There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Nothing at all to do with this thread at all.

Click to expand...

It seems clear that you don’t want to address the actual points I’m raising. I understand you don’t see the connection I’m making, and that’s your perspective. From my side, the pattern looks the same — your focus shifts to finding something to criticize instead of engaging with the subject itself. I’m simply explaining how that comes across to me.

Hans Blaster said:

Nope, this thread is about archeology.

Click to expand...

Archaeology and genealogy work together. Archaeology uncovers the world people lived in; genealogy preserves the line of the people themselves. Genetics, on the other hand, is often used in ways that stretch beyond what the data can actually prove. The Bible consistently supports genealogy—the tracing of real families through real generations.

You want to talk about weapons and tools but you do not want to talk about the people who use them?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Nothing at all to do with this thread at all.

Click to expand...

I recognize the tension here. Deep down, you’re reacting because you sense the truth you’ve been pushing against. The real struggle isn’t with me — it’s with the part of yourself that knows this already.”

Firstlightdawn said:

It seems clear that you don’t want to address the actual points I’m raising. I understand you don’t see the connection I’m making, and that’s your perspective. From my side, the pattern looks the same — your focus shifts to finding something to criticize instead of engaging with the subject itself. I’m simply explaining how that comes across to me.

Click to expand...

I won't address them, you're right. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING DO WITH THE THREAD TOPIC.

Firstlightdawn said:

I recognize the tension here. Deep down, you’re reacting because you sense the truth you’ve been pushing against. The real struggle isn’t with me — it’s with the part of yourself that knows this already.”

Click to expand...

Absolute load of BS, pure and simple from you.

The struggle here is that you for some reason refuse to actually engage with the topic of the thread. We call that being a troll.

Firstlightdawn said:

Archaeology and genealogy work together. Archaeology uncovers the world people lived in; genealogy preserves the line of the people themselves. Genetics, on the other hand, is often used in ways that stretch beyond what the data can actually prove. The Bible consistently supports genealogy—the tracing of real families through real generations.

You want to talk about weapons and tools but you do not want to talk about the people who use them?

Click to expand...

This thread started as being about the archeology of pre-history, which is the time before there is writing. There are stories of people to talk about. As part of his argument, @stevevw brought up the early dynastic vases resulting in long discussions of the vases and the tools to make them. None of this has anything to do with the biblical "genealogies". Again, if you want to discuss those, there are places where you could make a thread. Don't use this one.

Hans Blaster said:

As part of his argument, @stevevw brought up the early dynastic vases resulting in long discussions of the vases and the tools to make them.

Click to expand...

Before pottery existed, people stored grain in baskets. Once true clay vessels were developed, grain could be sealed more tightly — and under the right conditions, it could even ferment and produce alcohol. That shift really did change things.

So when early potters were shaping and firing those first jars, it’s not impossible that a few of them were working with a little “inspiration” from their own fermented grain. And yes, I understand you don’t expect to appreciate the humor in that for obvious reasons — but the historical logic behind the joke actually holds together.

Firstlightdawn said:

Before pottery existed, people stored grain in baskets. Once true clay vessels were developed, grain could be sealed more tightly — and under the right conditions, it could even ferment and produce alcohol. That shift really did change things.

So when early potters were shaping and firing those first jars, it’s not impossible that a few of them were working with a little “inspiration” from their own fermented grain. And yes, I understand you don’t expect to appreciate the humor in that for obvious reasons — but the historical logic behind the joke actually holds together.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly... not at all what Hans was talking about or what the thread is about either.

Stop hyper focusing on one single word or term and actually read the entire comment in the post.

stevevw said:

The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Click to expand...

[Steve, I'm not trying to draw you back into this convo, just providing some info to tie the thread together.]

It seems like good old "Professor Dave" has put together the definitive demonstration that "Michael Buttons" is yet another psuedoarcheology griverter and Graham Hancock acolyte. I can't link the YouTube video as Mr Farina likes to use "spicy" language almost as much as I do.

stevevw said:

I Visited Malta’s Ruins… And They Might Rewrite History
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XccJmFcmEeE&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Click to expand...

Professor Dave starts with that video. Not surprising, Button is completely disconnected from reality regarding Malta. (And probably lying as well.)

stevevw said:

Nooooooo. I thought this thread ended. It will go on forever. I don't mind lol. Thats good that it still sparks interest. Hopefully it will still be going when we will discover the truth.

I don't really care about the particular presenters. Its all part of allowing different opinions. I don;t think button has ever said he knows the truth or that so called mainstream archeology is all wrong. He may make unreal claims but I don't think its all rubbish. Mainstream archeologist also make unreal and false claims.

To me its natural that independents are now popping up to question narratives. Afterall it is the age of narratives. Its more about what the archeology represents ideologically. The framework in which it is presented. Thats what everyone is questioning.

As I mentioned earlier if you ask Indigenous peoples about mainstream science and archeology they will tell you that this paints one particular paradigm of the world according to westernised thinking. But this is a completely different worldview to many cultures and peoples.

So in that sense people will always question how the archeological evidence is presented and what it represents. What aspects are given more creedence over others ect.

A good example is how mainstream archeology tended to dismiss bible history which told a different narrative about our history. Then discoveries supported the biblical narrative.

It is the same for other cultures stories and claims about what our history truely represents. So Indigenous peoples, people of faith, and so called conspiracy theorists will always have an opinion. I am open to all and don't necessarily subscribe to everything they say. Nor what the so called mainstream experts say.

Click to expand...

"The problem with keeping an open mind is that people will try and fill it with anything and everything."

stevevw said:

Nooooooo. I thought this thread ended. It will go on forever. I don't mind lol. Thats good that it still sparks interest. Hopefully it will still be going when we will discover the truth.

Click to expand...

That's why I explicitly said you didn't need to engage. I'm not looking to revive this topic, only to bookend the content. You started with Michael Button presenting an "idea". I end it with the expose of Button as a grifting fraud.

stevevw said:

I don't really care about the particular presenters. Its all part of allowing different opinions. I don;t think button has ever said he knows the truth or that so called mainstream archeology is all wrong. He may make unreal claims but I don't think its all rubbish. Mainstream archeologist also make unreal and false claims.

Click to expand...

Oh, he absolutely said it, just not in the video you put in the OP. He only came to your attention because the YT algo pushed him up after his appearance on Joe Rogan a couple months before this thread started. His channel stunk from the moment this thread started and we were able to sniff it out fairly quickly. (See first few pages of the thread.)

stevevw said:

To me its natural that independents are now popping up to question narratives. Afterall it is the age of narratives. Its more about what the archeology represents ideologically. The framework in which it is presented. Thats what everyone is questioning.

Click to expand...

Archeology is a science, not an "ideology". These "independents" of the sort promoted in this thread (Button/Hancock/Crosetti/Uncharted X and so many more) and their master enablers (J. Rogan/History Channel) are popping up because certain people are pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories as "entertainment" and then claiming they are true.

stevevw said:

As I mentioned earlier if you ask Indigenous peoples about mainstream science and archeology they will tell you that this paints one particular paradigm of the world according to westernised thinking. But this is a completely different worldview to many cultures and peoples.

Click to expand...

I've got no problem saying their narratives are also wrong if they conflict with reality whether they are Navajo, Mormon, or Israelite.

stevevw said:

So in that sense people will always question how the archeological evidence is presented and what it represents. What aspects are given more creedence over others ect.

A good example is how mainstream archeology tended to dismiss bible history which told a different narrative about our history. Then discoveries supported the biblical narrative.

Click to expand...

Unless you are talking about the history of all mankind as "our history", the biblical narrative is not "our" history, and even broadly it is the story of one small nation on the edge of powerful empires. No view of the world is radically changed because King Omri existed.

stevevw said:

It is the same for other cultures stories and claims about what our history truely represents. So Indigenous peoples, people of faith, and so called conspiracy theorists will always have an opinion. I am open to all and don't necessarily subscribe to everything they say. Nor what the so called mainstream experts say.

Click to expand...

These are not equivalent.

[I offered an opportunity for you to not reengage, but you have chosen otherwise. Sigh.]

stevevw said:

Yes it is. Others will claim from their beliefs and worldview that mainstream archeology and science is wrong and has presented a false narrative of history and skeptics will always say they are conspiracy grifters.

Click to expand...

This is a false characterization to put you enemy (reality) in a box. Grifters are grifters. Not everyone who proposes an incorrect historical narrative is a grifter. In fact, very few of them are. You present many such narratives and you are not a grifter. Why? Because you are not trying to make money selling falsehoods (particularly ones that you know are wrong). You are just believing in these false things and bad analyses.

People like Michael Button are absolutely trying to make money selling falsehoods. Most of them clearly know that at least part of what they are selling is nonsense and they don't care.

stevevw said:

If Christians claim that mainstream archeology is presenting a false narrative and so do people like Button. Then they are in agreement are they not.

Click to expand...

No, they are not. They have made similar claims, but their "evidence" is about different things. Firstly, Button is covering a much earlier period than biblical archeology and studies cover. Button is mostly talking about *pre-history* (before writing) and biblical archeology is about aligning recorded histories to physical places. Second, biblical archeology covers a very narrow geographic space, whereas Button's claims are global in nature.

To state it clearly -- the biblical archeologists could be completely wrong and it would not make one word of Button's claims about ancient, prehistoric civilizations true.

stevevw said:

They both believe that a false narrative has been presented of our history. A westernised one that does not include a range of other perspectives.

Click to expand...

What does "westernized" have to do with anything here. (This apparently keeps coming up in your post. I have no idea what "western" has to do with anything.)

stevevw said:

I mentioned this in the thread. That some of the claims Button is using are from the very people who lived during that time. It is their own stories.

Click to expand...

Where? Button almost exclusively talks about prehistoric sites where there is no recorded claims from contemporary peoples. (I don't recall if he engages in any of the ancient Egypt fantasies that make the bulk of this thread, but there are no contemporary stories in the Egyptian texts that match the claims of the Egypt fantasists.

stevevw said:

It is no different to today when science claims indigenous knowkledge is make believe. We end up with two completely different takes on our history.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? We don't live in your head.

stevevw said:

Skeptics claim they know the truth and so do those who tell theor own stories of what happened.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the concept of "skepticism".

stevevw said:

One is aligned to western ideas and the others are with those who actually lived the reality.

Click to expand...

??? This is a false dichotomy. I have no idea why "western ideas" are not "in reality".

stevevw said:

So the solution is to have a closed mind. Is that the answer ?. You need an open mind to first include all the evidence. Especially that which you may disagree or find hard to accept.

God is a good example. If you disbelieve in God then you will always be looking for rational evidence that conforms to mainstream ideas and beliefs ie everything has a naturalistic explanation. So already anything supernatural is dismissed.

A theist can be open to both the supernatural and the natural. Whereas a skeptic rational atheist can only be open to the naturalistic.

Click to expand...

And there is nothing open minded in your commentary, just blind acceptance of anything outside the mainstream.

stevevw said:

Yes it is. Others will claim from their beliefs and worldview that mainstream archeology and science is wrong and has presented a false narrative of history and skeptics will always say they are conspiracy grifters.

If Christians claim that mainstream archeology is presenting a false narrative and so do people like Button. Then they are in agreement are they not. They both believe that a false narrative has been presented of our history. A westernised one that does not include a range of other perspectives.

I mentioned this in the thread. That some of the claims Button is using are from the very people who lived during that time. It is their own stories. It is no different to today when science claims indigenous knowkledge is make believe. We end up with two completely different takes on our history. Skeptics claim they know the truth and so do those who tell theor own stories of what happened.

One is aligned to western ideas and the others are with those who actually lived the reality.

Click to expand...

And there's nothing anti-Western in your thinking when you repeat claims made by people who say the known natives and their known techniques couldn't have produced what associate with them.

It sounds like rehashes of old 19th and 20th Eurocentric claims of non-natives being responsible for their works. It's racism, if not heavily adjacent to racism.

stevevw said:

So I asked Ai if Button makes absolute claims that he knows the truth of our history and this is what came back.

Click to expand...

A random AI summary? Seriously?

stevevw said:

Michael Button frequently questions standard historical timelines, but he frames his criticism as opposition to academic certainty rather than claiming he alone holds an absolute "secret truth." He argues that mainstream scientists and historians are arrogant for acting entirely certain about deep prehistory when direct evidence is sparse. [1, 2, 3].

Criticisms of Mainstream Views

• • Challenging Certainty: He states that claiming absolute truth about events hundreds of thousands of years ago is "stupid" because nobody truly knows what happened. [1]
  • Alternative Possibilities: He promotes the idea that human civilization and organized society might be much older than standard academic models suggest. [1, 2]
  • Macro-Perspectives: Rather than alleging a grand conspiracy where academics consciously lie, he suggests that traditional timelines suffer from a rigid imagination and an incomplete archaeological record. [1, 3]

That sounds reasonable.

Click to expand...

Your "AI" summary is just that, a digestion of Button's YT videos and podcast appearances. It tells us absolutely about if Button's thoughts are correct.