|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 14, 2007 0:44:49 GMT -4
I think it's pretty obvious that the pipe found in Iowa and the illustration from Nature are elephants (not matadons or mammoths). Some of the others might be something else. And what about the tapirs? Go read my post. But that does not make any sense. You first brought up Mamoths and mastadons. Why? What were you saying? What was your point in bringing them up. Now you are saying that the illustration were elephants. So what does that mean? What are you implying? Are you saying that the elephants evolved from mamoths seperately in two parts of the world? So you adhere to Ruperts Sheldrake's Morphagenetic Field theory outlined in New Life Science? If you believe that then why not belieing that God is in fact what he really is and not some dude in a white robe? Your story seems to change a lot. I have seen photos of a nut and bolt inside million year old rock that is supposed to prove the existance of ancient UFO's. But it is a hoax. Since your illustration of elephants is either a giddy misinterpretation by Mormons minus a proper rebutal, or it is a hoax. I cannot fathom any third possibility. How can you? It is not unusual or surprising that you can produce photos of some cave painting or drawing that shows a character that might look something like an elephant. In no way does this mean that it is even remotely possible that elephants were around in the pre-Columbian America of the time-line in the BoM. If, in fact, this was a discovery that you claim it to be, mainstream scientist would have and should have jumped on it and feature articles would appear in magazines such as Science, Scientific American and National Geographic. You asked me to explain how it can be that such images exist. This is simple. It is because we are seeing these images according to our cultural conditioning and not the conditioning of the mesa American cultures. The same sort of trick you are using is used by the Raelians. Have you looked into them? I gave you links to their pages. They believe that you did not bother considering the idea of seeing the tricks they use to convince their followers and wonder for a moment that The Mormons do the same sorts of things. The Raelians believe that what we call God are actually extraterrestrial visitors (since the Mormons believe that Elohem —their celestial father -- is an extra-terrestrial living in a distant star-system, the Raelians are kind of like “The Mormons II”). The Raelians use all sorts of paintings to justify their claim that UFO’s were mistaken as aliens. They find their best examples of Renaissance paintings where in the background a blob of cloudy light can be mistaken as a UFO. You use this same sort of trick finding an ancient image that might look something like an elephant. You need to dig deeper and play “the devil’s advocate” and see what the scientific community thinks. Has this image been submitted for peer review? Let me present two questions to you. · 1. Many cities mentioned in the Bible can be identified today? Please show me where the Mormon Church officially identifies just one of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon as to where it is located in South America.
· 2. Show me just one secular encyclopedia with peer review that states domesticated horses or steel swords and the wheel (for transportation was present in South America during the Book of Mormon time frame. (note: there are various BoM scriptures mentioning these items) Instead of repeating any rhetoric from FARMS (Maxwell Institute) and/or FAIR apologetics, include with your answers statements non LDS PEER REVIEW. Jason, there are lots of books and opinions and beliefs that The Bermuda Triangle is real. But it isn’t. Nova on PBS did a bang up job employing critical thinking and analysis and the practice of going back to the original sources to debunk the entire Bermuda Triangle story. Employing critical thinking brings us closer to the truth and, consequently closer to God. “God is that which no greater can be thought” but apparently not, if you are a Mormon. To me, God is not a dude. And I feel closer to God knowing God’s true Nature (if that is not being redundant). Chariots? Chariots!!? Jason, this is even worse. Your answer doubles the problem. Now we have TWO issues to confront and explain. Are you saying they had wheels in Pre-Columbian America? That strikes me as so bizzar! And exactly what was pulling the chariots? Elephants or tapirs? How about wolves or deer or buffalos?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2007 11:38:52 GMT -4
Employing critical thinking brings us closer to the truth and, consequently closer to God. “God is that which no greater can be thought” but apparently not, if you are a Mormon. To me, God is not a dude. And I feel closer to God knowing God’s true Nature (if that is not being redundant). How do you know your idea of God is more correct than mine?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2007 12:07:36 GMT -4
You're taking the wrong approach. Science cannot say that something positively did not exist. All they can say is that they don't currently have much evidence that it did. A lack of evidence is not itself evidence.
Claims that there were no steel, elephants, domesticated horses, or chariots in Pre-Colombian mesoamerica are just that, claims. A negative cannot be proven, and if solid evidence of pre-colombian steel swords, domesticated elephants or horses, or a chariot were found tomorrow then the theories would all change. Some evidence has been found for each of these things, but if you won't accept the most obvious sources of them - the people who have the greatest interest in finding these things - LDS researchers - then I won't bother searching for them myself.
Should good LDS members be worried that archaeologists haven't found much evidence of these things? Not at all. Archaeology is not an exact science - much of what is solemnly proclaimed today can change tomorrow, especially in the Americas, and much of what is "known" is merely good guesswork with little confirmation.
No the LDS Church hasn't positively identified any ruins in mesoamerica as being Nephite cities. Should we expect it to? The Church is not an archaeological institution, and purely secular evidence of the Book of Mormon, while it might be welcome, is not a church priority.
The Church believes the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon is self evident. Since the spiritual value of the book cannot be disproven, any lack of secular evidences are at best a distand secondary consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 14, 2007 15:19:27 GMT -4
That is good, heart-felt rhetoric. But it is still rhetoric. The fact that you are shifting gears and now saying that the lack of evidence is not important, I think is telling. Would you also say that the lack of evidence for the existence of Big Foot is also not important? There are people who are Big Foot enthusiasts who might also reach such a conclusion when confronted with debunkers and people who say that their "evidence" is not really real. The Big Foot enthusiasts who want desperately to believe also might say that what is important is the spirit in which they believe or the feeling that believing in Big Foot gives them. They may also feel that since they spent their own money in the idea of Big Foot that they are unwilling to let go of their belief in Big Foot's existence. Maybe there is way too much lack of evidence of Big Foot to believe in Big Foot. But I know that we would have found the ruins mentioned in the BoM by now if those cities had been real. They were not real, Jason. Let me present two requests to you. · 1. Many cities mentioned in the Bible can be identified today. Please show me where the Mormon Church officially identifies just one of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon as to where it is located in South America.
· 2. Show me just one secular encyclopedia with peer review that states domesticated horses or steel swords and the wheel (for transportation was present in South America during the Book of Mormon time frame. (note: there are various BoM scriptures mentioning these items)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2007 16:25:18 GMT -4
That is good, heart-felt rhetoric. But it is still rhetoric. By "rhetoric" do you mean "untrue"? You seem to be lableing what I have to say as rhetoric merely in order to quickly dispense with it without actually considering its content, much as you have often accused me of doing by calling people or texts "anti-mormon". Am I shifting gears? Or have I always maintained that my own personal experience of revelation was the most important evidence I had for the truth of the Book of Mormon and that external secular evidence is at best secondary to that witness? I think if you more carefully read my posts you will see that I have been consistent. Yes, but for different reasons - because I believe the existence or non-existence of Big Foot is not particularly important either way. Some of these ruins have been found. They have not been positively identified, but I have explained the barriers to that identification at some length in this thread. I reject your requests as being the wrong questions to ask when considering the Book of Mormon. The Church has not identified any sites as positively being places described in the Book of Momon and has excellent reasons for refusing to do so. If you're so concerned at finding peer-reviewed evidence of the existence of elephants, swords, etc. then I encourage you to look for it yourself. I find the (unofficial) LDS sources of this information sufficient for my purposes, since I only regard such evidences as being of secondary importance in the first place.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 16, 2007 11:37:00 GMT -4
Well, I'm about satisfied that fifty pages is enough. Since the thread is starting to get a little repetative and really only consists of two people at this point (is anyone else out there even looking at it any more? Hello?) I'm thinking of calling it good. I believe that even if I haven't convinced anyone of anything, I have at least presented a good case that Mormonism and LDS thought isn't as unreasonable as it may at first appear to an outside observer. If anyone has new LDS-related topics to discuss or general questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I will be happy to respond to them in other threads.
At this point I consider this one finished.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 18, 2007 13:09:07 GMT -4
You're taking the wrong approach. Science cannot say that something positively did not exist. All they can say is that they don't currently have much evidence that it did. A lack of evidence is not itself evidence. Claims that there were no steel, elephants, domesticated horses, or chariots in Pre-Colombian mesoamerica are just that, claims. A negative cannot be proven, and if solid evidence of pre-colombian steel swords, domesticated elephants or horses, or a chariot were found tomorrow then the theories would all change. Some evidence has been found for each of these things, but if you won't accept the most obvious sources of them - the people who have the greatest interest in finding these things - LDS researchers - then I won't bother searching for them myself. Should good LDS members be worried that archaeologists haven't found much evidence of these things? Not at all. Archaeology is not an exact science - much of what is solemnly proclaimed today can change tomorrow, especially in the Americas, and much of what is "known" is merely good guesswork with little confirmation. No the LDS Church hasn't positively identified any ruins in mesoamerica as being Nephite cities. Should we expect it to? The Church is not an archaeological institution, and purely secular evidence of the Book of Mormon, while it might be welcome, is not a church priority. The Church believes the spiritual value of the Book of Mormon is self evident. Since the spiritual value of the book cannot be disproven, any lack of secular evidences are at best a distand secondary consideration. Believing in something because it is the "right thing to believe in" is the same reason why people believe that the evil neocons planned 9-11 to take away our civil liberties, or that the Earth is in the center of the universe because the bible says so, or that the Earth is flat, or that man could not be so grand enough to have walked on the moon. Limiting yourself to believing in something because you are told it is the moral, just, and right thing to believe in limits yourself from the truth.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 18, 2007 13:28:20 GMT -4
Perhaps you should read my last post (Reply #740), Bill.
|
|