Forbidden Archeology: Beyond Creation vs. Evolution

[Dharma Flower]

Unevidenced, unsourced, unscientific, unsound and really unworthy of any serious consideration.

The original book Forbidden Archeology had 900 pages of evidence, based on eight years of research. At the time of release, it was reviewed in mainstream journals, in which even its detractors admitted that it was thoroughly researched and well-written. And the book itself doesn't mention the spiritual beliefs of its authors.

This is a condensed version of Forbidden Archeology, made freely available online:
The Hidden History of the Human Race free download - Krishna Path

Whether you take the evidence in the book seriously or not is your own decision. They did nothing but research and document discoveries published in mainstream scientific publications that were suppressed for not fitting into the dominant paradigm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The original book Forbidden Archeology had 900 pages of evidence, based on eight years of research. At the time of release, it was reviewed in mainstream journals, in which even its detractors admitted that it was thoroughly researched and well-written. And the book itself doesn't mention the spiritual beliefs of its authors.

This is a condensed version of Forbidden Archeology, made freely available online:
http://www.krishnapath.org/eBooks/d...n_History_0f_The_Human_Race-FULL.pdf&type=pdf

You don't seem to know what evidence is. Anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[Dharma Flower]

You are a bit behind the times. The Big Crunch is not an answer today since the universe continues to speed up in its expansion.

The universe speeding up its current expansion doesn't mean that it won't someday stop expanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe speeding up its current expansion doesn't mean that it won't someday stop expanding.

Actually that is exactly what it means.

ETA: Actually you might have a point. The current expansion of the universe is not a due to the physical motion of galaxies through space. Space itself is expanding. At least from my understanding.

Second edit: It is only Wikipedia, but this article still makes my head ache a bit:

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

"The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside."

So hypothetically if the expansion of space miraculously stops there could conceivably be a "Big Crunch".

 

[Dharma Flower]

You don't seem to know what evidence is. Anecdotes are not evidence.

It's not simply an "anecdote" if human skeletal remains and artifacts are found millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of years deeper into the fossil record than the evolutionary timeline would predict. Now imagine dozens of cases when these discoveries have been made, published in mainstream scientific journals before being suppressed. It seems clear to me that you haven't read about these discoveries for yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not simply an "anecdote" if human skeletal remains and artifacts are found millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of years deeper into the fossil record than the evolutionary timeline would predict. Now imagine dozens of cases when these discoveries have been made, published in mainstream scientific journals before being suppressed. It seems clear to me that you haven't read about these discoveries for yourself.

Where have any such finds been made? Bring them up one at a time. If you run a Gish then it takes only one bad example to show that your claim is wrong.

 

[Dharma Flower]

If one considers the vast differences in language, intelligence, and spiritual faculties between apes and chimps, it seems more likely that we devolved from higher beings rather than evolved from ape-like creatures. The Vedic literature mentions men who were half ape, but they are not referred to as transitional forms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one considers the vast differences in language, intelligence, and spiritual faculties between apes and chimps, it seems more likely that we devolved from higher beings rather than evolved from ape-like creatures. The Vedic literature mentions men who were half ape, but they are not referred to as transitional forms.

Sorry, "more likely" is just wishful thinking. If you can't support such a claim with nothing better then you have nothing.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Where have any such finds been made? Bring them up one at a time. If you run a Gish then it takes only one bad example to show that your claim is wrong.

If you are honestly interested in the dozens of suppressed findings from mainstream scientists that challenged the evolutionary timeline, I'd recommend at least reading the condensed version of Forbidden Archeology, which is well-researched and cites its sources:
The Hidden History of the Human Race free download - Krishna Path

The original version of Forbidden Archeology contained 900 pages of evidence based on eight years of researching mainstream scientific sources.

I am not going to, point by point, go over 900 pages of evidence with you, but you are welcome to at least read the condensed version for yourself. At the time of publication, even the book's detractors in the scientific community admitted that it was thoroughly researched, using mainstream sources.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Sorry, "more likely" is just wishful thinking. If you can't support such a claim with nothing better then you have nothing.

It's not wishful thinking. It's just a different interpretation, especially since written records don't exist from the time period when humans originated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are honestly interested in the dozens of suppressed findings from mainstream scientists that challenged the evolutionary timeline, I'd recommend at least reading the condensed version of Forbidden Archeology, which is well-researched and cites its sources:
The Hidden History of the Human Race free download - Krishna Path

The original version of Forbidden Archeology contained 900 pages of evidence based on eight years of researching mainstream scientific sources.

I am not going to, point by point, go over 900 pages of evidence with you, but you are welcome to at least read the condensed version for yourself. At the time of publication, even the book's detractors in the scientific community admitted that it was thoroughly researched, using mainstream sources.

If you can't even bring up one piece of evidence and how it supports your claims it is obvious that you don't have any evidence. You are merely being baffled by the dishonesty of that author.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not wishful thinking. It's just a different interpretation, especially since written records don't exist from the time period when humans originated.

Nope, all you have is wishful thinking. When you say that something is "more likely" that means that you should be able to calculate the odds using valid evidence. If you can't then you have no way to judge whether something is more likely or not. All you have right now is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, the irony.........!!

Time will tell.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

well, a lot of the ancient wonders if my memory is right that scientists still don't know how they were made. Like the ancient pyramids, and a lot of megalithic monuments.

I think there's good archaeological evidence of how the Egyptian pyramids were built - the quarries, the ramps, etc. There's evidence for how some stone circles and standing stones were built, but we can't be sure of the precise details, and there are some where evidence hasn't (yet?) been found.

But not knowing exactly how it was done is different from not knowing how it could be done. There are still people who can devise ways to make moving large blocks of stone relatively easy using the technology of those times - Wally Wallington, for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there's good archaeological evidence of how the Egyptian pyramids were built - the quarries, the ramps, etc. There's evidence for how some stone circles and standing stones were built, but we can't be sure of the precise details, and there are some where evidence hasn't (yet?) been found.

But not knowing exactly how it was done is different from not knowing how it could be done. There are still people who can devise ways to make moving large blocks of stone relatively easy using the technology of those times - Wally Wallington, for example.

Hey!! No fair. Wally is my source!

 

[Dharma Flower]

Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to present the Buddha's explanation for how humans originated as a scientific argument.

What I have done is I've recommended a book which documented dozens of evidences for extreme human antiquity found in mainstream scientific sources.

It just so happens that the Buddhist scriptures also support the belief that humans existed many millions of years sooner than the evolutionary timeline would allow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to present the Buddha's explanation for how humans originated as a scientific argument.

What I have done is I've recommended a book which documented dozens of evidences for extreme human antiquity found in mainstream scientific sources.

It just so happens that the Buddhist scriptures also support the belief that humans existed many millions of years sooner than the evolutionary timeline would allow.

No, you referenced a nnonsensical book of woo and you refuse to learn how science is done.

 

[wayfaring man]

That is why scientists put their ideas out there for others to test. You appear to be trying to attack science based upon your lack of knowledge. That is never a winning strategy. It is also rather hypocritical of you since you rely upon the science that you deny to even post here.

Is that why some are so testy then ?

Appearances can be deceiving, don't you know ?

Never say never, unless saying it to not say so.

Ah a 'winning stategy' is that what you wish for me ?

We've already established the presence of hypocrisy...are you given to over plagiarism as well ?

Using the word science to cover such a broad scope of implication is well, rather unscientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that why some are so testy then ?

Yes, when rather ignorant people think that they can refute their work with claims statements that it would be too kind to describes as "silly", one can get a bit peeved. Maybe even a little irate.

Appearances can be deceiving, don't you know ?

Of course. That is why scientists put their work out there for others to test. Real scientists know that they can make mistakes, it is why they rely on peer review and publishing.

Never say never, unless saying it to not say so.

Ah a 'winning stategy' is that what you wish for me ?

Dealing with the same old PRATT's time after time gets a bit boring.

We've already established the presence of hypocrisy...are you given to over plagiarism as well ?

Now we know that you have been more than a bit of a hypocrite here. Where is the plagiarism?

Using the word science to cover such a broad scope of implication is well, rather unscientific.

I have only used the word "science" to describe actual science so I have no idea what you are yammering about here.

 

[wayfaring man]

Indeed !