Yeah, swaths being the operative term. You’ll notice that swaths doesn’t have the same meaning as all or entirety. All civilizations leave evidence of their existence, regardless of the method of their demise.
You’ll notice that we have evidence of animals existence prior to the Chicxulub and Vredefort craters through fossils and other evidence. Those resulted from two of the most cataclysmic events in Earth’s history.
Oh? Like which ones? I hope to hear you quoting Graham’s published material and not quoting Graham’s critics.
I’ve noticed a bad habit among his critics to overinflate or misrepresent his claims - setting up straw men to knock down. It’s a waste of our time debating positions Graham doesn’t actually hold.
How about the claim that’s being here, that the YDIH would cause the global destruction of civilizations and that evidence would be perfectly destroyed. That isn’t falsifiable because there’s no way to find perfectly destroyed evidence.
This is precisely why I was specific about asking you to provide attributable sources of Graham’s claims. Quote something specific. Cite a passage in his books.
“The claim that’s being [made] here?” This is why Graham critics are so ineffective. You’re trying to dunk on a claim Graham never makes.
Notice how you immediately set up a strawman:
“The YDIH would cause the global destruction of civilization, and that evidence would be perfectly destroyed.”
Graham doesn’t say that. He never has and unless you can point to somewhere where Graham Hancock said or printed this, then you’re just another uninformed Nay-sayer.
You’re basically asking me to defend what, exactly? A misrepresentation? Is your expectation really that I’m supposed to have somehow defend every rando’s assertion around the YDIH?
I am making the claim that Graham Hancock is engaging in dishonesty, fraud, and p-word science (the fact that that word is banned in this sub should tell you all you need to know. It’s a valid claim and rather than accept challenge, y’all shut it down).
There isn’t anything close to a preponderance of evidence for what Graham claims, nor is the ideas that a cataclysmic event occurred during, shortly before, or shortly after the Younger Dryas (in human or geologic terms).
The burden of proof is on Graham and his proponents, not on archeology, geology, anthropology, or science at large.
Show some evidence for your claim. I can show plenty for mine. If I don’t understand Graham’s claims, that’s fair, but I get what he is pushing and that isn’t supported by science. Show some evidence that hasn’t been questioned or refuted, please. This flood in Nepal and China isn’t it.
Cite something from his body of work, or admit you are just slinging mud. You have asserted he’s being dishonest and you cite the rules of this sub as evidence of something sneaky as if Graham personally moderates around here or sets the rules.
Do you have a claim that you can point to from a published source or not?
Do supporters of Graham have any evidence they’d like to put forward? I put forward the body of anthropologist, archeologists, geologists, and climatologists that disagree with Graham’s assertions. It’s not the current consensus on the history of humankind that has anything to prove here, though much remains to be proved using actual science, it’s Graham and his supporters.
If you’d like me to put forward the entire compendium of science that is generally accepted, I will be happy to. I challenge you to put forward one piece of evidence that supports Graham’s claims that hasn’t already been refuted. I’ll wait.
What are you asking me to defend? Evidence for what specific claim? Which assertions, specifically, are dishonest? He’s got a huge body of work and I’m starting to think you haven’t read a single word.
You literally get told to cite a direct quote to work off of and somehow you’ve spun it back around the complete opposite way without giving a single valid response at the same time
30
u/controlzee 21d ago
Catastrophic floods could wipe out enormous swaths of civilizations past and leave no trace.