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]

Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2009 ; last featured August 4, 2010

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.

Radiometric Dating 101
PART 1: Back to Basics

PART 2: Problems with the Assumptions

PART 3: Making Sense of the Patterns

This three-part series will help you properly understand radiometric dating, the assumptions that lead to inaccurate dates, and the clues about what really happened in the past.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works. [/b]

Snellng seems to be a bit conflicted about this...

Andrew Snelling proves the accuracy of radiometric dating in one graphic
September 15, 2014 · by ageofrocks · in Age of the Earth, Geochronology. ·

Earlier in the year, Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis gave us ample reason to believe that radiometric dating of meteorites is solid. Why does this matter? By dating certain types of meteorites, geologists arrive at the most precise age estimate of our Earth: 4.56 billion years. One may try to dispute whether the Earth formed simultaneously with these meteorites (we have strong reason to believe it did), since the oldest minerals that we can date directly are only ~4.3 billion years old. Regardless, even Snelling recognizes that multiple independent methods consistently tell us the Earth is billions—not thousands—of years old.
https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... e-graphic/

[marke]

And of course, we have always had examples of animals dying and falling into anoxic water, being preserved and then slowly covered by sediment. The first species of Archaeopteryx were found in such burials.

Marke: Assuming fossils found in lake varves were preserved from decay long enough to be slowly buried by dozens or hundreds of years of varve sedimentation is an unproven assumption that sounds like something an opponent of factual conclusions would make up if looking to deny the facts.

We can test that conclusion a number of ways. First, we notice that bodies found in bogs in Northern Europe date back to times before Celts and Germanic people came there. So we have absolute proof that anoxic conditions do preserve such fossils. Second, chemists can observe how well organic material persists in anoxic conditions.

No point in denial.

Marke: I have never seen proof that fish can survive decaying for years under water.

AI Overview
Learn more
No, there's no scientific basis to suggest that dead fish can survive for years underwater without significant decay, as decomposition is a natural process that occurs rapidly in water, especially in warm months.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

[marke]

You've confused the Green River Laminates with lake varves:

Green River laminites: Does the playa-lake model really invalidate the stratified-lake model?
Bruce W. Boyer
Author and Article Information
Geology (1982) 10 (6): 321–324.

Abstract
Proponents of the playa-lake model have proposed deposition of most of the Green River Formation microlaminated carbonates (including oil shales) in lakes that were not perennially stratified (meromictic). However, there is a variety of evidence favoring a meromictic depositional environment: (1) close similarity of much of the lamination to varves in modern meromictic lakes, (2) evidence that hydrologic events favoring development of meromixis (chemical stratification) occurred prior to deposition of major accumulations of oil shale, (3) mutually exclusive distribution of fossil nekton (especially fish) and normal lacustrine benthos (including mollusks), and (4) analogy with a Quaternary playa that became a meromictic lake following increased inflow.
Bruce W. Boyer; Green River laminites: Does the playa-lake model really invalidate the stratified-lake model?. Geology 1982;; 10 (6): 321–324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1982) ... P>2.0.CO;2

Depending on AI to cover for a lack of understanding leads one into this kind of confusion.

Marke: If one claims bird, animal, or fish remains are not preserved in lake varves then one should be able to show support for such a contention.

AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, animal fossils, including fish, bird, and insect fossils, have been found in lake varves, particularly in glaciolacustrine sediments.

Not surprisingly, C-14 testing of fossils only a few tens of thousands of years old, confirm the annual deposition of two layers in lake varves every year. You seem to have completed my argument for me.

Marke: I believe the jury is still out on whether or not multiple lake varves can be deposited annually or whether individual varves themselves are the result of individual deposits rather than being formed by some other geologic occurrance.

AI Overview
Learn more
While lake varves are widely considered annual (or semi-annual) sediment layers, the evidence is strong but not definitive, and some researchers continue to debate the precise timescale of varve formation, with some suggesting that multiple layers can form in a single year.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

[marke]

Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2009 ; last featured August 4, 2010

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.

Radiometric Dating 101
PART 1: Back to Basics

PART 2: Problems with the Assumptions

PART 3: Making Sense of the Patterns

This three-part series will help you properly understand radiometric dating, the assumptions that lead to inaccurate dates, and the clues about what really happened in the past.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works. [/b]

Snellng seems to be a bit conflicted about this...

Andrew Snelling proves the accuracy of radiometric dating in one graphic
September 15, 2014 · by ageofrocks · in Age of the Earth, Geochronology. ·

Earlier in the year, Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis gave us ample reason to believe that radiometric dating of meteorites is solid. Why does this matter? By dating certain types of meteorites, geologists arrive at the most precise age estimate of our Earth: 4.56 billion years. One may try to dispute whether the Earth formed simultaneously with these meteorites (we have strong reason to believe it did), since the oldest minerals that we can date directly are only ~4.3 billion years old. Regardless, even Snelling recognizes that multiple independent methods consistently tell us the Earth is billions—not thousands—of years old.
https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... e-graphic/

Marke: Snelling is not the only creationist to have researched radiometric dating. I mentioned that I have read about problems in radiometric dating methods that tend to show that the dating results are not irrefutable and that some unanswered questions about the dating methods are still unresolved.

AI Overview
Learn more
While radiometric dating is a powerful tool for determining the age of rocks and Earth, it doesn't "irrefutably prove" the Earth is billions of years old, but rather provides strong evidence supporting that age, alongside other geological and astronomical observations.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

[The Barbarian]

Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on October 1, 2009 ; last featured August 4, 2010

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.

Radiometric Dating 101
PART 1: Back to Basics

PART 2: Problems with the Assumptions

PART 3: Making Sense of the Patterns

This three-part series will help you properly understand radiometric dating, the assumptions that lead to inaccurate dates, and the clues about what really happened in the past.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works. [/b]

Snellng seems to be a bit conflicted about this...

Andrew Snelling proves the accuracy of radiometric dating in one graphic
September 15, 2014 · by ageofrocks · in Age of the Earth, Geochronology. ·

Earlier in the year, Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis gave us ample reason to believe that radiometric dating of meteorites is solid. Why does this matter? By dating certain types of meteorites, geologists arrive at the most precise age estimate of our Earth: 4.56 billion years. One may try to dispute whether the Earth formed simultaneously with these meteorites (we have strong reason to believe it did), since the oldest minerals that we can date directly are only ~4.3 billion years old. Regardless, even Snelling recognizes that multiple independent methods consistently tell us the Earth is billions—not thousands—of years old.
https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... e-graphic/

Marke: Snelling is not the only creationist to have researched radiometric dating. I mentioned that I have read about problems in radiometric dating methods that tend to show that the dating results are not irrefutable and that some unanswered questions about the dating methods are still unresolved.

AI Overview
Learn more
While radiometric dating is a powerful tool for determining the age of rocks and Earth, it doesn't "irrefutably prove" the Earth is billions of years old, but rather provides strong evidence supporting that age, alongside other geological and astronomical observations.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

Snelling is not the only creationist to have made errors in his claims about radiometric dating. There was the Mt. St. Helens scandal, in which Dr. Steve Austin failed to separate unmelted material, thus getting an ancient date for the eruption. From a creationist source...

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.
https://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

[The Barbarian]

Not surprisingly, C-14 testing of fossils only a few tens of thousands of years old, confirm the annual deposition of two layers in lake varves every year. You seem to have completed my argument for me.

Marke: I believe the jury is still out on whether or not multiple lake varves can be deposited annually or whether individual varves themselves are the result of individual deposits rather than being formed by some other geologic occurrance.
While lake varves are widely considered annual (or semi-annual) sediment layers, the evidence is strong but not definitive, and some researchers continue to debate the precise timescale of varve formation, with some suggesting that multiple layers can form in a single year.

It's pretty simple to debunk that idea. One just observes what happens. Every year; two layers. Why not just accept the evidence as it is?

[marke]

Snelling is not the only creationist to have made errors in his claims about radiometric dating. There was the Mt. St. Helens scandal, in which Dr. Steve Austin failed to separate unmelted material, thus getting an ancient date for the eruption. From a creationist source...

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.
https://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

Marke: I do not oppose bad science because I am a Christian, I oppose bad science for being bad and because stubborn secular scientists refuse to try to work out their obvious errors. When have researchers ever been given a rock sample that could verify radiometric dating, since so few rock samples exist that have a verified date of origin? Just because a rare young rock sample sent radiometric dating into a tailspin is not a Christian's or the rock' fault, it is a valuable learning tool that should be used to correct erroneous radiometric dating assumptions.

[marke]

Not surprisingly, C-14 testing of fossils only a few tens of thousands of years old, confirm the annual deposition of two layers in lake varves every year. You seem to have completed my argument for me.

Marke: I believe the jury is still out on whether or not multiple lake varves can be deposited annually or whether individual varves themselves are the result of individual deposits rather than being formed by some other geologic occurrance.
While lake varves are widely considered annual (or semi-annual) sediment layers, the evidence is strong but not definitive, and some researchers continue to debate the precise timescale of varve formation, with some suggesting that multiple layers can form in a single year.

It's pretty simple to debunk that idea. One just observes what happens. Every year; two layers. Why not just accept the evidence as it is?

Marke:

AI Overview
Learn more
Annual Layers (Varves) in Lake Sediments Show the Earth Is ...
While varves, or annually laminated sediments, are often considered annual layers, tests on fossils and other methods have not definitively proven that they are always laid down in lakes yearly or semi-annually; while varve couplets can form in a single year, multiple pairs can also form, and the assumption of an annual cycle is not always supported by observational evidence.

[Clownboat]

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.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Nobody can prove or disprove the Bible. God designed it that way.

Once again your words have nothing to do with what you quoted.

"Please show that you speak the truth and that a god purged the wicked nations (meaning all nations are now not wicked? ) and that these nations were promoting lies and wickedness and had incurable delusions. I await your justifications and will consider it evil to not justify such a condemning stance you level at your fellow humans, because 'Jesus'."