Ed Conrad (
1 Dec 1996 04:57:23 GMT (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

>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.