Creighton,

You do realise that you’ve replied to you own post here?

In that context, your remarks are apposite.

Why would I talk evidence with someone who’s yet to give one serious thought to what evidence is — to what is and what is not a reasonable demand for evidence?

You’re engaged here in rhetoric, not reason, as you have been from the start.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Ring any bells? Justificatory regress: heard of it?

Those who’ve been through what some of our readers would call Epistemology 101 know (if they know anything) that we can not establish beyond any imaginable doubt that things are real (or “genuine”). Raise the bar high enough and knowledge ends.

Apply your principle consistently, across the board, and it’s not just knowledge which ends, it’s life. You’d end up one of those people who refuse to eat, through never being satisfied that the food is not poisoned.

Not reasonable.

Recast the problem. The marks exist: this is agreed. There are various theories of how they came to be there. Our task is to decide which (if any) of these theories merits our credence.

It really is up to you to show that prima facie ancient Egyptian inscriptions are not what they appear to be: inscriptions written by ancient Egyptians. The simpler, more economical theory takes priority.

It really is up to you to show that your weird, convoluted conspiracy theory of their origin has any credibility at all.

Burden of proof remains where it always has been: with the weird, way-out woo-woo claim: yours.

M.