The horse, domesticated animals and tilling the ground

[_subgenius]

Another one over your head. Is it that hard to understand that horses being found do not provide evidence for the Book of Mormon. The only way it can be is for two conditions to take place. First that horses did indeed exist during Book of Mormon times, and second that Joseph and others in the 1800's thought that horses did not exist in the America's anciently. I even gave you a hint as to how some things would be evidence for and others are only evidence against. Removing evidence against some claim does not of necessity mean it is now evidence for a claim.

it is like you do not even read the thread.
interesting...a little sad...but interesting.

you provided an assumptive close to the poster's statement of "I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however." whereas you presumed, assumed, and consumed! (consumed was added just for poetic)

Your "two conditions" are absurd and surely you do not expect me to agree with how you would like to frame the argument just because you have little else to offer?
Contrary to your assertion, horses being found do actually provide evidence for the Book of Mormon...no, it does provide indisputable and conclusive evidence, but it is evidence for....you see that it how evidence works. Degrees of certitude is most certainly another topic...but as more and more evidence is found...that degree is increased...things become more likely than not.....you know...like good science.
What Joseph knew or did not know about horses in the 1800s is purely speculation, if not just simply imagination, by you unless you actually have some "evidence" either way.

[_MCB]

They are camelidae, not equis. You still have the problem of tight translation vs. loose translation.

[_Themis]

it is like you do not even read the thread.
interesting...a little sad...but interesting.

you provided an assumptive close to the poster's statement of "I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however." whereas you presumed, assumed, and consumed! (consumed was added just for poetic)

Your "two conditions" are absurd and surely you do not expect me to agree with how you would like to frame the argument just because you have little else to offer?
Contrary to your assertion, horses being found do actually provide evidence for the Book of Mormon...no, it does provide indisputable and conclusive evidence, but it is evidence for....you see that it how evidence works. Degrees of certitude is most certainly another topic...but as more and more evidence is found...that degree is increased...things become more likely than not.....you know...like good science.
What Joseph knew or did not know about horses in the 1800s is purely speculation, if not just simply imagination, by you unless you actually have some "evidence" either way.

I am not sure how to help you understand what should be a simple concept regarding how evidence works. Perhaps you could show how horses being found would be evidence for the Book of Mormon being a record of a real people. Maybe then you might start to see the problem, and why what Joseph or others thought become important and my two conditions are correct.

[_Themis]

you provided an assumptive close to the poster's statement of [i]"I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however."

Tobin made the assumption, with the statement above, that horses being found would be evidence for the Book of Mormon, which is incorrect, and I decided to bring it up and why it is wrong. That you cannot understand this is not my fault.

[_Tobin]

you provided an assumptive close to the poster's statement of [i]"I believe in time that will happen. I very much doubt you'll join the Church if they do however."

Tobin made the assumption, with the statement above, that horses being found would be evidence for the Book of Mormon, which is incorrect, and I decided to bring it up and why it is wrong. That you cannot understand this is not my fault.

Actually, sub is correct. You simply are incapable of reading and comprehending what is said. I actually assumed that IF evidence of horses was found, the OP would not join the Church. Your comments echoed my statement when you also stated that you would not consider that evidence. This demonstrates what I have always thought - that there is a complete lack of honesty and integrity in Mormon critics. They will ignore evidence that contradicts their foregone conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud - no matter what.

[_Drifting]

This demonstrates what I have always thought - that there is a complete lack of honesty and integrity in Mormon critics. They will ignore evidence that contradicts their foregone conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud - no matter what.

Darn...that's another irony meter gone pop...

[_MCB]

Evidence of camels, in the absence of other evidence, is not evidence for the Book of Mormon. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the Book of Mormon being a historical record.

[_Themis]

Actually, sub is correct. You simply are incapable of reading and comprehending what is said.

Based on what you say below that is incorrect.

I actually assumed that IF evidence of horses was found, the OP would not join the Church. Your comments echoed my statement when you also stated that you would not consider that evidence.

Which means I was right in thinking you thought evidence of horse is also evidence of the Book of Mormon. This shows a lack of understanding of how evidence works. I see MCB post shows he understands. Finding horses removes one of the evidences against the Book of Mormon. In order for it to be evidence for the Book of Mormon you have to establish the two conditions I already brought up.

This demonstrates what I have always thought - that there is a complete lack of honesty and integrity in Mormon critics. They will ignore evidence that contradicts their foregone conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud - no matter what.

Incorrect, but accurate for many people like yourself. I think one of the problems besides a closed mind that cannot accept they may be wrong is a lack of understanding how evidence works. I am more then willing to go by the evidence, and have many reasons to believe and want there to be evidence for the Book of Mormon. I even gave you a hint of what would be evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[_Tobin]

Actually, sub is correct. You simply are incapable of reading and comprehending what is said.

Based on what you say below that is incorrect.

Actually, what I have noted about you is very accurate.

I actually assumed that IF evidence of horses was found, the OP would not join the Church. Your comments echoed my statement when you also stated that you would not consider that evidence.

Which means I was right in thinking you thought evidence of horse is also evidence of the Book of Mormon. This shows a lack of understanding of how evidence works. I see MCB post shows he understands. Finding horses removes one of the evidences against the Book of Mormon. In order for it to be evidence for the Book of Mormon you have to establish the two conditions I already brought up.

No it doesn't mean that. As I said and I'll repeat it again, you won't consider it evidence AT ALL since it contradicts your position.

This demonstrates what I have always thought - that there is a complete lack of honesty and integrity in Mormon critics. They will ignore evidence that contradicts their foregone conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a fraud - no matter what.

Incorrect, but accurate for many people like yourself. I think one of the problems besides a closed mind that cannot accept they may be wrong is a lack of understanding how evidence works. I am more then willing to go by the evidence, and have many reasons to believe and want there to be evidence for the Book of Mormon. I even gave you a hint of what would be evidence for the Book of Mormon.

You are just asserting the opposite. Your statements confirm what I've said and that is ironic, but does not disprove what I've stated in the least. The simple fact is you have arrived at a foregone conclusion - all evidence to the contrary be damned.

[_Tobin]

Evidence of camels, in the absence of other evidence, is not evidence for the Book of Mormon. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the Book of Mormon being a historical record.

Just a baseless assertion. The point you have failed to grasp is horses pre-contact IS evidence the Book of Mormon is true. The statement that Themis made that he will not consider it as such (and you seem to agree with) means that you are are not an honest broker here.