...and still Ash has no evidence supporting Mesoamerica...

[_Kishkumen]

Why did it take so long to find the city of Troy when we had so much information about it initially?

A guy who knew the Iliad well took off and found Troy. He did so fairly easily. That's because, unlike the Book of Mormon, which is pure fiction, the Iliad was the product of a known ancient civilization supported by an vast abundance of evidence.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Cee....

Hey back at ya TeeDee

Yes, Baker is cool. :-)

Sure seems like it (I understand he can play a little music as well)

But, just so you know, Baker's post is pretty much identical to the apologetic response addressing this topic. No, I am not kidding.

:-)

~td~

Hmmmmmm?


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_bcspace]

That's why I should never be criticized for buying treats for my invisible dragon.

There would be evidence against your made up invisible dragon, such as the lack of air displacement or the failure of your treats to disappear when fed to the dragon.

[_Baker]

That's why I should never be criticized for buying treats for my invisible dragon.

There would be evidence against your made up invisible dragon, such as the lack of air displacement or the failure of your treats to disappear when fed to the dragon.

For fear of capture, my invisible dragon will not subject himself to any such tests. His generosity invariably results in his insistence that I eat the treats I bring for him. Should you come to try and test for the presence of my dragon and find he's not there, that doesn't mean he wasn't or won't be again. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Cee,

Really, I am not joking. If I had time (and an inclination to visit another board...smile), I would find some old posts where apologists have responded to this issue. If I recall correctly, it was Brant Gardner who initiated the, "exaggerating numbers," response.

Perhaps you could ask an apologist about this just for fun?

Or maybe one will chime in?

;-)

~td~

[_Baker]

Hi Cee,

Really, I am not joking. If I had time (and an inclination to visit another board...smile), I would find some old posts where apologists have responded to this issue. If I recall correctly, it was Brant Gardner who initiated the, "exaggerating numbers," response.

Perhaps you could ask an apologist about this just for fun?

Or maybe one will chime in?

;-)

~td~

I know this came up on ZLMB years - when I was posting as SoHo. There were references made the highly-exaggerated number of Israelites wandering the desert, as well as the inflated size of David's and Solomon's kingdoms to bolster Israelite history.

[_Kishkumen]

I know this came up on ZLMB years - when I was posting as SoHo. There were references made the highly-exaggerated number of Israelites wandering the desert, as well as the inflated size of David's and Solomon's kingdoms to bolster Israelite history.

It's called "epic inflation."

[_Themis]

Because scientifically, no evidence for is not evidence against.

Just becuase you use the word scientifically does not make this statement true. It is a fallacy, yet you have been corrected more then once and you still do it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[_jon]

Blindfolded Mr Ash is trying to pin a tail on a non-existent donkey...

[_truth dancer]

What always made me wonder is that Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth yet these guys "inflated" numbers by about, what, 3,000,000 or so?

And, God, or rather the HG is behind a translation that doesn't catch a "little" mistake like inflating numbers for effect. Really?

God is giving the world a book that is going to help humankind find truth and it is filled with such craziness, (and exaggerations), that it doesn't make any sort of sense, (except to those special guys who figured out that other Biblical folk exaggerated numbers too). Really?

For over a hundred years the prophets, (you know, the ones who speak with God and are God's voice), actually believed the Book of Mormon and didn't get the word from the HG that it wasn't quite right and the ancient folk exaggerated for effect. Nope, they taught the world that the Book of Mormon was actually a true account of the ancient inhabitants of America. For some reason they didn't realize that they were only speaking of a little neighborhood somewhere on a few acres hidden away where no one could find them...ever.

No, the prophets didn't get it, and still don't. But hey, the apologists do! No need to read the church correlated material.

~td~

I do not mean to disparage Mike because I think he is a great guy who is trying to help struggling members, and, I am pretty sure he didn't come up with this apologetic argument. I'm more speaking of the dynamic that in the LDS church it is not the prophets and apostles that are inspired and come forth with new truths and share these with the world... apologists seem to be at the head of any information that comes forth to members.