Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[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.

[Andre]

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.

I thought it was great too specially how his devote although I must say stupid religious sheep wife, was just kept in the dark over his future findings, Proved he was a compassionate good man at heart who didnt want to destroy her lifes faith she had built up, false or not.
Darwin; Good Man.

At the end of the day its all just names given to a dimensional process.To look into any side of it and live by one side alone is avoiding the real issue of why we chose to penatrate down here in the first place and it will keep those who choose sides continually seperate and alone as does any religion that has its people judge people or deeds,which automatically block unconditional love which is what you need to get out of this 3rd dimension.

I firmly belive in the fact that we have been allowed to evolve on many levels not just physically through the natuaral process of what we were raised up out of: the ground.

I belive in the evolutionary process and alot more than just that is behind it all, but also in a God,And I chooce God first above the study of its tools or processes; the type of God the religious would have you see in their old fashioned paintings etc does not exist as the highest form.

The highest form Of Godhead is the pure original energy before it expanded out and split into two ; before going further and further outward in its own evolution process through out all the dimensions of the void which we are all a part of.

We, I belive are within
God and God is also within us.
Eternity goes in all directions.

Unceasing electric light seperated from and out of unceasing love and became dual points that created the first relationship for God as his choice of experience. Physically ....BANG! As in fukking big Bang.It wasnt just by chance nothing is.

The One became two points which became three and formed once more in a trinity like a Son or a Sun . What brings us life? The Sun. The Son.

The two original points were like two dots like eyes the third point made the first platonic solid known as the triangle this happened not only on a flat plane but interdimensionally.
So bright with so much radiant love and unceasing light that you cant look upon it or them; (until your own energies or love frequency gets back to equal them).

God just doesnt fit into a white cloth dress and sandels with white flowing hair,although part of it can and does take on any form it so wishes depending on which dimesion you view it from and what the job is at hand.

We are in the 3rd dimension by our own choice because here is the most dense most filtered out area and we do this for the depth our own experience because that is what life is it is experience.

[Scrap]

Excel lance is the Godhead of all creativity

[Andre]

Excel lance is the Godhead of all creativity

Excel Lance My GoD ! And all along I thought it was Abba Elohim.

[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.

[CGM]

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.

...

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.

Well then, that would mean that the story came first on "both sides" then.

I'm sure I said a few posts back that there were holes in the theory. But it's the best we have.

Obviously we disagree about what constitutes evidence, but so be it.

I also am familiar with both sides. I'm not sure we can limit this to two sides, but I wouldn't say the evidence of "your side" is any more convincing. But then again we don't agree about what is evidence, so that's a moot point too.

Life goes on.

[Andre]

Very sane and interesting debate between you two gentlemen.

[Kev]

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.

...

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.

Well then, that would mean that the story came first on "both sides" then.

I'm sure I said a few posts back that there were holes in the theory. But it's the best we have.

Obviously we disagree about what constitutes evidence, but so be it.

I also am familiar with both sides. I'm not sure we can limit this to two sides, but I wouldn't say the evidence of "your side" is any more convincing. But then again we don't agree about what is evidence, so that's a moot point too.

Life goes on.

I don't have a side though really. There are many theological problems that I have and as I said I'm not a church goer.

I reject macro evolution purely for scientific reasons, it's simply not science.

The problem is most laypeople are confused as to what is the difference between macro evolution and natural selection.

Everything Darwin found on the Galapagos Isles and his assertations about finches, lizards and tortoises adapting to fit their enviroment I agree with completely.

Organisms adapt over time to fit their enviroment, and successful traits are passed on, it's absolutely proven and beyond doubt, we witness it happening all the time.

However that is NOT macro evolution. All of the information required to make those changes was already present within the DNA of that species. Nothing new was added.

It's like a computer game or piece of software. The user can tinker around with all kinds of settings to customise it the way he wants, change the fonts, colour layout, add or remove certain features, change the resolution etc.

But unless he adds new material, i.e new lines of programming code he won't be able to add anything new or change the program beyond what the already preexisting code will allow.

DNA is exactly the same. A dog can be bred to be all different size and shapes, to exhibit different kinds of behaviour etc but it can never ever ever grow wings because there simply isn't any coding in its DNA for wings, it will always, no matter how much it changes, remain a dog.

The fossil record literally screams this at us. When a creature appears in the fossil record it appears complete and fully formed, and identical to its descendents today with no trace of any evolutionary lineage whatsoever.

The best examples they have are whales or snakes with tiny bones they try and claim are vestigial legs or a bird that has teeth and is hence reptillian.

These just highlight how much they are clutching at straws.

Imagine if dinosaurs really did evolve over millions of years into birds. So we have 200 million years worth of dinosaur fossils, and 150 million years worth of bird fossils.

But for all the millions of years in between we have nothing. An entire animal group of dinobirds that must have lived on this planet for millions of years all over the world is completely missing.

And now they are going to any lengths possible to try and find this missing dinobird even to the extent of falling for the biggest hoax of modern times when the National Geographic unveiled to us Archaeoraptor in the nineties, the missing link proving beyond doubt that dinosaurs are birds. Then it turns out it was actually two seperate fossils glued together by a Chinese man selling hoax fossils for profit. In fact its a huge industry now, especially in China and Liaoning where every villager is now skilled at finding fossils and 'enhancing' them to sell to the Paelontologists.

We are told that there was once a bear like creature that went back to the sea and became the whales. Again sadly this entire millions of years period has left no evidence and we can't find the bear or any of his descendants.

The whole thing is a big bust. The more we learn about molecular biology the more we know things can't just spontaneously develop new information in their DNA.

We scoff at the idea that the ancients used to believe maggots and flies spontaneously appeared from decaying flesh and carcasses but we still believe in the spontaneous generation of life becuase scientists have somehow convinced us it did happen, but just once and billions of years ago.

None of this is science, and the evidence you keep talking about (for macro evolution) simply doesn't exist.

This has nothing to do with a religious stance, it's a purely scientific position.

Show me the actual scientific evidence that proves evolution and we can discuss it piece by piece.

[CGM]

OK, interesting post, but too much to tackle at once.

Again, and again, we seem to keep butting heads on issues of what is theory, proof, evidence, etc. I have never said Evolution can be proven, any more than you can call it disproven. Which you can't. And you haven't proven or even come up with a better alternative, as far as I can see.

Two points:
I don't agree with the way you have rejected scientific dating out of hand, it's a little more than pure fantasy I would say.
Your apparent claims that DNA cannot change (evolve, mutate) is certainly debatable.


Shall we try and resolve these issues, or move on to whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Birds from Dinosaurs.
What exactly will satisfy you? Do you want absolute proof? Or just evidence. What about the following.

Dinosaurs are extinct,
Birds are not extinct,
Dinosaurs layed eggs.
Many dinosaurs had three toes and walked upright,
As far as I know, there are no lizards that have three toes and walk upright, but there certainly are birds with three toes that walk upright.
There is evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. (Intermediary evidence)

I would say that constitutes evidence, but maybe not proof.

[Kev]

OK, interesting post, but too much to tackle at once.

Again, and again, we seem to keep butting heads on issues of what is theory, proof, evidence, etc. I have never said Evolution can be proven, any more than you can call it disproven. Which you can't. And you haven't proven or even come up with a better alternative, as far as I can see.

Two points:
I don't agree with the way you have rejected scientific dating out of hand, it's a little more than pure fantasy I would say.
Your apparent claims that DNA cannot change (evolve, mutate) is certainly debatable.


Shall we try and resolve these issues, or move on to whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Birds from Dinosaurs.
What exactly will satisfy you? Do you want absolute proof? Or just evidence. What about the following.

Dinosaurs are extinct,
Birds are not extinct,
Dinosaurs layed eggs.
Many dinosaurs had three toes and walked upright,
As far as I know, there are no lizards that have three toes and walk upright, but there certainly are birds with three toes that walk upright.
There is evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. (Intermediary evidence)

I would say that constitutes evidence, but maybe not proof.

Sorry but how is that anything more than conjecture, where is the science in that?

How about this.

Flies lay eggs
Flies actually fly
There are types of fly that are extinct
Are they related to birds?

There are so many different kinds of creature on this planet that it is inevitable that many share similarities.

A platypus also lays eggs like a bird.
It also has a beak

Is that a link between bird and mammal?


Plus a common build pattern doesn't indicate shared ancestery any more than it indicates a common designer.

If you believe that God created all life on earth then if things share a similar design its because the same God designed them.

In fact if you believe that one God created all life on earth you would expect them to share similar structures would you not?

We cannot prove or disprove either theory by looking at the similarities of organisms as both creation and evolution would predict such similarites.

[CGM]

OK, interesting post, but too much to tackle at once.

Again, and again, we seem to keep butting heads on issues of what is theory, proof, evidence, etc. I have never said Evolution can be proven, any more than you can call it disproven. Which you can't. And you haven't proven or even come up with a better alternative, as far as I can see.

Two points:
I don't agree with the way you have rejected scientific dating out of hand, it's a little more than pure fantasy I would say.
Your apparent claims that DNA cannot change (evolve, mutate) is certainly debatable.


Shall we try and resolve these issues, or move on to whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Birds from Dinosaurs.
What exactly will satisfy you? Do you want absolute proof? Or just evidence. What about the following.

Dinosaurs are extinct,
Birds are not extinct,
Dinosaurs layed eggs.
Many dinosaurs had three toes and walked upright,
As far as I know, there are no lizards that have three toes and walk upright, but there certainly are birds with three toes that walk upright.
There is evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. (Intermediary evidence)

I would say that constitutes evidence, but maybe not proof.

Sorry but how is that anything more than conjecture, where is the science in that?

How about this.

Flies lay eggs
Flies actually fly
There are types of fly that are extinct
Are they related to birds?

There are so many different kinds of creature on this planet that it is inevitable that many share similarities.

A platypus also lays eggs like a bird.
It also has a beak

Is that a link between bird and mammal?


Plus a common build pattern doesn't indicate shared ancestery any more than it indicates a common designer.

If you believe that God created all life on earth then if things share a similar design its because the same God designed them.

In fact if you believe that one God created all life on earth you would expect them to share similar structures would you not?

We cannot prove or disprove either theory by looking at the similarities of organisms as both creation and evolution would predict such similarites.

I read this post and quite frankly I think we are wasting our time. No mate, the theory of evolution is a little more than just conjecture. But I sure as hell ain't goona spends hours and hours assembling a scientific thesis for this thread. For starters, I ain't a scientist, and neither are you.

For the umpteeth time, I can't prove evolution, and you can't disprove it, nor can you prove anything else. In fact some of the evidence you have presented is just plain false. Your flood evidence for example I have already shot holes in that.

Your rejection of scientific dating is wrong from a logical point of view. A couple of counterexamples does not reject the validity of a technique, or series of techniques, any more then 100% perfection is required to validate those techniques.

You reject something because it does not fit your notion of science, but neither is the concept of an omnipoptent, all knowing, all seeing creator science either.