• 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.

Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

Kid Eager said:
Having a debate isn't about truth or evidence, it's about debating skills. In the case of 3 on 1, it's not even that. Hardly requires a special knowledge or talent to be rude and keep interrupting and talking over the top of somebody...
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a little annoying though. Shermer has been on Rogan's show before and they got on very well. Rogan even spoke well of him in later podcasts as well. So it was surprising to see how he treated him in this episode.

Honestly I like Joe Rogan's podcast and watch a lot of episodes. Generally while Joe can sometimes be credulous or biased, he is a good host, relatively honest, actually interested in the truth, etc. But while I tried I couldn't even finish this episode because it was just getting to aggravating. I made it about an hour and three quarters through and decided it wasn't worth continuing.

I enjoy trying to understand how people who see things differently than me come to their viewpoint. Sometimes they even change my mind which is a cool thing to happen. But this was just bullying.
 
marplots said:
That's the point though. We'd expect to find such evidence but don't. Whatever happened there it hasn't been revealed in the 5% excavated so far. Really, it could be as simple as "they moved to where the fishing was better" coupled with "Why are we wasting so much time building stuff to honor Gods which have let us down?"

12,000 years was a long time ago.

In my opinion, monoliths alone do not an advanced civilization make.
Click to expand...
If we can find primitive artefacts from hundreds of thousands of years ago, manufactured by hunter gatherers, why can we not find the remains of this much later advanced civilisation?
 
Roboramma said:
Yeah, it was a little annoying though. Shermer has been on Rogan's show before and they got on very well. Rogan even spoke well of him in later podcasts as well. So it was surprising to see how he treated him in this episode.

Honestly I like Joe Rogan's podcast and watch a lot of episodes. Generally while Joe can sometimes be credulous or biased, he is a good host, relatively honest, actually interested in the truth, etc. But while I tried I couldn't even finish this episode because it was just getting to aggravating. I made it about an hour and three quarters through and decided it wasn't worth continuing.

I enjoy trying to understand how people who see things differently than me come to their viewpoint. Sometimes they even change my mind which is a cool thing to happen. But this was just bullying.
Click to expand...

*^Is offering testimony having not witnessed the entire event.^*

This was not a debate it was a discussion, wherein Shermer AGREES with Hancock, and at the end says he is both well research and well reasoned.

---

-He wasn't up to it
-He didn't have all his fact
-He's not our best skeptic
-Being faced with facts isn't a place where skeptics bode well
-How can skeptics be expected to speak intelligently during a debate

OR, and hear me out...

Shermer is an intelligent, reasonable, logical person who heard and saw facts that changed his mind?
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
If we can find primitive artefacts from hundreds of thousands of years ago, manufactured by hunter gatherers, why can we not find the remains of this much later advanced civilisation?
Click to expand...

You have it backwards...the hunter gatherers came AFTER the advanced monolith makers..years later we showed up.
 
King of the Americas said:
*^Is offering testimony having not witnessed the entire event.^*

This was not a debate it was a discussion, wherein Shermer AGREES with Hancock, and at the end says he is both well research and well reasoned.

---

-He wasn't up to it
-He didn't have all his fact
-He's not our best skeptic
-Being faced with facts isn't a place where skeptics bode well
-How can skeptics be expected to speak intelligently during a debate

OR, and hear me out...

Shermer is an intelligent, reasonable, logical person who heard and saw facts that changed his mind?
Click to expand...

Ha! No.
 
King of the Americas said:
You have it backwards...the hunter gatherers came AFTER the advanced monolith makers..years later we showed up.
Click to expand...
So humans started making monoliths and then were reduced to primitive state. We have their primitive artefacts, but not any advanced ones? We have stone tools millions of years old, from Africa. The monolith builders were prior to this?
 
Craig B said:
So humans started making monoliths and then were reduced to primitive state. We have their primitive artefacts, but not any advanced ones? We have stone tools millions of years old, from Africa. The monolith builders were prior to this?
Click to expand...

Yes, according to carbon dating and stratified layers...

"The most detail and higher forms of the buildings came at the earliest. The ruins of GT show a clear degradation of the carving and building, until complete reversion back to hunter gatherers."
 
King of the Americas said:
Yes, according to carbon dating and stratified layers...

"The most detail and higher forms of the buildings came at the earliest. The ruins of GT show a clear degradation of the carving and building, until complete reversion back to hunter gatherers."
Click to expand...
You're missing the point of my post. If there was a "reversion back" to hunter gatherers, then there must have been hunter gatherers prior to the alleged "higher forms". We have ample evidence of the primitive artefacts made over millions of years by these earlier hunter gatherers.

So where are the later advanced artefacts of the civilisation that was capable of creating "higher forms"?
 
Craig B said:
You're missing the point of my post. If there was a "reversion back" to hunter gatherers, then there must have been hunter gatherers prior to the alleged "higher forms". We have ample evidence of the primitive artefacts made over millions of years by these earlier hunter gatherers.

So where are the later advanced artefacts of the civilisation that was capable of creating "higher forms"?
Click to expand...

The "detailed difficult to erect monoliths."
 
King of the Americas said:
The "detailed difficult to erect monoliths."
Click to expand...
So from Egypt we have only "difficult to erect" pyramids? That's it? None of the mass of other artefacts that all civilisations necessarily generate, from combs and pins to long inscriptions on the walls of public buildings? But we do have these other things, heaps of them, from ancient civilisations.
 
Craig B said:
So from Egypt we have only "difficult to erect" pyramids? That's it? None of the mass of other artefacts that all civilisations necessarily generate, from combs and pins to long inscriptions on the walls of public buildings? But we do have these other things, heaps of them, from ancient civilisations.
Click to expand...

Let's keep the pyramids out of this... Properly dating and placing each monument is another 20 page thread.

The interview is specifically addressing GT because it was so well preserved.
 
Craig B said:
So from Egypt we have only "difficult to erect" pyramids? That's it? None of the mass of other artefacts that all civilisations necessarily generate, from combs and pins to long inscriptions on the walls of public buildings? But we do have these other things, heaps of them, from ancient civilisations.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but these delicate fragile obelisks survived the complete and utter annihilation of every trace of this culture unscathed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom