Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2017, 09:27 PM
Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
http://www.archaeology.org/news/5206-170...aves-bones

Apparently this bones where known to us in 1970, but only recently been accepted this year?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OmniConsUme's post
08-06-2017, 09:36 PM
RE: Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
(08-06-2017 09:27 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  http://www.archaeology.org/news/5206-170...aves-bones

Apparently this bones where known to us in 1970, but only recently been accepted this year?

Except that's not at all what the article says.

Not. At. All.

Seriously, where did you get "controversial"?

What it says is that new radiocarbon dates have been obtained for the bone fragments, likely using newer techniques that allow them to compensate for contamination or other issues with getting accurate dates. They're getting very, very good at dating more difficult pieces, compared to 45 years ago.

There was simply no evidence for people crossing the Bering land/ice bridge during the earlier date for low ocean levels during the previous ice age, so it was always presumed that they did it during the later crossable date, roughly 14KYA, since that's when we have definitive evidence of human habitation in the Americas.

And, as the article says, the DNA evidence already supports an earlier arrival date, so this new radiocarbon work is a piece of corroborating evidence for that DNA evidence. Neat, huh?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
08-06-2017, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2017 10:37 PM by OmniConsUme.)
RE: Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
Now If I understand correctly the Guy originally was laughed at because the evidence initially was weak (because we didn't have all the tools we had?), and this was consensus shattering event they others were heavily skeptical, and laughed at him thinking he was crazy.

Basically still don't think the other archeologists should have laughed at him.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...180962410/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 11:33 PM
RE: Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
(08-06-2017 09:38 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Now If I understand correctly the Guy originally was laughed at because the evidence initially was weak (because we didn't have all the tools we had?), and this was consensus shattering event they others were heavily skeptical, and laughed at him thinking he was crazy.

Basically still don't think the other archeologists should have laughed at him.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...180962410/

Laughing at guys who turn out to be right is often the case, in science. Look up what happened to the guy who came up with the concept of plate tectonics!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
09-06-2017, 05:06 AM
RE: Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
(08-06-2017 09:38 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Now If I understand correctly the Guy originally was laughed at because the evidence initially was weak (because we didn't have all the tools we had?), and this was consensus shattering event they others were heavily skeptical, and laughed at him thinking he was crazy.

Basically still don't think the other archeologists should have laughed at him.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...180962410/

What's better, not accepting ideas that have insufficient evidence to support them or accepting everything that gets proposed? The fact that some claims that are initially dubious, or even seemingly absurd, later turn out to be largely correct is not a strike against the scientific method. It is the core strength of that method.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
09-06-2017, 05:17 AM
RE: Why was the Bluefish Caves findings Controversial?
(08-06-2017 09:38 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Now If I understand correctly the Guy originally was laughed at because the evidence initially was weak (because we didn't have all the tools we had?), and this was consensus shattering event they others were heavily skeptical, and laughed at him thinking he was crazy.

Basically still don't think the other archeologists should have laughed at him.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...180962410/

Unlike religion science requires evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gawdzilla's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: