Why Do We Look For Bones?

[bcuzbcuz]

Well, this is the problem: you won't change your mind. That's a prediction. Oh, you might decide that the evidence shows "actual proof of horses or elephants or wheat or steel," but in no way will you move from your position that Book of Mormon is fiction.

Curious about your stance on the Nahom issue. You know what that is, right? Is the Book of Mormon correct in its discussion of a trade route between a place called Nahom (which in later days turns out to exist in the place the BoM says it did), moving due eastwards to a place named "Bountiful" in the BoM, which appears to correspond to an actual place on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula. What do think of that? Interesting but proves nothing?

As to the steel issue, the funny thing about the word "steel" is that it does not mean the same thing now that it meant to the King James Bible translators. We think of that stuff that your common "silverware" is made of (the implements you eat with every day, not the implements you bring out when you have company over). However, the KJB translators talked about "steel" in the Old Testament, in sections going back to 3,000 years ago, when there was no such steel and wouldn't be for millenia. In fact the old English word "steel" refers to something which has been strenthened. You've probably heard the word "steel" used like this: "He steeled himself for the expected blow." It doesn't mean that he turned himself into high-carbon steel, i.e. iron. It means he braced himself. The "steel bow" that Nephi broke could not have been made of carburized iron; it most likely was a composition bow, meaning it was made of common materials like wood, sinew and horn, built up in layers. His brothers bows were probably made of plain wood, thus it was easy for them to lose their spring. Are you still going to insist that when the Book of Mormon mentions steel it must absolutely be talking about iron smelted in a Bessemer converter?

As another thought, have a look at this: http://en.fairmormon...hronisms/Metals

I am not insisting that any of this proves the Book of Mormon to be true, but when it comes to things like metals, wheat, barley and such like, just because we are unfamiliar with these things in Mesoamerica does not mean that they absolutely couldn't exist.

And you're right that I don't have much choice. You can't prove a negative.

Not quite sure what you expect about the issue of Nahom. There is the Book of Nahum in the Old Testament (doesn't matter if it the OT with the KJV or the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). Naham is mentioned in 1 Chronicles, and Nehum in Nehemiah. The Hebrew for each of these words was NHM so the vowels don't play a big role. (Nihm, Nahm and Nehem all fit)

There are several fertile locations east of NHM that could correspond to "Bountiful".

I grew up in the church when steel was steel, coins were coins, no one made excuses or apologetics. It never occurred to me that it was strange that potatoes aren't mentioned in the BofM, or that horses are. Now I take a stand back and wait position. I'll believe that horses and elephants existed in the Americas some 2000 or 3000 years ago only when the proof is substantial and unequivocal.

I've been on enough digs and Roman cultural sites to know that pottery is quite easy to date, not only by location but also by technique. Among all the pictures I've taken of Inca pottery, I would expect to find some pictures or figures of horses, wheels or elephants if they existed there. I have never seen any pottery from Olmec or Aztec finds that show any animal that can be called a horse or elephant, even as fantasy figures. The Stela B at Copan, Honduras, from ceratin angles looks like an elephant trunk but the glyphs make only mention of Macaws, that the incomplete figures could also represent.

I have thousand of photos of copper, bronze, iron and worked iron tools, weapons and trinkets to know how well such materials survive in acidic soils, all from various sites in Europe. I'm in no rush to accept half-baked theories or explanations about possible scenarios.

Edited February 23, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[bcuzbcuz]

He believes in the principle that when you have lost the argument divert attention any way possible.

Which argument has been won or lost, in your opinion? I can show that no imades of horses or elephants (one exception Stela B in Copan, as"possible" elephant trunk") or pigs or cows exist in pre-Columbian art work or that any skeletal remains of such animals exist that are younger than 15,000 years ago and the counter argument has been that you can't prove a negative. Where is the winning or losing in that?

[thesometimesaint]

Picary are a type of pig. Bison are a type of cow.

[bcuzbcuz]

Picary are a type of pig. Bison are a type of cow.

Quite true. But no know tribes ever domesticated the bison. And for good reason. The animals that cross breed without human intervention are not viable and i don' t know of any cases where bison were called cattle, do you? A female bison is called a cow, but that's stretching it. I don't know at what point early Americas became aware that cattle and bison are related.. Although the French called them "bouef".

[ERayR]

Quite true. But no know tribes ever domesticated the bison. And for good reason. The animals that cross breed without human intervention are not viable and i don' t know of any cases where bison were called cattle, do you? A female bison is called a cow, but that's stretching it. I don't know at what point early Americas became aware that cattle and bison are related.. Although the French called them "bouef".

With this one, always "I don't know" it is.

[bcuzbcuz]

The European bison has 14 ribs, while the American bison has 15. Does that mean that the American bison were formed from a rib of a bison "Adam"?

[thesometimesaint]

Coilds be.

[ERayR]

The European bison has 14 ribs, while the American bison has 15. Does that mean that the American bison were formed from a rib of a bison "Adam"?

It also could mean that by the time God was creating the European bison he was hungry and whipped up a little BBQ sauce and ate one of the ribs.

[mfbukowski]

In the end, we humans see images we want to believe are there. It's the way our brain works.

Ah yes, except for you of course who is the only human who sees thing "as they are", right? So your prejudices could not possibly enter in, right?

[mfbukowski]

Reasonable alternatives stretch in many directions. Until someone has some actual proof of horses or elephants or wheat or steel in pre-Columbian America I'll choose to not believe in their existence. I can always change my mind. That option is, however, not open to you.

I see. And of course you are the only one who knows when "reasonable alternatives" turn into "proof" right?

[mfbukowski]

Well, this is the problem: you won't change your mind. That's a prediction. Oh, you might decide that the evidence shows "actual proof of horses or elephants or wheat or steel," but in no way will you move from your position that Book of Mormon is fiction.

Curious about your stance on the Nahom issue. You know what that is, right? Is the Book of Mormon correct in its discussion of a trade route between a place called Nahom (which in later days turns out to exist in the place the BoM says it did), moving due eastwards to a place named "Bountiful" in the BoM, which appears to correspond to an actual place on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula. What do think of that? Interesting but proves nothing?

As to the steel issue, the funny thing about the word "steel" is that it does not mean the same thing now that it meant to the King James Bible translators. We think of that stuff that your common "silverware" is made of (the implements you eat with every day, not the implements you bring out when you have company over). However, the KJB translators talked about "steel" in the Old Testament, in sections going back to 3,000 years ago, when there was no such steel and wouldn't be for millenia. In fact the old English word "steel" refers to something which has been strenthened. You've probably heard the word "steel" used like this: "He steeled himself for the expected blow." It doesn't mean that he turned himself into high-carbon steel, i.e. iron. It means he braced himself. The "steel bow" that Nephi broke could not have been made of carburized iron; it most likely was a composition bow, meaning it was made of common materials like wood, sinew and horn, built up in layers. His brothers bows were probably made of plain wood, thus it was easy for them to lose their spring. Are you still going to insist that when the Book of Mormon mentions steel it must absolutely be talking about iron smelted in a Bessemer converter?

As another thought, have a look at this: http://en.fairmormon...hronisms/Metals

I am not insisting that any of this proves the Book of Mormon to be true, but when it comes to things like metals, wheat, barley and such like, just because we are unfamiliar with these things in Mesoamerica does not mean that they absolutely couldn't exist.

And you're right that I don't have much choice. You can't prove a negative.

But don't you understand that bcuz is the sole arbiter of what is reasonable?

[bcuzbcuz]

But don't you understand that bcuz is the sole arbiter of what is reasonable?

I don't understand why you don't come right out and say what you mean?

[mfbukowski]

I don't understand why you don't come right out and say what you mean?

I did in post 84 and 85. There is no such thing as "proof" for anything there are only justified beliefs. You have not even stated what theory of truth you are using much less what could possibly count as "proof" in that system.

We all have prejudices, but it seems that you are not acknowledging yours.

Is that clear enough?

Edited February 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Curious]

Hello bcuzbcuz

The European bison has 14 ribs, while the American bison has 15.

Yes, but did you know that if the American bison and the European bison make a baby buffalo, the baby buffalo would have 29 ribs?

Curious

[bcuzbcuz]

Ah yes, except for you of course who is the only human who sees thing "as they are", right? So your prejudices could not possibly enter in, right?

I'm not at all sure what it is you are implying or trying to say. When I say "humans" I automatically include myself in that group. My"prejudice", as you choose to call it, is that I am a total skeptic. If somepne sees a picture of christ in a toasted cheese sandwich, I understand the mechanism of face identification that goes on in the human brain, I just doubt that christ chooses such a medium for his messages. But I get the same feelings of deja- vu as other people, I see animal shapes when I look up at the clouds. It doesn't make me right, it means I often come to a skeptical conclusion. The same applies to "reasonable alternatives". If I find the wheels are gone on my vehicle one morning, I don't automatically conclude that it must have been aliens from space who took them. I try to stick to "reasonable alternatives".

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not at all sure what it is you are implying or trying to say. When I say "humans" I automatically include myself in that group. My"prejudice", as you choose to call it, is that I am a total skeptic. If somepne sees a picture of christ in a toasted cheese sandwich, I understand the mechanism of face identification that goes on in the human brain, I just doubt that christ chooses such a medium for his messages. But I get the same feelings of deja- vu as other people, I see animal shapes when I look up at the clouds. It doesn't make me right, it means I often come to a skeptical conclusion. The same applies to "reasonable alternatives". If I find the wheels are gone on my vehicle one morning, I don't automatically conclude that it must have been aliens from space who took them. I try to stick to "reasonable alternatives".

It is true that we humans are hardwired to see humanity even in non animate objects. That's why smilies work, also add in that our brains are hardwired to go to completion, and you get the picture. But it is oxymoronic to claim to be a total skeptic. There are just certain evidences that you(and we all) find convincing or not.

[bcuzbcuz]

It is true that we humans are hardwired to see humanity even in non animate objects. That's why smilies work, also add in that our brains are hardwired to go to completion, and you get the picture. But it is oxymoronic to claim to be a total skeptic. There are just certain evidences that you(and we all) find convincing or not.

I can prove I'm a total skeptic. I don't even believe what I say myself. And I would deny in a court of law that I ever said them ( to quote Groucho Marx)

[thesometimesaint]

[mfbukowski]

I'm not at all sure what it is you are implying or trying to say. When I say "humans" I automatically include myself in that group. My"prejudice", as you choose to call it, is that I am a total skeptic. If somepne sees a picture of christ in a toasted cheese sandwich, I understand the mechanism of face identification that goes on in the human brain, I just doubt that christ chooses such a medium for his messages. But I get the same feelings of deja- vu as other people, I see animal shapes when I look up at the clouds. It doesn't make me right, it means I often come to a skeptical conclusion. The same applies to "reasonable alternatives". If I find the wheels are gone on my vehicle one morning, I don't automatically conclude that it must have been aliens from space who took them. I try to stick to "reasonable alternatives".

And what criteria do you use for moral decisions. How does one conclude "reasonably" accord to you, if abortion is right or wrong?

I don't care what you think about it actually- I just want to find out what premises your conclusions are based on.

Religious faith is like morality- it is not based on empirical conclusions. You are using a chain-saw to perform brain surgery. Your tools don't match the delicacy of the problem and are not appropriate.

So are there "really" images of animals in the clouds or not? What would be the criterion one would use to decide if they were "real" images or not?

And who is the picture in the cheese sandwich "of" if there was no Christ? What medium would a non-existent Christ use for his messages?

So you are saying there are no "real" images in our brains? Because they are in our brains, they automatically are not "real"? How do we see real things then?

I think you have not thought through your skepticism thoroughly. You have only gone part way. I encourage you to be more rigorous in your doubting.

Edited February 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

I've frequently thought about this and have searched for discussion to no avail, but why are we looking for bones of cows, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and elephants. It seems unimaginable that the most useful species of animals ever known to the human race would all become extinct (in the Americas) over the course of 1000 or so years. In other words, is it truly reasonable that none of these animals were living on the american continents when the Spanish arrived?

Has this been addressed? Were there any large scale extinctions in this time period?

Edit: clarifying my question that in looking for bones we seem to ignore the huge question of how they all would have gone extinct?

As a species evolves its success and or survival depend on how many specific factors it has in its favor regarding the small variables of the environment around them, food factors, reproduction rates, temperature variables, to name a few. Initially the species fills or finds a niche that affords them an advantage, or the species never reaches a point of flourishing and we humans at a later date will probably never know of their existence.

Both mammoths and horses in the Americas thrived for many thousands of years. Food and climate and lack of predators means we have a fair bit of knowledge about habitat and ranges for both species from the bones that have been found. But a good number of other animals that co-existed with the horse and mammoth have also vanished from pre and near post ice age of approx. 10000 years ago.

Very possibly humans were a factor in many of the extinctions. But when an animal population goes from abundance to very few in number, regardless of the factors that lead to it, in a short amount of time, some of the very factors that helped it flourish now push the populaion to critical points of no return. Animals can have, through time, developed a vey small, specific niche of food, mating rituals, flock behavior, or similar, that make that fall in numbers a tipping point that throws out the balance.

In recent history humans have destroyed the Dodo, the Passenger Pidgeon, the Great Auk and many, many more. The complete list of extinctions numbers in the hundreds. A simple examination of Roman mosaics can easily note most of the animals that have disappeared from Europe.