Slashdot Mirror

Why would I want to read a book written by a pair of unqualified cranks pushing a radical Vedic creationist agenda using techniques cribbed from crazy Christian creationists? To lessen the loss of time read talkorigins' review. Or look up one of the authors Michael A. Cremo on his own website and note he doesn't even claim a bachelor's degree in anything or demonstrate of any kind of formal training in archaeology or related discipline. He does claim to be a "research associate in history of archaeology" whatever that is. He also proudly notes his membership in the World Archaeological Congress since 1993 which sounds pretty cool until you go to their website and find that anybody can join for as little as $20 a year. His membership in the European Association of Archaeologists is similar. This is not to disparage either organization, simply to note that membership doesn't require any actual expertise. Mr. Cremo is simply doing what he can to inflate his stature without, as is typical for cranks, doing the actual work required to become proficient in the field. Coauthor Dr. Richard L. Thompson earned a Ph.D. in mathematics, which is distant from archaeology to say the least. This is also typical of cranks, having some legitimate expertise in one field and illegitimately attempting to claim expertise over an utterly unrelated field.

Damn it now I've spent 15 minutes more than the zero seconds this bullshit deserved.

http://www.mcremo.com/

If you follow the work of Michael Cremo you will learn that modern human skeletons
have been found in strata deposited millions of years old and all over the world.

http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm

His book "Forbidden Archaeology" is a huge tome discussing hundreds of sites where
anomalous findings challenge (rip apart) todays dogmas in the field and it is also
an interesting read to see how the religion of western science preserves the purity
of its creed :-)

The reason the evolution theory is never accepted by the creationists is because of the sheer impossibility. The best explanation of the sheer chance involved I ever saw was by Michael Cremo. Check the link here http://www.mcremo.com/writing.html. Personally, I am convinced.

The "impossibility" and "sheer chance" thing flogged by creationist is based on a drastic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory; the version of evolutionary theory such statistical arguments are invariably based on is one which no one in the scientific community has ever advocated. In other words, it is a straw man. The link you offer, based on ancient and extremely deceptive analyses by Fred Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, is no exception.

If you wish to sling links, here is a simple attempt to explain the problem with the "chance" argument, here is a more in-depth one which addresses Mr. Hoyle specifically. The short version is, the thing which Hoyle and Wickramasinghe debunk is not evolution. The thing which all those silly improbable-looking numbers in Mr. Cremo's link are derived from is not actual evolutionary theory. It's just a straw man.

Perhaps you should make an effort to actually understand these things yourself instead of blindly accepting the authority of creationists.

Yeah I had a look at some of these articles too. I am no scientist. But I find great difficulty in accepting that something as organised and complex as life could have occurred by random mutations which eventually arrived at what we are now. Lets take the example of the eye. The surviving mutants must have started at some point (minus the eye) and then according to the evolution theory slowly mutated to get an eye. Why would "natural selection" allow this random attempt to evolve into something it has no idea of, allow to carry on? I mean the "eye" would have been of little use until it had fully mutated! Why would this mutation survive?

The reason the evolution theory is never accepted by the creationists is because of the sheer impossibility. The best explanation of the sheer chance involved I ever saw was by Michael Cremo. Check the link here http://www.mcremo.com/writing.html. Personally, I am convinced.
Or do we just say, screw that, we're going to stay with the round earth theory-- as well as the theory of evolution-- because it explains all the data we have, and no competing theories for that data exist.

You are assuming that there is no perfect knowledge. A crude example would be of someone desiring to know who his father is. He could ask his mum, he could DNA tests, he could ask his "dad" too. But at the end of the day, they could be lying, the tests could be faulty etc...

There are three known ways of accepting knowledge. By our senses, logic and from authorities. All three have to be utilised. Danger is there in all three. Just because you can see it, doesnt mean ultra violet doesnt exist. By our own logic and senses, the understanding we could get is limited and takes a long time. It is quicker and easier to accept knowledge from an authority. However the correct authority needs to be chosen. You had no issues accepting knowledge from your parents and teachers when you were a little kid did you?

Scientists and philosophists/religionists are both trying to explain reality. They go about it in different ways. Personally I feel more comfortable with the philosophy that can explain things as is, rather than scientitists competing each other egoistically to promote their own theories for fame, wealth and knowledge. I've got nothing against the scientists. I just dont think they are always right. Especially with the evolution and big bang theories.

According to the Hindus, Brahma's day is 4.32 billion years.

I was reading a book the other day by Michael Cremo which had a theory in it that man has been on this planet, in our current form, for at least two million years, and our current society is not the first enlightened civilization. Neat stuff.

LV