Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00078)

Whoa! That was some post... I'm going to have to read
it over a few days to fully digest it.

> From evidence occasionally made available, it would
> seem that on occasion,
> certain facts (and artifacts) are removed from the
> glare of publicity – and
> we might conclude that this is done because they
> could upset or question
> some well-established hypothesis or theory. If
> true, this is not strict
> “honesty.” Where has the “public” been invited to
> review the “facts?” This I
> have looked for but rarely if ever found in a
> systematic, scientific way.

It's not even real science because according to their
own Scientific Method, they aren't supposed to come to
a conclusion until they've reviewed all the evidence,
but it seems that the scientists have turned
everything on its head- they have come up with a
conclusion, and then they sift out everything that
doesn't agree with it, and string together as much
evidence as possible to match their hypothesis.

I guess though, when you look at how long religious
authorities have deluded people, it's not surprising
that scientists would do the same. They're just
following religion's model.

> As a case in point, let me refer you to the
> voluminous work HIDDEN
> ARCHEOLOGY (by Cremo and Johnson) published in San
> Diego, and a second
> volume issue two years later, in which they document
> the reception by
> scientists of their first book and the anomalous
> “facts” it displays. 
> 
> Several authors down the years have pointed to these
> and (to my knowledge)
> have never been thoroughly refuted by Science – or
> given prominence -- to my
> knowledge. 

Well, they ignore anything they can't refute. 

Actually, this all reminds me of a gentleman, Graham
Hancock, and how all his books refute scientific
'truths', and the chilly reception he's been given by
the scientific establishment... especially his
theories for a Pleistocene (Ice Age) civilisation...
even though it explains Atlantis, and the Flood Myths
so well.

> As an example, in H P B’s “The SECRET DOCTRINE” you
> will find it stated that
> the doctrines discussed have an antiquity going back
> some at least 18
> million years. 

Well, I'm going to have a little bit of trouble with
18 million years, but I will hear her out. I have
always been conditioned to believe that human
evolution didn't start until 10 million years ago, and
didn't finish until 100 000 or so years ago. Could
you explain her line of reasoning for me?

Ryan

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com