What's new

Evolution discussion

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?

As example with Whitney shows he made error of 5 mill years - which we can't blame him as he had no technology! You ignoring simple truth that 150 years ago there was no ways to accurately date rock beds. We as well do not have any poof those tools existed except from anecdotal reports.
 
Darwin published when?

And since then Darwin's work was updated based on modern findings and knowledge and nobody is basing evolution theory on 1859 publishing alone. Whitney's claim about Calaveras skull was corrected as well and instead of being 1.8-5.3 mil old it was shown to be 1000 years old.
Lets stay current:)
 
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.

So you're saying that Whitney's findings are "controversial" and you believe the unnamed "others" who think the skull is dramatically younger are credible. Sounds like the way any controversial evidence would be discredited.

I never said these findings weren't controversial. Anything that contradicts Darwin is considered controversial.
 
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.

So I assume you also believe that the nuclear reactor I posted (a modern discovery) is a naturally occurring phenomenon?

There are plenty of other contemporary archeological findings. I'll go get more if you want.
 
Questioning scientific theories is welcomed.

I look at the Earth map, same species living on different continents, same fossils found along the shores of once joined continents and to me continental drift is a fact. Not sure you can even call it theory.
 
And since then Darwin's work was updated based on modern findings and knowledge and nobody is basing evolution theory on 1859 publishing alone. Whitney's claim about Calaveras skull was corrected as well and instead of being 1.8-5.3 mil old it was shown to be 1000 years old.
Lets stay current:)

Please show me a link that demonstrates how Whitney was "corrected."
 
Please show me a link that demonstrates how Whitney was "corrected."

https://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_calaveras_skull

https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/hoaxes/calaveras.html

From Article:

In 1901, Rev. Mr. Dyer, who had been a missionary at Angels Camp in the 1870s, said that Scribner confessed to planting the skull in Mattison's mine. George Stickle, postmaster and Scribner associate, told Holmes that it had come from a burial place in Salt Spring Valley west of Angels.

This long-running hoax carries on even though carbon dates in 1992 suggested that the cranium was perhaps 1,000 years old, backing up Holmes' conclusion made more than a century ago

There you go, triumph of technology.^
 
....but all the questions, problems, and cockamamie ideas/theories associated with it...still exist!

I'm sure you think this will happen any day now.

o-ANIMAL-MASHUP-570.jpg
 
Back
Top