So 2 times now I've been acosted by Eangelicals about Book of Mormon archaeology

[blooit]

How does adjusting the extinction timeline to between 7,600 and 10,500 year ago (and in Alaska) help the case for Central America around 2,000 years ago?

And until 5-10 years ago, we thougt chickens came here with the Spanish. We now have strong evidence that they came on boats with Polynesian Islanders almost long before that.

This is what I'm getting at - lack of evidence is not evidence at all, especially in archaeology. Look back at my quote and you will see I make no claims that are misleading. Those who say that lack or evidence proves anything are misleading.

[why me]

Both times they made the same blanket claim that (of course) "there is NO archaeological evidence whatsoever" for the Book of Mormon. Since I have a Master's Degree in Archaeology, I told them that whether or not they accept such evidence, to say it doesn't exist simply isn't true. I also mentioned that I find it funny that they use the same methods when debating Mormons that Atheists use when debating the Bible.

Both times they cited the work of Ron Wyatt as their archaeological evidence for the Bible. Mr. Wyatt may just be the most discredited and laughable "researcher" on the planet. (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm). He claims to have found the ark of the covenant, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, and the under water "bridge" where israelites crossed the sea, among many other outlandish claims. In one case, my evangelical friend said, "I know his work has been debunked, but since I know the Bible it true, it doesn't matter."

The circular reasoning is appalling to me. And they call me closed minded. And they accuse me of being too eager to accept anything that validates my position. Ultimately it just proves to me that John Clark really knows what he is talking about:

"No artifact imaginable, or even a roomful, could ever convince dedicated critics that the Book of Mormon is true. The implied claim that the right relic could prove the book's truth beyond all doubt is too strong and underestimates human cussedness. Moroni could appear tomorrow with the golden plates, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona in hand and this would not satisfy public demands for more proofs." http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

The problem with such evangelicals is: they do not have actual proof that jesus was the son of god or that he did great miracles as described in the bible. We have no correlation evidence from witnesses that lived at that time. Now if we found writings from average people testifying to what they saw, that would be different. But we only have the new testament and the gospels. And these do not prove that jesus was the son of god but they do relate stories of what happened then. It would be great to have other evidence from that time. But we don't have it.

Now if we found good conclusive evidence for the book of mormon, we would then know that there is a god and we could begin to live our lives accordingly. However, what we have our two books that compliment each other. One, the bible (new testament) where the authors knew the geography well. But no proof that the texts are correct or true. But we haven't found any archeological evidence that testifies of christ. Second, we have the book of mormon which testifies of Christ, but no archeological proof.

[krose]

And until 5-10 years ago, we thougt chickens came here with the Spanish. We now have strong evidence that they came on boats with Polynesian Islanders almost long before that.

This is what I'm getting at - lack of evidence is not evidence at all, especially in archaeology. Look back at my quote and you will see I make no claims that are misleading. Those who say that lack or evidence proves anything are misleading.

So I assume you would also have no problem leaving the door wide open for dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time. All we have to say otherwise is a lack of evidence that they ever did, which is no evidence at all.

"Dinosaurs were present in the Americas before Columbus, but so far we have not dated them to as late as human times. When and how they disappeared is still unclear." Nothing misleading about that statement either.

Come to think of it, the only reason why no one believes the Cyclops existed in Greece is a lack of evidence (so far). That's no evidence at all, so we must withhold judgement.