations in C14.By the way, the uncalibrated ages are expressed in radiocarbon years BP (before present).When you try to deal with science you need to get these details right or you shouldn't even bother. You certainly don't impress anyone when you consistently screw up the technical details.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, wrong.We have good evidence of speech well before your magical 6,000 year date, as well as thousands of years of history. I am one of those who tells that history -- through archaeology.Just because you choose not to believe what science has learned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By closing your ears and your mind you only expose yourself as a religious zealot.

Your insistance on "a name" from prior to 6,000 years ago seems to be an attempt to "prove" young earth and genesis through one of the silliest examples I have ever seen.(By the way, I notice a name from hundreds of years earlier was provided to you in a previous post. If you are honest you will concede this point.)Your "no kings, wars, nations, cities, wheels, dieties, populations - nothingness pre-6000" is either a lie or evidence that you are delusional. I deal with archaeological sites and I have evidence from my own work of a lot of things "pre-6000" -- and my colleagues around the world have a lot more such evidence. For you to claim that it does not exist says a lot more about you than it does archaeological evidence. If you are trying to convince others of your views you are in fact doing the opposite.A serious question: Why are you making such vacuous claims? Are you witnessing, and getting spiritual points for presenting your religious views to non-believers?

Chauvet Cave, 29,000 to 32,000 years agoAre you going to just handwave this away too?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.