by Realist 18 Replies latest social current

  • undercover

    I wouldn't say that you were attacked. A little sarcasm maybe, but not an attack.

  • ThiChi

    I wou...?

    (That's why I like Cut&Past)

    OK....OK, sorry, remember, I was asked, this is not a debate, only MHO.

    Realist where are you?

  • undercover

    I fixed it. I don't know what happened. My PC developed a mind of it's own all of a sudden. Hey, maybe that's evidence of evoloution, ya think? Aritficial Intelligiance and all that. LOL

  • ThiChi

    see above...thanks!

    here it is: (warning I am using cut&past)

    owever, this seems like an attack: ""lol...SP - you beat me to it. Remember control 'c' and control 'v' are not evolutionary concepts, hence they are safe ground for the muddled creationist. HS "" I could be wrong...condensending? Insult? Who knows?

  • kls

    You were not being attacked . Yes they was just playing with ya and i thought it was quit funny.

  • Realist


    i know i know!


    I have been very interested in Cremo?s evidence. And have in fact, posted his comments to me and replies to from questions asked here.

    Here is a paper Cremo presented that has raised some very powerful questions:

    perhaps you can elaborate on that. why is this paper of interest to you? what are your conclusions from the paper?

  • AlanF

    I've read parts of Cremo's book, and I find it full of terrible argumentation and biased presentations of so-called facts. Cremo presents a lot of 19th-century hearsay (the kind of stuff you'd only find today in, say, The Weekly World News) as if it were on a par with solid discoveries made by trained scientists. The website presents a few items that show how a bit of legwork often debunks Cremo's claims. The most telling debunking of Cremo's claims is that almost nothing of the sort he presents as evidence of his beliefs has been found after the mid-to-late 19th century. This strongly indicates that the claimed discoveries were mostly, if not all, hoaxes or misinterpretations of evidence.

    People who uncritically accept Cremo's claims ought to realize that he and his co-author (Thompson) are Hare-Krishna types who accept the teaching of their religion that mankind has existed for several billion years. As usual, people who accept religious teaching over solid science also strongly tend to present biased information, and they often put spins on simple phenomena that make the naive think they're on to something.

    Let the buyer of information beware.


  • Big Tex
    Big Tex
    You were not being attacked . Yes they was just playing with ya and i thought it was quit funny.


  • ThiChi

    The fact is, as Cremo?s paper presents (as just one example), unanswered explanations in the geologic time frame as to the time frame of Man?s existence. And it is damming too that the conventional information process has ignored these findings. The Time related discoveries is relevant, since the findings themselves as been affirmed and reaffirmed (as the paper points out).

    Again, attacking the messenger instead of the message is not convincing argument, IMHO. I too do not subscribe to Cremo?s belief system. However, that does not change the information presented in his paper and his book.

    By Cremo?s admission, ?the problem with the scientific method is that it is driven far too much by theory, and not enough by fact. By which I mean that science moves forward by the development, and subsequent testing, of hypotheses, when at times formation of hypotheses should be strenuously avoided because they grow into filters which taint otherwise vital and compelling data.?

    If only one human fossil or artifact of the 50 or so meticulously documented and discussed from the Miocene or early Pliocene is correctly dated, then everything concerning the theories of human origins must return to the melting pot. And the evidence is that a large proportion of them are entirely credible.....Why then have they not been previously considered?

Share this