Lidar

dberrie2020

Well-known member

Has anyone read the above article as of yet?

The reason I post it---one of the claims found in the Book of Mormon is a wide population base, and--if the Central America area was one of the areas of population for the Book of Mormon people--then the argument that area didn't contain the population base claimed in the Book of Mormon--- is now in question.

Another brick in the wall falls, IMO.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member

Has anyone read the above article as of yet?

Wouldn't that be the LAST time you posted this nonsense, on the old boards?

The reason I post it---one of the claims found in the Book of Mormon is a wide population base, and--if the Central America area was one of the areas of population for the Book of Mormon people--then the argument that area didn't contain the population base claimed in the Book of Mormon--- is now in question.

Another brick in the wall falls, IMO.

Yes, Mormonism has been thoroughly destroyed.
I'm glad you agree.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
That was actually another Mormon who posted this, whose name starts with an "R." ☺ He claimed it proves the Book of Mormon geography and history are true, thlugh I am paraphrasing. We told him it does no such thing. All it proves is that the pre-Columbian Meso-Americsn civilization in Central America was much larger and more populous than previously supposed.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
There is no physical evidence of Mormon geography. This article doesn't prove anything.
Hi Sherman.

The article shows the population base of Mesoamerica might be much larger during the Book of Mormon timeframe than was previously thought. It also shows some structures which might correlate with Book of Mormon accounts. The timeline for the structures also seems to have been pushed back.

Again--one of the arguments against the Book of Mormon account is--the population base could not amount to what the Book of Mormon claimed it to be.

That brick now falls from the wall, IMO.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
That was actually another Mormon who posted this, whose name starts with an "R." ☺ He claimed it proves the Book of Mormon geography and history are true, thlugh I am paraphrasing. We told him it does no such thing. All it proves is that the pre-Columbian Meso-Americsn civilization in Central America was much larger and more populous than previously supposed.

I believe that is a fair assessment. The significance of that should not be mitigated--as that is one of the arguments previously used against the claimed population numbers propagated through the Book of Mormon.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Hi Sherman.

The article shows the population base of Mesoamerica might be much larger during the Book of Mormon timeframe than was previously thought. It also shows some structures which might correlate with Book of Mormon accounts. The timeline for the structures also seems to have been pushed back.

Again--one of the arguments against the Book of Mormon account is--the population base could not amount to what the Book of Mormon claimed it to be.

That brick now falls from the wall, IMO.

So you're inventing phoney straw-man "bricks", just to make a phoney show of "taking bricks out of the wall"?

That's funny! :D
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
So you're inventing phoney straw-man "bricks", just to make a phoney show of "taking bricks out of the wall"?

That's funny! :D
What do you consider "phoney" about the National Geographic article? About their conclusion the population might be much greater than previously thought--in the Mesoamerica area--and possibly during the Book of Mormon era?

You do understand the population numbers claimed in the Book of Mormon was one of the arguments against the Book of Mormon account being accurate?

That argument seems to have fallen, or be in question--- under the auspices of the Lidar radar.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
What do you consider "phoney" about the National Geographic article?

That was not my claim.
Please stop straw-manning.
It only serves to destroy your credibility.

About their conclusion the population might be much greater than previously thought--in the Mesoamerica area--and possibly during the Book of Mormon era?

"might"?!
"possibly"?!

I'm not interested in worthless, self-serving speculation.

You do understand the population numbers claimed in the Book of Mormon was one of the arguments against the Book of Mormon account being accurate?

You'd have to actually DEMONSTRATE that to be true.

That argument seems to have fallen, or be in question--- under the auspices of the Lidar radar.

You mean the straw-man argument that you made up?
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
"might"?!
"possibly"?!

I'm not interested in worthless, self-serving speculation.

You'd have to actually DEMONSTRATE that to be true.
Theo--the images of the radar are a fact. What is your evidence otherwise?

What is your evidence the conclusions of the National Geographic staff and others--are "self-serving speculation"? What do you feel they have to gain by their conclusions--which is "self-serving"? "Self-serving" how?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Theo--the images of the radar are a fact. What is your evidence otherwise?

<sigh>
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
I NEVER said the radar images weren't a fact.

I have no doubt that ancient Mayan civilizations exist.

But we're SUPPOSED to be talking about MORMONISM.
Try to pay attention, okay?

What is your evidence the conclusions of the National Geographic staff and others--are "self-serving speculation"?

I never made that accusation.
The "self-serving speculation" came from YOU.
 

Sherman

Active member
Hi Sherman.

The article shows the population base of Mesoamerica might be much larger during the Book of Mormon timeframe than was previously thought. It also shows some structures which might correlate with Book of Mormon accounts. The timeline for the structures also seems to have been pushed back.

Again--one of the arguments against the Book of Mormon account is--the population base could not amount to what the Book of Mormon claimed it to be.

That brick now falls from the wall, IMO.
This isn't proof. The landmass shapes and descriptions are still off.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
This isn't proof. The landmass shapes and descriptions are still off.
And your evidence of that is???

Sherman--these are highly trained and experienced archeologists making some of these observations--and interpreting the images.

What is your degree in?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
And your evidence of that is???

Sherman--these are highly trained and experienced archeologists making some of these observations--and interpreting the images.

What is your degree in?

Are you claiming that the archeologists have claimed that their findings support the Book of Mormon?

Somehow I tend to doubt it....
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
<sigh>

Once again, I said that the self-serving speculation came from YOU, not the article.
Then you won't have any difficulty in believing the conclusion of the article, IE--that the population base of Mesoamerica is much higher than previously thought--and during the Book of Mormon times, and following that timeframe?

That the argument against the Book of Mormon population claims might be flawed?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Then you won't have any difficulty in believing the conclusion of the article, IE--that the population base of Mesoamerica is much higher than previously thought--and during the Book of Mormon times, and following that timeframe?

That the argument against the Book of Mormon population claims might be flawed?

<sigh>

Please quote where the archaeologists made ANY mention of "Book of Mormon".

Mormons have a bad habit of misquoting and misinterpreting scholars who later disavow your misrepresentations of their works.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
<sigh>

Please quote where the archaeologists made ANY mention of "Book of Mormon".

dberrie:

Why do you refuse to answer my questions?

Why do you constantly run away from my Bible quotes, ECF quotes, and even BoM quote which contradict your false teachings?
 
Top