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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

[CGM]

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.

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

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?