Re: good article by dawkins



On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:51:56 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:

"Pulse" <feralpulse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZjRvm.1623$S_4.1109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Kalkidas wrote:
"Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h9obra$rep$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Desertphile"
<desertphile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ms9vb5tvj089vabqku1543ctr067vjh8bm@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:36:41 -0700, "Kalkidas" <eat@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
Of course, Dawkins won't ever acknowledge the hundreds of cases of
human fossils and artifacts found in "the wrong geological" strata, as
documented by Cremo in "Forbidden Archaeology".
None of which aretrue. Do try to keep up.

Do try to refine your snobbery. One way to do this is to read "Forbidden
Archaeology" and "Forbidden Archaeology's Impact" with an open mind. You
do know what an "open mind" is, don't you?

The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their
Bearing on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy

Presented at the XXth International Congress of History of Science,
Liège, Belgium, July 19-26, 1997 by Michael A. Cremo
Research Associate in History and Philosophy of Science, Bhaktivedanta
Institute, 9701 Venice Blvd. Suite 5, Los Angeles, CA 90034

ABSTRACT

When Jacques Boucher de Perthes reported stone tools in the Pleistocene
gravels of northern France at Abbeville, he was ignored by the French
scientific establishment. Later, he was vindicated by English
scientists, who came to the Abbeville region and confirmed his
discoveries. But some of these same English scientists later turned on
him when he reported the discovery of the famous Moulin Quignon jaw.
Eventually the discovery was proved a hoax. That is how the standard
history goes. But when considered in detail, the hoax theory does not
emerge with total clarity and certainty. Boucher de Perthes felt the
English scientists who opposed him were influenced by political and
religious pressures at home. In order to restore his reputation and
establish the authenticity of the Moulin Quignon jaw, Boucher de Perthes
conducted several additional excavations at Moulin Quignon, which
yielded hundreds of human bones and teeth. But by this time, important
minds had been made up, an
d no attention was paid to the later discoveries, which tended to
authenticate the Moulin Quignon jaw. This lack of attention persists in
many histories of archeology. This paper details the later discoveries of
Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon, addresses possible reasons for their
scanty presence in (or complete omission from) many histories of the
Moulin Quignon affair, and offers some suggestions about the role the
historian of archeology might play in relation to the active work of that
science.

So the entire book is a defense of a conspiracy theory?

No, it's mostly about hundreds of cases of human fossils and artifacts
found in undisturbed geological strata dated far older than the standard
version of human evolution will allow.

The key word is "allow". Does anyone deny that there are human
gatekeepers in science?

You are very ignorant of archaeology. There have been plenty of
instances where people have published on finds which challenge prevailing
beliefs. Archaeologists (with a few exceptions) love this stuff, because
the new and exciting is, well, new and exciting. Archaeology is also
fringed with crackpots whose main interest is becoming famous by
overturning accepted theories, and they confabulate bogus "evidence",
transparent garbage to anybody with experience, with which to try to make
their name. Archaeologists hate this, because it interferes with getting
real archaeology done. Gatekeepers are necessary to keep them out as
much as practical.

So far none of what I have written should be the least bit controversial
even to you. The only thing you disagree with (I expect) is that Cremo
falls in the latter category. Unfortunately, Cremo has promoted so much
bogosity in the name of archaeology that even if he does come across
something real now, it would be stupid for anyone to take him seriously.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: good article by dawkins
    ... Archaeology" and "Forbidden Archaeology's Impact" with an open mind. ... The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their ... Research Associate in History and Philosophy of Science, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Editorial: Prehistory vs. Archaeology: Terms of Engagement
    ... David Clarke wrote that ‘A modern empirical discipline ought to be ... even history, but it was—or should be—disciplinarily distinct. ... between archaeology as a study of artifacts and prehistory as a form ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • The Appearance of Jews in History
    ... The Appearance of Jews in History ... The better source of information is the science of archaeology. ... It is natural to ask what would be evidence for biblical Israel. ... There is correspondance between all the governments of the civilizations we ...
    (soc.culture.israel)
  • Re: celebrating Passover
    ... But Genesis is way more important than Samuel to the history ... > on about the archaeology; I mean, ... The real problem with putting the writing of those texts very early is the ... And, as you say, if what the archaeological minimalists, if I can use the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Time to educate the ignoramus Giwer...AGAIN
    ... The Appearance of Jews in History ... who eschews biblical influences on archaeology: ... the Mesha Stele mentions the king of Israel Òwho oppressed Moab ...
    (soc.culture.israel)