• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

oldest stone tools found

1sicv8 said:
thats the short answer. And I dont believe things to be that old.. but I dont want to gum up this thread with debates on the age of the Earth

Could they be stone tools... perhaps.. Article doesnt give much evidence other then "look at this rock, it was used as a tool"
Click to expand...
If it's 75x as old as the universe (or whatever the number is), does it really matter whether or not people touched it?
 
scootergmc said:
I think carbon dating is a very interesting theory.
Click to expand...

Its not a theory in any sense of that word.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
Radiometric dating, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old. A favorite tactic of Young-Earthers is to cite studies which show trace amounts of 14C in coal or diamond samples, which - being millions of years old - should have no original atmospheric 14C left. Recent studies, however, show that 14C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create 14C from 12C.[2] Indeed, this results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.)
This fact is extremely inconvenient and is therefore usually omitted in creationist literature.
Another claim is that the inconsistency of 14C levels in the atmosphere over the past 60,000 years creates a validity issue. However, calibration of carbon levels using tree rings and other sources keep these effects to an extremely small level.
“”Carbon dating, like other radiometric dating methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.[3]
—Conservapedia
Furthermore, if a sample has been contaminated, scientists will know about it.
Ironically, given how supposedly useless carbon dating is claimed to be, Creation Ministries International rests part of their "101 Evidences" on carbon dating being a useful method for within several thousand years. This of course contradicts claims that the Great Flood messed up how carbon was deposited, destroying their own argument. Less astute creationists often conflate carbon dating with other forms of radiometric dating, attempting to "disprove" the true age of dinosaur fossils by "refuting" carbon dating. This is meaningless because dinosaur fossils are not dated using carbon dating; dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago, and carbon dating only works for objects less than 50~60,000 years old.
Click to expand...
 
1sicv8 said:
Other people already pointed it out... my opinion is based on my faith and what I have read regarding the topic (both from Bible and from Scientific related sources)

Theres no real need to debate, we see it differently and I am pretty sure we wouldnt change each others minds.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the ark of the covenant is in Ethiopia?
 
Corb said:
Its not a theory in any sense of that word.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
Click to expand...

Why not? It certainly hasn't been proven as scientific law by repeated experiments, and I've yet to read any specific peer reviewed 50 million year carbon dating studies. Maybe they'll discover those rocks were used by the four armed two headed lizardmaids to scrape the original hypothesis on the wall some now buried Rhodesian cavern....


I appreciate your argument though. You seem to want to pounce on the oft-targeted opponents of anything-dating. However as the OP likes to say, "9th grade science" says it's not a law. It's just a neat theory.
 
I'm just checking in to see if ElDirty found this has turned into a religion vs science thread yet.
nope.
Let me know when the fireworks start.
 
Why is there even argument about radiometric dating? It's based on the known, MEASURABLE decay of naturally ocurring radioactive isotopes.

Back to the actual topic of the thread. It's alwyas amazing to hear about new discoveries relating to our prehistoric ancestors. The creatures that created the tools the article discussed, might not even be our ancestors. They could have been an unsuccessful evolutionary branch. Super cool stuff.
 
scootergmc said:
Why not? It certainly hasn't been proven as scientific law by repeated experiments, and I've yet to read any specific peer reviewed 50 million year carbon dating studies. Maybe they'll discover those rocks were used by the four armed two headed lizardmaids to scrape the original hypothesis on the wall some now buried Rhodesian cavern....


I appreciate your argument though. You seem to want to pounce on the oft-targeted opponents of anything-dating. However as the OP likes to say, "9th grade science" says it's not a law. It's just a neat theory.
Click to expand...

Jesus! What a mess of a post...
Where do I even start!
Scientific law and scientific theory are different things. Carbon dating is neither.
It is chemistry, a tool science is using to date organic matter up to 50 000 years old [as it clearly says in the quote above that you obviously refused to read]
And the idea that you read scientific peer reviews is beyond hilarious. It really made me laugh out loud. Laughing is good for my health so thank you for that.
Carbon dating results are also verified and adjusted by contrasting with other forms of dating. Like counting tree rings of specific type of trees.
Carbon dating is considered in science as one of the most accurate forms of dating organic mater that assimilated oxygen directly from the air.
There is mountains of data to support it as valid science and the only opponents are creationists who try to discredit it for the exact same reason they try to discredit all science that proves their ideology as mythology
 
Abacinator said:
Why is there even argument about radiometric dating? It's based on the known, MEASURABLE decay of naturally ocurring radioactive isotopes.

Back to the actual topic of the thread. It's alwyas amazing to hear about new discoveries relating to our prehistoric ancestors. The creatures that created the tools the article discussed, might not even be our ancestors. They could have been an unsuccessful evolutionary branch. Super cool stuff.
Click to expand...

Because people don't understand basic science and definition of what theory is? That or trolling. :dunno
 
I'm just gonna say the crazy guy in this thread has a pretty good sense of humor. I like that.
 
Yes, the rocks are old.... but how do we know these rocks were used to make tools 3.3 million years ago (est)
 
While I don't doubt the scientists studying these are most likely correct, those fucking rocks look like rocks.
 
My antro prof. Betty Goerke at COM used elephants to walk over chert and produce flakes closely resembling human worked material. Fooled her colleagues at the time IIRC.

Well drilling in the west has turned up artifacts time and time again which "weren't supposed to be there" (900,000 yr. old human figures for example in North America), so they were ignored.

Now that cultural biases are falling away from science and archeology in particular, it's a new age of discovery and the results really upset some apple carts. The Chinese circumnavigated the globe before Europeans? No way! Then how did their porcelain end up in the ME in 900 yr. old strata? Hmmm

Aren't there bristlecone pines in the Sierra older than the creationists earth? Maybe those trees God created are lying to us with fake rings. Day one of a history class a really sweet young lady politely asked that I refrain from "brainwashing" her into believing anything that contradicted her young earth theory. Right as we started the "ancient people's" unit. She was a great student who otherwise thought for herself. I see the young earth people the same way I see the anglocentric "scientists" of the 19th century, always ginning up evidence to bolster their sense of superiority.
 
scootergmc said:
I think carbon dating is a very interesting theory.
Click to expand...

:rofl :rofl :rofl

Caddywumpus said:
Yes, the rocks are old.... but how do we know these rocks were used to make tools 3.3 million years ago (est)
Click to expand...

Most people can't tell the difference between a Ducati and a Ninja, but motorcyclists can. Carpenters can look at a nail and tell you the size and length rather quickly, easily differentiating between a two-penny nail and a brad for example.
People that study this shit for a living can tell what is a naturally occurring rock, and one with slight marks on it indicative of having been manipulated.

Lithic_flake.png
 
The find is mainly the larger rocks which, as the theory goes, were used for breaking "flakes" that were used to produce finished tools.
 
When I came across this article, my first thought was, "wow"! Then my hippie pot head brain kicked in. I wondered: what if we (humans) started from scratch more than once? It's amazing to me how we have complete amnesia when it comes to the beginning of the human race.
 
Lil Los said:
what if we (humans) started from scratch more than once?
Click to expand...
We know for a fact that dogs did. Today's pooch is not the same as the Neanderthals' best friends.

And the smart people will pitch in and correct me, but the theory is that not all known Homo-somethings are descendants from the previous gene. Actually, isn't it somewhat confirmed that Crom Mags, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are each its own species, albeit gene-compatible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top