3 ms·
This kind of comment is flammatory and against HN etiquette (and should be removed).
by aetherspawn 8y ago
This kind of comment is flammatory and against HN etiquette (and should be removed).
- flukus 8y agoI know you claim to be skeptical but see evidence to the contrary. You're not skeptical of yourself and of your limited knowledge and your not skeptical of your need to be skeptical (there are no extraordinary claims in this discovery). I see no evidence that you are responding in good faith to any flaws in your reasoning, you're continuing to make an argument from incredulity. So I'm sorry if you're not a creationist (not as sorry as I'd be if you were), but when you look like a duck, argue like a duck and respond like a duck I start getting that duck vibe. How about you respond to the points in your post: > Not to be that guy, but I’m really starting to question the accuracy of dating techniques when they publish finds like this. Why when they publish finds like this? There is nothing extraordinary about these finds, they sit comfortably inside what we know of human migrations. > This finding is only significant because of the age, but have we ever verified our dating techniques over 5k years? 10k years? You're arguing against archaeology, geology, history and nuclear physics here. Do you think all these branches of science are being dishonest? > It seems further unlikely that such a bone from, 85k y/ago as they say, would be so close to the surface. Why do you find this surprising? There a quite a few geological process that can result in this. Nearly all fossils we find are quite close to the surface.