They are genetically related. They may find out tomorrow fossilized turkey bones and had mistaken pictures of turkeys for chickens or guinea fowl... Archaeology is not a science and if you look at the original sources they are drawing from, most of the interesting stuff is speculation.
It would challenge present theories and I would change my mind. (I'm assuming you mean kangaroo -turkeys are native to Florida). That's how science works, you need to make a prediction. No kangaroos in Florida is such a prediction. Question: what would make you change your mind to accept "secular" evidence? What makes evidence secular or not?
I accept evidence that is evidence. If it requires a theory to work, or is made up of parts that could be understood another way, I do not feel obligated to accept it as evidence.
In both DNA testing and archaeology, most "discoveries" are actually reconstructions. They may be 90% correct, but we don't know what is in the last 10%, which is why frequently there are later discoveries that "upend everything we thought we knew!!!"
I deleted my comment as it was rude and uncalled for. I apologize.
My point remains though - you cannot expect kangaroos in Florida, and it has nothing to do with archeology. Same for Turkeys in Israel.
I was fine with it. Thanks for commenting! I hope to respond to this tomorrow.
They are genetically related. They may find out tomorrow fossilized turkey bones and had mistaken pictures of turkeys for chickens or guinea fowl... Archaeology is not a science and if you look at the original sources they are drawing from, most of the interesting stuff is speculation.
Question, suppose someone did find a turkey in Florida. Would that change your worldview?
Or how about Africa? https://www.nytimes.com/1932/10/20/archives/first-kangaroo-bones-are-found-in-africa-reviving-question-of-lost.html#:~:text=First%20Kangaroo%20Bones%20Are%20Found,Continent%20%2D%20The%20New%20York%20Times
It would challenge present theories and I would change my mind. (I'm assuming you mean kangaroo -turkeys are native to Florida). That's how science works, you need to make a prediction. No kangaroos in Florida is such a prediction. Question: what would make you change your mind to accept "secular" evidence? What makes evidence secular or not?
How about no kangaroos in Africa?
I accept evidence that is evidence. If it requires a theory to work, or is made up of parts that could be understood another way, I do not feel obligated to accept it as evidence.
In both DNA testing and archaeology, most "discoveries" are actually reconstructions. They may be 90% correct, but we don't know what is in the last 10%, which is why frequently there are later discoveries that "upend everything we thought we knew!!!"
I wonder if alligators take pictures of tourists? I can just see their photo collection of people with extreme facial reactions 😃🥺😲🤩