Strong-Conservative father of three here, and I think this video is just plain wrong. I corrected my daughters yesterday for calling Pres. Obama just "Obama". Even though I disagree with our President, I will continue to teach my children to respect our leaders. I also think it is wrong to use kids to make political points.
This guy didn't quit money. Every item Daniel Suelo uses or eats was bought with other people's money. It's no stretch to point out that the roadkill was run down by expensive cars paid for with other people's dollars, the internet at the library paid for with other people's tax dollars, the dumpsters he dives in - filled with discarded food paid for with other people's dollars. This man does not represent a viable alternative to a capitalist money driven society. I'm reinded that Henry David Thoreau who claimed to live simply whilst squatting on R.W. Emerson's property, regularly eating at Ralph's home. And by the way the pink flamingos hanging off the bike shout crazy to me. I see enough of these sponges living off other people while preaching at them the virtues of their own leech-lifestyle to take this story remotely seriously.
I think the ninety-nine percent statistic is based on estimates of evolutionary die-off needed to achieve the species that exist today. I would like to see the estimate of extinct species that is made from found fossil species in comparison with living species today. I've also seen news articles where just because the creature is fossilized, it is described as an ancestral species even when clearly noted as identical with or indistinguishable from living species.
Now don't think I am siding with Illig, but... Geology and carbon dating could not, by themselves, provide evidence for any three hundred year period in modern history.
1. Geology involves the study of the formation of rocks and dirt. So unless you can tie an specific historical event from that period that is reported to have happened at a certain date to geological phenomena that are also reported to have happened at a certain date, such as volcanic activity in Europe, geology is of no value in referencing modern dates.
2. What would you carbon date? Most carbon dated items come back with results in ranges of thousands of years, not hundreds anyway. You could not carbon date George Washington's false teeth and achieve a date of 1700-1800 for instance. You could however, compare what Historians have told us with the story of the descent of the teeth to modern history and be markedly certain that the date is accurate.
3. Why would you expect that the Chinese would have record of events in medieval Europe? I think your confusing what he is saying. I believe his theory posits that the EVENTS in Europe that we believe happened at certain times did not, and therefore OTHER events were happening at that time. He's not saying that all of history in that time period is nonexistent.
Perhaps you meant to write "archeology" rather than "geology". Or maybe "geneology". Either of which would provide more genuine insight into it.
This leaves us with a conclusion: Our knowledge of history is highly dependent upon those who were there, or shortly after to know that it happened, and record their knowledge and experience for future generations. Archeology for instance can tell us a great deal about how people lived in certain KNOWN time periods. Most of what we learn from archeology is attained from comparing finds to what is KNOWN and RECORDED.
If a collective of historians chose to deliberately deceive people with a lie masquerading as a complicated history, it might be highly difficult to uncover the truth.
Finally, Probably the guy IS a nut job, but he is not the only one to posit this theory. So, if proving the middle ages existed is important to you, rather than tout what we know and recite to each other "don't question authority", see if the guy has some valid reasons for his arguments. Then historians should review his claims and examine the existing EVIDENCE, compare it with historical documents and then DETERMINE the truth. Most would rather disregard contrary evidence to embrace the ease of accepting conventional wisdom.
So which of these "awful" statements he made are not true or inaccurate? Please tell me, because I like to be informed rather than reactionary.
1. Is there a high level of alcoholism in Scotland? 2. Aren't some pajama robes similar to Nigerian clothing? 3. Are (red or east) Indians renowned as great technicians? And isn't it "racist" to call them "red". 4. Wasn't the boy described as "chubby"? 5. Smoke alarms ARE a damned nuisance when they go off for no reason, and are KNOWN to fail to wake children and many adults anyway. 6. Loud Music causes hearing damage. 7. Okay I don't get the potbelly comment. 8.Chinese and Caucasians have different shaped eyes! Oh the shock of it all! 9. Most countries' problems are caused largely by their own people. 10. He should know. 11. What's offensive about this? It's a damn joke people!
Now don't think I am siding with Illig, but...
Geology and carbon dating could not, by themselves, provide evidence for any three hundred year period in modern history.
1. Geology involves the study of the formation of rocks and dirt. So unless you can tie an specific historical event from that period that is reported to have happened at a certain date to geological phenomena that are also reported to have happened at a certain date, such as volcanic activity in Europe, geology is of no value in referencing modern dates.
2. What would you carbon date? Most carbon dated items come back with results in ranges of thousands of years, not hundreds anyway. You could not carbon date George Washington's false teeth and achieve a date of 1700-1800 for instance. You could however, compare what Historians have told us with the story of the descent of the teeth to modern history and be markedly certain that the date is accurate.
3. Why would you expect that the Chinese would have record of events in medieval Europe? I think your confusing what he is saying. I believe his theory posits that the EVENTS in Europe that we believe happened at certain times did not, and therefore OTHER events were happening at that time. He's not saying that all of history in that time period is nonexistent.
Perhaps you meant to write "archeology" rather than "geology". Or maybe "geneology". Either of which would provide more genuine insight into it.
This leaves us with a conclusion: Our knowledge of history is highly dependent upon those who were there, or shortly after to know that it happened, and record their knowledge and experience for future generations. Archeology for instance can tell us a great deal about how people lived in certain KNOWN time periods. Most of what we learn from archeology is attained from comparing finds to what is KNOWN and RECORDED.
If a collective of historians chose to deliberately deceive people with a lie masquerading as a complicated history, it might be highly difficult to uncover the truth.
Finally,
Probably the guy IS a nut job, but he is not the only one to posit this theory. So, if proving the middle ages existed is important to you, rather than tout what we know and recite to each other "don't question authority", see if the guy has some valid reasons for his arguments. Then historians should review his claims and examine the existing EVIDENCE, compare it with historical documents and then DETERMINE the truth. Most would rather disregard contrary evidence to embrace the ease of accepting conventional wisdom.
1. Is there a high level of alcoholism in Scotland?
2. Aren't some pajama robes similar to Nigerian clothing?
3. Are (red or east) Indians renowned as great technicians? And isn't it "racist" to call them "red".
4. Wasn't the boy described as "chubby"?
5. Smoke alarms ARE a damned nuisance when they go off for no reason, and are KNOWN to fail to wake children and many adults anyway.
6. Loud Music causes hearing damage.
7. Okay I don't get the potbelly comment.
8.Chinese and Caucasians have different shaped eyes! Oh the shock of it all!
9. Most countries' problems are caused largely by their own people.
10. He should know.
11. What's offensive about this? It's a damn joke people!
Get over yourselves.
Quit being offended for other people.