MVP
Well-Known Member
Again. Ribeiro had no clue if it is 65 mil, 2.6 mil or 200.000 year old. He had no appropriate technology to accurately date rock bed where he found those tools ( if he found any as there is no proof of that either).
Evolution discussion
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Again. Ribeiro had no clue if it is 65 mil, 2.6 mil or 200.000 year old. He had no appropriate technology to accurately date rock bed where he found those tools ( if he found any as there is no proof of that either).
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
His work, though, appears to be influenced by his belief in the paranormal and Hindu creationism. That is not how science is supposed to work.
Alleged was the wrong term. My intent was that he uses artifacts that can no longer be retested and verified for dating purposes, making his conclusions impossible to verify, and he knows that. All of the skeletons I've pictured can be redated given the different strata that they were dug from. Modern techniques are much better in that regard since archaeologists and paleontologists are no longer the treasure hunters/grave robbers of 70+ years ago.
To my untrained eye, this Nillson fellow is a good 80 years more contemporary than Darwin is. You keep wanting to discredit every person who contradicts Darwinism. You should instead try to contradict the evidence.
There's also a whole other theory on earth crust displacement that contradicts continental drift. Another subject.
MVP
Well-Known Member
From Wiki:
Controversy: Yosemite Valley origins
While in California, Whitney became embroiled in two notable controversies. First, Whitney maintained that Yosemite Valley was created by a cataclysmic sinking of the valley floor. However, John Muir, who was exploring the Yosemite area during the same time, argued that the valley was carved by glacial action. Whitney derided Muir as an “ignoramus” and a “mere sheepherder.” Whitney's survey reports suppressed evidence of glaciers, and he never abandoned his viewpoint. Most scientists eventually dismissed Whitney's hypothesis and accepted Muir’s.
Controversy: Calaveras Skull
The second controversy involved the discovery of the Calaveras Skull, allegedly uncovered by a miner 130 feet beneath the surface of the earth. Eventually the skull made its way into the possession of Whitney, who quickly pronounced it genuine and concluded that it came from the Pliocene era (5.3 mya – 1.8 mya). However, others assert that the skull is much younger, as little as 1000 years.
Quite a difference huh? 1.8-5.3 mil or 1000 years lol. I said you can't trust dudes from 1870 who had no access to modern technology.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Dating techniques are more specific than that. 2.6 isn't too far off from what is currently considered the first known tool use. Not sure if you're implying "modern" tools, then you'd have to link me to that.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Are you serious? Now you are questioning continental drift?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Current evolutionary theory is no where near the same as it was when it was proposed in the 1860s. Darwin got a lot of things wrong, was too simplistic, and didn't have the knowledge of genetics that exists today.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Hey Darwin did not know everything either and his theory is very much updated this days. That's why science is different from pseudoscience - it analyses, tests and constantly updates, confirms or dismisses any previous theories based on data. Not on myths and legends.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Questioning scientific theories is welcomed. More testing in the scientific world is great. Questioning continental drift is a good thing. Unfortunately, basically the first words I read on this particular contradiction to continental drift is "it's bunk."
Maybe I'll read up on it later.
Darwin published when?
You're free to doubt him, but other archeologists evaluated his discoveries. And 200,000, you came up with that how? You're saying there's a 2.4 million year margin of error?
There are written texts from India (vedas) that speak of people living in ancient ancient history. There are similar stories in China and Tibet in the form of 'scriptures'. My assumption is that Cremo is saying, "Hey, what if these stories aren't just made up?" It would be similar to people in the west pondering whether stories in the Bible are historical record or fictional. It seems he's drawing a correlation between Eastern cultures speaking of the existence of people in the distant past and archeological findings that support the idea that man did, in fact, live during the ancient past.
That alone doesn't refute the archeological discoveries. There are numerous others, including more contemporary discoveries. I just posted a few initially.