Wandaqueen is correct as to the spelling of "irrational" but most of the rest of W's
post cannot stand up to fair analysis.
AT http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/31859.shtml, Wandaqueen wrote:
Mike would profit from arguing from evidence rather than semantics. Claiming that yanniru is guilty of invasion is evidence of irrational thinking
"Profit" ? -- show me this profit please. It would be great to profit.. or was this just another meaningless use of words?!
1) What is the basis of Wandaqueen's statement about Mike? W does not quote fairly
the passage about Mike "Claiming that yanniru is guilty of invasion." Any particular reason? Not to save space ! -- not when you see the length of the quoted reference material! To be fair, I will include and answer all the words in that post that Wandaqueen actually wrote.
Yanniru Is Correct As To The Age Of Indian Civilization
It is well known by Indian scholars that what yanniru said about the age of the Indian culture is correct.
2) Citation please on that particular point. Have they actually heard what Y said about it? How did they become interested in his opinion? How long has this been going on?
However, the present thought of Indian scholars like Pak in the USA is that the Aryan invasion theory is incorrect.
3) Citation please on those particular points.
a) How many scholars are "like Pak" and in what ways are they like him?
b)What precisely is "the" Aryan invasion theory?
c) Is it a theory in the scientific sense, in that a strongly confirmed structure of data has been assembled into a sustained framework of knowledge?
d) Or should one refer to your topic as an hypothesis about Aryan invasions
e) -- and since there unquestionably are many versions of that hypothesis, many of which are at the "urban legend" level of information, which hypothesis is being refuted by Wandaqueen?
If anything, what are called Aryans originated in northern India and migrated to the west, according to Pak.
4) Who originated them and when did they oritginate?
a) What does "If anything" signify in this assertion?
What may have happened is that the tribes in northern India made contact with the southern tribes some 8000 plus years ago resulting in the flourishing of civilization in the Indus and Saravasti River basins.
b) "May have"? Those whose grand theories live in "may have" houses should not throw what W. calls "evidence of irrational thinking" stones.
c) If we carefully analyze the information we've just been provided, it appears the NEW, IMPROVED hypothesis is that "contact" is resulting in "flourishing."
It seems that the British promotes the Aryan invasion theory to support their colonization of India
Citation please...on second thought, the idea
is political, not scientific. It ignores what would be the refreshingly healing ideas of justice, biology and reverence for the now departed to instead advocate for an idea whose phrasing would support an "us versus them" paradigm. "It seems" is such a handy tool sometimes -- such as when what one is advocating is not science and not holy because neither coherent nor kind.