Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Andre]

Now is that one of Gods days ?, or one of our days?

You cant prove or disprove anything, working only out of physicality.
Not when you have spirit and feelings and intent involved in the physical out comes of all life.

That book was written for a time a place and a people who could only think one way, it was put into terms they could comprehend by their elders .

Seriously all this kind of stuff is going on light years away from us as well as right here. To only be able to comprehend something from our minute single point in this vast existance is a bit sad when you look at the magnificance of it all.

But we have come from the basic physical point of a chunk of matter and we have grown to this point which is a bit better than ape like but why stop here?

Move points of view /find new answers /evolve physically mentaly and spiritually .

[CGM]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

[LEGION]

Bilbo will be greasing up his noodle and rubbing one out to this news.

[Kev]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

[Kev]

Bilbo will be greasing up his noodle and rubbing one out to this news.

Nope I've been greasing up my noodle and rubbing one out to this beauty

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rHwEB_4WNOE

[LEGION]

Bilbo will be greasing up his noodle and rubbing one out to this news.

Nope I've been greasing up my noodle and rubbing one out to this beauty

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rHwEB_4WNOE

What is a LadyBoy? Is it what I think it is? Please tell me she isn't really a he.

[Andre]

I tend to accept it all, so that I dont get stuck down by just one thing.
Acceptance allows you to move on without being bogged down in judgment so I can say honestly
" I dont care what names people want to make up for it all or what explainations people invent for the tools or process involved in the whole of creation or how it evolves, Im moving along,having fun and Im evolving to greater measures becuase of it. what ever IT is.

[CGM]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

[Kev]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

Yep absolutely, I don't believe in millions of years at all, it's just the necessary precondition to accepting the ideas of gradual evolution and uniformitarionism.

I belive in catastrophism.

I have no problem believing dinosaurs and man once coexisted, hence why dragons are a universal myth. It's interesting to say the least that most of the dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures that we have dug up have incredibly similar sounding legends of creatures fitting their descriptions, usually in the areas where the fossile are found.

A couple hundered years from now, mankind will believe something completely different. Look at dinosaurs and how they are supposed to have died out.

Since the 60's we've been told they died out due to temperature, deadly gases, infertility, constipation, a meteorite, or that they didn't die out at all and simply became birds.

Which theory of theirs is correct? It's the meteor that is the current de facto explantion but I'm sure that will change within another decade or so.

[CGM]

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

Yep absolutely, I don't believe in millions of years at all, it's just the necessary precondition to accepting the ideas of gradual evolution and uniformitarionism.

I belive in catastrophism.

I have no problem believing dinosaurs and man once coexisted, hence why dragons are a universal myth. It's interesting to say the least that most of the dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures that we have dug up have incredibly similar sounding legends of creatures fitting their descriptions, usually in the areas where the fossile are found.

A couple hundered years from now, mankind will believe something completely different. Look at dinosaurs and how they are supposed to have died out.

Since the 60's we've been told they died out due to temperature, deadly gases, infertility, constipation, a meteorite, or that they didn't die out at all and simply became birds.

Which theory of theirs is correct? It's the meteor that is the current de facto explantion but I'm sure that will change within another decade or so.

I think "they" are a lot more confident of the whens than the hows and whys. They've never really said otherwise

So do you believe that man ACTUALLY DID co-exist with Trex and Brontosaurus sometime in the last 70,000 years or so, or are you just saying that it is possible? And that "conventional" theory is also possible?

[Kev]

True enough, whose day are we talking about.

True enough about proof. Evolution is a theory, it's not fully explainable. But it's the best we've got, for which there is evidence and not just faith. Perhaps we'll never have final "proof" of anything. But the search for answers and explanations will go on forever.

There are some things that are more than just theory, though. Carbon dating for example.

Actually carbon dating, whilst not a 'theory' is notorious for being often widely innacurate, and this only dealing with a few thousands of years.

The other dating methods potassium/argon, rubidion/strontium etc produce results which are absolutely absurd, testing on Mount St Helen's for example produced ages of the new lava dome of between 500,000 to 3,000,000 years old, it's actually 11!

Dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old when tested with radio carbon dating yield ages in the thousands of years. Wood embedded in 100 million year old limstone has been dated at 890 years old!

Ultimately the dating methods all rely on the fossils in the rocks for confirmation, i.e it's a circular argument.

You can never actually test if a potassium/argon dating of 250 million years is accurate becuase we have no way of testing it, other than by doing this completely uncomfirmable test.

The whole concept of dating methods, especially ones for millions of years is just absurd. Basically the way it works is, they find a fossil in a rock. This dates the rock according to their evolutionary supposations at a certain age. They will then take sample for radiometric dating. Most of the samples will give dates millions of years out of range with what the evolutionists want. These are clearly bad samples. They will keep taking samples until they get a figure that matches, and hence that was a good sample.

It's a bizarre, circular argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Carbon dating is much more accurate as it only dates things back a few thousand years, most accurate to within 10,000 years, less accurate beyond that and unusable beyond 60,000 / 70,000 years.

But even carbon dating can give dates that completely contradict known historical facts, and contamination is a massive problem.

Carbon dating at least is relatively accurate though, providing you can account for contamination, which is difficult. Look at the Shroud of Turin for example and the controversies over the dating of that.

But the other dating methods are pure fantasy.

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

OK, so what you are saying is that any kind of dating that goes back more than 70,000 years, is pur fantasy, totally unreliable whatever. That would make scientific consensus on things such as the age of "Lucy", the age of things like reptilian dinosaurs etc, not to mention things like the age of the earth, pure fantasy, Is that what you are saying?

Yep absolutely, I don't believe in millions of years at all, it's just the necessary precondition to accepting the ideas of gradual evolution and uniformitarionism.

I belive in catastrophism.

I have no problem believing dinosaurs and man once coexisted, hence why dragons are a universal myth. It's interesting to say the least that most of the dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures that we have dug up have incredibly similar sounding legends of creatures fitting their descriptions, usually in the areas where the fossile are found.

A couple hundered years from now, mankind will believe something completely different. Look at dinosaurs and how they are supposed to have died out.

Since the 60's we've been told they died out due to temperature, deadly gases, infertility, constipation, a meteorite, or that they didn't die out at all and simply became birds.

Which theory of theirs is correct? It's the meteor that is the current de facto explantion but I'm sure that will change within another decade or so.

I think "they" are a lot more confident of the whens than the hows and whys. They've never really said otherwise

So do you believe that man ACTUALLY DID co-exist with Trex and Brontosaurus sometime in the last 70,000 years or so, or are you just saying that it is possible? And that "conventional" theory is also possible?

Well man has never coexisted with Brontosaurus as there is no such creature but yes man and Tyranosaur coexisted in my belief system.

I should say coexist doesn't mean cohabit. They may have rarely if ever come across each other, both sticking to very different habitats, although they may have lived relatively close to each other as well I don't know.

I appreciate this sounds absurd to you as you believe in evolution and millions of years, it's what science tells us is true.

The thing is though, that if some discovery was made that proved man and dinosaur coexisted and scientist started telling us that they did live side by side, everyone would accept it without question and laugh at those who stuck to the outdated idea of millions of years.

The 'fact's' and 'evidence' are completely irrelevent to the public, it just comes down to the source, i.e if we are taught it as science we believe it.

It's like how everybody knew a fight between Pacquaio and Hatton was a horrible mismatch in favour of Hatton a year ago and shouldn't happen whereas now everybody thinks Manny will kick Ricky's ass.

The result of the De La Hoya completely reversed popular opinion and now everyone believes something that they all ridiculed a year ago.

The millions of years, the evolution from apes etc which virtually everyone accepts as self evident now could just as easily be turned on its head in a couple of years if the views of another influential scientist became mainstream for example.

[ICB]

An analysis of an 18,000-year-old fossil, described as the remains of a diminutive humanlike creature, proves that genuine cave-dwelling "hobbits" once flourished in southeast Asia, according to a US anthropologist who conducted X-ray studies of a skull.
Karen Baab, an anthropologist at Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York, said her evidence is the most compelling to date bolstering the existence of a tiny early human ancestor who stood no more than 3 feet 2 inches (1 metre) tall.
They're the closest cousins in the evolutionary tree of life resembling fictional hobbits of Lord of the Rings yore. She posits the creature represents a new species in humanity's chain of evolution and is not a group of modern humans who were merely small.




Skull study evidence of 'hobbit' species, claims US anthropologist | Science | guardian.co.uk

So they've been watching Big Brother ?

[CGM]

OK, Bilbo. I'm not sold on some aspects of evolution, for example there seems to be gaps in the timeline of man, changes from one ancestor to the next that are a little more than gradual, but yeah I do tend to believe in the timelines. Not so much that I have seriosuly scrutinized all the research, and can speak knowledgeably about different scientific dating techniques, etc., but because I tend to have faith in scientific consensus.

We can leave it at that if you want.

[Kev]

OK, Bilbo. I'm not sold on some aspects of evolution, for example there seems to be gaps in the timeline of man, changes from one ancestor to the next that are a little more than gradual, but yeah I do tend to believe in the timelines. Not so much that I have seriosuly scrutinized all the research, and can speak knowledgeably about different scientific dating techniques, etc., but because I tend to have faith in scientific consensus.

We can leave it at that if you want.

Yeah no problem buddy, I wouldn't presume to try and win anyone over to my way of thinking, at the end of the day your last sentence said it best.

We are all just blind men groping around looking for a wall to cling to, we cannot ever know how things started and so must ultimately believe through faith.

You're a step ahead of most however by acknowledging that believing in science, is a step of faith as well.

Ultimately we can believe that words in a book purported to be by God are true or we can believe that words of a man in a book are true.

It's faith either way.

[CGM]

OK, Bilbo. I'm not sold on some aspects of evolution, for example there seems to be gaps in the timeline of man, changes from one ancestor to the next that are a little more than gradual, but yeah I do tend to believe in the timelines. Not so much that I have seriosuly scrutinized all the research, and can speak knowledgeably about different scientific dating techniques, etc., but because I tend to have faith in scientific consensus.

We can leave it at that if you want.

Yeah no problem buddy, I wouldn't presume to try and win anyone over to my way of thinking, at the end of the day your last sentence said it best.

We are all just blind men groping around looking for a wall to cling to, we cannot ever know how things started and so must ultimately believe through faith.

You're a step ahead of most however by acknowledging that believing in science, is a step of faith as well.

Ultimately we can believe that words in a book purported to be by God are true or we can believe that words of a man in a book are true.

It's faith either way.

OK I guess I'm not quite done. we differ a bit on this point. I know enough about scientific method that I consider believing in it to be a little more than an act of faith. Science to me is almost the opposite of faith. It's ironic isn't it that a belief system based a theory built upon evidence provides less certainty than a theory built on faith. But I do see your point, at some point it is faith, or else we have no knowledge/understanding at all that is outside our direct experience.