|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2004 : 21:43:13
|
Hidden Mysteries Books
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index247.html
Forbidden Archeology
by Michael A. Cremo
& Richard L. Thompson
Over the past two centuries, researchers have found bones and artifacts showing humans like us existed millions of years ago. But scientists have suppressed, ignored, or forgotten these pieces of evidence. Prejudices based on current scientific theory have acted as what Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson call a knowledge filter. According to Cremo and Thompson,\we have thus come to accept a picture of prehistory that is largely incorrect. Forbidden Archeology is a call for a change in today's rigid scientific mindset. Bringing to light a great number of long hidden artifacts and skeletal remains, Cremo and Thompson challenge us to rethink our understanding of human origins and the accepted methods of science itself. An abridged version of the book is available named The Hidden History of the Human Race.
[Massive verbatim cut-and-paste from above web page snipped - Dave W.]
------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, I'm sure if these claims are even remotely true you would investigate them to the fullest and try and find out if they are true or not. Or I'm sure you would send one 'myth buster' to go and defeat the whole claims with one well written article. One skull should do it and a drawing of what a transitional fossil 'should' look like! Your so-called science is in need of an overhaul! Or per se a miracle wouldn't hurt...
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2004 : 22:04:02 [Permalink]
|
I found this review of this book quite informative, especially the following quote:
quote:
It is also a well-written example of pseudoscience -- its looks like the real thing, a phenomena discussed in Williams (1991, 15) -- and a quick review of the book is not advised.
There are other reviews and criticisms along the same lines, but this one is a good start.
- TW |
- TW
|
 |
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2004 : 23:02:41 [Permalink]
|
I think this one cut it for me.
quote:
Despite all this hard work, I think the book falls short of a scientific work primarily (but not entirely) because (1) its arguments abandon the testing of simpler hypothesis before the more complex and sensationalistic ones, and (2) the use of so many outdated sources is inadequate for a book that seeks to overturn the well-established paradigm of human evolution -- scholars must not work in isolation, especially today, when multi-disciplinary approaches are needed to remain on the cutting edge of knowledge. However, for researchers studying the growth, folklore, and rhetoric of pseudo-science, the book is useful as ‘field' data.
Outdated sources? Haven't we gone down this road before? |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2004 : 23:30:47 [Permalink]
|
| It seems that verlch will rail against those who don't hold the Bible dear, but theft of intellectual property doesn't bother him one bit. The prohibition against it is in the friggin' Ten Commandments, verlch. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 02:11:12 [Permalink]
|
Balderdash!
Sometimes we forget exactly how competitive science is. There are important awards such as the Nobel to strive toward and grants to fund further research to be had. Not to mention the fame and glory involved. Does anyone really believe that the discovery of H. sapiens in 1,000,000 + year old strata would be covered up?
Not very, damn' likely! That is the equivelent of the Devonian Bunny and would win a Big One for whoever got through the peer review first.
So, we can only conclude that Forbidden Archeology is yet another screed to put on the shelf beside the works of von Daniken and other such psuedoscience.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 08:08:23 [Permalink]
|
| By the way, if Forbidden Archeology were true, you would have to turn in your YEC card, Verlch... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 08:31:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, if Forbidden Archeology were true, you would have to turn in your YEC card, Verlch...
Damn Kil! Why didn't I catch that one?!
Good job!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 08:37:24 [Permalink]
|
According to this article from the National Center for Science Education:
quote:
Like Christian creationists who accommodate science to the Bible, Cremo and Thompson are Hindu creationists that harmonize science with their sacred Vedic scriptures. The Bhagavata Purana says that men and women have lived on earth for a vast period of time called the Day of Brahma, which is composed of a thousand yuga cycles. Each yuga cycle lasts 12,000 "years of the gods." And since each "year" equals 360 earth years, one yuga cycle equals 4.32 million years while a thousand yuga cycles total 4.32 billion years, summing up the Day of Brahma.
So we can see that Cremo already has the answer that he must "scientifically" support.
and
quote:
Next, let´s examine portions of the two following letters that Cremo wrote to his supporters. This first one on page 300, is addressed to Dr Horst Friedrich:
In your review, you note that Richard Thompson and I did not discuss the idea of recurring catastrophes or the evidence for advanced civilization mentioned in the Vedic literatures of India. That was deliberate on our part. In Forbidden Archaeology we wanted first of all to demonstrate the need for an alternative view of human origins. In our next book, tentatively titled The Descent of Man Revisited, we shall outline the alternative, drawing extensively upon Vedic source material. This will include, of course, the recurring cataclysms of the yuga cycles and manvantara periods, as well as discussion of Vedic descriptions of advanced civilization in ancient times, and in an interplanetary context as well. I hope that will satisfy you! A new picture of human origins will have to be comprehensive, in the manner you suggest in your NEARA Journal article, incorporating evidence not only for archaeological and geological anomalies, but also paranormal phenomena of all types, including evidence for extraterrestrial civilization.
Okay. Can't wait to see that.
and
quote:
Cremo not only accuses the "scientific establishment" of rejecting the paranormal; but also claims that mainstream scientists are immersed in a conspiracy to suppress its evidence.
So Cremo and verlch agree on the conspiracy thing at least.
So verlch, when did you convert to hinduism? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 10:32:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
So verlch, when did you convert to hinduism?
Verlch agrees with anyone that disagrees with evolution and science-in-general. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 12:52:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Verlch agrees with anyone that disagrees with evolution and science-in-general.
The enemies of his enemies being his friends, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 13:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Balderdash!
Sometimes we forget exactly how competitive science is. There are important awards such as the Nobel to strive toward and grants to fund further research to be had. Not to mention the fame and glory involved. Does anyone really believe that the discovery of H. sapiens in 1,000,000 + year old strata would be covered up?
Not very, damn' likely! That is the equivelent of the Devonian Bunny and would win a Big One for whoever got through the peer review first.
So, we can only conclude that Forbidden Archeology is yet another screed to put on the shelf beside the works of von Daniken and other such psuedoscience.
You hit the nail on the head. Information that evoluiton doesn't buy, they brush under the rug. The theory is Balderdash. The bible says exactly what happened 6000 years is the history of the world. Any information that is against evolution is thrown away and ignored. You would think sceince would be after the truth. No its after explaining our existance by any means other than the God of Abraham! Evidence to support bible, minimized and ignored! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 13:29:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, if Forbidden Archeology were true, you would have to turn in your YEC card, Verlch...
Damn Kil! Why didn't I catch that one?!
Good job!
I'm not supporting it, I'm showing that evoluiton doesn't really understand the strata. So I question things and I ask questions and I've discovered the truth. I've already studied evolution, my tree rings are a fine example. More research needed. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 13:42:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I've already studied evolution, my tree rings are a fine example. More research needed.
Holy shit. Tell me verlch didn't just bring up his damned petrified trees argument again! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 13:53:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not supporting it, I'm showing that evoluiton doesn't really understand the strata. So I question things and I ask questions and I've discovered the truth. I've already studied evolution, my tree rings are a fine example. More research needed.
Entirely true, except for the tree ring stuff. Evolution indeed does not understand the strata, but it explains it so very well....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 14:06:33 [Permalink]
|
If we are indeed going to do ancient trees again  , let's do some really old ones:
quote:
The first fossils that can be unambiguously placed in the Sphenophyta are Late Devonian in age. The Sphenophyta appear to have evolved from ancestors in the Trimerophytophyta, a paraphyletic grouping of Devonian plants that appear close to the common ancestry of sphenophytes, ferns, and higher plants. In particular, a group of Late Devonian plants classified in the order Hyeniales seems to be close to the ancestry of the Sphenophyta; the best-known genus, Hyenia, had massive rhizomes and recurved sporangiophores like sphenophytes, but lacked the nodes and internodes typical of sphenophytes. However, the Hyeniales also show similarities with the earliest fossil ferns, and may be close to the common ancestry of ferns and sphenophytes.
During the Carboniferous, sphenophytes diversified into prominent members of lowland plant communities, and reached maximum diversity of forms. They included the woody, shrub-like Sphenophyllum, small herbaceous forms such as Equisetites and Phyllotheca, and trees up to thirty meters tall, such as Calamites. Annularia, shown at the top left of this page, is a Late Pennsylvanian sphenophyte from the Mazon Creek region of Illinois, showing the typical whorls of leaves arranged regularly along the stem. Calamites, shown at the right, is a fairly common Pennsylvanian fossil, formed when sediment filled the interior of the plant's hollow stem and made an internal mold of the stem.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/plants/sphenophyta/sphenofr.html
Italics mine.
There was never a Devonian Bunny, but there was lots of shubbery, including early forms of trees.
With a couple of pics of the fossils.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 17:30:16 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
You hit the nail on the head. Information that evoluiton doesn't buy, they brush under the rug.
Information is easy and cheap to create, and often false. And it's clearly not brushed under the rug, but shown to be the garbage that it is, out in the light for all to see. Denying these realities, as you do, does not change the fact of evolution.quote:
The theory is Balderdash.
With a capital-B even?quote:
The bible says exactly what happened 6000 years is the history of the world.
Okay, where does the Bible discuss the creation of bacteria? Or the occupation of the Americas prior to 1,000 CE?quote:
Any information that is against evolution is thrown away and ignored.
No, as I said above, false information is thrown away. For every theory. Your arguments, after all, can be applied to the theory of gravity, or of electrons.quote:
You would think sceince would be after the truth.
It is. Such cannot be said about the Bible, which utterly fails to describe carbon nanotubes or even lactose intolerance.quote:
No its after explaining our existance by any means other than the God of Abraham!
No, if such were the case, the theories of evolution would be in harmony with the crappola in the OP, which is Hindu in origin. Obviously "by any means" doesn't fit the bill.quote:
Evidence to support bible, minimized and ignored!
What evidence exists which supports Genesis 1? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
