Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[crjmurray]

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?

Yes that's exactly how it works. You have learned all you can. Now you can leave these training forums. Go forth young padawan and stop irritating people.

 

[dad]

Now get them to make weapons to hunt for meat and some scrapers.

I think the fact remains for evolution time claims..

 

[dad]

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?

Sort of. Except that since the dates do not match the timeframe of evolution for man, they need to find an alien or monkey to blame for the tools!

We can leave the issue of how old the rock was when the folks made the tools pre flood. (I assume it was pre flood, maybe I give too much credence still to the foolish dates)

 

[AV1611VET]

Sort of. Except that since the dates do not match the timeframe of evolution for man, they need to find an alien or monkey to blame for the tools!

We can leave the issue of how old the rock was when the folks made the tools pre flood. (I assume it was pre flood, maybe I give too much credence still to the foolish dates)

What say you and I go get some Australian zircon and build us a church building and see if experts think we worship in the oldest church on earth, eh?

 

[dad]

What say you and I go get some Australian zircon and build us a church building and see if experts think we worship in the oldest church on earth, eh?

So I was thinking about the guy who found that rock and made some tools. Let's say it was 3000 years ago as you guessed. You mentioned it would be millions of years old then. That seems to mean God would have put a bunch of daughter material in there for no real reason. That doesn't seem to make sense. It makes more sense if the materials in it were being used for something. Just because it couldn't have been the same thing as now shouldn't scare us.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I was thinking about the guy who found that rock and made some tools. Let's say it was 3000 years ago as you guessed. You mentioned it would be millions of years old then. That seems to mean God would have put a bunch of daughter material in there for no real reason. That doesn't seem to make sense. It makes more sense if the materials in it were being used for something. Just because it couldn't have been the same thing as now shouldn't scare us.

Well, I did approach it from an embedded age perspective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sort of. Except that since the dates do not match the timeframe of evolution for man, they need to find an alien or monkey to blame for the tools!

We can leave the issue of how old the rock was when the folks made the tools pre flood. (I assume it was pre flood, maybe I give too much credence still to the foolish dates)

What do you mean? Of course it matches the evolutionary timeframe. Their is no demand that no tool could be made before man came along. Your misinterpretation of the theory of evolution cannot be used against it. As others have shown you tool making and using is not a trait limited to man. Even ravens can make crude tools.

 

[lesliedellow]

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

How does an ancestor species grab you?

 

[Heissonear]

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.

No, apparent age has been presented to you through the Bible.

But without knowing the Creator and having a personal relationship with Him then you have only natural science to define apparent age - in other words - apparent age is too rediculous to consider - and what there is to learn about apparent age not a trail you will follow, with patience and openness.

Leaning on Naturalists and Natuturalism is not wise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Popular Science magazine is guilty of this. They present a 'problem' along with an elaborate scheme presented in a very technical and colorful way to solve it. The reader mostly wasn't even aware of the problem but is satisfied that science has already provided a neat solution to it. Kinda like the climate change 'problem' (that is not to say this isn't a real problem).

 

[AV1611VET]

Popular Science magazine is guilty of this. They present a 'problem' along with an elaborate scheme presented in a very technical and colorful way to solve it. The reader mostly wasn't even aware of the problem but is satisfied that science has already provided a neat solution to it. Kinda like the climate change 'problem' (that is not to say this isn't a real problem).

Yup.

Scientists like to start fires, then put them out.

Paper heroes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do the creationists have such a hard time understanding that there is no problem here?

This is a huge nothing. Once again, the fact is that tools simply predate man's existence. why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Men may be the best animals at using tools, that in no way implies that man is the only animal that makes and uses tools.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, the fact is that tools simply predate man's existence. why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

So that tool in the OP wasn't made by man?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why do the creationists have such a hard time understanding that there is no problem here?

This is a huge nothing. Once again, the fact is that tools simply predate man's existence. why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Men may be the best animals at using tools, that in no way implies that man is the only animal that makes and uses tools.

I believe that while some animals may use objects as tools man is the only one who fashions tools for specific purposes.

 

[dad]

What do you mean? Of course it matches the evolutionary timeframe. Their is no demand that no tool could be made before man came along. Your misinterpretation of the theory of evolution cannot be used against it. As others have shown you tool making and using is not a trait limited to man. Even ravens can make crude tools.

Nonsense. Manufacturing tools required quite a little operation. One interesting thing is that they didn't find human remains fossilized there. That seems to be why they assume it may not have been men that built and used the tools.

I expect no human remains

They also are trying different experiments with similarly made rocks, to see if they can see what the various tools were used for.

Well, I did approach it from an embedded age perspective.

OK, but it seems to boil down to the issue of whether whatever stuff was in the rock was being used...had a purpose, or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, but it seems to boil down to the issue of whether whatever stuff was in the rock was being used...had a purpose, or not.

Yup.

 

[dad]

How does an ancestor species grab you?

It grabs me as a sick joke. Only inside your mind do those exist. You would have more credibility saying Sasquatch did it! At least thousands of people claim to have seen those. Always nice to see evolution get one right in the chops.

 

[dad]

Yup.

If God created all that radioactive daughter material, what was the purpose then? I can see that in a different state past, the stuff had a purpose, which simply changed with the state.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I believe that while some animals may use objects as tools man is the only one who fashions tools for specific purposes.

I seem to remember something about chimps choosing a suitable long twig or shoot and stripping all the leaves off it so they could then dip it into ant's nest and suck the tasty ants off it. Sounds a bit like fashioning a tool to me.

 

[dad]

I seem to remember something about chimps choosing a suitable long twig or shoot and stripping all the leaves off it so they could then dip it into ant's nest and suck the tasty ants off it. Sounds a bit like fashioning a tool to me.

I mean, reaallly?