been waiting for another worthy Shaolin epic since watching Shaolin Temple 1982 starring a young Jet Li .. shaw brothers satisfy.. def. excited to see the new Shaolin

we're all hypocrites... shades of grey... derpa derp...

However, PETA are the tea party of the animal welfare community... a loud waste of time and resources.

The best thing they've ever done was give Temple Grandin an award recognizing her awesomeness,... slightly promoting an already famous animal welfare advocate who actually practices what she preaches.

exhibit A)
http://www.grandin.com/humane/rec.slaughter.html

I thought Indy 4 was almost there....
a) The two best Indy movies (1 & 3) had their roots in Biblical myths, this made them feel sort of 'legit', a nice sort of 'what if' these stories were true. Temple of Doom lacked this with him not searching for anything really, just stumbling across the Thuggees. The crystal skulls could have been a pretty good myth to work with, but there wasn't enough decoding scripture or writings or anything really to _do_ with the myth... I think that's where the two weak films initially fail, they aren't a good 'search for a lost item' story.

b) Far too much CGI, the chase through the jungle, while having some nice action and set pieces, just feels like a cgi scene, doesn't feel based in reality.

c) Too much lame humour. It's where Lucas failed a lot with the Star Wars prequels too... resorting to fart jokes and bad slapstick when the originals had a semblance of subtlety to them.

d) The end... just... a spaceship... really? The first one, we have ghosts... that's good, honest, old school movies. The second has some heart ripping and glowing stones, the third has life giving/sapping cups... but none of them have alien creatures coming to life and a space ship taking off... just doesn't work. That really should have been played down a lot, lot more. Some sort of alien power source that activated and made a whole lot of ancient machinery come to life would have been more in keeping.

I really enjoyed the motorcycle chase, I like Shia, I think he does well with whatever he's given. I think Harrison is still excellent in the role, there were some great action pieces. It's just really annoying to see a film get so close... so close and miss out due to what feels like just not having one more person look over the script and say 'Hey guys... you're kinda missing a few key "Indy" things here... and a few of these scenes are really very hokey'

But yeah, not as bad as some would make it out to be.

I also point to "Temple Of Doom" where Indy and friends fall out of an airplane on an inflatable dingy... and live...right. The even number Indy movies are the bad ones.

He's saying his exposure to the more refined version of OOT, Twilight Princess (and to lesser degree other modern Zelda games) made OOT just seem outdated to him.

People who were first exposed to OOT can't understand this position, as probably a lot feel OOT is a better game and that Twilight was a good copy but not great, even though it fixed a lot of the smaller issues.

Also OOT felt a lot more epic when it was released, both due to the current gens age back then and also just because back then it was epic in comparison to the games around it. Now it feels positively small and if you're going from modern games, back to old games, without a nostalgic experience to blend the flaws of time, you don't quite "get it" and would rather play the modern versions.

As he highlights, the Water Temple has some enigma as being brutal but I just played through it last night and he is pretty much bang on, it was hard for kids. I only played OOT when it came out so I had remembered nothing, it was brutally easy, I was actually kind of sad, I was some what looking forward to the hellish experience I remembered.

As I play OOT 3DS, I still think "Wow this really is the best game ever" but he still has very valid points.
>> ^direpickle:

Wait. Is he saying that he liked it, or that he didn't? I'm totally confused.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)

Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.

If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.

I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.

Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.

Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.

>> ^Issykitty:

They have other things to drink there, I'm sure @ant. Chocolate milk, sodas, water, water with ice, water without ice, water with lemon, iced tea, orange juice, apple juice, tomato juice, lemonade, club soda, virgin fruit drinks, iced tea/ lemonades (also known as arnold palmers), cherry cokes, shirley temples...


"And then?" Yep, I just drink water with no ice since it's free and good for my body. I just can't drink too much or else I will pee. Funny, I just went to TGIF today for lunch with my old Christian friends.

They have other things to drink there, I'm sure @ant. Chocolate milk, sodas, water, water with ice, water without ice, water with lemon, iced tea, orange juice, apple juice, tomato juice, lemonade, club soda, virgin fruit drinks, iced tea/ lemonades (also known as arnold palmers), cherry cokes, shirley temples...

Save your worry for yourself, and anyone else who doesn't know the Lord. Satan has you. Socates was no different. By his own words he was demon possessed:

"There is something spiritual which, by a divine dispensation, has accompanied me from my childhood up. It is a voice that, when it occurs, always indicates to me a prohibition of something I may be about to do, but never urges me on to anything ; and if one of my friends consults me and the voice occurs, the same thing happens : it prohibits, and does not allow him to act. And I will produce witnesses to convince you of these facts."

Xenophon wrote of him:

"He offered sacrifices constantly, and made no secret of it, now in his home, now at the altars of the state temples, and he made use of divination with as little secrecy. Indeed it had become notorious that Socrates claimed to be guided by ‘the deity:’

Only, whereas most men say that the birds or the folk they meet dissuade or encourage them, Socrates said what he meant: for he said that the deity gave him a sign. Many of his companions were counselled by him to do this or not to do that in accordance with the warnings of the deity: and those who followed his advice prospered, and those who rejected it had cause for regret."

Satan is the ruler of this world and the elite people in this world got their power from him. They know where power comes from. That's why they all gather together every year at the bohemian grove to worship Molech (a demon God from antiquity) and offer sacrifices. Bill Clinton attends as well.

The wioked people who run this world know that Satan is the ruler, and so do we Christians. It's you secular humanists that are in the dark about reality. They've got you running around thinking you're so brilliant and superior, when in truth you are just like cattle being led to slaughter.

Research Bohemian Grove sometime and try to come up with a convincing lie as to why the worlds elite gather every year to worship Satan.

http://youtu.be/P_PAqT2JZOw


>> ^Gallowflak:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry, you're actually starting to worry me. Before, I just thought you were an over-earnest but obnoxious evangelical type who kept pounding away at the same nail to absolutely no effect, but if you're actually being serious about this, whatever intellectual credibility you may have had? Gone.
We are now deep within bat country. By Socrates' beard.

I think it would've been much better if at the end it just went to "No" and he ran back into the temple.

@geesusfreek

Love and justice are indeed pitted at each other. Are you saying a parent could toss their child into a pit of flame, out of love? I really fail to see any parallel with this to parenting. A large segment of parenting is about avoiding the temporary pains of this life. The final judgment is anything but that. It isn't like parenting, at all. It is about the end of your life, be it for heaven or hell. Nothing could be more final. There are no parenting situations that come to mind, stay, a parent being on the jury for their child. If you are saying that a parent could say they love their child while also sending them to hell, I don't think that is very loving. And then, surely, "Love never fails" is false. If it is false, then there isn't much power in love, and not much use in God claiming it conquers all, as it doesn't...because people are going to hell.

To me, talking about society isn't taking it up a notch from parenting, it is taking it down a notch. I care much less about random people than my friends and family. I could kill strangers much more easily than my family members...because I love my family. I most likely wouldn't be able to kill my mother if she turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, because I love her. However, God seems to be able to throw people into a lake of fire by the millions, perhaps billions, or if the earth goes on long enough, trillions. This is an unfathomable amount of suffering. If a loving being could do this, I wouldn't want to be loved by it.

Lets say you have a child who is a murderous psychopath and another child who is perfectly obedient. Lets say that whenever you get these two children together, the murderer tries to harm the other child and that child lives in continual terror and fear. What is more loving in this circumstance? To tolerate the unrepentant murderer and ruin the other childs life, or to cast the murderer out? You can give the murderer all the hugs in the world, it wouldn't necessarily change his behavior. Love is an act of will, it is not something you can force or program into someone. Unless the murderer wants to change, there isn't going to be any relationship with so ever, let alone trust, and you couldn't trust this murderer no matter how much you loved him.

It is more loving to protect the other child and cast the murderer out than to ruin everyone elses lives for someone who refuses to change. God could love that murderer, and does..it is precisely because people don't want Gods love that they choose spiritual seperation from Him. You limit God and act like He doesn't give people an honest choice..but you don't seem to understand how wicked people actually are. It's because they prefer their sins and choose to be seperated from God that they end up in hell. There isn't going to be anyone there going "you got the wrong guy!"

If peoples choices are binding God, he isn't a very powerful God, nor is he the God I read about in the bible. As I said, I was a 5 point Calvinist. Is God overriding Pharaoh suddenly blank from the bible now? I really disagree with the whole idea of libertarian free will. I don't think it exists, and moreover, the idea that humans who's condition is COMPLETELY based on need would have even the slightest measure of libertarian free will is preposterousness.

I completely disagree that love is a 2 way street. One of my favorite lines from Babylon 5 is, as this love sick fool lay dying, he murmured "All love is unrequited love!" Stating the dubious nature of love. That we seldom choose those who we love, but it doesn't matter how great the pain of them not returning it is, you still love them. Like I said, I don't care if my mother turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, I would love her still even though she is incapable of it. If God isn't as capable as I am to love zombies, then I don't want his love.

Then I also don't understand how all the sudden my sins are my responsibility, when the whole idea of Jesus is completely irresponsibility. As soon as you accept Jesus, the logical implications are irresponsibility. Only the damned are responsible and somehow that is supposed to be fair. Jesus died for everyone sins supposedly. He then must turn around and deny people access to salvation because they denied him. That is the same as me burring the pick axe in my mothers head as she comes for my brains. She didn't say she loved me, time to embed this in her cerebral cortex.

Again, love is an act of will. When someone tells you that they don't love you anymore it is because they choose not to. It's not because the feelings dried up, it is because their will is against it. God didn't create robots, otherwise He wouldn't care what people did. If they did anything wrong He would only have Himself to blame. In your example of the Pharoh, God knew the Pharohs heart. What God caused him to do was already in his heart.

The way you're seeing justice has to do with the law. Justice is only obtained through Christ. People are responsible for their sins only because they refuse to come to Christ to be forgiven. He offers them the choice and if they refuse then they have to face Gods judgement on their own merits. It's what they're choosing, not what God is denying.

The entire metaphysical aspect of the bibles justice is very illogical to me. How does one inherit imperfection? Why is it so that perfect can't come from imperfect. You are making a fallacy of quantificational logic, mainly, the Existential Fallacy, or, putting the cart before the horse. I have no reason to accept these arbitrary positions. They aren't logical, therefore, I am not required to accept them.

Then the other main problem. You can't call something that wasn't a sacrifice a sacrifice. If he can't be judged, then no amount of justice was done. If I bestowed all my crimes on someone with diplomatic immunity, I hardly would say justice is done, more like avoided. He was never going to hell, he was never dying for our sins, if the payment of sins is blood and there is no blood, where is the justice?

Original sin? Once again, holding people to account for things they had no part in is of the highest level of injustice. To say everyone has sinned because one person has sinned isn't logical, it isn't something that I have to agree to. I would have to be compelled to believe so, and there is no sufficient reason to do so, not from what I read anyway.

It's not suprising you don't understand because these truths are spiritually discerned. God is the source of perfection. He is the perfect one and always has been. The only way something could be perfect is if it always was perfect. If it was imperfect at any time, it could not meet the definition of perfect. So something which is imperfect could only ever create imperfection. When man sinned, He created imperfection and became spiritually seperated from God. From that time until judgement day, all of Creation is in an imperfect state until it is completely reconciled and entirely remade. That is what the judgement is all about. Sin will be plucked out like it never existed. Man will be remade in Gods perfection and be restored.

Jesus could have been judged, if He had sinned. Remember He was tempted of the devil to abandon his ministry. If He had failed, Gods plan would have failed and would have incurred Gods judgement and earned condemnation.

People are held accountable for their own sins. Adams sin is why creation is in the state its in. Our personal sin is what determines where we are going. It doesn't really matter what state creation is in when you are born. You have the same chance of spending eternity with God as Adam did. There is no injustice there at all.

Once again, how is what Jesus did in anyway logically connected to Adam. They were both men, ok, they both liked bacon, sure...but Jesus isn't Adam. Jesus was a God man, how is he even remotely similar in nature to be able to transfer sins onto. If that be the case, my computer...err actually, lets not use the computer. My Soda can has lead a sinless live, so to my cats...never mind they are the devil too, so to my dogs. I wish to transfer my sins on to them.

Ahh wait. I guess you said they needed to be perfect to fulfill the law . But wait, why? If you sin, are you sinning or me? If I am held to account for only my actions, how are the actions of Adam being grandfathered on to me, but not your's? Why do sins transfer sometimes and not others? Why does being perfect mean you get to abolish the law for everyone, then turn around and apply it back to them? If the law is "fulfilled in Jesus" how it is then being reapplied? Actually, the HOW isn't needed, the WHY is? Why would Jesus condemn people if he just did away with the law? Spite? Is Jesus unable to love those who don't submit to him? I love all sorts of strangers that never loved me back, am I greater than Jesus?

I also don't agree with the idea that "He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down". For instance; "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy" ... "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God". Did God love the Israelites as he defines love for us? It doesn't seem so. There are countless examples of him destroying Israel because they worshiped a goat or something to that effect. God's actions nearly always conflict with the nearly perfect wording of love in 1st corth. Only Jesus comes close to living up to this letter of love via some of his actions, but others, like storming the money changers, reeks men acting like men, not Gods acting out of love.

Adam enjoyed a perfection of relationship with God in the garden. So before the fall, their natures were similar. Jesus was also a man and was capable of sin.

Hebrew 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He also imputed His divinity into man to restore us to perfection.

Again, you're held accountable to your own sins..you have as much opportunity as Adam did. Jesus didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled it. It isn't being reapplied, it is still in place. Apart from Christ you are judged, but through Him we are declared not guilty. That is the fulcrum of justice in this world.

God never failed to love the israelites; indeed He corrects those that He loves. To say God wasn't patient or kind with the israelites would be a huge stretch of the imagination. Also, in regards to Jesus, He had every right to be angry at how His Fathers temple had been defiled. Do you consider anger in God as disqualifying Him from being loving? You can be angry at someone and still love them, can't you?

You are also arguing points of the bible to me that I don't hold to have actually existed. The book of Job being one of them. The story of Adam and Eve seems equally unlikely. Noah seems so hard to believe that I always just pretended those parts of the bible never existed when I was a Christian. They always haunted me, though. I can't honestly believe that a Guy got a large boat and packed up a billion animals without them all eating each other and shitting themselves into sickness for 40 days. Then I am supposed to believe, yet again, that the earth was repopulated by a genetically unstable amount of people.

To me, God was never real. I always wanted him to be real. Seeing so much injustice in the world made me want some person whom "makes it all right" appealing. But there is so much wrong done in the bible, under God's command no less, that I seems unlikely as a source of hope for me any longer. How many people did God ordered slaughtered in the old testament? I have seen the number placed, if you include things Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, and such, it is around 25 million. I haven't double check that, but it sounds like a good number to start with.

This all entirely your lack of faith. Again, these are your stumbling blocks. The reason you don't know God as being perfect, or are unable to see Gods character in the bible as being without flaw, is because your understanding of Him is imperfect. You said it yourself, to you He never even existed. You failed to follow the first order of having a relationship with God, which is faith. Without that, He will remain entirely outside of your understanding.

Written off God, no. Like I said, I hope not to be correct. Worthiness isn't even a question. I don't thing much of me, if you knew anything about me instead of calling me arrogant by implication. The truth is, you sound like a very young Christian. I don't mean that in a bad way, mind you. But the way you speak to me is like that of dogmatic conversation and less than thought provoking. There isn't a single word you have said that I haven't heard from a sermon somewhere, or even, one that I gave myself to others. Did I mention that I have pastored people? Did I mention that I once had a small group ministry that was very successful.

In closing, I think you are conversing AT me rather than WITH me. Or so it seems, from the rather dogmatic reply form this took. While I know as a Christian your answers must be based on some amount of bible, the bible hold very little authority over the way I think now. As such, trying to appeal to me with justifications that ONLY come from the bible, like original sin take a leap of faith, one that I have denounced. You expect me to use circular logic, which I will refuse to do anymore with myself. I did that for years already, I am not going to spend any more time on it.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this. I am resolved to drop the subject, unless you want to have the final word...but I most likely wont reply. I only expect us to chase our tails. With you quoting bible philosophy to me, and me saying that isn't the way it MUST be, I need convencing...and round and round we go. I don't want to say I have heard it all, because I surely haven't, but all the logic you just hit me with is stuff I have thought about, extensively, and yet still am where I am today. I don't make a lot of money, I don't have lots of possessions, but what I DO have is literally thought years of considering my religions positions. I don't take them lightly, and I didn't care for the slight, though understandable, tone change at the end of your statements; like I was just foolishly doing this with no consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not young, not getting younger, and have and will always be thinking on this subject.

Over and out...must get more beer!

You mzy have felt inclined to return my dismissal of your claims as being in any sense original, but my understanding of Gods truth is not dogmatic. Mostly, what I know about God is from special revelation..scriputre is the expansion and explanation of the revelation of the truth I have already received. Which is not to dismiss its importance..it is primary. It is just that I already understood Gods love before I came to scripture..and that is how I came to know it is the truth...because I see that same love poured out on every page. I am not troubled by a single part of it..though I will admit that some of it is hard to explain to an unbeliever.

Again, I will say that if you understood the bible then you would know faith is primary and wouldn't have dropped it because you hit a brick wall in your own understanding. We have Gods direct guidence through the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, and not one thing we need to know will be held back from us. If you had perservered, the apparent inconsistances would be resolved for you. Since you gave up, you are stuck in the same place and always will be until you repent of your unbelief and lay down your understanding before the Lord. "Not my will, but yours".

Btw I think the gist of this thread has become about how normal it is to be physically corralled and violently attacked by the state when you 'break the law'.

On one hand we've got people who think a swift blow to the temple is in order for walking on the grass (yes everyone likes nice lawns) while others think that even if you are an asshole for walking on the grass (whatever your motivation) violently subduing people is far worse and more damaging and should be done only when absolutely necessary to protect others or the functioning of the infrastructure of the state (and even then it's only a short-term self destructive 'solution').

A nation is like a marriage, it works if the people involved want it to work, and it fails disastrously if they don't. Try body slamming your wife because she didn't do what you told her and see how long the family stays together.

EDIT- not literally bareboards, opus. I TOLD YOU NO DANCING BITCH! *crunch*

lol..off the top of your head..now you're just full of shit..those are popular atheist talking points. pathetic. You utterly failed to prove your case; apparently the bible is historically accurate, and you admit this but only for the things you want to prove. like your contention about the freed slaves. It's obvious im arguing with a search engine, a dishonest, disingenuous search engine at that. you don't actually know anything about the bible, or history..what's been discredited here is your testimony. >> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate
Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?
In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html

Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate

Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?

In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?

>> ^shinyblurry:

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html



Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.

>> ^shinyblurry:



evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.