Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[prometheus11]

Um, I'm an atheist and I believe that.

Me too.

 

[rrosskopf]

Um, I'm an atheist and I believe that.

I'm glad to hear it. Generalizations are generally wrong. I know of atheists who won't concede a thing, if it leads towards a belief in God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm glad to hear it. Generalizations are generally wrong. I know of atheists who won't concede a thing, if it leads towards a belief in God.

Well there are people like that in all walks of life, I suppose. I'm not sure how someone could not concede something when faced with appropriate evidence, but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads me, which is what led me away from Christianity toward atheism, actually.

 

[Sapiens]

What are the chances that somewhere in America, people would be building houses out of cement in 100 AD? Almost none at all. Joseph Smith couldn't do it in 1830. .

Really? Do you know the facts concerning cement? Clearly not. In the US the first large-scale use of cement was Rosendale cement a natural cement mined from a massive deposit of a large dolostone rock deposit discovered in the early 19th century near Rosendale, New York.

It must have gotten tangled up in your mind. I never said that.

Do you deny that you twice stated, in essence, that if the BOM conflicted with the facts that you'd believe the BOM anyway? Must I really go back through this thread and find those statements or will you be honest and stipulate to the existence of those statements?

 

[rrosskopf]

Do you deny that you twice stated, in essence, that if the BOM conflicted with the facts that you'd believe the BOM anyway?

Yes, I deny it categorically.

I said that I would believe the Book of Mormon over opinions. Opinions are not facts.

There are many men who puff themselves up as experts, but whose opinions are no better than my own. History is full of them. Some men seem to have this profound need of being better than everyone else, presumably because they feel like they are nothing... so they belittle, and they mock, and they make other people feel small.

It is a fact, that horse bones have been radio-carbon dated within North America, to after the Pleistocene and before the arrival of Columbus.
It is a fact, that the curly-haired horse of North America has no counterpart in Asia.
It is a fact that unfossilized bones from the Mexican horse have been found with Mesoamerican ceramics.

It is opinion, that they died out with the Pleistocene. See the difference?

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, I deny it categorically.

I said that I would believe the Book of Mormon over opinions. Opinions are not facts.

Then you'd best go back and find your posts, because that's not how I remember them. If you want to change what you said now, that's fine ... that's SOP for you, but that's fine.

There are many men who puff themselves up as experts, but whose opinions are no better than my own. History is full of them. Some men seem to have this profound need of being better than everyone else, presumably because they feel like they are nothing... so they belittle, and they mock, and they make other people feel small.

No one is puffing themselves up over the extinction date of that long list of mammals ... but facts are facts and the BOM is clearly and demonstrable wrong.

It is a fact, that horse bones have been radio-carbon dated within North America, to after the Pleistocene and before the arrival of Columbus.

No, that is not a fact, that is not even a creditable opinion.

It is a fact, that the curly-haired horse of North America has no counterpart in Asia.

While true, there is no counterpart today, curly horses were documented in Asian artwork as early as 161 AD. This does nor really matter in our discussion, since there are, in any case, no horse remains. This is a red herring that you are dragging across the path since there is not post-Pliocene extinction/pre-Colombian horse remains ... curly or otherwise.

It is a fact that unfossilized bones from the Mexican horse have been found with Mesoamerican ceramics.

So it says in the LDS Guide to Mesoamerica, a book by an BYU accountant, a finance specialist at Fireman's Fund and a hospital administrator. I'd need a professional source before I'd consider it.

It is opinion, that they died out with the Pleistocene. See the difference?

No, it is the consensus of the scientific community that they died out with the Pleistocene, until you falsify that claim it is consider to be fact. You hold a dissenting opinion with no evidence to back it up. See the difference? Add to that the weight of all the animals and such and your chances of effectively defending the claims of the BOM approach zero.

 

[prometheus11]

Yes, I deny it categorically.

I said that I would believe the Book of Mormon over opinions. Opinions are not facts.

There are many men who puff themselves up as experts, but whose opinions are no better than my own. History is full of them. Some men seem to have this profound need of being better than everyone else, presumably because they feel like they are nothing... so they belittle, and they mock, and they make other people feel small.

It is a fact, that horse bones have been radio-carbon dated within North America, to after the Pleistocene and before the arrival of Columbus.
It is a fact, that the curly-haired horse of North America has no counterpart in Asia.
It is a fact that unfossilized bones from the Mexican horse have been found with Mesoamerican ceramics.

It is opinion, that they died out with the Pleistocene. See the difference?

There's nothing stopping you from calling facts opinions though, right? You can do that whenever you want, can't you.

 

[Shad]

The DNA issue is a complicated one. As much as I've read on the subject - and I have read several papers - I am not convinced that the science has arrived to that position where it can disprove the Book of Mormon. I have found geneticists on both sides of the fence. I am not claiming that anyone has found, without doubt, Israelite DNA among Native Americans. I am claiming that no one can completely rule it out. The Emory University study from 1998 couldn't rule it out. According to their conculsions, 4 out of 5 haplogroups were Asian, the 5th haplogroup being European or Northern Israelite. Dr. Scott Woodward, microbiologist, did a presentation on MDNA at BYU where he said that we shouldn't be able to find any MDNA from Lehi in current generations; the MDNA from preexisting populations would quickly overwhelm the MDNA of a small influx of people. mtDNA seems to have some problems as well, as known Jewish groups have wildly different mtDNA. The Lemda of North Africa, for example, have mtDNA that is indistinguishable from the other African tribes.

Link said study. The only report I found that is a divergent haplogroup dated to 20,000 to 30,000 years. This predates BoM by millennia.

 

[rrosskopf]

Link said study. The only report I found that is a divergent haplogroup dated to 20,000 to 30,000 years. This predates BoM by millennia.

Yes, the 1998 Emory University study postulated very early dates for all the haplotypes, even though some small percentage of modern mixing of bloodlines was assumed. So unless their dates were way off, it really doesn't tell us anything about the Book of Mormon, or the likelihood of the base population being altered by a small influx of non-Asian DNA. Everyone is so eager to explain what DNA tells us, that it is harder to discover what DNA doesn't tell us. It reminds me of the old chessboard story, where the king wants to reward the inventor of chess. The inventor suggests putting a single grain of wheat on the first square, two on the 2nd, four on the 3rd, and so forth doubling each time until every square has been filled. What the king doesn't realize, is that the final weight of the wheat is more than the weight of the earth. The puzzle of genetics seems to be the obverse; instead of doubling, it is halved 64 times (in 64 generations), and recombined. With an average generation of 25 years, 64 generations would equal about 1600 years. So after the relatively short time of 1600 years, a complete map of DNA becomes almost impossible, needing the ability to expand that 1% of the DNA that doesn't represent the 4 main haplotypes(in the case of Native Americans), perhaps a million times or more, just to get a crude picture of what else might be present in the last two millenia. This is oversimplified, because DNA doesn't really behave like this; people don't keep the genetic material from every ancestor. Maternal DNA, for example, is passed down to both sons and daughters from their mother, but only the daughters continue to carry it on to the next generation. So if I were to look at my mother's mtDNA, it would be a close match to just one of millions of mothers 64 generations past. If we test a thousand people, then we will know what a thousand women - 64 generations ago - looked like. Again this is oversimplified, because in all likelihood, the same mother would come up again and again; 800 of those thousand women may be the same women. No matter how I look at it, I cannot make the numbers give me even a .0001% chance of finding Lehi's mother's DNA 2600 years later.

 

[rrosskopf]

There's nothing stopping you from calling facts opinions though, right?

In my mind, a fact is a basic observable detail. An opinion draws a conclusion (hopefully) from many such details. People don't have a great track record for giving unbiased conclusions, and often make conclusions without knowing all the facts. That is why I trust facts over opinions. Often, I cannot judge how many facts another person might have, so I prefer to draw my own conclusions. Too many times I have relied on the opinions of others, only to discover that I knew more about the subject than they did. The opposite has happened with equal frequency. As Clint Eastwood said, in his iconic role as Dirty Harry, A man must know his limitations.

 

[rrosskopf]

Then you'd best go back and find your posts, because that's not how I remember them.

I did go back and read my posts. Perhaps you should as well.

No, that is not a fact, that is not even a creditable opinion.

Yes, it is a fact. Here is a statement by archeologist Wade Miller:
"I have Carbon-14 dates on horses that are as recent as 800 years. Other dates are only 1200 years to 1400 years ago."

While true, there is no counterpart today, curly horses were documented in Asian artwork as early as 161 AD. This does nor really matter in our discussion, since there are, in any case, no horse remains. This is a red herring that you are dragging across the path since there is not post-Pliocene extinction/pre-Colombian horse remains ... curly or otherwise.

It is not a red herring. The Curly horses of North America, which persist to this day, are not closely related to any known Asian horse. Where did they come from? And when? There is no evidence that the Spanish brought them over, and no Spanish breeds even look like them.

So it says in the LDS Guide to Mesoamerica, a book by an BYU accountant, a finance specialist at Fireman's Fund and a hospital administrator. I'd need a professional source before I'd consider it.

Henry C. Mercer in his book "The Hill-Caves of Yucatan", talks of finding several horse bones, which were not fossilized. These bones were not carbon-dated, but later examined by paleontologist Edward D. Cope, who determined that they were the Mexican horse.
Another discovery of ancient horse bones was found in a cenote at Mayapan. Bones from both the Mexican horse and the Western horse were found along side pottery fragments. (Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 38, May 1957, No. 2)
Dr. Peter Schmidt of ENAH (Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia) found 44 horse bones mixed with ceramics from level one to level 7 at Loltun cave, level 7 being carbon dated to 1805 BC. (Origenes Del Hombre Americano, by Alba Gonzalez Jacome, Sept 1987) He suggested that the survival of the Mexican horse may need to be extended to the beginning of the ceramic era.

 

[Sapiens]

I did go back and read my posts. Perhaps you should as well.

Then please save us all the time and give us the post numbers.

Yes, it is a fact. Here is a statement by archeologist Wade Miller:
"I have Carbon-14 dates on horses that are as recent as 800 years. Other dates are only 1200 years to 1400 years ago."

Do you have proper references? I can not find any.

It is not a red herring. The Curly horses of North America, which persist to this day, are not closely related to any known Asian horse. Where did they come from? And when? There is no evidence that the Spanish brought them over, and no Spanish breeds even look like them.

Except for the fact that Iberian curly horses were well know, so your "opinion" that no Spanish breeds even look like them is patently untrue.

Henry C. Mercer in his book "The Hill-Caves of Yucatan", talks of finding several horse bones, which were not fossilized. These bones were not carbon-dated, but later examined by paleontologist Edward D. Cope, who determined that they were the Mexican horse.

Mercer was unqualified to make such a determination. I find no documentation of Cope having a post Pleistocene opinion concerning the "Mexican Horse," quite the opposite, in fact. The Mexican Horse, Equus simplicidens, lived from the Pliocene to the Pleistocene. Most remains of Equus simplicidens are dated to the Pliocene period,‭ ‬though some remains from Mexico and the US states of California and Texas have been interpreted as coming from Pleistocene age deposits. This does not help your argument.

Another discovery of ancient horse bones was found in a cenote at Mayapan. Bones from both the Mexican horse and the Western horse were found along side pottery fragments.

Again false, here is a photo of what was oft called a pre-Columbian horse skull ... there are two problems, it is a cow and it is post-Columbian.

Dr. Peter Schmidt of ENAH (Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia) found 44 horse bones mixed with ceramics from level one to level 7 at Loltun cave, level 7 being carbon dated to 1805 BC. (Origenes Del Hombre Americano, by Alba Gonzalez Jacome, Sept 1987) He suggested that the survival of the Mexican horse may need to be extended to the beginning of the ceramic era.

Nope, what C-14 dating was done was not done on the bones but on charcoal that was unlikely to have been deposited at the same time.

Try again, and again, and again, and again ...

 

[Sapiens]

It must have gotten tangled up in your mind. I never said that. The primary creed of Mormonism is to seek out truth, where ever it leads. The atheists don't believe that. The other religionists don't believe that. That is why Mormons are the most trustworthy.

II would dispute that with you but I fear that the rules would not permit that.

So, you admit then that Woodward was being honest. It is as I said - no evidence for, and no evidence that rules it out. So which of my claims has been falsified? Not one.

No, Woodward is a tool, the quote was from Murphy.

No, evidence "for" rules it out until such evidence is produced. Evidence against, e.g., proving a negative, is a logical absurdity, so "for and against" taken in equal measure, while having an appearance of being "fair" is actually a false dichotomy, a junior high debater trick.

 

[Sapiens]

The opposite is true. Very little of it reflects the common belief at the time. Atheists always like to pretend that overwhelming evidence is just chance, even when the chances are slim to none. What are the chances that somewhere in America, people would be building houses out of cement in 100 AD? Almost none at all. Joseph Smith couldn't do it in 1830.

I have already shown that it is likely that Smith knew of concrete.

The native Americans were thought to be savages. The idea was so ridiculous as to be laughable. Scientists did laugh. Yet the Book of Mormon hit it right on target - right place, right time. This one thing alone - without hundreds of other evidences - is a compelling fact.

That is a claim without support. The Mormons have moved the target around to make it appear that it have been hit, but the whole was in the wall first. This is commonly referred to as the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The parable of the Olive Orchard, a remnant of Middle Eastern scripture brought to America by Lehi, describes in detail Olive husbandry. Joseph Smith was a farmer, but he wasn't an olive farmer. I don't believe there were any olive farms in upstate New York. Yet every detail is accurate; whoever wrote it knew olive husbandry. They didn't know modern olive husbandry, but ancient olive husbandry. If Joseph Smith wrote it, what are the chances that he would have gotten something wrong? 100%? What is the chance that ancient forms of Hebrew prose would be discovered in the Book of Mormon? In ENGLISH? You only think these things are possible because they have already happened. They are strong circumstantial evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, taken separately, and even more so when taken together.

I'm sure even a poor local library could have provided most of what Smith needed to embellish his hoax.

 

[rrosskopf]

I have already shown that it is likely that Smith knew of concrete.

So what? Were the indians known to build with concrete? No. Were indian teepees built of concrete? No. Is there any reason for Joseph Smith or anyone else in 1830 New England to believe that the indians had once built houses out of concrete? None. Is concrete found in every society, independently invented? No. Did the chinese have concrete? No, hydrolic lime, the cement for modern concrete, was invented in the Middle East around 700 BC, where it was used for building houses, and cisterns. The Mayans also used hydrolic lime, becoming expert in its use around 100 AD. We don't know if it was an independent discovery, or whether they somehow learned the skill from the Middle East, but either way, there was no reason for Joseph Smith to believe that anyone in America once had it. let alone pinpoint the date at which it came into vogue.

That is a claim without support. The Mormons have moved the target around to make it appear that it have been hit, but the whole was in the wall first. This is commonly referred to as the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The Mormons haven't changed the Book of Mormon in this regard, nor have they bribed non-member archeologists to make up stories about the Maya. The most that you can say, is that the place - the American continent - isn't very specific. It is a broad target, but it is a target. Could you say - without access to the internet or any libraries - when cement was first used to build homes in Australia? Malasia? Formosa? Those are pretty big targets too.

I'm sure even a poor local library could have provided most of what Smith needed to embellish his hoax.

The Manchester Library had 421 books in 1830. What are odds that one of them was about olive husbandry? It seems extremely unlikely.

Nope, what C-14 dating was done was not done on the bones but on charcoal that was unlikely to have been deposited at the same time.

Yes, the testing was done on the carbon which surrounded the bones and the ceramics. What are you suggesting? The the Mayans ate a prehistoric horse and deposited the bones in their trash heap? That isn't what the archeologist suggested. He believed the extinction date needed to be moved up.

Try again, and again, and again, and again ...

Is this a game to you?

 

[rrosskopf]

Mercer was unqualified to make such a determination.

Which? Fossilization? Is it hard to determine whether something has turned to stone or not?

 

[rrosskopf]

Except for the fact that Iberian curly horses were well know, so your "opinion" that no Spanish breeds even look like them is patently untrue.

That is news to me. Here is Wikipedia; which breed is the curly horse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_horse

 

[Sapiens]

That is news to me. Here is Wikipedia; which breed is the curly horse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_horse

Go to wiki, look up "curly horse" and search for "Iberian".

 

[rrosskopf]

That's how I got to where I got: there is no Iberian curly horse. The theory is just the well known theory that supposedly explains how all horses got to the Americas. The absense of an Iberian curly horse, or a Russian curly horse clearly contradicts that theory, as the does mounting evidence of archeology and carbon 14 dating.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Rome was using Concrete and cement during Jesus lifetime. many of the larger building still exist after 2000 years

from Wiki...
Vitruvius, writing around 25 BC in his Ten Books on Architecture, distinguished types of aggregate appropriate for the preparation of lime mortars. For structural mortars, he recommended pozzolana, which are volcanic sands from the sandlike beds of Pozzuolibrownish-yellow-gray in color near Naples and reddish-brown at Rome. Vitruvius specifies a ratio of 1 part lime to 3 parts pozzolana for cements used in buildings and a 1:2 ratio of lime to pulvis Puteolanus for underwater work, essentially the same ratio mixed today for concrete used at sea.[2]

By the middle of the 1st century, the principles of underwater construction in concrete were well known to Roman builders. TheCity of Caesarea was the earliest known example to have made use of underwater Roman concrete technology on such a large scale.[3]

]Rebuilding Rome after the fire in 64 AD, which destroyed large portions of the city, the new building code by Nero consisted of largely brick-faced concrete. This appears to have encouraged the development of the brick and concrete industries.[3