Hans_lune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No they answered based on the evidence and
> theories based on that evidence.

If this were true there would be no need for personal attacks.

> Tell us what facts GH is using to reject the
> current theories? You do know right what he said
> about evidence?

He keeps mentioning the existence of agriculture. He keeps saying we are "the species with amnesia". He keeps pointing at the ruins of ancient civilizations.

The entire world has always been explicable in terms of the prevailing paradigm and up until now the prevailing paradigm has always been very very wrong.

I'm putting my money on history that it is wrong again. I'm betting superstition kills and only understanding has ever created anything. I'm betting on every experiment ever performed and on logic, evidence, and experience to prevail.

> ""“My speculation, which I will not attempt to
> prove here or to support with evidence but merely
> present for consideration, is that the advanced
> civilization I see evolving in North America
> during the Ice Age had transcended leverage and
> mechanical advantage and learned to manipulate
> matter and energy by deploying powers of
> consciousness that we have not yet begun to tap.”"
> Graham Hancock, America Before The
> Pseudoarchaeology of America Before: A Review -
> Carl Feagans

This is very weak for underpinning a theory but in point of fact most theories contain some weak components.

> Biologically they were, cultural they had many
> similarities - despite your telling us your made
> up and un-evidenced fantasies

And here it is again!!!! Despite my repeated delineation of the specific differences between our species and the evidence to support it you merely repeat what you believe. What you or Peers believe is not evidence, it is interpretation of what is known.

You failed to quote the parts where I described how we can be sure that you are wrong.

> Actually HE should list out his arguments point by
> point. He doesn't since its based on opinion.

Let me try one more time.

If you reject the prevailing paradigm and all of its assumptions there are no sources to cite because no source agrees with you. All you have left to cite is evidence and logic of why we should see that evidence in a new way. If he says "pyramids were not tombs" exactly what recognized authority can he cite? All he can do is keep pointing out all the authorities and you are wrong.

> We've done that with you and you simply ignore it
> - as he does - you still haven't been brave enough
> to accept the results of the Shu Experiment - so
> you have zero credibility in pretending to be a
> paragon of virtue.

No, you do exactly as you claim Hancock does, handwave all the evidence. Hancock et al don't dispute evidence. This is what you do. Hancock reinterprets evidence and as I said I'm not very familiar with his work and certainly haven't studied it.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2023 09:25AM by cladking.