Forbidden Archeology: Beyond Creation vs. Evolution

[Gene2memE]

I would assume that the atheists of this forum have never heard about an alternative to evolution that doesn't include a theistic God.

Then you'd be wrong. Some of us paid attention in our history of sciences classes at university.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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'm not saying it was aliens...

But it was aliens.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is one example of an archaeological discovery which challenges the Darwinian view, instead fitting the ancient Buddhist and Hindu interpretations:
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-oldest-known-stone-tools-pre-date-homo.html

Could anyone explain how early human ancestors using stone tools is a problem for the theory of evolution?

If they were finding finely crafted stone arrow points in Cambrian deposits, that would be a problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a question for the atheists or non-theists of this forum. Do you consider it within the realm of possibility that humans devolved from higher beings rather than evolving from other species? In the very least, do you recognize belief in human devolution as a non-theistic alternative to belief in common descent with apes?

First, there is no such thing as devolution. Just evolution. In the same way, there is no such thing as detraveling. There is only traveling, no matter what direction you are going in. Evolution is just change, no matter what direction that change is in.

Second, there is a difference between what is possible and what is true. Is it possible that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in my back yard? I guess it could be true. Is there any reason to think that Jimmy Hoffa really is buried in my back yard? No.

Could it be possible that humans were created by the fart of an invisible pink unicorn who was flying through a cotton candy waterfall? I guess it's possible, in that ultimate doubt about everything kind of possible. However, is there any reason to think it is true?

The same for "devolving" from higher beings. It ranks right up there with being farted out by an invisible pink unicorn.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some might not like Fix's use of terms like psychokinesis, but if beings from a higher realm descended to this world and, over time, manifested material bodies for themselves, without the intervention of a theistic God, that would be similar to psychokinesis.

If humans were created by the gaseous emissions of an invisible pink unicorn who was fed a constant diet of cotton candy, then this would explain why babies smell so good.

Do you understand why inventing fantasies is not considered evidence?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It's simply an icing on the cake that Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson happened to compile dozens of scientific discoveries that better fit the Buddha's explanation for human origins than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Hmm, well much as I like icing on my cakes, this review of Cremo & Thompson's book suggests that it's for display purposes only... or perhaps only suitable for uncritical consumption.

 

[pat34lee]

I asked for a reliable source. You gave me garbage. Can you support your claims with a reliable source?

First, define 'garbage' with evidence that it applies to my link.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, define 'garbage' with evidence that it applies to my link.
Then ask nicely.

I asked nicely the first time. You lost the right to demand that I ask nicely.

And it looks like you need some help. Peer review in a well respected professional journal is a good start.

 

[Loudmouth]

First, define 'garbage' with evidence that it applies to my link.

As SZ states, if it isn't the primary paper written by the scientist who did the actual science, then it runs a high chance of being garbage. You should always strive to find the primary source, not secondary sources that can distort or misrepresent what the scientist actually reported.

 

[Dharma Flower]

I think it would help the people on this forum commenting on the book Forbidden Archeology is if they were at least somewhat familiar with the book itself.

As I've mentioned before, at the time when the book was first published, it was reviewed in mainstream archeological journals in which even the book's critics admitted that it had thoroughly researched the archeological evidence:

...In a twenty-page review in Social Studies of Science, Jo Wodak and David Oldroyd describe the book's argument: Early paleoanthropologists, in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth, interpreted much empirical information as evidence favoring the existence of human beings in the Tertiary period (about 65.5 million to 2.6 million ago). But starting from about the 1930s, paleoanthropologists turned to the view that human beings first evolved in the next era, the Pleistocene (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago). The older evidence, Cremo and Thompson say, was never shown bad; it was just reinterpreted in such a way as to rule out tertiary humans. So what Cremo and Thompson have done is "comb the early literature in great—indeed impressive—detail"[6]:196 and argue, on the basis of their historical study, "that the old arguments were never satisfactorily disproved and should be reconsidered with open minds".[6]:206–207

...Reviewing the book in the French journal L'anthropologie, paleontologist Marylene Patou-Mathis wrote that the book is "a provocative work that raises the problem of the influence of the dominant ideas of a time period on scientific research. These ideas can compel researchers to publish their analyses according to the conceptions permitted by the scientific community."[8]:159 The evidence Cremo and Thompson bring forward for the very ancient origin of humanity, she wrote, "isn't always convincing (far from it)," but "the documentary richness of this work, more sociological than scientific, isn't to be overlooked."

...Writing in Geoarcheology,[9]:338 anthropologist Kenneth L. Feder said, "While decidedly antievolutionary in perspective, this work is not the ordinary variety of antievolutionism in form, content, or style. In distinction to the usual brand of such writing, the authors use original sources and the book is well written. Further, the overall tone of the work is far superior to that exhibited in ordinary creationist literature. Nonetheless, I suspect that creationism is at the root of the authors' argument, albeit of a sort not commonly seen before."

It's not just the work of early archeologists that the book surveys, though it does form a great deal of the evidence that the book provides. The book presents more recent evidence as well.

For example, Mary Leaky discovered three million year old footprints of anatomically modern humans, and then explained it away because it didn't fit the evolutionary paradigm:

So what do we have here? We have evidence that the Laetoli footprints are like those of modern humans, in terms of both their shape and gait. But none of the above mentioned scientists believed that the Laetoli footprints were made by humans like us. Why not? According to their theories, humans like us had not evolved yet. Supporters of the current evolutionary theories of human origins believe that humans like us first came into existence between one hundred and two hundred thousand years ago. Before that, there were (supposedly) only more primitive apelike ancestors of modern humans. So according to these scientists and their colleagues, who actually did make the Laetoli prints? They have various theories. Mary Leakey, for example, believed that the footprints were made by some kind of apeman who had feet exactly like those of modern human beings. That is an interesting idea, but there is no skeletal evidence to support it. We have the skeletons of the apemen who existed at that time, three or four million years ago. And none of them have foot bones like those of modern human beings. Their toes are longer than modern human toes. In particular, the apemen of that time period have long first toes that can extend out to the side, sort of like the thumb of the modern human hand. Altogether, the feet of the apemen from that time (Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus, etc.) resemble those of apes. Actually, the only creature known to science today (from skeletal remains) that has a foot exactly like that of a modern human being is, in fact, the modern human species.
Modern Humans Over Three Million Years Ago

 

[HitchSlap]

I think it would help the people on this forum commenting on the book Forbidden Archeology is if they were at least somewhat familiar with the book itself.

As I've mentioned before, at the time when the book was first published, it was reviewed in mainstream archeological journals in which even the book's critics admitted that it had thoroughly researched the archeological evidence:



It's not just the work of early archeologists that the book surveys, though it does form a great deal of the evidence that the book provides. The book presents more recent evidence as well.

For example, Mary Leaky discovered three million year old footprints of anatomically modern humans, and then explained it away because it didn't fit the evolutionary paradigm:

I think "isn't always convincing (far from it)", says it all.

 

[Larniavc]

Mary Leaky discovered three million year old footprints of anatomically modern humans

Three million foot prints of year old humans?

That's a lot of footprints.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it would help the people on this forum commenting on the book Forbidden Archeology is if they were at least somewhat familiar with the book itself.

It would help if you would present some actual evidence from the book. It isn't our job to present this material.

For example, Mary Leaky discovered three million year old footprints of anatomically modern humans, and then explained it away because it didn't fit the evolutionary paradigm:

You can't determine if a footprint came from an anatomically modern human. You need a lot more evidence than the bottom of their feet.

 

[Strathos]

First, there is no such thing as devolution.

Well, are these guys

 

[Dharma Flower]

I'm curious why your hypothetical "higher" beings are degenerating into humans?

That's a good question. According to the Buddha's teaching in the Agganna Sutta, our ancestors descended from the deva realm to this world because they were tempted by sensual pleasures like food.

As they became more and more attached to life in this world, their bodies became more physical over time, and they lost their spiritual powers like the ability to fly. The first intelligent beings on this earth were sexless as well, and over time, they developed sexual differences.

According to the Buddha's teachings, devas (gods) are beings in the cycle of karma and rebirth just like us. Once they've exhausted the good karma that caused them to be born into the deva realm, they must then be reborn into the lower realm, which would be our human realm.

If a human species doesn't already exist on a planet inhabitable for intelligent life for these devas to be reincarnated into, then may must fall to this world as devas and progressively become more human and more physical over time.

Please tell me if I am not explaining this process clearly enough, and I will be happy to explain it better.

 

[Dharma Flower]

It has no evidence to support it. Honestly. What is presented by C&L and others as 'evidence' put the cart before the horse. It assumes its conclusions, and then takes vaguely controversial/unsolved/poorly understood individual pieces of the fossil record and willfully mis-construes and deliberately mis-interprets them to fit prior assumptions.

So far, I've never actually spoken with someone who read the evidences presented by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson for themselves, and then heard from that person why the evidences Forbidden Archeology pulled from mainstream sources weren't compelling.

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

What I have seen is reviews of Forbidden Archeology from mainstream archeological journals that admitted the book was well-researched and well-written, even if they disagreed with the book's conclusions:

Writing in Geoarcheology,[9]:338 anthropologist Kenneth L. Feder said, "While decidedly antievolutionary in perspective, this work is not the ordinary variety of antievolutionism in form, content, or style. In distinction to the usual brand of such writing, the authors use original sources and the book is well written. Further, the overall tone of the work is far superior to that exhibited in ordinary creationist literature. Nonetheless, I suspect that creationism is at the root of the authors' argument, albeit of a sort not commonly seen before."
Forbidden Archeology - Wikipedia

 

[Larniavc]

That's a good question. According to the Buddha's teaching in the Agganna Sutta, our ancestors descended from the deva realm to this world because they were tempted by sensual pleasures like food.

As they became more and more attached to life in this world, their bodies became more physical over time, and they lost their spiritual powers like the ability to fly. The first intelligent beings on this earth were sexless as well, and over time, they developed sexual differences.

According to the Buddha's teachings, devas (gods) are beings in the cycle of karma and rebirth just like us. Once they've exhausted the good karma that caused them to be born into the deva realm, they must then be reborn into the lower realm, which would be our human realm.

If a human species doesn't already exist on a planet inhabitable for intelligent life for these devas to be reincarnated into, then may must fall to this world as devas and progressively become more human and more physical over time.

Please tell me if I am not explaining this process clearly enough, and I will be happy to explain it better.

That seems quite clear.

But there is no evidence for this, is there?

 

[Larniavc]

Nonetheless, I suspect that creationism is at the root of the authors' argument, albeit of a sort not commonly seen before.

Faint praise, indeed. Slightly better written bad is still bad.

 

[Dharma Flower]

That seems quite clear.

But there is no evidence for this, is there?

The most important thing, for me as a Buddhist, is that I trust in the Buddha's enlightenment.

Everyone, even scientists, will evaluate the evidences presented for common descent with apes based on their own presuppositions, so I might as well interpret the evidence provided by scientists in light of what the Buddha taught.

Secondly, if archaeological evidences were found of extreme human antiquity, of modern humans living during the time that Australopithecines are supposed to have lived or even before, that would in and of itself falsify the evolutionary timeline.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Faint praise, indeed. Slightly better written bad is still bad.

What Cremo and Thompson actually believed, however, was not creationism. Humans descending from higher beings would be devolution, not creationism. No intervention from a theistic God would be required.

Cremo actually wrote a book after Forbidden Archeology called Human Devolution. At the same time, the personal religious beliefs of the authors would not disqualify the evidences they presented.