Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

[Roboramma]

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...

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.

 

[Craig B]

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.

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?

 

[King of the Americas]

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.

*^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?

 

[King of the Americas]

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?

You have it backwards...the hunter gatherers came AFTER the advanced monolith makers..years later we showed up.

 

[angrysoba]

*^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?

Ha! No.

 

[King of the Americas]

Ha! No.

That was a multiple choice question...

 

[Craig B]

You have it backwards...the hunter gatherers came AFTER the advanced monolith makers..years later we showed up.

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?

 

[King of the Americas]

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?

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."

 

[Craig B]

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."

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"?

 

[King of the Americas]

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"?

The "detailed difficult to erect monoliths."

 

[GT/CS]

I think Hancock watched Planet of the Apes one too many times

 

[King of the Americas]

I think Hancock watched Planet of the Apes one too many times

Objection- Speculation

 

[angrysoba]

That was a multiple choice question...

Yeah, the silly bit after you said, "OR hear me out" is the bit I dismissed with a "Ha! No!"

 

[angrysoba]

Objection- Speculation

That which can be asserted with pure speculation, can be dismissed with pure speculation.

 

[Craig B]

The "detailed difficult to erect monoliths."

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.

 

[Roboramma]

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

That's right, I'm giving an opinion on the hour and forty five minutes that I did watch. Do you have any disagreement with what I said about that?

 

[King of the Americas]

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.

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.

 

[King of the Americas]

Yeah, the silly bit after you said, "OR hear me out" is the bit I dismissed with a "Ha! No!"

Then you should ask him to stop being your spokesperson.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

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.

Not only that, but these delicate fragile obelisks survived the complete and utter annihilation of every trace of this culture unscathed.

 

[King of the Americas]

...unscathed.

???

I guess you missed what happened after influential died. If they were offense enough to their replacements, all images of them were removed from edifices, manuscripts burned, their vey name attempt to be erased from history.