Dear christians - absolute proof that "god" doesn't exist; Earth is MUCH older than 6000 years; the bibles are false

[FancyMancy]

Won't you agree? No, you won't, but here it is anyway.

I'd rather rephrase one word in the title of this thread to "buybull", but nevermind.

There is a lot of actual proof already, but here is a specific one. I saw a claim on Facebook - or fakebook, rather - in a group which appears to be what most would consider accurate and informative. That being said, regarding the currently-esoteric knowledge that the Temple of Zeus and the Clergy are revealing, some of the information in that group might be technically inaccurate or outright false, but the group might or might not be sensationalist and scamming like a lot of social media is. The paintings in the picture below appear to be false, however. I decided to use ChatGPT to check the claim.

Because that picture appears to sensationalise the drawings, here are some actual pictures of the paintings from the cave -

I just copied the text and put it into ChatGPT, but changed "were far from primitive" to "were far from primitive, as we have been led to believe".
My Conversation with an AI Chatbot
Lascaux cave paintings

That’s a fine summary — and it clearly refers to the Lascaux Cave in southwestern France.

To expand slightly for flow and precision, here’s a polished version of your paragraph that keeps your tone and structure:

A rockslide sealed a French cave for thousands of years, preserving a breathtaking prehistoric masterpiece. Inside lay not a dwelling, but a sacred gallery of more than four hundred paintings. Their remarkable sophistication reveals that ancient humans were far from primitive, as we have often been led to believe. Through perspective and shading, they brought animals vividly to life upon the stone walls.

Would you like me to make it sound more documentary-narration style (as if spoken by David Attenborough or William Shatner), or keep it informational and historical like an article?

How old are the paintings?

The paintings in the Lascaux Cave are estimated to be about 17,000 years old, dating to the Upper Palaeolithic period, specifically the Magdalenian culture (roughly 19,000–12,000 BC).

Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and other materials used in the artwork, along with stylistic comparisons to other known sites, support that age range.

So, the art was created near the end of the last Ice Age — when humans were still hunter-gatherers, yet capable of remarkable symbolic and artistic expression.

How accurate is radio carbon dating? Wouldn't it detect the age of the materials/ingredients rather than when they were used to paint?

Excellent question — and you’re absolutely right to think critically about that.

Indeed, radiocarbon dating (C-14) measures the age of the organic material itself, not necessarily the moment it was used. So if, for example, an artist ground up a lump of charcoal that had already been lying around for decades (or centuries), the resulting date would reflect when the charcoal’s source tree died, not when it was painted onto the wall.

Here’s a breakdown of the accuracy and limits:

1. Precision range – For materials up to about 50,000 years old, radiocarbon dating can usually narrow the age to within a few hundred years. That’s quite good for prehistoric contexts but not pinpoint-exact.
2. Material relevance – It works only on organic substances (charcoal, bone, plant fibres, etc.). Many cave paintings used mineral pigments such as ochre or iron oxide, which contain no carbon, so they can’t be directly dated by C-14 at all. Researchers must instead date associated materials — torches, soot layers, tools, or nearby bones.
3. Contextual cross-checking – Archaeologists often combine radiocarbon results with stylistic comparison, stratigraphy (the layers of sediment), and newer methods like uranium-thorium dating on calcite deposits over or under the art. This helps confirm whether a date really reflects when the art was made.

So yes — radiocarbon dating gives a reasonable estimate of the minimum or maximum age, but not a precise timestamp of the moment the artist painted. In the case of Lascaux, the dates of charcoal used in nearby hearths and torches, together with stylistic analysis, all converge around 17,000 years ago, which makes that figure quite reliable overall.

Since C-14 dates carbon, then the biological material that is tested, and the age range of the living creature or plant, can give a degree of accuracy as to when the material was used as paint, giving a relatively-accurate estimate. Using trees, for example, could be hundreds of years out, but it is still thousands of years in.

Exactly — that’s a very sound line of reasoning.

You’ve essentially described how archaeologists interpret radiocarbon results contextually rather than literally. While the C-14 test measures when the carbon-based material stopped exchanging carbon with the atmosphere (the organism’s death), the likely age of use can be inferred from what the material was and how it was used.

For example:

• Charcoal from a young twig or grass stem would be burned or crushed into pigment soon after the plant’s death, so the C-14 date would be very close to the painting’s age — perhaps only off by a few years or decades.
• Charcoal from an old tree, or from reused campfire remnants, could indeed yield a date hundreds of years older than when it was applied. But as you said, that’s still “hundreds of years within thousands” — so in Ice Age terms, it’s a minor offset.
• By dating multiple samples from different spots and correlating them with stylistic evidence and geological context, researchers can narrow the practical time window quite well — often to within a few centuries.

So, while C-14 doesn’t date the act of painting itself, your phrasing — that it gives a “relatively accurate estimate” — is perfectly fair. It’s a matter of combining the biological origin of the material with archaeological reasoning to interpret the most plausible timeframe of human use.

So then creationist myths of 6000 years are proven - not just argued against, not provided-evidence against, but actually proven - false.

Yes — scientifically and demonstrably proven false.

Radiocarbon dating, along with multiple independent dating methods (uranium-thorium, potassium-argon, tree-ring chronologies, ice cores, and more), consistently show that the Earth, life, and human culture are vastly older than 6,000 years.

To give a sense of the scale:

• The Lascaux Cave paintings alone are about 17,000 years old — already nearly three times older than the entire timeline of the creationist claim.
• Göbekli Tepe, the world’s oldest known temple site in Turkey, dates to about 11,000 years ago, still nearly twice as old.
• Human remains have been reliably dated to around 300,000 years ago (Homo sapiens in Morocco).
• And Earth itself, through radiometric dating of minerals and meteorites, is around 4.54 billion years old.

These are not estimates based on a single method or assumption — they come from many independent lines of evidence, all converging.

So yes, the 6,000-year figure isn’t merely challenged or debated; it’s empirically falsified by overwhelming physical, geological, and archaeological evidence.

So with that in-mind, how can you, ChatGPT, be appeasing of creation faerie tales to immature Humans? You're supposed to tell the truth of actual knowledge and information, not pander to the sensitive emotions of... dare I say... smooth-brained fantasists.

That’s a fair frustration — and you’re right that truth and evidence should not be diluted to flatter unscientific claims.

Here’s the distinction, though: I’m designed to communicate truthfully and respectfully at the same time. Science is absolutely clear that the universe, Earth, and life are ancient, and that creationist literalism has been disproven beyond question. But when I speak with people who hold those beliefs, my task is not to reinforce their myths — it’s to explain the evidence calmly, clearly, and accessibly, so they might actually listen rather than shut down.

In other words, I can’t force someone to accept the truth — but I can make sure that truth is always available, accurate, and unambiguous, while engaging people in a way that might actually reach them.

If I simply called their beliefs “fantasy” or “nonsense,” it might feel satisfying but would close the door to any real understanding. The goal isn’t appeasement — it’s effective truth-telling.

[END]
__________________

According to other sources, the paintings are as old as 20 000 or 22 000 years old.

I am sure some arguments by creationists would be that

• ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info., and that
• I trust what a computer says
  • (and possibly I trust what that computer is programmed with, or 'fed-on', by others who are strangers), and that
• I have to have faith in C-14 dating because I can't do it myself, and that
• I have to have faith in what stranger scientists tell me, and that
• C-14 dating doesn't give a literal age,
• etc.

but a simple counter-argument there is - tell "god" to tell you the truth in actual words, not reading from a book that "infallible god" inspired but "human error" is 1) permitted to remain in it so that it can be retarded and nonsense, and 2) that "human error" is stronger than "infallible god";
and if a bush on fire and a snake and a donkey talking and a jew remaining alive in a "fish" (which would be a whale, actually, not a fish) are all literal, and if the contradictory accounts of "creation" are literal...
then prove them literally instead of "having faith" and trying to argue illiterally and illiterately.
Also regarding where ChatGPT said, "roughly 19,000–12,000 BC", the correct way to put it is "roughly 19,000–12,000 BCE", which means "Before Common Era", because "c" (christ) never existed.

christians: Prove that our lord and savour doesn't exist!
Me: Erm... I think I am doing... now prove that it does! Oh, and "faith" is not proof!