Book of Mormon archeology - the nail in the coffin: Michael Coe

[_Runtu]

Clearly you are not a scientist, since they actually do use absence of evidence as evidence of absence. There is a thread on this from Stak. This has been brought up before so I wonder why you want to keep saying something so clearly incorrect. Extinctions of animals is a classical example of this. Maybe this is why you want to fight it so badly since this is how we know the horse went extinct from the Americas long before Book of Mormon times.

As time goes on, archaeological discovery has deepened our understanding of Mesoamerican history, culture, and religion. Thus far, this deepening understanding does not include a Pre-Columbian Hebrew/Christian culture, and with each new discovery, the likelihood of finding such a culture diminishes. Is there absolute proof that there were no Nephites? Nope, but their existence is, as of this point, neither plausible nor likely. For this reason, of course, current apologetic efforts seem to be designed to reinterpret the Book of Mormon text (sometimes in bizarre ways) to make it "fit" with a Mesoamerican setting. But then, I don't see that apologists have much of a choice. The Book of Mormon describes specific cultural and environmental contexts that simply do not work within our understanding of Mesoamerica.

[_Buffalo]

Michael Coe's interview and the statements in it have been well debunked in a thread or two over at MA&DB.....

Coe's judgments are well over 30 years out of date.... and simply the common anti-mormon hashing. He clearly isn't as familiar with Mormonism as you claim.

Anyway, find the threads in question since you all care so much..... He's been well debunked.

This video ALONE debunks Coe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bgHHm_Ubc

Michael Coe's argument is directed at the Book of Mormon, not at the apostate fifth column apologists who are trying to radically reinterpret the Book of Mormon.

[_Themis]

As time goes on, archaeological discovery has deepened our understanding of Mesoamerican history, culture, and religion. Thus far, this deepening understanding does not include a Pre-Columbian Hebrew/Christian culture, and with each new discovery, the likelihood of finding such a culture diminishes. Is there absolute proof that there were no Nephites? Nope, but their existence is, as of this point, neither plausible nor likely. For this reason, of course, current apologetic efforts seem to be designed to reinterpret the Book of Mormon text (sometimes in bizarre ways) to make it "fit" with a Mesoamerican setting. But then, I don't see that apologists have much of a choice. The Book of Mormon describes specific cultural and environmental contexts that simply do not work within our understanding of Mesoamerica.

It's probably why LDS apologia is seem more and more as anti-Mormon by the faithful. :)

It is amazing how biased we can be to reinterpret the Book of Mormon to protect a belief rather then change the belief appropriately, but then my spiritual experiences(or rather my interpretations of them) are far less reliable at gathering accurate information, but they are so much more important to me.

As much as archeology is a very large nail in the coffin for the Book of Mormon, another large nail came from the realization that the backbone of the Book of Mormon story already existed in 19th century America before the Book of Mormon came on the scene. The basics already existed and other stories similar to it were already written. I think many people miss how significant this is. Stories like VoH clearly shows that it and the Book of Mormon share some of the same sources.

[_bcuzbcuz]

The critics say science has clearly determined that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate citing no evidence of things mentioned in Book of Mormon like horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc

Anyone who muses no evidence as evidence is not a scientist. But it is not unreasonable for a scientist to merely state that nthere is no evidence which I think many non scientists confuse with a conclusion of fact.

Your little ETC should include cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, swords, scimitars, figs and grapes, bees, bellows, brass, chains, chickens and chariots.....just a few of the many things missing in Real life finds from North, Meso and South America. For a complete list, try :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeolog ... _of_Mormon
Or you might want an apologists view. Try:
http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/resp ... nimals.htm

But if you wish to apply the "no evidence as evidence" rebuttal, try applying it to all the things that existed in North, Central and South America that receive no mention in the Book of Mormon. Llamas, leopards, manioc, potatoes, peppers, pumpkins, peanuts, pineapple, pecans, passionfruit, papaya, huckleberries, guava, Jerusalem artichokes (whoever came up with that name?), Jicama, beans, (pinto, lima, kidney), tomatoes, tobacco, rubber, sweet potato, sapodilla, squash, sunflowers, vanilla, guinea pigs, alpaca, turkeys, zucchini, coca, cocoa, chirimoya, chicle, chili peppers, chia, cashews and, of course, corn. Oh, I forgot the millions and millions of bison (buffalo). These are examples of evidence (and heaps of it, indeed) that has no correlation to anything written in the Book of Mormon. This is, quite obviously, "evidence that is no evidence".

Next time you bite into some corn on the cob, or sit to a turkey dinner or eat some pumpkin pie, give a thought to how these great tasting items slipped Joe Smith's imagination.

[_Franktalk]

The rest of the story: Evolution of the horse. Read the portions on Pleistocene extinctions and Return to the Americas.

Morley, if I believed in the dating process of science what you just wrote might make me doubt my beliefs. If I am going to have faith in something I think I will choose something I feel is inspired by the Holy Ghost instead of man. The assumptions that all line up to make those statements you keep making may be factual to you but not to me. Why must you write comments as if what you have faith in is actually a fact? You must realize that all of what you believe is just as faith based as what I believe in. Or then again maybe you feel that all of science is fact and the assumptions of science are just as much a truth as gravity. That is where our disagreement rest not in any comments about a horse.

Now you used an absence of data to make a positive in your statement. You assume yet again that if people can't find a bone then none exist. You assume that horses went extinct at some time in the Americas. But let us test that assumption can we? There are fossils of the coelacanth that are very old. So what does science do when they find some more bones?

"What happens when a fossil species is found to be alive, such as the coelacanth? It's known lifespan is extended...that's it! It doesn't' mean the earth is young, it doesn't even provide good evidence for a young earth. For the coelacanth, its lifespan was extended from 400-65 million years ago to 400 Ma to the present. Nothing further can be implied from this data."

http://www.answersincreation.org/livingfossil.htm

So keep looking for bones if that is what floats your boat.

[_Franktalk]

As time goes on, archaeological discovery has deepened our understanding of Mesoamerican history, culture, and religion. Thus far, this deepening understanding does not include a Pre-Columbian Hebrew/Christian culture, and with each new discovery, the likelihood of finding such a culture diminishes. Is there absolute proof that there were no Nephites? Nope, but their existence is, as of this point, neither plausible nor likely. For this reason, of course, current apologetic efforts seem to be designed to reinterpret the Book of Mormon text (sometimes in bizarre ways) to make it "fit" with a Mesoamerican setting. But then, I don't see that apologists have much of a choice. The Book of Mormon describes specific cultural and environmental contexts that simply do not work within our understanding of Mesoamerica.

At one time the entire civilization of Assyria was considered a myth. That is because man had not found anything from that culture for over 2500 years. The lack of hard evidence for the Assyrians was used to "prove" the Bible was a fable of man. But around 1865 Nineveh was uncovered. So did men start to say that the Bible is actually an eye witness account of history? No they just went onto the next unproven item and continued to say that the Bible is a fable. You see that it was not the evidence that mattered but the agenda of attacking the Bible that was important. Now many who repeat these kinds of arguments do not know that they are pawns of a much larger attack on faith in God. That is sad but true. For me I think patterns occur all of the time so when I see Nineveh hidden for 2500 years I expect some other cities to remain buried for the same time. So using 400 AD as our starting point I expect to see an old Nephite city in 900 years. I see no reason to make all kinds of statements about things that all work out in time. You see I have faith.

[Guest]

The critics say science has clearly determined that the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate citing no evidence of things mentioned in Book of Mormon like horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc

Anyone who muses no evidence as evidence is not a scientist. But it is not unreasonable for a scientist to merely state that nthere is no evidence which I think many non scientists confuse with a conclusion of fact.

Really, bc, you have to give this up. Once again you have it backwards. Anyone can give a silly postulation (Quakers living on the moon?). No one needs to take that seriously unless some proof is given. The lack of proof means that the postulation is NOT proven. I.e. false until some (any) evidence is found.

None ever has been after many years of research. Give it a break. As far as I can tell, you are the only one that thinks this way.

Once again, it's not to be considered true or even plausible until some evidence has been presented other than the musings of a very questionable person.

[_Quasimodo]

At one time the entire civilization of Assyria was considered a myth. That is because man had not found anything from that culture for over 2500 years. The lack of hard evidence for the Assyrians was used to "prove" the Bible was a fable of man. But around 1865 Nineveh was uncovered. So did men start to say that the Bible is actually an eye witness account of history? No they just went onto the next unproven item and continued to say that the Bible is a fable. You see that it was not the evidence that mattered but the agenda of attacking the Bible that was important. Now many who repeat these kinds of arguments do not know that they are pawns of a much larger attack on faith in God. That is sad but true. For me I think patterns occur all of the time so when I see Nineveh hidden for 2500 years I expect some other cities to remain buried for the same time. So using 400 AD as our starting point I expect to see an old Nephite city in 900 years. I see no reason to make all kinds of statements about things that all work out in time. You see I have faith.

Nineveh and it's ruins were discovered in 1847-48 and even then it wasn't really lost. Just no one had published anything about it. The reason that Nineveh was not discovered by science before that is because no one was really looking for it. The science of archaeology didn't really fall into it's own until the early twentieth century.

Since then, however there has been a great deal of scholarly work on all continents. Research and excavations in Meso America and North America have continued to this day and are still continuing. Even after more than a hundred years of serious research, no evidence has shown up that could point to a Nephite civilization. Nothing. Not even the smallest artifact. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that no such civilization ever existed?

[_Franktalk]

Nineveh and it's ruins were discovered in 1847-48 and even then it wasn't really lost. Just no one had published anything about it. The reason that Nineveh was not discovered by science before that is because no one was really looking for it. The science of archaeology didn't really fall into it's own until the early twentieth century.

Since then, however there has been a great deal of scholarly work on all continents. Research and excavations in Meso America and North America have continued to this day and are still continuing. Even after more than a hundred years of serious research, no evidence has shown up that could point to a Nephite civilization. Nothing. Not even the smallest artifact. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that no such civilization ever existed?

Oh really,

"The British Museum was established in 1753, largely based on the collections of the physician and scientist Sir Hans Sloane. The museum first opened to the public on 15 January 1759 in Montagu House in Bloomsbury, on the site of the current museum building."

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

Many universities and private collectors started much earlier. Why don't you go ring some bells and gaze upon the Paris skyline.

[Guest]

... if I believed in the dating process of science what you just wrote might make me doubt my beliefs ...

Please list us something of science You believe in.

For example, do You believe, that certain structure of sand, bombed by some electron, allow us to communicate with somebody residing in an area called antipodes*?

from http://www.answers.com/topic/antipodes:

From the time of St Augustine, the Christian church was sceptical of the notion of the idea of the Antipodes. Augustine asserted that "it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man."

The so called science You not believe in is throwing the words of prophets, seers and revelators to the garbage heap.
Step by step, precept upon precept; line upon line, here a little, and there a little - if You know the errorless words of a tribal god of some shepherds lived on the skirts of the map.

______________________
Edited to add:
Do You believe that there is a particle called Chi-b(3P) (pronounced kye-bee-three-pee) ?
Does it make you doubt Your beliefs?