Book of Mormon geography

[_jskains]

The difficulty is what exactly happened after the destruction of the Nephites. And where the buildings destroyed? Resources consumed? Other cultures overtook it? There are a lot of questions that I don't know can really be answered.

Archeology looks at the past through 2D lenses. It depends on certain limitations to make interpretations of the data in front of them. But those interpretations do not end the conversation.

Lets say for example, that a nomad culture made blue pots that were square. They moved into another more stationary culture and taught them to make these same pots. Then they decided they liked the stationary culture and merged with it. Today, we come across this stationary culture, and having never seen these square pots before, archeology might conclude the stationary culture invented them.

Science isn't the end all of answers. What if the Book of Mormon said "there are no Brontosauruses"? But you read in Science that the Brontosaurus was a real dinosaur. They make claims of how it looks, what it eats, and how it interacted with other dinosaurs. Then you go to the local museum and find out that they even have a skeleton. Case closed. Time to leave the LDS Church because they lied. What a fraud! Hey Bishop, here is my letter!

But then what happens? Ooops, a scientist comes out and admits they accidentally put the wrong head on the wrong body, and the animal known as the Brontosaurs never existed. Guess the Book of Mormon was right.

I don't know. I just think that science is ever-changing, and for all we know, one day it could change course again and find horses actually WERE here during the timeframe necessary. Then what?

*Shrug*

JMS

[_Dantana]

But then what happens? Ooops, a scientist comes out and admits they accidentally put the wrong head on the wrong body, and the animal known as the Brontosaurs never existed. Guess the Book of Mormon was right.
JMS

Wrong head on wrong body ya say.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mile_1.png

[_jskains]

But then what happens? Ooops, a scientist comes out and admits they accidentally put the wrong head on the wrong body, and the animal known as the Brontosaurs never existed. Guess the Book of Mormon was right.
JMS

Wrong head on wrong body ya say.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mile_1.png

According to current Egyptologist interpretations. You feel they are infallible. I feel they are wrong.

JMS

[_Darth J]

Science isn't the end all of answers. What if the Book of Mormon said "there are no Brontosauruses"? But you read in Science that the Brontosaurus was a real dinosaur. They make claims of how it looks, what it eats, and how it interacted with other dinosaurs. Then you go to the local museum and find out that they even have a skeleton. Case closed. Time to leave the LDS Church because they lied. What a fraud! Hey Bishop, here is my letter!

But then what happens? Ooops, a scientist comes out and admits they accidentally put the wrong head on the wrong body, and the animal known as the Brontosaurs never existed. Guess the Book of Mormon was right.

I don't know. I just think that science is ever-changing, and for all we know, one day it could change course again and find horses actually WERE here during the timeframe necessary. Then what?

*Shrug*

JMS

No, Josh, that isn't what happened with Brontosaurus. They put a Camarasaurus skull on its skeleton, which was later corrected. Also, taxonomically, the name "Apatosaurus" had already been applied to the same animal, which is why it is now called Apatosaurus instead of Brontosaurus. A misplaced skull and a change in taxonomy do not prove that the animal never existed.

Your choice of example was very poor, both specifically and generally. There is no analogy to the Brontosaurus with the Book of Mormon, because sauropod fossils have in fact been found--as opposed to the Nephite artifacts that do not exist. And the scientific method assumes that discovery will be ongoing and that theories will adapt and change to fit a growing body of evidence. That is the reverse of the case with the Book of Mormon. The growing body of evidence makes it increasingly unlikely that a Nephite or Jaredite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon ever existed. The banal observation that scientific knowledge changes does not address the fact that it is changing in a way that makes the Book of Mormon narrative increasingly implausible.

We've had 182 years in which a grand total of nothing has been found to substantiate the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For how many years, and in how many different places, will people have to look and find nothing before you are willing to consider that nothing has been found because there is nothing to find?

[_jskains]

A misplaced skull and a change in taxonomy do not prove that the animal never existed.

Desperation to miss the point by overcomplicating the issue says a lot about your motives. (that was the right your, by the way. As you are possessing the motive of concern).

Good luck with that. I am sure you miss a lot of points trying to sound brilliant.

JMS

[_Darth J]

A misplaced skull and a change in taxonomy do not prove that the animal never existed.

Desperation to miss the point by overcomplicating the issue says a lot about your motives. (that was the right your, by the way. As you are possessing the motive of concern).

Good luck with that. I am sure you miss a lot of points trying to sound brilliant.

JMS

No. I did not miss your point. I refuted your point, because it was wrong. The point you were trying to make depends on your factual assertions being true.

However, given that you prefer to make uninformed misstatements of fact in order to make a faith-promoting point that is not accurate, perhaps there is a future for you as an LDS General Authority.

[_DWhitmer]

It depends on certain limitations to make interpretations of the data in front of them...I just think that science is ever-changing, and for all we know, one day it could change course again and find horses actually WERE here during the timeframe necessary. Then what?
JMS

Well said. I like how archaeologists name an entire cultural period after a single archaeological site as if they knew that one particular site was representative of them all, known and unknown. Or, how they refuse to state "what they don't know." Conjecture upon conjecture. Take the following examples, these singluar archaeological discoveries turned the archaeological, anthropological, historical, and religious worlds upside down:

The Oldest Gold in the World in a Varna Cemetery



http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/o033.htm

The Largest Horde of Anglo-Saxon Gold Ever Found



http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/

The same will happen in western New York!

[_Bond James Bond]

I don't know. I just think that science is ever-changing, and for all we know, one day it could change course again and find horses actually WERE here during the timeframe necessary. Then what?

*Shrug*

JMS

Until that time shouldn't you agree with the scientific consensus that the Book of Mormon events are not supported by historical and archaeological evidence?

[_jskains]

I don't know. I just think that science is ever-changing, and for all we know, one day it could change course again and find horses actually WERE here during the timeframe necessary. Then what?

*Shrug*

JMS

Until that time shouldn't you agree with the scientific consensus that the Book of Mormon events are not supported by historical and archaeological evidence?

As a beliver in revelation, I feel that God has revealed the Book of Mormon to be part of His doing and since He actually knows everything His knowledge supersedes manmade science.

JMS

[_Bond James Bond]

As a beliver in revelation, I feel that God has revealed the Book of Mormon to be part of His doing and since He actually knows everything His knowledge supersedes manmade science.

JMS

So all the evidence contrary to the Book of Mormon narrative is a test of faith?