Ancient "non-utilitarian" metal bow found in Arabian Peninsula

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Gervin said:

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of experts in each of the fields listed. The challenge of the LDS member who believes in Hebraic or Egyptian influences in the New World is to make a cogent and credible argument.  It hasn't been done.  Not because there are no cross-disciplined experts, but because LDS aren't able to make their claim to an audience who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon.  Exhibit A is Robert Smith's "references", above: himself, unpublished talks and papers from 25 years ago, residing in folders in a university archive, and one book published last October that (based on a quick internet search) seems to have generated zero interest or commentary.  Who honestly believe this represents "cutting edge" linguistic research? 

I'm back to my original (unanswered) question: Is it unreasonable to expect that a writing system that existed for one thousand years would leave behind some evidence of its existence? 

Sure, if the evidence conflicts with your a priori views, then by all means automatically reject it.  Don't bother reading about them. That's how science is done, isn't it!  Isn't it?  And that can lead to all manner of paradigm shifts.  Remember and beware of the mistake of that atheist Oxford professor C. S. Lewis.  He took the risk of reading Christian literature ("subversive literature"), and it made a great man of him -- so don't take the risk of reading subversive Mormon lit.  Something untoward might happen to you, Gervin.  You might even be surprised by joy.

As to the number of experts in the listed fields, there are very few.  And a handful in most cases (as for Uto-Aztecan).

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sure, if the evidence conflicts with your a priori views, then by all means automatically reject it.  Don't bother reading about them. That's how science is done, isn't it!  Isn't it?  And that can lead to all manner of paradigm shifts.  

I've yet to find a Book of Mormon scholar willing to take an honest look at the Malay model, probably for the same reasons. There is plenty of supporting evidence that is automatically rejected because Austronesia is not within the accepted paradigm. Even though we know that Austronesians/Polynesians are, in fact, Lamanites.

Here are a few studies related to possible origins of Mayan languages:

The origin of Mayan languages from Formosan language group of Austronesian
Verb-Initial Word Orders (Primarily in Austronesian and Mayan Languages)

And a possible link between Austronesian and semitic languages:

Hamito-Semitic_and_Austronesian_Language_Families_Obvious_Genetic_Relatedness

Open mind. Shift those paradigms.

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Gervin]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sure, if the evidence conflicts with your a priori views, then by all means automatically reject it.

You can't find a credible non-LDS linguist to agree with your position - so taking me to task for not reading unpublished papers or faith-promoting materials rings hollow.  As does your lecturing.  Your particular a priori view - that the Book of Mormon is true - is certainly more limiting than mine; at least I'm smart enough to process information and change my mind when confronted with cogent opposing points of view or differing positions that have been logically posited. 

 Is it unreasonable to expect that a writing system that existed for one thousand years would leave behind some evidence of its existence? 

[cdowis]

17 hours ago, Gervin said:

  I'm back to my original (unanswered) question: Is it unreasonable to expect that a writing system that existed for one thousand years would leave behind some evidence of its existence? 

Here is your answer ==>>>>>>>

1. You are apparently unaware of the fact that the Spanish destroyed virtually all of the written records of the Maya.  Only four of them are extant.
Sooooooo...... YES it is unreasonable for those who have an open mind and are in possession of the historical facts.  For those who are enemies of the Book of Mormon, none of that really matters, does it.

2. It is clear for those who are familiar with the text of the Book of Mormon that Egyptian and Hebrew were not the vernacular.  Indeed it says that no one knows their language, which is exactly what we find.  Sooooooooooooooo.... over the thousand years, there may only be ONE specific set of records using that particular writing system and they are unavailable for examination.

Hope that helps.

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by cdowis

[Gervin]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Are you going to answer my question -- how many are there?  No one is claiming that there are absolutely none.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of linguists and specialists in Semitic, Egyptian, and mesoamerican writing and language.  If an LDS apologist ever wanted to test their hypothesis or a claim for these influences in Mesoamerica then all they need to do is reach out to the scholars in their respective fields.  People like these http://nes.berkeley.edu/faculty.html and these https://www.peabody.harvard.edu/about/staff

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

YES it is unreasonable for those who have an open mind and are in possession of the historical facts.

I disagree.  There's no evidence to show that a writing system that is taught, practiced, and handed down for 1000 years would not leave a trace of its existence.  The Mayan are a great example; we have examples of their writing system.

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

For those who are enemies of the Book of Mormon, none of that really matters, does it.

Is everyone who opposes your point of view an enemy of the Book of Mormon? Please explain.

 

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

over the thousand years, there may only be ONE specific set of records using that particular writing system and they are unavailable for examination.

yes.  how convenient.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Gervin said:

You can't find a credible non-LDS linguist to agree with your position - so taking me to task for not reading unpublished papers or faith-promoting materials rings hollow.  As does your lecturing.

Of course it does.  But then you wouldn't know where to look to find a non-LDS expert in linguistics, some of whom I cited in my paper, and others of whom are cited by Brian Stubbs.  By not reading the evidence you guarantee that you won't know who they are, and thus shield yourself from the unpleasant facts indicating you are completely wrong in your automatic assumptions.

  Your particular a priori view - that the Book of Mormon is true - is certainly more limiting than mine; at least I'm smart enough to process information and change my mind when confronted with cogent opposing points of view or differing positions that have been logically posited. 

I don't see how any of that could possibly be true since you have never shown any interest in or understanding of logic, science, or the scientific method.

 Is it unreasonable to expect that a writing system that existed for one thousand years would leave behind some evidence of its existence? 

Not at all unreasonable, which is why I made the evidence available to you -- resulting in knee-jerk rejection without reading it.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've yet to find a Book of Mormon scholar willing to take an honest look at the Malay model, probably for the same reasons. There is plenty of supporting evidence that is automatically rejected because Austronesia is not within the accepted paradigm. Even though we know that Austronesians/Polynesians are, in fact, Lamanites.

Here are a few studies related to possible origins of Mayan languages:

The origin of Mayan languages from Formosan language group of Austronesian
Verb-Initial Word Orders (Primarily in Austronesian and Mayan Languages)

And a possible link between Austronesian and semitic languages:

Hamito-Semitic_and_Austronesian_Language_Families_Obvious_Genetic_Relatedness

Open mind. Shift those paradigms.

Thanks for those, Rajah.  They appear to be all non-Mormon scholars:

Koji Ohnishi, “The origin of Mayan languages from Formosan language group of Austronesian,” Proc. of the 145th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Soc. of Japan, Fukuoka, Nov.24-25, 2012, online at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.5321.pdf .

Lauren Eby Clemens and Maria Polinsky, “Verb-Initial Word Orders (Primarily in Austronesian and Mayan Languages),” Feb 13, 2014, forthcoming in The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edition (Blackwell,  ), online at http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mpolinsky/files/v1_syncom.pdf?m=1392310590  .

El Rabih Makki, “Hamito-Semitic and Austronesian Language Families: Obvious Genetic Relatedness,” Academia.edu, (Beirut: Bissan, 2014), online at http://www.academia.edu/8836100/Hamito-Semitic_and_Austronesian_Language_Families_Obvious_Genetic_Relatedness  .
 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks for those, Rajah.  They appear to be all non-Mormon scholars:

I didn't bother to check their religious affiliation. What importance would that have to the scientific method? My interest is in the possible link between Semitic languages and Mayan languages. 

Hamito-Semitic --> Austronesian --> Mayan

Did you read the papers?

Edited March 24, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I didn't bother to check their religious affiliation. What importance would that have to the scientific method? My interest is in the possible link between Semitic languages and Mayan languages. 

Hamito-Semitic --> Austronesian --> Mayan

Did you read the papers?

No, not yet.  My only reason for noting the non-Mormon origin of these sources is that many anti-Mormons cannot imagine a non-Mormon ever agreeing with a Mormon.  It is part of their anti-scientific fairy faith.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, not yet.  My only reason for noting the non-Mormon origin of these sources is that many anti-Mormons cannot imagine a non-Mormon ever agreeing with a Mormon.  It is part of their anti-scientific fairy faith.

Ah, very true. Its a problem that cuts both ways though. Academics often go out of their way to not appear to agree with Mormons and other diffusionists. 

(edited post that had drifted off topic)

Edited March 24, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Gervin]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

By not reading the evidence you guarantee that you won't know who they are

I read the links you provided for yourself and Stubbs.  I didn't read the Mary LeCron Foster items that are unpublished and residing in archives.  Here's a fair scientific question:  if Ms. Foster presents such a compelling argument for Book of Mormon linguistic influences in the New World, why aren't you or some like believer providing excerpts or re-publication of her findings?  My guess is that it's easier for you to present her 5 references (out of the 8 you provided) and claim victory than actually putting forth her arguments for scrutiny. 

But I digress.  You obviously consider yourself an expert in the field since you cite yourself.  I read your paper.  Apart from passages that made me laugh ("... the late Prof. H. J. Polotsky, the greatest living Hamito-Semitic (= Afro-Asiatic) linguistics expert...") I couldn't make any sense of it.  I consider myself to be of average intelligence, but passages such as this

"The closest lexical and structural correlations may eventually have a hand in determining the most likely source (or sources) for Sawi-Zaa. Compare, for example, the Zapotec pronominal suffix -I for the 3rd person singular, masculine and feminine! Such a suffix does appear in Arabic, and in Hebrew (though rarely – it is archaic and appears only about 90 times, in poetic passages, whereas in Ugaritic it is a normal characteristic of prose). It is common usage in the Phoenician dialect of Sidon, as distinct from that of Byblos.9 One need hardly point out the significance of this for Book of Mormon studies."

are obviously meant for an academic or scholarly audience.  One does hardly need to point out the significance.  So, my question, based on a desire to understand your claims of "significance" is this: which of the non-LDS experts you are fond of citing has reviewed - at your request - your findings or claims?  If none, why or why or why not?  Certainly your strong belief in scientific methodology would not allow you to publish a paper and cite it as authoritative based on zero input from the academic community.

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see how any of that could possibly be true since you have never shown any interest in or understanding of logic, science, or the scientific method.

You're quite the prig, as others have pointed out much to your obliviousness.

 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My only reason for noting the non-Mormon origin of these sources is that many anti-Mormons cannot imagine a non-Mormon ever agreeing with a Mormon. It is part of their anti-scientific fairy faith.

Let's do a "fairy faith" test: which non-Mormons on your list believe that the New World was populated by Hebrews using a form of Egyptian writing? 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

I read the links you provided for yourself and Stubbs.  I didn't read the Mary LeCron Foster items that are unpublished and residing in archives.  Here's a fair scientific question:  if Ms. Foster presents such a compelling argument for Book of Mormon linguistic influences in the New World, why aren't you or some like believer providing excerpts or re-publication of her findings?  My guess is that it's easier for you to present her 5 references (out of the 8 you provided) and claim victory than actually putting forth her arguments for scrutiny. 

I only recently received notice that her papers have been catalogued at the Bancroft Library at U.C. Berkeley, where she was professor of antroplogy, specializing in linguistics.  I have read none of them.  She was highly regarded in her field.

As to claiming victory, that is the sort of thing done by yokels, not academics -- who do not see their work as competitive.  It is not part of the scientific method.

But I digress.  You obviously consider yourself an expert in the field since you cite yourself.  I read your paper.  Apart from passages that made me laugh ("... the late Prof. H. J. Polotsky, the greatest living Hamito-Semitic (= Afro-Asiatic) linguistics expert...") I couldn't make any sense of it.

This was the view of the late Prof William F. Albright, which I was merely passing on to others.  At the time I wrote those words, Prof Polotsky (under whom I studied briefly at the Hebrew Univ in Jerusalem)  was still alive.  I have no idea why you would laugh at such a great man.

  I consider myself to be of average intelligence, but passages such as this

"The closest lexical and structural correlations may eventually have a hand in determining the most likely source (or sources) for Sawi-Zaa. Compare, for example, the Zapotec pronominal suffix -I for the 3rd person singular, masculine and feminine! Such a suffix does appear in Arabic, and in Hebrew (though rarely – it is archaic and appears only about 90 times, in poetic passages, whereas in Ugaritic it is a normal characteristic of prose). It is common usage in the Phoenician dialect of Sidon, as distinct from that of Byblos.9 One need hardly point out the significance of this for Book of Mormon studies."

are obviously meant for an academic or scholarly audience.  One does hardly need to point out the significance.  So, my question, based on a desire to understand your claims of "significance" is this: which of the non-LDS experts you are fond of citing has reviewed - at your request - your findings or claims?  If none, why or why or why not?  Certainly your strong belief in scientific methodology would not allow you to publish a paper and cite it as authoritative based on zero input from the academic community.

Had you bothered to read my paper, you would have found that the research upon which it was based began under the direction of Prof Morris Swadesh back in the early 1960s (at INAH and UNAM in Mexico City).  Swadesh, a non-Mormon (he was a Jew), was one of the two or three most important experts in linguistics in the world.  He had a couple of his non-Mormon students (including Pierre Agrinier Bach) compare Semitic languages to a group of related languages from Oaxaca State, which he called "Sawi-Zaa."  They found very persuasive sets of cognates and grammar in common with Hebrew and Arabic.  Based on the resulting "Agrinier Memorandum," I merely extended the conclusions to include ancient Egyptian.  In other words, you are automatically rejecting the work of a great, world-renowned Jewish expert in linguistics (Swadesh), and that of his students.  On what basis?  Ignorance.

You're quite the prig, as others have pointed out much to your obliviousness.

For you the scientific method is based on name-calling.  Because you do not understand science or scholarship, you become angry and toss around insults.  However, truly meaningful insults are at least based on fact.

Let's do a "fairy faith" test: which non-Mormons on your list believe that the New World was populated by Hebrews using a form of Egyptian writing? 

I know of no one who claims that "the New World was populated by Hebrews using a form of Egyptian writing."  The New World was populated by a diversity of peoples from a variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds.  The Book of Mormon claims that one small group included a scribal elite which used both Egyptian and Hebrew.  Is there any evidence for the presence of those languages in the New World in ancient times?  Yes, indeed.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Based on the resulting "Agrinier Memorandum," I merely extended the conclusions to include ancient Egyptian.  In other words, you are automatically rejecting the work of a great, world-renowned Jewish expert in linguistics (Swadesh), and that of his students. 

What conclusions are you referring to?

On what basis are you qualified to extend the "conclusions" to include "ancient Egyptian?"

How is rejecting your paper rejecting the work of Swadesh?  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

What conclusions are you referring to?

On what basis are you qualified to extend the "conclusions" to include "ancient Egyptian?"

How is rejecting your paper rejecting the work of Swadesh? 

Since you didn't bother to read the paper, you bad-mouthed it, not realizing that in doing so you had bad-mouthed non-Mormon linguistic experts who were responsible for the initial conclusions and basic work.  All I did was add the Egyptian and a few additional observations.  You were so busy bad-mouthing that you failed to read the text.  Overcome your prejudices and read text for what it says, not for who wrote it.  Of course, if you continue to reject science, that may be very hard for you to do.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

On what basis are you qualified to extend the "conclusions" to include "ancient Egyptian?"

Its not linguistics, but I did read a paper yesterday that accepts the possibility of contact between Egyptian and Mayan civilizations. Although their conclusions are based on peer-reviewed genetic research, I'd think that the requirement to remain open to possibilities would extend to linguistics.

"In addition, the peopling of America sequence may have been more complicated than previously thought: it seems that Caucasoids, Blacks and Mongoloids from China-Mongolia (but not from Siberia) are found to have been in America or the Middle Atlantic (Azores) before Columbus. The possible African and European contacts with Amerindians before Columbus (1492 AD) may not be genetically important; however, the existence of these contacts would help to explain similarities between ancient Egyptian and Mayan-Peruvian civilizations." (source)

As they point out, and many other published authors have pointed out, there is so little that is known about the peopling of the Americas. I suspect over the next decade there will be many unexpected findings. Most likely these discoveries will confirm that the New World was populated by Austronesians and East Asians across the Pacific. 

So I do understand your frustration. With heaps of research pointing to trans-oceanic contact before Columbus most apologists continue to ignore the groups actually making the contact. Data is used to support their a priori assumption that Hebrews sailed around the world rather than trying to connect the dots and build a model that makes sense. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Gervin]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since you didn't bother to read the paper, you bad-mouthed it, not realizing that in doing so you had bad-mouthed non-Mormon linguistic experts who were responsible for the initial conclusions and basic work.  All I did was add the Egyptian and a few additional observations.  You were so busy bad-mouthing that you failed to read the text.  Overcome your prejudices and read text for what it says, not for who wrote it.  Of course, if you continue to reject science, that may be very hard for you to do.

You can't give me the name of anyone who has peer-reviewed your paper or who agrees with your position.  You admit that you haven't read the papers you cite as evidence for your position.  You can't explain why you are qualified to add Egyptian to a dead professors memo.  Your MO is to demean and chastise from a position that lacks any credibility.  You're a bit of a joke in my estimation.  Highly esteemed among fellow-believers and unknown and inconsequential away from any Mormon forum.  Thanks for making clear what I suspected.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Gervin

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

You can't give me the name of anyone who has peer-reviewed your paper or who agrees with your position.  You admit that you haven't read the papers you cite as evidence for your position.  You can't explain why you are qualified to add Egyptian to a dead professors memo.  Your MO is to demean and chastise from a position that lacks any credibility.  You're a bit of a joke in my estimation.  Highly esteemed among fellow-believers and unknown and inconsequential away from any Mormon forum.  Thanks for making clear what I suspected.

You made a false claim, and I responded with a plethora of Mormon  and non-Mormon evidence from linguistic experts.  You have responded with fear and loathing, which is natural for someone caught with his pants down.  Instead of dealing with the substantive issues, you attempt to deflect through contemptuous misstatements.  When will you ever deal with the issues themselves in any direct way, Gervin?  Based on your past anti-scientific rants, probably never.

[Gervin]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You made a false claim, and I responded with a plethora of Mormon  and non-Mormon evidence from linguistic experts.  You have responded with fear and loathing, which is natural for someone caught with his pants down.  Instead of dealing with the substantive issues, you attempt to deflect through contemptuous misstatements.  When will you ever deal with the issues themselves in any direct way, Gervin?  Based on your past anti-scientific rants, probably never.

You can't give me the name of anyone who has peer-reviewed your paper or who agrees with your position.  This is not accepted scientific practice.  You can complain to me all you want, but you don't have anything but your word as a testament of your claims. So you attack.

You cite the Foster papers as some kind of evidence of your position them freely admit that you haven't read them.  This flies in the face of how any respected researcher would go about making a case.  You would be laughed out of any academic setting by citing references you haven't read.

You can't explain why you are qualified to add Egyptian grammar to some vague unpublished memo that may or may not be associated with some professor you revere.  So, without any standing to reach your conclusions, you attack. 

Your modus operandi is to demean and chastise from a position that lacks any credibility.  Now that you've shown that you are merely a dabbler in faith-promoting generalizations, you may continue with your insults and non-responsiveness.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Its not linguistics, but I did read a paper yesterday that accepts the possibility of contact between Egyptian and Mayan civilizations. Although their conclusions are based on peer-reviewed genetic research, I'd think that the requirement to remain open to possibilities would extend to linguistics.

"In addition, the peopling of America sequence may have been more complicated than previously thought: it seems that Caucasoids, Blacks and Mongoloids from China-Mongolia (but not from Siberia) are found to have been in America or the Middle Atlantic (Azores) before Columbus. The possible African and European contacts with Amerindians before Columbus (1492 AD) may not be genetically important; however, the existence of these contacts would help to explain similarities between ancient Egyptian and Mayan-Peruvian civilizations." (source)

.........................................................

Thank you again, Rajah, for a paper which is of special interest,

A. Arnaiz-Villena, J. Moscoso, J.I. Serrano-Vela, J. Martinez-Laso, “The uniqueness of amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas (LA SINGULARIDAD DE LOS AMERINDIOS SEGÚN LOS GENES HLA Y EL POBLAMIENTO DE AMÉRICA),” Inmunología, 25/1 (Enero-Marzo 2006): 13-24, online at http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf ,

Of particular interest are conclusions therein on the "close relatedness between Mesoamericans and Chinese" and "close relatedness between Amerindians and Japanese," which many non-Mormon archeologists and anthropologists already support (including Mike Coe and the late Betty Meggars).  Moreover, they also comment that "many scholars are increasingly doubtful that fullblown Olmec, Toltec, Mayan and Peruvian cultures (otherwise similar to Egyptian culture in certain aspects) appeared without external contact."

They also comment that "their HLA antigenic profile could have been changed due to the severe bottleneck that they underwent after the European Invasions in 1492: 80,000,000 people died because of microbia (measles, influenza, smallpox) and war brought by Europeans."

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

You can't give me the name of anyone who has peer-reviewed your paper or who agrees with your position.  This is not accepted scientific practice.  You can complain to me all you want, but you don't have anything but your word as a testament of your claims. So you attack.

You cite the Foster papers as some kind of evidence of your position them freely admit that you haven't read them.  This flies in the face of how any respected researcher would go about making a case.  You would be laughed out of any academic setting by citing references you haven't read.

You can't explain why you are qualified to add Egyptian grammar to some vague unpublished memo that may or may not be associated with some professor you revere.  So, without any standing to reach your conclusions, you attack. 

Your modus operandi is to demean and chastise from a position that lacks any credibility.  Now that you've shown that you are merely a dabbler in faith-promoting generalizations, you may continue with your insults and non-responsiveness.

This gibberish and falsehood merely proves my point that you are on an anti-scientific rant.  You always have the choice to discuss the substantive issues, but are obviously fearful of doing so.  Grow up, Gervin.

[Gervin]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This gibberish and falsehood

Quote

 

No.  What I said is quite accurate and is on the cutting edge of linguistic research.  It was said in response to the false statement that there was no evidence at all.

Mary LeCron Foster, “Old World Language in the Americas, 1,” paper presented April 20, 1992, at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, San Diego, CA, in UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225, series 4, carton 4, folder 26.

Mary LeCron Foster, “Old World Language in the Americas, 2,” paper presented Sept 7-10, 1992, at the annual meeting of the Language Origins Society, Selwyn College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.

Mary LeCron Foster, “Egyptian, Mixe-Zoque,” research 1939-2000, UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225,  series 6, carton 6, folder 40.

Mary LeCron Foster, “Egyptian, Mixe-Zoque: Cognate Sets ,” research 1939-2000, UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225,  series 6, carton 6, folders 42-43.

Mary LeCron Foster, “Egyptian, Mixe-Zoque, Mayan: Cognate Sets ,” research 1939-2000, UCB Archives, BANC MSS 2012/225,  series 6, carton 6, folder 45.

 

You represent Mary Foster as part of the "cutting edge of linguistic research."  Yet ...

Quote

I only recently received notice that her papers have been catalogued at the Bancroft Library at U.C. Berkeley, where she was professor of antroplogy, specializing in linguistics.  I have read none of them.

You cite something you've never read as confirmation of your position.  Then, when called out on it, claim that I'm creating falsehoods.  My hunch is that you operate on this forum b/c of a lack of standing in the real world of scholarship.  That's all fine and dandy ... but why are you afraid to admit it?

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You always have the choice to discuss the substantive issues

I asked you what "conclusion" you referred to in your paper.  It's your choice not to defend your position, but stop blaming me for your lack of integrity.

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Grow up, Gervin.

I'm a grown adult male who works closely with and in the scientific community on a daily basis.  It's the real world of accountability where words mean something and actions are taken on the basis of those words.  I've asked nothing of you that I wouldn't ask my peers in the scientific and engineering community: explain your conclusions.  You're adverse to scrutiny so you continue to lash out (as I expected).  Care to answer the question, above?  Or should I expect more name-calling?

Edited March 25, 2016 by Gervin

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

You represent Mary Foster as part of the "cutting edge of linguistic research."  Yet ...

You cite something you've never read as confirmation of your position.  Then, when called out on it, claim that I'm creating falsehoods.  My hunch is that you operate on this forum b/c of a lack of standing in the real world of scholarship.  That's all fine and dandy ... but why are you afraid to admit it?

I asked you what "conclusion" you referred to in your paper.  It's your choice not to defend your position, but stop blaming me for your lack of integrity.

I'm a grown adult male who works closely with and in the scientific community on a daily basis.  It's the real world of accountability where words mean something and actions are taken on the basis of those words.  I've asked nothing of you that I wouldn't ask my peers in the scientific and engineering community: explain your conclusions.  You're adverse to scrutiny so you continue to lash out (as I expected).  Care to answer the question, above?  Or should I expect more name-calling?

If you were sincere, you could go to U.C. Berkeley and have a look at Dr. Foster's files, or you could have someone else do it for you -- preferably a linguistics professional.  However, since you reject the scientific method, you busy yourself name-calling and making false statements.  It may make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance knowledge.  Substantive inquiry is always open to you, yet you choose not to engage in it.  Why?  Fear of the consequences, most likely.  Your a priori notions might be in for a bumpy ride.  Much easier to make false claims.

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

and making false statements.

I'd kindly like a reference or an apology.  I know of no false statements I've made.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, Gervin said:

I'd kindly like a reference or an apology.  I know of no false statements I've made.

Quote

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of experts in each of the fields listed. The challenge of the LDS member who believes in Hebraic or Egyptian influences in the New World is to make a cogent and credible argument.  It hasn't been done. 

You can't find a credible non-LDS linguist to agree with your position - so taking me to task for not reading unpublished papers or faith-promoting materials rings hollow.

Such false statements have been the warp and woof of your contributions on this board ever since I can remember.  Never any engagement with substantive argument.  Just reckless and hallow falsehoods, one after the other.  You have made your own ignorance the measure of everything in science.  And when your statements are shown to be blatantly false, you simply change the goal posts and engage in rank denial.  No need for rational discussion of any kind.

Gervin started the name calling and will be removed if it continues. Don't take the bait.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/11/2016 at 9:57 AM, Nevo said:

I don't consider myself an "anti-Book of Mormon critic" per se, but I've addressed a number of these points, as well as several others, on this board: Nahom, .......................................................................................etc. RT at Faith-Promoting Rumor has compiled a massive list of arguments against the historicity of 1 Nephi (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). The cumulative case he makes is, I think, devastating. But as far as I can tell it has been greeted with silence from you and just about every other apologist. Jeff Lindsay, to his credit, attempted a response, but was way out of his depth.

On Nahom, you may now have noticed the reply to RT by Kent Brown, “Nice Try, But No Cigar: A Response to Three Patheos Posts on Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34),” Interpreter, 19 (2016): 149-152, online at  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nice-try-but-no-cigar-a-response-to-three-patheos-posts-on-nahom-1-nephi-1634/ .