[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> August Matthusen (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> : > The best parts for a layman are the photographs. Yes, this is the
> : > "Smoking Gun", no doubt about it... The stone carvings are
> : > _extremely intricate_ and realistic -- and well preserved. No
> : > mistake about it. Every little grain of corn is portrayed
> : > painstakingly. _Little doubt_ can remain that corn was definitely in
> : > India very early on!
> : Hmm, from this we can deduce several working hypotheses:
> : India was settled in the 12th and 13th century by migratory
> : peoples from the Americas, India was settled in the 12th and
> : 13th century by migratory ears of corn from the Americas, India was
> : was settled in the 12th and 13th century by migratory Redenbockers,
> : or India was settled in the in the 12th and 13th century by clever
> : pieces of rock sculpted to resemble maize.
> Well, here they go again...
> These fellows don't even wait until the whole argument is presented.
Whose fault is that? Why don't you present it all at once? Do
you think that presenting partial arguments adds to your case or
are you just trolling so you can throw out claims of persecution?
> bother to look at the evidence when you can already begin to demonstrate
> your amazing sense of humour? They don't have their usual excuses now
> about the evidence being incomplete, unverified, unscientific, etc. This
> is solid peer-reviewed stuff that I'm presenting... So what do they have
> to throw at this research? The usual: innuendo, cheap sarcasm, ad
> hominems, ex silentio arguments, demands for "more proof" (as if any
> proof would be enough for those whose minds have been made up long time
Please demonstrate where I did any of the following: "innuendo,
cheap sarcasm, ad hominems, ex silentio arguments, demands for
"more proof" (as if any proof would be enough for those whose
minds have been made up long time ago)." What I did would be
more properly be called argumentum ad absurdum.
While you're at it, please explain what you mean by "proof".
I notice you snipped the material which pointed out several
problems and requested additional information without without
Yuri, it's amazing what you *don't* specify. How many minute items
of difference (!!) did they isolate? Did they even look for
differences? Were statistical evaluations (like cluster analysis)
performed to assess the similarities between the sculptures and
real maize? How many of these scuptures are there? How many
rows of kernals? Which type of maize do they resemble? Size of
ears and grains? And especially, how were they dated?
> Certainly expecting to persuade these people of anything would be the
> heights of naivete.
Nope, just try using the scientific method instead of
the pseudo-scientific method.
> I have no such ambitions. The Superman is not me. I
> simply provide information for interested individuals to peruse. I will
> post the rest of this Indian maize material, and see the show unfold. For
> me, the big question is over and done with. Now I'm basically sure that
> maize was in India a long time ago.
Then I'm sure you'll have *no* problem at all testing this belief
and finding maize grain and/or pollen in the stratigraphic record.