Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Autodidact]

I'm not anti-science. I just don't think all the facts are in yet. There are a lot of facts there. But not all of them are in yet.

All of the facts are never in. In science, that is, with empirical knowledge, there is no such thing as all the facts being in. To reject scientific knowledge until all the facts are in is to reject the possibility of scientific knowledge. In other words, it actually is anti-science.

The point is, a lot of the facts are in. Tons and tons and tons of facts are in. And they all, every one of them, indicate that the events related in the BoM did not happen. It has reached the point, which was not the case 100 years ago, where we know that book is not factual, and you really cannot continue to believe it without either ignoring the facts, or denying science (in the form of archeology + DNA genetics) as a source of knowledge.

I see you have not yet engaged with any of the facts that, at your request, I took the trouble to provide. As you may guess, there are many, many more. But apparently there is no number that you will accept, as you have made up your mind not to until "all the facts are in," which will never and can never happen.

 

[Sola'lor]

Why don't you just answer the question, without offering a question as an answer.

Because, I'm attempting to determine what you are trying to imply by asking a question with such an obvious answer. Of course I can understand that you genuinly don't know what I meant by 'facts' if you haven't read any other posts in this thread. I don't want to make assumptions that you have read other parts of this thread. For all I know you've been posting without reading anything else. In order to not make an assumption about your question I asked a question in reply. The answer of which would help me better understand how genuine your question is.

 

[Bishka]

Which facts would those be ?

Archaeologist 'Strikes Gold' With Finds Of Ancient Nasca Iron Ore Mine In Peru


And here everyone has been telling us that no evidence of this has ever or will ever be found.....

We do not know everything about the world and your lack of faith in science is disturbing.

 

[Autodidact]

Because, I'm attempting to determine what you are trying to imply by asking a question with such an obvious answer. Of course I can understand that you genuinly don't know what I meant by 'facts' if you haven't read any other posts in this thread. I don't want to make assumptions that you have read other parts of this thread. For all I know you've been posting without reading anything else. In order to not make an assumption about your question I asked a question in reply. The answer of which would help me better understand how genuine your question is.

If I may rudely speak for Melissa, I think the point is, what facts might you be looking for that we don't already have? Because we have the relevant facts that a non-biased observer needs. Are there any facts that would satisfy you?

 

[Melissa G]

Sorry ? What's suprising about the find ? And to Sola, outside of Mormon scholars, there isn't one Archaeologist who agrees with anything in the BOM. Fact.

Melissa G

 

[Bishka]

Sorry ? What's suprising about the find ? And to Sola, outside of Mormon scholars, there isn't one Archaeologist who agrees with anything in the BOM. Fact.

Melissa G

"Your" type of people have been telling us for years that iron ore didn't not exist at the time period the Book of Mormon takes place in. Or do you not take scientific discoveries to be surprising? You cannot believe how many times I've been told that "it was never found, thus it could not be true," about the weapons in the Book of Mormon. In fact, I might have even heard it from you *gasp*. It just goes to show that science is never done and that there are many more discoveries.

 

[Sola'lor]

All of the facts are never in. In science, that is, with empirical knowledge, there is no such thing as all the facts being in. To reject scientific knowledge until all the facts are in is to reject the possibility of scientific knowledge. In other words, it actually is anti-science.

Not really because science is all about refining itself as more facts become known. There is never a point where science has a perfect understanding on a subject. And THat's the point. Since there cannot be a perfect knowledge about a subject there is always the chance that our understanding of that subject can change. Currently there may be many discoveries that are seen as anti-Book of Mormon. But it is entirely possible that there will be more discoveries that support the Book of Mormon.

Do you deny that there is a possibility that future discoveries me be made that support the Book of Mormon?

The point is, a lot of the facts are in. Tons and tons and tons of facts are in. And they all, every one of them, indicate that the events related in the BoM did not happen. It has reached the point, which was not the case 100 years ago, where we know that book is not factual, and you really cannot continue to believe it without either ignoring the facts, or denying science (in the form of archeology + DNA genetics) as a source of knowledge.

So you are saying that in order to accept the Book of Mormon we must ignore an imperfect scientific understanding of the ancient Americas.

I see you have not yet engaged with any of the facts that, at your request, I took the trouble to provide. As you may guess, there are many, many more.

Thank you for posting those thing that you did. I was just curious to see if you were willing to do that and present those evidences you wree mking claims to.

But apparently there is no number that you will accept, as you have made up your mind not to until "all the facts are in," which will never and can never happen.

Actuall I believe it will happen. After Christ returns and we are resurrected we will begin to progress towards perfection. I believe we will have a perfect understanding of those ancient times. We will be able to talk personally with the people who lived in acnient times. Not only look at what they left behind and make guesses, but talk to them personally.

So in my belief I accept that there are many discoveries that depict an acient America where the Book of Mormon did not happen. But I am going to wait until I actually can talk to those people who lived back then and gain a perfect knowledge. Then after that I would be willing to question those personal witnesses I've had.

 

[Melissa G]

There is a world of difference to mining and smelting iron ore, to make iron implements, than simply being able to use the ore as a source of colouring.

Melissa G

 

[Bishka]

There is a world of difference to mining and smelting iron ore, to make iron implements, than simply being able to use the ore as a source of colouring.

Melissa G

That may be, but even so, other people like yourself have always told us, "it can't be true, they've never discovered anything that old with iron ore." This proves differently and it very well may come to pass that they may find something.

Why are you ruling out science?

 

[nutshell]

Auto, are we done or would you like to comment on my last comment?

 

[Autodidact]

Archaeologist 'Strikes Gold' With Finds Of Ancient Nasca Iron Ore Mine In Peru


And here everyone has been telling us that no evidence of this has ever or will ever be found.....

We do not know everything about the world and your lack of faith in science is disturbing.

Not iron ore, Bishka, metallurgy. Smelting. Iron (bronze, steel, gold, silver, etc.) implements, artifacts, or evidence of metal working industry. Didn't happen. Not found. Zip. Nada. I don't know what will be found in future, but definitely hasn't been found yet, including at this site in Peru, which, if you think about it, pretty definitely indicates that it didn't happen. I mean, they had the mine, they had the ore--and they still didn't know how to smelt metal implements out of it.

 

[Autodidact]

That may be, but even so, other people like yourself have always told us, "it can't be true, they've never discovered anything that old with iron ore." This proves differently and it very well may come to pass that they may find something.

Why are you ruling out science?

You are mistaken. Neither Melissa nor I have ever claimed either that there was no ore, or that there never will be. What we have said is that there is no evidence of metallurgy, which is what you would need. What makes you think that I'm ruling out science, or is this an attempt at humor or sarcasm? If the evidence were there, I would say so--it isn't. Sorry.

 

[Sola'lor]

You are mistaken. Neither Melissa nor I have ever claimed either that there was no ore, or that there never will be. What we have said is that there is no evidence of metallurgy, which is what you would need. What makes you think that I'm ruling out science, or is this an attempt at humor or sarcasm? If the evidence were there, I would say so--it isn't. Sorry.

So, are you ruling out the possibility that evidence of metallurgy could be found at some point in the future? I understand that you, at least, believe it to be highly unlikely, but do you think that there is a possibility?

 

[Katzpur]

I find this epistemological stance disturbing and dangerous.

me too

Yes, it is dangerous.

You know what? I don't find it anywhere near as dangerous as bigotry and prejudice. This mindset reminds me of a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who are convinced that the same-sex couple next door is "dangerous" and a threat to American society. When people don't understand a religious, cultural, or political ideology, they seem to feel much better when they attempt to justify their intolerance by claiming that this ideology is "dangerous." To most people, though, the intolerance is still just as transparent as ever.

 

[Bishka]

and they still didn't know how to smelt metal implements out of it.

Really now....

And you know this because?

All the sciences are finding knew things everyday and you say this cannot happen. So what if it ends up being true, what do you do then?

 

[Bishka]

You are mistaken. Neither Melissa nor I have ever claimed either that there was no ore, or that there never will be.

As I also said, "other people like yourself"

What we have said is that there is no evidence of metallurgy

No yet there isn't.

 

[Autodidact]

Not really because science is all about refining itself as more facts become known. There is never a point where science has a perfect understanding on a subject. And THat's the point. Since there cannot be a perfect knowledge about a subject there is always the chance that our understanding of that subject can change.

This is all correct. However, to be consistent, you would also have to then rule out atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory...Because, after all, there is always the chance that our understanding of these subject may change. That is why I say that you are rejecting science, at least in this one area.

Currently there may be many discoveries that are seen as anti-Book of Mormon. But it is entirely possible that there will be more discoveries that support the Book of Mormon.

It may be in some technical sense possible, in the same way as it is possible that we may discover something against the heliocentric theory. But once you pass 99.99%, you consider that pretty well established. That's where we're at with eliminating the factual basis of the book of Mormon, and why no establishes archeologist accepts it. This includes Mormon archeologists.

Do you deny that there is a possibility that future discoveries me be made that support the Book of Mormon?

The word "possible" is really meaningless here. It's possible that I have a tiny invisible dragon in my nose. Do you deny it? See what I mean? The question isn't whether it is in some sense possible, but what is the probability? I would say at this point around .001%.

So you are saying that in order to accept the Book of Mormon we must ignore an imperfect scientific understanding of the ancient Americas.

Only imperfect in the sense that all science is imperfect. Yes, you would have to ignore every scientific finding, including that in the OP, to accept the factuality of the BoM.

Thank you for posting those thing that you did. I was just curious to see if you were willing to do that and present those evidences you wree mking claims to.

Always. I value my reputation highly. There's a lot more where that came from--I was just getting started. However, I don't really appreciate being asked to dig up evidence when your mind is already closed to it.

Actuall I believe it will happen. After Christ returns and we are resurrected we will begin to progress towards perfection. I believe we will have a perfect understanding of those ancient times. We will be able to talk personally with the people who lived in acnient times. Not only look at what they left behind and make guesses, but talk to them personally.

Why would your odd beliefs be of interest? Do you have some evidence to support them?

So in my belief I accept that there are many discoveries that depict an acient America where the Book of Mormon did not happen. But I am going to wait until I actually can talk to those people who lived back then and gain a perfect knowledge. Then after that I would be willing to question those personal witnesses I've had.

And that, my dear, is an utter rejection of science. Time to change your signature.

 

[Melissa G]

Really now....

And you know this because?

All the sciences are finding knew things everyday and you say this cannot happen. So what if it ends up being true, what do you do then?

Because no iron tools or weapons have been found in the Nazca cultures remains.

Melissa G

 

[Autodidact]

So, are you ruling out the possibility that evidence of metallurgy could be found at some point in the future? I understand that you, at least, believe it to be highly unlikely, but do you think that there is a possibility?

I'm not ruling out anything. They may yet discover new evidence in support of the hypothesis that the earth is actually flat and the sun, moon and stars revolve around it. This seems extremely unlikely, however.

Your problem is that the Americas are not unexplored. We know who lived where, what they grew, used, wore, ate and traded. In some cases we know their language and even some forms of records. Anthropologists can give you a map of our indigenous people and their migration. This is not mysterious, no longer a closed book. We've learned the answer. And what is clear is that there were no Lammanites, no Jaredites, Mulekites etc. Because none of the many artifacts, crops, herds, foods, animals and plants described there are found. None of them. Bupkis.

It's not me that finds it unlikely, Sola. What do I know? It's the professionals working in the field, who are familiar with the data. My knowledge is all second hand. But there is not an archeology or anthropology department in the world, including BYU, who teaches that America was populated by people who immigrated from the Near East.

As for "possibility," it's simply an irrelevant concept. I suppose it's possible that we will learn that the ancient Celts immigrated here from outer space, but it would be extremely silly to believe that until we see some evidence for it.

In the same way, there is no evidence, NO EVIDENCE in support of the hypothesis that the Americas were settled by people from the Near East described in the BoM. It didn't happen.

 

[Autodidact]

You know what? I don't find it anywhere near as dangerous as bigotry and prejudice. This mindset reminds me of a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who are convinced that the same-sex couple next door is "dangerous" and a threat to American society. When people don't understand a religious, cultural, or political ideology, they seem to feel much better when they attempt to justify their intolerance by claiming that this ideology is "dangerous." To most people, though, the intolerance is still just as transparent as ever.

Well, the gay people next door never burned anyone at the stake for heresy.