Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Kev]

ok, we are getting into semantics now. If you don't like the word method, then call it something else. It is observational though. And there is some experimentation, extrapolation, and method involved. But point taken.

I don't agree with the higlighted remarks. The fact is fossils have been found that document an evolution, a progression or advancement if you will, But there are gaps and questions remaining. But if you don't believe the dating technology, then there is not much point in me trying to tell you there is evidence of an evolution, is there?

Name the fossils. There isn't any fossil that demonstrates the gradual evolution of life on this planet in the way the theory surmises.

That is why Stephen Jay Gould and his ilk proposed the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' the idea that creatures don't evolve slowly over millions of years at all, but rather stay the same for millions of years and then evolve rapidly in an isolated population producing great changes in such a short space of time that sadly they cannot find the fossils to support it.

I.e becuase they had no evidence they invented a new theory to explain why there was no evidence and then went happily as before.

Of course the classical Darwinists argued that puncuated equilibrium was biologically impossible becuase there is no way to create via mutation so much new DNA in such a short timeframe but that doesn't seem to have put them off.

The fossil record doesn't show evolution at all, it just shows extinction.

It's interesting to note that the very earliest forms of life discovered on this planet, purple algae (called stromatolites) some 3.5 billion years old still exists in the same form today. It hasn't evolved in supposedly 4 billion years.

Crocodiles have been around and the same for 230 million years, ants 100 million, cockroaches almost 400 million, Horsehoe crabs are about 350 million years old.

I don't agree with any of the timescales of course I'm just highlighting the fact that the idea that scientists dig down into the rocks and find an entirely new and different world the deeper they go is completely false. They find many of the same animals we have today, and they still look the same as they did then, along with animals that have died out, as I said extinction not evolution.

You have changed the requirements on me. I have merely stated that there is fossil evidence of a progression. I've already stated there are gaps. That doesn't disprove the theory. I repeat, you have already said that you don't accept scientific dating as anything but a fantasy, so you are damn sure not going to accept from me any evidence of a progression or advancement over time.

This idea of a punctuated equilibrium is worthy of exploring, I'm kind of familiar with it. It's another theory that attempts to explain the gaps.

It sounds like you are saying that if one life form evolves, then all life forms must evolve. That's a bit of a stretch that I can't disprove any more than you can prove.

Bottom line, if you don't believe the time lines, and if scientific dating is crap to you, then there is no point in me raising evidence of a progression.

Here's one for you. If man and dinosaurs co-existed, then why did man, and so many other species, survive and dinosaurs die out?

What evidence of advancement? When a species first appears in the fossil record it appears fully formed and complete with no signs of more primitive ancestory.

When we look back at the age of the dinosaurs, we now know that far from primitive they were intelligent, fast, mobile and well adapted to their enviroments, to suggest they were in any way more 'primitive' or less advanced than life today is completely false.

The story of life beginning in the sea with some single celled organism which somehow replicated itself and over time became more complex is just that a story, there is no fossil record of this time period to support it.

The true starting point for the fossil record is the Pre Cambrian explosion, when scientists are admiteddly baffled by the fact that complex vertabrate species of abundant variety just appear out of nowhere in the geological record. Just an abundence of complex, fully adapted life instantly appearing the fossil record with no trace of ancestary.

They 'hypothize' that their nice molecule to multi molecule to simple animals and fish all occurred of course, but that it sadly just wasn't recorded in the fossil record.

As to what happened to the dinosaurs, I believe that after the flood the envioroment changed drastically.

The Bible makes it clear that prior to the flood there was no rainfall, and that the earth was watered by a mist that went up from the ground. The atmosphere was much more water rich and saturated with oxygen. The climate was sub tropical with an abundence of vegetations and the better atmosphere and food supply meant that huge animals could be supported. The Bible even says there were giants on the earth in this time, and indeed science has found gigantism for every major animal group at this time.

In our present world it's biologically impossible for things to get as big as they did back then because the atmosphere doesn't support it.

So after the flood, and the resulting ice age that it brought about many species of creature simply died out.

Before you dismiss the idea of a worldwide catastrophe like a flood you should know that science also claims a worldwide catastophe that wiped out all of as much as 97% of life. They call it the Permian extinction or 'The Great Dying' and place it around 250,000,000 years ago.

Interestingly recently they have been saying it was caused by massive undersea volcanic eruptions all over the world.

Most people erronously think the Bible says rain caused the flood. It doesn't it says 'The foundations of the great deep were broken up', which pretty much describes what the scientists have found.