• 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

Cosmic Yak said:
Third time of asking.
Please post (or repost) the peer-reviewed research you mentioned that supports your claim of an ancient, advanced, global civilisation that was destroyed in a flood.
I promise not to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Read this thread, review the video and other links provided, do your own research, THEN if you have questions, we'll talk.
 
Reality Check said:
An idiotic comparison. The Nike symbol is a modern, commercial, fairly unique (not a common body part that anyone with 2 brain cells can paint or carve!)l logo spread in the modern era with modern communication :eye-poppi.

Hands are one of the oldest symbols that we have, e.g. they are common in cave paintings.

The hand carvings in GT and Easter Island being evidence of a globally connected civilization is deluded because
  • There are limited ways to depict hands (duh!).
  • GT and Easter Island are separated by at least 8,000 years so you imply that this fantasy of a civilization has lasted that long.
  • The implication that you think Easter Islanders were so stupid that they could not think of craving hands.
  • GT and Easter Island are separated by thousands of kilometers and oceans.
    So now do we have supersonic, time traveling carrier pigeons between GT and Easter Island :p?
  • The idiocy of ignoring every other carving at GR and Easter Island.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only 'modern people,' developed trademarks and artistic styles, and then marketed them to the world!! When ancient evidences occur it can only be pure coincidence...!!

Yeah, and there are hands on walls, so it makes perfect sense that there is only one way to portray them, that is different than the walls...!!

Yeah, and there's no way EI could have been inspired by GT, just because the hands extend at a 45 degree angle and wrap around the bottom to hold an item in the middle, I mean 'I' have hands...!

Yeah, and oceans are big, so see that's proof, can't you see...!!??

Reality Check, our exchanges are over.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Read this thread, review the video and other links provided, do your own research, THEN if you have questions, we'll talk.
Click to expand...

No. You tried this tactic in the telepathy thread: it didn't work there, and it won't work here.
You said that skeptics here were ignoring the peer-reviewed research you have posted.
I seriously doubt such research exists, which is why I'm asking you to post it again. Nothing you have posted so far, that I have noted, fits that description, so I'm not looking again at links that do not lead to peer-reviewed research, nor will I do your homework for you. All you have to do is link to the posts that contained this supposed research.
As for the video, please note that 'peer reviewed' does not equate to 'my mate liked this YouTube video'.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
No. You tried this tactic in the telepathy thread: it didn't work there, and it won't work here.
You said that skeptics here were ignoring the peer-reviewed research you have posted.
I seriously doubt such research exists, which is why I'm asking you to post it again. Nothing you have posted so far, that I have noted, fits that description, so I'm not looking again at links that do not lead to peer-reviewed research, nor will I do your homework for you. All you have to do is link to the posts that contained this supposed research.
As for the video, please note that 'peer reviewed' does not equate to 'my mate liked this YouTube video'.
Click to expand...

He tried it in his 'The menorah is a map of Atlantis' thread too. I did watch the stupid 'documentary' he pointed to, I did ask questions about the contents, so he blocked me and stopped responding. So playing by his rules doesn't work either.

KotA has no evidence, that's why he stops responding to anyone who's done a little research and asks him to back up his claims.
King of the Americas said:
Reality Check, our exchanges are over.
Click to expand...


ETA: The only thing I could find in this thread was an admission by KOTA that no peer reviewed evidence was cited in this thread...
which doesn't really help his claims.
fuelair said:
Because none of the material is being peer reviewed so cannot be verified as it issues forth. That is why we have peer reviewed journals for science - and they are what counts, not the ravings of the insane.
Click to expand...

King of the Americas said:
Riiiiight...and were there any such sources featured in this discussion...?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
No. You tried this tactic in the telepathy thread: it didn't work there, and it won't work here.
You said that skeptics here were ignoring the peer-reviewed research you have posted.
I seriously doubt such research exists, which is why I'm asking you to post it again. Nothing you have posted so far, that I have noted, fits that description, so I'm not looking again at links that do not lead to peer-reviewed research, nor will I do your homework for you. All you have to do is link to the posts that contained this supposed research.
As for the video, please note that 'peer reviewed' does not equate to 'my mate liked this YouTube video'.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't help you right now.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
He tried it in his 'The menorah is a map of Atlantis' thread too. I did watch the stupid 'documentary' he pointed to, I did ask questions about the contents, so he blocked me and stopped responding. So playing by his rules doesn't work either.

KotA has no evidence, that's why he stops responding to anyone who's done a little research and asks him to back up his claims.

ETA: The only thing I could find in this thread was an admission by KOTA that no peer reviewed evidence was cited in this thread...
which doesn't really help his claims.
Click to expand...


Pretty much he is running a script as it were - if you ask questions and point out what he is trying to do - he stops speaking to you.

The whole argument is constructed so he can dismiss others people's points of view while making wild claims he refuses to support.

Unfortunately he keeps speaking to me despite my best efforts....lol
 
King of the Americas said:
Yeah, only 'modern people,' developed trademarks and artistic styles, and then marketed them to the world!! When ancient evidences occur it can only be pure coincidence...!!

Yeah, and there are hands on walls, so it makes perfect sense that there is only one way to portray them, that is different than the walls...!!

Yeah, and there's no way EI could have been inspired by GT, just because the hands extend at a 45 degree angle and wrap around the bottom to hold an item in the middle, I mean 'I' have hands...!

Yeah, and oceans are big, so see that's proof, can't you see...!!??

Reality Check, our exchanges are over.
Click to expand...

Reality Check really beat you to death didn't he. Is there anyone here you are still speaking to?

Since you are still wrong what is the point of this thread if you storm off every time someone points out just how wrong you are?

lol
 
Hans said:
Quoting out of context. They hit bedrock - do you think the lost civilization will be found under bedrock?

LOL
Click to expand...
More importantly, the dates in his link are about 10,000 years too young for the claim he's making. How is a claim by archeologists of human presence on Easter Island form perhaps as early as 900BC evidence of an advanced civilisation there 12,000 years ago that was part of the same civilisation that built Gobleki Tepe? :confused: His link says nothing about advanced civilisation building stone structures 12,000 years ago. In fact it explicitly claims that the dates they are providing are explained by a human presence that pre-dates the building of the Maoi by centuries. Does he actually read his own links, or is he, as I suspect, just Googling for anything that he thinks he can throw out, just because a precursory glance at it seems to be vaguely related somehow to his claims, even though it really isn't?

I can guess at his response - just because no-one has found evidence of civilization on Easter Island from 12,000BP, doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist and won't be found in the future. So far the only evidence he's presented that both Gobleki Tepe and Easter Island were part of the same 12,000 year old advanced civilisation is that some stone carvings from both look the same, even though the evidence is that they are separated by thousands of years and literally the only thing about them that fits his hypothesis is that they look a bit the same.

Which is, to say the least, not a very scientific approach. If in doubt, just pretend evidence exists but simply hasn't been found yet. He's pulling that tactic out a lot in this thread. Anyone can make wild claims and then make excuses for the evidence not existing and how someone at some point will find the necessary evidence.
 
Last edited:
He tried it in his 'The menorah is a map of Atlantis' thread too.
Click to expand...

Same MO as well. Claim the absence of pre-Judaic providence for the Menorah is proof the it must have been from Atlantis.

Exactly like the lack of evidence for the lost ancient civilisation is proof of it.
 
JesseCuster said:
More importantly, the dates in his link are about 10,000 years too young for the claim he's making. How is a claim by archeologists of human presence on Easter Island form perhaps as early as 900BC evidence of an advanced civilisation there 12,000 years ago that was part of the same civilisation that built Gobleki Tepe? :confused: His link says nothing about advanced civilisation building stone structures 12,000 years ago. In fact it explicitly claims that the dates they are providing are explained by a human presence that pre-dates the building of the Maoi by centuries. Does he actually read his own links, or is he, as I suspect, just Googling for anything that he thinks he can throw out, just because a precursory glance at it seems to be vaguely related somehow to his claims, even though it really isn't?

I can guess at his response - just because no-one has found evidence of civilization on Easter Island from 12,000BP, doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist and won't be found in the future. So far the only evidence he's presented that both Gobleki Tepe and Easter Island were part of the same 12,000 year old advanced civilisation is that some stone carvings from both look the same, even though the evidence is that they are separated by thousands of years and literally the only thing about them that fits his hypothesis is that they look a bit the same.

Which is, to say the least, not a very scientific approach. If in doubt, just pretend evidence exists but simply hasn't been found yet. He's pulling that tactic out a lot in this thread. Anyone can make wild claims and then make excuses for the evidence not existing and how someone at some point will find the necessary evidence.
Click to expand...

In fact the article he linked too indicates that the new recalibrated dates are all after 500 AD. ( I point out here that BP used in the article refers to "Before Present".)
 
Pacal said:
In fact the article he linked too indicates that the new recalibrated dates are all after 500 AD. ( I point out here that BP used in the article refers to "Before Present".)
Click to expand...
Oops. I misread BP as BC. That's even more out of whack with KotA's claims.

What exactly did KoTA think he was proving with this link? :confused: It has exactly nothing to do with the mythical 12,000 year old global civilisation he's claiming existed.
 
King of the Americas said:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...u_Nau_and_the_Settlement_at_'Anakena_Rapa_Nui

These dates were derived from some charcoal and rat bones...they think this still might not be the earliest or first settlement.
Click to expand...
Re-dating Ahu Nau Nau and the Settlement at 'Anakena, Rapa Nui
The building phase and early use of Ahu Nau Nau have been re-dated by nine charcoal and rat bone samples. The new dates in comparison with earlier data suggest that the ahu was constructed around 650-550 BP. It is also suggested that a settlement dated to c. 950-900 BP preceded the ahu-building phase. A new question in light of recent research might be raised: Is the earliest settlement on Rapa Nui found aAnakena or should we look elsewhere?
Click to expand...
They ask the question whether they have found the earliest settlement. Ahu Nau Nau was dated to 650-550 BP (Before Present where "present" is defined as AD 1950). That is a date of at earliest AD 1300. But the ahu was probably not the very first thing built by settlers and there are deeper samples closer to the bedrock from the settlement itself. These are dated closer to AD 1000. That is 9,000 years after GT was abandoned. The new dated samples in the paper are from the bottom of a trench just above the bedrock. They are the earliest possible dates for the Ahu Nau Nau settlement.

This does not support an fantasy of Easter Island being settled at the same time as GT was active over 9,000 years before the probable settlement of Easter Island.

This has little to do with your assertion of "EI has moai facing two different directions. The ones facing out to sea are being excavated even now, and have a different instruction date.".
Ahu Nau Nau has its moai facing inland.
Ahu Nau Nau excavations have been ongoing since 1914 with carbon dating since 1986. The paper is not new excavations - it is new samples from old excavations from 1987 stored in the Kon-Tiki Museum, Oslo. It is well known and irrelevant that moai were built in different phases.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
Oops. I misread BP as BC. That's even more out of whack with KotA's claims.

What exactly did KoTA think he was proving with this link? :confused: It has exactly nothing to do with the mythical 12,000 year old global civilisation he's claiming existed.
Click to expand...

He likes to put up fake links and false quotes pulled out of context. It wastes the time of his betters and he can pretend he providing real links.

All standard operating procedures for those that lurk under bridges.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Same MO as well. Claim the absence of pre-Judaic providence for the Menorah is proof the it must have been from Atlantis.

Exactly like the lack of evidence for the lost ancient civilisation is proof of it.
Click to expand...

Yes in KOTA 'logic' the less evidence for something the more it must be true and the holy grail - finding something that has no evidence for it at all - thereby ensuring it must have existed!!!!

The dull intellectual maul of an outstanding mumpsimus.
 
JesseCuster said:
Which is, to say the least, not a very scientific approach. If in doubt, just pretend evidence exists but simply hasn't been found yet. He's pulling that tactic out a lot in this thread. Anyone can make wild claims and then make excuses for the evidence not existing and how someone at some point will find the necessary evidence.
Click to expand...

A well written analysis of his failure, however:

His objective here is to not win, nor even to try to win a debate on an point in archaeology/history.

I mean I can just see him bringing this soggy mess to a dissertation for an oral defense..............

'Of course I'm right, you have to accept my 210 pages of blank paper because I say so'.

lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom