Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Andre]

[quote=Bilbo;664470][quote=CGM;664455]

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.

Dont think they look any further mate; They have core sampled the arctic ice at the depth that relates to the bone age; their northern hemishphere extinction and they found traces of substances that can only be made from a star going supernova near by to us.
Ice being pure each side of the approximate date.

[CGM]

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).

[Scrap]

I am told I am very open to information. Watched a Program on N G, the question asked, Was Darwin wrong. all I can say is watch the program if given the chance, interesting to say the leased.

[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.

[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).

There isn't a single speciman that isn't rejected by parts of the evolutionary community. Basically in a nutshell, the finder and his team will attempt to promote and elavate their own discovery to being that of a true missing link, others in the scientific community will reject outright the notion and provide evidence against such classification.

There are few discoveries in science that could be more prestigious to its discovery than finding the mythical missing link between apes and man, it's the Holy Grail of evolutionary research and every paleontologist attempts (and undoubtably believes) that their find is THE missing link.

Eugene Dubios, Don Johannson, Mary and Richard Leakey, Raymod Dart for example are all world famous paelontologists who have insisted their finds were the missing links against the agreement of the rest of the evolutionary community.


I should say I hold no religious agenda either. Yes I believe in God, but I'm not a practicing Christian. As a teen growing up I wanted to be an evolutionist and paleontologist and help discover proof's of evolution and how we evolved from apes.

I loved the theory but wanted to know all about it and find the evidence for it rather than just know the story. For a couple of years I researched it intently and simply could not find any evidence to support the theory at all that couldn't explained in a completely different way, nearly always in a way that seemed to better fit the actual evidence.


If you believe in evolution that's fine for you, I have no interest in trying to 'convert' or dissuade you. I will just maintain however that as someone who has studied the debates on both sides for the last 15 years or so that evolutionary belief is the biggest myth of modern times with not a single piece of real evidence to support it.