Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Bret Ripley]

"There is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon..."

I agree with the statement. I know of no physical evidence that proves the Book of Mormon true. But I also don't know of any that proves it false.

One trick pony.

[Guest]

"There is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon..."

I agree with the statement. I know of no physical evidence that proves the Book of Mormon true. But I also don't know of any that proves it false.

One trick pony.

I have never understood this as a response to be taken seriously. (More evidence of a Stem reincarnation.)
Those that use it are either well aware that it damns their own faithful position many times over in that it applies to every other faith based belief and are therefor just throwing it out as a trolling rebuttal or they are simply incapable of considering evidence at all. Either way it is not worth a reply.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, the trolling diversion was fun while it lasted, but it has grown a little old. Anyone who drags out Sorenson to defend the Book of Mormon and, in the next breath, says "archaeology is not a science" is not even trying to be taken seriously. Enjoy the pointless distraction, gang.

Cheers,

K

[_Maksutov]

Well, the trolling diversion was fun while it lasted, but it has grown a little old. Anyone who drags out Sorenson to defend the Book of Mormon and, in the next breath, says "archaeology is not a science" is not even trying to be taken seriously. Enjoy the pointless distraction, gang.

Cheers,

K

Agreed.

[_Bret Ripley]

Those that use it are either well aware that it damns their own faithful position many times over in that it applies to every other faith based belief and are therefor just throwing it out as a trolling rebuttal or they are simply incapable of considering evidence at all. Either way it is not worth a reply.

Yep. Whether he's sincere or whether he's trolling the result is the same: he's on a damnably short tether of his own making.

[_Runtu]

Well, the trolling diversion was fun while it lasted, but it has grown a little old. Anyone who drags out Sorenson to defend the Book of Mormon and, in the next breath, says "archaeology is not a science" is not even trying to be taken seriously. Enjoy the pointless distraction, gang.

Cheers,

K

Sure, you only say that because you're one of those humanities guys. :)

Seriously, though, it's pretty telling that these guys troll by appealing to Sorensen et al. Perhaps it's a tacit admission that all the apologetic stuff adds up to nothing but troll fodder.

[_Kishkumen]

Sure, you only say that because you're one of those humanities guys. :)

So are most Mormon apologists... if they are not lawyers, that is.

You tell me which group is more trustworthy or scientific. I would be hard pressed to come down on one side or the other.

But seriously, his problem is that, in accordance with the latest fashion, he has adopted a very narrow definition of science in order to troll.

[_Nevo]

Yes, Nevo, I am sure that your petulant and argumentative posts emerge from a serene place in your heart. If you didn't come off as petulant, I would not have commented. . . .

Aren't you glad that we do have this thread? Where else could you get in a snit over this?

Thanks, Kish.

I'll add "petulant" and "in a snit" to the other descriptors you've bestowed on my handful of posts in this thread:

“childish”
“really flopping”
“weak sauce”
“limp naysaying”
“unimpressive”
“very disappointing”
“bad form”
“inadequate”
“geez, Nevo. Really.”
“ye gods your argument is crap”
“lame”

Would that I had your serene calm!

[_Runtu]

So are most Mormon apologists... if they are not lawyers, that is.

You tell me which group is more trustworthy or scientific. I would be hard pressed to come down on one side or the other.

No kidding. Water Dog aside, my problem with Sorensen is that his stuff always involves a lot of fudging and misrepresentation of sources. Look again at the alleged smelted iron find, which has no basis in the research he cites. He doesn't quite approach the John Gee level of dishonesty, but it's all a lot of hand-waving and misdirection. In Sorensen's world, however, fossilized horse teeth are contemporary with Mayan civilizations because no one needs to know about the fossilization.

But seriously, his problem is that, in accordance with the latest fashion, he has adopted a very narrow definition of science in order to troll.

The idea that misrepresenting sources is OK in archaeology was a dead giveaway. Part of me thinks that this guy is an exmo trying to get a rise out of us.

[_Kishkumen]

Would that I had your serene calm!

I never pretended otherwise, Nevo. But the fact that you spent the time going through my posts to find these gems tells me exactly how little you have invested in this issue.