ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Graham Hancock , joe rogan , michael shermer , zahi hawass

Reply
Old 6th June 2017, 07:52 AM   #201
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Hawass is not a scientist, he's a dogmatist.

That was in fact a "refusal to debate"...
Exactly.

The article said that no academic would debate him.

His attempt at refuting that claim from the article was to bring up the debate with Hawass.

Harass refused to debate him.

Thus the original claim from the article, that no academic would debate him, stands.

But Hancock seemed to think that he'd refuted that point somehow.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 11:29 AM   #202
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Exactly.

The article said that no academic would debate him.

His attempt at refuting that claim from the article was to bring up the debate with Hawass.

Harass refused to debate him.

Thus the original claim from the article, that no academic would debate him, stands.

But Hancock seemed to think that he'd refuted that point somehow.
Hawass believes himself to be THE academic, the person who's theories will NOT be questioned or debated.

You have completely entirely misrepresented what that video was.

Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.

Hancock has evidence Hawass and skeptics here simply won't address. #sad
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 12:02 PM   #203
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,994
A debate is not the place for science. Let him gather, evidence, write articles, and submit them for peer review.
But that's not what Hancock wants. Because the one thing a public debate with a prominent scientific authority brings is a lot of media attention.
And that's what Hancock wants. Media attention so he can flog his poorly researched pop sci books.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 12:12 PM   #204
crhkrebs
Muse
 
crhkrebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
. Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.
Since when is debating quacks part of science or "scientific behavior"?
crhkrebs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 12:23 PM   #205
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by crhkrebs View Post
Since when is debating quacks part of science or "scientific behavior"?
Quacks...like Darwin.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 12:35 PM   #206
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Hawass believes himself to be THE academic, the person who's theories will NOT be questioned or debated.

You have completely entirely misrepresented what that video was.

Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.
I think it's worth noting that this criticism seems rather hypocritical, considering KotA just put two people on ignore for asking reasonable questions about his methods and theories.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 04:58 PM   #207
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Hawass believes himself to be THE academic, the person who's theories will NOT be questioned or debated.

You have completely entirely misrepresented what that video was.

Hawass said Hancock's theories have been dismissed, and refused to debate him, at the first glance of his evidence.

That is not scientific behavior.

Hancock has evidence Hawass and skeptics here simply won't address. #sad
Again, I didn't say anything at all about whether or not Hawass was justified in his behaviour. I was commenting on an argument that Hancock made.

An article written about him said that no academic would debate him. He said that the article was wrong on that claim. To dispute it he brought up Hawass and said that he had a debate with him. Then he mentioned that Hawass refused to debate him, which, again, leaves us back where we started. The point is not whether or not academics should debate him, but that he was wrong when he disputed the point in the article.

The article said no academic would debate him, and in spite of Hancock's odd attempt to refute it, and it is right. Do you dispute that?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 07:16 PM   #208
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Again, I didn't say anything at all about whether or not Hawass was justified in his behaviour. I was commenting on an argument that Hancock made.

An article written about him said that no academic would debate him. He said that the article was wrong on that claim. To dispute it he brought up Hawass and said that he had a debate with him. Then he mentioned that Hawass refused to debate him, which, again, leaves us back where we started. The point is not whether or not academics should debate him, but that he was wrong when he disputed the point in the article.

The article said no academic would debate him, and in spite of Hancock's odd attempt to refute it, and it is right. Do you dispute that?
No... I misunderstood the nature of your response.

I do not care about the article, or its accuracy, and found Hancock wasting time on it petty, even if Shermer relented.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2017, 03:34 AM   #209
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
How many Hawass fans are here...!?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2017, 03:17 PM   #210
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Did ANY "skeptic" here watch this video, in its entirety?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2017, 03:52 PM   #211
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Did ANY "skeptic" here watch this video, in its entirety?
I did. And then parts of it again looking for timestamps.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2017, 04:19 PM   #212
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I did. And then parts of it again looking for timestamps.
Awesome sauce!

Did you find the GT evidence convincing?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2017, 06:36 PM   #213
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Awesome sauce!

Did you find the GT evidence convincing?
I think they pushed it rather further than I thought it would bear. History is funny though. You only get the data points you get. No repetition in a lab, no finding what can't be found.

There's a headline making the rounds now about pushing homo back (the out of Africa date) from 200,000 years to 300,000. Suddenly 12,000 years doesn't seem like all that much.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2017, 06:45 PM   #214
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I think they pushed it rather further than I thought it would bear. History is funny though. You only get the data points you get. No repetition in a lab, no finding what can't be found.

There's a headline making the rounds now about pushing homo back (the out of Africa date) from 200,000 years to 300,000. Suddenly 12,000 years doesn't seem like all that much.
That the site was buried, as it was, and subsequent 'lesser' verions built atop, simply defied all evolutional lessons I have been taught.

If GT doesn't represent a lost/civlization, I am not sure what would.

Ever seen the ruins of Puma Punku? Those were not carved with bronze and copper chisels...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 06:05 AM   #215
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
So, my next question is, if "experts" like Hawass control the dig sites and the debate, how does evidence like GT become a point of debate and understanding?

Hunter-gatherers weren't just hunting and gathering, before they decided to do it full time, again?

We lost knowledge and ability...the ruins following the original GT were of 'lesser' quality!

If 'I' were a self-announced skeptic/debunker, I might refuse to watch this video too...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 11:07 AM   #216
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,090
You seem not to have grasped our point: debates of this kind are worthless entertainment. They are not designed to put forward valid argument, but merely to win the debate.

I'll happily read a transcript in my own time (which will take a fraction of the time it takes to listen to the debate), and then I'll form an opinion. What I have read in this thread, however, means that I am already biased against Hancock. That a civilisation can disappear in this way without leaving any traces whatsoever - apart from some megalithic stone blocks - seems to be the kind of assertion that needs solid evidence to be credible.

In the recent June 2017 issue of Scientific American, Shermer is discussing Hancock's theories, and he is not impressed. I do not know if this was written before or after the live debate.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 12:57 PM   #217
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,581
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Ever seen the ruins of Puma Punku? Those were not carved with bronze and copper chisels...
As you were told here what - 6 years ago? - no, they were not. Your general sense of incredulity and lack of curiosity as to how things actually work is your own problem.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:42 PM   #218
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
You seem not to have grasped our point: debates of this kind are worthless entertainment. They are not designed to put forward valid argument, but merely to win the debate.

I'll happily read a transcript in my own time (which will take a fraction of the time it takes to listen to the debate), and then I'll form an opinion. What I have read in this thread, however, means that I am already biased against Hancock. That a civilisation can disappear in this way without leaving any traces whatsoever - apart from some megalithic stone blocks - seems to be the kind of assertion that needs solid evidence to be credible.

In the recent June 2017 issue of Scientific American, Shermer is discussing Hancock's theories, and he is not impressed. I do not know if this was written before or after the live debate.
Debates have rules and time limits.

This was a discussion where both sides were allowed to talk, until they were done.

AGAIN. At the end of this exchange, Shermer finds Hancock both well reasoned and researched.

I highly recommend you consume the contents of this video, transcript or not.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:47 PM   #219
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
As you were told here what - 6 years ago? - no, they were not. Your general sense of incredulity and lack of curiosity as to how things actually work is your own problem.
6 years is a long time.

What thread was that?

If we take the GT 'fact' of an ancient awesome civilization, that disappeared, ruins like Puma Punku seem less hunter-gatherer, and more GT.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 03:26 PM   #220
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,581
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ls#post8354295
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 04:12 PM   #221
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
That's a lot of reading to catch up on...maybe later.

Thanks for the link though.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 11:57 PM   #222
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,090
Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Debates have rules and time limits.

This was a discussion where both sides were allowed to talk, until they were done.
Ok. What is the point?



Quote:
AGAIN. At the end of this exchange, Shermer finds Hancock both well reasoned and researched.
Yes, we know that Shermer was bested here, so what is the point?



Quote:
I highly recommend you consume the contents of this video, transcript or not.
I need better reasons to waste hours of my life than that.

ETA: Perhaps I should point out that I would be just as disinterested if Shermer had "won" the argument. I never listen to podcasts or view YouTube videos, except when I have a personal interest in them.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!

Last edited by steenkh; 10th June 2017 at 12:05 AM.
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2017, 04:11 AM   #223
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Ok. What is the point?


Yes, we know that Shermer was bested here, so what is the point?


I need better reasons to waste hours of my life than that.

ETA: Perhaps I should point out that I would be just as disinterested if Shermer had "won" the argument. I never listen to podcasts or view YouTube videos, except when I have a personal interest in them.
The point? To be exposed to new information, and reach new conclusions.

Bested? I think the word you are looking for is enlightened. Understanding isn't a contest.

So, you didn't watch the video...? And you are posting in a thread discussing the video...

It would seem that your interest is in derailing discussions.

Last edited by King of the Americas; 10th June 2017 at 04:42 AM.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2017, 09:11 AM   #224
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,090
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
So, you didn't watch the video...? And you are posting in a thread discussing the video...

It would seem that your interest is in derailing discussions.
I have explained why such videos are not very valuable. That would seem on topic.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2017, 05:49 AM   #225
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Agreed, but neither do "Bayesian statistics"...
I guess you missed my point.

One can have an understanding of the world based on an overwhelming amount of evidence such that any new evidence is very unlikely to be able to change that view, and yet still be entirely reasonable.

It would take very strong evidence to change the analysis that the total evidence (which includes all of that prior evidence) leads to, which is that there was no advanced civilisation 12,000 years ago.

Hence it's reasonable not to expect much from the video. And that's even before noting that you aren't even able to bring up whatever amazing evidence you seem to think was presented there:

__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2017, 06:43 AM   #226
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
...

It would take very strong evidence to change the analysis that the total evidence (which includes all of that prior evidence) leads to, which is that there was no advanced civilisation 12,000 years ago.

Hence it's reasonable not to expect much from the video. ...
Refusing to look at evidence based on the grounds it would HAVE to be very strong evidence to convince you is an argument for refusing to address ALL evidence that contradicts your current beliefs.

Bravo, an argument for ignoring evidence...

I recommend you watch the video, THEN comment.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2017, 09:03 AM   #227
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
I'm actually very happy to see whatever evidence was presented. I don't think it takes 3.5 hours to say "They found a gun buried at GT, which obviously is a relic of an advanced civilisation", or whatever evidence was actually presented.

Listening to 3.5 hours of back and forth is probably the least efficient way to be exposed to that evidence. But once again you are entirely unwilling to present that evidence and yet still complain that somehow you think other people are unwilling to face it.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 05:40 AM   #228
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
...

Listening to 3.5 hours of back and forth is probably the least efficient way to be exposed to that evidence. But once again you are entirely unwilling to present that evidence and yet still complain that somehow you think other people are unwilling to face it.
Listening to two people discuss a topic is the least efficient way to be exposed to evidence...?

That's crackpot talk, utterly mad.

You just admitted you are unwilling to watch the video, ergo, you are unwilling to face the facts as presented.

Come out of the dark buddy...there's interesting stuff out here.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 06:22 AM   #229
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Listening to two people discuss a topic is the least efficient way to be exposed to evidence...?

...
Because EVERYONE knows the best way to be informed on a topic is to just listen to one side, and never have that stance challenged...

I'm sorry, but that makes less than zero sense.

Seriously, HOW is that a defensible stance???

Last edited by King of the Americas; 17th June 2017 at 06:40 AM.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 07:17 AM   #230
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Refusing to look at evidence based on the grounds it would HAVE to be very strong evidence to convince you is an argument for refusing to address ALL evidence that contradicts your current beliefs.

Bravo, an argument for ignoring evidence...

I recommend you watch the video, THEN comment.
Watching videos is slow compared to reading transcripts, thus transcript is superior. Assuming transcript is accurate. Why spend an hour to watch something that can be read in 10-15 minutes at most - and which you can much more easily move backwards and forward in.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 07:20 AM   #231
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Because EVERYONE knows the best way to be informed on a topic is to just listen to one side, and never have that stance challenged...

I'm sorry, but that makes less than zero sense.

Seriously, HOW is that a defensible stance???
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.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 07:57 AM   #232
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Watching videos is slow compared to reading transcripts, thus transcript is superior. Assuming transcript is accurate. Why spend an hour to watch something that can be read in 10-15 minutes at most - and which you can much more easily move backwards and forward in.
Then read the transcripts...

Have you?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 07:58 AM   #233
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
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.
Riiiiight...and were there any such sources featured in this discussion...?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 08:07 AM   #234
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Riiiiight...and were there any such sources featured in this discussion...?
No, I have no real interest in the debates on silly things. I am merely noting the order of trustworthiness and speed of inputting information from same when such is both available and of interest/need.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 08:39 AM   #235
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,090
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Then read the transcripts...



Have you?
What transcript? Give a link, and I'll read it.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 09:01 AM   #236
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
What transcript? Give a link, and I'll read it.
Turn on your CC...then mute.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 10:18 AM   #237
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
This thread is an even better example of skeptics' outright refusal to address evidence.

There are 6 pages here, 95% of which have not seen the video being discussed!

And why would you, Michael Shermer has only been your God, the super sloth debunker, who ends up saying Graham Hancock is both well reasoned and well researched but that doesn't matter...

Ignoring evidence is THE best way to never, ever be wrong...'in your own head'...

Reality is that thing that's real, even if you don't believe it.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 10:19 AM   #238
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Because EVERYONE knows the best way to be informed on a topic is to just listen to one side, and never have that stance challenged...

I'm sorry, but that makes less than zero sense.

Seriously, HOW is that a defensible stance???
I am actually asking you to please present the evidence for that side. That sounds to me like the opposite of what you seem to be claiming, but maybe I'm the crazy one.

What exactly do you want to discuss in this thread if not the actual content of the video? Since you watched it you should be able to discuss it, no?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 10:21 AM   #239
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I am actually asking you to please present the evidence for that side. That sounds to me like the opposite of what you seem to be claiming, but maybe I'm the crazy one.

What exactly do you want to discuss in this thread if not the actual content of the video? Since you watched it you should be able to discuss it, no?
DO your own work.

There is a video you should watch before posting again. You are wasting time...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 10:22 AM   #240
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
*PLEASE*

WATCH THE VIDEO, or stop posting here.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.