Re: Literalism (was Re: Kuzari Proof Discussion)

>That link (like the others) says nothing about how "archaeology" derives its
>estimates. Don't you remember that in school answering a maths question
>without showing the calculations earned you no marks? Well this is the same,
>asserting a population figure and expecting it to be accepted without being
>able to explain how it is derived, gets you nowhere.
Take a course in archaeology.  I can't explain all of archaeology to
you over email.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Literalism (was Re: Kuzari Proof Discussion)
    ... Don't you remember that in school answering a maths question ... without showing the calculations earned you no marks? ... Take a course in archaeology. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: "People first lived in Britain about 700,000 years ago" ?
    ... Archaeology is literally, in its broadest sense, construction, not bones. ... remember seeing maps showing the progression of "people" out of Africa which began at the very latest something like 100,000 years ago, and showing how over time the earth became populated. ... am no expert on this topic and I can only vaguely perceive any simple rules governing lineages of "people" such as the DRAHESapiens. ... scientifically why the subject statement is impossible, and I am confused why I can be reading it all over from reputable sources. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Rao, Osborn, and Frawley
    ... Your bragging does nothing but cement my opinion of ... I'm not looking for an out, graceful or otherwise. ... that you understand anything about archaeology. ... you go first by showing you are worthy to have a conversation ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading