• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

oldest stone tools found

Other people already pointed it out... my opinion is based on my faith and what I have read regarding the topic (both from Bible and from Scientific related sources)

Theres no real need to debate, we see it differently and I am pretty sure we wouldnt change each others minds.
 
1sicv8 said:
thats the short answer. And I dont believe things to be that old.. but I dont want to gum up this thread with debates on the age of the Earth
Click to expand...

Young earth creationism is an idea 100% at odds with reality as it is accepted my modern science. I'm quite interested how can one defend it beyond blind faith.

Could they be stone tools... perhaps.. Article doesnt give much evidence other then "look at this rock, it was used as a tool"
Click to expand...

The evidence to me is that real scientists, experts on the subject have used the scientific method to reach that conclusion.
The same way I don't judge if an airplane built by scientists and engineers can fly based on my understanding of what can or can not fly but respect their knowledge, their big brains and the hard work they did to reach that position.
What my opinion on some pictures of rocks is irrelevant when real experts have examined them up close.
I'm simply nor arrogant enough to put my ignorance at the same level with their hard earned knowledge on the subject.
 
1sicv8 said:
Other people already pointed it out... my opinion is based on my faith and what I have read regarding the topic (both from Bible and from Scientific related sources)

Theres no real need to debate, we see it differently and I am pretty sure we wouldnt change each others minds.
Click to expand...

i never thought I would change your mind. I simply asked what your opinion was based on. its based on scripturte, now I know
 
1sicv8 said:
Other people already pointed it out... my opinion is based on my faith and what I have read regarding the topic (both from Bible and from Scientific related sources)

Theres no real need to debate, we see it differently and I am pretty sure we wouldnt change each others minds.
Click to expand...


You could very easily change my mind if the scientific evidence supported your claims.
In my experience however I have yet to met a single young earth creationist that has even a basic understanding of science, much less one that can really debate this subject without just copy and paste from creationist propaganda websites.
 
the comments are pretty funny

I have several of those tools behind my shed.
Click to expand...

I see these ancient tools all over the place. my back yard, along the side of the road, in the woods. They work great for opening walnuts, smashing beer cans, tenderizing steaks, etc
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kevin 714 said:
i never thought I would change your mind. I simply asked what your opinion was based on. its based on scripturte, now I know
Click to expand...

:thumbup

Corb said:
You could very easily change my mind if the scientific evidence supported your claims.
Click to expand...

Im no expert, so I wont pretend to be. I drew my conclusions through what I have read on the subject. I think where the divide is in the debate on young/old earth is what each side accepts as true evidence.

Im very much a layman on the subject
 
1sicv8 said:
:thumbup



Im no expert, so I wont pretend to be. I drew my conclusions through what I have read on the subject. I think where the divide is in the debate on young/old earth is what each side accepts as true evidence.

Im very much a layman on the subject
Click to expand...


Yet you have chosen the side that goes against everything that the brightest minds that have really studied the subject agree with
And people ask me why I don't like religion...
 
This is a great example of how the human mind reacts to discovery. On one extreme, a person can look at this with amazement and be reminded of how little we know of our universe and even our own history. On another extreme, a person can acknowledge that the discovery renders some aspects of their beliefs obsolete, and instead of reexamining that belief system, they reject the discovery.

I think it's more exciting to choose naive amazement over naive aplomb.
 
CoorsLight said:
This is a great example of how the human mind reacts to discovery. On one extreme, a person can look at this with amazement and be reminded of how little we know of our universe and even our own history. On another extreme, a person can acknowledge that the discovery renders some aspects of their beliefs obsolete, and instead of reexamining that belief system, they reject the discovery.

I think it's more exciting to choose naive amazement over naive aplomb.
Click to expand...

after reading this, it seems uve summed up exactly how i feel about this thread right now. :thumbup

im also naively amazed by the skill and knowledge it takes to pick up a rock and decide that it was altered by someone into its current form
 
Last edited:
Corb said:
Yet you have chosen the side that goes against everything that the brightest minds that have really studied the subject agree with
And people ask me why I don't like religion...
Click to expand...

I dont always assume that because someone studies something and tells others what the conclusion is that makes them the end all expert on things.

What about those in science who are extremely smart and disagree with them? The majority wins and thats it?

CoorsLight said:
This is a great example of how the human mind reacts to discovery. On one extreme, a person can look at this with amazement and be reminded of how little we know of our universe and even our own history. On another extreme, a person can acknowledge that the discovery renders some aspects of their beliefs obsolete, and instead of reexamining that belief system, they reject the discovery.

I think it's more exciting to choose naive amazement over naive aplomb.
Click to expand...

Im not rejecting the discovery completely... I find it a bit difficult to believe that those are tools and they were used by people... or apes... or something else. I also dont believe the way we date things to be 100% accurate and the irregularities I have seen make me question such.

I agree we know very little of our universe. That is what propels people to science. They want to know more, the want answers. I believe they make these discoveries and make them fit what they THINK is the best answer, but I dont believe that makes it true.
 
there's actually a method
you don't get to pick or choose on how you feelwhen you're dating rocks
 
Last edited:
kevin 714 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/oldest-known-stone-tools-found-kenya-makers-not-170550752.html

At 3.3 million years old, they push back the record of stone tools by about 700,000 years. More significantly, they are half-a-million years older than any known trace of our own branch of the evolutionary tree.

Scientists have long thought that sharp-edged stone tools were made only by members of our branch, whose members are designated "Homo," like our own species, Homo sapiens. That idea has been questioned, and the new finding is a big boost to the argument that tool-making may have begun with smaller-brained forerunners instead.

The discovery was reported by Sonia Harmand and Jason Lewis of Stony Brook University in New York and co-authors in a paper released Wednesday by the journal Nature. The find drew rave reviews from experts unconnected to the work.
Click to expand...

Here I am thinking this was a thread about Lou...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top