How Much Do We Really Know

No, just when you came up with the idea ?

are we talking 5 years, 20 years, or 50 ?

I figure you are no older than your early 20s, so, after puberty, about 7 years ago ?

I started actively attempting to understand my experiences three years ago, with most of my progress having been made over the last year. I managed to verify my experiences were in fact real, and I am currently working on reproducing the phenomena in order to be able to properly prove it.

By scientific method I also mean that the results were as to be independently verified and reproduced by others. Has that happened?

Yes it has. In order to make sure the results I percieved were real, I had unbiased people verify my findings. By unbiased I mean they did not know what to expect until the experiment had terminated. Unbiased perception was paramount, as the experiments had to do with ESP.

originally posted by: Fer1527

No, just when you came up with the idea ?

are we talking 5 years, 20 years, or 50 ?

I figure you are no older than your early 20s, so, after puberty, about 7 years ago ?

I started actively attempting to understand my experiences three years ago, with most of my progress having been made over the last year. I managed to verify my experiences were in fact real, and I am currently working on reproducing the phenomena in order to be able to properly prove it.

There's no need to reproduce it, when you can just watch it

a reply to: Marduk

My experiments have to do with extra-sensory perception, not with ultraterrestrials. However it is the only reason I support that hypothesis, as both subjects appear to be linked.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

My experiments have to do with extra-sensory perception, not with ultraterrestrials. However it is the only reason I support that hypothesis, as both subjects appear to be linked.

Temporal lobe epilepsy can cause frequent subjective paranormal experiences e.g. telepathy, mediumistic trance, writing automatisms, visualization of presences or of lights/colors round people, dream ESP, out-of body experiences, alleged healing abilities

Have you eliminated the possibility via medical science, or do you also not trust your doctor ?

a reply to: Marduk

I take that as a personal insult.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

I take that as a personal insult.

I take it that you haven't bothered then
You are claiming to have ESP
Yet you have no evidence at all and no corroboration
The fact that you'd take a logical helpful comment as an insult speaks volumes

a reply to: Marduk

The experiments involved multiple, unbiased people as I mentioned before. Unless of course you are suggesting, multiple people can experience the exact same hallucinations repeatedly. Are you?

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

The experiments involved multiple, unbiased people as I mentioned before. Unless of course you are suggesting, multiple people can experience the exact same hallucinations repeatedly. Are you?

For all I know, these unbiased people were also your hallucinations
Care to put me in touch with any of them so I can ask their opinions, because currently, you are supporting your own evidence with your own opinion.
When someone makes an extraordinary claim, its best to eliminate the most possible reasons first, the fact that you have jumped straight to being a psychic and take insult when anyone suggests otherwise shows that you are prone to self delusion and personal aggrandisement, which I have to tell you, are also symptoms of a brain disorder.

If you had any credible evidence for your acclaimed powers, you wouldn't be here now, making yourself look deluded, you'd be sitting on a beach somewhere spending the million dollars you received from the Randi foundation on a cocktail.

a reply to: Marduk

For all I know, these unbiased people were also your hallucinations
Care to put me in touch with any of them so I can ask their opinions

Even if I did, you would conjure up even more excuses as to why I am delusional and you are right.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, its best to eliminate the most possible reasons first, the fact that you have jumped straight to being a psychic

I'd say the possibility of insanity was pretty much eliminated when other people experienced the exact same things. The fact that I took the time to look into the matter and test things as best I could, is proof that I didn't "jump straight to being a psychic".

and take insult when anyone suggests otherwise shows that you are prone to self delusion and personal aggrandisement, which I have to tell you, are also symptoms of a brain disorder.

That part is all slander and ridicule.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

For all I know, these unbiased people were also your hallucinations
Care to put me in touch with any of them so I can ask their opinions

Even if I did, you would conjure up even more excuses as to why I am delusional and you are right.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, its best to eliminate the most possible reasons first, the fact that you have jumped straight to being a psychic

I'd say the possibility of insanity was pretty much eliminated when other people experienced the exact same things. The fact that I took the time to look into the matter and test things as best I could, is proof that I didn't "jump straight to being a psychic".

and take insult when anyone suggests otherwise shows that you are prone to self delusion and personal aggrandisement, which I have to tell you, are also symptoms of a brain disorder.

That part is all slander and ridicule.

Noted: you don't know what slander is either


I used to post on the JREF forum, people would make the same claims as you on a twice weekly basis
Statistically there are hundreds of thousands of people on earth right now experiencing various disorders which cause them to hallucinate
Compare that with the number of people in Earths history (107,000,000,000) who have proved they have psychic powers. i.e. zero
This means that you have more chance of winning the lottery almost 8000 times in a row

Perhaps then, you can prove you are genuinely psychic by winning the lottery jackpot just once
Oh yes, of course, sorry, you probably have some pitifully poor excuse as to why your powers can't be used to enrich yourself.

originally posted by: Fer1527

The experiments involved multiple, unbiased people as I mentioned before. Unless of course you are suggesting, multiple people can experience the exact same hallucinations repeatedly. Are you?

Even if I did, you would conjure up even more excuses as to why I am delusional and you are right.

Not if you actually followed the scientific method and kept immaculate records so that the process could be independently reproduced by parties you are not associated with. Did you keep records of the "experiment", how it was conducted, what your controls were etc? Do you have the background or know how to actually set up proper controls and record all aspects of the purported experiment? Because if you did not and have not made the materials available to anyone to independently reproduce your results then it's not an experiment, it's your word that this occurred. What exactly were the parameters of this experiment?

I'd say the possibility of insanity was pretty much eliminated when other people experienced the exact same things. The fact that I took the time to look into the matter and test things as best I could, is proof that I didn't "jump straight to being a psychic".

It's not actually proof of anything if you did not do as I indicated above aside from confirmation bias. Please describe the specifics of your experiment for us as well as the background you have that qualifies you to undertake such an endeavor. or should we just refer to you as a psychic fundamentalist from here on out?

That part is all slander and ridicule.

No, it's not slander in the slightest. Personally, I take your insult as rather insulting. I was diagnosed with epilepsy rather late in life and quite recently. As such. I am quite familiar with the symptoms to the point that I could tell you several days ahead of time when I will have a grand mal seizure were I not taking my medication. Several of those symptoms can be interpreted as 'psychic" or paranormal phenomena so to belittle a medical diagnosis as a potentiality is not just ignorant and insulting to those who have these disorders, it means you refuse to explore all potential outcomes and possibilities which renders any experiment you feel you have properly undertaken null and void.

And for the record-

/ˈslandər/

noun
Law

noun: slander

1.

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

"he is suing the TV network for slander"

You are an anonymous person on the internet, therefore your reputation, whatever it may be, is fully intact and in no danger of being damaged. Slander is in no way applicable to you or this scenario.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: iDope

Due to the immense timescales over which it occurs, nobody will ever be able to observe evolution 'happening". That doesn't mean it doesn't, though. It's still supported by every bit of evidence that we have, and it still remains the most likely answer, by far.

So taking in the immense timescales which evolution occurs it makes more sense for animals to evolve beside the same animals? Where the forefathres of the evolved animals still exist? There are many extinct creatures, when they should be much more dominant than the ones that survive today.

And by what you have said, Science, which believes strongly in evolution, doesn't care if the studies can observe evolution happen, yet it is truth? That is not Science. It is not replicatable, noone can prove evolution. natural selection can be proven but evolution cannot. Anyone who says that humans evolved from monkeys are complete idiots and schills, noone can prove the fact. Not a single study proves how we evolved from monkeys. The monkey's anatomy is so completley different from a humans that there is a complete gap on how it happened.

No monkey can speak an audible language, that is fact, their entire vocal system is so different than ours that we could not have evolved from them. No animal can talk and use vocal language, and it's not because of our brains, it is because of how our entire breathing and throat anatomy is situated and formed, entirely different from a monkey. So there are multiple missing links in order to even consider than humans evolved from monkeys. Not one other ammal shares our same or even similar throat and breathing system, we are the only ones that can talk how we do, the others make gutteral sounds because they dpn't have the complex organs involved in speach. Case rested. Evolution cannot explain giant leaps, only short and small mutations.

a reply to: peter vlar

I am purely stating that evolution cannot be implied to humans, case in point. There is not one creature indiginous to this planet that shares even remotley our sae structure. You can't say monkey, it is such a huge leap from monkey-chimp-gorilla to a human that it is unfathomable by evolution standards. There would have to be small steps in between and neandrathals are not that step. Language and talking doesn't just spurt up unless something allowed it to. We are the only ones who can talk and have language, as we do. Millions upon millions of ways to change the air by way of throoat and mouth and tongue in order to create sounds which translate to words. No other creature compares by a sliver. Sorry, evolution cannot be used to describe man. Take a biology class and look at human anatomy, not one creater resembles it from shoulders up, not one in multi-millions.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: iDope

No matter how well you explain it, science fundamentalists will always respond with shoving "sources" from other narrow minded folk to ridicule your statements.

It really doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter what everyone believes, it matters only what you believe. i am not a doctor in any field. But if I was a doctor, in lets say medicine- a standard General Practioner of medicine, and someone came along- an Einstein or Tesla of the field of medicine and proved that every ailment could be solved through slow processes of natural treatments of just good vibrations and natural plant sourced materials; how would that modern medicine doctor respond? This doctor spent a hundred thousand dollars on education and his practice and now it is irrelevant and noone want to hear his BigPharma drug promotions anymore. You think that his scientific mind would accept it and let his practice go into the dirt? No he and all the billions of dollars in BigPharma would belittle the other science that is on their coat tails.

That is always how it works in business and will keep being that way. So believe what you want, I am just stating what is my opinion from information I believe, even after being strong evolution and science based. Science cannot ad never can answer all questions, yet we expect it to.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: peter vlar

I am purely stating that evolution cannot be implied to humans, case in point. There is not one creature indiginous to this planet that shares even remotley our sae structure.

Extant? I'm not sure I would even agree with that. And evolution isn't solely about morphology anyway. The genetic similarities are beyond a shadow of a doubt when looking at other living apes. As for Extinct, there are MANY other members of our genus who share many aspects our morphology.

You can't say monkey, it is such a huge leap from monkey-chimp-gorilla to a human that it is unfathomable by evolution standards.

You're the only one saying monkey, again. Monkeys aren't apes. The common ancestry between modern humans and monkeys goes back 10's of millions of years to shortly after the demise of the Dinosaurs. Our common ancestry to other extant apes however is much closer at approximately 15 MA. There are a great many similarities between apes and humans. There is nothing unfathomable about this at all.

There would have to be small steps in between and neandrathals are not that step.

There are steps in between and nobody in the last 80 years has claimed that Neanderthal are an intermediate step between HSS and any other member of the genus Homo. HSS evolved in Africa from H. Heidelbergensis. Neanderthal likewise, evolved from Heidelbergensis but in Europe. H. Altaiensis(Denisovan) evolved in Western Asia from... you guessed it, Heidelbergensis. We are all cousins so to speak, none are intermediary to the other. HH is derived from H. Erectus, or more appropriately, H. Ergaster which is an African Erectus from the Pleistocene. There are numerous intermediaries going back to H. Habilis and that's an extremely breief overview of just a few members of our own genus. It goes back even farther to the Australopithecines, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Sahlanthropus Tchadensis, Ororrin Tungensis... we are talking millions of years of incremental development. Honestly, there simply isn't enough time or space to get into the entire family tree if you're not willing to do the reading on your own.

Language and talking doesn't just spurt up unless something allowed it to.

Then what "allowed it to"? And who says it just "spurted up"? No Anthropologists I've ever known would agree with that statement.

We are the only ones who can talk and have language, as we do.

You're creating a false equivalency strawman with statements like this. There are many species which have language. Just because YOU can't understand it does not mean it is not complex. Are you able to communicate with cetaceans who can communicate over vast distances underwater? I'm sorry but your "arguments" are coming off as rather ill informed and uneducated. I'm not saying that YOU are uneducated, just that you don't seem particularly well educated on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or what the science behind it can prove let alone the intricacies of our own human evolution

Millions upon millions of ways to change the air by way of throoat and mouth and tongue in order to create sounds which translate to words. No other creature compares by a sliver.

Again, many species are capable of complex vocalizations. Many primates are capable of more complex vocalizations than humans and have a far more broad range of hearing than we do. Our speech has evolved along with our ability to, and range of, hearing. This issue is far more complex than you seem to understand. Humans are different, sure but that doesn't mean we are somehow exempt from evolution. If every other life form on earth can evolve but humans did not, what then is your solution to this? because if you have a different answer that you can prove there's a Nobel waiting for you to claim.

Sorry, evolution cannot be used to describe man.

It can, and it is proven to be true. Human evolution is a fact. Evolution is very likely THE most researched, sourced and proven theory in the history of science. This is independently verified from multiple fields and scientific disciplines. The fossil record, biology, genetics, geology even physics and it applies every bit as much to Homo Sapiens Sapiens as it does to Pan Troglodytes or Canines or any other species, clade, family or order you can think of. And aside from making syllogistic strawman's out of thin air based on incredulousness, you haven't actually proven any of the statements you are making. Describe exactly why and with some detail why evolution can't be used to describe or be applied to man because right now, your position seems tenuous and very lacking in substance.

But just for fun, what actual evidence do you have aside from your incredulousness towards skeletal morphology? Do you have an alternate explanation and if so, what evidence do you have to support it?

Take a biology class and look at human anatomy, not one creater resembles it from shoulders up, not one in multi-millions.

Bull S# please provide a citation backing up this claim. Have you taken a comparative anatomy class? I have and you're dead wrong.

a reply to: peter vlar

a reply to: iDope

You have made it abundantly clear with your belief that you think scientists claim that we evolved from monkeys that you do not even know the basics of human evolution, yet here you are trying to discount it,
Your credibility at this forum is zero right now, go read a book

First of all I’m not a creationist and I do not belong to any religion.

What if something is missing when it comes to evolution. What if something during our history have been misinterpreted or even worse, deliberately fabricated to benefit certain people and agendas. What if parts of the theory of evolution have been deliberately ”cooked” during the mid 19th century with the help of hoaxing and forgeries and backed by the promise of wealth through mineral-rich soil.

Charles Babbage (1791-1871) adressed the aspects of cooking, hoaxing, forging, trimming when it comes to the result of scientific studies. He was a fellow of the Royal Society of England but grew very critical to the society, and after he left the society he published "Reflections on the decline of science in England, and on some of its causes” in 1830. During the same time the society had both declining members and financial problems and usually when this happens, you have to make something radical to change the current situation.

The same year as Babbage published his reflections the royal society only had 104 contributions out of 662 in the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society” and after Babbage published his paper, the society started to restrict membership for future fellows. Interesting to say at least, because I thought science and the evaluations are supposed to include all angles and views, not just the ones that fit an already established opinion and agenda.

This leads me to scientific misconduct - confirmation bias, self-deception and cognitive conservatism when evaluating scientific results. Misconduct in different scientific fields are pretty common today, and people do it willing or unwillingly to preserve their disposition which they already have established, it can also be described as the ego self-justifying itself in search for the answers it want. We all know that ego always played a big role in the scientific community, and that’s the reason behind all the retractions the last 40 years. The interesting aspect here is that we didn't have any tools or ways to backtrack the work behind established results before 1970. So we can only hope that work established between 1800-1950 and used as truth today, was solely published by unbiased individuals, which were not driven by power, money or ego.

I have a feeling that hominid evolution in correlation with the findings of dinosaurs feels a bit unbiased, beautified and overwhelming for it to be considered true in all aspects.The involved people, institutions, societies and schools seems to be filled with conflict of interest and when it comes to dinosaurs only a few selected people affiliated with the notorious institutions/schools have found the fossils. We also have the aspect of secret societies which was involved in all the parts of the scientific community during this time, especially the freemasons.

Like I stated before the royal society of England had declining members and financial troubles in 1830, but all that changed in 1850 when a government grant-in-aid of £1,000 a year was accepted, and the society acted as the trustee for these funds, handing them out to scientists to their liking.

The interesting aspect here is that one year before this aid was granted to the society the contract of the Great Exhibition was awarded (the exhibition took place in 1851 in hyde park London), a very radical and enchanting exhibition to say at least. For you that do not know what this exhibition was about in short it was a exhibition of dinosaurs, more accurately 33 life size sculptures made out of concrete, paleontologist Sir Richard Owen (1804 -1892) and sculptor Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins (1807-1894) was the one’s who was in charge of the fabrication of these ”dinosaurs”

You may wonder why I put ”dinosaurs” in quotations, and there is a very simple explanation for that. No full size dinosaur, or even nearly intact dinosaur had been found in 1850, but nevertheless, Owen and his sculptor was payed to fabricate 33 (imaginary) life size examples of these enchanting creatures. The first nearly intact dinosaur was ”Hadrosaurus” and it was found by William Parker Foulke (1816-1865) in 1858.

During the industrial era noble men and rich families who owned companies soon realized the high value of the restricted amount of minerals on this planet. Many of the scientific members of universities and societies studying paleontology during the 1800’s also studied minerals and geology. William Parker Foulke wrote the "Discourse in commemoration of the founding of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia” in 1854 and in this text which was adressed to the president and citizens informed them the necessity of scientific work and how valuable it could be, both in theoretical ways but also in monetary ways in the form of wealthy minerals.

Four years after writing this text, William Parker Foulke was the first person to find a nearly intact dinosaur (missing head) which forever changed the scientific understanding of dinosaurs. He dug up the remains together with his mentor Joseph Leidy (1823-1891) who was a professor of anatomy at Philadelphia and a paleontologist. Joseph Leidy was also a early supporter of Darwin’s theory of evolution and lobbied successfully for Darwin's election to membership in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. He was also the teacher and mentor of Edward Drinker Cope (1840-1897) one of the two people involved during a period of intense fossil speculation which started in 1877. This period is referred to ”Bone Wars” or ”Great Dinosaur Rush” and during this time scientific misconduct and ego was highly involved. (The grant to the royal society of England was increased to £4,000 in 1876, one year before the bone wars)

After the widely discussed exhibition in London, the discovery of a nearly intact dinosaur fossil, and after the published work from Charles Darwin "Origin of Species” 1859 (work that was pushed by different people and societies) the scientific community and parts of the population itself began to accept this as the primary theory and the ”1860 Oxford Evolution Debate” put the scientific debate to an end. After this, evolution and the origins of species and especially humans only grew stronger for each passing semi-century while we continued to teach the mandatory and evident facts regarding our ancestors. If you would walk into a dining hall at a elementary school and ask the kids if they know what a dinosaur looked like and what it was, Im positive 90% of them could tell you exactly what they were and many would even be able to make you a drawing of these amazing creatures. This tells us that the notion of dinosaurs and hominid evolution is not a factor which a child can chose to believe or not, it’s rather something that is being forcible taught in an early stage so the child will adept it into their primary belief-system.

Some questions for the rude members in this thread who consider themselves to be all-knowing with a scientific mind:

1) Could there be a chance that the theory of evolution and parts within it have been fabricated during the 1800-1900?

2) Isn’t the whole theory of hominid evolution build on assumptions using genetic similarity (bonobo-human), that bonobo is the mammal humans are most comparable with (physical/anatomical), and fossils finds which solely involve partial sculls and pieced together sculls which theoretically could be ancient malformed human/ape sculls?

3) If yes, how can you say that hominid evolution is a fact? And couldn’t there be other possible explanations of where humans or apes derive from, like intelligent design?

4) Where does the blue color in human iris come from?

5) How and why did humans and bonobos survive when all our supposed relatives died? And what are the odds?

6) Could dinosaur fossils have been fabricated or misinterpreted too emphasized and enchant the world before revealing the theory of evolution?

7) Is it possible that parts of the theory of evolution and the ideology that comes with it have been planned before hand in philosophical societies, the same societies which laid the foundations for all scientific academies? (1650-1800)

8) Isn’t it pretty convenient that we can't trace DNA further back than 100.000 years and that homo sapiens fossils date back to 200.000 years according to the theory?


How can you be sure that this really is a head from a dinosaur that got extinct 65 million years ago?

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
Some questions for the rude members in this thread who consider themselves to be all-knowing with a scientific mind:

How is it rude to point out ignorance and logical fallacies? It's far more rude to not point out these errors and allow people to wallow in ignorance. Especially when people make statements of "fact" that aren't actually based on fact.

1) Could there be a chance that the theory of evolution and parts within it have been fabricated during the 1800-1900?

If we were still in the 19th century and having access to 19th century tools and methodologies then sure. But we aren't. Science and its diagnostic capabilities have increased exponentially in the nearly 160 years since 'On the Origin of Species' was published and everything from the fossil record to stratigraphy and more recently, the massive leaps in genetics have all allowed us to confirm with such a degree of veracity, that there really is no question about evolution being a fact. What Darwin wrote was based on actual, physical observations and this can be corroborated. More recent science has been able to corroborate much more and there were some errors made by Darwin as well. But there was no fabrication on his end.

2) Isn’t the whole theory of hominid evolution build on assumptions using genetic similarity (bonobo-human), that bonobo is the mammal humans are most comparable with (physical/anatomical), and fossils finds which solely involve partial sculls and pieced together sculls which theoretically could be ancient malformed human/ape sculls?

No, that is not the basis for hominid evolution at all. There are numerous complete skulls and complete or nearly complete physical remains going back several million years with very few exceptions such as Homo Altaiensis but the genetic material obtained from HA is incontrovertible. Furthermore, Bonobo and Chimpanzee are similar to our genetic line because they were our most recent genetic ancestors. Our lineage departed from Chimpanzee ~13MA Chimpanzee and Bonobo only diverged from one another 1.5MA +/- If hominid fossils are only malformed ape and human skulls, then why are the morphologies consistent with one another for the same time periods? Australopithecus skulls are definitely Australopithecus skulls and all afarensis skulls from the same stratigraphy in various locations are consistent, H. Habilis skulls, multiple specimens, consistent morphologies, Antecesor, Ergastor...all the same thing. There are no other Homininae specimens in the same stratigraphic levels at the same sites and the dating is wide enough that we can say without doubt that these are exemplars of distinct species, not "deformed apes or humans".

3) If yes, how can you say that hominid evolution is a fact? And couldn’t there be other possible explanations of where humans or apes derive from, like intelligent design?

If there are other possibilities, then demonstrate the evidence, provide citations and link the peer reviews. The science doesn't ever rule out possibilities. What it does do is talk about things that are known, quantifiable and provable within a reasonable margin of error. If there was evidence or data of things like ID or your other mystery explanations, then it would be looked at seriously. However, that data simply does not exist.

4) Where does the blue color in human iris come from?

A mutation on the OCA2 gene

5) How and why did humans and bonobos survive when all our supposed relatives died? And what are the odds?

Did Chimpanzee and the other Apes die after I went to bed last night or something? There are a multitude of factors that are involved in scenarios of large extinctions. Drastic climate change, natural disasters, combinations of those 2 such as after the Toba event ~70KA led to the near extinction oh HSS for example and added to the stresses on a declining Neanderthal population and caused the near immediate demise of surviving H. Erectus in S. East Asia This is the type of topic papers and entire books are dedicated to, you can't expect instant gratification from a paragraph or 2.

6) Could dinosaur fossils have been fabricated or misinterpreted too emphasized and enchant the world before revealing the theory of evolution?

Going by your prior post to this, are you implying that secret societies got together decades ahead of time to plan the TOE and Darwin was just a puppet in this mad scheme that somehow has got a stranglehold over all of the Earth and Life Sciences? It's well known that some early dinosaur reconstructions were definitely in error. That doesn't mean there is a nefarious plot to fool the world and set us up for evolutionary theory to be more easily accepted. If you think otherwise, then by all means provide evidence of this grand conspiracy or at least evidence of complicit 19th century naturalists. Dinosaurs were cool but in the early 19th century, there really wasn't any need for them to prop up TOE. It was an entirely separate thing at that point.

7) Is it possible that parts of the theory of evolution and the ideology that comes with it have been planned before hand in philosophical societies, the same societies which laid the foundations for all scientific academies? (1650-1800)

technically, anything is possible but without anything to support the sentiment, all you have is conjecture and supposition. Evolution has been discussed since Ancient Greece though so it's not anything brand new that just appeared out of nowhere.

8) Isn’t it pretty convenient that we can't trace DNA further back than 100.000 years and that homo sapiens fossils date back to 200.000 years according to the theory?

You're completely misrepresenting the science here. It's not that DNA can't be traced farther back than 100KA, it's that the DNA isn't viable enough to get quality results from with current levels of coverage and testing. We can trace the DNA back much farther than 200KA if we have a napped genome because we can account for mutation rates and look much farther back in time and see what that genome would have looked like. We can find traces of archaic genetics in modern populations and identify whos they were and when that genetic ingression was.

How can you be sure that this really is a head from a dinosaur that got extinct 65 million years ago?

Based on a photo with no citation? Nobody can be certain. Show me the actual fossil and the lab reports and that's whole different story.