[moloch-hai]

At issue is that there is now new evidence. It should be obvious that conclusions reached in its absence do not incorporate any evaluation of the new evidence.

The conclusion might be strengthened, unaffected, weaker, or even reversed. That is the point. There is no value in new evidence other than that it might make a difference. What is difficult about this?

[msrenee]

There's no old evidence. You can go looking for connections, but don't try to tell me there was a reason to defend the theory to start with.

[moloch-hai]

There is plenty of old evidence. We call them runestones. The glyphs on them have disputed origin. Nobody seems to imagine they were made up from whole cloth. But they don't resemble any other alphabet closely enough to nail down how they did develop.

Older examples would generally be expected to more closely resemble whatever they came from. Is this unfamiliar reasoning?

[msrenee]

There is no evidence for the idea that they descended directly from a semitic alphabet brought up from Carthage to northern Europe. There is no evidence for trade between Carthage and early people's in that area. You realize this and so attempted to change the subject onto something you think you have an argument for.

I've wasted enough time on this. You obviously have no intention of adding any sort of evidence for this argument. Thank you for giving me a reason to read more deeply about the origins of modern alphabets, but I'll continue that reading on my own.

[moloch-hai]

If you read back in the thread you will see that you have tried to change the subject at every point, and I have each time steered it back to the actual topic.

I do not know why you insist on arguing against something no one has suggested, or what so terrifies you about the simple idea I wrote that you are motivated to vicious accusations of "edenism", but I no longer care. You have revealed all we need to know.