A New Question About Proof for the Book of Mormon

[_evangelinewest]

Why would it be that when the Europeans came to this continent they found people who, according to the Book of Mormon, would have had and lost stunning levels of technology? None of the people groups here used sails to cross the water, but Lehi's family are said to have done some remarkable sailing. And what culture loses the use of the wheel, or the forging of metal tools? Who lets their herds of useful livestock become extinct? These are developments that give a culture advantages in war and prosperity in peace. They not only don't tend to get lost, they are developed, refined, and borrowed (sometimes stolen) between people groups. Is there any other time in history when a comparable phenomenon has occurred?

They say that absence of proof is not proof of absence. But in a case like this, where you are assuming several major losses, each of which is highly improbable, you at least need to come up with some hypothesis about why such a combination of losses might have happened. Some examples of similar situations in history would also be helpful.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

I've had Mopologists tell me that not one horse bone has ever been discovered in the region where Huns supposedly rode around on horses centuries ago.

Of course, that is a lie.

I told them that it was a lie, and asked them to change their page where it stated the lie.

They said that they couldn't.

They also said that it was OK for them to lie because critics of the Church also lied (they said).

[_evangelinewest]

The difference is that the area where the Huns were never stopped having horses.

[_bcspace]

evangelinewest,

Are you saying you don't believe significant loss of civilization occured or are you saying such a loss is reasonably explained by the Book of Mormon? Also, to what specific Book of Mormon prophecies are you referring?

[_evangelinewest]

I'm saying that such losses do not occur. If the Book of Mormon were true, Native Americans would have been using sails and wheels and refining metals for tools and taking care of their cattle and horses in a continuing tradition. There wouldn't even be a need to look for fossils or artifacts to prove that these things had been here.

[_Quasimodo]

I've had Mopologists tell me that not one horse bone has ever been discovered in the region where Huns supposedly rode around on horses centuries ago.

Of course, that is a lie.

I told them that it was a lie, and asked them to change their page where it stated the lie.

They said that they couldn't.

They also said that it was OK for them to lie because critics of the Church also lied (they said).

The North American rock art record is pretty telling, as well.

There are depictions of deer, elk, moose, bison, big horn sheep (lots of those), dogs (yep, Native Americans had dogs), birds, cougars, caribou in the North, bears and bear tracks, even one depiction of a mammoth actually carved into a mammoth tusk (just recently confirmed as real).

Not one single depiction of a horse anywhere in the Western hemisphere until after the Spanish showed up.

It's hard to believe that if horses were around, someone wouldn't have drawn a picture of one. Cave art in Europe consists mostly of horses.

[_Quasimodo]

They say that absence of proof is not proof of absence. But in a case like this, where you are assuming several major losses, each of which is highly improbable, you at least need to come up with some hypothesis about why such a combination of losses might have happened. Some examples of similar situations in history would also be helpful.

Excellent point, evangelinewest! I'm always amused when I read that worn out excuse "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

It's ridiculous. No coffee makers or electric irons have ever been found in ancient archaeological sites. I guess we shouldn't assume that they didn't have them.

Archaeological excavations are ongoing on a daily basis all over the Western hemisphere. Farmers have been plowing their fields for a few hundred years. Not one sword, chariot wheel, breast plate, steel arrow point or any other artifact has turned up that would support the Book of Mormon.

We only have one man's word against overwhelming negative evidence.

[_contend4faith]

You cannot prove a negative.

[_Quasimodo]

You cannot prove a negative.

Yep, and you can't prove a positive with no evidence.

The negative in this case doesn't need to be proven. It stands as long as no evidence to the contrary is supplied. Unsubstantiated claims for the Book of Mormon stand as untrue until some reliable evidence is shown. None has been.

[_Quasimodo]

You cannot prove a negative.

I just saw this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/flying-over-earth-video_n_1090925.html

Very beautiful to watch!

It made me think of the "can't prove a negative" comment.

There are some very odd people that still believe the world is flat.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

The negative point to prove is that the world is NOT flat. I think the Nasa video does an excellent job of proving a negative. I'm a believer.