Paul Thibaudeau (
Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:32:05 GMT

Observe this discussion, if you will:

On 1 Dec 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:

> (Eric Kervina) wrote::
> >The "scientific community" you refer to, if it is the same one I am
> >thinking of, has never claimed to have all the answers. That is why we
> >often use big words like "hypotheses" and "theory" and seldom use small
> >words like "law". . .
> But when confronted with facts and evidence -- concerning the things
> that really matter, such as the origin and antiquity of man -- the
> small word that SHOULD be used is avoided like the plague.
> Until the arrival of the Internet, facts and evidence that seriously
> challenged established science's farfetched theories never really had
> a fighting chance.
> Please don't be offended, Eric. But, the way I see it, the only reason
> ``hypotheses" and ``theory" are bigger words than ``law" is because
> they contain more letters of the alphabet.
> >I do warn you that we do have strong evidence to support
> > the theory that mankind crossed a land bridge, and will require
> >similarily strong evidence to change our theory.
> I'm listening with guarded ear. What strong evidence? What facts?
> I'd honestly settle for one hard cold fact but, the truth is, the
> scientific community is simply unable to produce it. Therefore, its
> response, as always, will emerge from a quagmire of pseudo-science
> mumbo-jumbo.
> >The theory fits the known facts, and the known facts fit
> >the theory. If you can produce facts that invalidate the theory, we
> >will abandon it.
> Admittedly, NEITHER of us can produce undisputed, undeniable
> evidence, pro or con, on the issue of man's initial arrival in the
> Americas via the Bering Strait.
> So I guess we'll just have to let everyone make up their own mind by
> simply using good ol' Common Sense.
> What I find difficult is that this particular debate is raging in the
virtual complete absence of any dealing with sites, artifacts or the like.
Forget about whether a hypothesis is better than a theory, or if the
theory can be one hundred percent perfectly proved. Let's try to settle
this is a better way.
I've already tried to lay out some of the reasons why the Bering
Strait hypothesis is likely to be one of the major (though I do not
believe the only) means into North America. If you believe, Mr. Conrad,
that this is all a load of crap, then why don't explain why? And please
don't use your "can't survive in the cold" or "there's no evidence",
because just walk over to the library and start a bit of reading. DNA
analysis and dental analysis are becoming increasingly more solid as
useful evidence.
Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is. Your perception
of all science as being subterfuge and attempts to obscure the truth
sounds like a cheesy X-Files episode than the reality. Of course there
are grey areas, but by dismissing anyone's evidence as "biased" or
"inconclusive" before you really (and I mean really-not just an instant
reply) look at it, leaves you mired in self-referential tautological
answers. If you've made up your mind that everything is bogus, then
nothing I or the hundreds of other archaeologists can say will ever change
your mind. Please consider that.


> >