One of the Most fascinating Debates on Alternative Ancient History

When it comes to science, the more we can prove something is 100% correct, its unlikely that people are wrong. Yet scientists are open to the view they could be wrong.

When it comes to the history of human history. The same never applies the further back in time we go. Now with recent history, there is countless evidence to many facts. Where nothing is unearthed that dramatically changes the facts of the last 100 years or so. Though we can learn can come across new evidence that may change why we understand how something happened. 

Theories over how or why or the reasons to events are more so debated here. Yet the further back in time you go, the history becomes ever so shady and yet the more dogmatic some archaeologists and historians get. They become less scientific in thinking. When they readily dismiss fingerprints that may challenge the historical dogma. They unlike scientists, who have 100% evidence on something (like the earth rotating around the sun) go off claiming something as fact, based off knowing around 20% evidence found. Where most of ancient history, before writing is based on theory. A theory based only on archaeological so far found. 

I may not even agree with most of the arguments portrayed here in this debate from Graham Hancock, ( infact on some I readily agree and he argues better)  but there is no way I can dismiss his hypothesis, that civilizations are far older. Where you could even then find evidence he is then right and only right for say a hundred years and then we find more evidence that refutes his theory. That is why to dismiss the possibility of older civilizations is based around being close minded. The skeptic was an embarrassment here to be honest.

Contrary to the religious core here, I am open to all possibilities and why I simple do not "believe" no god exists. I am actually open to many possibilities, but weigh up the known evidence so far.

Anyway, enjoy



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ