Michael Cremo and the book Fobbiden archaeology

by Crazyguy 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Crazyguy

  It my understanding that he's claiming that humans have lived on earth for millions of years. It looks as though he's even showing different archaeological findings to support his claim. He seams to be claiming that other inferior humanoids could not created some of the things found and I guess modern scientists would agree on that single piont.

  Its also if interest to find out that his religious beliefs maybe behind his ideas. Has anyone read his book and what are your thoughts?

  Its my thought that maybe modern man has indeed been around longer then 100,000 years but that also these lesser humans may have had the ability to create and do things more advanced then scientists currently believe. People keep unearthing artifacts that indicate that man in some form has been around for a very long time and they were able to create tools and art. Your thoughts?
• 

  cofty

  Cremo is a peddler of woo woo...

  NCSE review...

  Talk Origins on Cremo...
• 

  Crazyguy

  So cofty have you read his book and what's your thoughts on some of his ideas. One piont in particular is his talking about a site in Mexico that a team of geologist dated to 250,000 years old. These findings ruined the career of the lead geologist. I remember watching a documentary on this site and it was very compelling that maybe indeed the geologists were right.

  Again in not saying I agree with Michael but with more and more artifacts poping up that date to several hundred 100 years old and possibly older. What's you opinion on the age of modern man and do you think that older humanoids may have been able to create tools and art?
• 

  Vidiot

  I read parts of that book years ago, but don't remember much.

  Guess it didn't have much of an impact on me.
• 

  Crazyguy

  What I'm leaning to is that humans or some lesser form with better thinking ability that had been thought has indeed been around maybe a million years or so. This I believe is against the Darwin thought that humans are only about 1-200,000 years old and older humanoids were really stupid. But again thier finding art of statues and drawing of dinosaurs indicating that these humanoids may have been around back then and with better thinking ability. I don't think I agree with this author though , he's pushing the idea of great civilizations millions of years old to go along with his religious beliefs.
• 

  LongHairGal

  CRAZYGUY:

  I read this book a few years ago as well.

  I have often wondered myself just how long the human race has really been around.
• 

  Cold Steel

  One way might be to find the oldest writing samples. If a civilization is said to have existed 250,000 years ago, but the earliest writing is only 5,000 years old, then I would have to doubt the first number.

  As far as I know, no significant culture in Mexico pre-dates the Olmec culture, and that dates back to about 2500 B.C. And it came to a rather quick end in 400 B.C., most likely due because of war.

  So if this super-ancient civilization has writings, that would go a long way in telling us more about them. Who were their kings? What were their modes of warfare? What was their size, physical characteristics and what happened to them? Were they destroyed or assimilated? How did they claim to get here?

  If someone says a culture was here hundreds of thousands of years before other cultures, then I'm going to want more evidence than carbon dating. Civilizations cannot build cities and yet remain silent in the written word.
• 

  Half banana

  Last night I was in Westminster Abbey at a concert and during the intermission I looked down and found I was standing on Darwin's grave! Darwin was a scientist who used evidence as the basis for his world shattering big idea.

  Writers and their books with ludicrous titles such as Forbidden Archaeology are a waste of time if you are seeking to learn something useful.

  The evidence is that humans 'morphologically' i.e. with the same basic shape as us, goes back in the scientific record to around a quarter of a million years before present. Since these examples of early african Homo sapiens skulls were only the specimens found by scientists it would indicate they would have existed earlier evolving alongside other 'hominins' i.e human related species but their evidence has not yet arrived. It would be reasonable on the evidence available so say that H sapiens therefore is at least 250 000years old and probably arose another 50, 000 years before that.
• 

  Half banana

  erratum: I meant to say skeletal evidence is around 200 000 years before present and therefore it would be expected that H sapiens were living many thousands of years before that.