New evidence for the Book of Mormon I had never heard before

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: New evidence for the Book of Mormon I had never heard before

Post by _Quasimodo »

DarkHelmet wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:Rain Deer found in the far north of Europe


Wait a minute. Reindeer are real?


Yep, not elves, though.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: New evidence for the Book of Mormon I had never heard before

Post by _Quasimodo »

son of Ishmael wrote:
MCB wrote:A llama and a camel can interbreed. The Book of Mormon does not mention camels or llamas. However, the lack of evidence that the Nephites brought them here does not eliminate the fact that they did.




A cama is a hybrid between a male dromedary camel and a female llama, produced via artificial insemination at the Camel Reproduction Centre in Dubai.The first cama was born on January 14, 1998. The aim was to create an animal with the size and strength of the camel, but the more cooperative temperament and the higher wool production of the llama (wikipedia)


That is freaking awesome! I want one for christmas. if I knew how to post photos I would.


Here you go:

Image

Not great pets though. I would think twice before asking Santa.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: New evidence for the Book of Mormon I had never heard before

Post by _moksha »

harmony wrote:
Darth J wrote:Dwarf woolly mammoths persisted until about 3,700 years ago on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean. http://news.yahoo.com/mammoths-wiped-mu ... 11751.html

This is within the time period of the Book of Ether---the only part of the Book of Mormon that mentions elephants.


Elephants and woolly mammoths both had long noses. A tapir has a pretty long nose. Thus the elephants and woolly mammoths are no doubt part of the tapir's family tree, and thus prove the Book of Mormon true.


Furthermore, the long noses would also indicate a Mediterranean connection.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: New evidence for the Book of Mormon I had never heard before

Post by _The Dude »

So what? It is still evidence for the Book of Mormon no matter what you say. Hardened apologists won't let you take this away from them with alleged petrified wood and alleged species differences between Israeli and Oregonian trees. Weak as it may seem to your empty soul, it is still evidence, and if you can't admit such then it says more about you than it does the Book of Mormon.

I was actually dealt this type of counter argument over on the FAIR board back in the day. Something to do with the NHM altar, Bill Hamblin, and "statistics" if I remember correctly.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: New evidence for the Book of Mormon I had never heard before

Post by _ludwigm »

cacheman wrote:These are two totally different plants. Not even the same family, let alone, the same genus or species. Just more common name confusion...

As Elijah and Elias.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Post Reply