Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

Rick,

>>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti wrote:

>>>>> I am not interested in having a one-to-one debate with
>>>>> this correspondent, whose ideas are more a matter of
>>>>> religious faith inextricably entwined with religion-based
>>>>> nationaliem than of scolarship and/or science.

>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com shivkhokra wrote:
>>>> This is atrocious mis-representation Francesco:

>>>--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@ > wrote:
>>> If his statement were based only on what you've posted to
>>> Cybalist, it might be a bit premature. It appears, however,
>>> that Francesco has had a good deal of interaction with you
>>> elsewhere as well. And even what we've seen here certainly
>>> does not suggest that his judgement is wrong.


>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com shivkhokra wrote:
>> Ok. Then please point out what:
>>
>> a) religious faith have I propounded?
>> b) religious nationalism have I shown?
>> c) what science have I not believed?


>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> You have confused genetics with linguistics many times,

Can you please give an example of this?

> You put Hindu mythology over facts.

No. Francesco quoted Hindu mythology texts to support his thesis of foreigners marrying with Indians. I merely pointed out that if we are using these sanskrit texts then we have to use all references of yavans in such texts and then decide what the text is trying to say. We cannot just grab the word Yavan from MbH, without the context it occurs in, and say it stands for greeks when MbH itself says these yavans were an indic people from Assam.

If it is ok for Francesco to quote Sanskrit texts to support his theory why can't I rebut him using the same sources? Since I am doing this how am I putting mythology over facts?

> You refuse to even consider any point of view other than your own.
>

AFAIK I have posted on three points in this group so far:

a) Genetic data is not showing foreign influx on indian genes because their were practically no social ties between these two groups.

Scientific data from various labs across the world are echoing the above. FB thought science was wrong. I merely asked him for evidence. He pointed out Sanskrit texts and I pointed out a flaw in his argument.

b) Agni's description in Veda is what perhaps led to the starting of Hephaestus myth amongst Greeks as this Greek God's theonym is obscure in Greek.

c) There is presence of re-incarnation in Rg Veda. I have pointed out the verses and their English translations.

So please tell me how can this be labelled as not considering any POV other then my own? I am still waiting for evidence from FB on a) so that we can analyze it.

Regards,
Shivraj