The operative word of critical thought is "thought" which necessarily requires being open to the possibility that not everything is known, nor can it be known g

The operative word of critical thought is "thought" which necessarily requires being open to the possibility that not everything is known, nor can it be known given sufficient time, and lack of evidence. You can only base suppositions on evidence. It is much harder to prove something is not real, when there is no evidence to support it in the first place. It is effectively proving a negative which requires an onerus amount of proof. The absence of evidence doesn't support a null hypothesis in stochastic environments. This is a classic cognitive bias. Those that do so without proper basis, are most likely deluding themselves than actually participating in critical thought and rational measure based in external reality. There are a number of anomalies in the historic record, Graham Hancock has pointed out a number of them, and to date there is no explanation for much of the evidence he has pointed out. In fact some of it points to fantastical levels of tools that in some cases exceed current day processes. The Oseiron for example which can't be pumped out with modern equipment. You conveniently forget the bronze-age collapse which is attributed to a seafaring people alongside chaos, and the burning of the library of Alexandria destroyed some of the most dated records. You rely on a number of cognitive biases, your suppositions are not supported, and anyone that has to resort to invective and name calling isn't someone who is operating from a rational perspective that is capable of critical thought. The latter most entirely undermines any argument you might make.