http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=24761
First, the original poster, "Log", apparently doesn't have a complete grasp of LGT, as he proclaims that evidence of Incan area metallurgy provides some sort of evidence for the Book of Mormon. (it's been known for a long time that the Incan area developed metallurgy long before the Mesoamericans... and yes, there is EVIDENCE of metallurgy there, that is how we know that in the first place... the humid climate didn't magically erase it all)
Those believers who know a tad bit more about LGT heartily proclaim this is more evidence that flies in the face of the strawman "all the discovery has been done", since they know good and well it is no evidence for the Book of Mormon!!! As has been pointed out ad nauseum, no critic that I know of has ever made any such claim.
I will, once again, state that there is enough known to be confident in asserting there is zero chance the Book of Mormon is a historical document from ancient Mesoamerica.
I hope that someone - clearly not Juliann - recognizes the difference between that statement and saying "all the discovery has been done!!"
For an easier to grasp analogy, no one claims that "all the discovery" has been "done" about the Egyptian culture, but there is certainly enough evidence to assert that the claim some make that aliens helped build the pyramids in ancient Egypt has zero chance of being correct.
And as if I needed more evidence of the obvious, this post of Juliann's demonstrate she has yet to grasp the criticisms of exmormons such as myself:
The civilization dates got moved back into the Book of Mormon timeline. One of the biggest yuk yuks used to be that there were no civilizations to match the Book of Mormon. The silly person who read eight books and appointed herself a MesoAmerican expert now argues with Brant over which cities the Book of Mormon could be referring to. Very funny.
Juliann did not understand that the argument over whether or not "civilizations" (by which she must mean groups at a more complex level than tribe) existed during the right time frame had to do with the Olmec period, and the conflict between Sorenson's Olmec timeline (he insists it had to be 3000 BC due to the "towers" referenced) and Brant's timeline (he insists upon a much later date, - 1500 BC If I recall correctly.)
The civilization dates didn't get moved back to the Book of Mormon timelines (and, by the way, there is still no evidence of the empire described in the Book of Mormon in those time frames) - what got "moved" was Brant's time frame for the ancient Olmecs.
by the way, I've read over thirty books on the subject. No, not enough to be an expert, but it doest give me enough background knowledge to recognize BS when I hear it.
Metallurgy Problems for the Book of Mormon:
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... Metallurgy
You can find Sorenson's trickery as well as his and Brant's sleight of hand with "linguistic" evidence there, as well as a detailed explanation of the lack of evidence supporting metallurgy in the correct period and place to support the Book of Mormon claims.