Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would assume that the atheists of this forum have never heard about an alternative to evolution that doesn't include a theistic God.
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.
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
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?
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.
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....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.
I asked nicely the first time. You lost the right to demand that I ask nicely.First, define 'garbage' with evidence that it applies to my link.
Then ask nicely.
First, define 'garbage' with evidence that it applies to my link.
...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."
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
I think "isn't always convincing (far from it)", says it all.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:
Three million foot prints of year old humans?Mary Leaky discovered three million year old footprints of anatomically modern humans
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.
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'm curious why your hypothetical "higher" beings are degenerating into humans?
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.
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
That seems quite clear.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.
article said:Nonetheless, I suspect that creationism is at the root of the authors' argument, albeit of a sort not commonly seen before.
That seems quite clear.
But there is no evidence for this, is there?
Faint praise, indeed. Slightly better written bad is still bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?