Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[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?