Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[dad]

I wonder who they think they can blame the tools on? Aliens? animals? Ha

The simple answer is that their imaginary dates are nonsense.

‘Predate humans’: Stone tools made 3.3mn years ago found in Kenya

http://rt.com/news/260625-oldest-stone-tools-humans/

 

[TLK Valentine]

So if humans didn't use them, who did?

 

[dad]

So if humans didn't use them, who did?

Humans of course did. The dates are just hooey.

 

[MiniEmu]

From the article it appears they're considering the not so out there possibility that the Homo genus were not the first to use tools. Always fascinating when things are discovered which cause theories to be reconsidered.

 

[MerlinJ]

Humans of course did. The dates are just hooey.

The dates are based on evidence, and are subject to revision when new evidence presents itself. That's science.

 

[dad]

The dates are based on evidence, and are subject to revision when new evidence presents itself. That's science.

Great so the dates mean that the tools do not fit into the evolutionary timescale posited by science.

It is precisely the evidence and your beliefs that come into question here. If tools from clovis man happened to be a bad fit for your dating dreamscape I guess you would do the same thing. Look for monkeys that dunnit. Sad.

 

[dad]

From the article it appears they're considering the not so out there possibility that the Homo genus were not the first to use tools. .

So they scraped hides and whatnot with the tools, so let's look around in nature and see who does that!? Let's see a gibbon make tools and use em?

 

[MiniEmu]

A species of capuchin is known to place nuts on hard surfaces, then strike them with rocks in order to crack them open.
Similarly a species of macaque has been observed using stone tools (of a sort) to open up bivalves and crack open crustaceans.
The shaping of twigs and such for various uses, from personal hygiene to obtaining food, is known in several primates.

Not really a crazy idea to think that, at some point in history, another species discovered that stones of a particular shape made certain aspects of their daily lives easier. It's all theoretical, and while some theories are sounder/more supported than others theories they remain.

 

[dad]

A species of capuchin is known to place nuts on hard surfaces, then strike them with rocks in order to crack them open.
Similarly a species of macaque has been observed using stone tools (of a sort) to open up bivalves and crack open crustaceans.
The shaping of twigs and such for various uses, from personal hygiene to obtaining food, is known in several primates.

Not really a crazy idea to think that, at some point in history, another species discovered that stones of a particular shape made certain aspects of their daily lives easier. It's all theoretical, and while some theories are sounder/more supported than others theories they remain.

Wow. So some imaginary unknown, unproven species used to make tools. Hilarious.

I guess the zoo keepers better watch out, these inmates might pick the lock, or make tools to escape?

 

[MerlinJ]

Great so the dates mean that the tools do not fit into the evolutionary timescale posited by science.

Why? If these dates pan out, it means that primitive stone tools were used by the ancestors of Homo habilis, who were thought to be the first. How does this kick evolution in the face?

 

[MiniEmu]

You laugh, but baboons have been known to fling rocks at humans... one day they'll take us by surprise.

It's not about a species having definitely existed, it's a theory. Like most things to do with ancient history and the tiny little remnants we find. Who knows, if the world still exists far enough into the future that society as we know it is no longer remembered, remnants of our lives may cause the exact same discussions.

 

[dad]

Why? If these dates pan out, it means that primitive stone tools were used by the ancestors of Homo habilis, who were thought to be the first.

So now you know it was some monkey man? Why? Cause you need it to be? You just show that you cannot cope with the obvious.

 

[dad]

You laugh, but baboons have been known to fling rocks at humans... one day they'll take us by surprise.

Fish spit water too. Beetles spray poison. How would some dumb baboon throwing something mean it could build your house, or scrape a hide?

It's not about a species having definitely existed, it's a theory. Like most things to do with ancient history and the tiny little remnants we find. Who knows, if the world still exists far enough into the future that society as we know it is no longer remembered, remnants of our lives may cause the exact same discussions.

All that who knows stuff is fine and dandy. However science claims to know in effect.

 

[MiniEmu]

They're lulling you into a false sense of security. We'll be sitting there, believing them to be nothing more than dumb baboons, and that will be the end of it.

On a more serious note, I'm not sure science (when you cut away from science media, reporters, and to some extent 'celebrity' scientists) ever claims to know-know. Actual reports and studies are littered with phrases that may strongly hint that their interpretation of the evidence is strongly supported, or that various theories are thought of as being the most probable (which is often translated in science media as being a definite rather than a possibility), but at any point in time the current most probable theory could be overtaken by another should enough evidence and/or support be gathered that a reasonable argument for that new theory can become the default opinion.

It is a shame that everyone takes most probable and strongly supported (at this present moment in time) to mean definitely. We can never know how anything definitely played out in the past, at least not in respect to how tools may/may not have come into existence.

 

[dad]

They're lulling you into a false sense of security. We'll be sitting there, believing them to be nothing more than dumb baboons, and that will be the end of it.

Consider me lulled.

On a more serious note, I'm not sure science (when you cut away from science media, reporters, and to some extent 'celebrity' scientists) ever claims to know-know. Actual reports and studies are littered with phrases that may strongly hint that their interpretation of the evidence is strongly supported, or that various theories are thought of as being the most probable (which is often translated in science media as being a definite rather than a possibility), but at any point in time the current most probable theory could be overtaken by another should enough evidence and/or support be gathered that a reasonable argument for that new theory can become the default opinion.

Yet the time for man appearing on the scene is pretty well universally cited by manscience. In books, movies, documentaries, papers, school, etc etc. Their godless claims are a reality to be dealt with.

We can never know how anything definitely played out in the past, at least not in respect to how tools may/may not have come into existence.

Come on now. You could say that about your home too? It maybe was built by monkeys? The tools at the hardware store?


Heck, which monkeys even skin animals to eat and get clothes!!? Get serious.

 

[TheBear]

 

[crjmurray]

I wonder who they think they can blame the tools on? Aliens? animals? Ha

The simple answer is that their imaginary dates are nonsense.

‘Predate humans’: Stone tools made 3.3mn years ago found in Kenya

http://rt.com/news/260625-oldest-stone-tools-humans/

I'm unaware of the part of evolutionary theory that says we shouldn't find 3mn year old tools.

 

[MerlinJ]

So now you know it was some monkey man? Why? Cause you need it to be? You just show that you cannot cope with the obvious.

You're the one who made this thread, proclaiming new evidence "kicks evolution in the face," but so far you've failed to say how. How is this evidence a problem for evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

The simple answer is that their imaginary dates are nonsense.

Let me get this straight.

Some guy in, say, 3000 BC picks up a 3.3 million-year-old rock and uses it as a tool.

Then, today, people find this "tool" and assume the man who used it, used it 3.3 million years ago?

I wonder if they date the metal in my engine block, if they would think my car has been around for 10 million years?

If I cut down a 100 year old tree and make a canoe out of it tomorrow, was that canoe used 100 years ago by my grandfather?

 

[MerlinJ]

Let me get this straight.

Maybe you should actually try getting it straight instead of completely mischaraterizing how dates are determined. For a guy who spends as much time as you do railing against science, you know shockingly little about it.