Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[Socktastic]

It's a hypothesis. So is evolution. A hypothesis is not promoted to a theory until it is tested.

I'm not sure that's quite correct.

A hypothesis can be tested.
A theory is a probable explanation.

You can have one with the other, one without the other, but evolution is most definitely a theory. It may well have a hypothesis or two attached to it, but the core theory remains.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure that's quite correct.

A hypothesis can be tested.
A theory is a probable explanation.

You can have one with the other, one without the other, but evolution is most definitely a theory. It may well have a hypothesis or two attached to it, but the core theory remains.

There is no formal demarcation between hypothesis and theory. Within science, hypotheses usually refer to specific testable statements while theories refer to the larger or more general model that the hypothesis was derived from.

IMHO, it is best to say that we use theories to construct hypothesis. A theory is considered to be well supported if it has produced a lot of independent hypotheses that have passed testing. An example would be Einstein's theory of relativity. Using the theory, scientists constructed the hypothesis that you should be able to see the warping of starlight around a solar eclipse. When the hypothesis was found to be accurate, it lent support to the larger theory. Scientists continue to use the theory of relativity to construct new hypotheses, such as detectors that are looking for gravity waves.

 

[davedajobauk]

OK, so you believe that Jesus created man as the bible says, rather than man evolved from animals? Why wiggle?

No 'wiggling' necessary.... God created Man and as man could not write (did not leave written records of the time)
we read of his (man's) artifacts, as they are found, and use the environment they are found in, to help us 'establish a date'
as to, WHEN they were made.... Their existence, is undeniable < they, did not make themselves and monkeys
apparently did not and do not have the 'smarts' to create them

I am suggesting your dates are wrong.
There are no older remains.
Your dates are based solely on the assumption that present nature is what we can use to model the far past.
The dates are no better than the unproven belief that the past was the same.

Those that do not want to see, might as well be blind
When remains (artifacts) are found, in / beneath 'undisturbed surroundings' that haven't 'seen the light of day' for a long time ....
It is an accepted practice, to accept, that the artifact is at-least as old, as other materials found in it's vicinity
eg: grains / pollens / vegetable-matter

God was way out in front. No news there. Chariots are mentioned before this, they have wheels you know.

If you tell me Adam had a chariot, please forgive me my chuckling (at the thought)

You refer to dates based on beliefs. Quit treating them with any reality or seriousness, they are bogus.

Why, would they be bogus ?
You 'believe' whatever you believe > based upon beliefs
We would no-longer have credible reason to believe ANYTHING if, we stopped treating them with seriousness
or, took the possibility of their 'reality status' away from them

You appear to accredit everyone, whose opinion differs from your own, with ... the reasoning power of a Lemming
_and I do assure you, that just because everyone-else appears to be jumping off a cliff... that I won't follow, Why is that ?
>> because I am capable of using my head to think 'independantly' (of others)
I am using 'the gifts' I have been given, to examine the gifts God has given us

sight, hearing, touch, memory and logical thought .....
ie: WHO, would have 'been around' to make these 'tools' <that, could not, produce themselves

dave

 

[davedajobauk]

It always amazes me ~the different methods, of so-called 'logic'
that different persons use....
Little wonder then, that different people reach alternative (contrary) assumptions

 

[dad]

IMHO, it is best to say that we use theories to construct hypothesis.

Best to say you use religion and hate for God actually and His word.

 

[dad]

No 'wiggling' necessary.... God created Man and as man could not write (did not leave written records of the time)
we read of his (man's) artifacts, as they are found, and use the environment they are found in, to help us 'establish a date'
as to, WHEN they were made.... Their existence, is undeniable < they, did not make themselves and monkeys
apparently did not and do not have the 'smarts' to create them



Those that do not want to see, might as well be blind
When remains (artifacts) are found, in / beneath 'undisturbed surroundings' that haven't 'seen the light of day' for a long time ....
It is an accepted practice, to accept, that the artifact is at-least as old, as other materials found in it's vicinity
eg: grains / pollens / vegetable-matter



If you tell me Adam had a chariot, please forgive me my chuckling (at the thought)



Why, would they be bogus ?
You 'believe' whatever you believe > based upon beliefs
We would no-longer have credible reason to believe ANYTHING if, we stopped treating them with seriousness
or, took the possibility of their 'reality status' away from them

You appear to accredit everyone, whose opinion differs from your own, with ...
the reasoning power of a Lemming
_and I do assure you, that just because everyone-else appears to be jumping off a cliff... that I won't follow, Why is that ?
>> because I am capable of using my head to think 'independantly' (of others)
I am using 'the gifts' I have been given, to examine the gifts God has given us

sight, hearing, touch, memory and logical thought .....
ie: WHO, would have 'been around' to make these 'tools' <that, could not, produce themselves

dave

God could write and talk when Adam was here. Grains or pollens etc found are only dated using beliefs. Your choice is only in what to belive. I think that is clear.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

Some race of proto-hominids probably used tools like rocks especially, the use of taking a rock and smashing something with it doesn't require very much intelligence or human advancement...

God Bless!

 

[com7fy8]

Some race of proto-hominids probably used tools like rocks especially, the use of taking a rock and smashing something with it doesn't require very much intelligence or human advancement...

God Bless!

I understand that my character can effect what I am able and willing to believe. And since I am not perfect, my beliefs can be also not perfectly honest. I can see things the way I want them to be, "more or less".

In the first post of the thread, it looks like that is a rock, and that is supposed to be a tool? It looks like a plain rock, to me, but I understand ones have likely examined it closely to see patterns of wear on it, which would indicate it was used by humans or some other creature. I guess a human would repeatedly use the same stone, but a monkey might use something only one time so it would not show repeated and repeated and repeated use. Or, a monkey could keep a favorite tool, I suppose; a monkey might not be as limited as I am for understanding the monkey. God has made His creatures more complex than we have been able to appreciate.

And, for all I know to consider . . . if it was a human who invented the stone grinder, the people could have died and their bones could have been eaten and digested by a porcupine or someone else, so there might not show any remains of human bones.

Also . . . I suppose a monkey could from a tree observe a human using a tool, and the monkey might copy-cat, somehow, at times.

But, like I say, my own character can effect how "objective" I really am. God is the One who really knows. So, I can trust God to get me to know what He wants . . . and to guide where He wants my attention.

 

[Loudmouth]

Best to say you use religion and hate for God actually and His word.

Wonderful contribution to the thread.

 

[dad]

Some race of proto-hominids probably used tools like rocks especially, the use of taking a rock and smashing something with it doesn't require very much intelligence or human advancement...

God Bless!

There were no proto homonids. That is a belief. There was Post Flood Man, and there were apes.

 

[dad]

Wonderful contribution to the thread.

I think it behooves us to point out that the religion of science so called falsely is against Scripture and it's adherents display a disrespect and even hatred at times for God and His word.

 

[dad]

In the first post of the thread, it looks like that is a rock, and that is supposed to be a tool? It looks like a plain rock, to me, but I understand ones have likely examined it closely to see patterns of wear on it, which would indicate it was used by humans or some other creature.

There also was a picture of all the tools together. They also pointed out that a hammer and anvil operation were used and the tools were processed a certain way.

And, for all I know to consider . . . if it was a human who invented the stone grinder, the people could have died and their bones could have been eaten and digested by a porcupine or someone else, so there might not show any remains of human bones.

We should also consider that the fossil record has no man or animals early on in the record. Why? God said we were all created together the same week. The answer is likely that the different state or nature of the past did not allow remains of most creatures, just some. Those 'some' are the fossil record! That means it is useless ridiculous and totally not any record of all life on earth!

 

[com7fy8]

The answer is likely that the different state or nature of the past did not allow remains of most creatures, just some.

It says a mist went up and watered the earth, if I remember and understand right. And it had not rained until the flood. And there were four seasons after the flood. So, I can see that the earth before the flood was warm and moist with a world-wide rain forest . . . where things "might" not be preserved, with all the moisture and bone eaters around, possibly.

 

[dad]

It says a mist went up and watered the earth, if I remember and understand right. And it had not rained until the flood. And there were four seasons after the flood. So, I can see that the earth before the flood was warm and moist with a world-wide rain forest . . . where things "might" not be preserved, with all the moisture and bone eaters around, possibly.

More than that. Moisture doesn't allow angels to marry women and live here. It doesn't allow people to live 1000 years. It doesn't allow trees to grow fast. It doesn't allow stars to be seen a week after being made. It doesn't allow land and water to be separated on a planet wide scale without great heat from friction. It doesn't allow for a flood and taking of the flood waters off the planet..etc. The best explanation is that there was a different nature.

 

[TLK Valentine]

More than that. Moisture doesn't allow angels to marry women and live here. It doesn't allow people to live 1000 years. It doesn't allow trees to grow fast. It doesn't allow stars to be seen a week after being made. It doesn't allow land and water to be separated on a planet wide scale without great heat from friction. It doesn't allow for a flood and taking of the flood waters off the planet..etc. The best explanation is that there was a different nature.

Actually, the "best" explanation is Goddidit.

 

[davedajobauk]

There also was a picture of all the tools together.
They also pointed out that a hammer and anvil operation were used
and the tools were processed a certain way.

>means it is useless ridiculous and totally not any record of all life on earth!

For sure, the obtaining of, 'bone marrow', would have needed such tools

#2
The flood would certainly have washed away any remains and concealed them, by all number of means....
NOTE: Just because something is not seen, does not confirm it's non-existence

iow: ....it just simply hasn't been found yet ​

 

[dad]

Actually, the "best" explanation is Goddidit.

He made the nature of the day. Of course He did it.

 

[dad]

For sure, the obtaining of, 'bone marrow', would have needed such tools

Great, so it would be post flood, cause they probably didn't eat meat before.

#2
The flood would certainly have washed away any remains and concealed them, by all number of means....

Not really. If a flood washes away a fossil we would find it downstream or wherever. There are no remains of pre flood man or animal, except for some creeping thing fossils and etc.

NOTE: Just because something is not seen, does not confirm it's non-existence

iow: ....it just simply hasn't been found yet ​

One should know what to look for and what actually should be seen. If man and lions and birds and etc etc were here as long as trilobites and other early fossils, there should be some remains IF they left remains.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He made the nature of the day. Of course He did it.

And then He changed it for no reason whatsoever.

Pray He doesn't feel so whimsical tomorrow.

 

[davedajobauk]

Great, so it would be post flood, cause they probably didn't eat meat before.

Not really. If a flood washes away a fossil we would find it downstream or wherever.
There are no remains of pre flood man or animal, except for some creeping thing fossils and etc.
One should know what to look for and what actually should be seen.
If man and lions and birds and etc etc were here as long as trilobites and other early fossils,
there should be some remains IF they left remains.

No ..... it would be 'pre flood'

Concerning THEIR 'diet' (?) I wouldn't know (of-course!!)
and any guessing, would simply be presumptious, in the absence of evidence

In a global flood, topsoil and mountain sides would be scoured clean, into the seas
~no longer to see the air or the light
Those persons that did not live on mountain tops would be washed away with the silt
Those that remained, would become fishermen or, perish

Maybe, one reason we do not FIND readily accessible PROOF, is because such 'proof'
is at the bottom of the oceans and seas
and it is only when seismic activity, raises, previous ocean floors above sea level, that these strata become accessible

The tools were "found in sediment" ... and so, they were made PRE FLOOD
and, buried by it (?)
Therefore I reason, that the 'more modern' landmasses, have likely been scoured clean
and while some of the evidence has been 'reworked', via subduction, the remainder
remains as yet undiscovered

http://www.earthporm.com/5-mind-blowing-underwater-cities/

The ancient city of Lord Krishna was once thought to be merely a myth
but ruins discovered in 2000 seem to be breathing life into the old Indian tale.
The story goes that Lord Krishna had a magnificent city which was made up of 70,000 palaces
made of gold, silver, and various other precious metals.
The city was prosperous however upon Lord Krishna’s death Dwarka supposedly sank into the sea.

The ruins are situated 131 feet beneath the ocean surface in the bay of modern-day Dwarka,
one of the seven oldest cities in India.
Acoustic studies have shown the ruins to be amazingly geometric, stunning experts.

Many artefacts have been recovered from the site
but perhaps none more important, than one which was dated to 7500 BCE,
supporting the theory that the ruins may well be the ancient Dwarka.

add 2,000 years and we see 9,500 years ago ....
and how many years would monkey man need to learn such skills ???

Denial of the truth.... it happens
It doesn't make it false

dave