Difference between revisions of "User:InProgress/Website reviews/B"

(: mod)
(: mod)
Line 57: Line 57:
 
*FAIR corrected an error—why is this supposed to be "embarrassing?" Wouldn't it be embarrassing if they ''failed'' to correct the error?
 
*FAIR corrected an error—why is this supposed to be "embarrassing?" Wouldn't it be embarrassing if they ''failed'' to correct the error?
 
*The Spencer Lake hoax is mentioned as a single example. Where are these other "numerous ancient American horse hoaxes" that Daniel Peterson is said to have endorsed? Citations please?  
 
*The Spencer Lake hoax is mentioned as a single example. Where are these other "numerous ancient American horse hoaxes" that Daniel Peterson is said to have endorsed? Citations please?  
*Phrases such as "they are likely to know" are not evidence—they are conjecture. Why is it "curious" that FAIR or the Maxwell Institute to no wish to use ambiguous evidence? Or that when something is clearly identified as a hoax, that they issue a correction? Isn't this what is ''supposed'' to happen?
+
*Statements prefaced by the words "they are likely to know" are not evidence—they are conjecture. Why is it "curious" that FAIR or the Maxwell Institute to no wish to use ambiguous evidence? Or that when something is clearly identified as a hoax, that they issue a correction? Isn't this what is ''supposed'' to happen?
 
|quote=
 
|quote=
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 09:23, 2 May 2012

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3


A FAIR Analysis of:
MormonThink
A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Book of Mormon Difficulties—Book of Mormon Animals"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS


The positions that the MormonThink article "Book of Mormon Difficulties—Book of Mormon Animals" appears to take are the following:

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA


On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Rebuttal: The first apologist argument that they did not find archeological evidence of lions in Palestine until very recently is not applicable since pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown. There were writings and drawings of lions in Palestine and horses used by the Huns yet there are no writings or drawings of any modern-day horses by the natives of the Americas. The Native Americans had absolutely no knowledge of horses until Columbus and the Spaniards introduced them to the Old World.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The second apologist argument that the horses described in the BOM were really deer or tapirs is absolutely ridiculous. Joseph Smith knew what a horse was and certainly the 'most correct book on earth' wouldn't mistranslate deer for horse 14 times. Can you imagine a tapir pulling the chariots as described in the Book of Mormon? Joseph managed to come up with proper nouns like Curelom and Cumom and Ziff, Senine...but he couldn't get the real name for whatever he substituted horse for?


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Thoughts: As children, we were all taught in American History classes about the profound impact that horses had on the Indians once they were introduced to the New World by the Europeans. We have a hard time believing that all the history books, scientists, Indian records, etc. are all wrong about something that was so important to the Native Americans. If the ancient inhabitants of the Americas really had the horse as described in the BOM, we can't conceive of how or why they would let this most useful of all animals disappear and of course leave absolutely no trace of its existence.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Interesting note: Solomon Spalding, in his fictional piece Manuscript Story, mentions horses in connection with the inhabitants of the New World. So perhaps it's no wonder that the author(s) of the BOM might make the same mistake.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Occasionally LDS members and even LDS apologists like Daniel Peterson talk of some evidence found of modern-day horses in America, but these are well-known hoaxes such as the Spencer Lake Hoax when an archeological student buried a horse skull at an archeological dig. FAIR actually made a video in which they cite the Spencer Lake horse as evidence of horses in BOM times. Embarrassingly, FAIR has now put this disclaimer about their video: FAIR: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account. ....Equally curious is why this drawing isn't used by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS. They likely know that the macaw explanation is accepted by serious archeologists (such as Michael Coe). They may also suspect it is not credible like the numerous ancient American horse hoaxes that Daniel Peterson of FARMS use to endorse.


FairMormon commentary

  • FAIR corrected an error—why is this supposed to be "embarrassing?" Wouldn't it be embarrassing if they failed to correct the error?
  • The Spencer Lake hoax is mentioned as a single example. Where are these other "numerous ancient American horse hoaxes" that Daniel Peterson is said to have endorsed? Citations please?
  • Statements prefaced by the words "they are likely to know" are not evidence—they are conjecture. Why is it "curious" that FAIR or the Maxwell Institute to no wish to use ambiguous evidence? Or that when something is clearly identified as a hoax, that they issue a correction? Isn't this what is supposed to happen?




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's very interesting that apologist Daniel Peterson of FARMS says that Alma 11, which describes Nephite coinage, is almost certainly wrong.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary