Tools that may be a million years old discovered near Tarragona

Catalan News Agency (CNA) ^ | Monday, 13 June 2016 | unattributed

[SunkenCiv]

It figures that a narrow-minded bigot like yourself would project your one shortcomings through namecalling.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Moonman62! It should have been that way from day one.

[TXnMA]

Article about tools -- with zero information on or photos of the fifty "tools".

Waste of a link and website space, IMO...

[odawg]

“And this isn’t in the religion forum of FR, as you should have noticed.”

Flake off, idiot.

[SunkenCiv]

Oh looky -- odawg, another self-described Bible believer, pulls down his mask, revealing the face of Lucifer!

[SunkenCiv]

If it were about a beauty pageant winner, I'd agree with you. But it's not.

[odawg]

No. I just don’t take to having some ass hat walk in off the street, as it were, and try to call me into account on something. My original post was NOT addressed to you.

[SunkenCiv]

Another insult? Not a surprise. It's what I've come to expect from fake Christians online.

[dsc]

No associated hominid fossils?

[JimRed]

Reverse population growth trends and their is no way you have man maintaining a very small population for a million years only to explode in the last few thousand.

The great flood reduced the population dramatically. A reset button, so to speak.

[BroJoeK]

Resettozero: "There are (published) scientists who disagree with many contemporary findings including some of which you just posted, I among them, and for many more reasons that the few you mentioned."

No, sorry, FRiend, but there are no acknowledged scientists who disagree with basic concepts behind such age-estimating methods as radiometric dating (including carbon-14), counting ice-core or stalagmite layers, measuring light-years to distant galaxies, counting seafloor spreading lines.
All of those can take us back a million years, some hundreds of millions.

Such reports as those you mention to here, even if they were legit, refer to problems with precise methodology used to arrive at those estimates.
A good example is carbon-14 dating results, which since recent years are calibrated according to tables developed from other methods, including:

"...improvements to these curves are based on new data gathered from tree rings, varves, coral, plant macrofossils, speleothems, and foraminifera."

But the key point to remember is that those adjustment are relatively minor -- a few percent at most.
Nothing about calibration tables undermines basic ideas of Carbon-14 dating.

Resettozero: "...I was questioning not the dating methodologies but rather the philosophies employed, which I believe skew the validity of the findings..."

You could call science itself the product of philosophy, philosophy restricted by definition to natural explanations of natural processes.
Science begins with confirmed evidence (facts) then searches for explanations (hypotheses) of the evidence.
If those hypotheses can make predictions which are later confirmed by new evidence, then they are considered not just hypotheses, but confirmed theories.
That's the source of radiometric and other methods for dating ancient materials.

Resettozero: "...skewing of the validity of dating published findings of many of the groups mentioned, because of faulty presuppositions, keeps many people employed by these same groups somewhat in the dark and still distant from stumbling onto the truth of this matter..."

Remember, science itself makes no claims regarding "truth" or even "proof".
Instead, science uses terms like "confirmed" and "evidence".
Everything science does is not "truth" itself, merely a confirmed model (an image, if you will) of what the real truth might look like, given known evidence and theories.

"Truth" belongs in the realm of theology and philosophy, and that's the reason science never properly goes there.
That's why scientists can, for scientific purposes, accept one set of natural models (theories) while simultaneously believing supernatural higher Truths taught by their religion.

Resettozero: "A few thousand years-old maybe, for those chiseled tools featured in this article."

But the scientifically confirmed evidence in this particular example suggests ages in the range of a million years.
Of course, you are not required to believe such evidence, but, for scientific purposes, scientists do accept it.

Carbon 14 calibration table:

[BroJoeK]

Resettozero: "Your premise is faulty and this is an open thread you posted on Free Republic, Nazi!"

In all these years on Free Republic, FRiend, you should have learned by now that here calling somebody a "Nazi" is code for roughly the following:

"I am a perfect idiot, a jerk and a-hole, probably a Democrat, who has no serious arguments to offer and can only resort to name-calling, of which the term 'Nazi' makes me look the dumbest, so that's what I'm calling you."

[Resettozero]

It figures that a narrow-minded bigot like yourself would project your one (sic) shortcomings through namecalling.

SunkenCiv, neither you nor I own the subject of science or anything else on Free Republic, even the threads we begin. Don't act like a bigoted science Nazi and tell those with whom you disagree to "scram" on Free Republic OPEN THREADS, as you posted to me. If you do, you should expect a rebuke, which I gave.

R2z

[Resettozero]

Oh looky -- odawg, another self-described Bible believer, pulls down his mask, revealing the face of Lucifer!

You were saying what, SunkenCiv, regarding me name calling on FR?

"Another self-described Bible believer?" You seem bitter about this freedom we have to post on Free Republic quasi-scientific threads you begin.

"Face of Lucifer?" Because odawg doesn't buy the premise of this questionable article you posted?

No sir; this is Free Republic and you are out of line.

[SunLakesJeff]

FR's science threads are among the best on the Internet, because of robust debate and discourse.

I would call a Rodney King "time out".

[Resettozero]

In all these years on Free Republic, FRiend, you should have learned by now that here calling somebody a "Nazi" is code...

Not into mind-reading what you may think and don't care to know any more than you have revealed.

Definitely, I should have posted "bigoted science Nazi" which more precisely describes my response to being told to "scram" on an OPEN FREE REPUBLIC THREAD.

[Resettozero]

Of course, you are not required to believe such evidence, but, for scientific purposes, scientists do accept it.

This is but one of your many untrue statements in your pontifical post.

On this thread, one IS required to believe such "evidence" as you offered in your sort of spontaneous mock trial of me or religion or something or another. Otherwise, one can be disinvited ("Scram") by any anonymous poster such as SunkenCiv.

[Resettozero]

"I am a perfect idiot, a jerk and a-hole, probably a Democrat, who has no serious arguments to offer and can only resort to name-calling."

What you projected onto me is hereby returned to YOU in order for you to see what all readers can see about you, that you may judge yourself, BroJoeK.

[BroJoeK]

Resettozero: "I should have posted '...bigoted science Nazi'..."

Still inappropriate, and I won't give you advice on name-calling, but the term "Nazi" is certainly appropriate when referring to mass-murdering jihadis, or sharia law's response to homosexuals, Jews & "infidels", etc.

Democrats, in a stretch, might even be called "Nazis" in their lust to infringe second amendment rights of Republicans, and yes, Rush does call extreme feminists "femi-Nazis" for favoring today's mass murder of the unborn.

But a Free Republic poster who gets a little excited does not rise to the level of "Nazi".
Authoritarian or even fascistic?
Well, those are milder terms, having no suggestions of mass murderer, and so possible under extreme duress.

But I'm not giving you advice on name-calling, except don't do it, ever.
Well... OK, here's some advice: quote the exact offending words back to your correspondent suggesting that he/she is really just talking about himself.
Then immediately provide a cogent, polite argument for your side of the issue.

No straw men, no red herrings, no ad hominems.

SunLakesJeff: "I would call a Rodney King 'time out'. "

Naw, just take a breath and refocus on the question being debated.

[BroJoeK]

Resettozero: "This is but one of your many untrue statements in your pontifical post.
On this thread, one IS required to believe such 'evidence' as you offered in your sort of spontaneous mock trial of me or religion or something or another"

Nothing I've posted is "untrue", and you are welcome to dispute whatever seems so to you.

Nobody is required in the US, or on Free Republic, to believe anything about science they don't want to.
Science itself does not claim to be the "truth", only "observed" or "confirmed".
"Truth" is something altogether different.

"Confirmed observation" is the scientific definition the word "fact" or evidence.
People who routinely deny facts in effect excuse themselves from reasoned arguments.