3 ms·

See Graham Hancock's book, "Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth's Lost Civilization" (http://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Gods-Forgotten-Wisdom-Civ

See Graham Hancock's book, "Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth's Lost Civilization" (http://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Gods-Forgotten-Wisdom-Civilization/dp/1250045924 http://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Gods-Forgotten-Wisdom-Civili...) for a rebuttal to the archaeological model presented in this article. Hancock's position is the archaeological model from this article is full of holes; created by multiple assumptions based on assumptions re: radiocarbon dating & general lack of critical thinking. Instead he points to evidence of two comets hitting the ice caps in the last ice age (younger Dryas period), which melted the ice, causing "fire to rain" & worldwide flooding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... --- Imo, there is too much uncertainty to commit to one historical model; yet I perceive Hancock's model to have more integrity.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
Graham Hancock's theories are charitably described as "unconventional" (1) and less charitably as "crank" (2) and "woo" (3) I don't think it qualifies as a "rebuttal" of anything. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock 2) https://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-lure-of-the-crank/ https://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-l... 3) https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/more-woo-and-anti-science-rants-at-tedx/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/more-woo...
- briantakita 11y ago
  > "unconventional" (1) and less charitably as "crank" (2) and "woo" (3) those are socially defined terms (i.e. they don't say much about the validity or invalidity of a theory). only the facts & the system that ties the facts together. the thing is, many of our "facts" poorly constructed assumptions. one has to be discerning & not afraid of ambiguity, nuance, & unknowns. i recommend to not lock yourself into a predefined box. from your perspective, you don't see this as a "rebuttal". from my perspective, i see it as a rebuttal. ad hominem techniques are not evidence for a position. i'm also open to neither of these models as being correct. indeed, we choose what we are skeptical toward, based on our existing bias...
deerpig 11y ago
I wouldn't have down voted you. You stated Hancock's position and your post should have been treated as a point of debate. But I agree that Hancock's arguments are pretty much refuted. Occams's Razor -- the archaeological evidence, which seems to be mounting in many different sudies, trumps any vague theories about comets. But hell, this is science. Come up with enough evidence to the contrary and it will be backed. But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present.
- briantakita 11y ago
  > Occams's Razor precisely why i find hancock's model more compelling. it better fits occam's razor. if you look at the models in more detail, the bugs become obvious > trumps any vague theories about comets the evidence is mounting & more attention is being paid. like software, social,geological,archaeological,etc models are a developed system. studies are being conducted that show things like a layer of nanodiamonds across "50 million square kilometers across the Northern Hemisphere at the Younger Dryas boundary". here are some models that were once "vague", "woo", "controversial" the earth being 4.5 billion years old, plate tetonics, the earth orbiting the sun. > But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present funny how all sides declare victory with their "evidence" ;-) http://www.theironsamurai.com/2015/10/03/clovis-comet/ http://www.theironsamurai.com/2015/10/03/clovis-comet/ http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014368/nanodiamonds-are-forever http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014368/nanodiamonds-are-foreve... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet... note the "absence of a crater" is explained by the comet impacting the ice cap (a thick layer of ice) during the younger dryas period. seems worthy of consideration... i encourage you to look into the methodology of radio carbon dating & other technologies; also look into the advantages/disadvantages of each technology...

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

Graham Hancock's theories are charitably described as "unconventional" (1) and less charitably as "crank" (2) and "woo" (3) I don't think it qualifies as a "rebuttal" of anything. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock 2) https://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-lure-of-the-crank/ https://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-l... 3) https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/more-woo-and-anti-science-rants-at-tedx/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/more-woo...

briantakita 11y ago
> "unconventional" (1) and less charitably as "crank" (2) and "woo" (3) those are socially defined terms (i.e. they don't say much about the validity or invalidity of a theory). only the facts & the system that ties the facts together. the thing is, many of our "facts" poorly constructed assumptions. one has to be discerning & not afraid of ambiguity, nuance, & unknowns. i recommend to not lock yourself into a predefined box. from your perspective, you don't see this as a "rebuttal". from my perspective, i see it as a rebuttal. ad hominem techniques are not evidence for a position. i'm also open to neither of these models as being correct. indeed, we choose what we are skeptical toward, based on our existing bias...

deerpig 11y ago

I wouldn't have down voted you. You stated Hancock's position and your post should have been treated as a point of debate. But I agree that Hancock's arguments are pretty much refuted. Occams's Razor -- the archaeological evidence, which seems to be mounting in many different sudies, trumps any vague theories about comets. But hell, this is science. Come up with enough evidence to the contrary and it will be backed. But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present.

briantakita 11y ago
> Occams's Razor precisely why i find hancock's model more compelling. it better fits occam's razor. if you look at the models in more detail, the bugs become obvious > trumps any vague theories about comets the evidence is mounting & more attention is being paid. like software, social,geological,archaeological,etc models are a developed system. studies are being conducted that show things like a layer of nanodiamonds across "50 million square kilometers across the Northern Hemisphere at the Younger Dryas boundary". here are some models that were once "vague", "woo", "controversial" the earth being 4.5 billion years old, plate tetonics, the earth orbiting the sun. > But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present funny how all sides declare victory with their "evidence" ;-) http://www.theironsamurai.com/2015/10/03/clovis-comet/ http://www.theironsamurai.com/2015/10/03/clovis-comet/ http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014368/nanodiamonds-are-forever http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014368/nanodiamonds-are-foreve... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet... note the "absence of a crater" is explained by the comet impacting the ice cap (a thick layer of ice) during the younger dryas period. seems worthy of consideration... i encourage you to look into the methodology of radio carbon dating & other technologies; also look into the advantages/disadvantages of each technology...