Originally posted by Stari
And doesn't proof mean evidence? evidence would be proof.. hmm maybe i'm going out on a limb on that one.. look up proof on dictionary.com.
And let me apologize.. what EVIDENCE might you have that the skulls were misdated? And if you are going to state something about carbon testing ..
dont bother.. i dont believe that is an accurate way to date. Carbon can change in our atmosphere and in our air daily.. say a volcano erupts.. it
changes the carbon around that area.
Stari,
Evidence means an indication that some particular idea or theory
might be true. Proof means that it
is indisputably true. I know, I
know, it's common usage might be that the word "proof" is used to indicate "evidence" of something. But I think that when making wild claims,
one must be a stickler about using the word "proof."
Remember, "proof"
proves something. "Evidence" only
indicates something. The difference is extremely important. Just ask O.J.
Simpson.
As far as evidence of the misdating of the two skulls, that was the subject of the article itself. You know, the one you linked to. It was about the
discovery that a couple of skulls had been misdated. I myself don't personally have any evidence of this, only what you have provided, but the BBC
article you linked to said that, while the skulls had previously been dated to 130,000 years old (in 1967), they have recently been re-dated to about
195,000 years old. That's not exactly earthshaking, as the article itself indicates. It says there:
It puts the specimens close to the time expected for the evolutionary emergence of our species. Genetic studies have indicated Homo sapiens arose
in East Africa - possibly Ethiopia or Tanzania - just over 200,000 years ago.
(Quoted directly from your linked-to BBC story - my
emphasis)
My point being that this new date is not revolutionary, we already knew humans were that old (if not older.)
Originally posted by Stari
I dont believe anyone is covering anything up in Cuba. I just dont think it holds enough importance to the Cubans ... they are paying her to find gold
and silver.. not blocks of rock that was possibly once a city.
Paulina Zelitsky's company (she's co-owner with her husband - A.D.C. Advanced Digital Communications is their company, based originally out of
Canada,) was working under contract collecting ocean temperatures for a global warming study when they found their supposed "lost city."
Since then, ADC has been contracted by National Geographic, as well as the Havana Museum of Natural History. They are certainly not solely "looking
for gold and silver" (though, come to think of it,
I certainly would.) My guess is they can't find funding because it's extremely expensive
to conduct archaeology underwater, especially at that depth.
Here's a link to a web page with the photos she took, for anyone out there that doesn't know what this is about.
www.freerepublic.com...
Here's a link to the National Geographic story that's referenced in that site (and maybe referenced around here somewhere too.)
news.nationalgeographic.com...
ities.html
Originally posted by StariWhen I do my research I look for reputable sites, like news sites or sites where people has actual EVIDENCE.
Not someones theory on the findings. Yes I am sure you can find thousands of sites when you google it.. But I mostly look at CNN, Reuters those kinds
of sites.
Star
That is certainly commendable, at least you don't hang out at crystal links trying to find out the latest on the reptilian shapeshifters, right?
If you insert the "CNN" or "Reuters" into your google search terms, you might find these articles in less time, and with more thoroughness.
Harte