• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Need feedback on Cayce claims

ExMinister

RSL Acolyte
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
2,982
As part of a paper I'm writing, I've been trying to research some of Cayce's claims about Atlantis and early humans. I am going to cut and paste part of what I've written here, in hopes you might have some constructive feedback on whether I've gotten the facts right. I apologize in advance if it's lengthy:

Cayce did a series of readings on the topic of Atlantis beginning in about 1929. It is essentially Cayce's version of the creation story.

Cayce described Atlantis as the first great civilization. He located it somewhere between Bimini and the Mediterranean.

Disregarding for a moment the fact that there is no evidence for the actual existence of Atlantis, according to Cayce, there were three catastrophes that eventually caused its destruction. The first occurred around 50,700 B.C. Humans on the earth at this time had to deal with enormous animals and beasts, the story goes, with the problem being so threatening that ultimately groups from many areas around the world gathered to brainstorm on how to eradicate it. Apparently, they finally settled on a plan to use chemicals and high explosives. Unfortunately, in the process they blew themselves up, causing catastrophic damage to the continents, some parts of which sank, also bringing about a shifting of the poles, though the shifting of the poles was in fact attributed to God (see reading 5249-1).

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that a pole shift happened in 50,700 B.C. In fact, an article in Science Daily from September 26, 2008, reported that, while polarity reversals have occurred hundreds of times at irregular intervals throughout the planet's history, the most recent was about 780,000 years ago.

Archaelogists estimate that humans (Homo sapiens) have been around for about 200,000 years and started to migrate out of Africa some 70,000 years ago. Not only is there is no evidence of a pole shift happening during that time frame, but during the last pole shift there would have been no humans as we know them.

According to Cayce, this shifting of the poles in 50,700 B.C. ushered in the last of the great Ice Ages. Science tells us, however, that the last great ice age ended just 10,000 years ago, having lasted about 25,000 years.
Delving further into Cayce's history of Atlantis, the second catastrophe happened in 28,000 B.C., the moral depravity of the people having brought down God's wrath and great flooding being the result. According to Cayce, the Bible gives an account of this flood in the story of Noah. The surviving Atlanteans once again relocated and rebuilt, but by 10,700 B.C. were again corrupt and their civilizations wiped out by gigantic land upheavals.

As far as the creation of humans, Cayce claims that the first humans appeared on the earth 10.5 million years ago. He also claimed that at that time 5 races all simultaneously appeared at 5 different places in the world.

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of hominids. The first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, is thought to have evolved in East Africa about 2 million years ago. They populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short period of time. Homo erectus is believed to have evolved more than 1.8 million years ago and spread from Africa throughout Europe and Asia, and it is widely accepted that Homo sapiens evolved out of Homo erectus.

Thus, even if you are willing to consider the first species in the genus Homo as what Cayce's meant by the first humans, there is still an 8 million year difference between Cayce's date and the date scientists give us.
Even if Cayce's date wasn't off by several millions of years, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that 5 races (black, white, yellow, red and brown) appeared in different places. Cayce claimed that 5 races appeared all at once, separately, in Iran, Central Europe, Gobi Desert, Sudan/upper West Africa, and the Andes. Scientists tell us that humans emerged from out of Africa.


Now if you're still awake after all that (and you aren't laughing!), please let me know if I've gotten any of the science wrong. :) There is a lot of woo to sort through, especially when it comes to pole shifts. I didn't even bother to address the "5 races" issue.

Any feedback would be appreciated!
 
According to Cayce, this shifting of the poles in 50,700 B.C. ushered in the last of the great Ice Ages. Science tells us, however, that the last great ice age ended just 10,000 years ago, having lasted about 25,000 years.

It's not feedback on the science, but I think the sentence above isn't very clear. It took me a couple of goes to figure it out, so you might want to add a concluding sentence that sets out for people like me who are easily confused.
 
Are you just trying to show a side-by-side of what Cayce claims compared to what modern science understands to be true? What's the purpose of the paper overall? If I may ask.
 
It's not feedback on the science, but I think the sentence above isn't very clear. It took me a couple of goes to figure it out, so you might want to add a concluding sentence that sets out for people like me who are easily confused.

Thanks, that is probably a little convoluted.

Are you just trying to show a side-by-side of what Cayce claims compared to what modern science understands to be true? What's the purpose of the paper overall? If I may ask.

Yes, the paper is meant to examine Cayce's historical and other inaccuracies. I have found that there isn't much out there that really looks at what Cayce says and compares it to what is actually known.

This is a section from the middle that involved a bit of science. I was concerned that I might have gotten the facts or the dates wrong about polar tilts, the various dates humans appeared on the planet, etc., since I found conflicting web sites. I tried to go with what appeared to be the most reliable ones but it's hard to tell.

If I'm going to write a paper showing where Cayce was wrong, I need to not be wrong myself!
 
I await the Disciple to come forth and defend his messiah.

icon_popcorn.gif
 
Yes, the paper is meant to examine Cayce's historical and other inaccuracies. I have found that there isn't much out there that really looks at what Cayce says and compares it to what is actually known.
"What is actually known" keeps changing. If you can show that Cayce's historical narrative is inconsistent with the incontrovertible facts, that would be impressive; on the other hand, if you can show only that Cayce's narrative is inconsistent with the current conventional wisdom, not so much.
 
"What is actually known" keeps changing. If you can show that Cayce's historical narrative is inconsistent with the incontrovertible facts, that would be impressive; on the other hand, if you can show only that Cayce's narrative is inconsistent with the current conventional wisdom, not so much.
Wow. Cayce was soooooo advance that there is no way to ever falsify him with any known facts.
 
"What is actually known" keeps changing. If you can show that Cayce's historical narrative is inconsistent with the incontrovertible facts, that would be impressive; on the other hand, if you can show only that Cayce's narrative is inconsistent with the current conventional wisdom, not so much.

Exactly.

Exminister, If you haven't already seen Rodney's thread on von Pragh and Barabara Walters, you should go have a look. Merely documenting that someone is dead wrong does not seem to have any effect on whether someone is considered psychic.

Linda
 
"What is actually known" keeps changing. If you can show that Cayce's historical narrative is inconsistent with the incontrovertible facts, that would be impressive; on the other hand, if you can show only that Cayce's narrative is inconsistent with the current conventional wisdom, not so much.

I know things change a bit, but is it really likely, based on what we know of evolution, that 5 races of humans appeared simultaneously in different parts of the world?

Wouldn't our current understanding of evolution fall more in the category of incontrovertible fact?

Exactly.

Exminister, If you haven't already seen Rodney's thread on von Pragh and Barabara Walters, you should go have a look. Merely documenting that someone is dead wrong does not seem to have any effect on whether someone is considered psychic.

Linda

Thanks, Linda. I did see that thread. Documenting the facts has had an effect on ME, so I like to think it might have an effect on others.
 
Last edited:
"What is actually known" keeps changing. If you can show that Cayce's historical narrative is inconsistent with the incontrovertible facts, that would be impressive; on the other hand, if you can show only that Cayce's narrative is inconsistent with the current conventional wisdom, not so much.

Hey Rodney -

When you said incontrovertible facts, it reminded me - I have only just started researching into his medical readings but because we had been discussing Cayce and pellagra in a previous thread, I did research what Cayce had to say about pellagra.

It turns out Cayce said that pellagra was both infectious and contagious.

Now, I have done quite a bit of research on pellagra and to the best of my knowledge pellagra is neither. It seems to be a niacin or dietary deficiency and as far as I can tell there is no controversy around that.

So that might be another good example of something that conflicts with the incontrovertible facts.
 
Thanks, Linda. I did see that thread. Documenting the facts has had an effect on ME, so I like to think it might have an effect on others.

I think you're talking about Sylvia Browne and Robert Lancaster's site, right?

It strikes me that this situation was fairly unique. What Sylvia said was documented through film and transcripts. And there were specific and incontrovertible facts available for comparison. I don't think that anything of this type is available for Cayce. His readings seem to be worded in such a way as to allow for multiple interpretations. And even when he is referring to a specific situation (such as his medical readings), we don't have any specific, incontrovertible facts for comparison.

Linda
 
Maybe an easier (and shorter) paper would be to document things Cayce said that were correct?
 
So, if I understand what is being said here: The science I included is "conventional wisdom" and therefore it's reasonable to argue that Cayce may have been right?

Maybe I'm not just clear on "incontrovertible facts." When Cayce states that pellagra was contagious and infectious, are we still dealing with "conventional wisdom?"
 
Maybe I'm not just clear on "incontrovertible facts." When Cayce states that pellagra was contagious and infectious, are we still dealing with "conventional wisdom?"
First, I am not saying that Cayce was not incontrovertibly wrong at times, but I don't know if that is the case regarding his historical narrative. Second, I think you're jumping to a questionable conclusion when you assert: "Cayce states that pellagra was contagious and infectious." You are likely referring to Reading 304-29, which was given for an 80-year-old man with multiple conditions, including asthma, bronchitis, eczema sores, and pellagra. Early in the reading, Cayce stated that "pellagra is not cured in a day", and he later responded affirmatively to this question: "Is this condition in any way infectious or contagious?"

It is unclear whether "this condition" referred to pellagra or the man's overall condition, which may well have been both contagious and infectious. Cayce gave several pellagra readings, including -- according to Dr. Wesley Ketchum -- an early one where he correctly diagnosed that condition after several cases of pellagra had baffled the Kentucky medical community. I can find no reading where Cayce clearly stated that pellagra was either contagious or infectious.
 
So, if I understand what is being said here: The science I included is "conventional wisdom" and therefore it's reasonable to argue that Cayce may have been right?

Maybe I'm not just clear on "incontrovertible facts." When Cayce states that pellagra was contagious and infectious, are we still dealing with "conventional wisdom?"


Not necessarily:
"Infectious" may have been a slip of the tongue, or Cayce might have been using it in a different sense than the word is used today.


That was posted regarding Cayce's statement (in reading 943-17, given January 21, 1932) that "psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition".

Basically, if you assume that Cayce may have meant something other than what he actually said, he can never be wrong.

ETA: of course, it means that he can never be right either.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily:

That was posted regarding Cayce's statement (in reading 943-17, given January 21, 1932) that "psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition".

Basically, if you assume that Cayce may have meant something other than what he actually said, he can never be wrong.

ETA: of course, it means that he can never be right either.

Mojo, I have to give you credit for remembering a 3-year-old thread. And I'm sure you also remember this post of mine:

By your logic, since Linda in post #219 of this thread said "nineteenth century" when she meant "twentieth century" nothing else she has ever said can offset this egregious error. Again, to give the context of what Cayce said on January 21, 1932: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body." He never said in any reading that psoriasis can be spread from person to person. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2599419&postcount=298

Now, back to pellagra. According to Dr. Ketchum: "Jenkins's was the first case I ever saw, and it had been a mystery to me until Cayce explained the cause and the cure. That had made it very easy for me to diagnose the same disease in the cases at the [Western Kentucky Asylum] hospital." See Wesley H. Ketchum, M.D., The Discovery of Edgar Cayce, A.R.E. Press, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 1964, at p. 13.
 
Now, back to pellagra. According to Dr. Ketchum: "Jenkins's was the first case I ever saw, and it had been a mystery to me until Cayce explained the cause and the cure. That had made it very easy for me to diagnose the same disease in the cases at the [Western Kentucky Asylum] hospital." See Wesley H. Ketchum, M.D., The Discovery of Edgar Cayce, A.R.E. Press, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 1964, at p. 13.
So?
Did we already established that Ketchum didn't seem well educated in the hottest disease and wildest disease being researched during that time and that this "claim" was written down decades after it occured?
 

Back
Top Bottom