Shaped by ancient humans, 430,000-year-old wooden tools are the oldest ever found

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 4:48 PM

eleos1954 said:
go google

give any reasons within the context of our understanding of nuclear physics why either of these could be a problem or even happen. For example, from nuclear physics experiments or theory.

It's not my job to present your bad arguments for you.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 4:31 AM

Larniavc said:
Oh dear. Making things up isn’t a good look.

To be fair, he does claim that theories = beliefs.

Tuur · Wednesday at 11:09 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
To be fair, he does claim that theories = beliefs.

The Theory of Similars is the first thing that came to mind, followed by the Theory of Humors. Both were part of Medieval European medicine; both were attempts at making sense of observations; and both were eventually proven false. Yet they were firmly believed by Medieval doctors. Theory is a belief in how something works, more rigorously applied now than in the past, and yet it still comes down to “This is what we think is going on.”

None of which has anything to do with dating by radioactive decay. Based on decades old classes, there might, in theory, be a way to monkey with radioactive decay, but it would require a source of neutrons so strong that it would cause other effects, and what tiny bit I remember is likely wrong, anyway.

The fun thing here is that the age of the wood means that carbon 14 dating is out of the question. I think they dated it based on the sediment.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 12:00 PM

Tuur said:
The Theory of Similars is the first thing that came to mind, followed by the Theory of Humors. Both were part of Medieval European medicine; both were attempts at making sense of observations; and both were eventually proven false. Yet they were firmly believed by Medieval doctors. Theory is a belief in how something works, more rigorously applied now than in the past, and yet it still comes down to “This is what we think is going on.”

None of which has anything to do with dating by radioactive decay. Based on decades old classes, there might, in theory, be a way to monkey with radioactive decay, but it would require a source of neutrons so strong that it would cause other effects, and what tiny bit I remember is likely wrong, anyway.

The fun thing here is that the age of the wood means that carbon 14 dating is out of the question. I think they dated it based on the sediment.

No, that's not what theory means in science. That's what theory means in laymen's non-scientifc comments, not in actual science.

Larniavc · Wednesday at 1:17 PM

Tuur said:
The Theory of Similars is the first thing that came to mind, followed by the Theory of Humors. Both were part of Medieval European medicine; both were attempts at making sense of observations; and both were eventually proven false. Yet they were firmly believed by Medieval doctors. Theory is a belief in how something works, more rigorously applied now than in the past, and yet it still comes down to “This is what we think is going on.”

None of which has anything to do with dating by radioactive decay. Based on decades old classes, there might, in theory, be a way to monkey with radioactive decay, but it would require a source of neutrons so strong that it would cause other effects, and what tiny bit I remember is likely wrong, anyway.

The fun thing here is that the age of the wood means that carbon 14 dating is out of the question. I think they dated it based on the sediment.

They are not theories. They are at best hypotheses that were found to not be supported by the facts.

They more actually ‘wot I reckons’ statements dogmatically adhered to.

Not theories.

Tuur · Wednesday at 1:56 PM

Larniavc said:
They are not theories. They are at best hypotheses that were found to not be supported by the facts.

They more actually ‘wot I reckons’ statements dogmatically adhered to.

Not theories.

The European doctors of the day would have been astounded at that. As far as they were concerned, they were valid theories. They were based on the best information they had at the time, and they provided a seemingly working framework. It was only after there was enough information to discredit these theories that they fell by the wayside.

If pointing out Medieval European medical theory is hard to take, here’s something much closer: At the time of the Spanish Flu, medical theory held that influenza was caused by bacteria. This was based on autopsies showing pneumonia in influenza victims and bacteria showing up in the cultures. That’s how haemophilus influenza got its name. We now know that this was a secondary infection of pneumonia and not the cause of influenza, but back then they didn’t. It’s also why more than a few deaths from Spanish Flu were listed as caused by pneumonia: that’s what they thought they were dealing with. It was still the best theory doctors had in 1918; the best info at the time led them to that conclusion, and they believed it precisely because it was based on the best info they had.

If any wish to argue that this was a hypotheses and not a theory, let me get some popcorn first.

Like it or not, theories can and have been wrong, yet based on the best info at the time. And yes, they were believed until a better theory supported by better information came along.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 2:09 PM

Tuur said:
The European doctors of the day would have been astounded at that. As far as they were concerned, they were valid theories. They were based on the best information they had at the time, and they provided a seemingly working framework. It was only after there was enough information to discredit these theories that they fell by the wayside.

If pointing out Medieval European medical theory is hard to take, here’s something much closer: At the time of the Spanish Flu, medical theory held that influenza was caused by bacteria. This was based on autopsies showing pneumonia in influenza victims and bacteria showing up in the cultures. That’s how haemophilus influenza got its name. We now know that this was a secondary infection of pneumonia and not the cause of influenza, but back then they didn’t. It’s also why more than a few deaths from Spanish Flu were listed as caused by pneumonia: that’s what they thought they were dealing with. It was still the best theory doctors had in 1918; the best info at the time led them to that conclusion, and they believed it precisely because it was based on the best info they had.

If any wish to argue that this was a hypotheses and not a theory, let me get some popcorn first.

Like it or not, theories can and have been wrong, yet based on the best info at the time. And yes, they were believed until a better theory supported by better information came along.

And you do realise that you are doing this in the defence of a poster who claims that all science is incorrect in the face of a literal reading of the Bible, right?

Larniavc · Wednesday at 2:16 PM

Tuur said:
If pointing out Medieval European medical theory is hard to take,

You are still using the word ‘theory’ incorrectly. What systematic hypotheses testing occurred in Medieval Europe? Specific examples please.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 4:20 PM

Tuur said:
The Theory of Similars is the first thing that came to mind, followed by the Theory of Humors. Both were part of Medieval European medicine; both were attempts at making sense of observations; and both were eventually proven false. Yet they were firmly believed by Medieval doctors. Theory is a belief in how something works, more rigorously applied now than in the past, and yet it still comes down to “This is what we think is going on.”

Not scientific theories.

Tuur said:
None of which has anything to do with dating by radioactive decay. Based on decades old classes, there might, in theory, be a way to monkey with radioactive decay, but it would require a source of neutrons so strong that it would cause other effects, and what tiny bit I remember is likely wrong, anyway.

As I stated before to someone else, if you want to make some proposal based on nuclear physics, feel free.

Tuur said:
The fun thing here is that the age of the wood means that carbon 14 dating is out of the question. I think they dated it based on the sediment.

Yes, it was the surrounding sediments because it is way too old for C-14 to have survived.

dlamberth · Wednesday at 4:26 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Yes, it was the surrounding sediments because it is way too old for C-14 to have survived.

Sediments and the bones of animals found at the various levels.

sjastro · Wednesday at 5:49 PM

eleos1954 said:
Core Assumptions in Dating Techniques

Constant Decay Rates: It is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay has remained the same throughout the entire history of the sample.

Closed System Behavior: It is assumed that no parent or daughter isotopes have been added to or removed from the sample (e.g., via groundwater or leaching) since it formed.

Initial Conditions: It is assumed that the initial amount of parent and daughter isotopes at the time of formation can be determined.

Environmental Factors: Methods often assume that external conditions, such as temperature or pressure, have not significantly impacted the rate of decay.

This came from the book of lies YEC's frequently refer to.

(1) The only type of decay rates which vary with time are electron capture by the nucleus.
The other types of decay such as alpha and beta decay which largely define radiometric dating are not assumed to be constant but are a necessity.
In another thread the fine structure constant α which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force plays an important role particularly in alpha decay. If alpha decay rates changed in the past so would α, meaning you, I and your YECs spreading these lies would not be around as chemical bonding strengths which is a major prerequisite to the formation of life would be altered.

(2) Closed system behaviour assumption is another YEC lie. As an example ²³⁸U→²⁰⁶Pb dating occurs in zircon crystals which are largely impervious to U and Pb diffusion into and out of the crystal. If the rock and zircon crystals melt to temporarily from an open system, the clock is reset when recrystallization occurs. In this the case the rock is dated from when it underwent a change in its physical state.

(3) You don't assume the initial conditions.
Modern radiometric dating methods do not require knowledge of initial daughter quantities.
Isochron methods (Rb–Sr, Sm–Nd, Pb–Pb) explicitly solve for the initial daughter isotope as the intercept by plotting isotopic ratios vs time.
As mentioned previously in U–Pb dating the melting and recrystallization of zircon , making initial Pb ≈ 0 by crystal chemistry and not an assumption.

(4) Environmental factors such as temperature and pressure do not affect decay rates, as the decay constants for radiometric decay are the same for both metamorphosed and unmetamorphosed rocks.

Tuur · Thursday at 5:12 AM

Hans Blaster said:
As I stated before to someone else, if you want to make some proposal based on nuclear physics, feel free.

Very seriously, what is you opinion of blasting a radioactive material with a strong neutron source and it's effect on decay? That's the only thing that my faulty memory could possibly dredge up from half a century ago, and I'm thinking it would leave traces the material was exposed to a strong neutron source other than decay. And that's before even coming up with a strong neutron source produced by something that doesn't do other bad things.

Tuur · Thursday at 5:51 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Not scientific theories.

They were at the time. Oh, they get panned now because they were wrong, but because they were wrong doesn't mean they weren't based on the science of the age. They were theories about how things worked base on empirical observations.

Typically, when a discussion of Medieval medicine crops up, the more wacky treatments are mentioned as a way of dismissing Medieval medicine as a whole. But it turns out they were quite good at treating wounds, for obvious reasons, and some treatment, like that given to Henry V for an arrow to the face, are well recorded. They had no idea about infectious agents, but observed what worked and what didn't. With Henry V, part of the treatment was washing the wound with white wine, which we would recognize as having a low percentage of ethanol and maybe a lot safer than plain water, Silver sutures were used on occasion; today we know silver has mild anti-microbial effects. All they knew was it worked better. Fresh ironed bandages get a mention, which we would recognized as heat possibly lowering the amount of microbes on the cloth. And they knew a lot more about successful amputations that we might think. And based on how they treated wounds, the idea of "laudable puss" doesn't seem to have been widely accepted.

It's really quite fascinating, something I only came across because I had a 14th Century character who needed a leg amputated due to gangrene and needed to know how they went about it. They had better technique than we might think, despite having theories that were wrong.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 7:36 AM

Tuur said:
Very seriously, what is you opinion of blasting a radioactive material with a strong neutron source and it's effect on decay? That's the only thing that my faulty memory could possibly dredge up from half a century ago, and I'm thinking it would leave traces the material was exposed to a strong neutron source other than decay. And that's before even coming up with a strong neutron source produced by something that doesn't do other bad things.

The neutron source wouldn't alter the decay, but change the actual nuclei (for example, C-14 becomes C-15, in part). Then you need to explain where a strong neutron source is coming from.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 7:56 AM

Tuur said:
They were at the time. Oh, they get panned now because they were wrong, but because they were wrong doesn't mean they weren't based on the science of the age. They were theories about how things worked base on empirical observations.

There really wasn't "science" then.

Tuur said:
Typically, when a discussion of Medieval medicine crops up, the more wacky treatments are mentioned as a way of dismissing Medieval medicine as a whole. But it turns out they were quite good at treating wounds, for obvious reasons, and some treatment, like that given to Henry V for an arrow to the face, are well recorded. They had no idea about infectious agents, but observed what worked and what didn't. With Henry V, part of the treatment was washing the wound with white wine, which we would recognize as having a low percentage of ethanol and maybe a lot safer than plain water, Silver sutures were used on occasion; today we know silver has mild anti-microbial effects. All they knew was it worked better. Fresh ironed bandages get a mention, which we would recognized as heat possibly lowering the amount of microbes on the cloth. And they knew a lot more about successful amputations that we might think. And based on how they treated wounds, the idea of "laudable puss" doesn't seem to have been widely accepted.

Which is fine and all, but I don't know how this applies to any of the "theories" you mentioned. No mention of "humors" or "similars" are in your description.

Tuur said:
It's really quite fascinating, something I only came across because I had a 14th Century character who needed a leg amputated due to gangrene and needed to know how they went about it. They had better technique than we might think, despite having theories that were wrong.

Tuur · Thursday at 8:38 PM

Hans Blaster said:
There really wasn't "science" then.

Albertus Magnus would have disagreed. There was more going on than is generally thought. Remember: no less than Tycho Brahe and Nicholas Copernicus were into astrology, and Isaac Newton into alchemy, and from astrology and alchemy we got astronomy and chemistry. And playing the game of "that wasn't really science then" overlooks that much of modern medicine came about after, oh, the 18th Century. Those early theories were indeed science, the best they had at the time.

Tuur · Thursday at 8:43 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Which is fine and all, but I don't know how this applies to any of the "theories" you mentioned. No mention of "humors" or "similars" are in your description.

Because they applied those theories in an attempt to make sense of how things worked and to make predictions for the best course of treatments. They only got in the area around the ballpark, so to speak, and sometimes failed spectacularly, but it was better than nothing.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 8:53 PM

Tuur said:
Because they applied those theories in an attempt to make sense of how things worked and to make predictions for the best course of treatments. They only got in the area around the ballpark, so to speak, and sometimes failed spectacularly, but it was better than nothing.

Your examples said nothing about body juices. Wine isn't a humor even after I drink it. And those "theories" don't come close to the modern usage of the word.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 9:11 PM

Tuur said:
Albertus Magnus would have disagreed.

Never heard of him.

Tuur said:
There was more going on than is generally thought. Remember: no less than Tycho Brahe and Nicholas Copernicus were into astrology, and Isaac Newton into alchemy, and from astrology and alchemy we got astronomy and chemistry.

None of them are medieval. Newton is in the Early Modern period.

Tuur said:
And playing the game of "that wasn't really science then" overlooks that much of modern medicine came about after, oh, the 18th Century. Those early theories were indeed science, the best they had at the time.

Medicine isn't science.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Friday at 4:45 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Never heard of him.

This guy:
Albertus Magnus - Wikipedia

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Shaped by ancient humans, 430,000-year-old wooden tools are the oldest ever found

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Call Me Al

Senior Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Similar threads