195,000 Years To Invent The Shovel

[Yozavan]

Why did it take humans 195,000 years to Invent the shovel?

According to Wikipedia, shoulder blades from an ox were used as shovels 5-8 thousand years ago. Bronze shovels came much later. Biologists say humans have been doing their thing for 200,000 years

Possible considerations for debate:

1) Perhaps our racoonian ancesters were in shell shock after surviving the dinosaurian drama, thus PTSD was inherited by their future primate progeny.

2) We live in a simulation and such questions are futile.

3) Satan successfully thwarted every previous attempt to Invent a shovel.

4) Science only has two centuries under its belt, and shouldn't be taken seriously yet.

5) Shovels are exceedingly hard to invent.

[The Barbarian]

First of all, human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old, so whoever is claiming the shovel was invented 195,000 years ago does not know all the facts.

You're assuming that until civilization began, shovels were impossible. Which seems to be an extraordinarily bad assumption. Particularly, given the evidence at hand.

If shovels were invented before humans became civilized does that mean the 'humans' who invented the shovel were not yet fully transitioned from savage vine-swinging apes into civilized humans?

Never saw an ape swing on a vine. Forget George of the Jungle. Humans were walking around, using digging tools long before our own species evolved.

What evidence do we have that early blacks in Africa emerging from their evolutional animal ancestry developed shovels?

All humans began in Africa. And the characteristics we associate with black people evolved after the rest of us left Africa for the rest of the world. Don't believe racist stupidity.

Unlike Darwin and his followers, I do not believe humans fist evolved as black savages in Africa.

Darwin's prediction that humans first evolved in Africa was remarkably astute. Turns out, humans did first appear in Africa, and later moved out to the rest of the world. Darwin never said humans first evolved as "black savages", however. Like most Europeans of his time, he assumed Europeans in general and his nation in particular represented the most advanced of humans. But he infuriated creationists of his time by asserting that if one brought "savages" (didn't say "black savages") to England that in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen. He had that right, too. AntiDarwinians like Agassiz argued that Africans did not have common descent with Europeans, and were not descended from Adam and Eve. Darwin knew better. This is how the antipathy between racists and evolution began.

Later, YE creationists like ICR founder Henry Morris conceded that black people were descended from Adam and Eve, but he argued that they were intentionally made genetically inferior so as to be servants of assumed better races:

“Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow, they have only gone so far and no further. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
Henry Morris The Beginning of the World 1992

This is not to say that all YE creationists are racists today. Many of them have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism. But not all of them.

[marke]

Darwin's prediction that humans first evolved in Africa was remarkably astute. Turns out, humans did first appear in Africa, and later moved out to the rest of the world. Darwin never said humans first evolved as "black savages", however. Like most Europeans of his time, he assumed Europeans in general and his nation in particular represented the most advanced of humans. But he infuriated creationists of his time by asserting that if one brought "savages" (didn't say "black savages") to England that in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen. He had that right, too. AntiDarwinians like Agassiz argued that Africans did not have common descent with Europeans, and were not descended from Adam and Eve. Darwin knew better. This is how the antipathy between racists and evolution began.

Later, YE creationists like ICR founder Henry Morris conceded that black people were descended from Adam and Eve, but he argued that they were intentionally made genetically inferior so as to be servants of assumed better races:

“Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow, they have only gone so far and no further. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
Henry Morris The Beginning of the World 1992

This is not to say that all YE creationists are racists today. Many of them have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism. But not all of them.
[/quote]

Darwin referred to uncivilized blacks as "savages." Leading American evolutionists displayed blacks in cages with monkeys as an example of what they believed early stages of evolution looked like.

[Clownboat]

Darwin referred to uncivilized blacks as "savages." Leading American evolutionists displayed blacks in cages with monkeys as an example of what they believed early stages of evolution looked like.

For the sake of debate, let's grant that all of what you said, took place just as you claim it.
Now please make a point that we can debate and relay how if Darwin cheated on his wife or if he was racist affects your said point when it comes to evolution.

Thank you and be well.

[marke]

Darwin referred to uncivilized blacks as "savages." Leading American evolutionists displayed blacks in cages with monkeys as an example of what they believed early stages of evolution looked like.

For the sake of debate, let's grant that all of what you said, took place just as you claim it.
Now please make a point that we can debate and relay how if Darwin cheated on his wife or if he was racist affects your said point when it comes to evolution.

Thank you and be well.

Evolution started out wrong and remains wrong to this day, even as modern evolutionists try to minimalize the evolutionist dogma that promotes the idea that apes evolved first into early savage humans in Africa before humans supposedly evolved further into civilized races of other cultures.

[Clownboat]

Evolution started out wrong and remains wrong to this day,

I here your claim loud and clear.
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

How is the above wrong? Do you deny that populations change over generations or that natural selection is what domesticated wolves into dogs (which we then continued to select traits for that got us to all the dogs we now have)?

even as modern evolutionists try to minimalize the evolutionist dogma that promotes the idea that apes evolved first into early savage humans in Africa

You falsely call it a dogma. I'm guessing you do this in an attempt to level the playing field.

No matter, because DNA analysis point strongly to European Neanderthals and humans from Africa cross breeding. This would require either that 'Adam and Eve' be dated very far back, before human mental attributes could reasonably be argued, or that the highly explanatory African origin model for Homo Sapiens Sapiens be rejected.

Java Man raises even worse timeframe problems.

before humans supposedly evolved further into civilized races of other cultures.

I have no reason to believe that the humans that came out of Africa, that eventually bred with European Neanderthals were any more or less intelligent then us. I will avoid the 'savage' term you use until you define what you mean by it. My point is that they were just like modern humans unless you can convince me otherwise.

[marke]

Evolution started out wrong and remains wrong to this day,

I here your claim loud and clear.
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

How is the above wrong? Do you deny that populations change over generations or that natural selection is what domesticated wolves into dogs (which we then continued to select traits for that got us to all the dogs we now have)?

Wolves may have litters of dogs but apes will never have litters of humans and whales will never give birth to frogs.

even as modern evolutionists try to minimalize the evolutionist dogma that promotes the idea that apes evolved first into early savage humans in Africa

You falsely call it a dogma. I'm guessing you do this in an attempt to level the playing field.

No matter, because DNA analysis point strongly to European Neanderthals and humans from Africa cross breeding. This would require either that 'Adam and Eve' be dated very far back, before human mental attributes could reasonably be argued, or that the highly explanatory African origin model for Homo Sapiens Sapiens be rejected.

Java Man raises even worse timeframe problems.

before humans supposedly evolved further into civilized races of other cultures.

I have no reason to believe that the humans that came out of Africa, that eventually bred with European Neanderthals were any more or less intelligent then us. I will avoid the 'savage' term you use until you define what you mean by it. My point is that they were just like modern humans unless you can convince me otherwise.

The fact that dating methods have so many problems and cannot be irrefutably proven does little to support the assumption that humans got their brains from animals.

[Jose Fly]

This is like watching people try and debate a bumper sticker.

[Clownboat]

Wolves may have litters of dogs but apes will never have litters of humans and whales will never give birth to frogs.

This is true. Now do you understand why we feel sorry for you for having said it?

I fully believe that you think you made a valid argument and if you were preaching to the choir so to speak, they would likely praise such a thing. In reality, your statement reflects a lack of understanding about that which you rail against. If a whale gave birth to a frog, evolution would be shown to be an incorrect explanation and would need to be abandoned (this is why we feel sorry for you when you say such a thing).

The fact that dating methods have so many problems and cannot be irrefutably proven does little to support the assumption that humans got their brains from animals.

Dating methods work though, so there's that and humans are animals, so you lose me there too. However, even if dating methods didn't work, we still have all sorts of other converging evidence that suggest that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for what we see.

[marke]

Wolves may have litters of dogs but apes will never have litters of humans and whales will never give birth to frogs.

This is true. Now do you understand why we feel sorry for you for having said it?

I fully believe that you think you made a valid argument and if you were preaching to the choir so to speak, they would likely praise such a thing. In reality, your statement reflects a lack of understanding about that which you rail against. If a whale gave birth to a frog, evolution would be shown to be an incorrect explanation and would need to be abandoned (this is why we feel sorry for you when you say such a thing).

The fact that dating methods have so many problems and cannot be irrefutably proven does little to support the assumption that humans got their brains from animals.

Dating methods work though, so there's that and humans are animals, so you lose me there too. However, even if dating methods didn't work, we still have all sorts of other converging evidence that suggest that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for what we see.

Evolutionists must keep their erroneous ideas in the abstract because they have no clue what creatures whales may have evolved into or what creatures may have evolved into whales.

[marke]

Wolves may have litters of dogs but apes will never have litters of humans and whales will never give birth to frogs.

This is true. Now do you understand why we feel sorry for you for having said it?

I fully believe that you think you made a valid argument and if you were preaching to the choir so to speak, they would likely praise such a thing. In reality, your statement reflects a lack of understanding about that which you rail against. If a whale gave birth to a frog, evolution would be shown to be an incorrect explanation and would need to be abandoned (this is why we feel sorry for you when you say such a thing).

The fact that dating methods have so many problems and cannot be irrefutably proven does little to support the assumption that humans got their brains from animals.

Dating methods work though, so there's that and humans are animals, so you lose me there too. However, even if dating methods didn't work, we still have all sorts of other converging evidence that suggest that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for what we see.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... euh1-nXSoR

Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2009 ; last featured August 4, 2010
Featured in Answers Magazine
Audio Version
Share


Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.