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.

 

World's oldest stone tools that predate humans found

page: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer
as was mentioned upthread:
certain religious beliefs are hard to maintain in the face of facts
which one would think is just the opposite of what you would have if one were in fact worshiping the supremem being of the universe


even birds use opportunistically found tools
like dropping nuts or mollusks on a road to break open, or even be run over
chimps don't plan to make tools, then do it, then use them, and then keep the tools for later

even the recent past as expressed in my siggy thread messes up most religious beliefs completely
if one can handle the truth
edit on Thuam5b20155America/Chicago17 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Firstly, some on this very site tried to prove that scientist don't like if someone shows evidence to something that is not already in history books. This simple find proves as good evidence that those claims have no grounds.

Secondly, many here accused science on constant changes, but this is it - you have to adopt new find and evidence. Ignoring it would be anti-science.

Seems every day we are learning more about our past...


These are Anthropologist, not your typical, big corporation, STEM, scientist. If more folks here were familiar with Anthropologist and Archaeologist and the kind of work they do they'd likely be very surprised how open minded these particular field are to new ideas. BTW, anthologists have been against the status quo for decades and there are PLENTY of articles, peer reviewed studies and blogs showing that opposition. But you have to keep in mind that this discipline is typically drowned out in public discussions, by planted STEM PhD's, acting solely, on the behalf of the big corporations and government.

I'm not the least bit surprised that an ANTHROPOLOGIST/ARCHAEOLOGIST is willing to change their view, based on new EVIDENCE. A biologist or chemist, on the other hand, not so much. It would be good if ATS'ers would learn to start identifying the various academic disciplines and researching which fields are likeliest to pursue academic research that rattles the grip of the status quo.
edit on 21-5-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: gort51
Thats right, he accidently creates knapping on his piece of stone, that he had no idea he was doing...that suddenly 3.3million years later, some University educated smart ape comes along, see the chips where he missed the food and hit the rock, and declares...Oh Oh an Intelligent Man Thingy has created special tools with his super mind.

When in actual fact, the "Tool" was accidently made by flailing away at some food and missing 5 out of 10 times.

Be Honest people, how many times have ATS readers...cut themselves with a knife, pricked themselves with a needle, banged their finger/thumb/leg or hand or head with a hammer/door/table, someone elses head etc etc.

Miraculously 3.3 million year old ape, never misses when he hits his food, and flakes pieces of rock off his tool?
He must be the smartest most intelligent Ape that ever lived, including now.

Please, these scientists are stretching reality more and more.......the more they learn, the less they know.


How wonderful, an expert in flint knapping, posting here, on ATS. May I ask about your last few archeological field studies or projects completed and which agencies you performed them for? Once we get an idea of your qualifications out of the way, you can then explain to us, what the probability is of the pattern found, to have been created by a primate on "accident". Since you are an EXPERT in flint knapping, you should definitely be able to lay out the usual formula used to determine such, typically done by PROFESSIONAL archaeologists. Perhaps you can even outline some new methods and enlighten people whom have an academic and/or professional background in the field, but may no longer i work in it, like myself!

Your response is greatly anticipated, thanks for playing!
edit on 21-5-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo


Sorry, I should have been more specific. What I meant, anthropology/archeology findings, similar to those found in opening post.

For example, 'The Coso Artifact' - www.talkorigins.org...

Many of them have been posted here on ATS many times with conclusions that scientist are not willing to change historical books, yet with real evidence seems that scientist are happy to find something new and change those same books.

Sorry for misunderstanding, my mistake.

edit on 21-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo
It would be good if ATS'ers would learn to start identifying the various academic disciplines and researching which fields are likeliest to pursue academic research that rattles the grip of the status quo.


That requires effort. It's much easier to just lump every scientist into the category of "science" and then target "science" as the problem.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


Do you understand magnetic polar shift and how it's used to determine age?
Do you understand K/Ar dating?
Do you know anything whatsoever about dating techniques and how they work?

I guess not.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


Do you understand magnetic polar shift and how it's used to determine age?
Do you understand K/Ar dating?
Do you know anything whatsoever about dating techniques and how they work?

I guess not.




Did you notice who you're quoting?

Your questions are obviously rhetorical.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: gort51





How likely would it be...say 3.3 million years ago, that an ape, not yet a "hominid", grabbed a nice hand sized roundish rock, near a river etc, and started to smash his nuts or shell, also sitting on another heavier rock, because he knew this would break the food. Anyway, away he goes, smash smash ouch, damn, just hit his leg, smash, smash, each time the slippery food slides around on the large rock, each time he misses the food and Hits The Rock, in doing so flakes bits of Rock Off His Hand Held Rock.......actually Knapping the rock (but he doesnt know that).


As long as you seem to be an expert in probability theory, why don't you tell us how you came to your conclusion. Research? Links?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

It was @tinfoilhatman -


edit on 21-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


LMAO! I love how you totally discount the scientific analysis done. Yeah they just found a bunch of old rocks. How did a response as ignorant as this get 3 stars? Aren't we supposed to deny ignorance on ATS?
edit on 21-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs How did a response as ignorant as this get 3 stars?


Because there are at least 3 creationists/anti-intellectuals who browse here?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog


some on this very site tried to prove that scientist don't like if someone shows evidence to something that is not already in history books. This simple find proves as good evidence that those claims have no grounds.


No, I wouldn't say that at all; dogmatism is rife in any human organisation. Cognitive dissonance means that people are naturally programmed to be hostile to new ideas.

Try publishing a theory that challenges a Newtonian principle, for example.

If you manage to, it could be the first and last of your career in physics.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: SuperFrog

Try publishing a theory that challenges a Newtonian principle, for example.

If you manage to, it could be the first and last of your career in physics.


Bollocks. Einstein did just that and he is lauded as one of the greatest minds of mankind. His name is synonymous with genius. And rightly so.

The difference is, he wasn't talking out of his butt. He actually did the legwork and presented a testable hypothesis that expanded our understanding of nature and repeatedly stood up to experiment.
edit on 21-5-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


Why do you hate facts so much?


I gave you facts, I said rocks are old.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


Do you understand magnetic polar shift and how it's used to determine age?
Do you understand K/Ar dating?
Do you know anything whatsoever about dating techniques and how they work?

I guess not.




Yes, we know rocks are old, doesn't mean humans used them hundreds of thousands of years before there were any humans.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Folsom points they are not.
I know I am speaking from an extremely unlearned POV, but it really looks like I have a driveway filled with pre-human stone tools.


Which is exactly why you're not an archaeologist, and those who have been working at this site have decades of education and experience in the field of archeology.

Let me guess, you also don't believe we landed on the moon, because you can't build a rocket?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


Do you understand magnetic polar shift and how it's used to determine age?
Do you understand K/Ar dating?
Do you know anything whatsoever about dating techniques and how they work?

I guess not.




Yes, we know rocks are old, doesn't mean humans used them hundreds of thousands of years before there were any humans.


Astounding ignorance, I'm not sure if it's willful or not.

Did you actually read the story?

You know that it states MODERN HUMANS, right?
I assume you also know that there were several branches of Humanoid before we became the surviving species?
Do you also know that we evolved as Modern Humans from an ancestor, one we didn't know had the intelligence to use tools?

Now do you get at least some of this story and perhaps why it's so important to modern science?

edit on 21-5-2015 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Just a bunch of rocks. Rocks are old. If I pick up an irregular shaped rock and hammer something with it, does that make me a million years old too?


Do you understand magnetic polar shift and how it's used to determine age?
Do you understand K/Ar dating?
Do you know anything whatsoever about dating techniques and how they work?

I guess not.




Yes, we know rocks are old, doesn't mean humans used them hundreds of thousands of years before there were any humans.


Astounding ignorance, I'm not sure if it's willful or not.

Did you actually read the story?

You know that it states MODERN HUMANS, right?
I assume you also know that there were several branches of Humanoid before we became the surviving species?
Do you also know that we evolved as Modern Humans from an ancestor, one we didn't know had the intelligence to use tools?

Now do you get at least some of this story and perhaps why it's so important to modern science?


Nope,
Just a lot of guessing based around old rocks, with the fact that they are old somehow promoting postulates and guesses about totally unrelated living species, that weren't even living back then to manipulate the rocks.

Or are you coming out and saying the humanoid footprints found alongside dino tracks are real and not fake anymore? That is a pretty big claim you are promoting there, I am amazed!



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: SuperFrog
Try publishing a theory that challenges a Newtonian principle, for example.

If you manage to, it could be the first and last of your career in physics.


As GetHyped has already pointed, it was already done.

What stands out in your post is misuse of word 'theory', while I am sure you are thinking 'hypothesis'. You see, for hypothesis to become scientific theory, you have to prove it correct and it should give the same results if someone else repeated experiment/formula/observation - in short - it has to be based on evidence, also known as empirical evidence.

If this was true, Dr. Deepak Chopra would not make millions by selling his misinterpretation of science to those who still believe in magic and mysticism. IMHO he really should be disgraced from science for harm he is doing and for trying to undermine science without giving any evidence to his claims.

Back to the topic, hopefully are has more preserved material and we might learn more about our ancestors, or possibly our cousins...



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Yes, we know rocks are old, doesn't mean humans used them hundreds of thousands of years before there were any humans.


Did you bother reading the article prior to dismissing the find out of hand? It rather clearly states in the headline "Worlds oldest stone tools that predate humans found so nobody but yourself is making any claims or allisions towards these tools being crafted by human hands.


Nope,
Just a lot of guessing based around old rocks, with the fact that they are old somehow promoting postulates and guesses about totally unrelated living species, that weren't even living back then to manipulate the rocks.


Not at all in the same ballpark here. Theres not any guesswork involved in the dating ascribed to the find and there is no postulatiin involving species who were not living 3.3 MA. The only species being tangentially tied to this find is Kenyanthropus Platyops and its speculative at best without more data.


Or are you coming out and saying the humanoid footprints found alongside dino tracks are real and not fake anymore? That is a pretty big claim you are promoting there, I am amazed!


Its always cute when people cant be bothered to actually address the article or paper in question because they dont actually understand the basics so instead, they make broad sweeping generalizations as above or sidetrack the question entirely by making asinine statements like this about a topic that's been so thoroughly debunked that it may as well be in a Far Side comic strip.

3.3 MA knapped tools- real
Dinosaur footprints side by side with human foot prints- never happened



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join