Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_Tobin]

Tobin,
My favorite is how you provided evidence for macahuitl by referencing Nephi building a ship. Evidencing a conjucture by a reference to a historical fiction does not a good argument make.

Circular reasoning much?

Actually, I was referring to the Nephite knowledge of making iron swords, NOT the invention of the macahuitl by the Lamanites.

[_Runtu]

Actually, I was referring to the Nephite knowledge of making iron swords, NOT the invention of the macahuitl by the Lamanites.

But the Lamanites didn't invent the macahuitl until some 500 years after Moroni buried the plates. They aren't relevant in any way.

[_Tobin]

Were you doing drugs or having sex, or both?

As I said, I was in a dark place and in a lot of trouble. I was involved in a lot of things, including planning to murder some people that has stolen a lot of money from me. I make no excuse for how I was and I to this day feel terrible about it and have taken steps to address my anger and desire for revenge. Thank goodness I was stopped and did not carry through with my plans because I think I would be completely lost now instead.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
My favorite is how you provided evidence for macahuitl by referencing Nephi building a ship. Evidencing a conjucture by a reference to a historical fiction does not a good argument make.

Circular reasoning much?

Actually, I was referring to the Nephite knowledge of making iron swords, NOT the invention of the macahuitl by the Lamanites.

Well that is even more circular. Using Nephi's ship building prowess as evidence for the production of more steel swords.

Too bad no evidence for any such smelting of iron exists in that time frame in the western hemisphere.

Supporting one Book of Mormon assertion with another does not forward your position.

[_Tobin]

But the Lamanites didn't invent the macahuitl until some 500 years after Moroni buried the plates. They aren't relevant in any way.

Technology and tools don't come out of a vacuum (there is always prior art). This is no doubt there were predecessors of the macahuitl and this is a good example of what is being discussed in these verses. This is another criticism I have of detractors of the Book of Mormon, we can point at examples that fit the descriptions of the Book of Mormon. But then they pull the ole bait'n switch of "well, we don't have an example of the earlier version because it hasn't been discovered yet". This goes back to my point about barley in fact. It was prefectly fine to state barley didn't exist in pre-Columbian america until it shows up, then we'll just abandon that line of criticism because we have a whole list of yet undiscovered things. It's simply a ridiculous line of reasoning. The Bible could never be considered as a book from God if it suffered from the same assault since there is no evidence for a lot of its claims either. It is much more simple to speak with God and determine from God if these records arose from him or not and leave the archeologists and scientists to making their own discoveries and theories. There is NEVER going to be a point that discoveries can ever prove the Book of Mormon is true and it will forever be a moving target.

[_Tobin]

Actually, I was referring to the Nephite knowledge of making iron swords, NOT the invention of the macahuitl by the Lamanites.

Well that is even more circular. Using Nephi's ship building prowess as evidence for the production of more steel swords.

Too bad no evidence for any such smelting of iron exists in that time frame in the western hemisphere.

Supporting one Book of Mormon assertion with another does not forward your position.

Uhm, you simply don't get it do you? If you believe God could teach Nephi to build a ship, he certainly could teach Nephi to craft iron weapons. That is all I was asserting. I made no claims of finding iron weapons or any other such non-sense.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
See the big IF in your statement. Now how many believe that god instructed Nephi to build a ship? Where is the evidence for it. Basing one conclusion on unsupported evidence from the same source is circular.

Ok, he can do that.... It is in the realm of possibity. So hence it is possible that there was iron working derived from Nephi's knowledge..... Now show any evidence supporting this possibility without referencing the Book of Mormon. Find one scrap of archeological evidence for this iron working.

There is none.

Hence my assertions that the Lamanites made swords from alloyed unobtanium and adamantium is every bit as feasible as iron and steel. There is no evidence for either, so one is as valid as the other, as both are umsupportable.

[_Buffalo]

But the Lamanites didn't invent the macahuitl until some 500 years after Moroni buried the plates. They aren't relevant in any way.

Technology and tools don't come out of a vacuum (there is always prior art). This is no doubt there were predecessors of the macahuitl and this is a good example of what is being discussed in these verses.

The only thing more primitive than a macahuitl would be just a club.

[Guest]

Tobin,
So as I was chatting with god today I asked him about the nephite ship and the sword things. He said he did teach Nephi how build a ship. He said he was going to originally teach Nephi how to build DC-10s, but he decided on a nuclear powered submarine, quite similar to a soviet alpha class. He also said that he taught the Nephites how to make high carbon steel swords of the finest quality, but that after the Nephites died out, he destroyed all of the evidence of swords, smelting, and nuclear powered submarines with a disintegrator ray.

Who knew? He hid all the evidence! That god he is such a kidder.

--edit--
Pew!Pew! Pew! Disintegrator ray! Just by way of clarification, god says he didn't use DC-10s cuz he heard that Xenu cat had plans for them. God is not some johhny come lately so he went with nuclear subs.

[_Runtu]

Technology and tools don't come out of a vacuum (there is always prior art). This is no doubt there were predecessors of the macahuitl and this is a good example of what is being discussed in these verses.

That is like saying that because the technology to make iPods didn't come out of a vacuum, there must have been a predecessor of the iPod in 1500.

This is another criticism I have of detractors of the Book of Mormon, we can point at examples that fit the descriptions of the Book of Mormon. But then they pull the ole bait'n switch of "well, we don't have an example of the earlier version because it hasn't been discovered yet".

No bait and switch at all. The macahuitl is a bad example both because it does not come close to the description of how swords were made in the Book of Mormon and also because it doesn't appear in the Americas until much too late.

This goes back to my point about barley in fact. It was prefectly fine to state barley didn't exist in pre-Columbian america until it shows up, then we'll just abandon that line of criticism because we have a whole list of yet undiscovered things. It's simply a ridiculous line of reasoning.

As I said, I've never had that line of reasoning. Of course, your line of reasoning is the opposite and is equally fallacious: we just haven't discovered the evidence yet. In four years of studying Latin American history (at BYU, no less), I never came across anything that supported an ancient American setting for the Nephites and Lamanites. Will there ever be any such evidence? I would never say never, but with each discovery and each archaeological dig, we learn more about what life was really like in the Americas in those times. Unfortunately, it's nothing like the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon.

The Bible could never be considered as a book from God if it suffered from the same assault since there is no evidence for a lot of its claims either.

At least we can confirm that the Bible is an ancient text, but no, you can't prove supernatural events.

It is much more simple to speak with God and determine from God if these records arose from him or not and leave the archeologists and scientists to making their own discoveries and theories. There is NEVER going to be a point that discoveries can ever prove the Book of Mormon is true and it will forever be a moving target.

Again, I did ask God, whether you like it or not.