Re: 2.5 Million ya tools found
EJ Ford (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:00:36 -0800
Ed, I think that the problem here is that although your evidence may
well be entirely acurate and verifiable, and although you may sincerely
believe in it's authenticity, science and the scientific community
operates on a principle akin to charismatic democracy. People vote,
with their research, on the ideas and theories that they find most
believeable. If there isn't support form the community in general,
Support is garnered by generating a preponderance of evidence that
proves that the phenonmena that is being atested to occured more than
once. If that replicability cannot be demonstrated, then the sample can
be regarded as a fluke or a mutant in this wildly variable world.
Be patient. If there is support for your belief (i.e., another site),
then you will be the discoverer of record. In the mean time, you must
expect that the community will not believe your work. The preponderance
of evidence does not push the fossil record back that far, not by a long
Ed Conrad wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 97, email@example.com (Chris McFarlane)
> wrote to talk.origins:
> > A team that includes a New Zealander has dug up what may be
> > the oldest stone tools ever, in Ethiopia; and Kate Hawksby reports
> > it means rewriting the history books.
> > KH:
> > A high tech tool to an early hominid, to us they're very old stones.
> > More than 2.5 million years old.
> Pardon my intrusion.
> I THOUGHT you said 250 million.
> I figured, maybe its proof that the Older Gentleman who had whittled
> the tree branch into my ax handle -- its surface now transformed to a
> coal-like state -- in pre-Pennsylvania back in 250,000,000 BC. (give
> or take 30-60 million years) also had a primitive ancestor who used
> stone tools.