Your thoughts on "Dead Men's Secrets"
Posted: 20 Feb 2012, 00:44
Hi all,
New to the forum. This is my first post.
I just purchased Dead Men's Secrets by Jonathan Gray on my kindle. I am about 20% into this book and was initially compelled by its evidence. For those of you that do not know about the book and are interested, the book is proposing that there is evidence of super-technology in ancient civilizations. The book starts off with a valid argument, which really begins to convince me that perhaps these societies did exist. However, as I pressed on in the book I noticed that it strongly tries to disprove evolution and uses "science" to offer a creationist view on the world. It begins to attack carbon dating methods and insists upon the flood myth/ethos. Its starting to annoy me because it insists that nothing can be dated back before 5000 years ago and it says there is no proof of evolution. It just completely throws the fossil record out of the picture and only picks out only certain evidence to support its compelling story. What about the dinosaurs? What about radiant adaptation, natural selection, and the variety of freshwater cichlid fish species we see evolving before our eyes?
I would appreciate any thoughts, feedback or educated responses on this topic and I would love to hear from someone who read the book.
Thanks
Lorenzo
-- 27 Feb 2012, 03:08 --
Nobody read this?
New to the forum. This is my first post.
I just purchased Dead Men's Secrets by Jonathan Gray on my kindle. I am about 20% into this book and was initially compelled by its evidence. For those of you that do not know about the book and are interested, the book is proposing that there is evidence of super-technology in ancient civilizations. The book starts off with a valid argument, which really begins to convince me that perhaps these societies did exist. However, as I pressed on in the book I noticed that it strongly tries to disprove evolution and uses "science" to offer a creationist view on the world. It begins to attack carbon dating methods and insists upon the flood myth/ethos. Its starting to annoy me because it insists that nothing can be dated back before 5000 years ago and it says there is no proof of evolution. It just completely throws the fossil record out of the picture and only picks out only certain evidence to support its compelling story. What about the dinosaurs? What about radiant adaptation, natural selection, and the variety of freshwater cichlid fish species we see evolving before our eyes?
I would appreciate any thoughts, feedback or educated responses on this topic and I would love to hear from someone who read the book.
Thanks
Lorenzo
-- 27 Feb 2012, 03:08 --
Nobody read this?