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.

[benchwarmer]

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

Most debates in the Science and Religion sub forum sadly seem to be like this. One side provides all kinds of science to go look into, the other side basically says "Nuh uhhhh!!!".

To the original OP question: Huh? It just seems to be a string of nonsensical questions. Are we actually trying to scientifically determine when shovels were invented and then use that to claim science is baloney? Maybe we should look to the Bible to figure out when shovels were invented? What is the actual point of this thread?

[Jose Fly]

Most debates in the Science and Religion sub forum sadly seem to be like this. One side provides all kinds of science to go look into, the other side basically says "Nuh uhhhh!!!".

Yep. It wasn't always like this though. It's only degraded to this point in the last 5 years or so, mostly IMO because the creationist organizations haven't given their followers any new arguments in a very long time. With no new material, most internet creationists just gave up the debates and the only ones left now are the "Nuh uh" crowd as you describe.

To the original OP question: Huh? It just seems to be a string of nonsensical questions. Are we actually trying to scientifically determine when shovels were invented and then use that to claim science is baloney? Maybe we should look to the Bible to figure out when shovels were invented? What is the actual point of this thread?

I have no idea. Probably just a lame attempt to generate their own new talking points in the absence of any from anywhere else.

[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.

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.

You might as well be saying "nah, nah, nah boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

A new species of whale has been discovered in Southern Denmark. This ancient whale skull gives scientists a new insight into how whales have evolved into the many species that exist today.
https://www.sciencenordic.com/animals-d ... ily%20tree.

For the love of Jesus, do you understand this: "If a whale gave birth to a frog, evolution would be shown to be an incorrect explanation and would need to be abandoned".
If your still confused, please show me that Noah was born in a manger and that Moses rose from the dead after eating supper and I'll become a believer again.

[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.

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.

Your source cannot be trusted. If you want to know why, please read their statement of faith.
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... g6Hyx8W7La

Due to these requirements, work cannot be done honestly at AIG. It must be filtered through these faiths and that is not an honest way to go about discovering truths.
Claims should be tested and held up to scrutiny, not assumed true because of faith statements. If you disagree, you would have made a great Muslim had you been born in the Middle East.

[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.

You might as well be saying "nah, nah, nah boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

A new species of whale has been discovered in Southern Denmark. This ancient whale skull gives scientists a new insight into how whales have evolved into the many species that exist today.
https://www.sciencenordic.com/animals-d ... ily%20tree.

For the love of Jesus, do you understand this: "If a whale gave birth to a frog, evolution would be shown to be an incorrect explanation and would need to be abandoned".
If your still confused, please show me that Noah was born in a manger and that Moses rose from the dead after eating supper and I'll become a believer again.

Unbelievers have been forming godless speculations about fossils for hundreds of years, yet we have seen one bad assumption after another fall to better understsndings of science throughout the whole time.

[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.

Your source cannot be trusted. If you want to know why, please read their statement of faith.
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... g6Hyx8W7La

Due to these requirements, work cannot be done honestly at AIG. It must be filtered through these faiths and that is not an honest way to go about discovering truths.
Claims should be tested and held up to scrutiny, not assumed true because of faith statements. If you disagree, you would have made a great Muslim had you been born in the Middle East.

How do secularists go about disproving expert testing results from their own labs showing dinosaur ages of less than 50,000 years?

[Clownboat]

Unbelievers have been forming godless speculations about fossils for hundreds of years, yet we have seen one bad assumption after another fall to better understsndings of science throughout the whole time.

This in no way proves that all Christians are willing to state untruths in order to maintain their preferred religious belief. You need to provide evidence that all Christians are liars before I will believe such a thing.
What's worse is that motorcycles don't even have wings, and it doesn't matter that bananas are the wrong color!

[Clownboat]

How do secularists go about disproving expert testing results from their own labs showing dinosaur ages of less than 50,000 years?

I agree with you that a crocodile that was born yesterday is not 50,000 years old and I also agree with you that dating methods work just fine when used correctly.
I love when we find common ground! However, I have to disagree with you that Allah beat up Jesus. It's possible, but such a thing has not been evidenced. Continue to believe it if you want though.

[marke]

How do secularists go about disproving expert testing results from their own labs showing dinosaur ages of less than 50,000 years?

I agree with you that a crocodile that was born yesterday is not 50,000 years old and I also agree with you that dating methods work just fine when used correctly.
I love when we find common ground! However, I have to disagree with you that Allah beat up Jesus. It's possible, but such a thing has not been evidenced. Continue to believe it if you want though.

https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

[Clownboat]

How do secularists go about disproving expert testing results from their own labs showing dinosaur ages of less than 50,000 years?

I agree with you that a crocodile that was born yesterday is not 50,000 years old and I also agree with you that dating methods work just fine when used correctly.
I love when we find common ground! However, I have to disagree with you that Allah beat up Jesus. It's possible, but such a thing has not been evidenced. Continue to believe it if you want though.

https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

Like I said, dating has to be used correctly. When it is improperly used, (like some creationists have purposely done) then you can expect incorrect dates.

Carbon-14 dating is typically used to date objects up to around 50,000 years old, as this is the timeframe where enough carbon-14 remains to be accurately measured; beyond this point, the amount of carbon-14 becomes too small to reliably determine age. That is when other dating methods must be used that have a different half-life then carbon.

The half-life of Carbon-14 is approximately 5,730 years and the half-life of lead is over 52,000 I believe. You can't date an ancient dinosaur fossil using Carbon 14. Other forms of Radiometric dating must be used or you will get incorrect data back. This is only unknown in creationist circles though, which would explain why you feel you are making a valid argument when you are not.