Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Kev]

Bilbo, still trying to close thinsg down..

A few final issues, for me anyways...

Just to confirm, you are saying that all possible cases of humanoid ancestors have been rejected as false by the scientific community.

Sedimentary rock is not just that which is formed by deposits layed down by water. It can also be particles or materials of just about any kind, laid down over time by any method, and over time turned into rock. In other words yes, the bones that we find are mostly buried. Those exposed to the elements would have vanished by now.

It's not so much that we differ in our presuppositions. We also differ in our opinions of what constitutes evidence. We also differ in our definitions of what constitutes fact and theory.

Disagreeement on time is obviously a big issue. I would say that a dating method should not be rejected out of hand because it is known to sometimes produce innacurate results. I'd say we differ there. People often mistakenly reject things in this way, rejecting the whole concept on the basis of a few examples.

I'll tell you another issue I am willing to bet we differ fundamentally on. What comes first, the evidence or the theory? (story, explanation, whatever).

Well clearly the story came first. Evolutionary belief has been around since the days of the ancient Greeks and Anaximander. Prior to Darwin Lamark was already postulating on it and Charles own grandfather Erasmus was part of some cult think tank called the Lunar Society that tried to create an evolutionary explantion for our origins.

Of course Alfred Russell Wallace simultaneously along with ~Darwin was working on the theory as well, although he got it after going into some kind of weird self induced spiritual trance and it was told it by a spirit, his words not mine.

The idea that Darwin just came to his belief soley as a result of his research on the Galapagos Islands is completely innacurrate, he was philosophically bent on finding an evolutionary explanation that could explain the origins of life without God, following in the beliefs of his grandfather.

What you seem not to understand is that scientists who are committed to humanism are no less biased and religiously motivated than are fundamentalist religious believers.

They subscribe to a very specific set of beliefs and attempt to promote these beliefs at all costs. Richard Dawkins for example is more 'religious' and fundamentalist than pretty much any religious leader in the world. He has a very definite agenda that involves actively opposing belief in God, creating tv shows to highlight religious faith is inherantly evil, raising money for an anti God campaign on buses where they put full size banners on buses saying 'God probably doesn't exist' and actively seeking to oppose any talk of creation, intelligent design etc in schools and our education system.

If you actually research into prominent members of American society especially, educators, leading thinkers etc, most of them are fundamentalist humanists with a scarily extreme plan to implement and promote the spread of humanism and huminist values worldwide.

They seek to ban the teaching of anything counter to evolutionary indoctrination at all costs. Make no mistake, it is nothing more than indoctrination, with deliberate misinformation fed to the public by way of false television programs, walking with caveman, Was Darwin Wrong (that Scrap mentioned) for example that simply promote untruths to deceived the public.

I'm not saying these scientists don't believe in evolution themselves, (most worship at its alter) but the idea that it is purely a scientific theory is naive to say the least. It's an entire philosophy and religion, linked to humanism, whose members are among the most fundamentalist of any religous group and who have a very definite and clear agende relating to values, morality, population control etc.