[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Atawallpa was no chicken (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))

PMV100 (pmv100@aol.com) wrote:
: >Greg,Lots of things are there in the ground that have not yet been found.
: >Arguments by omission are not valid. 

: Yuri, this just isn't going to fly.  Some people claim extraterrestrials
: visited the Maya, to such people I say where is the evidence (ie.
: extraterrestrial skeletons, spaceships, etc.).  I say that no excavation
: has ever found such remains.  Following your train of logic they can
: counter with - "well maybe you haven't found them yet."  How can anyone
: argue with that?

This is _reductio ad absurdum_, a well known rhetorical technique.
Nothing more needs to be said about such cheap shots...

: Sure you can always use the old "the absence of evidence isn't necessarily
: the evidence of absence" argument, but that looks more and more pathetic
: in the case of the chicken. 

Well, I think your denial of evidence is pathetic.

: We find and identify ancient people's food 
: and animals all the time, but we haven't found any Precolumbian chicken
: bones in South America.  Without such direct archaeological evidence
: Carter's argument will remain weak to non-existant in the eyes of any
: archaeologist.

I will post a file for you next from the basic introduction to
archaeology that you obviously need to read.

        ...

: Carter can make some linguistic
: pro-chicken arguments (which can be rebuted by linguists) but he's stuck 
: with the one big con-chicken argument - no archaeological support.

This is another cheap shot, and obvious twisting and denial of evidence.
I said it before, and I don't have time to repeat it again: he has MUCH
MORE than linguistinc evidence.

: >_This_ would be the most valid and useful information for
: >archaeologists to investigate further, if this discussion is to
: >accomplish anything of substance. This is the direction to go if more
: >progress is to be made towards finding those bones.

: Given the vagaries of the archaeological record, it would be utterly
: stupid to design a project simply to find chicken bones. 

This is clearly self-contradictory. First you spend all this time to
refute this argument (mostly relying on propagandistic techniques and
demagoguery), and then you claim it's not important to look for these
chicken bones!

: If you
: didn't find such remains you will have accomplished nothing.  
: Archaeologists don't design projects to find just one species of animal,
: but when we recover animal remains we try to identify what we have
: found.  Thousands upon thousands of animal bones have been recovered
: from Precolumbian archaeological sites - yet no one reports finding
: a Precolumbian chicken bone.

Argumentum ex silentio.

: >Also, lots of things are found but not reported for various reasons. Are
: >you going to tell me that archaeologists ALWAYS are quick to publish
: >their excavation reports? And that all important evidence is ALWAYS
: >reported and published?

: Maybe not everything gets written up, but certainly a Precolumbian 
: chicken bone would be published pretty quickly. 

More propaganda and demagoguery. I refuted this before. I gave an example
of _extremely important_ evidence about the very early Amazonian pottery
"disappearing" for nearly 20 years. Clearly, Peter only wishes to waste
my time by rehashing arguments based on appeal to emotion. 
"Archaeologists can never do such a thing because it can never happen,
and because they are generally nice people who can never do such things,
or fail to do some other things." Pathetic? Yes, just more cheap
propaganda. 

I wonder why do I reply at all to such illogicality as Peter provides ad
infinitum? Hardly worth the time...

: Unless of course
: you want to claim that for some unfathomable reason archaeologists
: are trying to cover it up. 

Cheap innuendo.

: >Anyway, all these arguments are pretty basic. The main argument pro
: >precolumbian chickens for me remains, Why would the chicken have arrived
: >EVERYWHERE in the Pacific, including the Easter Island -- but failed to
: >cross the last stretch of the ocean? You got the answer for this?

: Sure I got an answer for you - but you won't like it.  If the Chicken
: arrived all over the Pacific but not in South America its because
: no one brought them over until the 16th century.

A no answer answer. Demagoguery. Did I say this word before?

: The same question can be asked of Carter.  He says the chicken had
: arrived in South America but never got to Mexico, why not?

Now he asks one valid question where some suggestions may be considered,
but after all the flim-flam above, who cares about engaging in a dialogue
with someone who has obviously made up his mind to disregard reality as
far as possible...

Yuri.
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
 
We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola
Follow-Ups: References: