Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

You're confused. Science deals in "what's more likely?" and doesn't concern itself with finding evidence against people's fantasies. If there isn't positive evidence for something, then it's not worthy of belief. It's not the other way around.

You have an opinion he made it up, but you have no evidence that would be admissible in court that he made it up. Got that.

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is almost comical. (It would be if I didn't think you were so serious.) Are you wrong? Not now that I unerstand that you think the story is fantastic becasue you think it sprang from Joe SMith's head. That's your opinion and you can have it. The entire point is that your post made it sound like you thought it was fantastic becaseu "it" was disproveable. The "it" turns out to be Joe Smith's story instead of the other possibly proveable parts of the topic. Next time, be a little quicker to explain and a little slower to hurl invectives and you might find that this whole process goes a little better.


Btw, any response at all, of any type, to my sincere inquiry about the woven mat theory? I will tell you exactly why I want it, btw. First, I think it is interesting and I am unaware of what evdicen for this idea exists. IOW, I am curious about it. Second, I would also be interested to know what evidcen you think qualifies as compelling.

Can you help me out here? Or at least tell me you won't help me out?

I said it's NOT disprovable, not it IS disprovable. Does this whole tiff stem from you overlooking one word?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have an opinion he made it up, but you have no evidence that would be admissible in court that he made it up. Got that.

Wow are you saying that a court of law would accept his tale as fact if there wasn't evidence to disprove it? I guess science follows a different set of rules. If science dedicated itself to disproving the imaginations of individuals it wouldn't have time for anything else.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

I said it's NOT disprovable, not it IS disprovable. Does this whole tiff stem from you overlooking one word?

No. I left out the word from my last post. I assume you realized that? Maybe I should accuse you of being unabel to grasp the context?
Sorry. I am a very poor typist and get ahead of myself.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You made it sound as if ancient Middle Eastern people traveling across the seas was fantastical.

Speaking of middle-eastern sailors, Herodotus 4.42.2-4 claims that the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa, although it took them two years and they never strayed far from the coastline.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...%3Asection%3D2

The Phoenicians were extremely skilled sailors (just ask the Romans who fought the first Punic War).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

[big sigh and the mustering up of a tiny bit of hope]

Do you Tex believe that the Woodruff quotes excerpted after the Manifesto should stay printed in the Standard Works?

Not unless there's a truly compelling reason to do so. Otherwise it would give people like you a reason to believe there is something wrong with them.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you were an honest and thoughtful person, Tex, this is what you would say.

"Although I might disagree in nearly every other instance, I have to now admit that Adam and others who criticized the 'principal ancestor' language of the BofM intro were right. It is now clear that the Church agrees with Adam and others that the language went too far, was unsupported by either evidence or revelation, and needed to be stricken. While I reserve the right to object to future positions taken by Adam and his ilk, I will now give greater pause and realize that like a stopped clock, they are occasionally right on target."

Well done, Adam. Both for the original prediction and for getting Tex to concede a point (sort of). That's quite a feat.

By the way, here is a longer article on the topic:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226049,00.html

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well done, Adam. Both for the original prediction and for getting Tex to concede a point (sort of). That's quite a feat.

By the way, here is a longer article on the topic:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226049,00.html

Can someone explain how Adam's post constitutes a "prediction"? He simply stated his desire for it to be changed, not a prognositication that it actually would.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Can someone explain how Adam's post constitutes a "prediction"? He simply stated his desire for it to be changed, not a prognositication that it actually would.

You are nitpicking.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You are nitpicking.

OK, so for the record, if I complained about Bronco's prevent defense against TCU and he gets fired 5 years from now, I'll will similarly claim I predicted his firing.