• 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

King of the Americas said:
The "detailed difficult to erect monoliths."
Click to expand...
It was only on the last page that you conceded that Wally Wallington showed that one man could erect a monolith. Now you're trying to backtrack on that?

And how could they have come before the hunter-gatherers? Homo sapiens is about 100,000 years old, about 40,000 years ago entered Eurasia. How do you think they lived all the time before the invention of agriculture?
 
ddt said:
And how could they have come before the hunter-gatherers? Homo sapiens is about 100,000 years old, about 40,000 years ago entered Eurasia. How do you think they lived all the time before the invention of agriculture?
Click to expand...

Cheese, mostly.
 
ddt said:
It was only on the last page that you conceded that Wally Wallington showed that one man could erect a monolith. Now you're trying to backtrack on that?

And how could they have come before the hunter-gatherers? Homo sapiens is about 100,000 years old, about 40,000 years ago entered Eurasia. How do you think they lived all the time before the invention of agriculture?
Click to expand...

At GT, there were MANY erections (giggle). The earliest ones were the most ornate and difficult to assemble.

One guy moving around concrete blocks is NOT = GT.

Because carbon dating.
 
King of the Americas said:
At GT, there were MANY erections (giggle). The earliest ones were the most ornate and difficult to assemble.

One guy moving around concrete blocks is NOT = GT.

Because carbon dating.
Click to expand...

What do you think, three? Eight at most. Maybe a couple more to cook lunch. (Presuming, of course, they had such a thing as 'lunch'.)
 
marplots said:
Permission to treat him as a hostile witness, because of non-responsiveness, Your Honor?
Click to expand...

Granted. KotA, one more illogical outburst and you'll be held in contempt. Please proceed to show the defense exhibits, Zero through Zero, representing the complete evidence you have for your claims.

Defense Exhibit 0. This guy says so and I find it interesting.
 
King of the Americas said:
Shermer has presented himself as a spokesperson and an expert, his testimony is valid.
Click to expand...
So if somebody presents himself as a spokesperson and an expert, and fails to win a contest in a debate for amusement, crank archaeology is true?

The posters here have presented no bonafides to surpass their expert.
Click to expand...

Is it necessary to be an expert to know that a debate is not a vehicle for advancing science?
 
Also, it's quite fallacious to call Shermer the spokesperson for all posters here. And dishonest. Because he isn't.
Even if he were, science isn't some medieval trial by combat.

And where did Shermer present himself as an expert on archaology, astronomy and climate change? I must have missed that. Or it's another dishonest assertion.
 
steenkh said:
So if somebody presents himself as a spokesperson and an expert, and fails to win a contest in a debate for amusement, crank archaeology is true?



Is it necessary to be an expert to know that a debate is not a vehicle for advancing science?
Click to expand...

This was not a 'debate,' it was a discussion wherein each party was allowed to speak at length, without restraint.

There were no 'rules' enacted or implied.

He did not 'fail to win,' it was a discussion and a presentation of facts, after which Shermer admits Hancock and his associate were both well reasoned and well researched.

He did not 'lose his mind'...or become hypnotized by magic.

The exchange is in no way as you describe it.
 
King of the Americas said:
He did not 'fail to win,' it was a discussion and a presentation of facts, after which Shermer admits Hancock and his associate were both well reasoned and well researched.
Click to expand...
The OP stated that Hancock "wiped the floor with Shermer", so I am sorry that I got it wrong. There are some disadvantages with not seeing the video that is the subject.


OK, Shermer admits that Hancock and his associate were both well reasoned and well researched, and because of that you want us to concede that crank archaeology is true?

I still have better things to do with my life than watching hours of discussions, but you have got me interested, so if you can find a transcript of the discussion - or even just a presentation of the "modern" research that Hancock has produced that is supposed to turn his crackpottery into science, I'll be willing to read it.
 
steenkh said:
...


OK, Shermer admits that Hancock and his associate were both well reasoned and well researched, and because of that you want us to concede that crank archaeology is true?

...
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find those words in any of my responses.

Because both of those men came well researched, their reason is difficult to part with.

I highly recommend everyone here watch this entire interview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom