No Spanish Conquest In Americas

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:00 PM

I do it for free on the side.  It's a very rewarding job.

Well then to H with Satan....my hubby won't do anything for free! LOL

I believe you *cough*church callings*cough*.

Well...at present my husband travels about 10 months out of the year and they won't call him to anything anyway...LOL

So still no freebees..

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 08:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:02 PM

Peace,

You have been provided with proof that Wookies existed on the American Continents for thousands of years.  I'd like for you to admit that you were wrong, and I was right so I can gloat about it.

LOL...sorry...I am not wrong.

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Just as Traveler has criticized BoM critics for being unable to disprove the BoM.

topping

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 08:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by -Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:02 PM

Peace,

You have been provided with proof that Wookies existed on the American Continents for thousands of years.  I'd like for you to admit that you were wrong, and I was right so I can gloat about it.

LOL...sorry...I am not wrong.

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Just as Traveler has criticized BoM critics for being unable to disprove the BoM.

topping

topping?

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:22 PM

topping?

My bad. It is a common technique used at RFM to bring a topic back to the top of the board.

[Guest Starsky]

AW....

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Just as Traveler has criticized BoM critics for being unable to disprove the BoM.

Well, the book of mormon has fruits...Wookies don't...

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:30 PM

AW....

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Just as Traveler has criticized BoM critics for being unable to disprove the BoM.

Well, the book of mormon has fruits...Wookies don't...

Irrelevant. And lame too. Try again.

[Guest bat]

I have a cunning plan. One that involves plagarism. I'll get back to you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Jan 26 2004, 07:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Jan 26 2004, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 06:14 PM

Very good Traveler. I appreciate the insightful and valid argument for truth.

Baby,

This argument is so full of fallacies I'm thinking of submitting it to the Smithsonian for preservation in the Historical Wing of Religious Cognitive Dissonance (it's right between the dinosaurs and the Korean art exhibit). Should I? Could I? Would I possibly take the time to Deconstruct (shout out to Snow) this very spurious and misleading pedantic diatribe!! Forsooth!

Sincerely,

Antius Shockius 8-tius

I have to agree with AS on this. In this case Traveler was certainly pedantic, and not in a good way. Instead of saying "If you don't see the evidence for the Book of Mormon, you're blind, baby," Traveler said the same thing thusly: "If you claim there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon you are wrong and indicate a strong lack of propensity to comprehend or deal with any artifact supportive of the Book of Mormon."

That's pedantic with a capital V and a capital P (verbose and pretentious).

Simply, simply simply Traveler, my friend. Haven't you read Thoreau?

Beyond that, for starters I can spot at least one logical fallacy. You lamment that critics claim that lack of evidence (of BoM steel) is proof that steel didn't exist, yet turn around and infer that since you know of no other society from the period in question, that as closely matched that of the Eastern Mediterranean, that no other more closely matching society existed.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 08:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:30 PM

AW....

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Just as Traveler has criticized BoM critics for being unable to disprove the BoM.

Well, the book of mormon has fruits...Wookies don't...

Irrelevant. And lame too. Try again.

Okay....Where are the wookie artifacts?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:44 PM

I have a cunning plan. One that involves plagarism. I'll get back to you.

Now this is lame...over used and never proven.

Actually I have read quite a bit about the BofM supposedly being a plagarism of a fictional novel of a man in his time....

But knowing Satan as I do....that would be just what he would have coming out...wouldn't it.

One thing I know...Satan knows who we are...what has been written...and how it is to be used...

He was in the counsel in Heaven.....he knows the whole story.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:51 PM

But knowing Satan as I do....that would be just what he would have coming out...wouldn't it.

I just talked to Satan and he says "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Peace". Don't lie to us. It only makes you look bad.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Jan 26 2004, 08:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Jan 26 2004, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:51 PM

But knowing Satan as I do....that would be just what he would have coming out...wouldn't it.

I just talked to Satan and he says "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Peace". Don't lie to us. It only makes you look bad.

You nasty little......

Knowing Satan is the same as knowing Christ....it is spiritual....

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace+Jan 26 2004, 08:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Jan 26 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:55 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:51 PM

But knowing Satan as I do....that would be just what he would have coming out...wouldn't it.

I just talked to Satan and he says "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Peace". Don't lie to us. It only makes you look bad.

You nasty little......

Knowing Satan is the same as knowing Christ....it is spiritual....

ewwwwwww That's called "necrophelia". It's bad. Don't do it.

[Guest Starsky]

You spelled it wrong...and you have gotten way off the path...so I am off to spend some time with my kids...

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 09:08 PM

You spelled it wrong...and you have gotten way off the path...so I am off to spend some time with my kids...

okay, stay away from dead people though.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:30 PM

AW....

Then it should be easy enough to prove. Just as Traveler has criticized BoM critics for being unable to disprove the BoM.

Well, the book of mormon has fruits...Wookies don't...

FRUITS? Do they wear paisley?

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Peace+Jan 26 2004, 08:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Jan 26 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:44 PM

I have a cunning plan.  One that involves plagarism.  I'll get back to you.

Now this is lame...over used and never proven.

Actually I have read quite a bit about the BofM supposedly being a plagarism of a fictional novel of a man in his time....

But knowing Satan as I do....that would be just what he would have coming out...wouldn't it.

One thing I know...Satan knows who we are...what has been written...and how it is to be used...

He was in the counsel in Heaven.....he knows the whole story.

You know Satan? In the "biblical" sense? Pray, tell us more. . . . . . . .

(Biz waits expectantly, hoping for the next salacious titbit from Peace)

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Peace+Jan 26 2004, 08:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Jan 26 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Jan 26 2004, 08:55 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 08:51 PM

But knowing Satan as I do....that would be just what he would have coming out...wouldn't it.

I just talked to Satan and he says "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Peace". Don't lie to us. It only makes you look bad.

You nasty little......

Knowing Satan is the same as knowing Christ....it is spiritual....

Like the whales?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 26 2004, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 26 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -antishock82003@Jan 26 2004, 07:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 26 2004, 06:14 PM

Very good Traveler. I appreciate the insightful and valid argument for truth.

Baby,

This argument is so full of fallacies I'm thinking of submitting it to the Smithsonian for preservation in the Historical Wing of Religious Cognitive Dissonance (it's right between the dinosaurs and the Korean art exhibit). Should I? Could I? Would I possibly take the time to Deconstruct (shout out to Snow) this very spurious and misleading pedantic diatribe!! Forsooth!

Sincerely,

Antius Shockius 8-tius

I have to agree with AS on this. In this case Traveler was certainly pedantic, and not in a good way. Instead of saying "If you don't see the evidence for the Book of Mormon, you're blind, baby," Traveler said the same thing thusly: "If you claim there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon you are wrong and indicate a strong lack of propensity to comprehend or deal with any artifact supportive of the Book of Mormon."

That's pedantic with a capital V and a capital P (verbose and pretentious).

Simply, simply simply Traveler, my friend. Haven't you read Thoreau?

Beyond that, for starters I can spot at least one logical fallacy. You lamment that critics claim that lack of evidence (of BoM steel) is proof that steel didn't exist, yet turn around and infer that since you know of no other society from the period in question, that as closely matched that of the Eastern Mediterranean, that no other more closely matching society existed.

Snow: My friend. I offered the fact that the Pre-Classic and Classic eras indicate a migration that coresponds to the Book of Mormon from the Eastern Mediterranean- Those like your self that say there is no proof are much mistaken for the timing of the Pre-Classic and Classic eras and the technology are proof. It can be argued that the proof is not conclusive but to say there is no supportive evidence is not ture.

Are you trying to tell me that Thoreau agrees that all truth can be demonstrated without any possible question or alternate possibility? I think you should read Thoreau again. Read the posts, there is not one suggestion that gives alternate reason for the rise of civilization in the Americas - that is except for Bat's silly little childish joke. Is that the best critics offer - silly little childish jokes?

AS8 offered nothing but silly spoiled children cry-baby words. I asked for a trigger for the rise of civilization to rivel the Book of Mormon and all I get is nothing but completly unfounded criticism for asking.

Those like yourself that contend that there is no valid evidence to support the Book of Mormon are completly blind to truth. Are you holding to the argument that primitive hunter gathers one day walked out of the rain foriest and invented an advanced complex civiliziation.

I thank posters like Peace that listen to reason but to the rest of you are nothing but children at play. Put up or shut up. If you don't have a better theory be adult enough to admit it.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

One other point about steel in tropical rain forests. It rusts for those that never learned about chemical reactions. A car will completly rust away is less that 50 years, there is not going to be a sword after 1500 years - asking for or even expecting a steel artifact is really stupid. How stupid can cirtics be????

The Traveler

[Guest antishock82003]

The early Spanish conquest never took place in the Americas? It is a well-known fact that the Spanish steel of Pre Industrial Ages was the most superior steel of Europe. Central to Spanish military strategy was the development and deployment of steel weapons. Superior steel was their tactical advantage and they would not go into battle without it.

-So far so good. Superior steel was one of their tactical advantages. The Armada was something else. Should I list off all of the tactical advantages the Spanish had over the rest of the world at this time? Or are we just playing a silly little game where the authenticity of the BoM rests on your contrived argument of Spanish steel being found in America?

There has not been a single Spanish steel military artifact over 350 years old found by any recent excavations in the tropical rain forest of Central and South America. Nor has there been found any foundry for such steel in the Americas. According to the logic of the B of M critics of this forum we must not believe that the Spanish ever fought with or had influence on the Incas and Aztecs because there is no proof of Spanish steel in Central or South America prior to 1650.

Hey! I know what that is! It's a non-sequitur combo into the Strawman. Would you like a little Red Herring with your supper? C'mon...the two scenarios are vastly different and your analogy is found absolutely lacking. What about Spanish shipwrecks with canons and arms?

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/colum...panama-ship.htm

You see? That's physical evidence. There's a big difference in THAT reality and the one you're proposing. NOTHING unique to the BoM and from the BoM era has been found. Nothing.

Two great civilizations arose in the Americas and are called the Pre-Classic and the Classic eras by the Experts. The timing of the rise of these civilizations match the time periods mentioned in the Book of Mormon for the Jaredite and Nephite migrations to the Americas. The evidence of civilizations in the Americas of these civilizations indicates that the technology of both the Pre-Classic and the Classic eras are most like the Eastern Mediterranean societies than any other society on earth for the same time periods.

Aaaaahh...Anonymous Authority. The ubiquitous "they"...or in this case..."the Experts". Wow, Traveler, you've already introduced FOUR logical fallacies and you haven't gotten your points. Good job!

Some points to consider.

Point 1: In the entire history of the world the rise of or major change based on technological improvement in a civilization has always occurred with the migration of people.

Here little fishy fishy. What were we talking about again? Something is drawing my attention away from the central issue of this post...which I thought was, "The Existence of Spanish Steel in Post-Columbian America will Determine Whether or Not the Spanish Really Existed in America, Which is an Analogy of BoM Critics Use of One Issue to Destroy the BoMs Authenticity, and That is Wrong and Bad." Am I wrong?

I, btw, disagree with your first point. Always is an awfully strong assertion. War. Famine. Greed. There are other things that motivate technological improvements besides migrations. You'd have to present a reeeeeeeeeally strong and supported argument to convince me that tech. improvement is ALWAYS associated with migration.

Don't know what that has to do with the price of obsidian in pre-Columbian America...but there ya go...

Point 2: It is not unreasonable to assume that migrations originate from a place where same technology introduced into a new place already existed.

How did I find myself on such a slippery slope? Oh! I'm sliding! I'm SLIDING!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh!!!!!!

It'd be nice if your points would just get to the POINT.

Point 3: Since the publication of the Book of Mormon there has not been a reasonable counter theory stand for more than 50 years for the migrations of peoples to the Americas to account for the Pre-Classic and the Classic eras.

Really? The Land Bridge hasn't stood for 50 years? Leif Ericson? Asian Island hopping? I had no idea that those theories "don't stand". That's amazing! Thank you! You're brilliant!!!! I'm illuminated!! Fantastificated!!! Edificationalized!!! Traveler, surely you jest. You jestest with the bestest.

Point 4: Proof and evidence is useless without proper interpretation or understanding. For example, for most of the 20th Century it was believed that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptilian related creatures. Now they are said to be warm-blooded creatures more closely associated to birds, not because the evidence has changed so drastically but because the interpretation of the evidence has drastically changed.

I really have no idea what we were originally supposed to be talking about at this point. Your points aren't helping your original point. What is the point of providing points if they don't get to the point and support the point? This fourth "point" is great! Really, it is. For what? I don't know. Sounds pretty reasonable to assume that proofs and evidence are useless without proper interpretation or understanding. Which would be super duper ironic if you were to take this statement into consideration with your original premise of this thread. Please don't make me baby-step you through the irony. Please.

Point 5: If you are going to come to an LDS forum and indicate that you are open to new ideas but that you are convinced that critics of the B of M are right on with their assessment of the Book of Mormon you better be prepared to prove you concepts are based on a much more reasonable theory. If you claim there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon you are wrong and indicate a strong lack of propensity to comprehend or deal with any artifact supportive of the Book of Mormon. Just to show my open mind – I would love to hear theories for the triggers of the Pre-Classic and Classic Eras of Civilization in the Americas that have stood as well as the Book of Mormon for the last 170 years.

Welcome, Traveler, to the world of Untestability. Yet another fallacy. We can't test ANY premise of the BoM's authenticity because there's NOTHING to test that springs from the BoM. No artifacts. Nothing. We have an assertion made by the BoM that the BoM is True, but nothing to test it with...and yes, I'm aware of Mormon's challenge. But the problem with Moroni's promise is that as an explanation it carries no weight at all, because there is no way to test the theory. No evidence in the world could possibly show that this theory is false, because any evidence would have to be created by God/the Spirit, according to the theory (Moroni's promise). It's UNTESTABLE by an unbiased person.

It appears to me that since the publication of the B of M that there has been excuses given not to accept or even consider the B of M as valid. Each time evidence has been discovered that indicates a B of M critic has made an irrational claim or jumped to conclusions the critics have simply moved to another claim jumping to another conclusion. The lack of some particular evidence is proof of absolutely nothing. If it is such a crime to lack conclusive proof of something then where is the conclusive proof of the critics?

You've given me no proofs. Only assertions that there are proofs. You've accused critics of jumping from one point to another. Then you jump right to another "point" of "lack of some particular evidence is proof of absolutely nothing". This whole last paragraph is just a big rambling frustrated diatribe...a rivulet of thought. Is this an Ad Hoc argument? What's your purpose, to discredit critics, and you're just making stuff up as you go? You sly dog...

Final Point: The Book of Mormon and the Bible are to be used together to give witness that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of G-d. If you believe in one and not the other I would like to know why? Every argument that I have heard to believe in one, I find supports believing in the other. Every argument I find presented to not believe in one is just as valid not to believe the other.

I think I'll just stop with the fallacies. Too many. Why even introduce the Bible into an argument about the authenticity of the BoM? Why? It has no relevance to the issue. Peas and carrots.

You are all welcome to believe whatever you want and make any excuse for your belief you want. But for me, I find the excuses against the B of M exactly that, excuses for the historical and present unkindness toward LDS most often displayed as an unwillingness to consider our point of view – even on an LDS forum.

The Traveler

You're welcome to your flawed and well, flawed opinion. You proved nothing. You gave no examples. You made assertions with no support. This whole thing is quite frankly one of the ugliest pieces of apologetics I've ever seen on the internet. I feel ashamed and embarrassed for you. Where's Snow? He does a much better job of obfuscating the Truth than Traveler? Snow? SNOOOOOOOOOOWW!!!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Would chain mail and other armor have been made out of steel? Looks like Hernando de Soto's expedition to Florida and points northwest in the 1590s left some behind -- and it hasn't all rusted away:

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/da...is/COUGHLN1.HIS

[Traveler]

The logic of the Spanish is a test case to demonstrate that steel artifacts have not been found in the rainforest of Central and South America. (Note that chain mail changed in Europe about the middle of the 14th century because of the crossbow and was made lighter and stronger as an alloy).

It is logical to assume that prediction of artifacts found may not demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt but they demonstrate a possible link. Evidence may point to a suspect but not be enough to convict them. Consider some evidence. Things not known about Central and South America prior to the Book of Mormon. And there is the claim that there is no evidence what-so-ever that supports the Book of Mormon?????

1. Pre-Classic civilization (large cities to rival in size any in the world) before the time of Abraham

2. A written language in the Americas before Abraham.

3. Knowledge of Astronomy to rival Egypt prior to Abraham.

4. Ships that would travel under water that brought the founding settlers of Pre-Classic civilization. And there are legends of such things in Central America. (See Codex Vaticano A, p.66v)

5. A civilization of larger than most or giants. Besides murals found in later periods there are ancient dwellings and other artifacts indicating an extinct race of large peoples. Time period of such people matches the Book of Mormon.

6. Classic civilization beginning about 600 BC

7. A written language similar to Egyptian. (See the Book “A Forest of Kings” page 52. We are told by the archeologist that broke the Mayan code that the Mayan writing is most similar to Egyptian cuneiform. In fact it was the use of Egyptian that broke the Mayan code)

8. Stella 5 depicting most of the elements in the Book of Mormon “Tree of Life” parable.

9. The use or depiction of the jawbone for religious purposes. (Jawbone symbol in Egyptian means Lehi.

10. A written language (still unknown what language of Central America dated about 300 AD.) With several characters that match exactly the characters drawn by Joseph Smith on the Anthon Transcript.

11. Ability to build sea worthy ships. (See artifacts found at Tulum)

12. Use of straw in mortar (Learned by Israel in Egypt - but Straw must be cultivated but there are no animals in Central America that eat straw. Why is it used exactly as in ancient Egypt but no where else on earth during the same time period.

13. Religious legend of a benevolent G-d that came down from heaven and lived with the people for a time and returned to heaven with a promise that he would return (Reference the Legend of Quetzalcoatl at Cholula. Also the reason the serpent descends the temple at Chichen Itza during the vernal equinox.) A lucky guess perhaps but no where out side of the Americas has such a legend surfaced.

14. Metal plates used anciently for record keeping.

Some other Book of Mormon Trivia.

1. 1Nephi 1:1-3 An Egyptian Colophon. Very clever of a 20 year old farm boy.

2. The Tree of life - a date palm tree in Arabia that bears “White Fruit” that is very sweet.

3. A valley in Arabia near the Red Sea that matches exactly the valley described as the Valley of Lemuel with the only stream that flows all year long into the Red Sea. And it is exactly where the Book of Mormon said it would be.

4. Prophecies unique to the Book of Mormon concerning Israel scattered on the “Isles of the sea” that are duplicated in the Zadokite Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

5. Baptism practiced before the time of Christ.

6. Hebrew forms of speech in the Book of Mormon including the “Lawsuit”, “Messenger speech”, “woe oracle”, “prophetic lament”, “priestly sermon”, “parable”, “song of salvation”, “synonymous parallelism”, “chiasm” and “Rhetorical Connections”. Other than the Bible no book in the world displays as many ancient Hebrew forms of religious writing as the Book of Mormon.

Is this all - not by any means. These are only a drop in the bucket so to speak. But then I may not of said everything exactly right to meet the false logic of Rhetoric that is the only way some people make excuse for truth that is nothing more that silly opinion.

The illogical Traveler

[Guest bat]

I'm convinced!

Somebody should call the Smithsonian and tell them that they should start using the BoM as an archaeological guide for excavating MesoAmerican artifacts from upstate New York.

BTW, are you sure you want to go with the Quetzalcoatl /jesus paralell?

[Guest Starsky]

Thanks Traveler...that was good!