4 ms·
You wrote: "Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)" But that's obvious. The field of paleontology/archeology works with any
by ak39 9y ago
You wrote:
"Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)"
But that's obvious. The field of paleontology/archeology works with any evidence that suggests older. One confirmed finding of "older" is enough to redate and trump multiple newer findings.
That makes perfect sense.
- Sharlin 9y agoIn other words, dating an archaeological finding gives you a lower bound of how long there has been human activity on the site. Finding something older does not contradict previous results - and there are good reasons why older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence.
- aaron695 9y ago> older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence. I agree but I'd expect some sort of logrithm though. But perhaps not. As per the article Australia had the extinctions which line up with an earlier time period. And as per the article evidently it's not PC to imply humans did it. There's more than science going on here. I just want a real independent expert to comment not someone with an agenda like PoP.