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 · Saturday at 7:52 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?

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

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 10:15 AM

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 · Saturday at 6:18 PM

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 · Saturday at 6:20 PM

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 · Saturday at 6:25 PM

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 · Saturday at 6:26 PM

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 · Saturday at 6:27 PM

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 · Saturday at 7:20 PM

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 · Sunday at 7:13 AM

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 · Sunday at 7:24 AM

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 · Sunday at 1:04 PM

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.

sjastro · Sunday at 4:06 PM

Tuur said:
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.

What exactly is the point you are trying make here?

Experimental science is constantly evolving and a theory is only as good as the data produced.
Ever since the first modern Pb-Pb radiometric dating of the Earth's age in 1956 using meteorites since the Earth's crust is continuously being recycled through plate tectonics, the age is reported as being around 4.5-4.6 billion years old and importantly the uncertainty in the measurement has been ever decreasing.

Year	Lead Author	Method	Reported Age (Ga)	Reported Uncertainty
1956	Clair Cameron Patterson	Pb–Pb isochron (meteorites)	4.55 Ga	± 0.07 Ga
1960	George Tilton	U–Pb (meteorites)	~4.53 Ga	± 0.05 Ga
1971	Gerald Wasserburg	Pb–Pb isochron refinement	~4.54 Ga	± 0.05 Ga
1991	Thomas R. Ireland (zircon studies era)	U–Pb zircon constraints	~4.54 Ga	± 0.02 Ga
2001	Mark Amelin	Pb–Pb CAI dating	4.5672 Ga	± 0.0006 Ga
2003	Yves Blichert-Toft	Hf–W chronometry	~4.54 Ga	± 0.01–0.02 Ga
2010	Daniel Connelly	Pb–Pb CAI (improved mass spectrometry)	4.56730 Ga	± 0.00016 Ga
2014–2023 (consensus)	Multiple groups	Combined isotopic systems	4.54 Ga	± 0.01 Ga

It is very difficult to argue against the science and evidence so how do groups such as YEC address the issue, by claiming the dating process is riddled with errors. If this is the case it is a remarkable coincidence that all measurements lead to the same degree of error.
The other criticism offered by YEC is the assumption the decay rate doesn't change but as explained in an earlier post if it was not the case, the fine structure constant α will also change affecting the strength of the electromagnetic force and the formation of life in the process.

There are no valid counterarguments in querying the science and the evidence for the Earth's age.

Tuur · 2026-02-16T13:12:08-0600

sjastro said:
What exactly is the point you are trying make here?

A very crucial one: the issue is whether there is some mechanism of altering radioactive decay. That’s all. Not anyone’s theory or ideology. Forget about YEC. Forget about OEC. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster has come up, forget about that, too. The only point is whether radioactive decay is consistent. Not only does that cut to the chase, but has less distractions.

As it happens, yes, it’s remarkably consistent. Period. Apparently, the one method I could think of that could alter it wouldn’t necessarily accomplish that, and even if it could would leave strong indications of what happened. If there’s another way, it needs to be shown. Period. And that’s what was initially suggested. That’s all that needs to be considered.

The very last thing that should enter into such a discussion are different theories or ideologies. First, they are irrelevant. Second, it introduces the temptation to be less than forthcoming about things in order to advance or refute some idea. If the person who proposed the idea that half-life decay isn’t consistent is a YEC, what of it? The only thing that matters is whether the claim is valid. In this case the claim of inconsistent radioactive decay isn’t valid. That is all that matters.

sjastro · 2026-02-16T16:20:37-0600

Tuur said:
A very crucial one: the issue is whether there is some mechanism of altering radioactive decay. That’s all. Not anyone’s theory or ideology. Forget about YEC. Forget about OEC. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster has come up, forget about that, too. The only point is whether radioactive decay is consistent. Not only does that cut to the chase, but has less distractions.

As it happens, yes, it’s remarkably consistent. Period. Apparently, the one method I could think of that could alter it wouldn’t necessarily accomplish that, and even if it could would leave strong indications of what happened. If there’s another way, it needs to be shown. Period. And that’s what was initially suggested. That’s all that needs to be considered.

The very last thing that should enter into such a discussion are different theories or ideologies. First, they are irrelevant. Second, it introduces the temptation to be less than forthcoming about things in order to advance or refute some idea. If the person who proposed the idea that half-life decay isn’t consistent is a YEC, what of it? The only thing that matters is whether the claim is valid. In this case the claim of inconsistent radioactive decay isn’t valid. That is all that matters.

If you had as greater familiarity of the science your post becomes irrelevant using your own terminology from a previous response, in fact you would be able to differentiate between valid and invalid reasons as to why decay rates change.

For the valid reasons the only decay rate process that can change is electron capture by protons in a nucleus under Earth like conditions.

Here partial ionization of the atom can change the decay rate.

If you want a truly spectacular example of a decay rate change, the β⁻ decay of Rhenium-187.

The half life is around 42 billion years but when the atom is completely ionized under extreme temperatures found in plasma forming environments the half life is only 33 years!!!
This involves the Pauli exclusion principle where no two identical fermions in this case electrons can occupy the same energy level.
By completely ionizing Rhenium-187, the electrons vacate the energy levels making β⁻ decay that much faster.

Another example is alpha decay such as the decay of uranium to lead.

Under extreme plasma forming conditions this leads to slight changes (~0.1%) in the decay rate if the uranium atom is fully ionized since electrons act as a screen for the charge repulsion between the nucleus and alpha particles which changes the Coulomb barrier for quantum tunnelling and slightly increases the half life.

The science provides the valid reasons, by comparison the invalid reasons are made by those with an existing religious, ideological or pet theory narrative invoking false dichotomies to discount the evidence which supports the mainstream version.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-16T16:34:11-0600

Tuur said:
A very crucial one: the issue is whether there is some mechanism of altering radioactive decay. That’s all. Not anyone’s theory or ideology. Forget about YEC. Forget about OEC. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster has come up, forget about that, too. The only point is whether radioactive decay is consistent. Not only does that cut to the chase, but has less distractions.

As it happens, yes, it’s remarkably consistent. Period. Apparently, the one method I could think of that could alter it wouldn’t necessarily accomplish that, and even if it could would leave strong indications of what happened. If there’s another way, it needs to be shown. Period. And that’s what was initially suggested. That’s all that needs to be considered.

The very last thing that should enter into such a discussion are different theories or ideologies. First, they are irrelevant. Second, it introduces the temptation to be less than forthcoming about things in order to advance or refute some idea. If the person who proposed the idea that half-life decay isn’t consistent is a YEC, what of it? The only thing that matters is whether the claim is valid. In this case the claim of inconsistent radioactive decay isn’t valid. That is all that matters.

But the whole problem with this whole shebang is that the commentary of "decay rates are not constant, therefore radiometric dating theories are just beliefs" comes purely from a religious based belief to say that science is wrong. That's why I brought up the fact that I linked to eleos1954 commenting that theories are beliefs, because that is what he believes: that theories are just beliefs that contradict his own interpretation of the Bible.

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

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads