hawkeye
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 10:18 AM
im not even goig to dignify hat with a response |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 10:43 AM
You just did. |
Nick
in Merrie Olde Englande
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 02:41 PM
hats don't need to be dignified with responses |
Katherine
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 04:10 PM
I'll dignify the hat!
First of all, that's not precisely a reputable site. You might want to find something affiliated with a scientific journal or something similar so that people won't dismiss you right out of the gate.
Secondly, I'm sure I have read or heard something similar somewhere with no conspiracy theories...ah, here we go.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/03/indonesia.hobbit.ap/index.html
It's probably a bit silly of people to call them hobbits, though, as it implies JRR Tolkien knew of their existence and wrote purposely about these specific creatures in LOTR, which isn't the case. (Or is it??? Mwhahahaha!) |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 04:48 PM
I just threw out my magazines, but a few months ago the Indonesian guy was the cover story on (I think) Scientific American. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 | 04:12 AM
Yes, Homo floriensis is a legitimate find. And it is a hominid for sure. Whether it is a legitimate different species from Homo sapiens is another question.
I don't give a crap for the "they might have survived untill 200 years ago" stuff.
With regard to the latter, note that pygmee human populations are still existent on several islands in Wallacea and New Guinea. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 | 04:33 AM
It's Homo floresiensis (not floriensis as I wrote earlier - oh, my crappy mind....).
And ere's the original publication, in Nature of 28 october 2004:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02956_fs.html |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 | 07:30 AM
How come the remains are 13-18,000 years old when the world isn't even that old?? :roll:
...Sorry. I had to do it. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 | 08:53 PM
Yeah, and if they can't tell if something is thirteen years old, or 18,000 years old, it's obvious their science is just b.s. Embrace God's Plan! |
Myst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 | 10:37 PM
Here is some more stuff about Homo floresiensis.
<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Hobbits-locked-away-as-scientists-argue/2004/11/25/1101219679777.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true">Hobbits locked away as scientists argue</a>
<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0303_050303_tv_hobbit.html">"Hobbit" Brains Were Small but Smart, Study Says</a>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-03-21-hobbit-usat_x.htm">Fresh scandal over old bones</a>
Yes I have been following this story like a dog following a nice juicy bone. This kind of history fascinates me. :cheese: |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 | 09:43 AM
New Species of Man Confirmed...It's a WOMAN! Ehh...I'm bored. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 09:32 AM
You know Maegan, I've always wondered wether women are a human species indeed....
(Okay, hidding for cover now..... just couldn't resist this shot for an open goal, even though I know the consequences. Farewell, forum, the Hoax is over.....another Lama bites the dust(y). But as usual, it is all Hairy's fault, blame it on him; he is corrupting everyone, first Maegan, then Stephen, now me... So send your hatemail to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) please...) |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 09:36 AM
"Okay, hidding for cover now"
...because there's only one thing worse than a woman; and that's an angry woman.... |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 09:46 AM
Everyone knows hobbits exist. I seen them in Lord of the ring. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 09:51 AM
Saw.
Anywho...LaMa...there will be no wrath of woman scorned, I always assumed that women were not human at all. Superhuman maybe. Mere human? I doubt it. 😝 |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 10:00 AM
Allright, I made a mistake. There is something worse than an angry woman: and that is a sarcastic woman... |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 11:11 AM
Ooooook; what was wrong in my sentence maegan???
"I seen them" |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 02:10 PM
Stephen,
If you are so attached to using the word seen then your sentence should have been... "I have seen them." You can go with either "I saw them." Or with "I have seen them." But not "I seen them." You're a moderator now young man, you must take into account the presence you give off as a representative of the Museum of Hoaxes, there is a reputation to uphold here.
😊 |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 | 02:25 PM
Hey, as long as my point gets across, it's ok. Also, Thanks for the book Alex!!! |
terry
|
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 | 02:31 PM
A serious question: has anyone concidered that the larger than average brain size for its kind is simular to the change found with Einstiens brain when it was examined after his death?
If selective pressure as the nature debate calls it can increase the size of a genius brain in his own lifetime why should selective pressure not also explain the unusual size of the Hobbit brain
selective pressure comes in many forms not least
from the vision of great men as creationists well know |
