Subject: reviews I noticed that your site does not have a link for readers to send reviews of their own. I find that interesting, considering you ( I can only assume it was the real author of this book in chat ) asked me to go ahead and make a review. I read your site and book, you may remember me, I am a geologist. Your emperical evidence section was quite amusing. Your conclusions are some of the worst psuedo-scientific tripe. You site not one fact that can be supported scientifically, only by you making the assumption that “gods must have done it.”
I imagine that readers are not allowed to make reviews because your site would be replete with unfavorable reviews. I did note that your UCI review was audio only. I figured that I would not be satisfied with this review, as you were touting it in chat. This audio could simply be you and your gardener for all anyone knows.
I wonder why you call everyone involved in science and atheist, not all are. You seem to have some major issues. Also, I noticed that your “criticisms answered” section was entirely YOUR words…not those of others. Are you in the practice of self criticizing?
Oh well, you asked for me to review your book and site, and here it is…from 1 to 10, 10 being best…I gave it a 2. 2 mainly because the grammar and spelling were on a high level. You research and study of ancient cultures was less than worthy of print.
I posted this “review,” even though it is mostly a personal attack, because it does have one criticism of the actual work.
My position that gods created the sophisticated civilizations of the ancient world is based on thousands of years of history. Those chronologies, from every continent of the globe, were written by meticulous scribes and historians who were on the scene. They clearly state that they were interacting with supernatural forces called “gods.” The artifacts and ruins support their claim.
I was excited by the “2” the “reviewer” gave for spelling and grammar, until I realized his review had two spelling errors and several grammatical mistakes.
See “emperical evidence” and “psuedo-scientific.”
I suppose we should not rate a geologist on his spelling and grammar; notwithstanding, a review should be based on the merits, and more than merely personal attack. As to my “gardener” being on the UCI interview, he is male and barely speaks English. The moderator is female and has wonderful diction