Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

[seagypsy]

seagypsy,

Shallow affections?

That is how I perceive conditional love.

You don't fear the wrath of God? Are you sure?
You're basically saying you have no fear of anything.

No I haven't said that at all. How can one fear something that that they do not perceive to exist? Do you fear the boogy man? Are you afraid you will wake up one morning having evolved in the night into something other than human? Do you fear the absence of God? How can you fear any of these things when you perceive them all to either not exist or to be impossible?

I do not perceive the existence of any god so therefore I am incapable of fearing the wrath of any such god. I do fear things that I do perceive to exist or show a measurable risk of happening, such as flesh eating bacteria, brain eating amoebas, the possibility of my child dying in a school shooting, the IRS, senseless wars.

How has God punished you?

He hasn't. Something that does not exist cannot punish me. Though at one time in my life, when I did believe in god, I felt he punished me. In hindsight, I know that I was not being punished at all. I was simply suffering the consequences of bad choices that I had made. Cause and effect are a constant force that everything in the universe is affected by equally. Regardless of whether it is dead, alive, believing in cause and effect or not.

It's a good thing you got out of that situation, but don't make the mistake of thinking every person who believes in God has the same understanding, and/or experiences as you.

And you shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that I do believe all theists think that way. Most theists and atheists are quite sane and rational and are able and willing to judge fairly. But they don't make as much noise as people who are incapable of being sane and fair.

What makes you think people actually choose to believe in God?
Or if someone decides that I will believe in God starting a week on Thursday. Do you think that's possible?

What makes you think that I believe people CHOOSE to believe? I have never stated that faith was a choice.

If goo to man was true, I'd accept it, there'd be no point in not accepting it.

Have you ever in your entire life believed in something whole heartedly and then you experienced something that made you realize what you believed was not true? Perhaps you thought someone loved you and you discovered they did not. Maybe you believed in Santa Clause and found out that it isn't possible? Maybe you believed that a movie you wanted to see started at 9pm but you were mistaken and it started at 8pm so you missed it.

Believing something to be true or false doesn't make it so.

That being said, if there were sufficient evidence that God existed I would accept it. There would be no point in denying it. In fact it would be a grievous mistake not to accept it. One point to make, you seem to think I don't want to believe in God. The reality is, I want there to be a god. I have always wanted there to be some divine power out there that loved me and would protect me and help me to be good and right with others. A holy advocate that would keep the bad people from hurting me. Who wouldn't want that to be true? I was devastated initially when I realized that I had been wasting my life and making bad decisions based on faith that God was there. Trusting that he would not let anything bad happen to me or my children so long as I followed his laws according to the bible. But there has never been any evidence that he is there, that he cares, that protects anyone.

I didn't choose to stop believing. I simply lost the ability to believe due to the lack of evidence that any god is there.

I think you're projecting your idea of theism on to me. I don't see God the same way you do (did).

Fair enough, I don't actually know what religious path you follow. Most people who debate this type of thing tend to be of an Abraham faith. Buddists that I have known have never seen it necessary to debate faith because one person's "salvation" has no bearing on another's. They simply mind their own business. Hindus tend to not worry about other's beliefs either because you have to be born hindu. You cannot convert to it. And I am simply not familiar with any other religions that have a concept of god. At least I am not versed in the details of their faiths.

When you were in a religion, what did you think of and about God?

I believed what I was told in the beginning. Then I read the bible for myself and realized it didn't line up with what I believed to be correct about god. And it certainly didn't line up with who I had been told god was. I was told god was all knowing all loving all forgiving. I was told that he fathered Jesus and that through him we would be saved from our sins. But as I got older and began to develop the ability to use logic and reasoning, I realized the way he was described to me as a child was not reflected in the text of the bible. In the bible I saw a wrathful, jealous, contemptuous, murderous, cruel etc. Also the way he is described by my elders and the bible didn't line up with what I observed to be true in the world and that scientific observation showed many of the claims of the bible to be impossible and just plain silly.

I saw that the god of the bible was no different than Zeus or any other god who was generally accepted to be myth.

It's an interview technique, I read somewhere.

Its not a technique anyone has ever relayed to me and quite frankly it would seem to be counter productive because if I ever pictured someone in such a way, i would be so disgusted I would probably blow chunks on them or at the very least have to leave the room. Not very productive in an interview.

Besides, you were implying that i was in need of confidence. Why would one need confidence in observing reality? I didn't want to lose my faith. I fought it viciously. But in the end, logic prevailed and my faith was gone. I see it very much the same as a situation where a woman stays married to an abusive man. She may delude herself for a while and justify his behavior to convince herself that she has not been a fool. But eventually her sense of self preservation with either become strong enough to cause her to see the truth, or she will die a fool at the hands of the man who abuses her. I am glad my sense of self preservation kicked in.

But intentional cheap shot observed.

Not a cheap shot at all. Your suggestion grossed me out. If you do not think it was gross, then you have a stronger stomach than I do.

I'm happy for you, because to feel free, and know where you truly in this world, must be a wonderful thing.

Must be? Doesn't your faith give you the same satisfaction and sense of freedom? Do you not know your place in the world?
If not, then why is your faith failing you?

You actually make a good point in our inability to have any value in ourselves without Him. But I think you're mistaken in saying it is a reason for people to need Him. We don't actually realise that untill we begin to understand something about Him. The more we understand, the more we realise.

You are mistaken. First of all you didn't quote me in the entirety of what I said. I put in bold, the part you conveniently left out of the quote.

And I could say the only people who need god to be real are those who are incapable of seeing any value in themselves without him. Or those who cannot discern right from wrong without a god to tell them so. But it wouldnt be true.

So all theists are psycopaths eh?

Again refer to the full quote which you ignored above. Especially the part I put in bold. I never said all theists are psychopaths, or even psycopaths.

You can't not need God,

Why?

you can only think you don't need God.

Why?

Who said anything about throwing science out?

I should have clarified. You may see that I had originally posted 3 times in a row. This was a reply to someone else's post which I should have quoted. I was making an addition to something someone was saying to you when you asked about what would happen if everyone decided that evolution was bullshit. It may not follow as clearly the way I wrote it as it did in my head.

Sure.

''Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race''
by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson

jan.

Thank you.

 

[James R]

Any source that has refers respectfully to Jan's beloved Vedas is right up there on his list of automatically-to-be-trusted sources, no matter how ill-researched, uninformed, mistaken, or just plain wrong it might be. The Vegas are just the best ever, you know! They contain all knowledge of everything and are infallible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not yet that I've found. Monstrously negligent. That being said, this would be plasticity of a level even to shock Hendry's expectations.

Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of science? New discoveries?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

What book? The book that is so far un-named and unreferenced, that supposedly contains ALL of the personal correspondence of EVERY paleontologist on the planet?

When I asked you to ''define success'', it was in relation to ''Forbidden Archeology''.

That imaginary book?

Are you calling me a liar?

Like wynn, you assume that anybody who disagrees with you is insulting you.

Riiiight! I'm too stupid to recognise when I being called a liar.
Is this because I believe in God?

All I would like you to do is to take an honest look at the theory of evoluton.

James, I have a good leymanic understanding of ''evolution'', I just don't regard 'goo to man' as ''evolution''.
And you cannot present any evidence that it occurred, apart from inference. In this way it is purely subjective.
Showing me a ficticious set of pictures arranged to give cred to such a phenomena does not count as evidence.

You refuse to learn even the basics. For somebody who appears to be moderately intelligent on other matters, this behaviour is quite bizarre. Then again, I guess that if your world-view depends on evolution being false then you have a lot invested and a lot of incentive to keep yourself wilfully blind.

I don't accept 'goo to man' as ''evolution''.
Other than that I have no problem with it.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It appears that you're now arguing that all knowledge, apart from that achieved through direct, personal observation, is unreliable. It seems to me that you are vastly overstretching to avoid facing facts. But then again, I don't think you're actually serious about holding that position, either. And if you are, there's probably not much point in talking to you as if you're amenable to the usual standards of evidence that sensible people accept.

I personally don't know if Boneparte actually existed. I suspect that he did, and I act as though he did. The only reason I've put the theoretical spin on it, is because you have isolated the point, asking me to look at it from an objective perspective. Do I actually KNOW this man existed? The answer is no.

An empty claim from you. Why bother?

Several people in this thread have linked you to places where you can find evidence. That you choose not to look at it is entirely your fault.

That's not evidence James, it's an explanation.
For me to accept those cartoon images as evidence for goo to man evolution, I have to be predisposed toward
it. When I look at it objectively, I see no evidence, and I'm not the only one. Try and accept that, because it's real.

Where? In your magical book?

Of course! I'm a liar, aren't I.

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

Then all knowledge is subjective.

Not all knowledge, no.
But goo to man evolution must be subjective, otherwise there wouldn't be competing explanations.
Can you think of something most people know, that have no competing explanations?

Then use your eyes, ears and intelligence. Please.

It's a good thing I believe in God, otherwise I'd run the risk of being intelligent enough to spot the insult.

It is only those who don't understand the science who claim that evolution is politically driven.

So you're saying scientists who don't accept goo to man, don't understand science? :shrug:


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of science? New discoveries?

jan.

Yes, but it should have been done by now. Lizard generation time is short, so there's no excuse for not establishing crosses already, unless they can't set up a suitable joint diet or unless the lizards won't breed. The latter, however, would be speciation.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

Below are some links to informative reviews of Cremo and Thompson's book Forbidden Archeology, which seems to be a favorite source of yours.

Not surprisingly, we find that wikipedia describes Cremo as follows:

Michael A. Cremo (born July 15, 1948, Schenectady, New York), also known as Drutakarma Dasa, is an American Hindu creationist whose work argues that humans have lived on the earth for billions of years. Cremo's book, Forbidden Archeology, has attracted attention from Hindu creationists and paranormalists, but has been criticized by many mainstream scholars for his unorthodox views on archeology. Scholars of the mainstream archaeological and paleoanthropological communities have described his work as pseudoscience. Cremo identifies himself as a "Vedic creationist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo

According to Cremo's own autobiography, he has no formal education in science. Here is his site:

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

Basically, Forbidden Archeology is a Hindu Creationist text. Rather than post long extracts of these reviews, at this point I will merely link them, and trust that those who are interested will read them.

A review by Dr Colin Groves (1994), published in The Skeptic
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html
This one gives a good background to the book.

A review by Wade Tarzia, PhD (1994): http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html
This is a more detailed evaluation.

From the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, here is a review of Cremo's follow-up book in which he replies to various criticisms of his earlier work:
http://ncse.com/rncse/19/3/review-forbidden-archaeologys-impact

And here is a review of a different work by Cremo and Thompson, which elucidates their shared agenda:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

 

[Aqueous Id]

seagypsy,

Shallow affections?

That is how I perceive conditional love.

Can I get an amen. Your posts are sprinkled with interesting quips like this. Would that the world could see through similar lenses.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yes, but it should have been done by now. Lizard generation time is short, so there's no excuse for not establishing crosses already, unless they can't set up a suitable joint diet or unless the lizards won't breed. The latter, however, would be speciation.

Further corroborating Darwin's discovery on the Galapagos. Like countless other corroborating material. It's a mountain of evidence, more definitively supported throughout all of the 150 years since he published. More than we normally see in just about any other theory or field of knowledge, yet these are not so commonly disputed, merely because they do not offend religious doctrine and belief, or disturb the notion that humans are "cleaner" than lower animals (despite the contradiction that religions are quick to cast aspersions on human nature as well).

 

[GeoffP]

Further corroborating Darwin's discovery on the Galapagos. Like countless other corroborating material. It's a mountain of evidence, more definitively supported throughout all of the 150 years since he published. More than we normally see in just about any other theory or field of knowledge, yet these are not so commonly disputed, merely because they do not offend religious doctrine and belief, or disturb the notion that humans are "cleaner" than lower animals (despite the contradiction that religions are quick to cast aspersions on human nature as well).

I'm tempted to write him to find out what in hell is going on.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena,
Below are some links to informative reviews of Cremo and Thompson's book Forbidden Archeology, which seems to be a favorite source of yours.[/url]

James, it's quite ovious he's going to get reactions from the same type of mindset responsible for the suppression.
The only way you can refute these claims unbiasly, is to refute the actual claims in the book, and refrain from embarking
on a witchunt, which effectively proves his point.

What is convincing about this book to me is the actual scale of deciet, and the evidence he has to back it up.
It explains the conviction of this mindset to keep darwinism as the dominant explanation, and while we may have thought
they would go to any lengths to maintain the idea, here we have evidence in abundance.

I'm not interested in your attacks on him, that's what I expect.
Go out in the field and refute each and everyone of his claims.
He did the work, which took over 20 years to complete. You go and do the work.


jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Obviously you've bought into the Great Anti-Veda Scientific Conspiracy that Cremo and Thompson had as a theme in their book.

I hoped that you would at least read the reviews I posted, though I suspected your response would be "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" As it turns out, you're so mired in dogma that you won't even look at criticism of your views. Disappointing, Jan. But, I'm becoming less and less surprised by your total commitment to your dogma in the face of mountains of contrary evidence.

The only way you can refute these claims unbiasly, is to refute the actual claims in the book, and refrain from embarking
on a witchunt, which effectively proves his point.

I suggest you start by actually reading the reviews I've linked above. They do tackle specific claims from the book.

Do you have any response, other than "They would say that, wouldn't they?" I'm sure you do not. And that's the story of this thread, isn't it, Jan? There's been nothing of substance from you.

What is convincing about this book to me is the actual scale of deciet, and the evidence he has to back it up.

Read the reviews. The book is deeply flawed in many ways. And it has many of the common features of pseudoscientific tracts.

Go out in the field and refute each and everyone of his claims.
He did the work, which took over 20 years to complete. You go and do the work.

Not my field, Jan. And even less yours.

The book is, apparently, voluminous - deliberately so I am sure. To refute each and every faulty claim point by point might well take the 8 years it took him to write the book. At least one of the reviewers linked above - very fairly - admits that further research would be necessary to refute some of the claims made. But the scientific consensus seems to be that Cremo and Thompson have not made their case. Numerous errors have been uncovered already, as well as faulty methodology, a clear religious agenda, biased selection of data ... the list goes on and on.

This book is not a science book.

 

[James R]

Jan:

I didn't respond to your previous post in detail.

That imaginary book?
Are you calling me a liar?

You referred to an unnamed book that supposedly contained ALL of the personal correspondence of a whole bunch of paleontologists. Such a book does not exist. Now, having done a little research, I'm assuming you were referring to Cremo's follow-up book to Forbidden Archeology, in which he publishes the criticisms he received from various scientists about that book, together with his replies to those criticisms. You should have been clear about that in the first place. This, by the way, is not a complete record of all the personal correspondence of the scientists included. Obviously.

Riiiight! I'm too stupid to recognise when I being called a liar.
Is this because I believe in God?

I really don't give a damn whether you believe in God, Jan. You're free to believe whatever you like. What annoys me is that you're a smart guy yet you refuse to go out and learn some science. And much worse that that is the fact that you then presume to lecture others regarding the very science that you are so ignorant of.

James, I have a good leymanic understanding of ''evolution'', I just don't regard 'goo to man' as ''evolution''.

All evidence so far suggests that you have a very poor understanding of evolution, layman or no. Therefore, what you regard as evolution really doesn't count for much. You have not established your opinions on such matters as being ones that are worth paying any attention to in terms of being reliable or authoritative.

And you cannot present any evidence that it occurred, apart from inference. In this way it is purely subjective.

All science relies on inferences from evidence. If you call that subjective, then all of science is subjective.

Showing me a ficticious set of pictures arranged to give cred to such a phenomena does not count as evidence.

Right. But I've showed you a set of pictures that are based on real fossil evidence, as well as a number of other types of evidence. Those pictures aren't fictitious. They show real creatures that really lived (and in some cases still live today) - just like Napoleon.

I don't accept 'goo to man' as ''evolution''.
Other than that I have no problem with it.

This is the kind of statement that makes it clear that you don't understand evolution. Yet you keep repeating it as if it is a deeply informed and carefully-considered conclusion you have reached after looking at the evidence.

There is only one evolutionary process at the basic level. In claiming that you don't "accept goo to man", you're saying, presumably, that you don't accept that speciation can occur. But then you imply that you accept all the processes that lead inevitably to speciation under the right circumstances.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jan. The only conclusion I can reach is that you're so badly muddled about what evolution is that you think that different mechanisms are necessary at each "level" of evolution, and that you can believe in some but not others. It's a bit hard to tell, since you're also apparently unable to express your understanding of evolution - another sure sign, by the way, that you have no clue what you're on about.

I personally don't know if Boneparte actually existed. I suspect that he did, and I act as though he did. The only reason I've put the theoretical spin on it, is because you have isolated the point, asking me to look at it from an objective perspective. Do I actually KNOW this man existed? The answer is no.

Go back to the original post which led me to bring up Napoleon. There you claimed that anything not directly observable must be "purely theoretical" (or similar). So, let me ask you again: do you actually believe that Napolean Bonaparte is "purely theoretical" because you have not personally and directly observed him?

But goo to man evolution must be subjective, otherwise there wouldn't be competing explanations.

There are competing explanations about the shape of the Earth, too. Some people believe the world is flat rather than round. Does that mean that the Earth has no objective shape?

It's a good thing I believe in God, otherwise I'd run the risk of being intelligent enough to spot the insult.

My frustration that you refuse to use your brain has nothing to do with the fact that you believe in God.

So you're saying scientists who don't accept goo to man, don't understand science?

Which scientists would those be?

 

[wynn]

My frustration that you refuse to use your brain has nothing to do with the fact that you believe in God.

It has to do with you wanting to control him (and several others).


:shrug:

 

[James R]

wynn,

You got me. I'm actually high up in the Heirarchy of Grand Scientific Conspirators who are trying to brainwash the world with their Evil Evolution. Today, it's arguments on internet discussion forums. But tomorrow we will take over the world!

Bwhahahaha! Oh, I'm so evil.

(Of course, I'll deny this if you ever mention it to anybody again.)

PS That avatar below my user name isn't even me.

 

[Rav]

Jan linked to a pdf back in post #121 which provided what Cremo obviously considered to be a compelling selection of examples from his book. I addressed it back in post #148, and not a single claim even comes close to demonstrating the truth of the Hindu creationist views on the antiquity of man, nor do any of them do any damage whatsoever to evolutionary theory. I also linked to a book written by archaeologist Michael Brass that addresses Cremo's entire book quite comprehensively. He's made it available in pdf format for free.

Furthermore, I'd like to see Jan properly examine some of the evidence that we've linked to in this thread, and then subsequently engage in a discussion about it. Right now all he is doing is refusing to look at it, and continuing to declare that nothing of substance has been provided. Seriously, how can this be tolerated? Isn't there supposed to be a minimum standard of intellectual integrity enforced around here?

 

[wynn]

You got me. I'm actually high up in the Heirarchy of Grand Scientific Conspirators who are trying to brainwash the world with their Evil Evolution. Today, it's arguments on internet discussion forums. But tomorrow we will take over the world!

Bwhahahaha! Oh, I'm so evil.

(Of course, I'll deny this if you ever mention it to anybody again.)

PS That avatar below my user name isn't even me.

You know the saying - there's an ounce of truth in every joke.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Obviously you've bought into the Great Anti-Veda Scientific Conspiracy that Cremo and Thompson had as a theme in their book.

Obviously you're attacking me because you;ve got nothing left.

I hoped that you would at least read the reviews I posted, though I suspected your response would be "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" As it turns out, you're so mired in dogma that you won't even look at criticism of your views. Disappointing, Jan. But, I'm becoming less and less surprised by your total commitment to your dogma in the face of mountains of contrary evidence.

I've been reading rewiews about this for years James. It all amounts to the same lame excuses, he has no scientific background, he has a beef with science, he's a liar, a fraud, blah blah blah, just the usual bullshit.

I don't have a dogma James, or if I have, you don't know what it is.
I doubt you understand where I'm coming from.

Why don't you actually try and learn something about the vedas, instead of just treating it like
it's the work of some primitive knuckle-dragging ignoramus who wrote it to explain lightening.

I suggest you start by actually reading the reviews I've linked above. They do tackle specific claims from the book.

I suggest you read the actual book, then educate yourself in vedic literature

Do you have any response, other than "They would say that, wouldn't they?" I'm sure you do not. And that's the story of this thread, isn't it, Jan? There's been nothing of substance from you.

James, you're desparate. I think I'm going to end this conversation with you,
because I get the feeling you're taking this obvious revelation of lies, bias, fraud, and all the other juicy stuff regarding the obvious, personally.

Read the reviews. The book is deeply flawed in many ways. And it has many of the common features of pseudoscientific tracts.

There's no onus on me to prove or provide anything. It's all been done, very thoroughly.
I've read the book. Have you?
No.? Why are you taking the word of people who are of the same mindset?
Read the book, then dismiss each claim.

Not my field, Jan. And even less yours.

Most probably because I'm a theist, eh?

The book is, apparently, voluminous - deliberately so I am sure.

Oh yeah! That was part of his plan to take over the world.

To refute each and every faulty claim point by point might well take the 8 years it took him to write the book. At least one of the reviewers linked above - very fairly - admits that further research would be necessary to refute some of the claims made.

It doesn't matter how long it took him, the only real way to refute him is for the scientific community to do it's own research it each claim. But I doubt that will happen, so the dogmatic mindset that rules the the community will no doubt employ their usual tactics of character assasination.

The beauty about this though is that they can't hurt him, because he doesn't rely on them to advance his career, job, or grant money.

But the scientific consensus seems to be that Cremo and Thompson have not made their case. Numerous errors have been uncovered already, as well as faulty methodology, a clear religious agenda, biased selection of data ... the list goes on and on.

You mean the same scientific consensus that claimed these modern man bones found in strata dating back, say a million years, can't be a million years old, because modern man only came on the scene approx 100,000 ago, so there must be something wrong with that find.
Don't you see anything kinda wrong with that?

But what's even more amusing, you want to accept the the word of the same mindset that he's railing against, as a unbiased point of view? Leave it out will ya.

This book is not a science book.

So because it's not a ''science'' book, every single thing in it is false?

I think you're better off leaving this one alone. Bury your in the sand, and carry on as though
this book, doesn't exist, because it's not going to go away, and there's too much evidence for you to deal with.

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan,

I've been reading rewiews about this for years James. It all amounts to the same lame excuses, he has no scientific background, he has a beef with science, he's a liar, a fraud, blah blah blah, just the usual bullshit.

He admits he has no scientific background. I'm not sure if he has been proven a liar or not, but I am sure that a number of serious and in some cases silly mistakes have been pointed out in his work. There's nothing bullshit about that. It's just subjecting the work to exactly the analysis you say you want.

I don't have a dogma James, or if I have, you don't know what it is.
I doubt you understand where I'm coming from.

Sure I do. I've been around the block with you about your beloved Vedas and so on enough times now to know that you're a Hindu fundamentalist. I'm guessing you're a convert rather somebody born to Hinduism. Converts are often the most keen to show how devout and knowledgable they are about their faith. They are also often the most dogmatic, having become convinced - possibly after some time searching around - that they have found the One Great Truth.

Why don't you actually try and learn something about the vedas, instead of just treating it like it's the work of some primitive knuckle-dragging ignoramus who wrote it to explain lightening.

I know a little of the Vedas. They are certainly not a science textbook. They are just one of many sets of religious works that are considered sacred by followers of different religions. There is nothing that particularly distinguishes the Vedas as a better source of knowledge than, say, the Bible or the Analects of Confucius.

I suggest you read the actual book, then educate yourself in vedic literature

Why?

James, you're desparate. I think I'm going to end this conversation with you,
because I get the feeling you're taking this obvious revelation of lies, bias, fraud, and all the other juicy stuff regarding the obvious, personally.

Meh. Like I said before, it's your usual tactic to bow out of conversations when things get hard. No surprises here.

There's no onus on me to prove or provide anything. It's all been done, very thoroughly.
I've read the book. Have you?
No.? Why are you taking the word of people who are of the same mindset?
Read the book, then dismiss each claim.

There's no need. Experts have read the book, and many of the claims have been dismissed.

Not my field, Jan. And even less yours.

Most probably because I'm a theist, eh?

No. Because you're so obviously not even a scientist, let alone a biologist, anthropologist, paleontologist, paleobiologist or whatever.

You do seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder about being religious. What is it with that?

The book is, apparently, voluminous - deliberately so I am sure.

Oh yeah! That was part of his plan to take over the world.

No. It's more an attempt to swamp people with information. He has already failed in convincing the world with this book.

It doesn't matter how long it took him, the only real way to refute him is for the scientific community to do it's own research it each claim. But I doubt that will happen, so the dogmatic mindset that rules the the community will no doubt employ their usual tactics of character assasination.

I agree with the first half of this. You refuse to acknowledge that some of the relevant research has already been done, of course, and that a number of claims have already been thoroughly refuted. You can find a few examples in the reviews I linked to above, which you didn't bother reading.

The beauty about this though is that they can't hurt him, because he doesn't rely on them to advance his career, job, or grant money.

He's no real threat. Just another guy who is embarrassingly wrong.

You mean the same scientific consensus that claimed these modern man bones found in strata dating back, say a million years, can't be a million years old, because modern man only came on the scene approx 100,000 ago, so there must be something wrong with that find.
Don't you see anything kinda wrong with that?

Go and read the reviews I have posted. That is not a claim that any scientist has made, to my knowledge. Also, I believe that Cremo claims that human beings have existed for many hundreds of millions of years. On that basis, we ought to find human remains scattered throughout the fossil strata, and not just in the past million years or so. This is a very glaring flaw, by the way. Just one of many.

This book is not a science book.

So because it's not a ''science'' book, every single thing in it is false?

I'm sure it has something true in it, Jan. But its main thesis fails utterly.

I think you're better off leaving this one alone. Bury your in the sand, and carry on as though this book, doesn't exist, because it's not going to go away, and there's too much evidence for you to deal with.

Thankfully, I don't have to deal with it. That has already been done by experts in the field, to a large extent.

Probably you're best off leaving this one alone. Bury your head in the sand. Make sure you avoid all criticisms of this Sacred text of yours, lest they shake your faith. Science won't go away, but you can pretend it's all wrong and all a Grand Conspiracy against your Vedas if you want to. Science has too much evidence for you to deal with.

 

[seagypsy]

Sometimes I feel like those who so vehemently reject science should not be allowed to benefit from it. Next time they get sick, let them pray for a cure. If they want clothing, let them weave it the old fashioned way, by hand. If they want transportation let them catch a wild horse and tame it. If a loved one of theirs is murdered, let them ask god for forgiveness for surely they have been smited by their almighty creator. Let them eat food that they have to grow by hand but give them no means of refrigeration and let them figure out how to prevent it from spoiling. Deny them cheese, ale, and any other beverage besides water which they will have to take directly from the ground and hope that it doesn't contain any evil spirits that may kill them. Let them have a world without science. Then they can see who is really providing for them, science or god.

 

[wynn]

Sometimes I feel like those who so vehemently reject science should not be allowed to benefit from it. Next time they get sick, let them pray for a cure. If they want clothing, let them weave it the old fashioned way, by hand. If they want transportation let them catch a wild horse and tame it. If a loved one of theirs is murdered, let them ask god for forgiveness for surely they have been smited by their almighty creator. Let them eat food that they have to grow by hand but give them no means of refrigeration and let them figure out how to prevent it from spoiling. Deny them cheese, ale, and any other beverage besides water which they will have to take directly from the ground and hope that it doesn't contain any evil spirits that may kill them. Let them have a world without science.

The things that you list there are still a matter of science, just at a less technologically developed level.

Then they can see who is really providing for them, science or god.

And yet science didn't create planet Earth, nor does it make the Sun shine, etc. etc.

IOW, it yet needs to be shown that God and science are mutually exclusive.