<snip>
The problem is that you move from repeated statements re. "no evidence" to a conclusion that is unavoidable: the BoM is a fraud.
It really isn't all that complicated, is it?
Again, you argue dishonestly.
The "problem" is that you
want there to have been a mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years", NOT because there is actual, practical, physical, non-anecdotal, congruent, fruitful, luminous, testable evidence of any facet of the claims advanced for ir; but because your
Big Book O' 'god' Stories, vol. III & III-A advances the claim.
That is not how honest inquiry is done. That is not the way archaeology, or history, or anthropology, or paleontology, or genetics, or linguistics, is done.
To be clear: the demonstrably false history, incorrect geography, abysmal anthropology, and risible biological and technological errors of the
BoM are the low-hanging fruit. Even if evidence of a fabulous civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years" and incorporated european wheat and barley (to the point it could be used as the basis of minted coinage), the horse, kine, swine, and steelmaking were to be demonstrated later this afternoon, the
BoM would still be a fraudulent work of fiction, of macculate origin and impeachable presentation.
You are free (of course) to believe that you will become a 'god' in the "afterlife" (or whatever other dogma you advance) all you want--you are even, as you have said, free to derive great satisfaction from that belief whether of not is can be objectively demonstrated.. Where you do err is in your insistence that your belief makes its object true.
Nor does your claim give you leave to make dishonest statememnts about my arguments.
Where do you believe the exciting stories of the american bits of the
BoM are to be supposed to have taken place? When do you believe they are to be supposed to have happened?
