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.

[Clownboat]

No, radiometric dating is not 100% accurate, but it's a very reliable method for determining the age of rocks and other materials, with a high degree of accuracy, especially when multiple methods are used and results are cross-checked.

Much better! Progress has been made!
It's always nice to find common ground in debate and I'm glad that after all this time of you denying, you have finally corrected your thinking on radiometric dating.

[The Barbarian]

ss cannot disprove the contradictions and flaws that supporters refuse to try to deal with.[/b]

Bottom line, the evidence for radioisotope data is overwhelming. But there's none at all for Diana-worship or YE creationism. And denial isn't going to change those facts. Find a way to deal with the reality.

Marke:

AI Overview
Learn more
No, radiometric dating is not 100% accurate, but it's a very reliable method for determining the age of rocks and other materials, with a high degree of accuracy, especially when multiple methods are used and results are cross-checked.

No measurement system is 100% accurate. But as you now seem to realize, it's a very reliable method for determining the age of rocks and other materials, with a high degree of accuracy

[marke]

Marke: Pointing out problems with unproven dating methods is not a complaint, it is simply posting facts.

Our dating methods do work though. You pretend they don't because you have preconceived religious beliefs to protect. I cannot respect such reasoning for rejecting that which we know.

Post 71:
First, physicists have to test isotopes to learn how fast they decay. That's easily measured, and the rates are remarkably constant. Second, they need to use rocks wherein the daughter isotopes don't exit. This allows isochron lines to show actual ages. Third, they can use different isotopes from the same sample, to compare several different cases. So far, that always works. And of course, we can use the method for events of known age...

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/m ... mpeii.html

Radiometric dating works.

Marke: Refusing to even consider that the goddess Diana was not great and had no power did the Ephesians no good in Paul's day iand is no different than modern secularists refusing to consider or try to remedy the flaws in their secular dating methods of today.

Acts 19:34
But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Acts 19:35
And when the town clerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?

That was a lot of words that didn't even address nor acknowledge that dating methods work. You also need to correct yourself about how dating methods are scientific. You called them secular for some reason.

Marke: Most or all old age dating methods rely on some assumptions that can never be proven.

AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, radiometric dating methods rely on certain assumptions that, while generally considered valid within the scientific community, are not provable in the strict sense of the word. These assumptions include the constant decay rate of radioactive isotopes, the absence of contamination, and the initial conditions of the sample.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

[Difflugia]

are not provable in the strict sense of the word.

This bulwark of Christian apologetics means exactly nothing. If your argument relies on the merely possible, i.e. "not provable in the strict sense of the word," then you're competing with Santa Claus on even ground.

Your argument is that it's possible that the science behind radiometric dating methods is wrong in some meaningful way.


It's possible. The only difference is that you're saying it with a straight face.

[The Barbarian]

Yes, radiometric dating methods rely on certain assumptions that, while generally considered valid within the scientific community, are not provable in the strict sense of the word. These assumptions include the constant decay rate of radioactive isotopes, the absence of contamination, and the initial conditions of the sample.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

Perhaps you don't know what "assumption" means. For example, the constancy of radioactive decay has been demonstrated by physicists. They even discovered some highly unusual circumstances wherein the rates change very slightly. But since it requires temperatures above the melting point of rock and even then affects the rate by only a few percent, it offers no comfort to creationists.

Isocron methods allow one to know about contamination and the initial state of the sample. And yes, it's testable.

The usual YE creationist dodge, when confronted with the facts is "well, the laws of nature worked entirely different, back then." Without evidence, of course. And that sir, is an assumption.