• 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

Craig B said:
That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

What techniques are you ready to employ or ditch to date the Sphinx?
 
gigmaster said:
Really? I wouldn't have thought it was even worth a three-hour debate. That's as long as it took Gilligan and the Skipper to get shipwrecked, and about as scientifically valid.....
Click to expand...

You are missing out by refusing to watch the video.

There is tons and tons of great researched material therein.
 
In the October 2017 issue of Scientific American, Graham Hancock, writes a letter to the editor complaining about a recent column of Michael Shermer. Shermer gets the opportunity to reply, and I think it tells his position on Hancock very well:
[...] In my opinion, Hancock's idea is based entirely on negative evidence - what he thinks is wrong with the accepted archaeological timeline - and he offers no positive evidence of his purported lost civilization: no metal, no writing, no tools and not even pottery.
Click to expand...
 
steenkh said:
In the October 2017 issue of Scientific American, Graham Hancock, writes a letter to the editor complaining about a recent column of Michael Shermer. Shermer gets the opportunity to reply, and I think it tells his position on Hancock very well:
Click to expand...

With due respect, I believe that comment was made 'before' this exchange.
 
King of the Americas said:
With due respect, I believe that comment was made 'before' this exchange.
Click to expand...

I do not understand what you mean: are you saying that October 2017 was before "this exchange"?

Shermer's reply is referring to the radio debate, so I think it is highly unlikely that it is from before the debate.
 
King of the Americas said:
Maybe.

What techniques are you ready to employ or ditch to date the Sphinx?
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm not the best person to ask, as I'm not in the habit of dating sphinxes and don't have the skills for the job. But if you're going to cite a date, on what do your sources base that date, and what makes you think these sources are the most reliable?
 
steenkh said:
I do not understand what you mean: are you saying that October 2017 was before "this exchange"?

Shermer's reply is referring to the radio debate, so I think it is highly unlikely that it is from before the debate.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, well then, he 'changed his mind'...

After the debate/discussion he said Hancock and his cohort were both "well reasoned and well researched."
 
King of the Americas said:
Ahhhh, well then, he 'changed his mind'...



After the debate/discussion he said Hancock and his cohort were both "well reasoned and well researched."
Click to expand...

I do not think he changed his mind. I do not have the precise text in front of me now, but Shermer starts by saying something similar that Hancock is well researched and um probably well reasoned, but he continues with my quote that Hancock only presents negative evidence. Hancock has nothing to support his own theory; we are supposed to believe that if there is something wrong with the established archaeology, then Hancock's theory is the only one viable, which is of course dead wrong, particularly because an earlier civilisation would have left lots of stuff around for us to find apart from the big monuments.
 
I suppose the 'lost civilisation' could have done a lot of recycling.
But I would have thought it wasn't much of a civilisation if all evidence apart from a few monoliths enddd up destroyed by a flood.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I suppose the 'lost civilisation' could have done a lot of recycling.
But I would have thought it wasn't much of a civilisation if all evidence apart from a few monoliths enddd up destroyed by a flood.
Click to expand...

Yes, and floods also deposits its debris somewhere, so it can be found.
 
steenkh said:
I do not think he changed his mind. I do not have the precise text in front of me now, but Shermer starts by saying something similar that Hancock is well researched and um probably well reasoned, but he continues with my quote that Hancock only presents negative evidence. Hancock has nothing to support his own theory; we are supposed to believe that if there is something wrong with the established archaeology, then Hancock's theory is the only one viable, which is of course dead wrong, particularly because an earlier civilisation would have left lots of stuff around for us to find apart from the big monuments.
Click to expand...

Are microspherials negative evidence?

Are the scablands negative evidence?

Maybe you could give me another example negative evidence, and how that squares with Shermer saying someone is well researched and well reasoned?
 
King of the Americas said:
Are you rejecting the notion of a lost civilization or a flood?
Click to expand...

Civilisation.

What kind of Civilisation is so small a flood could erase all evidence of it?

When you say 'advanced' how do you rate their level if ' advancement'?

Are we talking something like Roman? Saxon? Victorian? Imperial China?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Civilisation.

What kind of Civilisation is so small a flood could erase all evidence of it?

When you say 'advanced' how do you rate their level if ' advancement'?

Are we talking something like Roman? Saxon? Victorian? Imperial China?
Click to expand...

Seriously, you SHOULD ABSOLUTELY watch the video...

A. One located near the coast or rivers...

B. One that mastered agriculture.

C. We are talking about the period before hunter gatherers, around 12,500 bc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom