Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do you know what the ancient seafarers were capable of?

You are more difficult to get a concession than Tex and that's saying a lot. If you want to whine like all the other dumbass antis, go for it.

I already mentioned various small groups coming across the ocean on tiny little woven rafts using seaweed trails to mitigate the waves, and that was roughly 15,000 years ago, something like 3000 years before the Bering strait passage would have opened (the evidence of these trips is sketchy but I find it pretty compelling), but I assume you ignored all that since it doesn't fit your brainless notion of who I am.

I make concessions constantly where they're due, but accusing me of taking positions that I didn't take and then expecting me to concede "Oh, you got me. I did totally take that position." might explain some of your failure.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I already mentioned various small groups coming across the ocean on tiny little woven rafts using seaweed trails to mitigate the waves, and that was roughly 15,000 years ago, something like 3000 years before the Bering strait passage would have opened (the evidence of these trips is sketchy but I find it pretty compelling), but I assume you ignored all that since it doesn't fit your brainless notion of who I am.

I make concessions constantly where they're due, but accusing me of taking positions that I didn't take and then expecting me to concede "Oh, you got me. I did totally take that position." might explain some of your failure.

So what is fantastical about this particular story, which at current time is unverifiable?

Here are more links to ancient seafarers.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/H...s/Prakash.html

http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/news....php?which=184

[woot]

I'd rather not get into the details, as I really don't have any particular angst against Mormon beliefs and have never frequented anti-mormon websites. I just find absolutely no reason to believe that any part of the story has any merit whatsoever. I find most of the Bible to be nearly as fantastical, and generally make it a rule to not believe anything without good reason, regardless of its status as theoretically possible or not disprovable. Much of fantasy is based upon potential realism.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I'd rather not get into the details, as I really don't have any particular angst against Mormon beliefs and have never frequented anti-mormon websites. I just find absolutely no reason to believe that any part of the story has any merit whatsoever. I find most of the Bible to be nearly as fantastical, and generally make it a rule to not believe anything without good reason, regardless of its status as theoretically possible or not disprovable. Much of fantasy is based upon potential realism.

I'm not asking for belief, as it's clear you're incapable of belief.

For me, the journey, based on my interest in ancient seafarers is plausible, even if unlikely. Most who ventured such journeys failed, but a few succeeded.

We will never disprove or prove the event. Whether they represent literal events or inspired fiction is unknowable to us at the current time.

However, to call a journey at that point in time to be fantastical is not supported by knowledge of seafarers. Unlikely it would be successful is a truer statement, but fantastical no.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm not asking for belief, as it's clear you're incapable of belief.

For me, the journey, based on my interest in ancient seafarers is plausible, even if unlikely. Most who ventured such journeys failed, but a few succeeded.

We will never disprove or prove the event. Whether they represent literal events or inspired fiction is unknowable to us at the current time.

However, to call a journey at that point in time to be fantastical is not supported by knowledge of seafarers. Unlikely it would be successful is a truer statement, but fantastical no.

It's fantastical because it isn't based on any evidence, but was created in the mind of 19th century boy. For the last time, the theoretical concept is not fantastical, the specific story is. I really hope you'll read that sentence until you understand my position.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

I already mentioned various small groups coming across the ocean on tiny little woven rafts using seaweed trails to mitigate the waves, and that was roughly 15,000 years ago, something like 3000 years before the Bering strait passage would have opened (the evidence of these trips is sketchy but I find it pretty compelling), but I assume you ignored all that since it doesn't fit your brainless notion of who I am.

I make concessions constantly where they're due, but accusing me of taking positions that I didn't take and then expecting me to concede "Oh, you got me. I did totally take that position." might explain some of your failure.

I am curious if you can direct me to the evidence that you find comelling to support the scenario you describe for emigration via tiny woven mats atop kelp forests or seaweed trails. This is not a set-up, btw. I am actually cuirous what compelling evidence you have found in support of this scenario.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

It's fantastical because it isn't based on any evidence, but was created in the mind of 19th century boy. For the last time, the theoretical concept is not fantastical, the specific story is. I really hope you'll read that sentence until you understand my position.

Hmmm. WHat you said was:

Nope, it's not something that can really be proven false, but it does seem very unlikely. I put it in the same category as any other fantastical idea that isn't disprovable.

The 'its' pronoun referred to Indycoug's question to you whether a claim of ANY lamanite ancestry was false. Despite your protestations, then, your oringial comment clearly labeled it a 'fantastical' idea not because it was in a boy's head, bu becaseu it was disproveable. The other possible meaning that could be ascribed to your statement is that the idea was so inherently fantastical that it obviously fit in with other (undefined) fantastical ideas. I suppose it is also possible to read this as stating that the fact that Indycoug asked about Lamanite ancestry made it fantastical, but could you be so small minded as to be critical of the use of the name 'lamanite' when it seemed pretty clear he was using it to refer to persons of mid eastern or even plaestinian descent? Or is that just an example of your poor reading comprehension? Hard to say, then, what it is you actually did mean, which is sort of Arch's point.

Now I have been known to miss the point before, and maybe I did here, but I have rarely seen someone as arrogant and certain about their own knowledge and abilities without demonstrated cause as you.

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

Hmmm. WHat you said was:



The 'its' pronoun referred to Indycoug's question to you whether a claim of ANY lamanite ancestry was false. Despite your protestations, then, your oringial comment clearly labeled it a 'fantastical' idea not because it was in a boy's head, bu becaseu it was disproveable. The other possible meaning that could be ascribed to your statement is that the idea was so inherently fantastical that it obviously fit in with other (undefined) fantastical ideas. I suppose it is also possible to read this as stating that the fact that Indycoug asked about Lamanite ancestry made it fantastical, but could you be so small minded as to be critical of the use of the name 'lamanite' when it seemed pretty clear he was using it to refer to persons of mid eastern or even plaestinian descent? Or is that just an example of your poor reading comprehension? Hard to say, then, what it is you actually did mean, which is sort of Arch's point.

Now I have been known to miss the point before, and maybe I did here, but I have rarely seen someone as arrogant and certain about their own knowledge and abilities without demonstrated cause as you.

I don't understand the desire to try to fit my words into your desired interpretation when I'm right here providing the interpretation. To me, my meaning was glaringly obvious. If that's not the case, I apologize, but have since clarified it repeatedly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

It's fantastical because it isn't based on any evidence, but was created in the mind of 19th century boy. For the last time, the theoretical concept is not fantastical, the specific story is. I really hope you'll read that sentence until you understand my position.

It's fantastical because it's not based on evidence. Hmm.

I have purported to state that Nephite journey is supported by empirical evidence. There isn't any, unless one wishes to point to an isolated pillar somewhere in the Arabian pennisula with a Nephite name on it.

Most traditions are not based on "evidence", but that doesn't automatically make them fantastical.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

I don't understand the desire to try to fit my words into your desired interpretation when I'm right here providing the interpretation. To me, my meaning was glaringly obvious. If that's not the case, I apologize, but have since clarified it repeatedly.

But that is exactly the point! You told arch htat it was obvious from the begining and that he must have reading comprehsnion problems and yet it was a post (as are most posts here which we throw up with little thought) that was readily subject to multiple reasonable interpreations. Rather than simply say what you meant, you felt the need to insult his reading comprehenion and claim that you couldn't imagine how to make it any clearer! Nonetheless you now tell me that you were here all along and could easily explain the now apparently acknowledged possible ambiguity.

Speaking of reading comrehension, I didn't try to shoehorn your words into any particualr meaning. I simply poonted out they were susceptible to multiple meanings and that it was hard to say what they really meant. So don't accuse me of desiring to make your words fit my interpretation. I don't have one and didn't present one.

I am still interested to see the evidence about the woven mat voyages. Seriously, this is nto a set up. I am simply interested in it.