Archaeologica.org

But it doesn't discard facts which do not fit the mold. That's where religion comes in.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

dannan14 wrote:Yeah RS, but Galileo collected facts and based his arguments upon them. Not the other way around.

Sadly, you're wrong, dannan: good science starts with a hypothesis, and subsequently collects facts or devises experiments to support and test that hypothesis.

And sometimes the facts one collects do not support the hypothesis. Then the hypothesis must be either tweaked or discarded. The you instead discard the "anomalous" facts then see Min's post above.

He ain't the only nut Min.
Some additional original thinkers for RS.
Hubbard.
Joseph Smith.
Adolph Hitler.
Velikovsky.
Von Daniken.

Roy.

RS is correct Dan in his statement of theory first, evidence following.
We've had his theory but I wouldn't hold your breath whilst waiting for the evidence!
And BTW RS, Galileo got it in the neck, not for original thinking, but for his support of Copernicus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Just another dumb follower like the rest of us!

Roy.

Guilt by association.

So does 67K years ago not only push back filipino history but also all pacific island history? What are the earliest remains found so far?

Well the OP states the 'Asia Pacific' region, which is a pretty large area, and states 'boats' so common sense suggests that man was reasonably widespread. The alternative would have to be that the bone comes from the only person in the entire area.
Possible, but extremely coincidental if it was so.

Roy.

Digit wrote:And BTW RS, Galileo got it in the neck, not for original thinking, but for his support of Copernicus.

I.o.w. he was persecuted for dissent. It was an ordinary witch hunt. He was plain lucky not to be burnt at the stake or thrown into a river to see if he could float.

He was indeed, but not for 'original thought.'
BTW what is the differnece between my attempting to 'stifle dissent' by asking you to prove your assertions and you doing the same to Uni over the death toll in the camps?

Roy.

Digit wrote:He was indeed, but not for 'original thought.'

OK, for following someone with an original – thus deemed blasphemous – thought. The Vatican didn't make that subtle distinction, I assure you.

BTW what is the differnece between my attempting to 'stifle dissent' by asking you to prove your assertions and you doing the same to Uni over the death toll in the camps?

Refresh my memory, got a link?

Yes I have, but you are attempting to divert my question again.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Yes I have, but you are attempting to divert my question again.

No, YOU brought up the subject.

OK, fuck you then.

That's how you dodged the last time. Habit forming this is.

Roy.

Digit wrote:That's how you dodged the last time. Habit forming this is.

Apparently! You seem positively addicted...

Gotta dig up what Carl and Niccolò said about that.

But I don't swear at people, it's bad manners, as I'm sure your parents told you.
And that is how you terminated another 'debate.'

Roy.