Great Unconformity

[Subduction Zone]

what source are you denigrating?

are you even aware?

The source that you linked. It is just a woo woo source. No peer review. No ability to justify their claims.

When a scientist writes a paper he goes into what would be boring detail to people that were not in the sciences how he got his information. How he tested it. Etc. He makes it so that if he is wrong others interested in doing the work could repeat it and if he was wrong falsify it. Where does your article do any of that? What were his sources? Who did he interview? When and where? All he does is to write a bunch of nonsense as if it were fact. That only fools the uneducated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Graham Hancock is not a reliable source:

Graham Hancock - Wikipedia

Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. He promotes pseudoscientific theories[1][2][3] involving ancient civilizations, Earth changes, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.

Both the sciences and history have certain standards for evidence. What you have posted fail all of the standards of both areas.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Graham Hancock is not a reliable source:

not the source, merely published on his site

 

[Subduction Zone]

not the source, merely published on his site

Yes, and not published at any reliable soruce.

If you learned how to properly vet your sources you would find that you had nothing.

Once again, who did the author interview? How did he get his claims? What writings? Where are they published? What people did he talk to and when? Do you see any of that in that article? If not then you pretty much know that it is fake.

 

[JohnEmmett]

your questions might be answered by reading the article

 

[Subduction Zone]

@JohnEmmett The source that you linked claimed that he interviewed Oswald Frederick. An article on Oswald Frederick does not mention this supposed interview. But it does tell of a history book that arose from a collaboration with him. Do you think that these tales are in there?

Oswald Fredericks Painting - Adobe Gallery, Santa Fe

 

[Subduction Zone]

your questions might be answered by reading the article

Then you would need to copy and paste those answers with a link. This is your claim and therefore your burden of proof.

 

[JohnEmmett]

This is your claim and therefore your burden of proof.

I am just theorizing

 

[Gene2memE]

what is your opinion of the Bible?

It's a mix. Particularly between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Parts of it are as historically reliable as any other historical text of the period (the majority was composed/rewritten through the fifth century BC, some a little early, a fair bit later).

Parts of it are completely ahistorical, or have no bearing in known historical fact.

Parts of it are allegorical/mythincal and belong in a completely different genre of writing.

The New Testament is generally reliable (but not wholly so) with its mundane claims, but there are no reasons to think that its supernatural claims have any basis in fact.

 

[JohnEmmett]

But it does tell of a history book that arose from a collaboration with him. Do you think that these tales are in there?

yes… the article is fine

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just theorizing

No, you were corrected on this. You were merely speculating. By the way, I found the book for you, but it openly admits to being a book of myths. In other words stories not thought to have really happened:

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Hopi-Frank-Waters/dp/0140045279

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes… the article is fine

No, as written it is not worth the bandwidth needed to send it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

but there are no reasons to think that its supernatural claims have any basis in fact.

that's why I recommend Near Death videos

 

[JohnEmmett]

No, as written it is not worth the bandwidth needed to send it.

your subjective evaluation


because you value science too much


spiritual truth too little

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's why I recommend Near Death videos

And those have been refuted as well. The plural of anecdotes is not "evidence".

To be even able to claim to have scientific evidence one needs a falsifiable hypothesis in the first place.

If you want to claim to have evidence you must be able to answer the questions:

What is your hypothesis?

What reasonable test could possibly refute it?

 

[JohnEmmett]

By the way, I found the book for you, but it openly admits to being a book of myths.

partly myth, partly fact

 

[Gene2memE]

that's why I recommend Near Death videos

Nothing in those that I've seen verify anything in the New Testament.
I don't think memories of people whose brains are operating in an abnormal state are a sufficiently strong reason to accept supernatural claims about reality. Do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

your subjective evaluation


because you value science too much


spiritual truth too little

No, my highly objective evaluation. I do not base my evaluation on my personal standards. I base my evaluation on scientific, archaeological, and historical standards.

You are accusing others of what you do wrong. There is a very good reason that those areas have adopted the standards that they use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

partly myth, partly fact


which is sort of a blurred line

How would you know if any of it is fact? Again, you need to be ready to answer such questions. When you cannot you only admit that you are wrong.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I don't think … a sufficiently strong reason to accept supernatural claims about reality. Do you?

I have supernatural experiences


I would guess… you do not