Oldest Stone Spear Tips Found: 500,000 Years Old

Originally posted by jericanman
reply to post by karen61560

 

just to add a bit of fat to the fire... might have been a hoe used as the first weapon... they where out in the feilds and all.

You don't used sharpened stone tools for a hoe, a wooden one or better yet an animal shoulder blades makes a much more useful hoe, plus at that time they didn't have agriculture - for getting to roots and such they probably used digging sticks

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Raelsatu

 

Oh...

I have a very large thread on a related topic waiting in the wings

Look forward to future thread.Yes,doesn't seem that the earth keeps getting older by the older artifacts we keep finding.500,000yrs.How the hardliners gonna explain something of this age?

reply to post by Hanslune



well i cant prove it to you dispite my convictions, so ill admit its a working theroy...

the thing is can you also admit your working with a theroy....

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by jericanman
reply to post by karen61560

 

just to add a bit of fat to the fire... might have been a hoe used as the first weapon... they where out in the feilds and all.

You don't used sharpened stone tools for a hoe, a wooden one or better yet an animal shoulder blades makes a much more useful hoe, plus at that time they didn't have agriculture - for getting to roots and such they probably used digging sticks

yeh sorry that was blaitent trolling by me,,,, cain able,,, in a feild, one was a hunter gather, one a farmer,,, one killed the other.. and the killer wasnt the hunter, so im guessing hoe, potting trowel, maybe a real solid watering can

Originally posted by jericanman
reply to post by Hanslune

 

well i cant prove it to you dispite my convictions, so ill admit its a working theroy...

the thing is can you also admit your working with a theroy....

In science that's a gimme, everything is a theory - but you already knew this - why ask?

reply to post by Hanslune


well they can get upgraded ... kind of... but yes it boils down to that.


ncse.com... cientific-work

* Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. * Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. * Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. * Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

but you have just stated what i was going to say.. we cant hold one theory over another, best to look at facts from both sides and get an informed opinion. too many people hold to educationaly approved theorys witch can be more valid, less valid or unvaild as any opposing theroys, be they ceration, or other.


i was not a creationalist for the greatest period of my life, i studied their theroys and evedance. and for me i concluded they have better facts that support our reality.

Awesome. I can only wonder if they will find cave paintings too. Even better, some remains. Although its not likely I hope they find some materials that the ancients could have used to build huts or shelter. Great find.

Originally posted by jinni73

Originally posted by Screwed

Oldest Stone Spear Tips Found: 500,000 Years Old

Impossible!
The Earth is only like 5000 years old.

Science is the devils work.
If you had faith in God you wouldn't need some hocus pocus "science" anyway.
You're all bound for hell.

I'm assuming your trying to wind him up yeah, you don't honestly believe the earth is 5000 years old

but just in case you are being serious which would be extremely worrying, go and research stalactites then go down and buy a measuring tool find a cave and prove to yourself that your statement cannot possibly be true

Only making fun of FundaMENTAList Christains that's all.
They are so fun to make fun of sometimes.

I believe these stone spear tips were put there by God in order to test our faith.

reply to post by jericanman


One thing's for sure...you didn't study geology

reply to post by jericanman


Creationism isn't a scientific theory

For that it would require objective evidence as back up...and it has NONE. Even worse, reality (such as these spear tips) often completely debunk creationist claims

reply to post by jericanman


Creationism does not have explanatory power nor can it predict anything. It cannot qualify as a theory in science.

Originally posted by olddognewtricks
reply to post by rival

 

Yeah - something just never seems to add up here. Considering everything that was accomplished over the last 8000 years ( not to mention 800 and especially not to mention the last 80) what exactly the hell were we doing for the first half million years or so??????

I like the way you broke that down 8000 to 800 to 80.I didn't want to go too far off topic
but these human history threads always make me start thinking about the curious way
we took off in intelligence over a short period time. I'll leave it at that, or start a new thread.

reply to post by SLAYER69


nah, probably by our non-homo sapien ancestor or some other hominid creature like gigantopithecus.

we haven't been around half a million years

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by jericanman

 

Creationism does not have explanatory power nor can it predict anything. It cannot qualify as a theory in science.

I disagree you can put it up as a scientific theory - but it then fails due to a lack of evidence - we're talking about the same result. In my experience creationism is a belief based on denial of evidence and a deliberate misrepresentation of evidence to meet a fanciful unscientific conclusion

Originally posted by Hanslune


What exactly are you talking about ThelceQueen?

Of course there are HH sites in Africa - your propaganda is many years out of date

Bodo d'ar

Bodo d'ar

Broken Hill (Kabwe)

Broken Hill (Kabwe)

there is not a general agreement at this time as to how all Homo heidelbergensis fossils should be classified. Some paleoanthropologists prefer to classify the more recent ones as archaic humans. Likewise, some of the earliest Homo heidelbergensis are classified as Homo antecessor or even late transitional Homo erectus

This confusion is caused by HH being a transitional classification of people evolving from an earlier form to a later form of human

LOL my propaganda and it is ME who is "many years out of date" here ?! Geeze, well, I must say, I had no idea that I was acting as a propagandist..rgfjsdfgjfdgjsd

First of all, nothing that you posted linking to provides any evidence to the contrary, regarding my alleged "propaganda that is many years out of date".. You linked to the Rhodensian man, the Rhodensian man is most commonly referred to as being Homo Rhodensiesis, most generally considered a different type/species from Heidelbergensis, and other archaic species, amongst leading Paeloanthropologists.. Although this is still a very undeveloped area in paleontology, due to a lack of resources and the fact that no direct linkage of the species are able to be determined due to not being able to perform needed scientific analysis's which would give factually based results.

Homo Heidelbergensis is obviously a different species, and is generally considered a different type/species of it's own amongst Paleoanthropologists.. I haven't a clue as to why it is being directly implied to be the same thing when there is no standing evidence to the such, and more to the contrary. The heidelburgensis being only found in Europe and the likely ancestor of Neanderthals, while the alleged Rhodensian species is only found in Africa, with different features, both hundreds of thousands of years and miles apart from eachother..

One of the more popular theories that is most sensible of the sort is that Homo rhodesiensis were the ancestor of Homo sapiens idaltu (Herto Man), while some theorize that the Rhodensis man could be of some relation to the Heidelbergensis, and even Neanderthal. It seems as if you seem to be the one with the "out dated" propaganda here, with your inaccurate sources and random deeming of my being such..

Originally posted by reject

nah, probably by our non-homo sapien ancestor or some other hominid creature like gigantopithecus.

we haven't been around half a million years

The article did say....

Hafting was previously attributed to Homo sapiens and Neanderthals around 300,000 years ago, but the new findings indicate that a shared ancestor between the two, Homo heidelbergensis, was practicing the craft 500,000 years ago.

Originally posted by TheIceQueen

LOL my propaganda and it is ME who is "many years out of date" here ?! Geeze, well, I must say, I had no idea that I was acting as a propagandist..rgfjsdfgjfdgjsd

Yet you are

First of all, nothing that you posted linking to provides any evidence to the contrary,

Nope now your are telling fibs, I would remind you that one of the ten commandments is

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Here's an screen shot from my first source



If you need help have an adult assist you with the big words
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For lurkers here is more information

Homo H

An image that makes it clearer

Originally posted by Hanslune
Good post Slayer

More information on this site


2010 report on a similar discovery from the same site

An earlier hand axe found in the vicinity of the site

Hand Axe

This axe was reported to be made 750,000 years before present!

reply to post by nOraKat


They did have good craftsmen even back then, in much, much later tribal groups a young man couldn't claim a bride until he'd made a stone axe to a high artistic standard

Couldn't resist here is an image of that fine piece, estimated to be 750,000 BP

The technology which produced it is known as the Acheulian, and the artifacts are thought to be made by Homo ergaster (Homo Erectus in Africa)

Originally posted by MissingRonnieR
Not that I expect an answer but I will ask. Lets assume during the last Ice Age, prior to human society as it is known existed a civilization. At that time these people would settle at coastal areas in warmer climates. As the ice melted those societies would have flooded. The survivors would have relocated, Who is to say evidence that predates our knowledge of an early man who had developed an advanced culture is not hundreds of feet below our coasts.

Okay.

So they moved inland over time - hundreds of years is how long it took to "flood" what would have been the coast.

Did they forget how to be a civilization in the process? After all, there's no evidence of any civilization from that period that has been found inland.

How do you account for this?

Originally posted by olddognewtricks
Yeah - something just never seems to add up here. Considering everything that was accomplished over the last 8000 years ( not to mention 800 and especially not to mention the last 80) what exactly the hell were we doing for the first half million years or so??????

This thread tells us we were breaking stones and tying them onto the ends of sticks. Did you not get that?

Harte