Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Runtu]

So are you therefore conceding that you cannot prove the Book of Mormon false? However implausible it may be from your secular perspective, you admit, it could be true?

I don't recall anyone here saying that the Book of Mormon has been proven false. What people will say, as Kishkumen has, is that there's no evidence in favor of its being an ancient text. I would also say there's plenty of evidence against it, but I suspect you'd disagree. When you step back from needing it to be "true," it certainly looks like a two-bit 19th-century con. But proof? No one is saying that.

Some, maybe most, of us have asked God to confirm the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I have, but I suspect you wouldn't like the answer I received. But I do have to wonder why God would make his scripture look like such an obvious fraud and still expect us to ask Him about it anyway. He must have a sense of humor.

[_SteelHead]

Water Dog. I have an invisible pink dragon residing in my closet. Prove that this is not so.

[_Runtu]

I'll go through your stuff later when I have time. Not ignoring you. My initial impression is that this is reflective of the subjective nature of anthropology.

If you read through beastie's stuff, you'll see that it's more reflective of misusing sources. When a source says one thing, and Sorensen claims it says something else, that goes well beyond "the subjective nature of anthropology."

[_Maksutov]

I'll go through your stuff later when I have time. Not ignoring you. My initial impression is that this is reflective of the subjective nature of anthropology.

If you read through beastie's stuff, you'll see that it's more reflective of misusing sources. When a source says one thing, and Sorensen claims it says something else, that goes well beyond "the subjective nature of anthropology."

This is WD's way of dismissing whole bodies of knowledge...which just happen to contradict his claims. I don't believe a serious argument is possible with him.

[_Runtu]

In the world of anthropology and archaeology there is no requirement to agree with sources.

OK, you just lost whatever credibility you might have had with me.

Some researcher digs up elephant bones, or whatever, and then weaves an intricate story theorizing the life of these elephants based on their subjective interpretation of the evidence.

And it just got worse.

Someone like Sorenson may disagree with all the mumbo jumbo conclusions and only care about the facts, namely that this person found elephant bones and dated them to some period. This sort of thing is commonplace.

Yikes. Clearly you have no understanding of archaeology or how things are dated or how such data is to be used.

Here's the problem:

1. Sorensen tells us that a certain source dates an artifact to a certain date.

2. The source actually dates the artifact to a different date.

People who "only care about facts" don't do this.

[_Bazooka]

Sorensen tells us that a certain source dates an artifact to a certain date

+

The source actually dates the artifact to a different date

=

<let's see if Water Dog can do the math on this>

[_sock puppet]

Water Dog apparently has such deep-seated emotional and social needs for Mormonism to be "true", facts are just "mumbo jumbo". It's needed for him to maintain his Mormon equilibrium.

[_Equality]

archaeology isn't a science.

These folks would disagree with you: http://phys.org/science-news/archaeology-fossils/

[_Maksutov]

Water Dog apparently has such deep-seated emotional and social needs for Mormonism to be "true", facts are just "mumbo jumbo". It's needed for him to maintain his Mormon equilibrium.

That dog won't hunt.

[_Res Ipsa]

OK, Water Dog. This is a test of your intellectual honesty. You've been quick to accuse folks here of being intellectually dishonest. Now you are face to face with bona fide intellectual dishonesty by Sorenson. Can you do the intellectually honest thing and hold Sorenson to the same standards you've been applying to others here? Or are you going to tie yourself into a pretzel trying to excuse Sorenson? If you truly value honesty and choose to rationalize what Sorenson has done, it will eat away at your soul.