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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!