W
Wolseley
Guest
Barbarian, forgive me for being blunt, but you are a liar.
And be advised that I will be reporting my own post before you get the chance…along with a little exposé of your shenanigans about me as well.
Cheers!
- Status
And be advised that I will be reporting my own post before you get the chance…along with a little exposé of your shenanigans about me as well.
Cheers!
W
Wolseley
Guest
Report sent.
E
edwest2
Guest
You are making false statements. The Catholic Church has always viewed the two parts, natural and sipritual, together. The Ponifical Academy of Sciences, remember? Pope Benedict has stated that science and religion are complementary but you don’t think so. I’ll stick with Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church does and has made pronouncements about science and its practical and spiritual consequences.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Since he was chairman of the commission that wrote the report, and he signed off on it, the only ways to deny it is to assert:
- He didn’t read the report and signed it without knowing what was in it.
- He was forced by the others to sign off on it, but didn’t really want to.
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.
tinyurl.com/2nbcym
My goodness, you get nasty when your agenda is exposed.
As you probably know, the Krishna Consciousness people are quite eager to get others to hear their proslytizing. And the way they used to try to get me to “just say Hare Krishna”, I’m thinking your insistance that we “just buy the book” is consistent with that.
Barbarian observes:
You really, really wanted us to “read the book” didn’t you?
But you were extremely reluctant to tell us what was in it, weren’t you? Now we know why.
Barbraian asks:
Truthfully now, did you or did you not know that the book espouses the doctrines of “Krishna Consciousness?”
Not according to all the reviews I’ve read. You think everyone is lying about it?
Barbarian observes:
It’s just stories people wrote to get you to accept their religion. Cremo is a tireless advocate for his faith in Hinduism. The fact that you wouldn’t expose any of those stories here for examination tells us a great deal.
They used to insist that they believed in Jesus, too. They never came up and let you know what they were really trying to do.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Ed, I told you so. Do you think people have forgotten?
So you now admit that common descent is virtually certain? That’s not a rhetorical question. Do you agree with the Pope on this fact, or not?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
I answered some of the content of Forbidden Archaeology a few pages ago in this thread. It is very clear the book was written to affirm Cremo/Thompson’s Hindu creationism. So in that The Barbarian is correct. You may not intend to promote Hinduism, but Cremo/Thompson clearly do.
The other reviews I linked and the video (wmv excerpts) based on the book that interviews the authors, quotes the book, and quotes letters from Cremo in his sequel (Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact) admits they wrote the book to promote Hinduism / Krishna consciousness. From the NCSE review:
====
But of all the criticisms aimed at Forbidden Archaeology, Cremo objects most to those who labeled it pseudoscience, which is understandable. Cremo and Thompson toiled for 8 years on this comprehensive reference work, and calling it a pseudoscience is the same thing as labeling it a fraud. But when I read Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact’s reprinted correspondence that Cremo exchanged with his sympathizers and supporters, he appears too stubborn and sanctimonious to follow scientific rules. For example, if Cremo and Thompson wanted their debut to be taken seriously, they should have first submitted their findings through an extensive peer-review process, but Cremo thinks “peer-review” simply means conspiracy and censorship. Like all creationists, Cremo’s not looking for real answers – just believers.
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.”
That’s only the beginning. Cremo goes on to describe, in complete detail, 3 unique avatarian manifestations of the Godhead and explains how Shrila Prabhupada spread Krishna consciousness around the world through God’s “confidential empowerment”. The religious significance of Cremo’s research is paramount.
====
It is therefore not an objective look at science, it was written to promote a Hindu creationist worldview. And it does not support the idea mankind lived hundreds of millions of years ago much less billions of years ago. The earth is that old based on radiometric dating, but modern humanity only goes back 100,000 to 200,000 according to the evidence. And that is what the Pope approved in the International Theological Commission statement (paragraphs 62-70 especially). Now that we got that settled, time to listen to Cardinal Schonborn from BookTV:
Cardinal Schonborn and others talking about Chance or Purpose (MP3)
Phil P
The other reviews I linked and the video (wmv excerpts) based on the book that interviews the authors, quotes the book, and quotes letters from Cremo in his sequel (Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact) admits they wrote the book to promote Hinduism / Krishna consciousness. From the NCSE review:
====
But of all the criticisms aimed at Forbidden Archaeology, Cremo objects most to those who labeled it pseudoscience, which is understandable. Cremo and Thompson toiled for 8 years on this comprehensive reference work, and calling it a pseudoscience is the same thing as labeling it a fraud. But when I read Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact’s reprinted correspondence that Cremo exchanged with his sympathizers and supporters, he appears too stubborn and sanctimonious to follow scientific rules. For example, if Cremo and Thompson wanted their debut to be taken seriously, they should have first submitted their findings through an extensive peer-review process, but Cremo thinks “peer-review” simply means conspiracy and censorship. Like all creationists, Cremo’s not looking for real answers – just believers.
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.”
That’s only the beginning. Cremo goes on to describe, in complete detail, 3 unique avatarian manifestations of the Godhead and explains how Shrila Prabhupada spread Krishna consciousness around the world through God’s “confidential empowerment”. The religious significance of Cremo’s research is paramount.
====
It is therefore not an objective look at science, it was written to promote a Hindu creationist worldview. And it does not support the idea mankind lived hundreds of millions of years ago much less billions of years ago. The earth is that old based on radiometric dating, but modern humanity only goes back 100,000 to 200,000 according to the evidence. And that is what the Pope approved in the International Theological Commission statement (paragraphs 62-70 especially). Now that we got that settled, time to listen to Cardinal Schonborn from BookTV:
Cardinal Schonborn and others talking about Chance or Purpose (MP3)
Phil P
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I’ve never said anything here, that I don’t believe to be true. And I think you know it.
W
Wolseley
Guest
"In our next book". Not this one (Forbidden Archeology), but the next one (Human Devolution).
Doesn’t matter. None of you want to examine the primary source, fine with me. A pity, really, but nothing that I shouldn’t have expected.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
As you said, Wolseley, you’re done here.
E
edwest2
Guest
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So, if you don’t agree with the Pope’s statement, just say so. One more time, ed:
Do you agree with Benedict XVI, that common descent is virtually certain?
Or do you dissent from this teaching?
Be a man and take a stand.
Do you agree with Benedict XVI, that common descent is virtually certain?
Or do you dissent from this teaching?
Be a man and take a stand.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Wols, you high-lighted in red the wrong portion. Let me help you. 
Quoting Michael Cremo from Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact:
"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."
What we can conclude: Forbidden Archaeology was deliberately written to avoid exposing the authors as Hindu creationists. The reason they wrote that first book is to provide (what they think is) evidence for ancient human civilizations, including extraterrestrial ones, that go back hundreds of millions of years, ideas that are consistent with Hindu origins. The real “evidence” for this appears in the Vedic literatures of India, and that is presented in their subsequent explicitly Hindu creationist books.
Just as Christian creationists attempt to “square” modern science with a literal understanding of Genesis (e.g. In Six Days), the Hindu creationists are attempting to “square” modern science with their Hindu scriptures. It is NOT an objective look at scientific evidence.
But I may get the book. It is recommended (somewhat) by Catholic philosopher Dennis Bonnette (author of Origin of the Human Species). He spends a chapter on Forbidden Archaeology in his book, though he tells us elsewhere to ignore the Hindu agenda of the authors. Bonnette does not conclude in his Origin of the Human Species, however, that all current scientific evidence should be thrown out or questioned. He agrees the scientific evidence suggests modern humanity arose 100,000 to 200,000 years ago by a (God-guided) evolutionary process, with hominids going back several million years, and he tries to reconcile the Catholic faith and a historical Adam/Eve with the science layed out in his book.
Another book along this line I recommend is by Christian geologist Glenn Morton titled Adam, Apes, and Anthropology.
Phil P
Quoting Michael Cremo from Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact:"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."
What we can conclude: Forbidden Archaeology was deliberately written to avoid exposing the authors as Hindu creationists. The reason they wrote that first book is to provide (what they think is) evidence for ancient human civilizations, including extraterrestrial ones, that go back hundreds of millions of years, ideas that are consistent with Hindu origins. The real “evidence” for this appears in the Vedic literatures of India, and that is presented in their subsequent explicitly Hindu creationist books.
Just as Christian creationists attempt to “square” modern science with a literal understanding of Genesis (e.g. In Six Days), the Hindu creationists are attempting to “square” modern science with their Hindu scriptures. It is NOT an objective look at scientific evidence.
But I may get the book. It is recommended (somewhat) by Catholic philosopher Dennis Bonnette (author of Origin of the Human Species). He spends a chapter on Forbidden Archaeology in his book, though he tells us elsewhere to ignore the Hindu agenda of the authors. Bonnette does not conclude in his Origin of the Human Species, however, that all current scientific evidence should be thrown out or questioned. He agrees the scientific evidence suggests modern humanity arose 100,000 to 200,000 years ago by a (God-guided) evolutionary process, with hominids going back several million years, and he tries to reconcile the Catholic faith and a historical Adam/Eve with the science layed out in his book.
Another book along this line I recommend is by Christian geologist Glenn Morton titled Adam, Apes, and Anthropology.
Phil P
P
Philipp
Guest
It is therefore not an objective look at science, it was written to promote a Hindu creationist worldview. And it does not support the idea mankind lived hundreds of millions of years ago much less billions of years ago. The earth is that old based on radiometric dating, but modern humanity only goes back 100,000 to 200,000 according to the evidence. And that is what the Pope approved in the International Theological Commission statement (paragraphs 62-70 especially). Now that we got that settled, time to listen to Cardinal Schonborn from BookTV: ----Thanks Phil I’m sure going to watch Der Kardinal talk through his hat.
Philipp suggests that macroevolution is based on false premises in science and it is a waste of time to try and debate a hypothesis of origins that only exists in the minds of believers like those who favor macroevolution or like poor old Cremo.
Poor old Cremo. He’s used as a whipping boy and the word “creationist worldview” is thrown in to “Crème” those who argue in favor of Moses, Christ, his apostles, the early church fathers, St. Lawrence of Brindisi 16th century and Fr. Suarez.(19th century).
I think there should be a truth squad formed to expose the poor science that these TE/ET folks on this thread use to intimidate the unwary into believing in the validity of billions and billions of years echoing the Cosmos program on TV; here is just a few anomalies everyone should keep in mind as these guys continue to claim evolution is a fact.
Scientists in past decades have pointed out major failures of the K/Ar method to date volcanic materials. Old ages ranging from several hundred thousand to several million and even 2.96 billion years [only zenolyths not the accepted type of crystals by all scientists] have been obtained for historical volcanic eruptions from: (1) Mt. St Helens lava dome of 1986, from 0.3 to 2.7 million, 3 samples. (2) Mt. Ngauruhoe, Central North Island, New Zealand of 1949, 1954 and 1975, from <0.27 to 3.5 million, 11 samples; and (3) 1800-1801 Hawaiian magma at 1.41 and 1.60 million; xenolyths within the magma gave a wide variety of ages up to 2.96 billion years for Hawaii. Zenolyths were a special case with a special report and had nothing to do with dating the 1800 AD Hawaiin Magma flows. Australites [tektites glassy products of high temperature impact of rocks] resulted when an asteroid impacted in the vicinity of Australia and the Asian continent. K/Ar dating gave ages ranging from 700,000 to 860,000 years whereas radiocarbon dating of charcoal in the strata in which tektites were found gave ages some 6,000 - 7,000 RC years BP and 13,000 +/- 3000 RC years BP for calcareous nodules by Smithsonian and the USGS geologists. That’s a difference of roughly 44 to 133 times older. Conclusions: the asteroid impactions could be a lot more frequent than we think. Therefore it’s very dangerous to rely on radiometric dating and macroevolution theory for anything.
Regarding the anomalous dates for volcanic minerals a European mineral professional, Dr. Marie Clare Van Oosterwych, worked in the Belgian Congo and then in a major laboratory in Belgium [she has authored or coauthored over 100 technical papers on the study of crystals . She is well qualified to define the problems. She advised research leadership as early as 1975 that the ages obtained by K/Ar for our alleged African ancestors were ‘not’ absolute ages and were meaningless. When she volunteered to demonstrate by experiments that these ages were meaningless her superiors took her lab directorship and the key to her lab away from her.
As she wrote: “I am a professional mineralogist, specialized in silicates, having essentially worked on African material. I was requested at that time (~1975) by a world-famous geochronologist to give my advice about the origin of the anomalous ages which are so frequently found in geochronological works. My answer was very simple: Since the radioactive elements are imprisoned in definite crystal lattices, they were likely influenced by factors evidenced in crystal genesis and alteration which were essentially: (a) temperature (b) solutions, ‘hydrothermal conditions’ (c) chemical composition and (d) granulometry - the same kind of elements being evidenced for the samples delivering anomalous ages” She continues: “In addition, if the heaps of data collected during the numerous interdisciplinary missions to Africa and more specifically East Africa, completely failed in evidencing the expected “emergence process” (of man), they brought on the other hand impressive evidences about the occurrence of a Big Flood which had covered the whole Earth at a time not far from the present.”
Incidentally contrary to what was said earlier all fossils [even limestone and marble] including dinosaur bones are RC datable able because all contain residual amounts of carbon; it’s just that evolutionists are fearful of dating fossils even purified bone collagen of dinosaurs otherwise they might lose their jobs. C-14 dating of fossils from the Cretaceous period 120- 65 million years began in earnest in 1979 with burnt wood branch imbedded in Cretaceous limestone in the geologic column a river bottom of Cretaceous limestone of 110 million years because of dinosaur footprints in the river and on its upper ledges. The date was 12,800 RC years. More later alligators
Philipp suggests that macroevolution is based on false premises in science and it is a waste of time to try and debate a hypothesis of origins that only exists in the minds of believers like those who favor macroevolution or like poor old Cremo.
Poor old Cremo. He’s used as a whipping boy and the word “creationist worldview” is thrown in to “Crème” those who argue in favor of Moses, Christ, his apostles, the early church fathers, St. Lawrence of Brindisi 16th century and Fr. Suarez.(19th century).
I think there should be a truth squad formed to expose the poor science that these TE/ET folks on this thread use to intimidate the unwary into believing in the validity of billions and billions of years echoing the Cosmos program on TV; here is just a few anomalies everyone should keep in mind as these guys continue to claim evolution is a fact.
Scientists in past decades have pointed out major failures of the K/Ar method to date volcanic materials. Old ages ranging from several hundred thousand to several million and even 2.96 billion years [only zenolyths not the accepted type of crystals by all scientists] have been obtained for historical volcanic eruptions from: (1) Mt. St Helens lava dome of 1986, from 0.3 to 2.7 million, 3 samples. (2) Mt. Ngauruhoe, Central North Island, New Zealand of 1949, 1954 and 1975, from <0.27 to 3.5 million, 11 samples; and (3) 1800-1801 Hawaiian magma at 1.41 and 1.60 million; xenolyths within the magma gave a wide variety of ages up to 2.96 billion years for Hawaii. Zenolyths were a special case with a special report and had nothing to do with dating the 1800 AD Hawaiin Magma flows. Australites [tektites glassy products of high temperature impact of rocks] resulted when an asteroid impacted in the vicinity of Australia and the Asian continent. K/Ar dating gave ages ranging from 700,000 to 860,000 years whereas radiocarbon dating of charcoal in the strata in which tektites were found gave ages some 6,000 - 7,000 RC years BP and 13,000 +/- 3000 RC years BP for calcareous nodules by Smithsonian and the USGS geologists. That’s a difference of roughly 44 to 133 times older. Conclusions: the asteroid impactions could be a lot more frequent than we think. Therefore it’s very dangerous to rely on radiometric dating and macroevolution theory for anything.
Regarding the anomalous dates for volcanic minerals a European mineral professional, Dr. Marie Clare Van Oosterwych, worked in the Belgian Congo and then in a major laboratory in Belgium [she has authored or coauthored over 100 technical papers on the study of crystals . She is well qualified to define the problems. She advised research leadership as early as 1975 that the ages obtained by K/Ar for our alleged African ancestors were ‘not’ absolute ages and were meaningless. When she volunteered to demonstrate by experiments that these ages were meaningless her superiors took her lab directorship and the key to her lab away from her.
As she wrote: “I am a professional mineralogist, specialized in silicates, having essentially worked on African material. I was requested at that time (~1975) by a world-famous geochronologist to give my advice about the origin of the anomalous ages which are so frequently found in geochronological works. My answer was very simple: Since the radioactive elements are imprisoned in definite crystal lattices, they were likely influenced by factors evidenced in crystal genesis and alteration which were essentially: (a) temperature (b) solutions, ‘hydrothermal conditions’ (c) chemical composition and (d) granulometry - the same kind of elements being evidenced for the samples delivering anomalous ages” She continues: “In addition, if the heaps of data collected during the numerous interdisciplinary missions to Africa and more specifically East Africa, completely failed in evidencing the expected “emergence process” (of man), they brought on the other hand impressive evidences about the occurrence of a Big Flood which had covered the whole Earth at a time not far from the present.”
Incidentally contrary to what was said earlier all fossils [even limestone and marble] including dinosaur bones are RC datable able because all contain residual amounts of carbon; it’s just that evolutionists are fearful of dating fossils even purified bone collagen of dinosaurs otherwise they might lose their jobs. C-14 dating of fossils from the Cretaceous period 120- 65 million years began in earnest in 1979 with burnt wood branch imbedded in Cretaceous limestone in the geologic column a river bottom of Cretaceous limestone of 110 million years because of dinosaur footprints in the river and on its upper ledges. The date was 12,800 RC years. More later alligators
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Odd then, that when they directly calibrated Argon/Argon testing with a flow of known age, (Pompeii eruption) the method got it right.
Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.htmlhttp://
And Gentry deliberately included unmelted xenocrysts (millions of years old) in the sample, knowing it would give a false date for the rock. The lab warned him, too, but he insisted on using it.
Since Carbon-14 decays so fast that it’s impossible to use it for things more than thousands of years old, it’s not hard to figure out what happened. The carbon test pegged out at the upper limit. It’s like using a household thermometer to measure the heat of a blast furnace. You get a bit over 100 degrees.
Residual carbon? Phillipp,they are almost entirely carbon. What they don’t have is C-14. You can’t measure fossils by carbon-14.
Ah, the old “hundred-year-hundreds of thousands of scientists-evil dating conspiracy.” Didn’t think anyone was still peddling that story.
Your burned branch was dated at 12,000 years, because that particular apparatus pegged out at 12,000. Remember? Measuring a blast furnace with a household thermometer?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Barbarian, can this be so? I’ve always had my suspicions about the creos on this thread. Could it be true that they are really pope-hating Hare Krishnas in Catholic clothing? That would be a sensational story indeed.
On another note, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn met with 100 or so of us last week at a Dominican gathering, and I was pleasantly surprised that he firmly repudiated anti-evolutionist creationism. He was gently chided by one of the respondents for his line that “to date no one has yet found any fossil transitional forms,” admitting that his position still needed refinement.
Petrus
D
drpmjhess
Guest
You can only hear your head rattling from inside it, so that’s why I assumed she must have been speaking from experience.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Barbarian, that’s what I mean – the intersection of theology and science holds many fascinating questions, and there are hundreds of theologians – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish – working on these. Some of my favorites are:
(1) What was the source of the other half of Jesus’ genome, including his Y chromosome?
(2) How is the “soul” connected to the body, if not by way of Descartes’ pineal gland?
(3) Do tetragametic chimeras have two souls, and if not, why not? If not, what does that tell us about our understanding of “soul”?
(4) What conditions might have prevailed before the Big Bang?
(5) If temporal lobe epilepsy is concommitant with some mystical experiences, does that explain the experiences, or explain them away?
(6) How is the “eternity” we presumably experience after death related to the hundred billion years the universe is expected to continue after the earth is incinerated by our exploding sun?
(7) Is cloning a human being always categorically wrong? If so, why?
My course on science and religion has consistently been wait-listed, so the issues must touch a nerve with students. Please do (when you have a chance) look at some of the books I posted on that other list; I can repost them if you like.
Petrus
T
Thing
Guest
Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God, and He in His turn walked in the garden with them and spoke to them - until they hid, that is.
The lens is just an analogy like Christ is the Gate, Door, Vine…and so on.
It was’nt much of an analogy, I admit.
M
Memaw
Guest
I agree with you 100% Ed.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Those are fascinating questions, but I do not think science can ever answer any of them. Some day, we may have a meta-science that can address such things, but not now.
I’d like to hear your ideas on these, of course.
- Status