I reckon we'll have to wait to see. Left or Right, or somewhere in between. Maybe we'll find out before I run out of buttered popcorn. 
Pullin' teeth always works better with a little butter.
Thank you, Steve, that was a mouthful.
Speaking of Historical Revisions, for the "open Minded" of course, Immanuel Velikovsky wrote an entire series of volumes in the '50s regarding the "Dark Age" he proposes was brought on by that second Catastrophic event you mention. (I have the entire set gathering dust in a closet for anyone interested. Free for the taking.)
Going back even farther you'll find other Catastrophists/Revisionists such as Ignatius Donnelly, Hans Bellamy, Victor Clube and a host of others going back in time all the way to Plato. Graham Hancock is just the latest in a long line of Revisionists of Earth Science and Mankind's History.
I'm sure if one was to immerse themselves in researching them they will find one that confirms their own opinion, or comes closest to matching what they want it to match. Such is life, or History as we know it, I reckon. Historical Truth is Subjective, Scientific Truth is Objective. I figger reality is somewhere 'twixt the two.
What relation does the photo posted by Dog have to his site?
Have a Good 'un.
I like your use of the term "Logic" from your previous post, Steve. By definition, Logic is the act of Reasoning Arguments. As I see it you and Dog are not that far apart in your reasoning. You both use Abductive reasoning, Dog leaning more towards Subjective Abduction while you appear more Probabilistic. Dog's reasoning may be more generalized, but you're both still using the same method of validating your theories...."An explanation is valid if it is the best possible explanation of a set of known data"....with both having varying degrees of uncertainty in your conclusions. The only difference I can see being the "set of known data".
A subjective claim, on one hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. In contrast to objective claims, subjective claims cannot be proven true or false by any generally accepted criteria. Subjective claims often express opinions, preferences, values, feelings, and judgments. Even though they may involve facts, they do not make factual (provable) claims, and therefore they are, in a sense, neither true nor false in the same way an objective claim is true or false. They fall outside the realm of what is verifiable.
On the other hand, an objective claim is a statement about a factual matter - one that can be proven true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false. Still, an objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true. Facts previously considered true may come to be considered false if new criteria, methods, or technology emerge.
In effect, neither of the opposing claims above is wrong, and either or both could be true.
I reckon since objectivity does not guarantee truth, and subjectivity is not necessarily false, it makes sense that they're not actual opposites. They're simply different ways of reasoning/knowing. Mistaking subjectivity and objectivity as opposites can lead to problematic positions in debates/discussions. IMHO it's important to participate respectfully in dialogue with those whose subjective claims differ from one's own. It is possible to respect the person even while disagreeing with that person's opinion. As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
While I choose to remain objective when it comes to this subject and others, I enjoy the interplay of various methods of reasoning used here on the forum. It keeps life interesting. And there's always the chance I might learn something or have something of value to contribute. (If not, nothing says I can't just watch and enjoy the popcorn).
As for your latest post, I somewhat agree. IMHO Archaeological discoveries are constrained by Academic Dogma which determines who gets the funding and who doesn't. While "more approachable", Independent excavations find little backing in that arena and for the most part are entirely subjective. Not to say they don't have merit, mind you, just little to no Academic validation.
As far as History goes, I prefer to use a forensic approach as most of what proliferates on the net should be considered a crime. I have to admit the same of most of what is passed off in books. Objectivity in Historical Research constitutes a sin in modern Academia. I've been nailed to a cross on several occasions. I've also been proven correct more times than not.
Geology (or hard Earth Science), on the other hand, provides some intriguing possibilities. Thank you for the suggestion in research material. I'll check it out.
Now, back to the pics, videos, and topic.....
Have a Good'un.
