Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[rrosskopf]

The approximate distance from finger end to elbow is hardly unique

That seems to be true, but the Egyptian and Babylonian cubits are different lengths. I have read at least a couple of sources that say the Olmecs were physically larger people, and presumably would have had a larger "cubit". Maybe it would make a good project to determine if the Olmecs used a different standard than the Mayans.

 

[Sapiens]

Yet you haven't actually presented hardly anything... you can't attack the facts, so you go after the sources, as if all Mormons are engaged in a conspiracy to mislead you.

You have the one of the worst cases of "Black Knight Syndrome" that I have ever seen.

There's no conspiracy. Mormons are joined together, with secret ceremonies, symbols, handshakes and small clothes to sell the world a bill of goods that runs counter to what is considered fact by modern science ... nah, there's no conspiracy.

 

[Sapiens]

That seems to be true, but the Egyptian and Babylonian cubits are different lengths. I have read at least a couple of sources that say the Olmecs were physically larger people, and presumably would have had a larger "cubit". Maybe it would make a good project to determine if the Olmecs used a different standard than the Mayans.

Nah, it's cause it all comes from Atlantis ... don'ch know?

 

[Shad]

That is basically what I said at the beginning. That's why I was surprised that you demanded to see the study.

I asked for the study as you are just repeating apologeticists. I want to read the study for myself not you repeating something you read on a website for LDS.

They acknowledged that there might be Israelite DNA, but their time-period was long before the Book of Mormon era.

No they don't. You inject a specific claim not within the study I read at all.

So unless they got their time period wrong, it really doesn't support or negate the Book of Mormon. The full study use to be published on the Emory University website, but it is no longer there.

Argument from ignorance. The burden is on you and BoM. There is no evidence supporting either. You use a fallacious reason to maintain your views based on not being disprove, which it has, rather than supporting your own claims.

What, that mtDNA doesn't reveall all 100,000 or so ancestors? Try reading the Wikipedia article. It isn't that hard. mtDNA doesn't change and combine, but is passed down whole through daughters. Y-DNA doesn't change or combine, but passes down whole to sons. There is just one set of each (and many copies of the same set). So it doesn't tell us who the 100,000 ancestors of someone may be, but only who two of those ancestors may be.

Argument form ignorance again.

Yes, the Mayan history, called The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, explicitly states that they were Israelites, children of Abraham, and that they came across the ocean.

No it says that they came across the sea from where the sun sets as if there was an actual place the sun set. This is flat Earth mythology and nothing more.

There are many Mesoamerican flood myths of a great flood. Horcasitas, Fernando (1988). "An analysis of the deluge myth in Mesoamerica"

Irrelevent as there was no global flood. Also you should read these myths as the stories of each is different from the one in the Bible.

Er... no it wasn't. It wasn't till 1843 - 13 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon - that Incidents of Travel in the Yucatan was published http://www.amazon.com/Incidents-Travel-Yucatan-Abridged-Stephens/dp/1560986514, and another hundred years before the discovery of cement in Mesoamerica.

A book publishing date is only a publishing date, nothing more. The knowledge existed before publication otherwise there is nothing to write about.

Carved stella are certainly mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
"And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God. And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons." Omni 1:20

You quoted the BoM not the stele.

The culture of war and human sacrifice among the Maya was not known in 1830. I'm not even sure the Maya or Olmec were known in 1830. I believe that Cortez only knew the Aztecs, and didn't publish anything about them in English. They didn't have the internet. Knowledge was a secret from one society to another, as often as not.

Yes it was. Historia verdedera da la conquista de la Nueva Espana by Bernal Diaz Del Castill is an eye witness account by the very person that witnessed human sacrifice

 

[Sapiens]

I think I've finally started to understand (not agree with, just understand) the Mormon point of view.

In a youtube apologetic a Mormon said: "... I said, 'you know what, what's the answer for that? Not that I needed to have an answer for myself, I know the Book of Mormon is true, so therefore I know that there's going to be answers for it. Now .. sometimes the Lord's going to have us wait. Maybe, sometimes, beyond our lifetime. But ... there's going to be an answer for this.'" He then went on the misinterpret published scientific evidence and make up evidence that did not exist.

So I've come to see is that if your belief system is, as a given, that:

1) you know what the Book of Mormon says, and

2) you know what the Book of Mormon says, is true, and that,

3) your god is going to answer all doubts and straighten it all out "someday."

Well ... you're not very constrained by what everyone else sees as truth, in the here and now (e.g., no horses, etc., the BofM is clearly a fraud, etc.), since god will, in his own good time, reveal to you (or someone in authority) an explanation for the seeming discrepancy.

It is pretty easy too see how such a self deceptive world view, in which the lies that have been told never come payable, in which the answer is always to be found in an appeal to authority sometime in the future, can result in the cognitive dissonance and self deception that is on display by the speaker.

 

[rrosskopf]

I asked for the study as you are just repeating apologeticists. I want to read the study for myself not you repeating something you read on a website for LDS.

I wasn't just repeating apologetics, but read it myself on the Emory University website. It said that some small percentage of Native American DNA was European or Northern Israelite. I can't help it if they took the study off of their website.

Argument from ignorance. The burden is on you and BoM. There is no evidence supporting either.

The burden to do what? I have never pretended to be able to prove anything to a skeptic. I just want to learn something new and interesting. I get so tired of hearing the same old theories and opinions - without any real evidence to back them up.
There is real evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Saying that there isn't any doesn't say much about the level of your scholarship. One could say the evidence is weak. One could say it is circumstantial. One could say there are other possible explanations. One cannot say that it doesn't exist, and expect to be believed. This type of black and white thinking isn't the sign of an open mind. I've already pointed out quite a few evidences. They are just a drop in the bucket.

As far as the DNA, it is your argument that is an argument from ignorance, not mine. I never claimed that DNA proved the Book of Mormon. It is the skeptics that have claimed, out of ignorance, that it disproves the Book of Mormon. It doesn't. If you sample one's mtDNA, and compare it to the DNA of their ancestors going back 20 generations, it will match exactly 20 people out of well over a million ancestors.

Irrelevent as there was no global flood.

It doesn't matter whether there was a global flood or not. It only matters whether the belief in a global flood was carried down through the centuries. It's called cultural diffusion.

A book publishing date is only a publishing date, nothing more. The knowledge existed before publication otherwise there is nothing to write about.

The knowledge existed from the personal travels of the authors; it was not known by Joseph Smith or anyone else that he knew. The discovery of Book-of-Mormon type cities was a major discovery; it went a long way towards validating the Book of Mormon as a true history. Your efforts to downplay its importance is misguided.

No it says that they came across the sea from where the sun sets as if there was an actual place the sun set.

I watch the sun set all the time. Where do you live, where the sun doesn't set? Actually the opposite is true; the book states that they came from "the other part of the ocean where the sun RISES, a place called Pa Tulan, Pa Civan." Whether they understood the earth to be round is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that they claimed to be Israelites, children of Abraham.

You quoted the BoM not the stele.

Yes, I pointed out that the Book of Mormon does mention the carving of histories into stone. There seemed to be some dispute on that point.

 

[rrosskopf]

I think I've finally started to understand (not agree with, just understand) the Mormon point of view.

We are not at odds with science in the least. We expect that science will either bear us out, or at the very least not contradict us. Perhaps it will shed new light on things. Science is a source of truth.
That being said, there is no scientific principle that states that a majority of people with the same opinion proves the opinion to be true. I'm not sure where you get that idea. It isn't scientific in the least.
Perhaps there is some theory that science is the only source of truth. I've never heard of it. Is this something that one has to take on faith? Is it possible that there are other sources of truth in addition to science?

 

[rrosskopf]

In a youtube apologetic a Mormon said: "... I said, 'you know what, what's the answer for that? Not that I needed to have an answer for myself, I know the Book of Mormon is true, so therefore I know that there's going to be answers for it.

I watched the video. It is one that I have seen before. Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I do believe that there are questions which probably won't be answered in my lifetime. I'm okay with that. I don't have to be all-knowing to believe in God.

I don't have to believe that Joseph Smith was all-knowing either. I don't have to believe that the current prophet is all-knowing. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. Our prophets are not Popes; they don't claim to be incapable of making a mistake. They are human and subject to human frailties. Everyone has their own level of knowledge; some people know more about certain things and some people know less. Ignorance doesn't disprove the existence of a greater intelligence.

 

[Shad]

I wasn't just repeating apologetics, but read it myself on the Emory University website. It said that some small percentage of Native American DNA was European or Northern Israelite. I can't help it if they took the study off of their website.

You can not even name of the study itself suggesting you never read the study. Also the Smithsonian denies your claims

http://mit.irr.org/smithsonian-institution-statement-on-book-of-mormon

The burden to do what? I have never pretended to be able to prove anything to a skeptic. I just want to learn something new and interesting. I get so tired of hearing the same old theories and opinions - without any real evidence to back them up.
There is real evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Saying that there isn't any doesn't say much about the level of your scholarship. One could say the evidence is weak. One could say it is circumstantial. One could say there are other possible explanations. One cannot say that it doesn't exist, and expect to be believed. This type of black and white thinking isn't the sign of an open mind. I've already pointed out quite a few evidences. They are just a drop in the bucket.

By providing support for your view you are attempting to convince people of your view. There is still zero support for the BoM. My scholarship is not in question but unreliable LDS scholarship and interpretation which mainstream scholarship in many fields rejects.

As far as the DNA, it is your argument that is an argument from ignorance, not mine. I never claimed that DNA proved the Book of Mormon. It is the skeptics that have claimed, out of ignorance, that it disproves the Book of Mormon. It doesn't. If you sample one's mtDNA, and compare it to the DNA of their ancestors going back 20 generations, it will match exactly 20 people out of well over a million ancestors.

No you attempted to link DNA studies in order to give BoM support. You example is backed by nothing. 20 generation is nothing in a time scale. It doesn't even go back before colonization.

It doesn't matter whether there was a global flood or not. It only matters whether the belief in a global flood was carried down through the centuries. It's called cultural diffusion.

Except that you never linked 1 story has anything to do with another. You are injecting cultural diffusion without evidence in support. You see two stories, identify the similarities, ignore the differences and call it a day.

The knowledge existed from the personal travels of the authors; it was not known by Joseph Smith or anyone else that he knew. The discovery of Book-of-Mormon type cities was a major discovery; it went a long way towards validating the Book of Mormon as a true history. Your efforts to downplay its importance is misguided.

Except this knowledge was around for centuries during Smith's life. Repeating already established knowledge is not a sign of a prophet. Yoyu are using an argument from incredulity that there is no way Smith could have known about something that was known about during his life.....

I watch the sun set all the time. Where do you live, where the sun doesn't set? Actually the opposite is true; the book states that they came from "the other part of the ocean where the sun RISES, a place called Pa Tulan, Pa Civan." Whether they understood the earth to be round is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that they claimed to be Israelites, children of Abraham.

Irrelevant as that location is vague. They could be from anywhere, the story could also be complete myth. You only accept a conclusion which matches your presupposition. They never claimed to be Israelite, you have injected this into the story, nothing more.

Yes, I pointed out that the Book of Mormon does mention the carving of histories into stone. There seemed to be some dispute on that point.

Stone carving were a know fact during Smith's life. You still have to use a secondary bias source rather than talking about the source, stele, itself.

Again I still think you just read apologists websites as per the above.

 

[Sapiens]

You have failed to address my conclusion, you have failed to even acknowledge it, you have failed to falsify it: "It is pretty easy too see how such a self deceptive world view, in which the lies that have been told never come payable, in which the answer is always to be found in an appeal to authority sometime in the future, can result in the cognitive dissonance and self deception that is on display by the speaker."

I wasn't just repeating apologetics, but read it myself on the Emory University website. It said that some small percentage of Native American DNA was European or Northern Israelite. I can't help it if they took the study off of their website.

You are misinterpreting the results of the study, If you want to look it up, the reference is:

Genetics. 1992 Jan;130(1):153-62.

Native American mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that the Amerind and the Nadene populations were founded by two independent migrations.

Torroni A, Schurr TG, Yang CC, Szathmary EJ, Williams RC, Schanfield MS, Troup GA, Knowler WC, Lawrence DN, Weiss KM, et al.

Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322.

If I recall correctly there are two issues with your citing the study, the first is that the timing is all wrong, the Emory study indicated a European "origin" more that 10,000 years ago, the second is that it defined two separate and distinct migrations into North America, no some small admixture of Middle Eastern genotype. The article's abstract indicated that mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) from 167 American Indians including 87 Amerind-speakers (Amerinds) and 80 Nadene-speakers (Nadene) were surveyed for sequence variation by detailed restriction analysis. All Native American mtDNAs clustered into one of four distinct lineages, defined by the restriction site variants: HincII site loss at np 13,259, AluI site loss at np 5,176, 9-base pair (9-bp) COII-tRNA(Lys) intergenic deletion and HaeIII site gain at np 663.

This is strengthened by work a couple of years back by a Danish-led international research team who mapped the hitherto oldest genome of an anatomically modern human: a boy buried at Mal’ta near Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia some 24,000 years ago that showed that the boy was European:

Nature 505, 87–91 (02 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12736, Received 14 July 2013, Accepted 04 October 2013, Published online 20 November 2013

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

Maanasa Raghavan,, Pontus Skoglund,, Kelly E. Graf,, Mait Metspalu, Anders Albrechtsen,, Ida Moltke, Simon Rasmussen,, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Ludovic Orlando, Ene Metspalu, Monika Karmin, Kristiina Tambets, Siiri Rootsi, Reedik Mägi, Paula F. Campos, Elena Balanovska, Oleg Balanovsky, Elza Khusnutdinova, Sergey Litvinov, Ludmila P. Osipova, Sardana A. Fedorova, Mikhail I. Voevoda, Michael DeGiorgio, Thomas Sicheritz-Ponten, Søren Brunak

Abstract: The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia9, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago14, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans

About a third of all living Native Americans are descendants of the Mal’ta people. In other words, Native Americans have partly European ancestry.

As you can clearly see ... rather than strengthening the hypothesis advanced by the BoM, this actually falsifies your hypothesis of Middle Eastern input to the Amerind or Nadine genomes less than 5,000 years ago.

The burden to do what? I have never pretended to be able to prove anything to a skeptic. I just want to learn something new and interesting. I get so tired of hearing the same old theories and opinions - without any real evidence to back them up.

There is real evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.

No there is not, there are scraps and snippets that may be interpreted that way, but the vast bulk of the data falsifies the Mormon claims.

Saying that there isn't any doesn't say much about the level of your scholarship. One could say the evidence is weak. One could say it is circumstantial. One could say there are other possible explanations. One cannot say that it doesn't exist, and expect to be believed.

My scholarship is sound, it is your's that appears to be clutching at straws.

This type of black and white thinking isn't the sign of an open mind. I've already pointed out quite a few evidences. They are just a drop in the bucket.

Yes, your evidences are but a drop in the bucket and stem from misses: misinterpretation, misunderstanding, mistake, misapplication,misappraisal, misapprehension, and a passel of other misses including mistruth.

As far as the DNA, it is your argument that is an argument from ignorance, not mine. I never claimed that DNA proved the Book of Mormon. It is the skeptics that have claimed, out of ignorance, that it disproves the Book of Mormon.

Disprove? No.

Make highly unlikely? Yes.

Make probable that Smith was pulling the wool over everyones' eyes? Yes.

 

[Sapiens]

It doesn't. If you sample one's mtDNA, and compare it to the DNA of their ancestors going back 20 generations, it will match exactly 20 people out of well over a million ancestors.

No, you do not understand mtDNA. The mitochondria are passed down, intact, to all descends of the female ancestor.

It doesn't matter whether there was a global flood or not. It only matters whether the belief in a global flood was carried down through the centuries. It's called cultural diffusion.

People settled, quite naturally, near fresh water sources, floods were often experienced. You are confusing "cultural diffusion" with commonality of experience, the fact that most every river that people lived next to flooded at one time or another,

The knowledge existed from the personal travels of the authors; it was not known by Joseph Smith or anyone else that he knew. The discovery of Book-of-Mormon type cities was a major discovery; it went a long way towards validating the Book of Mormon as a true history. Your efforts to downplay its importance is misguided.

Even if it were true, there is so much data that falsifies the BoM that this is more likely to be the Texas Sharpshooter at work than reality.

I watch the sun set all the time. Where do you live, where the sun doesn't set? Actually the opposite is true; the book states that they came from "the other part of the ocean where the sun RISES, a place called Pa Tulan, Pa Civan." Whether they understood the earth to be round is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that they claimed to be Israelites, children of Abraham.

There you go ... MISSing again this was dealt with back on 1 Feb in post 270, as yet unanswered by you, just conveniently ignored.

Yes, I pointed out that the Book of Mormon does mention the carving of histories into stone. There seemed to be some dispute on that point.

Pretty weak evidence and rather circumstantial.

We are not at odds with science in the least. We expect that science will either bear us out, or at the very least not contradict us. Perhaps it will shed new light on things. Science is a source of truth.

That is incorrect. You are at odds with most all of the scientific information. You prevaricate on the anachronisms, you pretend that there is a language called Reformed Egyptian, you pretend that genetics that falsifies your claims supports them. Yes ... you are at odds with science. Science does not bear you out. Science does contradict you. Science is a source of truth that you attempt to pervert in a vain attempt to make your case.

That being said, there is no scientific principle that states that a majority of people with the same opinion proves the opinion to be true. I'm not sure where you get that idea. It isn't scientific in the least.

It is not just the number of people, it is the weight of the evidence. So many things in the BoM have been definitively falsified that it can not be taken seriously, Smith has been caught is so many lies that all the Prophets' horses and all the Prophets' men can't put the truth together again.

Perhaps there is some theory that science is the only source of truth. I've never heard of it. Is this something that one has to take on faith? Is it possible that there are other sources of truth in addition to science?

... and when you can't make the case through science you change your tune and try to imply that science is wrong and the BoM is correct.

I watched the video. It is one that I have seen before. Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I do believe that there are questions which probably won't be answered in my lifetime. I'm okay with that. I don't have to be all-knowing to believe in God.

I don't have to believe that Joseph Smith was all-knowing either. I don't have to believe that the current prophet is all-knowing. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. Our prophets are not Popes; they don't claim to be incapable of making a mistake. They are human and subject to human frailties. Everyone has their own level of knowledge; some people know more about certain things and some people know less. Ignorance doesn't disprove the existence of a greater intelligence.

That's all well and good, but the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence is that Smith was a demonstrable liar and that much of the BoM is a demonstrable fraud.

 

[rrosskopf]

You can not even name of the study itself suggesting you never read the study.

I don't remember hardly any of the names of studies that I have read. How many large DNA studies of Native Americans has Emory University completed?
You must be super smart if you remember the long boring title of every study you have ever read.

Also the Smithsonian denies your claims

That was almost 20 years ago! They have since retracted, as some of there own people disagreed with their conclusions.

By providing support for your view you are attempting to convince people of your view.

So I either accept the bold faced lies and propaganda of others, or prove the Book of Mormon is true? Isn't there a third choice?

No you attempted to link DNA studies in order to give BoM support.

No, I was responding to the false statement that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon.

Except that you never linked 1 story has anything to do with another. You are injecting cultural diffusion without evidence in support. You see two stories, identify the similarities, ignore the differences and call it a day.

True enough! I have no desire to write a book on the subject. According to the Book of Ether, the Jaredites came from the Tower of Babal, which presumably they were building to protect themselves from another flood. I find it interesting that the Olmecs did the exact same thing - built towers to protect themselves from another flood.

Except this knowledge was around for centuries during Smith's life. Repeating already established knowledge is not a sign of a prophet. You are using an argument from incredulity that there is no way Smith could have known about something that was known about during his life.....

We are not talking about just one or two items here, but a whole list that went against the common knowledge of the day. There were no books in the libraries or public schools, and no newspaper articles and no magazines from which Joseph Smith could have taken the knowledge. After 180 years, none have been found.

"The acceptance of an 'Indian civilization' demanded, to an American living in 1839 [when the first edition of Stephens appeared in England], an entire reorientation, for to him, an Indian was one of those barbaric, tepee dwellers against whom wars were constantly waged.... Nor did one ever think of calling the other [e.g., Mesoamerican] indigenous inhabitants of the continent 'civilized.' In the universally accepted opinion [of that day], they were like their North American counterparts -- savages" [Victor Wolfgang Von Hagen, Maya Explorer: The Life of John Lloyd Stephens, Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1948, p. 75]​

Stephens and Catherwood's book caused quite a change in public attitudes towards Mesoamerica, among the English speaking populations of the world.

You only accept a conclusion which matches your presupposition. They never claimed to be Israelite, you have injected this into the story, nothing more.

So your theory is that I lied, or that the Catholic church inserted it to corroborate the Book of Mormon? Are those the only two choices? Here is another possibility: it is a true history of the Mayan, and it corroborates the Book of Mormon.

"These, then, were the three nations of the Quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs."
(Chapter One, The Titles of the Lords of Totonicapan)

Stone carving were a know fact during Smith's life.

That's news to me. Can you prove it? Or is this just an assumption on your part? So far, you've said some really ridiculous things that doesn't instill me with any trust in your level of "scholarship".

 

[Shad]

I don't remember hardly any of the names of studies that I have read. How many large DNA studies of Native Americans has Emory University completed?
You must be super smart if you remember the long boring title of every study you have ever read.

Emory has a number of DNA tests include Mesoamericans. Besides I have a feeling you read Lund's book or a website based on it rather than the study as Sapians provided.

That was almost 20 years ago! They have since retracted, as some of there own people disagreed with their conclusions.

Evidence please. Oh wait your "forgot"

So I either accept the bold faced lies and propaganda of others, or prove the Book of Mormon is true? Isn't there a third choice?

No, I was responding to the false statement that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon.

It does

True enough! I have no desire to write a book on the subject. According to the Book of Ether, the Jaredites came from the Tower of Babal, which presumably they were building to protect themselves from another flood. I find it interesting that the Olmecs did the exact same thing - built towers to protect themselves from another flood.

A book with zero credibility outside LDS. Parallelism

We are not talking about just one or two items here, but a whole list that went against the common knowledge of the day. There were no books in the libraries or public schools, and no newspaper articles and no magazines from which Joseph Smith could have taken the knowledge. After 180 years, none have been found.

Word of mouth. Also you have no idea what books were available and what he read. Provide evidence of your statement otherwise it is dismissed.

Stephens and Catherwood's book caused quite a change in public attitudes towards Mesoamerica, among the English speaking populations of the world. [\quote]

So?

So your theory is that I lied, or that the Catholic church inserted it to corroborate the Book of Mormon? Are those the only two choices? Here is another possibility: it is a true history of the Mayan, and it corroborates the Book of Mormon.

No. My hypothesis is that Smith lied, many of his closest compaigns lied as they benefited as did Smith. You just repeated lies you take as truth. The other possibility has no merit.

"These, then, were the three nations of the Quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs."
(Chapter One, The Titles of the Lords of Totonicapan)

Except it never says Israeli once. You are reading a translation which is based on a dishonest translator.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=UtbcEdcK7VMC&redir_esc=y

That's news to me. Can you prove it? Or is this just an assumption on your part? So far, you've said some really ridiculous things that doesn't instill me with any trust in your level of "scholarship".

Yes. Maya stelae were first written about Diego Garcia de Palacio in the 16th century. Look up his 6 letters to King Philip II. Stone carving from the Old World was known about for centuries prior to this.

 

[rrosskopf]

You have failed to address my conclusion, you have failed to even acknowledge it, you have failed to falsify it

It just seemed so ridiculous, that I didn't think it worth my time. Have you ever considered that manners might be a sign of intelligence? That there might be some fundamental value in courtesy? That grace might be a virtue? To me, these things are obvious. Are these things not obvious to you?

No, you do not understand mtDNA. The mitochondria are passed down, intact, to all descends of the female ancestor.

That is my point exactly. That is why there are only 20 people - the person's mother, grandmother, great grandmother, great great grandmother, 3rd great grandmother etc., that have that same DNA out of 20 generations. And going 20 generations back, there is just one person, out of a million plus ancestors, with the same DNA, in her direct line. Granted there is probably some inbreeding, so these numbers aren't perfect, but they are certainly demonstrative of the weakness of drawing too many conclusions from mtDNA.

 

[rrosskopf]

It is not just the number of people, it is the weight of the evidence. So many things in the BoM have been definitively falsified that it can not be taken seriously, Smith has been caught is so many lies that all the Prophets' horses and all the Prophets' men can't put the truth together again.

That is a conclusion based on ignorance. I have yet to see science falsify even one verse of the Book of Mormon, unless you define science as the opinion and theories of scientists. I define science as learning about the natural world through observation.

 

[rrosskopf]

Evidence please. Oh wait your "forgot"

Or you could just look at the date on the letter...

 

[Sapiens]

It just seemed so ridiculous, that I didn't think it worth my time. Have you ever considered that manners might be a sign of intelligence? That there might be some fundamental value in courtesy? That grace might be a virtue? To me, these things are obvious. Are these things not obvious to you?

Your transparent attempt at character assassination and concomitant ad hominum does little to disguise the fact that you are ducking the issue. Let's try again:

Here's the data:

In a youtube apologetic a Mormon said: "... I said, 'you know what, what's the answer for that? Not that I needed to have an answer for myself, I know the Book of Mormon is true, so therefore I know that there's going to be answers for it. Now .. sometimes the Lord's going to have us wait. Maybe, sometimes, beyond our lifetime. But ... there's going to be an answer for this.'" He then went on the misinterpret published scientific evidence and make up evidence that did not exist.

Here's my conclusion:

"It is pretty easy too see how such a self deceptive world view, in which the lies that have been told never come payable, in which the answer is always to be found in an appeal to authority sometime in the future, can result in the cognitive dissonance and self deception that is on display by the speaker."

That is my point exactly. That is why there are only 20 people - the person's mother, grandmother, great grandmother, great great grandmother, 3rd great grandmother etc., that have that same DNA out of 20 generations. And going 20 generations back, there is just one person, out of a million plus ancestors, with the same DNA, in her direct line. Granted there is probably some inbreeding, so these numbers aren't perfect, but they are certainly demonstrative of the weakness of drawing too many conclusions from mtDNA.

What you seem to have never learned is that all decedents of the 20th grandmother will share the same mtDNA, this includes all siblings and all of their descendants. Your figure of 20 would only hold true in the highly unlike case of there being only one offspring per generation and if that offspring was always female.

Mitochondrial inheritance

In most multicellular organisms, mtDNA is inherited from the mother (maternally inherited). Mechanisms for this include simple dilution (an egg contains on average 200,000 mtDNA molecules, whereas a healthy human sperm was reported to contain on average 5 molecules[10] ), degradation of sperm mtDNA in the male genital tract, in the fertilized egg, and, at least in a few organisms, failure of sperm mtDNA to enter the egg. Whatever the mechanism, this single parent (uniparental inheritance) pattern of mtDNA inheritance is found in most animals, most plants and in fungi as well.

Female inheritance

In sexual reproduction, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother; the mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization. Also, most mitochondria are present at the base of the sperm's tail, which is used for propelling the sperm cells; sometimes the tail is lost during fertilization. In 1999 it was reported that paternal sperm mitochondria (containing mtDNA) are marked with ubiquitin to select them for later destruction inside the embryo. Some in vitro fertilization techniques, particularly injecting a sperm into an oocyte, may interfere with this.

The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables genealogical researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. (Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to determine the patrilineal history.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time.

mtDNA is highly conserved, and its relatively slow mutation rates (compared to other DNA regions such as microsatellites) make it useful for studying the evolutionary relationships—phylogeny—of organisms. Biologists can determine and then compare mtDNA sequences among different species and use the comparisons to build anevolutionary tree for the species examined. However, due to the slow mutation rates it experiences, it is often hard to distinguish between closely related species to any large degree, so other methods of analysis must be used.

Ain't science grand? It does help, however, if you learn a little before you attempt to use science to make your point.

 

[Sapiens]

That is a conclusion based on ignorance. I have yet to see science falsify even one verse of the Book of Mormon, unless you define science as the opinion and theories of scientists. I define science as learning about the natural world through observation.

I am hardly ignorant on the subject. I have shown you dozens of examples, your response, as you admitted, is to filter everything through your assumed authority, the BoM. That is not science!

Yes, science is learning about the natural world through observation. But ... it must be without a preconceived conclusion. As I have pointed out before, and documented, Mormon science is different, the conclusion (correctness of the BoM) is assumed and Mormon science is only practiced by Mormons and is almost always conducted at BYU. Mainstream scientists, almost universally, regard Mormon anthropology, paleontology, zoology, and genomic analysis as an absurd travesty of truth.

 

[Shad]

Or you could just look at the date on the letter...

Remember it is your reference. Do you own work in finding it.

 

[rrosskopf]

But ... it must be without a preconceived conclusion.

Even the conclusion that there is no God?
I think all scientists work from their own world view, preconceptions and all. Hopefully, they can find ways to put their preconceptions to the test, but that isn't always easy or possible. People are biased, and they do tend to see what they want to see. The scientific theory alleviates that to some degree, which is why it is an amazing tool. It isn't the only source of truth. It is good for some things, but totally inadequate for others.

Mormon science is different, the conclusion (correctness of the BoM) is assumed and Mormon science is only practiced by Mormons and is almost always conducted at BYU.

It is just like any other scientific theory. Our theory is that the Book of Mormon is authentic. Non-Mormons try to disprove that theory with theories of their own. We examine the theories of others and do the same thing that all scientists do - We either modify our original theory, or disprove the theory of others. It doesn't stop there; many of the theories that are rejected by the scholars at BYU come from other Mormons.

It would take several large tomes to detail all the theories that have been proposed or rejected concerning the Book of Mormon.

Before you theorized that if someone in Mesoamerica had steel swords, then we should have examples of them. I pointed out that the theory was flawed; we know that the Aztec had wooden swords, and yet we don't have a single example of those. There are also other nations, known to have steel swords at an early date, yet entirely lacking in such examples. So your theory didn't disprove the Book of Mormon at all.

You also theorized that honey bees from the Old World should be found in America, if the Book of Mormon were true. I pointed out that the Book of Mormon only mentions honey bees in the Old World, and that the transport of bees on a ship might be problematic.

You also theorized that Barley was one of the grains brought over from the Old World, and that Old World Barley isn't found in America. The trouble with that theory is that the Book of Mormon never mentions bringing Barley over from the Old World. It only mentions "seeds", which could be anything. Other seeds can be found in both the Old World and the New World. Archeologists have found native varieties of barley in Native American graves.

So yes... you brought up several theories and I dispelled every one of them.