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

Tuur · Friday at 5:46 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Medicine isn't science.

That's really an astounding statement. And to think we were once taught about Walter Reed and his work on malaria.

Tuur · Friday at 5:51 AM

Hans Blaster said:
None of them are medieval. Newton is in the Early Modern period.

Brahe and Copernicus are mostly noted for work prior to 1600. That year is considered the cut-off date for medieval by some sources, though some argue for an earlier date. And Albertus Magnus, called the Father of Science, lived in the 13th Century.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Friday at 6:09 AM

I'm really confused by the direction this thread is going now.

@Tuur, how exactly does what you're saying relate to the OP topic of human tools being dated back to 430,000 years ago?

Hans Blaster · Friday at 9:03 AM

Tuur said:
Brahe and Copernicus are mostly noted for work prior to 1600.

Brahe died in 1601, Copernicus in the mid 16th century.

Tuur said:
That year is considered the cut-off date for medieval by some sources, though some argue for an earlier date.

It isn't. Copernicus is from the Renaissance, Tycho is even later.

Tuur said:
And Albertus Magnus, called the Father of Science, lived in the 13th Century.

I looked at that link above. I couldn't find much to suggest that. Apparently he copied some books of Aristoltle and made them popular.

Now let's stick with the post between ours and get back to ancient humans.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Friday at 9:03 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I'm really confused by the direction this thread is going now.

@Tuur, how exactly does what you're saying relate to the OP topic of human tools being dated back to 430,000 years ago?

I'm responding to myself sure, but it needs to be done because this whole thing started by me pointing that a guy who claims that radiometric dating is done purely off assumptions claims that theories are the same as beliefs, which are his own words, and then Tuur decided to support his claim, even though what the two are talking about are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Like, the guy making the claim that theories are the same as beliefs is a guy who does not accept any scientific findings, and this is not a matter of conjecture but record.

Tuur · 2026-02-14T07:52:06-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I'm really confused by the direction this thread is going now.

@Tuur, how exactly does what you're saying relate to the OP topic of human tools being dated back to 430,000 years ago?

About as much as criticizing " Belief = Theory": which led to it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-14T10:15:53-0600

Tuur said:
About as much as criticizing " Belief = Theory": which led to it.

I feel that you very much misunderstood the whole thing with that.

Tuur · 2026-02-14T18:18:23-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I feel that you very much misunderstood the whole thing with that.

I sincerely hope that if someone accepts a theory that they believe it and not just make the proper noises. We can argue about the process of hypothesis to theory, and how not everything that is believed is a theory, but it still remains that a belief is based on what the believer considers valid valid theory, even when it's not to anyone else. Rather than be dismissive of belief, the question is whether what is believed is valid.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-14T18:20:20-0600

Tuur said:
I sincerely hope that if someone accepts a theory that they believe it and not just make the proper noises. We can argue about the process of hypothesis to theory, and how not everything that is believed is a theory, but it still remains that a belief is based on what the believer considers valid valid theory, even when it's not to anyone else. Rather than be dismissive of belief, the question is whether what is believed is valid.

You are arguing in defence of someone who calls radionetric findings assumptions and has gone on record on saying that anything that says the Earth isn't 6000 years old is wrong.

Tuur · 2026-02-14T18:25:02-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You are arguing in defence of someone who calls radionetric findings assumptions and has gone on record on saying that anything that says the Earth isn't 6000 years old is wrong.

And? Does the validity of half-life for dating objects mean it's acceptable to play fast and loose with belief and theory to suit our own purposes? FAr better to do what has already been proposed: If someone thinks half-life isn't an acceptable means of dating, let them trot out the reasons for that assumption for everyone to look at.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-14T18:26:15-0600

Tuur said:
And? Does the validity of half-life for dating objects mean it's acceptable to play fast and loose with belief and theory to suit our own purposes? FAr better to do what has already been proposed: If someone thinks half-life isn't an acceptable means of dating, let them trot out the reasons for that assumption for everyone to look at.

There is no need to even mention "belief". We are discussing science.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-14T18:27:01-0600

Tuur said:
And? Does the validity of half-life for dating objects mean it's acceptable to play fast and loose with belief and theory to suit our own purposes? FAr better to do what has already been proposed: If someone thinks half-life isn't an acceptable means of dating, let them trot out the reasons for that assumption for everyone to look at.

And they did so on page one, and they were soundly shown to be wrong. And the only people playing fast and loose seems to be them and you.

sjastro · 2026-02-14T19:20:09-0600

Tuur said:
And? Does the validity of half-life for dating objects mean it's acceptable to play fast and loose with belief and theory to suit our own purposes? FAr better to do what has already been proposed: If someone thinks half-life isn't an acceptable means of dating, let them trot out the reasons for that assumption for everyone to look at.

Who exactly has the motivation for disputing dating objects, it's those who carry a motive such as YECists.
If radiometric dating was dependent on a single method, skepticism of results would be well justified.

For the dating of extremely old objects there are numerous dating methods.

Here are the dating of various meteorites using a couple of different dating methods indicating the solar system (and Earth) is around 4.55 billion years old.

Tuur · 2026-02-15T07:13:46-0600

sjastro said:
Who exactly has the motivation for disputing dating objects, it's those who carry a motive such as YECists.
If radiometric dating was dependent on a single method, skepticism of results would be well justified.

Irrelevant. Either it works or it does not. By everything we've seen it works quite well, to the point that if it does not work we need a mechanism of why it wouldn't, one that accounts for what we've observed. Why someone is raising an objection to dating based on radioactive decay isn't important; the mechanism by which they think it could be unreliable is.

The moment we are careful to frame are questions and answers from fear some may think we hold to a theory that's not considered valid, we' re playing politics or religion, not science. Science goes where the data leads, regardless of what people think of it. If YEC wants to play around with the half life of materials, then so be it. Let's see what they come up with.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-15T07:24:08-0600

Tuur said:
Irrelevant.

Incredibly relevant when the person making the claim does not accept on principle that any scientific comment about the age of the Earth is correct.

You are arguing a point that no-one but you came up with and you are giving them undue legitimacy by doing so too.

dlamberth · 2026-02-15T13:04:52-0600

Tuur said:
If YEC wants to play around with the half life of materials, then so be it. Let's see what they come up with.

Through the years I'm been on this forum, I watched many attempts by YEC's to throw into question various dating methods. All they have proven to me is how deeply they have absolutely no clue how dating labs operate. I've watched many attempts to "play around with the half life of materials" and always, and by always mean every single time, they come up empty handed. Than a new round of YEC's come on board and around and around we go yet again.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Similar threads