(January 8, 2016 at 1:22 pm)athrock Wrote:(January 6, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: 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'.
You find the argument "interesting". Did you find it completely flawed?
If not, then does that mean that it possibly correct but unlikely. Or is it completely unlikely?
I'm trying to understand what appears to be a concession on your part that Mahoney made a better case than you expected...
By her arguements she has not actually watched the whole movie. she skips around from point to point as if she is reading and relaying someone elses commentary or she skimmed watch.. watch for a few mins get the gist and Fast forward to the next scene.. i made reference to a few key scenes that pull the whole movie together and solidifies it to which she has no knowledge of.
