dwarfs have been found!!!!

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

This hobbit-sized creature appears to have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago on the island of Flores, a kind of tropical Lost World populated by giant lizards and miniature elephants.


that sure sounds scientific.

sorry, but i don't buy carbon dating. it's been shown to be completely inaccurate after a few thousands years.
 
Originally posted by Prowler@Oct 27 2004, 12:49 PM
This hobbit-sized creature appears to have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago on the island of Flores, a kind of tropical Lost World populated by giant lizards and miniature elephants.


that sure sounds scientific.

sorry, but i don't buy carbon dating. it's been shown to be completely inaccurate after a few thousands years.
[post=408163]Quoted post[/post]​


Huh?

From http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

"The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years."

Hell, there's even this guy, who's a creationist (what, are we living in the 1800's?), who speaks for the accuracy of carbon dating: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
 
i've read that climatic changes can severely affect what we think was normal c14 levels at a set date in the past.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/5/5/7/1

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant.
- http://kecirohomeschool.com/carbondating.htm

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.
 
funny:
Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating
The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago!
What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago.
Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago.
All from different Science magazines and journals.
 
fuck em, i like to call em lil bitches that don't need knee pads...
 
Originally posted by Havok@Oct 27 2004, 03:36 PM
It's "Vertically Challenged" if you want to be PC :p
[post=408221]Quoted post[/post]​

no, that's fat people.

they grow in the wrong direction.
 
ugh, sometimes it seems like all some scientists get paid to do its just make up complete crap...they said that the skull was the BEST specimen, so what? they found one small skull, maybe it was a baby graveyard, or perhaps just one dwarf and a few other bones, IMO this doesnt justify declaring that an entirely new species of human being has been found. I agree with prowler on carbon dating, i took a creation science class that completely disproved carbon dating, true, a creation science class would be a bit biased against carbon dating, but i researched it on my own some, and it just seems to be something they use to fill in the gaps when they can, tottally inaccurate.
 
Originally posted by dohcvtec_accord+Oct 27 2004, 02:56 PM-->
@Oct 27 2004, 12:49 PM
This hobbit-sized creature appears to have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago on the island of Flores, a kind of tropical Lost World populated by giant lizards and miniature elephants.


that sure sounds scientific.

sorry, but i don't buy carbon dating. it's been shown to be completely inaccurate after a few thousands years.
[post=408163]Quoted post[/post]​


Huh?

From http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

"The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years."

Hell, there's even this guy, who's a creationist (what, are we living in the 1800's?), who speaks for the accuracy of carbon dating: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
[post=408170]Quoted post[/post]​

very tru....i took a archaeology class this semester... and i can concur :p
 
Originally posted by Oct 29 2004@ 02:37 PM
Just how this primitive, remnant species managed to hang on and whether it crossed paths with modern humans is uncertain. Geologic evidence suggests a massive volcanic eruption sealed its fate some 12,000 years ago, along with other unusual species on the island.


[post=408930]Quoted post[/post]​


Number 1: Of course they crossed paths with modern humans, one of them carried the ring for god's sake.

Number 2: That 'massive volcanic eruption' wasn't any random volcano, it was Mordor. Where have these people been the past three LotR movies? Jesus....
 
Back
Top