Well, it’s been a couple weeks, and Jeff has not responded [Jeff posted comments below. I invited him to explain his position further]
As such I’m going to reiterate my basic point (original post is here)s:
1) Big lists are not to “Shock and Awe” they are to prevent apologists from giving answers that solve one problem, but totally prove the church isn’t true (i.e. Claiming the Nephites were a tiny subset of central america to avoid the DNA argument, while claiming “Barley” as a hit, or “Quetzalcoatl” as a hit when barley requires the Nephites to be in the South Eastern United States, and we have the DNA samples of people who believed in Quetzalcoatl.
2) Claiming that authors of big lists write “The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that [are not] written in search of a real answer. ” is to presuppose that he can read the minds of the authors. Knowing several of them, I refute this and suggest it is presumptuous of anyone to ascribe motives to the creation of lists without providing proof of the claim.
3) Attacking a big list as a “Gish Gallop” is just mixing terms up. A Gish Gallop is an attempt to use up time in a debate. Large lists that can be researched and provide links to help the truth seeker find details shouldn’t be categorized in the same category. Indeed, if we provide only one thing that proves the church false, the apologist will say “that’s all they’ve got”. And if we provide a large list, that is wrong too. It’s clear that the apologists could easily prove there are no true scotsmen.
4. Jeff Lindsay says
“By the way, for the record, I believe in God and believe that He is the Creator, yet believe that science and religion will ultimately be compatible when properly understood. “
If he doesn’t believe in answering big lists of questions, I doubt he’ll ever see the flaw in his thinking. If Joseph Smith says the universe is 2.5 billion years old, and science says otherwise, the true scientist must reject Joseph Smith, or else he isn’t a scientist, he’s an apologist. Mr. Lindsay is a Chemical Engineer, and yet speaks frequently as an authority on MesoAmerican history, Mayan folklore, and early church anthropology. Now I’m not an anthropologist either, we’re both guys out on the internet stating a view.
Mine, however, is open. I embrace big lists of questions, even when they don’t support my views. Go to FAIRLDS.org (or now FAIRMORMON.org)’s websites and go through their Big List of answers (After all, it’s just a big list trying to overwhelm the doubter with answers making his post a big case of the pot calling the kettle black) and see if it is internally consistent. Read how many locations they choose for the book of Mormon (links and articles will discuss Guatemala, Northern U.S., central america, and a bit in Peru. Other websites will even go to Malaysia!) and see if they are internally consistent. Reject what doesn’t hold to science and I think in the end, you will see that their basic claims are not scientifically based, they always boil down to faith-based arguments… and for that, Mr. Lindsay is being deceptive both in how he paints big lists, and in how he presents himself to the world.
Note how many times, my own blog directs people to look at answers on FAIR. I do not fear what people may read in a big list, because I have scientific, personal and historical truth on my side.
Please note the tagline of FAIRLDS, where he posted his blog, “honest questions faithful answers.” Keep your faithful answers, I prefer honest answers.