no evidence for is not evidence against

[_Simon Belmont]

Whenever I am confronted by this approach, my response is this: show me evidence that supports your claim, and then I will judge whether it is worth entertaining. I firmly believe that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. Mormons contend that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. I say, "provide the evidence." So far, the evidence is very slender indeed. It is hardly sufficient to show that the Book of Mormon is in fact an ancient record. What need does anyone have to prove it is not? Prove it is. You LDS folk are the ones who claim this.

Well, you make the claim that you exist, right?

Prove it.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Whenever I am confronted by this approach, my response is this: show me evidence that supports your claim, and then I will judge whether it is worth entertaining. I firmly believe that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. Mormons contend that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. I say, "provide the evidence." So far, the evidence is very slender indeed. It is hardly sufficient to show that the Book of Mormon is in fact an ancient record. What need does anyone have to prove it is not? Prove it is. You LDS folk are the ones who claim this.

Well, you make the claim that you exist, right?

Prove it.

ATTENTION BOARD ADMINISTRATORS:

Once again, there appears to be a bug in the forum software that occasionally causes these random sequences of letters to appear. This bug, which I will refer to as the Simon Belmont bug, will often have the appearance of being from an actual human being. But since there is no documented proof that there is such a person as Simon Belmont, please correct this bug as soon as possible.

Thanks.

[_Morley]

Let me provide an example of a valid use of "no evidence for is not evidence against".

When Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", he freely admitted that at the time, there wasn't any fossil evidence to support it. He predicted, correctly, that we would find more evidence in the future, and that if we didn't, his theory was in trouble. Would it be fair to say that at the time that he wrote the book, the lack of fossil evidence amounted to evidence against evolution? That is what is meant by saying "no evidence for is not evidence against". At the time, the fossil record was so small that we wouldn't expect it to provide evidence for evolution, but that fact alone (the fact that the fossil record didn't provide evidence for) is not the same as saying that the fossil record provided evidence against evolution.

(emphasis added)

Thanks.

Yes, it is fair to day that the lack of fossil evidence did amount to evidence against evolution. There was, however, other evidence that argued for evolution. Darwin wasn't looking at all of the facts and saying there was no evidence of any kind. He had plenty of non-fossil evidence of other kinds.

As far as proof from the fossil record went, though, Darwin recognized the lack of evidence. He knew that "no evidence for is evidence against" when he concluded (as you say), "that if we didn't [find fossils], his theory was in trouble."

Your mileage may vary.

[_Themis]

This may help.

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

[_Morley]

This may help.

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

Excellent. Thanks.

[_stemelbow]

Whenever I am confronted by this approach, my response is this: show me evidence that supports your claim, and then I will judge whether it is worth entertaining. I firmly believe that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. Mormons contend that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. I say, "provide the evidence." So far, the evidence is very slender indeed. It is hardly sufficient to show that the Book of Mormon is in fact an ancient record. What need does anyone have to prove it is not? Prove it is. You LDS folk are the ones who claim this.

I like Kishkumen's take on this. Its up to us to prove it. And sure the evidence is slender. It'd be nice to leave it at that. when people start saying the Book of Mormon is proved untrue, then, we're left arguing about an unsupportable claim. Proving a negative is difficult, if not impossible. critics ought to be wise enough to realize their claim of proving something untrue ought to be supported if they wish to make the claim.

With that, surely its been a difficult road proving the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient record, and with all the work and efforts accomplished in this area, there is plenty of reasons to not accept the notion. Its unproven. That's not the say reasonable people can't look at the evidence and end up on either side of the aisle though. It happens, i'd say. the evidence can be discussed reasonably.

[_Tchild]

Well, you make the claim that you exist, right?

Prove it.

Well, lets help out here. I will bring the camera. Dad of a Mormon will bring a cream pie (which we will substitute with dog feces) and then we will plant that delicious pie in the face of Simon Belmont as I take pictures as the proof of the existance of Dad of a Mormon.

When and where Simon?

[_Kishkumen]

Well, you make the claim that you exist, right?

Prove it.

Simon, I'm waiting for you to prove you are not a complete idiot.

[_jon]

Well, you make the claim that you exist, right?

Prove it.

Simon, I'm waiting for you to prove you are not a complete idiot.

I think Ash has a better chance of proving that Book of Mormon horses were Tapirs...

[_Kishkumen]

I like Kishkumen's take on this. Its up to us to prove it. And sure the evidence is slender. It'd be nice to leave it at that. when people start saying the Book of Mormon is proved untrue, then, we're left arguing about an unsupportable claim. Proving a negative is difficult, if not impossible. critics ought to be wise enough to realize their claim of proving something untrue ought to be supported if they wish to make the claim.

With that, surely its been a difficult road proving the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient record, and with all the work and efforts accomplished in this area, there is plenty of reasons to not accept the notion. Its unproven. That's not the say reasonable people can't look at the evidence and end up on either side of the aisle though. It happens, i'd say. the evidence can be discussed reasonably.

Hey, stem. I suspect that the Book of Mormon is not ancient, but I would never claim that I have definitive proof that it is not. Of course, I don't think I need such evidence. My feeling is that the most important thing about the Book of Mormon is how it helps others spiritually in their Christian walk. All one needs for this is a conviction that the book is true, which often comes from a sense of spiritual revelation. I don't get the obsession with historicity, but that's just me.