Miocene humans

You're talking about Cremo? He hasn't been well received by the scientific community, and he hasn't been invited to speak at scientific conferences. I don't know much about the World Archeological Congress, but if you're letting the fact that he presented a paper there lead you to believe that his views are finding acceptance in some corners of the scientific establishment then you are sorely mistaken. The only attention he receives from the scientific community is when they express extreme skepticism. It isn't just biology that rejects his ideas, but virtually every field of science. And this was why I was asking how you judge something credible. In order for Cremo to be right, most of what we currently know in science has to be wrong. Cremo and others like him primarily promote their ideas to those with little scientific background by writing books in the popular press. Selling books and lectures to the scientifically illiterate has always been profitable.The ideas presented alongside Cremo's at various websites all seem fairly unlikely. One important quality good scientists posess in common is having a good sense for the most fertile areas to invest their time. Cremo has found company among the crackpots because no scientists judge his ideas worthy of attention. They're aware of the existing evidence for currently accepted views, and it is obvious on its face how poorly Cremo's evidence is by comparison in both quality and quantity. They judge a further examination of Cremo's claims unworthy of their time.If one were characterizing Cremo's ideas in measured scientific terms then one might say that they are inconsistent with the larger body of evidence, and that he must improve this situation before his ideas will find a scientific audience. But the fact of the matter is that Cremo is a crackpot, in the same way that perpetual motion machine inventors and mind readers are crackpots. It would not be a worthwhile investment of time to give his ideas any serious consideration.--Percy

No, not at all. Nothing in physics, medicine, genetics, non-evo biology, zoology, etc,...nothing in chemistry or most any other field would be wrong, just evo claims on how humans arrived.That's it.

Percy - do you happen to know which conferences he is suppose to have spoken at? Which elements of the scientific community are suppose to support him?This seems like the standard "they" support him, with no actual evidence of who "they" are.

CK, This webpage from Cremo's website may answer your question.

thanks I'll explore them in more detail in the morning.

Did you read the article?This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2005 07:19 PM

You know, 100 years ago scientists were seriously doing research into mermaids. A lot has changed in 100 years, we have tv's, computers, cd players, science has made many similar advances.I have an old magazine from 1921 that is discussing the maya/aztec ruins, and the scientists are seriously considering that the Romans built them. By your logic, before the "mind filter", we should still be considering the idea that the Romans built the mayan temples.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2005 07:31 PM

I hope you're not concluding that this paragraph says that Cremo and Thompson's evidence is valid. The word extraordinary is applied to a claim that contradicts a large body of quality evidence. This evidence can only be overcome by an equally large (or larger) body of quality evidence, which would indeed be extraordinary. Hence the common catchphrase, as it has become, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's just a shorthand way of saying that a lot of evidence can only be overcome by a lot of other evidence.This is why I keep asking about the criteria you apply when judging a claim credible. It seems as if you assign a lot of weight to small amounts of evidence when the claim is novel or intriguing, and very little weight to the body of evidence stacked against it. It is the nature of the claim that seems to capture your interest, and not the quality or quantity of the evidence. The claims of Cremo and Thompson have no more substance than those of Erich von Dniken, Ron Wyatt or Carl Baugh, charlatans who also have a large following among the hoi polloi. If you think these ancient sites exist, I suggest you try to visit them. Since the writer is as critical and scathing as one could possibly be of Cremo and Thompson without coming right out and calling them cranks, I'm astounded at your ability to find support, even of a backhanded nature, where absolutely none exists. The mind boggles.What you want to do is consider Cremo and Thompson's claims on the merits, on the evidence.--Percy

I can show you that alot of what you mentiond gets messed up if Cremo is right.Remember, Cremo belives the earth has been around for 2 billion years. WITH PEOPLE ON IT!physics:All cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics would be affected by this.Heck, the age of the sun would mean that all our knowledge about atomic theory is all out of wack. This relates to chemistry as you will see...genetics:Well, modern genetics is pretty entertwined with evolutionary theory, so we can pretty much leave that at that. You basicaly have destroyed bioinfomatics.non-evo biology:No such thing. Next.zoology:Yep. It would destroy our current notions of cladistics and taxonomy.chemistry:If our atomic theory is all out of wack, rates of atomic decay are all screwd up, our knowledge of how various chemicals work and interact are all screwd up.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2005 07:46 PM

It makes no sense that you chose to reply to this relatively inconsequential comment that appeared among several more substantial and relevant points. I don't think you've thought through the consequences of a Vedic interpretation of the history of the universe upon the various sciences, primarily physics, cosmology, geology, paleontology, archeology and biology, but to get into a discussion of this would draw us off topic.The actual points I was making in Message 31 were:

• Your mistaken notion that Cremo has raised some interest in some corners of the scientific community, which isn't true.
  ​
• The poor quality and paucity of Cremo's evidence.
  ​
• Your approach to judging something credible.

--Percy

Here is the error in your thinking. The data does not contradict any actual evidence at all, in terms of human evolution, except perhaps the one claim of the curiously spherical balls.But in terms of Miocene humans, there is no data this contradicts, just evolutionist conclusions about the data. Evos stitch together a picture, often times out of fraudulent claims, based on partial data while ignoring the other data, and then claim this evidence is extraordinary.But it's not really because the only extraordinary claim is that presumptions of evos on human evolutionary paths are wrong.There is not one single piece of data, related to human remains, that this data conflicts with. All this shows is that some of the so-called pre-human hominids were not actually early forms of humans, but either different species, or perhaps showing some of the extreme range of hominids.Ironically, even though evos claim not accept teleology, these so-called more primitive hominid forms are considered more primitive and we more advanced due to a values judgment related to progress, that evolution is upward.But in reality, even if one continues to accept ToE, this data would only show, assuming ToE, that the range of hominid evolution is wider than expected, and we in fact see this sort of thing with other species, getting bigger and then smaller and then bigger again.In other words, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that man could be "advanced" and then devolve (in layman's terms), and that branches could evolve back to a more "advanced state."In fact, that sort of change within a range is much more scientific, and more in line with the science claims of ToE, than to claim such a thing as devolution or evolution in a "progressive manner" exists.So it could be hominids existed in basically the same form as modern man 20 million years ago, that various tribes of men "devolved", and that man has changed within a range over that time.Or, man could be specially created by God. Or aliens could have cloned themselves with apes, for all we know.The point is this data, except maybe the one claim as far as the spherical balls that are dated 2 billion years ago, is not contradictory with the other available actual data, at least not the claims of Miocene era men.It merely contradicts current evolutionist interpretations of the data, and does not necessarily even contradict ToE, although it may not be as strong evidence for ToE, or may make evolutionists look rather silly to have made so many claims about man's evolution without considering that devolution evolution could well be just as likely as "progressive evolution."

Speaking of which, I would like to see them. Which museum are they being kept at and which scientists are currently studying them and their origins?If they are the remnants of some 2 million year old civilization, I would imagine armies of anthropologists and historians would be clamering to figure out who they were. Incorrect. The findings are over 100 years old, and I did not see one current refference in any of Cremos material that you posted. Things change in 100 years.100 years ago science was investigating mermaids and wether the Romans built the Maya/Aztec pyramids. Partial eh? Only a HUGE amount of fossil data corrobarated by DNA evidence, and so on and so forth. So tell me something, if there were cultures 2 Million years ago, where are their ruins/cities/artifacts? Just some alleged metal balls and an alleged shoe are not enugh to establish the existance of a previoulsy unknown race of men.Don't you think we would have stumbled uppon the remains of their civilization by now?At 2 million years, sounds like it may have looked like this: Evolution is not UPWARD. Evolution goes in no particular direction at all. Evolution just means CHANGE. Some changes work, some changes don't. Natural selection makes the choice of what stays and what goes. If suddenly the environment began selecting for dumb, 2 foot tall primates, we would have to evolve or die ABE: Just to head anything off, I know the dinosaurs weren't around 2 million years ago. The picture was simply for comedic effect.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 08:42 AM

quote:

---

But they can't do that. So they go the other route and with selective use of evidence, ignoring all sorts of evidence against it, evolutionists ply their scenarious to each other and the public, and demonize the character, integrity and intelligence of their critics.

​

That's why I think of evolutionism as a cult.

---

Randman, can you please answer this question back in the thread it appears in? Message #115 in the Bush Promotes ID thread

quote:

---

Personally, I don't consider evolutionist journals good science when it comes to evolution and somewhat farcical on the whole subject in fact.

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-08-2005 08:38 AM

quote:

---

Evos stitch together a picture, often times out of fraudulent claims,

---

Fraud?You mean, Biologists are chronic liars?Can you document this?How has this fraud that is rampant in Biology affected the practical applications of Biology to medicine and agriculture?

Hi Randman,Obviously the scientific community does not find Cremo's evidence credible. He can take this to heart and find better evidence, or he can continue selling his books to the gullible. I don't think repeatedly pleading that we should deem Cremo's evidence credible is going to have much success.In my opinion, the more relevant issues regarding claims like humans living 2 billion years ago are not Cremo's specific points, but these:

• Your mistaken notion that Cremo has raised some interest in some corners of the scientific community, which isn't true.
  ​
• The poor quality and paucity of Cremo's evidence.
  ​
• Your approach to judging something credible.

--Percy