I wouldn't have down voted you. You stated Hancock's position and your post should have been treated as a point of debate. But I agree that Hancock's arguments are pretty much refuted. Occams's Razor -- the archaeological evidence, which seems to be mounting in many different sudies, trumps any vague theories about comets.
But hell, this is science. Come up with enough evidence to the contrary and it will be backed. But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present.
precisely why i find hancock's model more compelling. it better fits occam's razor. if you look at the models in more detail, the bugs become obvious
> trumps any vague theories about comets
the evidence is mounting & more attention is being paid. like software, social,geological,archaeological,etc models are a developed system. studies are being conducted that show things like a layer of nanodiamonds across "50 million square kilometers across the Northern Hemisphere at the Younger Dryas boundary".
here are some models that were once "vague", "woo", "controversial"
the earth being 4.5 billion years old, plate tetonics, the earth orbiting the sun.
> But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present
funny how all sides declare victory with their "evidence" ;-)
note the "absence of a crater" is explained by the comet impacting the ice cap (a thick layer of ice) during the younger dryas period. seems worthy of consideration...
i encourage you to look into the methodology of radio carbon dating & other technologies; also look into the advantages/disadvantages of each technology...
But hell, this is science. Come up with enough evidence to the contrary and it will be backed. But the archaeological evidence is looking pretty good at present.