[SeattleUte]

Simply put, Solon's point is that this is an example of the typicle apologist's modus operandi of taking something that proves nothing and trying to extrapolate "proof" from nothing. To take tooblue's rejoinder as a typical non-response, no, Rome did not rise in a vacuum; its traditions were primarily adapted from Greek culture, but certainly eastern cultures were influential. So what? In the plain light of day Roman practices of making copies of documents proves nothing about the Book of Mormon being a genuine acient document, as purported (as an aside, making duplictes of important documents seems to me just good common sensical practice, but look how long it took for humans to think of the wheel).

But apologists are desparate, as they really have literally nothing to work with in terms of proving their ultimate points, and they are fundamentally dishonest. I've never met an apologist to whom I'd loan the price of a cup of coffee. They're all crooks and liars and this is a prime example.