(urth) The problem of Cthulhu

[brunians at brunians.org]

>> On the other hand:

> So when a study disagrees with your theory, it's because the archaeologist
> is a bumbling idiot who's no match for a meticulous researcher like Plato,
> but when it agrees with your theory, it's taken as gospel?

I wouldn't say gospel. Gospel is revealed and unquestionable (by the
theory, anyway).

I'd say that if it agrees with my theory I'm more willing to look on it
favorably. Of course it helps that the people over on that side of the
argument have been arguing among themselves over which version of their
story is the correct one (the un-Eving and re-Eving of African Eve that
has been referred to previously).

I've looked into it extensively and I am comfortable with the position I
have chosen.

> I'm quite open to the idea that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans.
> I just don't like your ongoing caricature of the opposing position.

You're allowed. There's probably stuff about you I wouldn't like.



.