It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1.2-Million-Year-Old Stone Tool Unearthed in Turkey

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Homo erects is a very early example of upright apes, there not exactly on the same level as us. Probably closer to chimps than us in terms of intellect. Humanity has been advancing at a progressively faster rate. Just think what we've achieved in 1 hundred years. Then look at the past two thousand we used swords for a very long time. a reply to: deckdel




posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Pistoche


…was dropped on the floodplain by an early hominid well over a million years ago.


Dating a bit of "chipped" rock doesn't tell when the "chipping" occurred or how it occurred.



There are ways to tell how tools are formed, including the method and tools used to form the tool.

Intrprt is right, dating a rock is not the same as dating when it was turned into a tool.

So how did archeologists determine when this rock was shaped?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Read the paper.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Quite! One never sees a river bed of thin flakes with isolated platforms, feather edges and percussion bulbs.

Similarly incipient cones are very uncommon in river cobbles.

By the *cough* "law" of "infinite typewriters and infinite monkeys", every now and then a river should throw up a perfect naturally formed Oldowan chopper or a Folsom, Eden or barbed and tanged point.


edit on 27-12-2014 by skalla because: clarity



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
well its assumed homo erectus died out because of adverse conditions on earth, so instead of walloping one stone with another, to produce what looks very similar to a potato crisp, they should have been searching for safe ground, they should have been careful what they wished for, they wanted flakes and they got billions of 'em.......snow flakes that is.
silly sausages.... the lot of 'em.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: flipflop

What precisely leads you to the conclusion that environmental conditions led to their demise? They thrived in a pretty dynamic range of environments from Africa to Europe to Asia to Indonesia and coexisted with Neanderthal, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens and likely Floresiensis so environmental issues don't seem to be leading to the results you seem to be reaching. They managed to survive for nearly 2 MA over a vast period of environmental fluctuation over a large swath of the eastern hemisphere producing fire hearths, complex lithic industries and the ability to traverse open water among other things and morphologically were actually better adapted towards bipedalism than we currently are.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anubis259
Homo erects is a very early example of upright apes, there not exactly on the same level as us.


I would have to disagree and say they were quite distinct from earlier precursors such as the Australopithecines and H. Habilis. They were morphologically superior to us in regards to bipedalism and were clearly capable of complex thought and imaginative abstract thought as well. And at least in the H. Georgicus variety from 1.8 MA, there is c;lear indication of Brocas area of the brain which gave them the ability of complex speech in the same fashion as later members of the genus Homo


Probably closer to chimps than us in terms of intellect.


As has been mentioned more than once in this thread alone, they build homes for large families, harnessed fire with evidence of hearths for cooking, warmth and keeping predators at bay, were able to cross open bodies of water and introduced a pretty complex lithic technology for the time frame in question as well as survive for nearly 2 MA


Humanity has been advancing at a progressively faster rate. Just think what we've achieved in 1 hundred years. Then look at the past two thousand we used swords for a very long time.


That's because each successive generation builds off of the industrial advancements that preceded them. Certainly there have been some setbacks here and there as a result of societal collapse that required relearning or rediscovering some things but to claim they were little smarter than Chimpanzee or Bonobo is just silly.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

yes they managed to survive for around 2MA, or from what we can gather that is the current assumption, the first stone tools the hand axe was attributed to them, but they can only be assumptions, and will never be more. and they were very adaptable to their living climate, which is probably why they are now extinct.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: flipflop

It's an interesting convo and all that, but isn't the thread about a stone flake, rather than a discussion on the reasons for HE's eventual demise? You could start a thread to elicit opinions on this subject after all.

Any opinions on the flake? Personally i'm hoping Timelord comes back to continue the discussion, mainly as i really like stone flakes (i had many buckets full of them until i moved house recently and decided that enough was enough) and i wanted to ramble on some more



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: skalla

solid point. every now and again I do indeed require a quick slap to the back of the skull to remain on topic or else a quick tangent will turn into something else entirely and thus I shall bite my tongue and refrain from a further derailing. Particularly so since this is definitely a little more up your alley than it is mine. I don't know the first thing about quartzite lithics and nowhere near what you do on flint knapping so I shall remain glued to my seat and hope that something unfolds and wait for a separate thread to delve into speciation and transitory evolutionary periods.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Pistoche

Another crack smoking scientist who clearly has a major agenda with this one. Nobody was living a million years ago. You would have to be high to think anyone was. If this was a rock, it can NOT be dated by anything. Even IF this was carved who knows if it did not fall down a huge cliff at one point and get buried by a landslide or earthquake through liquefaction? This is a persons GUESS and a very wild one at that. They guess on Evolution and can not show one dam bit of evidence for it but the Big Bad Governments force feed the crap in our schools like its fact.

After Common Core you would think people would wisen up and stop listening to these idiots because that is what they think YOU ARE!!

We all know the history books are out right lies, now don't go believing the same crap from the same people. Most Scientist and Archeologist do not get a dime without finding things. When the Grant money is about to run out they get desperate and make up crap to bring in more money.

Modern Science still thinks ancient man built the Pyramids, Luxor, Ballbek, Petra among other impossible feats that could have only been built by the Watchers and Giants of the Bible so I don't believe many scientist at all. They only listen to each other or what they have read in a book by another scientist rather then understanding that man can only duplicate the pyramids today on a massive grand scale with our very latest tools and cranes, that would have to be constructed on site. They just do not understand, since they have to try and make everything fit in their little evolution, man did everything box they are getting more and more ridiculous by the day. Some things just do not work the way they want it too, just like Engineers who always end up taking the credit when its the Mechanics or laymen who have to fix their project and make it work right.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Watchers and Giants of the Bible? ROFLMAO. No wonder you don't believe scientists. Thanks for the laugh.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

And you think scientists smoke crack. Like wow, man.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

See kids? This is what happens to your brain when you take the bible literally.

Fundamentalism. Not even once.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

By the way, you don't "carve" stone to get a sharp flake to use as a tool.

This one was created using percussion, (as evidenced by the percussion bulb and platform that can be seen in the illustration, and even in the photo to those that know what to look for) probably by using a stone as a hammer - i would estimate quite possibly a "softer" stone like sandstone judging by the size of the percussion bulb.

Know much about stone tool production? We could have n interesting discussion if you do


If you don't though, i'd suggest that you do a bit of study before coming back at me



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

See kids? This is what happens to your brain when you take the bible literally.

Fundamentalism. Not even once.


not really. this is what happens when you read the bible in english and presume that what you are reading is what the original writers meant to convey verbatim in thier own languages.

Science properly understood is true. The bible properly understood is true. when they appear to be in conflict about basic facts one or the other probably is not properly understood.

you cannot be a literalist if you are illiterate. you cannot be a fundamentalist if you cannot understand the fundamentals due to illiteracy. It is not fundamental to ignore and deny valid scientific evidence. The Word of God does not require rejection of science.

it is more fundamental to look at Genesis and see in the original languages the word for day has many meanings including epoch or aeons. it is fundamental to see that between verse one and two is a unknown but probably immense amount of time. there is a mistranslated word in there that changes the meaning tremendously.

it is fundamental to notice that there are two seemingly contradictory creation timelines in genesis. it is fundamental to notice in the original language that the word ADM in day six of the first narrative is different from the ADM in the eighth day creation of the second narrative. the first is impersonal due to the use of an impersonal article before the ADM. The Second refers to a person specifically due to the usage.

it is fundamental to notice these things. the upshot; a true fundamentalist would believe that the bible does not say how old the earth is or when mankind came into existence with any precision and that a Man named ADM (progenitor of the Messianic bloodline) was created sometime after the rest of mankind.

So the people whom you call fundamentalist and who think of themselves that way as well; AREN'T really fundamentalists at all. Nor are they really literalists. they cannot be either being burdened with various amounts of ignorance.
edit on 29-12-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Nicely said, i like it when definitions are used properly and terms reclaimed



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

It's always the "no true Scotsman" fallacy when people defend the bible. "They're interpreting it wrong, if they were interpreting it like me they would be correct".

No. The bible is not a trustworthy document for any truth other than within the context of the history of religions. Cherry picking and performing stunning feats of mental gymnastics to get it to "fit" with scientific knowledge does not make it so.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Nicely said, i like it when definitions are used properly and terms reclaimed
Yeah. but i contributed to thread drift. it's unfair to take a thread not related to religion and snipe at the religious. however this is not the venue to go on at length on the errors of critics of the religious or the equally profound errors "fundamentalist" religious people laboring under faulty understanding of the texts defending thier distorted caricature of the topic. So i guess we should drop it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

It's always the "no true Scotsman" fallacy when people defend the bible. "They're interpreting it wrong, if they were interpreting it like me they would be correct".

No. The bible is not a trustworthy document for any truth other than within the context of the history of religions. Cherry picking and performing stunning feats of mental gymnastics to get it to "fit" with scientific knowledge does not make it so.


balderdash. the words in thier original languages mean what they mean. that is science. that is provable. the criticism and explanation i laid is not a logical or debate fallacy.

EDIT: I could go into excruciating and exhaustive detail on the translation errors from secular scholarly texts and supporting scriptural references on each word and its proper ancient meaning and the context but like i said it's not the time or place for it.
edit on 29-12-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join