Topic awaiting preservation: Hey, the "Hobbits" arent actually hobbits (Page 1 of 4)

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1108hobbit.asp

just really short guys with microcephaly.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

(Edited by Kevin G on 11-08-2004 20:21)

well, what else can you excpect from answearsingenesis.org?

It'll be interesting to see what gibberish they then post when it gets confirmed that they (the "hobbits") are indeed a seperate strain of hominid.

WS: you say "when it gets confirmed" like you already know they are in fact real hobbits.

lets just wait and see if they really are hobbits or just short dudes with small brains.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

quote:

---

like you already know they are in fact real hobbits.

---

Ok, this must be clarified.

Please, tell me you realize that nobody is suggesting these are *actually* "hobbits"??

.


Now, I will say that we certainly need more information and corroboration before we can say a whole lot about where these specimens do fit in.

But this article certainly offers nothing conclusive by any means - and what little they do present (and seem so adamant about) is pretty thin.

Kevin G. I in no way, shape, or form mean that the skeletal remains found are the remains of Hobbits. I also have in no way, shape or form have declared that anything about these finds are concret cemented facts.

If you got these impressions from my post, then I apologize, for that was not my intent.

What I said was that should the finds be confirmed by the coming DNA comparisons to be actual hominids, and also to be of various ages (instead of young), then I suspect that that web-site will just find another "theory" to explain it away. They are assuming that the Bible is correct, and so must fit (or attempt to fit) everything around it.

A true scientist does not do this - he/she first examines the evidence, and begins to put together theories to explain the evidence, not the other way around.

hehe well WS i only got that impression cause you said "when" not "if"

your description of a true scientist describes Dr. Kent Hovind. im sure at least a few of you have heard of him. hes a great creation scientist, and the way he does things is he doesnt come to everything with a "how can i fit this into the bible" view. he does keep the bible in mind, but he comes to objective conclusions about evidence he finds, then says, "hey, this just so happens to be exactly what the bible says"

he has a $250,000 challenge: anyone who can prove to him in a live debate that evolution is a fact gets $250,000. no one has won the money yet. id encourage some of you guys to try to prove him wrong, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable about evolution. he's actually converted some of the best evolutionist to firm creationists, which is pretty cool.

btw, Dr Hovind is very open to change any of his views if someone gives him credible evidence that evolution is fact. no ones given him any as of yet.

www.drdino.com oh, and theres a lot of stuff you would consider crap on that site, you gotta watch his seminar videos to see the good stuff.

wow, my post got a lil off topic. but hey, we can start a cool discussion on Dr Hovinds views if anyone wants.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

Then it is settled, you shall be the fellowship of the ring.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

Heh.

quote:

---

he has a $250,000 challenge: anyone who can prove to him in a live debate that evolution is a fact gets $250,000. no one has won the money yet. id encourage some of you guys to try to prove him wrong, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable about evolution. he's actually converted some of the best evolutionist to firm creationists, which is pretty cool.

---

That is such an old tactic. I can offer someone billions, if they can prove my version of Evolution, as well, confident that no-one can. Please show me, WHAT definition of Evolution Mr. Hovind is using.

quote:

---

btw, Dr Hovind is very open to change any of his views if someone gives him credible evidence that evolution is fact. no ones given him any as of yet.

---

Again, it depends on the definition of Evolution being used. If he is denying that Evolution is a fact, then he is most probably using an odd definition of it. Either that, or no-one is taking him seriously.

More importantly - just because someone refuses to admit that something is fact doesn't make it any less so.

still waiting for an answer to my first quetion though....

quote:

---

wow, my post got a lil off topic.

quote:

---

wow what a surprise

---

but hey, we can start a cool discussion on Dr Hovinds views if anyone wants.

---

uh... sure... NOT!

BMF

They are too Hobbits... Whats happened is the place they were found was tectonically detatched from middle earth and that allowed it to be seen by the surface dwellers. Normally things are well divided. But sometimes the magma around the inner world crystallizes and shards are released to the surface. The time scale is different as well. Being encased in convectionous materials actually slows time.

So to us what seems like eons are actually just blinks of time. That is why this cretationist shard was allowed to be present for the last ten thousand years or so. Normally it would be the Wizzyrns responsibility to refold shards back into the fabric of the inner world, but with the current calamities and disagreements between orcs and elves, there were some other distractions.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

^ Hehe...

quote:

---

picked in The Gap Theory from Dr. Kent Hovind & Stephen Lawwell:

The gap theory comes wrapped in many different shapes and forms. There are as many variations of this theory as there are theologians to support it. Simply stated, the gap theory is the idea that a long period of time existed between God's initial creation in Genesis 1:1 when "God created the heaven and the earth" and Genesis 1:2 when the earth was "without form and void." Most gap theorists believe that prior to Genesis 1:2 the "first" earth was inhabited by angelic creatures, such as Lucifer, as well as the mysterious dinosaurs. A pre-Adamite race of men is also thought to have populated the earth as this time. Many gap theorists teach that the world existed in this manner for millions of years, if not billions. The gap's end is believed to have occurred when God, finding iniquity in Satan's heart, was compelled to destroy the earth with a flood and make it "without form, and void" (Genesis 1:2). God then proceeded to "re-create" the earth in six literal days as described in Genesis 1:3-31. The gap theory, also known as the "ruin-restoration" theory, is displayed for illustrative purposes in the time line below.

---

I see that the creationists do have a strong explanation about the dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures.

poi, for the record Dr Hovind is very much opposed to the gap theory. you guys should definately watch the seminar videos, they are easy to understand and have really good arguments.

but about hobbits, i know no ones saying they are actual hobbits, like from lotr. thats just the nickname. i hope we all knew this is what was meant. not real hobbits, but the other species that they call hobbits. meh, whatever. lol.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

quote:

---

i hope we all knew this is what was meant. not real hobbits, but the other species that they call hobbits.

---

ROTFLMAO!!

Kevin G: I spent several minutes on the website of this wonderful Dr Hovind. Sorry I'd like to have the time to watch his videos, but I don't really. Anyway I headed to the download section of his website and am downloading the 2 seminars. Still the blurb below the 2nd video is amazing :

quote:

---

The Garden of Eden:

1. The Garden of Eden, part two of the seminar series, describes the earth as it was before the worldwide flood. Dr. Hovind explains in detail how it was possible for man to live over 900 years, for plants and animals to grow much larger than today, and for dinosaurs to thrive along with man

---

Whatever, I don't understand how someone relying to a religious book ( whose original author(s) remain unknown and which content has certainly been touched with the time ) could claim to be a scientist.



(Edited by poi on 11-09-2004 16:10)

quote:

---

The gap theory comes wrapped in many different shapes and forms.

---

My version of the Gap theory is that when my wife goes to the Gap, it costs me money.

^*Falls down laughing*

quote:

---

So to us what seems like eons are actually just blinks of time. That is why this cretationist shard was allowed to be present for the last ten thousand years or so. Normally it would be the Wizzyrns responsibility to refold shards back into the fabric of the inner world, but with the current calamities and disagreements between orcs and elves, there were some other distractions.

---

I totally agree with that, it makes a lot of sense, right on, man you're smart!
My theory also is that Conan really messed things up by killing off the giant snakes.

BMF

I'll be honest, I dont care enough to go look for the answer myself, but maybe Kevin G will be kind enough to supply a reply to my question:

What does good Dr Hovind (or creationists in general) say about the process of fossilizaiton? As the rest of the society believes (I just couldnt put myself to write 'knows'), this process takes millions of years, and mere 5-6 thousand is nowhere near enough. There must be a "logical" explanation...

ok ok I take it back. I do care, and I went and looked. heres what I found:
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/stone_bears.asp

Logical? Im not sure... heres what it reads:

quote:

---

Gradually, these deposits build up and coat the object with a crust of rock.

---

As we know, fossilization is not "coating" of an object, but rather replacement of tissue with minerals. They're talking about a completely different thing...

So please, if anyone will, find a better "explanation" of fossilization?



(Edited by asptamer on 11-10-2004 02:12)

i dont know a lot about fossilization. is it similar to petrification? cause i know petrification can occur rapidly.

also, how do people know how old fossils are? ive heard they date them by the geologic layer theyre found in, or by using carbon 14 dating.

in one of Dr Hovinds videos he points out something very interesting. some scientists carbon14 dated several different parts of the same dinosaur. like its skull, toe, tail, etc. every part of the dinosaur came up with a different age, each age being hundred of thousands of years apart. maybe its foot died a couple hundred thousand years after its head.

but as far as dating them by which geologic age theyre located in, you then have to ask how you know how old the geologic age is. a normal response is "by the fossils found in it"

so the fossils are dated by the layer, and the layer is dated by the fossil. its circular reasoning.

these geologic layers are supposed to be millions of years or sumpin. however trees have been found standing upright in the layers. is the bottom of the tree a billion years older than the top?

im not an expert here tho. Dr Hovind is, i highly recommend you check out his videos.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

The carbon 14 isotope has a relatively short half-life (5700 years) in the spectrum of isotopes used in radiometric dating. Here is additional detail on carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating is accurate to about 60,000 years as stated in the source. If the "scientists" were using Carbon 14 as their dating marker, then it is no wonder they were getting crazy results. The last of the true dinosaurs died out something on the order of 65 million years ago or so. They were using a method of dating on something that was at minimum 1000 times older than the accuracy can account for. This is also not accounting for the intrusion of carbon isotopes during the fossilization process.

There are several ways something can be fossilized. Petrified wood is a specific type of fossil.

Using fossils to date rock beds is not circular logic. It is one tool of many used in the deduction of dating. There are lots of clues within rockbeds themselves that can tell their age. Using key fossils that are known to have only exist during a certain timespan only narrows the timeframe of a rockbed down.

And for the "trees have been found standing upright in the layers", this is a link describing just how such a thing can come to be. The trees that are being discussed in this article are around 10,000 years old. They were not knocked over when they were buried. You can see living examples of this also in the deserts of the world. Trees are buried by sand on a regular basis by shifting dunes. Some never emerge again.

Rather than seeing a discrepancy such as the 100,000 year death of a dinosaur as proof that 65 million years is far too old for a dinosaur, it would be much more productive to investigate the reason why the discrepancy occured in the first place. That is good science.

^Amen

quote:

---

Kevin G said:
in one of Dr Hovinds videos he points out something very interesting. some scientists carbon14 dated several different parts of the same dinosaur. like its skull, toe, tail, etc. every part of the dinosaur came up with a different age, each age being hundred of thousands of years apart. maybe its foot died a couple hundred thousand years after its head.

(...)

im not an expert here tho. Dr Hovind is, i highly recommend you check out his videos.

---

If "Dr Hovind" bases his theory on the carbon dating of a dinosaur you should quit calling an expert, right now. Damn, even a 13yo kid knows that C14 dating is viable for serveral half-life periods which means ~60,000 at maximum.

Ok, I'll try to watch "Dr Hovind"'s videos. I'm sure I'll have a good time.



(Edited by poi on 11-10-2004 10:33)

You can't carbon-14 date a fossil. A fossil is rock. Fossilazation is the "replacement of tissue with minerals" as asptamer conjectured.

When they carbon-14 date dinosaur (and other) bones, these are actual preserved bones, not fossils.

I watched Kent Hovind's second video "The Garden of Eden." Some of the information is really fascinating, and some of it even makes sense!!! But unfortunately, most of his evidence is "lack of evidence," things like "smithsonean did a great job at hiding all the evidence of creation;" and yet some other is total bull... At some point, when talking about humans living together with dinosaurs, they showed a drawing of a native american (perhaps a child) on a llama. I agree that there's resemblence between llamas and certain types of dinosaurs, but come on... trying to be serious here.

What was really fascinating (sci-fi like) is that Dr. Hovind believes (I never heard of any similar theory nor do I know if he used any sources other than the bible and his imagination to come up with it) that before the flood there were three layers of water: one below the earth, one on the earth, and one above the sky. The first and last broke down (or up) and caused the flood.

His another belief is that pre-flood earth was under twice as much atmospheric pressure (he uses an air bubble from an ancient amber formation as the source, gotta check about that), which allowed for accelerated growth and higher fertility of plants and animals (one of the examples here was a cherry-tomato tree grown in a hyperbaric chamber, as well as the chamber's miraculous healing powers)

Technically a 1 meter layer of water above the atmosphere could produce the extra 1atm of pressure and yet allow enough ultra-violet to get to earth for photosynthesis to occur, but how do you suspend so much water in the air?! clouds?? (he suggests it was in the form of ice... ice mist perhaps)? And then maybe some global cataclysm reduced the amount of water and... here comes life as we know it...

Like I said before, much of this sounds like science fiction to me, but its a bit scary because in a very fucked up way, some of it does make sense...

Great thing about Hovind's approach is that he does try to use modern science to support his theories, but it is sad that he insists on accepting the bible (old testament, the unedited version) literary, and that may not be the safest way to go.

quote:

---

much of this sounds like science fiction to me

---

How about just plain old fiction!

quote:

---

What was really fascinating (sci-fi like) is that Dr. Hovind believes (I never heard of any similar theory nor do I know if he used any sources other than the bible and his imagination to come up with it) that before the flood there were three layers of water: one below the earth, one on the earth, and one above the sky.

---

Fascinating? It's gobbledy-gook! What is fascinating to me, in a horrifying way, is that some people are drawn in enough by this sort of nonsense to actually beleive it!

Yep, there was an ocean above the sky, that God loved to swim in. But He so loved us all that he gave it up and gave it to us to use.

^Actually, it was his bathtub, and he pulled the plug one day...the rest is Bible history!

Nah guys, u're too harsh. This dude is onto something... he isnt disaproving evolution nor is he proving existence of God or validity of the new testament, but he does give a very coherent presentation of The Flood. Everything seems to fit into Genesis in his words, and it's really interesting, even though you think "bullshit!!!" at times. His main qualm with current version of science is the wording "millions or billions of years." He gives a decent explanation for how the Grand Canion et al could have been made in a very short time - days, months, years. Nothing in his presentation proves that the Earth was indeed Created (6 thousand years ago), but only the fact that there was a global flood. Well, no one really denies it, as it is documented in many writings and most cultures posess a version of it.

In the end the videos become sermons and that's a totally different discussion (freedom of religion?), but I think the seminars are indeed worthy of your attention... at least a very skeptical version of it :D

quote:

---

briggl said:

Fascinating? It's gobbledy-gook!

---

With respect, it *should* be fascinating because that was how ancient cultures in the Middle East viewed the world, more or less.

From Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs), I pointed out to White Hawk in a discussion about Genesis:

quote:

---

Now about the earth not being moved. This goes back to what I was talking about how all the cultures of southwestern asia understood the physical world. It was believed that the earth rested on an immense subterranean ocean. It was also believed that the heavens were fixed above the earth like a large inverted bowl. If you compare the creation stories of the Assyrians and Babylonians with that of Genesis, you will see this as common view of the physical world.

---

I'll just say once more, the problem is that creationists are forcing a literal read on text that will not have it. It really is a shame.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Science tends towards a receeding of the ice in the last ice age as the reason for the floods, not god emptying his bathtub. In fact, there has been a number of ice ages, and these type of floods. A big enough asteroid or comet strike in the ocean would produce a huge tidal wave. That might also account for a flood scenario.

Of course, the WHOLE earth was not covered with water during the flooding, as the ice melted from the last ice age. We can measure this, in the coral reefs (which, incidently, also serve as excellent time markers, as well - I don't see any explanation for them from creationists).

quote:

---

gmn17 said:

My theory also is that Conan really messed things up by killing off the giant snakes.

---

Oi Vey! Don't get me started on what that punk, Harry Potter, did to the cause of Basilisk Preservation!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Of course, the WHOLE earth was not covered with water

---

actually Hovind claims that clams were found atop the mount Everest.

and since we got this started, I'll just tell u what the "Hovind theory" is about, since Im one of those few who was bored enough to actually watch the videos.

He believes it was a comet. As it is known that most comets are made up mostly of ice and dirt, this one was no exception, and somehow it broke up on its flight towards (or away from...) the Sun. Its fragments, aside from creating the rings around Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus (perhaps also Saturn), hit the innermost planets thus forming the mirriads of craters. Here he points out that this goes along with the fact that most of the craters on mercury and moon do not feature meteorites as the sources of impact. In other words, there's a hole, but no rock - as it melted away and evaporated.

Then he gets very technical, specifying that ice is easily submitted to static charge, and thus (somehow), due to Earth's magnetic field, the ice that was destined for Earth ended up on its poles. Falling out as -300F snow, it cought Mammoths which were later found frozen standing upright, with food still in their mouths (cause of death - suffocation). Mammoths by the way (all according to the videos, Im just a messenger here) were never exposed to cold weather before, which is evident from the fact that they lack the oil glands on the skin, and the palm leaves found frozen in polar regions. Before this cataclysm, Earth was a much warmer place without seasonal shifts, which were introduced when the ice caps fell onto the poles and thus 'threw the planet out of balance' causing it to wobble. Until then, polar regions were somewhat like tropics, with constant spring.

Two things happen next: Glacier forms, and the flood erupts. Naturally (no shit?!), the Earth's crust is broken, and the inner waters are let loose drowning the animals and people (latter became Oil) creating mass graves, which by itself is a strong indicator of a major cataclysm.

Later the waters subdue, and major geological features of Earth are formed.
Few inetesting notes: The order in which fossils are located in stone (birds on top, clams on the bottom) doesnt imply that clams evolved before birds, but rather that clams drowned before birds, as clams were already on the bottom, and birds floated for a bit. The layers are there because the dirt was settling in that way. Water was coming and going, and when theres moving water, there's separation of heavy and light particles, thus forming layers when it finally settles down. (He talks more than this about layers of course, as it gets more complicated in real life, and I dont remember the details)
Hovind names numerous accounts when petrification of wood and other things was known to occur in time span as short as 20-30 years, so the fossils we find now do not have be millions of years old.

---------

That's an hour of lecture in 3 paragraphs, boring stuff omited.
I guess if we wanna know for sure, we gotta dig deeper : )

asptamer: thanks for the summary. Hehe, looks like I'll have a really funny afternoon

quote:

---

doesnt imply that clams evolved before birds, but rather that clams drowned before birds

---

Clams can't drown. They live in water.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-11-2004 12:22)

sure clams cant drown, but what if they were killed, then drowned? just a thought from my 16 year old brain.

anyway Hovind gets into some pretty deep crap, and i dont understand it all.

the videos you guys saw are the confusing ones...he has like 50 hours of video taken from seminars, and are very easy to understand. some of the 7 year olds could explain it.

when you get into that deep stuff it gets all confusing, but the simple stuff that cant be explained any other way, i think thats where his really good stuff is.
ive heard people say "i just cannot understand how anyone could possibly not believe evolution"

well after watching his videos i was thinking "i just cannot understand how anyone could possibly not believe creation"

(btw i never saw ay of the videos about the metor and polar ice caps and such)

i think if everyone saw Hovinds videos people would understand creation isnt as crazy as everyone thinks it is. i wouldnt expect people to change their views necesarilly, but you would realize that we have a lot of valid ideas.

again, i would really encourage everone to watch them, he has some DVD's available, and he gives permission to everyone to copy them and distribute them to anyone for free. cause he wants to get the word out.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

quote:

---

sure clams cant drown, but what if they were killed, then drowned?

---

That is preposterous. First of all, they can't drown. Second, dead things can't drown, either.

quote:

---

but the simple stuff that cant be explained any other way

---

Like clams drowning?

Give me a break

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

^ that's right, WS - clams can't drown according to modern science, but if god tells clams to drown - then they drown.

Kevin - sorry to say - the more I read and the more I see form this guy, the crazier and less coherent it becomes. He relies on the fact that people like you are going to get confused by the "deep and complicated" stuff, and then simply take his word because people don't want to understand the details anyway.

Then once you buy his complicated theory (the one you sum up as deep and complicated, but don't really get...), you'll start beleiving the "simple stuff" and even beleiving that such "simple stuff" can't be explained any other way.

Bugimus - as far as it being how the ancient cultures saw the world....they saw a *whole* lot of things in the world that were very definately misperceptions.

it is fascinating to read the ancient perceptions in the context of them being ancient perceptions.

To read about them as "modern science" is truly frightening.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:
it is fascinating to read the ancient perceptions in the context of them being ancient perceptions.
To read about them as "modern science" is truly frightening.

---

I completely agree with this.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .