Comments by "Monty Cantsin" (@MontyCantsin5) on "Forbidden Archaeology | Michael Cremo | Talks at Google" video.

 @lreeher : How convenient. Care to elaborate and inform science as to exactly how oil is formed?
5
It's astonishing just how many people in the comments think that evolution is a theory in the colloquial sense of the word, therefore it must just be a 'guess' or 'speculation'. Case in point, the user 'Scott David Williams' (who has since deleted all of his posts because he was called out on his bullshit) stated that: ‘Theory= educated guess, nothing more’. I replied to this with the following: 'Theories in science (such as evolution by natural selection) are based on facts, evidence, empirical knowledge about the natural world, are subject to experiment, etc. Evolution is the mechanism which accounts for the diversity of life we see around us. It is not a 'guess' in any way.' Scott David Williams' response: 'Yes, evolution is a theory,(not a fact) a scientifically based, highly educated guess. But still a guess. Gravity, however, is in no way theoretical to me. It is a fact.' My response: 'Because science is falsifiable and new information might come along to disprove a theory does not equate to a theory being guesswork. Not having access to all facts does not mean that evolution is false or simply 'speculation'. *Scott David Williams*: 'you are merely an ape that has learned some basic math, rudimentary writing, and doesn't shit on the floor. Good day to you sir!’ That's what you're up against with these conspiracy theorists.
3
@venus_envy : It's terrifying how many people willingly believe the nonsense that pseudoscientists such as this peddle. Look at Cremo's shitty website; shock horror(!) - there's even a section dedicated to UFOs. Who would have thought it?
2
Humans and dinosaurs coexisted? Giants wandered the earth? Evolution is a myth? Kent Hovind called; he wants his bullshit back.
2
@PraxisAbraxis : With regard to the first two paragraphs of your comment, if university study and its associated academic structure is so bad (why anyone would seriously entertain this notion is beyond me; it simply smacks of a fear of knowledge and experts which is a bizarre position to adopt say the least) why is Cremo so keen to associate himself with many professional organisations such as the Philosophy of Science Society, the History of Science Society, the European Association of Archaeologists, etc when many of these institution have published findings that contradict Cremo? The answer: He's desperate to give his crackpot ideas credence and make them look legitimate even though he has no educational training in the field of science or archaeology whatsoever. It's so transparent as to be utterly laughable yet the conspiracy theorists still lap this shit up.
2
@fsbirdhouse : "Can we even call them scientists? Most of them are simply sycophants to the ruling belief system." A highly accurate summation of conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists like Cremo.
1
@Damien81ful : Are you referring to the stone carving that is located at the Ta Prohm temple in Cambodia? Or did you have a specific Indian temple in mind? Vittala Temple, perhaps? Either way, these carvings (not actual fossil remains as you hinted at) don't provide any evidence whatsoever that humans coexisted with dinosaurs several centuries ago. Why anyone would leap to such a conclusion when multiple other (far more sensible) explanations are easily available is baffling. Ever heard of Occam's razor? Or science for that matter?
1
@Damien81ful : They could quite easily be another animal that was known to the temple builders. A rhino has been suggested; the shapes that appear to be across the top of the animal seem to be leaves or just extra stylistic detail added by the craftsperson who made it. It's also thought that they might be much later fakes or forgeries which is highly likely. Seeing a couple of carvings (lacking in a lot of detail, it has to be said) and immediately leaping to the conclusion that it's a dinosaur therefore humans and dinosaurs coexisted even though there's absolutely no evidence for this from the fossil record is not logical in any way.
1
@Damien81ful : No idea how a blockbuster film franchise is relevant to this discussion. You seem to be conflating art with objective reality which isn't exactly a sensible comparison.
1
@Damien81ful : The existence of money has no bearing on whether or not human and dinosaur fossils in the geological record are of the same date. As it happens, they are categorically not. You may as well say that the sun doesn't exist because people have money. It's nonsensical.
1
@Damien81ful : That's simply not happening in this case. Or any other major theory I can think of in science for that matter. The archaeological evidence of dinosaur fossils and fragments discovered of our early human ancestors do not overlap at all.
1
@Damien81ful : You really are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. What are educated people who have studied science and history supposed to teach based on the evidence that we have available to us? That planet earth is 6000 years old? That humans and dinosaurs coexisted? That ancient aliens built the pyramids? That the moon is hollow, etc, etc? That sounds rational. Let's all believe nonsense. Great! To hell with human intelligence and empirical insight!
1
Facepalm Scientific theories are based on facts. Evolution is the best theory we have to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Leo Alexander explained why your definition of the term theory in a scientific context is entirely misguided and you respond by stating '...when we talk about evolution, we are still talking about a theory. That's all.' The sheer stupidity hurts. Do you deny the existence of gravity too because it's merely a 'theory'?
1
@macioluko9484 : I quoted you; I certainly didn't put words in your mouth. If you don't deny that evolution is based on evidence, facts, is testable, can be observed, etc. (the very definition of a scientific theory), exactly what point are you trying to make by stating that 'it is a theory'? Your motivation is entirely unclear and as a result, has been questioned. Are you making a philosophical claim about the falsifiability of science? Do you think that a better theory can account for the diversity of life? If so, you must have some idea of what this new theory should be and have extremely strong evidence to back it up otherwise your comments so far are completely meaningless.
1
@macioluko9484 : I have read your comments very carefully and found them to be misleading. Capitalising the word theory in your very first comment smacks of trying to bring well established science into disrepute. You've not really advance any point whatsoever; simply stated that it is important that people remember that evolution is a 'THEORY' when really you don't even seem to understand that within the domain of science a theory is as close to truth as we are ever likely to get as humans. Evolution by natural selection is entirely uncontroversial and only pseudoscientists or conspiracy theory crackpots question it to the extent that they believe it may be wrong. Certain details are argued over among philosophers of science, of course, but the general theory is sound. Moreover, you don't seem to be digging for any kind of 'full explanation' (you've not even mentioned what these 'very uncomfortable observations' might be), which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked whether you were trying to make a Popperian philosophical claim about claims only being scientific if they are falsifiable.
1
@canadiankewldude : If you were replying to my comment, I will look into Gold's work in more detail. Are you implying that you believe oil is not a fossil fuel?
1
@venomagent76 : So oil is a renewable source of energy and not a fossil fuel?
1