What's new
By:

Evolution discussion

Catchall said:
Tertiary Period is from 65 million years ago to 2.6 million years ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary

The near end of that date range is enough to rebut Darwin's 'origin of species'.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Catchall said:
Cremo is the author of Forbidden Archeology, but he is distinct from the scientists whose research he compiles. Whether he believes in paranormal subjects is irrelevant. Incidentally, the government also believes in paranormal subjects, but that too is irrelevant here.

These artifacts are not "alleged" but verified by multiple scientists, as is standard procedure.

Your first instinct, it seems, is simply to discredit the discovery and the messenger of it. To my eyes, this is your normalcy bias (assuming you accept 'origin of species' as normal).
Click to expand...

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.
 
AKMVP said:
What is wrong with you creationists? This Nillson dude died in 1955 - thus he never knew anything about last 58 years of science, he was even unaware of continental drift! Can you guys please find some real and up to date scientist supporting your ridiculous claims?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catchall said:
The person you should be trying to discredit is Dr. Josiah D. Whitney, state geologist of California in 1880. Cremo is the author who compiled a number of findings.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catchall said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catchall said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
AKMVP said:
Are you serious? Now you are questioning continental drift?
Click to expand...

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.
 
AKMVP said:
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).
Click to expand...

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?
 
Darkwing Duck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catchall said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catchall said:
Darwin published when?
Click to expand...

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:)
 
AKMVP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AKMVP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top