Originally posted by segovius
This is only true if one assumes evolutionary theory as the ONLY model that is plausible for human development. In fact such a view is yet another example of bi-polar reductionist thinking and either/or: creationists or evolutionists. That's not how it is.
You say this, but the only example you bring up has to do with the timing of details
in the always-developing story of evolution. The most important thing about evolution is the concept of gradual change over time brought about by random mutation coupled with natural selection, not the play-by-play story of each and every species.
Arguing against when and how long apes and men lived together, for example, isn't arguing against the core meaning of the theory of evolution, nor does such an argument create any major alternative to "bi-polar" creationism vs. evolution.
Besides, it's not like "creationism" is one story either. There are plenty of creation myths from plenty of religions. Even within the Christian creationism that we're typically talking about here, there are variations like Old Earth vs. Young Earth, and middle-of-the-road paths like divinely-assisted evolution.
Evolution has many flaws and science glosses over these in a fraudulent manner in order to maintain their position.
This kind of phrase puts my crackpot detector on high alert. Maybe, maybe
someone like your Michael Cremo has found "stunning evidence", but not once have I ever been very impressed by the typical follow-up (when there is any follow-up at all) to claims like this.
Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology website details many authenticated anomalies that prove evolutionary theory to be deeply flawed (though not in the sense the creationists would like).
For example, he cites data of modern human skulls found in Pliocene layers (ie dating the skull to 3 - 4 million years old).
I followed the above link and poked around a bit. The actual information is very limited, most likely to keep from giving all the goods away online and to convince you to buy the book.
But what little is there certainly doesn't seem impressive. Cremo's main point seems to be to gasp at every fossil or artifact that is found in an unexpected strata. If there's more to what Cremo has to say, I couldn't find it, and I certainly don't feel compelled, starting with this unimpressive web site, to put money in this man's pocket by buying his book.
The geological strata is a jumbled mess. It takes careful detective work to figure out the sequence. There will be anomalies, and there will be errors. When it comes to human artifacts, human activities can often be the explanation for why something shows up in an unusual place.
Imagine taking a hundred or so copies of a book, tearing the pages out in clumps, shuffling the pages, shredding the pages into pieces, often tiny word- or letter-sized pieces, then stirring the whole mess together. Now imagine trying to piece together a consistent original book.
It's possible to achieve that task, but it's far from easy. Bits of the original sequences of pages and words will tend
to stick together, but that's only a tendency. Working from trying to find an overall pattern of consistency is the best you can do.
Is it possible you might start developing a way that you want
the book to turn out, and to start rejecting data that doesn't fit your ideas about how the book should be? Certainly. But rejecting anomalous data wouldn't be proof that that's what you're doing. Anomalous data is to be expected
, and having some methodology for rejecting such data is essential, not in-and-of-itself suspicious.
There are literally hundreds of such examples and they cannot all be discredited...
Well, yes, yes they can be. Quite validly so, depending on the nature of "such examples".
It's not the number of examples per se that matter. It's whether or not the examples spell out a consistent and compelling alternative. Don't show me one "metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves" that "was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old" if you want to impress me. Show me lots of things that keep showing up in 2.8 billion year-old deposits that spell out some consistent picture of a 2.8 billion year-old culture if you want me to be impressed.
Show me piles unrelated anomolies, however, from unrelated time periods, that don't form any compelling new picture of their own, and I'll say "Congratulations. You found some jumbled bits of the jumbled mess we're digging through. What else did you expect?