Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
JAW, while I may disagree with some of the 'strident' tone of your comments about the quibblers, after reading many of the posts on this board, I certainly have to agree with the substance of your complaints. Apparently, 'nits' are very much in season.

I also agree with, and applaud your remarks linking some 'scientists' with religion; I have noticed this for a very long time. Anyone who challenges the orthodox view is treated as a 'heretic' that must be suppressed; while their particular pet theories are treated with a religious veneration. The faith archaeologists/paleontologists place on their carbon dating being one example; the decay rate of C14 is assumed to be a constant (it may indeed be, but we have only been able to effectively monitor this for only a very few tens of years, not millions or thousands) we have not monitored radioactive decay rates for any more than a half century; but it is assumed to be constant over extreme time frames because 'theory' tells us it is so. It is assumed that the amount of C14 available in the environment to be absorbed by life forms has always been constant, and that nothing effectively varies the rate of absorption/decay; again, 'theory' tells us it is so.

It is the same with the 'Theory of Evolution'; while I agree that forms of life adapt to environmental changes (the successful ones, at least), I see it as a THEORY...Darwin's guess about what happened in the past. However, it is taught in our schools as an ESTABLISHED, PROVEN FACT, not as a generally creditable IDEA about the past. The word 'theory' seems to be nothing more than 'filler' within the title. Anyone who has questions about the 'theory' is, of course, branded as an 'un-believer' and 'infidel', and subject to the INQUISITOR.

I am not a fan of strident nature of some of your comments, but I do agree with several of your points, and as far as that goes, give'em hell.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
JAW's Sincere Double Apology 397 Colin Reader 08-Jan-04 23:31
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 199 Kevin Kanada 09-Jan-04 00:57
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 180 jawest 09-Jan-04 17:41
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 186 G. VDC 09-Jan-04 18:09
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 213 Laird Scranton 10-Jan-04 16:15
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 184 jawest 10-Jan-04 16:30
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 171 scimitar 09-Jan-04 19:08
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 208 Atlantida 09-Jan-04 20:45
JAW: Fundraise 191 ananda 10-Jan-04 01:55
Re: JAW: Fundraise 182 Atlantida 10-Jan-04 16:01
Re: JAW: Fundraise 202 G. VDC 10-Jan-04 16:16
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 180 Jaimi 09-Jan-04 18:41
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 187 Colin Reader 10-Jan-04 17:48
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 202 Jaimi 09-Jan-04 19:23
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 175 David Billington 09-Jan-04 23:00
Re: JAW's Sincere Double Apology 179 Colin Reader 10-Jan-04 18:04


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.