Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen

But who is better at bumping old contentious threads?

Obviously.

Every gen of players are significantly stronger than the last.

"Accuracy" is a misleading measure of playing strength.  Most human players will play the first clear win they see.  It is frequently the case that players like Morphy and Lasker have low computer-accuracy ratings, but the inaccuracies mostly come during endgames which they won anyway.  They took a few moves longer to finish, but the finish they played was nonetheless clear and simply won.  Players back then often played through to mate, whereas GMs today resign as they recognize hopeless positions sooner.  Thus the portion of the game where computer-like accuracy is not needed simply does not get played anymore.

Morphy's true playing strength can't be determined, simply because there were very few strong players to test him.  Anderssen alone forced him to think.  Lasker, on the other hand, reached and remained at the top of the chess world for decades, even as the strength of competing GMs was growing in leaps and bounds.  This indicates that his true strength was much greater than simple computer analysis of his individual games would suggest.

That's what makes these debates pointless.  There is no reason to believe that the all-time greats (I count Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Petrosian, Fischer, and Kasparov in this category) could not, at peak form, raise their level of play at will as circumstances demanded.  Carlsen, like Morphy, has not been seriously tested during his reign, so assessing his true strength is likewise difficult.

Magnus is better at playing chess. But Morphy was WAY better than his contemporarys.

I think Carlson

To be clear, I don't think Carlsen would stand a chance in a match against the old man (Lasker), but that's more of a match-up thing than an assessment of overall playing strength.  Lasker would needle dead-drawn positions for 50-75 moves looking for advantage, he'd purposely play counter-intuitive (but not unsound!) moves with multiple deep, hidden threats, and he did not ever display "mental fatigue".  Carlsen clearly does wear down, and in a long match would fall off in a match with no quick draws.

I think Carlsen is better of course. That’s because he is a player in the modern 2020’s and Paul Murphy played nearly 200 years 

i meant that morphy was more creative and magnus learnt from morphy!!!

I think that if Morphy learned as much theory as Carlsen he would have been better, but Carlsen lives in the engine era, so if Carlsen vs Mophy Carlsen would win. 

It is a silly question. Of course Magnus much better!

Yes exactly, Carlsen learned from Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, and all those engineless geniuses you have to give them credit!

Well there aren't many 163 year olds in the top 50.

Paul Morphy is the best  chess player of all times!!!!

Morphy was extremely stronger than his contemporaries, he was absurdly strong.

He would be a 3000 rated player today, comparing the ages. (Considering that the difference between him and his opponents would be the same as they were when he lived.)
But if you only consider brute playing strength, Carlsen is just way stronger. We are in 2021, chess has evolved.

     Of course Carlsen would have a great advantage should the two play a match--more than 150 years of ever-growing chess theory. That he would crush Morphy is unlikely, just notice how Morphy would do relatively poorly early in his matches but after seeing how his opponents played he wiped them out. It's ridiculous to think that a player that strong would b unable to see what his better-prepared opponent was doing and alter his own game to compensate.

     There is no way that Morphy would get into the top 10 of today's players as he didn't consider chess as a serious pursuit and would never play enough games to qualify for the top tournaments.