World's oldest stone tools that predate humans found

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
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.

Umm...NOPE, there is a geological process supporting this analysis, this study its not all qualitative, there is a CLEAR quantitative component. The paper is CO-WRITTEN by both archaeologists and geologists, so unless you are also geologist, you will have to defer to what the geologist is telling you here.

It seems we are lucky enough to have not one, BUT TWO, experts chiming in on this ATS thread. Since we have established that gort51 is flint knapping expert with field experience, I am going to also assume that TinfoilTP has been a practicing geologist at some point in their professional life.

TinfoilTP, may I ask about your last few geological/geotech field studies and/or projects completed and which agencies you performed them for? At the very least, you should have spent a few years as a consulting geologist for construction projects. Once we get an idea of your general qualifications out of the way, you can then explain to us, based on your field experience in geology, your interpretation of the following figures, from the article published in Nature, by this group of archaeologists and geologists:

Figure 2: LOM3 lithological context.

Extended Data Figure 4: Paleoenvironmental reconstruction through pedogenic carbonate stable carbon isotopic analysis.

So, TinfoilTP, as I said to gort51 earlier, perhaps you can outline some new methods and enlighten those people here, whom have an academic and/or professional background in the field, but may no longer work in it, like myself!

Your response to the above posted links is also greatly anticipated, thanks for playing!

originally posted by: Answer
Being so close-minded must make life a lot easier.

You don't ever have to consider the implications of new discoveries. You can just sit back and go "nope, that's BS" and continue on with your perceived status quo.

Being so open minded?

The implications, they found some old rocks, flaked, then assumed they are, whatever

You can just sit back and go "YES! Huzzah, its all true, no evidence but Huzzah" and continue on with your perceived status quo.

One discovery and they are going to rewrite the history books? I still see faked embryo drawings in textbooks
www.evolutionnews.org...

One discovery and its accepted with no question by the plebs of the faith of evolution, surely you MUST have some doubt, there is a a faith in evolutionists that I wish I could have, I find your strong faith in evolution hard to believe

a reply to: GetHyped

Interesting you mention Einstein...who disbelieved in black holes because he didn't like the idea, even though their existence was implied by his own mathematical equations. He also didn't like quantum mechanics because "God doesn't throw dice". Yet both ideas are now common currency.

Then there is the present controversy of dark matter v modified gravity; dark matter wins because the alternatives mean mucking about with Einstein's GTR.

Can't have that, god forbid.

And there are the difficulties involved in getting any controversial new idea accepted by the scientific community. Yes, Einstein is lauded as a genius now, but he himself encountered a lot of flak before his ideas were generally accepted.

Scientists are human too, get off your high horse.

originally posted by: borntowatch
The implications, they found some old rocks, flaked, then assumed they are, whatever

You can just sit back and go "YES! Huzzah, its all true, no evidence but Huzzah" and continue on with your perceived status quo.

WOW, we have NOT ONE, BUT TWO, professional geologist posting here on ATS? Who would have thought!

borntowatch, I would LOVE to hear your interpretation of these three figures from the article, based on YOUR field experience in geology:

Figure 2: LOM3 lithological context.

Extended Data Figure 4: Paleoenvironmental reconstruction through pedogenic carbonate stable carbon isotopic analysis.

Photographs of selected LOM3 artefacts

Your response to the above posted links is also greatly anticipated, thanks for playing!

Thankyou all for your glowing praise...I am not worthy. .
Yes, I did study Geology, was quite good at it too, but I took a different direction and didnt purse a career in it.
Paleontology, Anthropology are sciences that deal with facts, but an awful lot of speculation....ie guessing.

We DONT know the true facts of what we study, UNLESS we have actually first hand or first hand scientific observation and report of the facts, As They Occur.

All of the science of delving into the past, and trying to recreate those circumstances or environment, is all speculation.
While University experts and Professors can wax on about what happened 5000 years ago or 5 million years ago as "Fact". it is, in "Fact", only an educated guess, speculation, theory, hypothesis, Not actual Fact. The 100% truth.

To say these rocks found in 3.3 million year old sediment, that show "Flaking" is only their opinion, of course they dont know the actual Fact.....were they there 3.3 million years ago?

My argument was not against the time frame, But I did question the Who?, What? and Were? of their "Guess".

There is absolutely, unequivocally, No Way on this Planet, that they can convincingly state that these "Flaking" were made by a Human ancestor only and Not our cousin ape ancestor as well.
Have they found and human bones? Any bones? Any other signs of higher primate activity in the same locale?
My scenario, of an ape banging a hand rock against a harder larger rock, by accident (or not), is probably far more feasible than some ape expertly shaping a ragged edge to a smooth stone, at least no less feasible.

They dont even know with 100% accuracy, how the pyramids were built, 5000-10000 years ago??

These people have to justify their jobs and quite generous salaries, coming up with these "Theories" continuously, keeps the money gates open....this goes for any type of research career.
If they didnt come up with this stuff all the time, then why have them at all?

a reply to: CJCrawley

It's clear you've never been involved with the study of science or how academic research is performed and presented to the community. Your understanding of dark matter and how incumbent theories are usurped is near non-existent. Deny ignorance and LEARN instead of making up your own conspiracy narratives out of whole cloth.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

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?

I said that what I thought came from an extremely unlearned pov.
I suppose that you know how to read.
Seriously, I was commenting on the lack of advancement of the tool-making.
Or do you think they look like Folsom points?

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: borntowatch
The implications, they found some old rocks, flaked, then assumed they are, whatever

You can just sit back and go "YES! Huzzah, its all true, no evidence but Huzzah" and continue on with your perceived status quo.

WOW, we have NOT ONE, BUT TWO, professional geologist posting here on ATS? Who would have thought!

borntowatch, I would LOVE to hear your interpretation of these three figures from the article, based on YOUR field experience in geology:

Figure 2: LOM3 lithological context.

Extended Data Figure 4: Paleoenvironmental reconstruction through pedogenic carbonate stable carbon isotopic analysis.

Photographs of selected LOM3 artefacts

Your response to the above posted links is also greatly anticipated, thanks for playing!

My response would be invalid because I dont believe the foundation that is the geological time scale.
Prove that with science and then I would be happy to recant my disbelief

As far as I am concerned the Geo Time scale is based on false assumption and has no scientific bases.

originally posted by: borntowatch

My response would be invalid because I dont believe the foundation that is the geological time scale.

Correct.

Prove that with science and then I would be happy to recant my disbelief

Don't f#ing lie.

As far as I am concerned the Geo Time scale is based on false assumption and has no scientific bases.

Translation: I take the bible literally therefore anything that contradicts it is wrong.

originally posted by: gort51
Thankyou all for your glowing praise...I am not worthy.

.
Yes, I did study Geology, was quite good at it too, but I took a different direction and didnt purse a career in it.
Paleontology, Anthropology are sciences that deal with facts, but an awful lot of speculation....ie guessing.

We DONT know the true facts of what we study, UNLESS we have actually first hand or first hand scientific observation and report of the facts, As They Occur.

All of the science of delving into the past, and trying to recreate those circumstances or environment, is all speculation.
While University experts and Professors can wax on about what happened 5000 years ago or 5 million years ago as "Fact". it is, in "Fact", only an educated guess, speculation, theory, hypothesis, Not actual Fact. The 100% truth.

To say these rocks found in 3.3 million year old sediment, that show "Flaking" is only their opinion, of course they dont know the actual Fact.....were they there 3.3 million years ago?

O boy, one of those 'creationism': where they there 3.3 million years ago?! How often do we have to go through the same sort of exercise - let's see... we talk about farthest galaxies, yet we were not there either... we know what makes a star, yet we were not there, we know how evolution works, yet neither were we there...

Yet we were not there when apparently Jesus made water into wine or when he walked on water, and somehow I doubt you don't believe that BS.

Even we don't know who used those 'tools', they certainly show that they have been used. For this discoveries it is not important who, but what we observe and have evidence for.

originally posted by: gort51
My argument was not against the time frame, But I did question the Who?, What? and Were? of their "Guess".

No guesses there, we don't know yet who, but we do know where and when as well what. No guess there, but evidence that point to those things.

originally posted by: gort51There is absolutely, unequivocally, No Way on this Planet, that they can convincingly state that these "Flaking" were made by a Human ancestor only and Not our cousin ape ancestor as well.

If you invested fraction of time to write this nonsense to read my opening post, you would get your answers...

In a discovery that could rewrite the early human history, archaeologists have found the world's oldest handmade stone tools in Kenya, dating back 3.3 million years, long before the advent of modern humans.

The tools, whose makers may or may not have been some sort of human ancestor, push the known date of such tools back by 700,000 years.

Again, NO WHERE they claim we know whose hand made them, but we know they were made, bunch of them. Not just regular erosion of the stone, don't you think that archeologist would be able to tell you if something has been worked on versus erosion due to weather or water flow?

originally posted by: gort51Have they found and human bones? Any bones? Any other signs of higher primate activity in the same locale?
My scenario, of an ape banging a hand rock against a harder larger rock, by accident (or not), is probably far more feasible than some ape expertly shaping a ragged edge to a smooth stone, at least no less feasible.

Do you see flaw... you are against something they don't even claim...

originally posted by: gort51They dont even know with 100% accuracy, how the pyramids were built, 5000-10000 years ago??

On contrary, we know how they were built, but there is still some folks who don't believe evidence... just like seen in this topic.

originally posted by: gort51These people have to justify their jobs and quite generous salaries, coming up with these "Theories" continuously, keeps the money gates open....this goes for any type of research career.
If they didnt come up with this stuff all the time, then why have them at all?

This tells 2 things, first - you don't know many researchers, specially in this field. Second - you don't even know what scientific theory means, which goes well in earlier notion of 'just another creationist BS'.

Now, no one in opening post article nor here on forum paid attention to where this was found. Country torn up by violence, those scientist that still work there, they are risking their lives by doing their work. Remember, Kenya - the same one that we often listen for news about violence. From mall to school massacre...

theconversation.com...

To me those scientist are heroes, who are still doing their research even if that means risk their own lives. At least they will save some of our past before some religious nut blows everything away...

a reply to: gort51

As a proud atheist who has a lot of respect for the scientific theory, I totally agree with what your saying. There really is no way we can establish a date with 100% accuracy on a lot of these discoveries, or say for fact who was responsible.

Neither the less, constantly documenting and theorizing using logic and reason, has at this stage in our evolution proven to be the most effective method we have of establishing the facts of our ancient past. It's also been shown to be very effective, if you consider how much the human species has advanced, since the scientific method has been practiced.

Accumulating knowledge one step at a time, is a lot better than just giving up on logical thought altogether and going back to just claiming "god did it", whenever we don't understand the mysteries of the universe. Eating contaminated rye bread and then claiming to have interacted with a higher power, who explained all the mysteries of the universe, that can all be simply explained in one single book.

As fun as that sounds.

a reply to: SuperFrog

This story reminds me of all those mars photos from people claiming they are fossils.

a reply to: Stuship

Except one is an example of pareidolia and the other is an example of objective, repeatable scientific evidence.

originally posted by: borntowatch
My response would be invalid because I dont believe in anything that conflicts with the bible, no matter how compelling the evidence.

Fixed. Don't pretend like you'd accept evidence. We all know that isn't true. I could take you back in a time machine to observe Australopithecus use tools and you'd still deny it.

originally posted by: gort51
Paleontology, Anthropology are sciences that deal with facts, but an awful lot of speculation....ie guessing.

Not nearly as much speculation and guesswork as the above statement. While I would certainly agree that the above mentioned fields lend themselves to speculation while forming a hypothesis and the initial exploration of that hypothesis, what is written up in papers and peer reviewed is the data that can be confirmed and repeated by others. It's not speculation, it's verifiable fact.

We DONT know the true facts of what we study, UNLESS we have actually first hand or first hand scientific observation and report of the facts, As They Occur.

Completely false. Are you saying that I need to witness someone being shot to know what caliber round/weapon was used, how far away the shot was taken, the angle of the shot etc...? By your logic then there is no evidence for your existence because I wasn't there to witness your birth.

All of the science of delving into the past, and trying to recreate those circumstances or environment, is all speculation.
While University experts and Professors can wax on about what happened 5000 years ago or 5 million years ago as "Fact". it is, in "Fact", only an educated guess, speculation, theory, hypothesis, Not actual Fact. The 100% truth.

There is always a margin of error and variables that need to be considered. The same applies to eye witness accounts as well though.

To say these rocks found in 3.3 million year old sediment, that show "Flaking" is only their opinion, of course they dont know the actual Fact.....were they there 3.3 million years ago?

Again, there are a multitude of diagnostics and tests that can be used to forensically recreate something. One does not need to be there to witness an event to p[rove it occurred.

My argument was not against the time frame, But I did question the Who?, What? and Were? of their "Guess".

And what exactly was their guess then? You keep alluding to this mythic issue that simply does not exist. There were a couple of potential candidates discussed in the article but the co-authors were quite clear in stating that they did not know who made the tools. Did you read the article?

There is absolutely, unequivocally, No Way on this Planet, that they can convincingly state that these "Flaking" were made by a Human ancestor only and Not our cousin ape ancestor as well.

It's a good thing then that nobody is making that statement. Well, except for you that is.

Have they found and human bones? Any bones? Any other signs of higher primate activity in the same locale?

You didn't bother reading the article did you? Somewhat disingenuous to try to discount the science when you haven't taken the time to read the information that has been presented. To answer your question though, yes. Kenyanthropus Platyops from the same time frame as the find in question has been found in the area.

My scenario, of an ape banging a hand rock against a harder larger rock, by accident (or not), is probably far more feasible than some ape expertly shaping a ragged edge to a smooth stone, at least no less feasible.

No, it's not feasible at all actually. Based on repeatable testing performed by several researchers, it's been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there are several key differences in play that demonstrate the differences between your preferred methodology and knapping of stone implements. The way the pieces break off, the size and shape of those pieces, the types of stress fractures in the rock...it's visually very different when comparing knapping to just throwing a rock as hard as you can to break it up. Under an SEM, its as clear as night and day. The paper would not have indicated the pieces were knapped if they could not prove they were knapped as opposed to your preferred method.

They dont even know with 100% accuracy, how the pyramids were built, 5000-10000 years ago??

These people have to justify their jobs and quite generous salaries, coming up with these "Theories" continuously, keeps the money gates open....this goes for any type of research career.

I see you've never worked in academics if you think the salaries are so generous! What justifies their jobs is the quality of the programs they are running, the numbers and types of students they attract to the program, whether or not they have tenure. What plays little or no role in these factors is how many "theories" one comes up with.

This statement concerning theories demonstrates that you are misusing the term as well and utilizing the "layman's" definition as opposed to the scientific definition. One can spitball and hypothesize all day long. For those hypothesis or ideas to make it to the realm of theory they must be able to prove the facts at the heart of it all. This means the results have to be able to be independently reproduced and verified by other researchers.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

If they didnt come up with this stuff all the time, then why have them at all?

because that's not their only function. They teach courses, mentor graduate students, entice donors for the school. Research is not the only function of someone teaching at the university level.

a reply to: borntowatch

My response would be invalid because I dont believe the foundation that is the geological time scale. Prove that with science and then I would be happy to recant my disbelief As far as I am concerned the Geo Time scale is based on false assumption and has no scientific bases.

LOL! Scientific bases? Anyone can check out your posts and see you constantly misrepresent how the scientific method works, either purposefully or unknowingly. Let me guess..The reason why you refute "the geological time scale" is because The Geologic Column proves the global flood myth is wrong.

Check out this debate, Thunderf00t destroys all your silly arguments. I LMAO through this whole video, the Gman goes to the same Ham school of ignorance as you do!... Enjoy!

a reply to: GetHyped

I apologise for not being a scientist. lol

a reply to: SuperFrog


Ummm...Oh...my bad...you said pre-date...not predate...Whew...for a minute there...I was flashing back to "Rise of the machines"...in a Flintstonish kind of way..........carry on...




YouSir