Runtu wrote:Are you suggesting it would have come out better had I used one of those things? Heh, I didn't think my Spanish was that rusty.
That's a basic one, Run. Just type in "online language translator". If you see mistakes in the translation (which is possible), you can correct it. Some of them can do much more than the Dictionary.com one.
Runtu wrote:Are you suggesting it would have come out better had I used one of those things? Heh, I didn't think my Spanish was that rusty.
That's a basic one, Run. Just type in "online language translator". If you see mistakes in the translation (which is possible), you can correct it. Some of them can do much more than the Dictionary.com one.
Runtu wrote:Are you suggesting it would have come out better had I used one of those things? Heh, I didn't think my Spanish was that rusty.
That's a basic one, Run. Just type in "online language translator". If you see mistakes in the translation (which is possible), you can correct it. Some of them can do much more than the Dictionary.com one.
I might have done so if I had run across any vocabulary I didn't know. I didn't, and I'm pretty confident in the translation.
Runtu wrote:I might have done so if I had run across any vocabulary I didn't know. I didn't, and I'm pretty confident in the translation.
That's up to you. I doubt there would be many mistakes in the online language translators. I use this on my brother when he's trying to be a smart ass and impress me with different languages he knows. I send him back the translation in seconds. LOL. He still thinks I'm multi-lingual. :)
Mercury wrote:don't want to be a party pooper but Runtu, have they dated the remains?
They have dated charcoal in the caves to 1800 BC, but Schmidt says that there is no evidence that the charcoal has anything to do with the horse remains. As Chris Salmon noted, Schmidt believes that the horse remains are 8,000-10,000 years old, meaning that they are far earlier than Book of Mormon times.
I'd be interested to see what the isotopic analysis or another dating method that can be used on living matter from that time frame, then lean on FARMS to publish it if they want to gain some cred.
BUt since they would automatically deny the results as satans influence or (insert bulls*** excuse here), its not even worth asking them to publish it.
Dannyboy, oh keeper of the sacred tapir...Why will you not publish things contrary to your limited worldview in any FARMS documents?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Runtu wrote:I might have done so if I had run across any vocabulary I didn't know. I didn't, and I'm pretty confident in the translation.
That's up to you. I doubt there would be many mistakes in the online language translators. I use this on my brother when he's trying to be a smart ass and impress me with different languages he knows. I send him back the translation in seconds. LOL. He still thinks I'm multi-lingual. :)
The problem with translating Spanish is that it is not comparable to English in its structure. A literal word-for-word translation would come out "backward" in structured and rather stilted.
Is there any indication in the Schmidt source (or elsewhere that you or beastie have run across) where it is indicated where these bones are presently housed? Assuming that FARMS has performed its radio carbon dating and has refrained from publishing the results, the museum or university where the bones are housed would probably have been informed of the results. It might be worth check with said institution(s) to see what they know. If we can figure out where the bones are housed, I'd be happy to try to contact them. (Although if it's in Mexico then you would be a more logical candidate!)