Thus far the oldest gold artifacts found are only about 6000 years old. There is no reason to assume an older society put gold to use this early when from what we know so far, they had just started using copper.
Oh, OK. I never heard of it until yesterday and it looked legit enough to bring up in the thread. It is fair to assume that some of the earliest settlements are beneath the sea now as waters did rise with the thawing of the ice age. A town of stone does not seem far fetch knowing the Gobekli Tepe exists. If not Gulf of Cambay perhaps we’ll find another eventually.
Sure. Doubtless there’s some under the Black Sea, for example. But the Indians weren’t just claiming a settlement, and they were doing it with very flimsy evidence.
And as soon as Hancock’s involved you should just know it’s going to be a crock of shit.
Your little fact is very nice and all, but it doesn’t mean anything.
It doesn’t disprove the statements made by experts.
Yes, he didn’t talk about them, but we only had a brief snippet of his opinion. Have you read his books? Read Schmidt’s full papers? No. So, your little fact is meaningless.
We have seen this time and time again with global warming deniers and evolution deniers- they get ahold of a little “fact”- and then since they didnt see that little fact considered in a summation, they say that the entire science is based on ignorance.
Who is saying the entire science is based on ignorance?
Certainly not me. I’m only saying one interpretive opinion as to how much of a gamechanger GT really is, is based on clear ignorance of already-studied HG societal complexity, as expressed in their own words. Everything else about the research is great, and I have no quibble with the science at all. GT is a great site, and fascinating, and the people there are doing wonderful work to push the boundaries of knowledge.
How DrDeth gets AGW and evolution denialism from *that *… well, I have no idea how that comparison stands.
Three cites. Not one. And none of those are based on “ignorance”. They know much more than you do about the subject. Just because you haven’t bothered to read the full reports or the books, doesnt mean they left out a extremely minor detail in their reasoning. Calling the experts “ignorant” just because in their *synopsis * they left out something minor is the very definition of hubris.
This is exactly like a Climate Change denier saying that they left out the fact that Water vapor is the biggest cause of global warming, thus all the global warming experts are ignorant.
So, that’s an admission you can’t disprove it, then, I take it?
Yes, it does
One snippet that displays ignorance of complex HG cultures.
Charitably, it’s entirely possible he was aware, but downplayed that in order to build up GT. I guess it would then be trivial for you to provide a cite as to that, right…?
Did you? I mean, I’m going by the things you’ve cited here.
Not so fast with the “No”, there. Yes, I have read at least 4 papers by Schmidt. How many have *you *read?
Well, if you rate opinions over facts…
No, nor can I disprove that water vapor is a major cause of global warming. But the big point is, the one you refuse to understand is- who cares? The experts have already considered that and wrote it off.
I did- three cites.
How many by Doctor Hodder ?
3 cites, one opinion, same ignorance of HG complexity on display.
So quote them on it
So quote them on it
So quote them on it.
An I love how you’re even more of a layperson than me, but you certainly feel qualified to judge what is and isn’t an “extremely minor detail”
I’m calling them ignorant of this one thing because they’d evidenced *ignorance *of this one thing by their own statements.
:rolleyes: The comparison doesn’t sound any more convincing the more you repeat it.
Well, then, you’re not really making a scientific argument, then, are you? I’ve raised 2 facts, you admit you can’t disprove them, what does that leave you, exactly?
Well, *you *certainly seem invested.
Sorry, I don’t understand what this is a reply to - are you saying you cited 3 Schmidt papers? All I’ve seen you cite are 1 full paper, and some popular journal articles
You first…
As I have said many time shere- this is GQ. I am not making an argument at all. I am posting CITES from recognized experts in the field.
Your 'facts" are of no consequence.
This may be my favorite post on this message board. Should have an exclamation point though.
No, that really *is *you making an argument. Hodder and Schmidt aren’t posting their opinions here, you are. But then, you’ve already admitted you can’t disprove the facts.
If they were of *no *consequence, you’d be able to disprove them.
Ironically, it was the OP who was worried about appearing as a ‘dingle dongle’ for asking sensible questions about Gobekli Tepe.
I think he/she is well back in the queue for that fate.
Moderating
At this point, you guys are just going around in circles. Let’s drop the hijack. If you want to debate this issue, open another thread in Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The OP did ask a couple of sensible questions The OP also linked to a Graham Hancock-related absolute *kook *video (I bit the bullet and started watching - I think I made it 30 seconds. Then I checked his references). So let’s say that’s a draw on the sensible front.
And what about Antarctica?
IF, and I mean IF, the world tilted a different way then Antarctica wouldn’t be covered in ice like today and could have been a much different continent and could very well have some ancient cities on it.
Ah yes, when the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event wiped out the sparnotheriodontid litoptern civilization of olde.
What about Antarctica?
Actually, once again, Graham Hancockhas got it covered. Shocking, I know.