Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Prestor John]

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.

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.

Please stop casting your pearls before swine.

 

[rrosskopf]

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

How is it my reference? You included a link to a letter that is clearly dated.

 

[rrosskopf]

Please stop casting your pearls before swine.

I've gone no where near my pearls. They wouldn't understand them anyway. ;-)

 

[Shad]

How is it my reference? You included a link to a letter that is clearly dated.

The study you claim exists is your reference. The letter I linked was merely about the Smithsonian's stance as it was brought up repeatedly.

 

[rrosskopf]

I am hardly ignorant on the subject.

If you only know the skeptic's side of things, and haven't read any of Nibley's stuff, then yes - you are ignorant. Can you find, for example, Arabic poetry in the Book of Mormon? Evidence of the Baktun? Jaredite names that match those found in archeology? Mayan words in Lamanite place names? Can you tell me where glowing stones can be found in Israelite history? Are you familiar with the Jewish Hieratic, a written language based on the Egyptian, but used by Jews in the time of Lehi? How about the science of Documentary Hypothesis? Can you tell me why the Book of Mormon is distinctly Israelite and not Jewish in origin? What about Isaiah? Can you tell me which sections of the Book of Mormon Isaiah resemble the KJV, which parts resemble the Latin version, and which parts resemble the Great Book of Isaiah found at Qumran? Scientists, without a preconceived notion that the Book of Mormon is fake, have discovered much about it.

 

[rrosskopf]

The study you claim exists is your reference. The letter I linked was merely about the Smithsonian's stance as it was brought up repeatedly.

Right... the Smithsonian's stance from 20 YEARS AGO. I thought that is what we were talking about. I've given up trying to find the Emory University study. They have obviously removed it. I have found several people that quote it though. None of them actually supply a name to the study.

 

[Shad]

Right... the Smithsonian's stance from 20 YEARS AGO. I thought that is what we were talking about. I've given up trying to find the Emory University study. They have obviously removed it. I have found several people that quote it though. None of them actually supply a name to the study.

The paper you are talking about is from almost 20 years ago as well. You have not demonstrated any change in their stance.

So a reference you can not longer find..... Not a greater reference or research then or as Sapiens provided you read your bias into it

 

[Prestor John]

I've gone no where near my pearls. They wouldn't understand them anyway. ;-)

Well, regardless, whatever it is you are casting at them is causing them to turn around and rend you.

It truly is a waste of your time and effort. They don't care what you have to say. It's sad, but it's true.

I do commend you for your patience and diligence though.

 

[Sapiens]

Even the conclusion that there is no God?

We have never debated that question, what we have been debating is the truthfulness of the BoM, which has been demonstrated ... from a significant number of different and independent directions to be a fabrication.

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.

So your claim is that the entire non-Mormon scientific community has fallen victim to it preconceptions and all that it has demonstrated is just that it is biased?

It is just like any other scientific theory.

Like the germ theory? Like the theory of gravity? Like the theory of plate tectonics? Like the mosquito-malaria theory?

Our theory is that the Book of Mormon is authentic

That is not a theory, that is a hypothesis. That hypothesis has been falsified.

.Non-Mormons try to disprove that theory with theories of their own.

No, you misapprehend the process. You propose the hypothesis, "the Book of Mormon is authentic." Data is collected from as many sources as possible, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, botanical, linguistic, etc. The data is analyzed, and in each and every case your hypothesis is falsified. Your hypothesis is rejected due to multiple falsifications when all that is actually required is a single falsification. Thus the BoM is found, by scientific and expert inquiry, to NOT be authentic.

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.

While it may be true that "many of the theories that are rejected by the scholars at BYU come from other Mormons," that is a red herring, the fact of the matter is that the central hypothesis (which I can assume is non-Mormon) that the BoM is authentic, has been successfully and robustly falsified. All that the Mormons have succeeded in doing is engaging in quibbling apologetics that are not taken seriously by anyone but other Mormons.

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

Here is a list, it just takes one:

• Historical anachronisms: Quoting Isaiah and Baptism
• Flora and fauna anachronisms: Horses, Elephants, Cattle and cows, Goats, Swine, Barley and wheat, Honey bees
• Technology anachronisms: Chariots or wheeled vehicles, Silk, Compass, Windows Uses of metal (including: Steel and iron, Metal swords, which had "rusted" and Cimiters and a System of exchange based on measures of precious metals)
• Linguistic anachronisms: Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages, "Christ" and "Messiah", Greek names, "Church" and "synagogue"
• Anachronisms apparently perpetuated from the King James translation

The apologetics you have presented for some of these falsifications have been roundly rejected by most all non-Mormon experts in each and every field. One need only demonstrate a single falsification to bring down the fraudulent house of cards,and that has been done with all of them.

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.

So what?

There are also other nations, known to have steel swords at an early date, yet entirely lacking in such examples.

False. May I point to the Roman Sword recovered from the ocean off Oak Island, Nova Scotia, Canada?

So your theory didn't disprove the Book of Mormon at all.

I do not have a theory, I presented multiple falsifications of your hypothesis, and your hypothesis has been found wanting. Your stubborn, but unsupportable rejection of this fact notwithstanding.

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.

Ether 2:3 refers to the Old World, so you can make the point that the BoM is, shall we say, equivocating and unclear. Let's drop bees (at least for the moment). This, in no way repairs the damage done to your hypothesis, which (as noted earlier) only requires a single falsification.

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.

Correct, Old World barley (Hordeum vulgare) is not found in the New World. Hordeum pusillum is, but that is not the same thing. If it makes you feel better let's drop that one too, I really don't need it to unequivocally falsify your hypothesis.

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.

Is your knowledge of the BoM so thin, or are you being dishonest?
Barley and wheat are mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

• Mosiah 7:22: And all this he did, for the sole purpose of bringing this people into subjection or into bondage. And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind, and one half of the increase of our flocks and our herds; and even one half of all we have or possess the king of the Lamanites doth exact of us, or our lives.
• Mosiah 9.9: And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land)
• Alma 11:7: A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain).

Archeologists have found native varieties of barley in Native American graves.

Wrong species, not barley.

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

Really? It is not my theories that are on trial, it is your hypothesis. You seem to have created more problems for you side and your credibility rather than having "dispelled" anything.

 

[Prestor John]

We have never debated that question, what we have been debating is the truthfulness of the BoM, which has been demonstrated ... from a significant number of different and independent directions to be a fabrication.
So your claim is that the entire non-Mormon scientific community has fallen victim to it preconceptions and all that it has demonstrated is just that it is biased?
Like the germ theory? Like the theory of gravity? Like the theory of plate tectonics? Like the mosquito-malaria theory?
That is not a theory, that is a hypothesis. That hypothesis has been falsified.

No, you misapprehend the process. You propose the hypothesis, "the Book of Mormon is authentic." Data is collected from as many sources as possible, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, botanical, linguistic, etc. The data is analyzed, and in each and every case your hypothesis is falsified. Your hypothesis is rejected due to multiple falsifications when all that is actually required is a single falsification. Thus the BoM is found, by scientific and expert inquiry, to NOT be authentic.
While it may be true that "many of the theories that are rejected by the scholars at BYU come from other Mormons," that is a red herring, the fact of the matter is that the central hypothesis (which I can assume is non-Mormon) that the BoM is authentic, has been successfully and robustly falsified. All that the Mormons have succeeded in doing is engaging in quibbling apologetics that are not taken seriously by anyone but other Mormons.

Here is a list, it just takes one:

• Historical anachronisms: Quoting Isaiah and Baptism
• Flora and fauna anachronisms: Horses, Elephants, Cattle and cows, Goats, Swine, Barley and wheat, Honey bees
• Technology anachronisms: Chariots or wheeled vehicles, Silk, Compass, Windows Uses of metal (including: Steel and iron, Metal swords, which had "rusted" and Cimiters and a System of exchange based on measures of precious metals)
• Linguistic anachronisms: Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages, "Christ" and "Messiah", Greek names, "Church" and "synagogue"
• Anachronisms apparently perpetuated from the King James translation

The apologetics you have presented for some of these falsifications have been roundly rejected by most all non-Mormon experts in each and every field. One need only demonstrate a single falsification to bring down the fraudulent house of cards,and that has been done with all of them.
So what?
False. May I point to the Roman Sword recovered from the ocean off Oak Island, Nova Scotia, Canada?

I do not have a theory, I presented multiple falsifications of your hypothesis, and your hypothesis has been found wanting. Your stubborn, but unsupportable rejection of this fact notwithstanding.

Ether 2:3 refers to the Old World, so you can make the point that the BoM is, shall we say, equivocating and unclear. Let's drop bees (at least for the moment). This, in no way repairs the damage done to your hypothesis, which (as noted earlier) only requires a single falsification.
Correct, Old World barley (Hordeum vulgare) is not found in the New World. Hordeum pusillum is, but that is not the same thing. If it makes you feel better let's drop that one too, I really don't need it to unequivocally falsify your hypothesis.
Is your knowledge of the BoM so thin, or are you being dishonest?
Barley and wheat are mentioned in the Book of Mormon:

• Mosiah 7:22: And all this he did, for the sole purpose of bringing this people into subjection or into bondage. And behold, we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind, and one half of the increase of our flocks and our herds; and even one half of all we have or possess the king of the Lamanites doth exact of us, or our lives.
• Mosiah 9.9: And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land)
• Alma 11:7: A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain).

Wrong species, not barley.

Really? It is not my theories that are on trial, it is your hypothesis. You seem to have created more problems for you side and your credibility rather than having "dispelled" anything.

I think he has been doing a good job considering how hard it is to share anything with people who jump to conclusions.

 

[Sapiens]

If you only know the skeptic's side of things, and haven't read any of Nibley's stuff, then yes - you are ignorant. Can you find, for example, Arabic poetry in the Book of Mormon? Evidence of the Baktun? Jaredite names that match those found in archeology? Mayan words in Lamanite place names? Can you tell me where glowing stones can be found in Israelite history? Are you familiar with the Jewish Hieratic, a written language based on the Egyptian, but used by Jews in the time of Lehi? How about the science of Documentary Hypothesis? Can you tell me why the Book of Mormon is distinctly Israelite and not Jewish in origin? What about Isaiah? Can you tell me which sections of the Book of Mormon Isaiah resemble the KJV, which parts resemble the Latin version, and which parts resemble the Great Book of Isaiah found at Qumran? Scientists, without a preconceived notion that the Book of Mormon is fake, have discovered much about it.

I am an expert in a limited suite of things, but that suite is more than sufficient to falsify your hypothesis of the BoM. Nibley's stuff will not magically produce the plants and animals that were no here, Arabic poetry does not conjure elephants in the post-Pleistocene new world, apologist opinions on the Baktun does not import horses, Jaredite names (regardless of what they might match) do not summon goats, Mayan words in Lamanite place names (which appear to my non-expert analysis to be crap) do not produce cows, etc

All of your "evidences" are not logically supportive of the authenticity of the BofM, that hypothesis has been cleanly falsified by just the biological data that I can claim expertise in. It is not one item "against" which is canceled by an unrelated item "for". IT HAS BEEN FALSIFIED! It is an open question as to whether any of the items you list (aside from the biological ones, that I've already dealt with) are anything more than conjecture on the part of Mormon apologists since it seems that people who are experts in linguistics, anthropology and such share my view that that BoM's authenticity is falsified by the findings of their own fields.

 

[Sapiens]

I think he has been doing a good job considering how hard it is to share anything with people who jump to conclusions.

What field of expertise do you bring to bear when reaching such a conclusion?

 

[Prestor John]

What field of expertise do you bring to bear when reaching such a conclusion?

You mean the conclusion I jumped to after reading this thread?

Is that the conclusion you are referring to?

 

[Sapiens]

The conclusion that rrosskopf was "doing a good job."

Do you hold an advanced degree? In what field? From what school? Whom did you study under?

 

[rrosskopf]

IT HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

Perhaps that word means something different to you than it does to me. To me it sounds like you think you proved beyond a shadow of doubt that there were no horses, elephants, or cows in the New World during the time of the Jaredites. All you really proved is that you don't trust the radio carbon dating that corroborates the existence of these animals, when it does exist, and the eye witness testimony. Yes, you have a majority of scientific opinion, but opinions are not proof. As I have pointed out - there are archeologists who believe that the horse survived to Book of Mormon times. We have drawings of elephants by Native Americans in Utah. Bison are virtually indistinguishable from cattle. They can even mate and produce offspring. I think I have won this debate. If you had any grace, you would concede that you haven't falsified anything. All you've done is express doubt.

 

[rrosskopf]

So your claim is that the entire non-Mormon scientific community has fallen victim to it preconceptions and all that it has demonstrated is just that it is biased?

We are all victims of our bias. That isn't to say that all non-Mormons are biased against the Book of Mormon; most of the scientific non-Mormon community knows nothing of the Book of Mormon. Few get beyond the idea that its resting place was revealed by an angel. A wall of bias is usually erected at that point. Nor am I suggesting that most scientists are lying; they just have an inflated opinion of their own theories. Sometimes they can't get beyond their pride.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I got the impression that you are the type of individual that would never consider something to have actually come from God. If true, then that is a very strong bias, and colors everything you see.

That is not a theory, that is a hypothesis.

I learn so much reading your responses. You will have to explain this last one. According to "The Internet", a hypothesis is a question or answer to a question, whereas a theory describes a relationship, may have testable assertions, and will make predictions. I suppose there is some overlap; a theory hopefully answers some question. So if I say that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, and as such must have examples of ancient writing styles (it does!), ancient names(it does!), ancient grammar (it does!), a plausible source, historicity, and (in this case) multiple authors - these sound like things that can be tested. How is this not a theory? I predict that science will continue to unearth evidence that will support the Book of Mormon.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps that word means something different to you than it does to me. To me it sounds like you think you proved beyond a shadow of doubt that there were no horses, elephants, or cows in the New World during the time of the Jaredites.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt ... no, beyond a reasonable doubt ... absolutely! No horses, elephants, or cows in the New World, and that infers no Jaredites either.

All you really proved is that you don't trust the radio carbon dating that corroborates the existence of these animals, when it does exist, and the eye witness testimony.

No, you have nor presented any verifiable data. Every time I have chased one of your claims down it has turned out to be invalid, incredible or just plain wrong.

Yes, you have a majority of scientific opinion, but opinions are not proof.

In science there is no such thing as "proof," something that is absolute. But when a number of opinions, from many expert sources, based on a large number of data streams all agree ... that's what we call a theory and that is as much of a proof as science offers. All it takes is one falsification of one of those streams to cause a reexamination and a possible alteration. As is stands now, as far as science is concerned, the BofM presents so many contradictions to what is known beyond a reasonable doubt that it may safely be seen as discredited.

As I have pointed out - there are archeologists who believe that the horse survived to Book of Mormon times.

Not believable, once again, every one I've tracked down has been a woeful waste of time.

We have drawings of elephants by Native Americans in Utah.

Don't much resemble elephants except, I guess, if you really, really, really want them to,

Bison are virtually indistinguishable from cattle. They can even mate and produce offspring.

Only if you're blind, or think those pictographs look like elephants.

I think I have won this debate.

Do you now, your hubris is without limit.

If you had any grace, you would concede that you haven't falsified anything.

If you had a scientific background and a little less blind faith you see that the BoM has been shown, by all the rules of science and logic, to be a fraud. Stop trying to play pigeon chess.

All you've done is express doubt.

All you've done is the equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "no, no, no!"

We are all victims of our bias.

I assume you are speaking for yourself, it's rather presumptuous for you to speak for me.

That isn't to say that all non-Mormons are biased against the Book of Mormon; most of the scientific non-Mormon community knows nothing of the Book of Mormon. Few get beyond the idea that its resting place was revealed by an angel. A wall of bias is usually erected at that point.

You call it a wall of bias, another view is at that point, realizing that a hardscrabble New England farmer and con man did not hock them, casts real doubt from the get go.

Nor am I suggesting that most scientists are lying; they just have an inflated opinion of their own theories. Sometimes they can't get beyond their pride.

I disagree, but if I had to choose between scientific pride and religious closed-mindedness, science wins every time.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I got the impression that you are the type of individual that would never consider something to have actually come from God.

You are wrong, I consider it every time the claim is made and find that I have always rejected it for lack of convincing evidence. Now you, on the other hand, believe without proof, have faith without evidence. You are the prideful one.

If true, then that is a very strong bias, and colors everything you see.

My bias (if there is one) is based on a lifetime of each time carefully examining the evidence and as a result rejecting the unsupported claim.

I learn so much reading your responses.

Evidently not enough.
You will have to explain this last one. According to "The Internet", a hypothesis is a question or answer to a question, whereas a theory describes a relationship, may have testable assertions, and will make predictions. I suppose there is some overlap; a theory hopefully answers some question.
[/quote]You need to go to a credible source, here is one: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

So if I say that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, and as such must have examples of ancient writing styles (it does!), ancient names(it does!), ancient grammar (it does!), a plausible source, historicity, and (in this case) multiple authors - these sound like things that can be tested. How is this not a theory? I predict that science will continue to unearth evidence that will support the Book of Mormon.

For the moment there is too much good science that contradicts things that the BoM says. There is no indication that is going too change. Geonomic studies just put another nail in the BofM's coffin, requiring another whole layer of transparent apologetic It just takes one of falsification, without full and complete explanation, to keep your hypothesis from even that lowly status ... it is falsified and rejected, you need to start again. Your case gets weaker with each new scientific find, but your response is to either make believe that the discovery never happened, t twist yourself into some strange apologetic stance or to misapprehend what the science actually said. You're up the creek without a paddle as long as mainstream science maintains that Reformed Egyptian does not exist.

 

[rrosskopf]

You need to go to a credible source

Thank you. I found the following at your credible source:
"Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch."
I get that the scientific definition is more precise in its meaning, but it is still very vague to me. So both theories and hypothesis are explanations, with theories being broad explanations.
Would I be correct if I suggested that the authenticity of any particular book would be a hypothesis, while some explanation of all books of a certain genre might be a theory?

 

[Sapiens]

Thank you. I found the following at your credible source:
"Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch."
I get that the scientific definition is more precise in its meaning, but it is still very vague to me. So both theories and hypothesis are explanations, with theories being broad explanations.
Would I be correct if I suggested that the authenticity of any particular book would be a hypothesis, while some explanation of all books of a certain genre might be a theory?

No, I think you are generalizing in the wrong direction. The authenticity of any particular book is a hypothesis. If that hypothesis stands the test of time and every attempt at falsification it can be advanced to a theory (read that as a "fact" in common parlance). If it does not, if even one attempt at falsification produces a reasonable doubt (some predetermined and reported probability) the hypothesis is rejected. That is the issue with the BofM, there are so many demonstrable falsifications, just within the biological sciences, to indicate that the only reasonable verdict is fraud. Those falsifications can not be "repaired" by the introduction of unrelated evidence, only by the analysis of the specific falsification resulting in a rational explanation of the discrepancy.

So here, in a nutshell, is the issue: the BoM makes clams about the presence in the New World of rather mundane items, metal, swords, animals, plants, roads, wheeled vehicles, etc. The scientific evidence refutes these claims in detail. Skeptics, quite reasonably, see the BofM as more akin to a fantasy or science fiction novel than to an accurate relating of actual places and events. It seems clear to skeptics that Smith made it up out of the whole cloth, but mistakenly populated his imaginary world with the same animals and artifacts that he was familiar with based on common knowledge of the Old World and the New World of his day. Believers struggle to dismiss the scientific refutation with the most paltry of rationalizations, possible survival of a remnant mastodon population on Wrangle Island, a single (and questionable) find of a horse tooth, the idea that all the animals and plants were not actually what they were in fact (e.g., it was not a horse, but a deer, it was not a pig but a tapir, etc.) and so on. Smith had no knowledge of the Pleistocene extinction so he made the now obvious mistake of assuming the flora and fauna of both hemispheres were identical. Today we know that that is not the case and the Mormons have been trying to apologize for and rationalize these issues ever since the discovery of the Pleistocene extinction. The LDS church suffers from the fact that Smith was such a recent character. It is as easy to falsify the story of the flood, the story of the Ark, Adam and Eve, etc., but the falsifications, though as clear, are not as immediate and have been, for so long, central to he mythos of western man that they are much more difficult for the scientifically unsophisticated unbeliever to take to heart.

 

[rrosskopf]

If that hypothesis stands the test of time and every attempt at falsification it can be advanced to a theory (read that as a "fact" in common parlance)

I can't find that definition of the word anywhere, not on dictionary.com or Merriam-Websters, or the link you gave me. Dictionary.com says the opposite: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

I looked up "Scientific Theory" to see if it might have a different definition, and according to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation"

So, I'm guessing that you meant "scientific theory". This definition has its limitations as well, if it only involves explanations of the natural world. It also causes a problem: which theories are actually scientific theories, and how strong is the data behind them? Is the Siberian Land Bridge theory a scientific theory, or is it just a theory? What kind of testing can prove whether or not someone arrived by ship or by land? You also mentioned the pleistocene extinction; what kind of testing can be done to give anyone a sense of confidence when any particular species went extinct? Does it explain why some species would go extinct on one continent and not the other?

I think you are selling me snake oil.