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.

 

200,000-year-old flint tools found in Syrian desert

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

200,000-year-old flint tools found in Syrian desert


Link

The joint Swiss-Syrian team, which has now finished its dig at Al Koum, near Palmyra, said it had found a series of items dating back between 100-200,000 years, including peculiarly-moulded flints, which prove the ability of the Transitional Age Homo sapien to properly use flint tools , al Thawra Daily reported.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 12-7-2009 by dope001]




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The Homo Sapiens where probably not so uncivilized as thought by many people.
I'm always amazed that there is still so much under the soil where everybody is walking on.

The other discovery (giant camel) is also nice, it would be amazing to see this big animals walk around.
I wonder if they have used this camels in those times for traveling?

[url=http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2009/July/middleeast_July244.xml§ion=middleeast&col=]www.khaleejtimes.ae[ /url]
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
S+F, it is amazing how little we still know.

Deny ignorance? Pfft, embrace it, no matter how much we look, we will still never know the 'truth'.

EMM



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Aren't we homo sapians?

Weird.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


Yes we are.
Take a look here.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Hi/
so they found some Old flint tools?
Why and what is it with the THEORY of them being 200,000 years old?
Where do they get this from?
I have yet to see their carbon dating theories come to fact!
They do understand what THEORIZING IS?
Actually, according to Genesis,
man was quite civilized a few thousand years ago!
Adam named all the animals and farmed the earth,but ten the flood came...
Today if man only could be like Adam, he still wouldn't be as civilized!

The article claims that we were were stupid pre historic man,who probably didn't have a clue as to use tools, and now somehow, evolved(there's that evolution theory bull again)into modern paleolithic beings that we are!
Article is another Evolution propaganda!
How sad!

ICXC NIKA
helen


Hi dope/
This isn't aimed at you, but to the article reference!



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670

The article claims that we were were stupid pre historic man,who probably didn't have a clue as to use tools, and now somehow, evolved(there's that evolution theory bull again)into modern paleolithic beings that we are!



The article claims that?
Did you actually read it?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


You are kidding, right?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


No problem helen670.
I think you are right about the evolution propaganda.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
"Hi/
so they found some Old flint tools?"

Precisely.

"Why and what is it with the THEORY of them being 200,000 years old?
Where do they get this from?"

Science.

"I have yet to see their carbon dating theories come to fact!
They do understand what THEORIZING IS?"

Do you? You seem to do alot of it regarding the Bible, a man made creation.

"Actually, according to Genesis,
man was quite civilized a few thousand years ago!"

According to the Bible, man didn't even exist 6,000 years ago, do you see where your beliefs take you? You question the scientific validity of this finding yet you cannot explain why there is such a difference between what the Bible says and fact.

"Adam named all the animals and farmed the earth,but ten the flood came..."

That is a cute story but I think there was some time between Adam and Moses.

"Today if man only could be like Adam, he still wouldn't be as civilized!"

I wouldn't call man civilized now.

"The article claims that we were were stupid pre historic man,"

It claims the exact opposite of that; we have been using tools for 200,000 years.

"who probably didn't have a clue as to use tools,"

Did you read the article at all before you started explaining why it's wrong and God is the answer? It says man DID use tools. DID.

"and now somehow, evolved(there's that evolution theory bull again)into modern paleolithic beings that we are!"

Evolution is fact. There is no theory involved. It is scientifically proven. Open your mind.

"Article is another Evolution propaganda!
How sad!"

You're just another Bible propagandist!
How sad!




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
To be clear, I'm not totally agree with helen, but there is Evolution propaganda in the world.
Not necessary in this article, but i think we can't accept everything they told us, not everything is correct in the history books.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hi phage/

Well the article 'Implies' that!
If man was as the article states /quote///which prove the ability of the Transitional Age Homo sapien to properly use flint tools ''
Isnt that implieing that man has evolved from old to more modern?

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This sounds interesting but it might be worth noting that this is only a report of a report in a newspaper and theres no link the original article from the linked article.

We really need to find out what this unnamed 'joint Swiss-Syrian team' has got to say about the matter.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 


Maybe. I don't know exactly what "transitional age" means, but it's good that you read the article this time because it's apparent you didn't the first time (not that it really matters).

Oh, in addition to your other errors (pointed out above) the article says nothing about carbon dating. In fact carbon dating could not have been used, it is ineffective for time spans of much more than 30,000 years (the older, the less accurate it becomes).



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I am actuly curios as to how they get the dates of these things.
First they 'speculate' it is between 100 and 200 000 years, it is like lotto this and makes it real easy for them to slide it in under the 'millions' of years theory where it suits the best..



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dope001
To be clear, I'm not totally agree with helen, but there is Evolution propaganda in the world.
Not necessary in this article, but i think we can't accept everything they told us, not everything is correct in the history books.


Hi oo1/

Well the article isn't being honest!
Good to see that you can see that there is more to it, then it says!
.....................................

Hi Phage////

It straight out says 100,00-200,000 years old flint tool!
Now, if I was back at schoold, and read that article, I would think,WOW,that is old!
Why Theorize over something that which yet,has not been proven as fact?
Isn't that what Science does?
They want proof?
Why allow the article to be based on fiction?
It not only speaks of evolution, but also syas that people are getting smarter because before they didnt know how to use tools...
It does imply that!

Hi,BaronVonGodzilla/


You're just another Bible propagandist!
How sad!

Actually I am not sad!
It is sad for ''Evolution LIARS'' that they LIE about what really makes an article!
The article says 100,000-200,000 thousand yr old Flint and skeletons!
Carbon dating and fishes becoming humans are the biggest lies of the 20th century, amongst other things!
If Science speaks truth, and wants proof, then where is their proof?
A theory is not proof!
That is what Science is,is it not?
Science can be good, yes, but it can also be bad.
History of Evolution has only brought mankind to fight amonst themselves!
Even gone to lengths of trying to cover up their work of theory, as given FACTS!
It is still taught at schools!

Isn't that a lie?
Now ,
That is SAD!


ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hi Phage/

Oh, in addition to your other errors (pointed out above) the article says nothing about carbon dating. In fact carbon dating could not have been used, it is ineffective for time spans of much more than 30,000 years (the older, the less accurate it becomes)[/qiote]


I did read the article,and that is why I said claimed,in my head this is what they were doing!...implied is actually a better word,because it's better deceitful more cunning use of wording!

You said carbon dating only 30,000 years?
Well, here you know better then me....i try and not keep up with theories...they go out of date rather too quickly!

It just so more proves that,that NUMBER of years ,where did it come from?

Its like the 'swine flu' vaccines....yes, get the vaccine,it wont kill you!
Do they know this?
How do they know that it will make things better?
Unless?

take care,
ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


It's my understanding that often they can date things found by the age of the layer of earth/rock items were found in. Also there is a Radiometric dating that basically can date rocks from the radiactive breakdown process of the atoms in the rock.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
Actually, according to Genesis,
man was quite civilized a few thousand years ago!
Adam named all the animals and farmed the earth,but ten the flood came...
Today if man only could be like Adam, he still wouldn't be as civilized!

The article claims that we were were stupid pre historic man,who probably didn't have a clue as to use tools, and now somehow, evolved(there's that evolution theory bull again)into modern paleolithic beings that we are!
Article is another Evolution propaganda!
How sad!

ICXC NIKA
helen


You claim to see no carbon dated proof of the age, yet you make claims of "Adam" without proof...talk about being a hipocrit.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bigdog36
 


Good point you make there!
It is possible they used one of these methods.

Thanks




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join