(January 6, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(January 5, 2016 at 9:45 am)Drich Wrote: That is what this whole thread is about. The idea that "scholars" say one thing and the truth is completely different.
You drank the koolaid because it is comforting to your beliefs. It's just a belief. Throwing around words like 'truth' just shows how desperate you are for validation. I watched the video and for my money, Rohl's and Mahoney's evidence on many points was little more than far-fetched speculation, draped over a few small points of data. It's an interesting argument, but not nearly strong enough as to justify invalidating sound archaeological chronology. And that's the bottom line. You believe a weak argument because it provides you comfort. That is not the grounds for 'truth'.
In your mind's eye what are some examples of "far fetched speculation" and what were the small data points?