Bald rhetoric

Why is that when someone makes a statement and points to proof that is bald rhetoric to someone else who points to his proof and says their proof is incontrovertible evidence?

For two days now, I have been discussing the possibility that the universe just might have a consciousness. (it's an idea for a story) I have been blasted by many students of physics and one in particular has been hounding me by saying I'm giving him bald rhetoric instead of proof. I point him in the direction of the evidence that convinced me and he still maintains I am hitting him with bald rhetoric even while he admits that scientists have been wrong and continue to be split on the what makes up the universe and why it works. Sounds to me like mathematics with holes in the equations more like rhetoric than an Orientalist and historians deciphering of ancient documents that claim they knew more about the solar system than we currently do.

I'm sorry. I cannot get behind the theory that there are pyramidal structures all over the world because each separate race and culture developed pyramids at the same time, especially when archaeologists and historians show the diffusion of the different races of man spreading out from a single point in Africa but then stopped at the Atlantic Ocean because they couldn't get across even though they could build megalithic structures with multi-megaton blocks of finely dressed stone that they carved and shaped with stone and copper tools and fitted with a precision unparalleled even today. Yeah, you can build monoliths and transport dressed stones over vast distances, over mountain, rivers, and seas, but you can't sail across an ocean to a continent that you do not know is there. How stupid do you have to be to forget Occam's Razor? The simplest answer is usually the right one.

The ancients wrote about the planets in the solar system and knew about Pluto, which wasn't discovered until the 20th century, but they were making up stories. It's all mythology. That's some pretty spectacular fantasizing if they knew more ten thousand years before NASA began exploring with the Voyager probes in the 1970s. But that's all allegory and conjecture. That's bald rhetoric. That's not proof.

What do these people want, blood?

The Olmecs carved massive statues, which they brought from over 80 kms away, that clearly show Asian and African faces. So, because I have been told my logic sucks, I have a logical progression for you.

If all life began in the Rift Valley in Africa, and all races developed from that original race, and all races moved outward from that point (we'll forget about Noah for now because he's myth at this point despite the evidence of a world wide flood and the existence of people after the flood, not to mention the countless flood stories in every single culture on earth), it is impossible that anyone could have migrated from Africa to the Americas and diffused their culture throughout the American continents. The Olmec statues are anomalies, fantasies dreamed up in the fertile brains of the ancients and not portraits of themselves and the people who lived in the Americas. The people in the Americas migrated over the land bridge between Russia and Alaska and diffused outward from there a relatively short time ago (even though their megalithic structures (that's really, really big stone buildings) date to the same time as similar structures in the "known" world, and the supposed migration happened much later, but they didn't bring their culture with them or their architects, builders, religion, etc. Those were all left behind and they created their civilizations without any pre-conceived notions, abilities, or techniques and decided a pyramidal structure was the most stable because they saw it in nature all around them, and even though they built most of their structures in more rectancular and square cubic shapes, and even though they all used the pyramidal structures as religious centers (and tombs) and for viewing and measuring the heavens.

Of course that doesn't explain why the oldest civilizations in the Americas show up along the coastlines and move inward and not the other way around. The ancients would never have even considered passing up all the fertile land along their route because, after all, the seaside was so much better for their health. The ancients weren't capable of navigating the Atlantic Ocean and landing on the seashores and moving inward as their colonies progressed and prospered. That just does not make good common sense because historians and archaeologists say it doesn't make good common sense. Remember Occam's Razor?

Scientists can calculate pi to the Nth degree, but they can't see what's right in front of their faces. Give it up, folks. The truth is right in front of you and Occam told you how to recognize it . . . it's the simplest answer.

How can historians and scientists take the numerous tablets that listed legal documents, food stores, and Hammurabi's Code of laws at face value and completely deny the veracity of their astronomical, historical, and religious documents, even to the point of calling the Sumerians' religion mere allegory, fantasy, and mythology? There's Occam's Razor again.

Scientists, historians, and mathematicians, you cannot use Occam's Razor to prove your pet theories and deny what you don't agree with in the same breath using the same standard. As I've written before, Occam's Razor cuts both ways.

Open your eyes. The truth is out there.

I'll shut up now.