Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Shad]

Argument from ignorance and double-standards which is merely used to ignore contradictory data, BoM vs empirical evidence, on claims of it being incomplete or not an absolute. All while you still use the same empirical evidence, distort it, then using it to support your points.

 

[Sapiens]

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'm trying to be honest with you and put things in terms that you, as a non-scientist, will understand. In science there is not absolute proof, no ultimate truth, no such thing as a "fact." But that confuses the non-scientist who does not understand the difference between a type one and type two statistical error. In science we accept that there are always unknowns, always room for new information, always some level of error. The general public doesn't understand this and want's absolutes.


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".

When I say "theory" I always mean "scientific theory."

This definition has its limitations as well, if it only involves explanations of the natural world.

That's a limitation? Say whatever you want about the unnatural world, it is irreverent to this conversation.

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?

I'd say it qualifies as a scientific theory, (a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations, strongly supported by many different lines of evidence). It is possible for there to be completing theories.

What kind of testing can prove whether or not someone arrived by ship or by land?

Diet, herbivore and plant vs. seafood, that's at the root of the current competing theories. I support the idea that both theories are correct (and that at the present time the coastal route appears older).

You seem to want the Siberian Land Bridge to be either fact or fantasy. The "fact" is that the oceans were lower during the Pleistocene and that that resulted in there being a dry path from Asia to Alaska. Now, does that "fact" translate automatically in a theory that people used that land bridge to get from Asia to Alaska? No, it does not. That "fact" permits posing the hypothesis that that people used that land bridge to get from Asia to Alaska. Now comes the attempt to falsify that hypothesis. Paleo-climate analysis shows that air masses that swept over it were so dry they brought little snowfall, preventing the growth of ice sheets. Grasses, sedges and other cold-adapted plants where there as shown by preserved specimens under a layer of volcanic ash and in the frozen intestines of large herbivores. There are numerous evidences of large mammals that could have also been used for food. So all of the pieces come together, clearly none contradict, so we have a theory. There are other data that, while not contradicting, per se, point to another possibility: the Coastal Route theory. I'll not go into the specifics of the data, that not germane here, suffice it to say that there are two well developed theories that are not mutually exclusive, and that the data for the coastal route may indicate that it came first. But what if there were convincing evidence (there isn't) that boat building was unknown at time? That would falsify the Coastal Route theory and, with a single stroke, eliminate it from consideration. Such is the clear case with the BoM, our knowledge of the flora and fauna of the post-Pleistocene New World falsifies the BoM just as surely.

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?

More than seventy genera in North America were lost, almost all are terrestrial animals, and large in size. The extinctions included elephants, horses, camels, ground sloths, all but one pronghorn, several ovibovids, most peccaries, and the giant beaver”. South America also lost elephants and sloths, in addition to horses, some camels, glyptodonts, and a rhinoceros-sized giant rodent species. In terms of when each species was lost, you look through the existing fossils and report the youngest. You look through sediment beds of known ages and see were the species of interest disappears. Without getting into the details here, the human overkill theory seems to be holding sway for the extinctions both in the New World and in Australia. In any case, well predating the alleged times of the BofM. There was an extinction in Europe, though much less pronounced. While the rapidly shifting Ice Age climate is thought to have played a part all over the world, the primary factors seems to have been the introduction of humans into environments is which the fauna had no co-evolved.

I think you are selling me snake oil.

When you think something is snake oil it tastes that way even if it's champagne. It's your confirmation bias showing.

 

[rrosskopf]

Argument from ignorance and double-standards which is merely used to ignore contradictory data, BoM vs empirical evidence, on claims of it being incomplete or not an absolute.

Since when is a lack of evidence, evidence? Perhaps you are simply overplaying your hand, pretending that you should get some sort of pass because you don't have any real evidence. If you can't prove it, then you can't prove it. It wouldn't be the end of the world to make such an admission.

 

[rrosskopf]

That's a limitation? Say whatever you want about the unnatural world, it is irreverent to this conversation.

Which is the unnatural world? The world created by men? So any theories about objects created by mankind could not be referred to as Scientific theories... that's the way I am reading this.

More than seventy genera in North America were lost, almost all are terrestrial animals, and large in size.

It would have been amazing to see all these large animals in person. A rat as big as a rhino? Giant sloths? I'll bet those are hard to get out of the attic... This is truly fascinating. It is curious though that some of these same animals weren't hunted to extinction in Asia; weren't there more people in Asia?
Now I know that there are several great archeological sites where bones from these extinct species can be found, but I wonder if one can find archeological sites for every time period throughout north, central and south America... It is my impression that they are fairly rare, and only show a tiny segment of prehistoric history... so I might be able to learn a great deal about North Dakota in 9000 BC(as an example only), but nothing at all in Chile around 35000 BC... is this basically correct? Or do we have something approaching a complete biological history? Or do we have huge gaps in places and in time?

 

[rrosskopf]

No, you have nor presented any verifiable data.

That's a challenge. Short of finding the books, magazines, etc., and mailing them to you, I'm not sure how to help you verify the data. Even then, wouldn't you just challenge the book or article?

 

[Sapiens]

Data from legitimate peer reviewed journals will do. My personal challenge is insufficient without support in the literature of the field. So no, unlike you, I would not, " just challenge the book or article."

 

[Sapiens]

Which is the unnatural world? The world created by men? So any theories about objects created by mankind could not be referred to as Scientific theories... that's the way I am reading this.

It is whatever is left over after your definition of the "natural world" which is your construct, not mine.

It would have been amazing to see all these large animals in person. A rat as big as a rhino? Giant sloths? I'll bet those are hard to get out of the attic... This is truly fascinating. It is curious though that some of these same animals weren't hunted to extinction in Asia; weren't there more people in Asia?

Coevolution blunts the effects of two species living in the same environment.

Now I know that there are several great archeological sites where bones from these extinct species can be found, but I wonder if one can find archeological sites for every time period throughout north, central and south America... It is my impression that they are fairly rare, and only show a tiny segment of prehistoric history... so I might be able to learn a great deal about North Dakota in 9000 BC(as an example only), but nothing at all in Chile around 35000 BC... is this basically correct? Or do we have something approaching a complete biological history? Or do we have huge gaps in places and in time?

Once again you're out looking for the rare remnant case, the Wrangle Island elephant.

 

[Shad]

Since when is a lack of evidence, evidence? Perhaps you are simply overplaying your hand, pretending that you should get some sort of pass because you don't have any real evidence. If you can't prove it, then you can't prove it. It wouldn't be the end of the world to make such an admission.

No I am pointing out that you were fine using data when you thought it supported the BoM. However when data contradicts the BoM you start calling it incomplete.

A large migration leaves evidence, it is expected especially given all the claims about the evidence they left behind made by you. Yet when the evidence does not support the claim of this migration you start to question it. You only become skeptical when the evidence is against your views.

 

[rrosskopf]

A large migration leaves evidence

Which large migration are we talking about? The one ship of Lehi? Or the six ships of the Jaredites?

 

[rrosskopf]

Once again you're out looking for the rare remnant case, the Wrangle Island elephant.

That's the question isn't it? How rare were the "rare remnant" cases? Do you know of any studies? So far, I have been unable to locate a study which tells us what we can expect, and what we can't expect, from the current knowledge of fossils. I've read several comments that suggest that fossils are rare. I've even read reports where we don't have a single fossil of an animal known to be numerous at one time in a particular area. It's the old wooden sword thing; with hundreds of thousands of wooden swords, why can't we find a single example?

 

[rrosskopf]

Data from legitimate peer reviewed journals will do.

I found something that may pique your interest.

"Ancient DNA reveals Late Survival of Mammoth and Horse in Interior Alaska", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, No. 52, James Haile, 22352–22357

"Animal DNA from modern environmental samples has been used to detect secretive organisms present at low densities, without requiring their direct observation. Our study shows that the same approach can be extended to extinct animals, to detect their former geographic ranges and lastest appearance dates. For this purpose, we chose the woolly mammoth and horse, finding that small populations of these megafaunal species persisted well into the Holocene in northwestern North America. The prolonged overlap of humans, mammoth and horse, revealed here by the application of the sedaDNA approach, suggests that the timing and process of extinction of other species in the Americas and on other continents should be reassessed using a similar strategy. Furthermore, recognition of their late survival from traces of sedaDNA is of more general importance to the field of Quaternary paleontology, because it demonstrates that ancient DNA preserved in certain sedimentary environments can be used to detect dwindling populations of taxa that will likely be missed using the more traditional approach of finding, and subsequently dating, macrofossils."

Included in the article is a graph that compares population size to the likelihood of finding archeological remains.

 

[Shad]

Which large migration are we talking about? The one ship of Lehi? Or the six ships of the Jaredites?

Doesn't really matter when you claim they introduced ideas to the area never seen in the area before. Yet none of these claims match.

 

[rrosskopf]

Doesn't really matter when you claim they introduced ideas to the area never seen in the area before. Yet none of these claims match.

None of these claims match... what? Actually, there is quite a bit written by the early Spanish chroniclers that speak to an Israelite tradition among Native Americans.
I recommend reading "Voices From the Dust", by David G. Calderwood. It quotes books written in Spanish by the early Spanish Chroniclers, but not published until after the publication of the Book of Mormon. It also goes into archeology and art history.

 

[Shad]

None of these claims match... what? Actually, there is quite a bit written by the early Spanish chroniclers that speak to an Israelite tradition among Native Americans.

Source? You merely claiming they did does not make a fact

I recommend reading "Voices From the Dust", by David G. Calderwood. It quotes books written in Spanish by the early Spanish Chroniclers, but not published until after the publication of the Book of Mormon. It also goes into archeology and art history.

The Spanish were wrong as well. Calderwood only has an expertise in one field, his views on archaeology are irrelevant. Give me a reference from said book as I can not find it without buying it sine it is not mainstream scholarship but Mormon apologetics. I am assuming that it mentions a few myths then due to parallelism which is strictly defined by a bias in favour of Mormonism is used to create a nonsensical conclusion. Myths distorted to meet a criteria in which you myths seem justified if one ignores the distortion.

 

[Sapiens]

I found something that may pique your interest.

"Ancient DNA reveals Late Survival of Mammoth and Horse in Interior Alaska", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, No. 52, James Haile, 22352–22357

"Animal DNA from modern environmental samples has been used to detect secretive organisms present at low densities, without requiring their direct observation. Our study shows that the same approach can be extended to extinct animals, to detect their former geographic ranges and lastest appearance dates. For this purpose, we chose the woolly mammoth and horse, finding that small populations of these megafaunal species persisted well into the Holocene in northwestern North America. The prolonged overlap of humans, mammoth and horse, revealed here by the application of the sedaDNA approach, suggests that the timing and process of extinction of other species in the Americas and on other continents should be reassessed using a similar strategy. Furthermore, recognition of their late survival from traces of sedaDNA is of more general importance to the field of Quaternary paleontology, because it demonstrates that ancient DNA preserved in certain sedimentary environments can be used to detect dwindling populations of taxa that will likely be missed using the more traditional approach of finding, and subsequently dating, macrofossils."

Included in the article is a graph that compares population size to the likelihood of finding archeological remains.

Yes, that is very interesting, much better approach than just using latest appearance dates in the fossil record. Unfortunately for the Mormon apologists this study just drives another nail in the coffin, or perhaps better put as a stake into the heart of the BoM. Let's remember that the Jaredites supposedly arrived in the Americas about 2200 BCE and the Nephites are said to have left Jerusalem about 600 BCE for the Americas. James Haile (et.al.) says, "We show that woolly mammoth and horse persisted in interior Alaska until at least 10,500 yr BP, several thousands of years later than indicated from macrofossil surveys." However that is a least four and a half millennia before the claimed arrival of the Jaredites.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, that is very interesting, much better approach than just using latest appearance dates in the fossil record. Unfortunately for the Mormon apologists this study just drives another nail in the coffin, or perhaps better put as a stake into the heart of the BoM. Let's remember that the Jaredites supposedly arrived in the Americas about 2200 BCE and the Nephites are said to have left Jerusalem about 600 BCE for the Americas. James Haile (et.al.) says, "We show that woolly mammoth and horse persisted in interior Alaska until at least 10,500 yr BP, several thousands of years later than indicated from macrofossil surveys." However that is a least four and a half millennia before the claimed arrival of the Jaredites.

Yet, with time and study, that gap keeps getting narrower and narrower, doesn't it?

Interesting that.

 

[Sapiens]

Unless the times actually overlap over a significant (rather than remnant) range it really doesn't matter if the gap is down to one day, it indicates that the BoM is fictional.

 

[Prestor John]

Unless the times actually overlap over a significant (rather than remnant) range it really doesn't matter if the gap is down to one day, it indicates that the BoM is fictional.

The list of critiques against the Book of Mormon has shrank significantly since 1830 and it will continue to do so.

Your unwillingness to notice that is evidence of your bias.

 

[Sapiens]

Hm ... you claim that, "The list of critiques against the Book of Mormon has shrank significantly since 1830 and it will continue to do so." Might that be because of the 3,000+ changes that were made in that. "most perfect" of revealed books. I don't know, all I really pay attention to is the scientific evidence which rather than shrinking grows daily. We not only have archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, zoological, and geographical evidence, but we know have extensive DNA analysis that, despite LDS hemming and hawing, shows the BoM for what it is ... a fairytale. But lets look at the shrinkage for a moment because, as I understand it, it is about to "shrink" again.

DNA analysis show that there are no "Hebrew" genes in the Amerindian populations. At first the Mormons attempted to argue that such evidence would have been swamped by the local phenotype, but when even their own experts said that was not the case, tad-da! Time for a rewrite! I have it on good authority that the Mormon Church is planning to make a very small change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon with very large ramifications. What has for many years read, “the Lamanites… are the principal ancestors of the American Indians…” will soon read, “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Presto chango, one more critique gone, but not on the basis of evidence or argument, solely on the basis of "weaseling" out of the dispute.

If I am "biased" it is because I go where the facts lead. Unlike you I am not presuppostionally biased, my bias is completely fact based.

 

[Watchmen]

Hm ... you claim that, "The list of critiques against the Book of Mormon has shrank significantly since 1830 and it will continue to do so." Might that be because of the 3,000+ changes that were made in that. "most perfect" of revealed books. I don't know, all I really pay attention to is the scientific evidence which rather than shrinking grows daily. We not only have archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, zoological, and geographical evidence, but we know have extensive DNA analysis that, despite LDS hemming and hawing, shows the BoM for what it is ... a fairytale. But lets look at the shrinkage for a moment because, as I understand it, it is about to "shrink" again.

DNA analysis show that there are no "Hebrew" genes in the Amerindian populations. At first the Mormons attempted to argue that such evidence would have been swamped by the local phenotype, but when even their own experts said that was not the case, tad-da! Time for a rewrite! I have it on good authority that the Mormon Church is planning to make a very small change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon with very large ramifications. What has for many years read, “the Lamanites… are the principal ancestors of the American Indians…” will soon read, “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Presto chango, one more critique gone.

If I am "biased" it is because I go where the facts lead. Unlike you I am not presuppostionally biased, my bias is completely fact based.

They made that change because of the actual DNA evidence several years ago.