The dude correctly undestood what I was saying. I was going by legitimate theories. Not the crackpot bunch that beastie pulled up.
Too bad you couldn't have left it at that. :)
Charity,
You aren't as complicated as you seem to imagine, nor are we as stupid as you seem to imagine. Of course we understood you think the Book of Mormon is a "legitimate theory". All my questioning was designed to help you see the erroneous nature of your statement that "most disputed theories usually win out". That is simply, flat-out wrong, but crackpots often use the fact that new theories that turn out to be legit were disputed at their introduction as a refuge to explain the massive opposition to their crackpot theory.
But I realize you will never, never, admit to me that you either misspoke or were incorrect in your statement that "most disputed theories usually win out".
I don't know what I said to give you that impression. There is no evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is pretty hard to prove a negative. You would have to dig up every square inch of the North and South American continents in order to say positively there were no Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites. I don't see that happening.
And yes, I think the current state will change, because as more and more of meso-America is explored, the existence of the J/L/M population will be discovered.
You don't even understand Book of Mormon apologetics. How will the "existence" of the J/L/M population be discovered when the entire current branch of apologia rests on the fact that one cannot ever recognize their existence in the first place, because they blended in so completely with the native population? In other words, how would you recognize a "Nephite pot"? Clark says we've already found them, we just call them "Maya" and "Olmec".
In fact, you participated in a very long debate about this very point, in which you argued vociferously that it would not be possible to recognize the Lehites. I provided information demonstrating how archaeologists do, indeed, recognize immigrant populations. You insisted I was too stupid to understand what I was reading. Now, it appears you agree with me after all - you WOULD be able to recognize the Lehite population!!!! Sadly, that puts you outside LDS apologia, and is yet one more example of how you contradict yourself.
It isn't necessary to dig up every square inch. In fact, apologists build their case upon the fact that one can determine the relative geographic size of the Book of Mormon population by the clues given therein. Using Sorenon's analysis, the Book of Mormon story encompassed a region about as big as the later Aztec polity. While this certainly isn't the hemispheric model once imagined, it is a quite significant spread across Mesoamerica. It's not like the Lehite cities would be a teeny, tiny, speck hidden on a hill somewhere, which is what you insinuate with "every square inch".
I think that your main problem is that you don't really have a coherent theory about any of this, you are just reacting on an ad-hoc basis in each conversation.