I think this is a very odd post. I think I must have misunderstood some of it!
Scott Creighton wrote:
"...I don't see any problem with the quarry marks, so
> wouldn't see any particular point in a 'forensic scientific
> consideration'." - Callan MacKenzie
> Ladies and gentlemen - does that sound like a reasonable
> position to take - to NOT scientifically examine the only
> primary evidence available?
Yes - and No. We cannot and should not scientifically test EVERYTHING. Some tests are destructive, and future scientific advances may overtake them allowing non destructive examination.
Some tests are expensive, and resources are not limitless. Whilst people are going hungry and homeless, science should justify itself.
There should be not only a significant question mark over the subject to be tested (in this case 'marks') but also there should be significant gain from the answer. In this case, both are highly disputed. The test must be justified. I'm surprised you disagree.
> The Egypt-apologists cannot and should not be
> allowed to argue what can and cannot be tested
I've never heard anything so nonsensical. Why on earth do you think this? Why would you not allow the subject matter experts to announce a position and argue for it?
> Everything that CAN be
> scientifically tested SHOULD be scientifically tested,
> ESPECIALLY primary evidence.
This is madness. Where would we stop testing things? Who would pay for it? Why would we even be doing it?
> Egyptology claims to be a 'science'.
I'm not sure that Egyptology which is an academic discipline is a single entity that can make any claims? Can you show what Egyptology is and where it makes these claims? My understanding is that it includes the study of archaeology, history, language, etc, so it includes science, certainly.
> Well, given the cloud of
> uncertainty over the historical characters
One problem is, this cloud is disputable.
> there is now a clear case to demand
> that such forensic science be done on these inscriptions; on
> the primary evidence.
Well, I think I've misunderstood your point. (Sorry!) First you said that EVERYTHING should be tested? Then you said 'Egyptology' should not be allowed to argue for what should be tested. Then YOU argue for what should be allowed to be tested. Why are you allowed and 'they', whoever they are, not?
I can't have understood this right!
> There is now too much doubt over the
> veracity of these inscriptions to NOT demand further evidence
> in order to settle the issue.
One problem is, this doubt is disputable.
> tell you that they "...do not see any particular point in a
> 'forensic scientific consideration" of these glyphs. I ask you,
> ladies and gentlemen - does that sound a reasonable position to
Yes, it seems like the ONLY reasonable position to take. Once a particular point HAS been raised that makes scientific consideration worthwhile, then by the nature of the position the person would agree with scientific consideration.
> Now the Egypt-apologists have a choice here - they can get on
> board and join the demand for the science to be done; they can
> demonstrate their willingness to seek the truth. Or they can
> snipe from the sidelines and simply deny, deny, deny.
Sorry, is this right? Everyone must agree with you OR they can snipe from the sidelines and deny? There are literally no other options? Like, simply disagreeing with you? That's madness!